Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hello. Sorry to revive an old thread,

Don't be. No subject is ever exhausted.

Am I crazy? To me, this would potentially make calculating the temperament easier and more clear. [As a side-note, why can't the angularity of a planet help determine it's "strength" in the temperament calculation as well?]

You're not crazy, but I think there is some confusion here. Temperament is not easily determined by any method. Counting up points doesn't really do it although there is some value to it.

First off your example of the Moon:

All authorities agree that the Moon is used not by sign (although it plays a role) but by phase, so it's not a great example. The Moon in Aries can be phlegmatic for instance by being in its last quarter. The Sun, too is taken not as hot and dry since that is the way it is in every chart and its influence is so powerful that everyone would have a choleric Sun. We use the seasons. The Sun in Aquarius (warm and moist) is considered cold and moist when determining temperament because it is a winter sign. .

Regardless of method the purpose of temperament is to determine which of the humors dominates and to what extent. A highly choleric individual is different from an individual who is mostly choleric but has almost as much sanguine as part of his make up.

Whether a planet is cardinal, fixed, or mutable doesn't in and of itself tell us that. For example Aries and Capricorn are both cardinal yet one is hot and the other cold. Pisces and Sagittarius are both mutable; one is cold and wet and the other hot and dry. Mars in Aries gives us a temperament that is far different from Mars in Cancer, but if we used only the fact that Mars is in a cardinal sign, even as part of the consideration, we lose those differences.

Temperament is what we are at our most basic. Cardinal fixed and mutable are in some ways more indicative of style than essence. A person with lots of planets in Cancer is more likely to be phlegmatic than active and initiating.

Keep in mind that temperament is the basic building block. It is not everything. Phlegmatics can be initiating, but they initiate a lot of things because focusing is more difficult for them

Thanks for your reply, Tom.

Counting up points doesn't really do it although there is some value to it.

I understand this, but most of the methods I have read in some part involve weighting or counting of the humours... I hope you know what I mean...

Whether a planet is cardinal, fixed, or mutable doesn't in and of itself tell us that. For example Aries and Capricorn are both cardinal yet one is hot and the other cold. Pisces and Sagittarius are both mutable; one is cold and wet and the other hot and dry. Mars in Aries gives us a temperament that is far different from Mars in Cancer, but if we used only the fact that Mars is in a cardinal sign, even as part of the consideration, we lose those differences.

You are right, and I apologize if I really came off that ignorant. I know that modality has nothing to do with element as far as what you're saying. What I'm considering is, between Aries, Leo, Sagittarius, is Aries the "most fiery"? Would an Ascendant, or the ruler of the Ascendant, or whatever planet or point we are looking at, receive more "weight" in Aries than Leo? And more in Leo than Sagittarius?

Basically what I'm trying to get across is does the modality of a sign influence its elemental expression at all, and if so does this affect the calculation of the temperament?

I'm sorry if I'm not being clear enough. I'm trying really hard.

Hi Cicatrix,

What I'm considering is, between Aries, Leo, Sagittarius, is Aries the "most fiery"? Would an Ascendant, or the ruler of the Ascendant, or whatever planet or point we are looking at, receive more "weight" in Aries than Leo? And more in Leo than Sagittarius?

If you go back to the origins of the modalities by way of the seasons as reflected in the Suns' passage through the zodiac, cardinal is the beginning of the season ? the season is young and in a sense still unsettled; fixed is the season as firmly established and in 'full bloom'; and mutable is the season fading into the next one (that's why the mutables are called double-bodied: they're the transition between two seasons. So it appears that the fixed signs, not the cardinal, would be the most representative of the element. BUT ? it doesn't seem to necessarily work that way in practice.

First, there's the fact that the elements don't seem to have been used as they are now. For example, in Ashmand's translation of Tetrabiblos , Book 3, Chapter 18, 'The Quality of the Mind', Ptolemy says to look at the Moon, Mercury, Sun and angles, and the planets that are configured with them. He states the importance of the different qualities of the signs containing those bodies and moves into discussion of the manners or characteristics indicated by tropical (cardinal), bicorporeal (mutable) and fixed signs (in that order). He speaks of the planets in oriental and occidental positions and of them ?having dominion [being] in places of their own, and in conditions suitable to their own qualities?. Not a word about the elements. The 20th and 21st century astrologers seem to have come up with plenty of words about the elements.

Also, the seasons themselves considered in terms of temperament are going to conflict with an over-emphasis on sign element in delineating temperament. Spring was traditionally considered sanguine, so Aries is a hot and dry fire sign in the hot and moist season. Leo is a hot and dry fire sign in the hot and dry season (choleric). Leo would therefore seem to be more typically fire. The signs are treated differently now than they were through most of western astrology's history and are given much more weight. If a person is born on April 5th most astrologers now are going to assign importance to the Sun in fiery choleric Aries and proceed unaware that the Sun is located in the sanguine, hot and moist spring portion of the zodiac. The simplicity of only working with the Sun in Aries hides the real complexity involved. I don't think we need to take the northern or southern hemispheres into consideration: It's an archetypal spring that were looking at, the beginning of a zodiacal cycle.

When I first started learning about traditional astrology 7 years ago one of my first realizations was that looking at element emphasis wasn't often of much use. Considering a chart's lack of planetary or angle placement in an element was even worse ? I found it to be mostly a waste of time. But the modes or modalities ? I was soon surprised to find that a strong emphasis or lack was usually very indicative of the native. I had never paid much attention to those because the talk was always about the elements.

In any case, I think the 3 modes are significant in describing style or manner of action but not the deeply imprinted characteristics and 'natural bent' of temperament.

Thanks for the reply, Kirk.

You are right, that is my mistake concerning cardinal and fixed. I am a student of only two years, with only online resources to learn from, so everything is still fresh in my mind, and kind of loosely floating around in there.

Also, I can agree with you from the reading I have done online that not much was mentioned about the elements traditionally, at least not anything as in-depth as what is around today.

I guess I can forfeit my original question, as the gist of what I'm hearing is "element and modality don't mix, at least not when it comes to temperament". I can accept this, but part of me still wants to understand why.

I was going to also ask at what point did the calculation of temperament arise, if it is known, but I'm sure I can find information on this forum or elsewhere on the web. I probably already have what I need "bookmarked" in my browser. Most of my "research" tends to be done during caffeine-fueled all-nighters, so you can guess how easily I forget about reading something. That's why bookmarks are my savior. Haha.