Skyscript Astrology Forum

i thought i understood these terms, but i am rethinking it and wondering if others would like to chime in..

it came out of reading john frawleys the real astrology applied, which i am still reading.. in it he seems to put a very big emphasis on temperament..

arriving at just what temperament is via the chart is more ambiguous as i read it.. but an important way of arriving at a conclusion on this is thru understanding whether a planet in the chart is oriental or occidental..

simply put - a planet is oriental if it rises before the sun, or occidental if it rises after the sun...

however, a planet is also oriental if it is in the eastern part of the chart - from the i.c. up into the ascendant and into the midheaven... any planet that is on the western side of a planet - falling away from the midheaven and headed towards the descendant and into the i.c. is occidental..

where it gets more tricky is if for example when a planet could be classified as both oriental and occidental.. a simple example would be sun in the 2nd house, with a planet in the 3rd house rising after the sun.. it is occidental to the sun, but it is oriental in the chart given it's being in the eastern hemisphere of the chart...

so, what does lilly say about all this? Frawley seems to be obsessed with what lilly did or didn't do..

here is a link to skyscripts description of these terms..
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/oriental.html

you will note that in this link, any planets in the 4,5,6th house area are considered - the phlegmatic quarter.

planets in the 1st, 12th and 11th houses are considered in - the sanguine quarter..

- note the 5th/6th houses in the phlegmatic quarter are opposite to the 12th and 11th houses in the sanguine quarter.. thus, i am left to guess - phlegmatic and sanguine are somewhat opposed to one another..

there is no mention of what the choleric, or melancholic quarter would be.. anyone care to comment on this??

also - planets would seem to have a type of temperament on their own.. the moon - phlegmatic? planets in water signs - phlegmatic, with a question mark on planets in the sign scorpio?

planets in fire signs, or the planet mars - choleric?

planets in air signs, or the planet mercury - sanguine?

planets in earth signs, or the planet saturn - melancholic?

is jupiter choleric, or phlegmatic? the sun? what about venus? no one says so far as i know! it must be a combo platter type of situation..

from what i understand about temperament, the moon plays the most important role, in combo with the ascendant.. maybe i got that from my reading.. i can't remember..


comments?

i have read greenbaums book on temperament.. maybe i could benefit from reading it again.. it still isn't fully clear to me how one arrives at an accurate assessment of temperament via the chart...
planets in earth signs, or the planet saturn - melancholic?

I know there are a few different interpretations but a planet rising before the sun being oriental and rising after being occidental is the only one I ever see applied regularly. The way I view it is more so as a gender stereotype, in a way, since the inferiors are the feminine planets (Mercury can be either depending on the planet aspecting it) and superiors are masculine. The inferiors are more naturally placed occidental while the superiors like to be oriental and their natural placement would add to accidental dignity (on Lilly's point scheme). I don't see opposite placements making a planet weak necessarily but that it might behave more out of character and could emphasize something already out of place. Temple Grandin is an example that comes to mind - she has Venus in fall in Virgo and it is out of sect in a day chart, while it is also oriental (by 1 degree but still relevant). She is asexual and her social graces are lacking (due to autism).

I am not a huge fan of Frawley but a lot of traditional resources would use this, and I do in particular like to look at the placement of Venus being occidental or oriental regularly, but more so in the natal charts of females and in any relationship horary, where I think it can be important to consider. In a woman's natal chart, an occidental Venus generally might be seen as a more typical placement and where the female might let a male lead if they are heterosexual, and they might be more passive in general, especially in social situations - it can show better social graces. An oriental Venus might show a woman who is more bold or behaves more out of character, such as not following social customs and taking the lead in various situations. This depends on other factors too, such as the sign and aspects of Venus and the overall schemes in the chart. I would think something similar applies to the Sun more so in relationship to Venus where a male with Venus oriental might show he is more passive because Venus is rising in the horizon before the Sun and suggests the male is less bold. I don't get a lot of questions from men about romance, so I don't look at this much.

I haven't applied this much in relationship to the other planets for anecdotal evidence, but I am sure it does add some further clues about the nature of those planets.

In heterosexual romance horaries it can give clues as to the dance between Sun and Venus and who is the fonder in the relationship. Deb has a good response in this old thread of mine (which could be applied to natal also): http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5023

I use temperament all of the time in relationship to sign placements and planets, whether I am actively thinking about it or not, and Deb includes this information when you click on a planet or sign from the main page. It is important in predictive astrology. The oriental/occidental house placements and temperament in relationship to house seems more relevant to horary and decumbiture than to natal astrology, but maybe I just don't notice their emphasis. I could definitely see them helping describe diseases or to help find missing objects/people.

is jupiter choleric, or phlegmatic? the sun? what about venus? no one says so far as i know! it must be a combo platter type of situation..

I know the humours of the planets through studying horary, but it is also used in medical astrology (decumbiture charts). Jupiter is sanguine, Sun is choleric and Venus is phlegmatic. An easy way for me to remember is that Mars and Sun are both hot, so they are choleric; Venus and Moon are the primary feminine planets and relate a lot to fertility, which is best in phlegmatic (cold and wet) signs; Jupiter I think of as jovial so it is easy to remember he is sanguine; Saturn is, of course, melancholic (for obvious reasons). Mercury is rather flexible in nature and can take on other humours, from what I can understand, but Lilly says Mercury is melancholic.

The humours are very key in determining having children and marrying, and in horary they help describe situations more thoroughly, in my opinion. Marriage and fertility, etc. indications that are dry in nature are not very positive, life affirming situations - they are "sterile" or suggest a solitary lifestyle or can indicate lack of growth of something. That is why I said in the mystery chart that the scientist would not have children - Virgo is a barren sign and Mercury was additionally not in a fantastic place for children (as well as SN on the cusp of the 5th, though). Had Mercury been in, say, Pisces, Cancer or Scorpio, I might have been less certain on that, especially if the ruler of Mercury was also in a "fruitful" sign. Virgo is cool and dry and dry in general is not fantastic for having children, and Mercury was in Aquarius. The barren signs are Gemini, Leo and Virgo, as well as Sag, Aries and Aquarius being rather iffy - too dry. Mercury is additionally cold and dry.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/decumbiture2.html

It is easy for any astrologer to be obsessed with Lilly - he is a good resource for predictive astrology.

Something you didn't mention is planetary sect, which I think can also be important. For example, I remember seeing a week or two of similar horary questions from people on jobs that required higher level skills, where the person was represented as Saturn out of sect (in the night), and my first thought was that they did not possess the necessary knowledge (it becomes skewed or cloudy). Saturn in traditional is the planet associated with hidden or more abstract and deeper knowledge that is difficult to ascertain quickly, and out of sect that information is less straight forward (although a strong Saturn seems like it would alleviate that?). Applying to a higher level job that requires years of experience when you are new to a field - it makes sense to see Saturn out of sect. I find the X-files Astrology website to be a good resource for a synthesized interpretation of sect in natal and think it works very well to describe my own chart.

hi tanit,

thanks for taking the time to offer this response! it answers some of my questions and helps shed more light on what i want to understand better.. i was just thinking of sect earlier today and how that might play into this concept of defining a planets nature via occidental or oriental position for understanding the temperament better... one simple conclusion i came to was night sect - more moist and thus phlegmatic.. day chart - choleric and maybe sanguine... perhaps night chart is more melancholic... i have never seen anyone suggest anything like this though.

i am thinking maybe there is a reason the moon is emphasized to a good degree in trying to understand temperament.. i know the sun-moon phase is a part of this too.. in fact - that is what one is looking at when considering the sun-venus relationship i think.. planetary phase..

thanks for the links you've provided.. i read the horary link with debs response which was informative.. i certainly wish there was more info available on planetary phase, especially on the topic of venus and mercury.. i know deb had said at one point she was planning on writing on this, but i am not sure what has come of that..

that is interesting how you got to your answer on children in the mystery chart - via sign considerations and etc.. thanks for sharing that! i wouldn't have thought it out anything like that, but i appreciate your sharing your astro thought process on that..

i am not in anyway involved in horary, so the whole field of horary is kind of like a no mans land for me.. i think it is a good discipline to pursue though and seems to sharpen ones mind towards all other areas of astrology. it might have to do with the background study that is required - lilly being a part of it.. i have yet to read lilly.. i have read a book or two on him, but although i have the christian astrology books, can't find the ability to decipher the language format that is a road block for me.. i am wondering if the translation i have - the one i have is from astrology of america - has been replaced with one easier to read?

the article ' introduction to decumbiture' looks interesting.. thanks for sharing.

Hi James,

My own take on this…

There are three main concepts that are subsets to the phase of the planets (other than the sun):
1. Being oriental and occidental (“of the sky???)
2. Direct or retrograde (of course there is no retrograde motion for the sun
and moon)
3. Visible or non-visible (non-visible due to being under the sun’s beams)

In addition there are additional concepts that apply to a fixed star i.e. circumpolar, permanently hidden, having a period of curtailed passage, having a period of arising but lying hidden and having a period where it visibly touches the horizon during the night depending on the star’s declination and geographical latitude (in addition to its relative position to the sun).

Let us focus on the phasing of the planets as they are more relevant to our present discussion.

There are three “types??? of being oriental or occidental depending on the baseline reference:
1. Relative to sun for the phasing of the planets (other than the sun). When a planet is oriental or occidental relative to the sun, it is called being oriental or occidental “in the sky???.
2. The cardinal points (for the phasing of the sun). Phasing of the sun is not associated with being oriental or occidental. In other words, the sun cannot be oriental or occidental “in the sky???.
3. Relative to the horizon i.e. being eastern or western for the planets. When a planet is oriental or occidental relative to the horizon, it is called being oriental or occidental “on the earth???

Let us look into the oriental or occidental in the sky by looking at the phasing of the planets…

Phasing of the planets (other than the sun) relative to the sun:
1. Conjunction
2. Matutine heliacal rising
3. Stationary retrograde
4. Opposition
5. Stationary direct
6. Verpertine heliacal setting
7. Back to conjunction

1 to 2: Planet is invisible (under the beams), direct, coming out of conjunction
2 to 3: Planet is visible, direct, oriental
3 to 4: Planet is visible, retrograde (coming into opposition), oriental
4 to 5: Planet is visible, retrograde (coming out of opposition), occidental
5 to 6: Planet is visible, direct, occidental
6 to 7: Planet is invisible(under the beams), direct, coming into conjunction

Observe the symmetry of the phases and each astronomical phase has a different astrological meaning.

AND, this is my take on oriental or occidental for the superior planets. I do not consider a planet being oriental or occidental when it is under the beams. Why not? Because I usually interpret being oriental as the manifestation of a planet when the native is young and being occidental as the manifestation of a planet when the native is older. Hence, when a plant is under the beams, the manifestation of the planet is “hidden??? or is subdued by a higher authority. Being retrograde is also a challenge (whether oriental or occidental) as it indicates actions that have to be repeated or sometimes undermined (sometimes even rejected) by a high authority due to being in opposition to the sun.

Being oriental in the sky is better for the superior planets as they are seen rising in the east & coming out of the sun whereas being occidental, the planets make their journey towards invisibility in the west.

Phasing of the inferior Planets (Mercury and Venus) relative to the sun:
1. Superior conjunction
2. Vespertine heliacal rising
3. Stationary retrograde
4. Vespertine heliacal setting
5. Inferior conjunction
6. Matutine heliacal rising
7. Stationary direct
8. Matutine heliacal setting
9. Back to superior conjunction

1 to 2: Planet is invisible (under the beams), direct, coming out of superior conjunction
2 to 3: Planet is visible, direct, occidental
3 to 4: Planet is visible, retrograde, occidental
4 to 5: Planet is invisible (under the beams), retrograde, coming into inferior conjunction
5 to 6: Planet is invisible (under the beams), retrograde, coming out of inferior conjunction
6 to 7: Planet is visible, retrograde, oriental
7 to 8: Planet is visible, direct, oriental
8 to 9: Planet is invisible (under the beams), direct, coming into superior conjunction

Observe the symmetry of the phases and each astronomical phase has a different astrological meaning.

AGAIN, I do not consider a planet being oriental or occidental when it is under the beams (see argument above). An inferior planet (Mercury and Venus) are invisible when they are under the beams.

Being occidental in the sky is better for the inferior planets as they are seen coming out of the sun in the west (provided that they in direct motion) whereas being oriental, the planets are either making their journey towards invisibility in the east or coming out from the sun but are in retrograde motion!

Phasing of the inferior luminary (Moon) relative to the sun:
1. New moon (astronomical)
2. New moon (visual)
3. Half moon, expanding
4. Whole moon
5. Half moon, contracting
6. Last visual moon
7. Back to new moon

1 to 2: Moon is invisible (under the beams), coming out of conjunction
2 to 3: Moon is visible, occidental, expanding
3 to 4: Moon is visible, occidental, expanding
4 to 5: Moon is visible, oriental, contracting
5 to 6: Moon is visible, oriental, contracting
6 to 7: Moon is invisible (under the beams), coming into conjunction

Hence, moon is oriental in the sky when she is contracting and is occidental in the sky when she is expanding. Here again, being an inferior, occidental seems better because this is the time that she is expanding. However, we all know that some actions are better initiated during contracting moon!

Phasing of the Sun (relative to the ecliptical turning points and intersections of celestial equator & ecliptic)
The Sun “phases??? in its own unique way because the relative points that are used for the phasing of the Sun are the Cardinal Points. Hence, there are four distinct points that we make reference to i.e. the equinoxes and the solstices AND the phasing of the sun is visible through the changing seasons!

1. Spring equinox
2. Summer solstice
3. Autumnal equinox
4. Winter solstice

1 to 4: Northern, rising
2 to 4: Northern, falling
3 to 4: Southern, falling
4 to 5: Southern, rising

Oriental or Occidental on the Earth
Of course, when a planet is in the eastern hemisphere (Houses 3, 2, 1, 12, 11, 10) it is oriental on the earth and when a planet is in the western hemisphere (Houses 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) it is occidental on the earth
 
Now, we can go back to the phases and the temperaments:
My take is that the oriental and occidental “on the earth??? is simply NOT used when determining temperament. It is the oriental and occidental “in the sky??? that is referred to by the ancients because being oriental or occidental in the sky is closely related to the phasing of the planets and hence, modifies the planetary attributes such as humours.

As there are 4 humours, it easy to see the correlation of the 4 humours to the seasons (Sun’s phasing) and to the four quarters of the moon (Moon’s phasing). However, when it comes to the planets (other than the luminaries), you can’t see four distinct “phases??? like the luminaries. Hence, we look into the oriental or occidental “in the sky??? to see how that modifies the natural humours of the planets.

Having said all this, I do not use humours in the way that Frawley does it. I only use humours and temperaments to see the health well-being of the native. I prefer to use the big three for character interpretation. When I do use temperaments, I use it the Greenbaum’s way as it is “cleaner??? and it does correlate strongly with the Big three. The Big Three refers to finding of the most important planet/point that describes native’s character and his/her primary motivation (which I did a write up in skyscript some time ago) – the Big Three are the ascendant and the luminaries.

So how do I do it in terms of determining temperament? I look at the following and then determine which temperament is the overcoming one:
1. Season of birth (phasing of the sun); spring-sanguine, summer-choleric, autumn-melancholic, winter-phlegmatic
2. Quarters of the moon (phasing of the moon); visible moon to 1st quarter-sanguine, 1st quarter to whole moon-choleric, whole moon to 2nd quarter-melancholic and 2nd quarter to no moon-phlegmatic
3. Sign of the moon
4. Sign of the lord of ascendant
5. Sign of Lord of Lot of spirit

For signs: Fire – Choleric, Earth-Melancholic, Air-Sanguine, Water-Phlegmatic.

When looking at the lords of ascendant or spirit, superiors oriental (in the sky) are more temperate whereas when they are occidental, they tend towards excess (Jupiter would be more humid, Mars tends too hot, Saturn too cold).

On the other hand, inferiors are treated differently:
Venus when oriental (and direct): hot and wet, when occidental (and direct): cold and wet, when oriental (and retrograde): extra hot and when occidental (and retrograde): extra moist.

Mercury when oriental (and direct): hot and dry, when occidental (and direct): cold and dry, when oriental (and retrograde): extra hot and when occidental (and retrograde): extra dry.

astrojin,

thanks very much for this informative post! i printed it out last night and was reading it away from the computer.. i appreciate the distinctions you are making and it helps to understand the idea of oriental /occidental better.. thank you.

unfortunately for me, it raises perhaps the biggest question any astrologer must ask themselves - how does one weigh all the factors, to come up with a conclusion on what is the leading candidate for describing temperament?

i have noted in my own case the way people perceive me via the written word, is very different then how they perceive me in person... i suppose this has to do with the fact folks at skyscript don't know me personally and can only work off my written words here.. i wonder how much of this happens when astrologers read astro charts, hoping to understand a person better?

and, not to make this personal, but in trying to understand my own chart, it is indeed complicated - probably as it is in most charts! i am always looking for a few factors that could point to a leading energy that would define the temperament.. it is very difficult...

i thought it was interesting how you broke the suns position seasonally..spring - sanguine... and etc. etc.. why though if the sun in spring is sanguine does the season start with sun in a fire sign? the way you have articulated it - gemini - the air sign associated with the sanguine temperament, is the final emphasis to the season of spring, if i take this idea literally... perhaps that is a part of my challenge - don't take anything literally!

it would be easier to understand planetary phase better.. you've articulated it all very well, but i am at a loss as to what the strongest phase in the inferior planets is! when i say strong - i am thinking the energy of either mercury or venus who over-ride the chart in a particular way to skew other factors that might otherwise dominate..

i have never been convinced of the weakness of retrograde planets.. and the same goes for a planet being under the beams.. i understand the logic and know this is traditional astrological doctrine, but i have found it unconvincing first hand... maybe i don't understand it well enough.. my brother has mars conjunct sun in what is referred to as cazimi.. he has never struck me as a person with a weak mars! i have to go on what i experience first hand and the idea of under the beams and retrograde are unconvincing to me first hand, in spite of what i read.. i am not sure what to say about this!

there is very little to no literature on planetary phase of the inferior planets - mercury and venus.. i wish there was someone discussing this more in depth, as you have to a degree here.. i want to understand this better, but short of looking at charts and drawing somewhat subjective conclusions on them, i am at a loss...

in the mystery chart that moonbright offered here - http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10117 - i thought mercury was indeed strong.. however, i felt that the fact the moon applied directly by square to venus and that the moon/venus square was directly on the angles, that venus would weigh more heavily... i was wrong on that..

there must be other factors i am missing as well... thanks for taking this time to share your insights and wisdom astrojin.. it is much appreciated and gives me more food for thought...

cheers james

edit - interesting book that might shed more light..
http://rubedo.press/hermetica-triptycha

Hi James,

The following are my respond to SOME of your questions…

I will try to address the rest when time permits (some of which I can never address simply because I do not know!)

unfortunately for me, it raises perhaps the biggest question any astrologer must ask themselves - how does one weigh all the factors, to come up with a conclusion on what is the leading candidate for describing temperament?

You don't say! I am struggling too!

As I mentioned earlier, I do not use temperament in my practice when I interpret charts. I would rather use the Big Three in determining character and primary motivation as I find it more reliable and consistent. However, I do look into the humours and see if there is imbalance (excess of any of the primordial qualities i.e. hot, cold, wet or dry especially the two life-taking humours i.e. cold and dry). If I find there is imbalance in the humours, I then alert the client about this and how it affects his health.

The points that I look for is the Sun (by looking at the season), the moon (by looking at the phase and her sign), sign of Lord of Ascendant and sign of the Lord of Lot of Spirit. I do not take the planet themselves in the equation just like like we do not take the Sun (hot and dry) or the Moon (Cold and Wet) and these must exist in everybody's chart just like we do not equate universal rulers to accidental or specific rulers in astrology. To determine humour, I look into the big three (Sun, Moon, Ascendant) plus Lot of Spirit. There shouldn't be contest on the selection of Sun or Moon (they are the luminaries of the sky, the life of the chart) or Ascendant (as this is the personal point where the sky meets the earth). The Lot of Spirit requires an explanation though because it is not what Greenbaum, Frawley or other astrologers seem to look into.... (this is my own finding as I interpret from arabic materials and my own practice).

The oriental/occidental comes into the consideration of humours for the Lords of Ascendant and Spirit. Assuming that the Lord of Ascendant is Mars and he happens to be in Pisces and oriental in the sky, I will mark Lord of Ascendant as Cold and Wet (Pisces - I consider the sign of Lord of Ascendant and not the Lord of Ascendant itself) but the cold part is tempered by Mars (superior) being oriental.

and, not to make this personal, but in trying to understand my own chart, it is indeed complicated - probably as it is in most charts! i am always looking for a few factors that could point to a leading energy that would define the temperament.. it is very difficult...

The reason I do not look into temperament that much is because I think temperament is supposed to be just that i.e. temperament (read mixture). Trying to find the one humour/temperament that stands out will work for the few (the tails of the normal distribution - so to speak) and not for the general population. The "correct" method (be it Greenbaum, Frawley, Lilly, etc.) should indicate that most of the population are "balanced" for if the method shows that most are imbalanced, the method is questionable because temperament is mixture and not of its components...

i thought it was interesting how you broke the suns position seasonally..spring - sanguine... and etc. etc.. why though if the sun in spring is sanguine does the season start with sun in a fire sign?

No... When we look to the Sun to determine temperament (or humour that makes up the temperament), we look at the season as the season is more telling of the temperament (as attested by non-astrological study - See Greenbaum). Sign of the sun is not factored here. Why? Because you can have the Sun in one sign but different season depending on your hemispheric location e.g. Sun in Aries is spring for those born in Northern Hemisphere (Sanguine) but is Autumn for those born in Southern Hemisphere (Melancholic).

This is, in itself, is interesting because the two hemispheres when joined together is temperate: Northern vs. Southern [Spring-Autumn, Sanguine-Melancholic, and Sanguine & Melancholic have complementary qualities i.e. Hot & Wet and Cold and Dry] - you can work out the others...

it would be easier to understand planetary phase better.. you've articulated it all very well, but i am at a loss as to what the strongest phase in the inferior planets is! when i say strong - i am thinking the energy of either mercury or venus who over-ride the chart in a particular way to skew other factors that might otherwise dominate..

I would rather not try to find the dominating phase as each phase has different take for different topics of life. In terms of temperament, I would say that oriental/occidental does modify the balance of temperament (and I don't really look at the rest). For marriage, if a planet is indicative of marriage, oriental - may mean marry young, occidental - marry old, retrograde - marry with a period of separation, under the sun's beams - marry in secret or elope, etc. It is my practice to interpret as I see the indicator, rather than summing the strengths and then interpret...

i have never been convinced of the weakness of retrograde planets.. and the same goes for a planet being under the beams..

This is true...! I discovered this the hard way. Again as I mentioned above, it is the topic at hand that determines whether retrograde/under the beams will be productive or prohibitive of the indications...

Let me iterate this with an example for profession...
Assume the profession indicator happens to be Mars (in a night chart) and he is angular, detriment and under the beams. These are different considerations i.e. sect, house, sign and phase. They should never combined into one strength or weakness especially using numbers or weightings...

I do not start thinking of combining the "strength" or "weaknes" of Mars and then say something about profession. You don't say something like, "Oh that's bad, your profession is governed by the malefic who is under the beams and detriment but angular ?????".
I would say: I don't care if Mars is malefic, he will not be malefic when he is the indicator! Angular means that the profession is something that the public sees and the native is in control with (rather than succedent - where the profession would be more of like an intermediary and cadent - where the profession is more of like a servant like an employee). Under the beams may mean the profession is "secretive" (if Mars overcomes the sun) or always under the thumb of another who is more powerful (if sun overcomes Mars). Detriment may mean that the profession is deemed non-mainstream (dignified by sign usually means a mainstream profession). Mars in a night chart may mean one who are somehow satisfied with the profession to a certain degree (Mars is of the nocturmal sect). In addition, we then look to the bound ruler of Mars to see support from colleagues and aspects to Moon/Lot of Fortune or Sun/Lot of Spirit to determine whether the profession is more tuche (bodily related) or episteme (mind related)...

my brother has mars conjunct sun in what is referred to as cazimi

Cazimi is a special condition that I usually associate with a positive thing... being near a "King" or authority figure. I find this true even when determining alchocoden for being cazimi, alchocoden usually gives the major period. However, I do not consider Cazimi in temperament...though I must say I have not done good research on this!

in the mystery chart that moonbright offered here - http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10117 - i thought mercury was indeed strong.. however, i felt that the fact the moon applied directly by square to venus and that the moon/venus square was directly on the angles, that venus would weigh more heavily... i was wrong on that..

Oh yeah.. I probably would have chosen Venus...
My simplified approach to Profession:
Candidates are the fast moving traditional planets: Mars, Venus, Mercury.
Then we look to the one nearest to angles (that seems to point to Mercury).
Then to planet that makes a phasis within seven days before and after the date of birth: It seems that both Mercury and Venus are candidates for this (Venus = rising phasis and Mercury = setting phasis but Mercury is closer to phasis).

The above are the stronger indicators...

Then to planet moon next applies to: Venus
Then to planet that is most elevated i.e. in terms of its own altitude - this seems to be Mercury.
Then to the ruler of tenth sign = Not Mercury, Venus or Mars
Then to the planet that trines MC = not Mercury, Venus or Mars.

Looks like Mercury is arguably the one elected for profession (closest phasis, most elevated - closest to MC and happens to rule the first...)

thanks astrojin!

you have given me a lot to think about and helped correct a flaw in my own thinking... the idea the chart might be more balanced then not is helpful to keep in mind... in looking for the most likely candidate for temperament, i am neglecting to keep in mind that people are often a combination of a few different types.. this came out in greenbaums book where she tries to find the 2 leading candidates for temperament, as opposed to one..

this actually reminds me of something that was discussed by marie louis von franz who was not an astrologer, but said some interesting things about how people - and i am doing this in my own language - people are like a table with 4 legs, but one of the legs is not standing up properly.. we have 3 of the 4 working, but the 4th one has huge bearing on it all! i am not sure how to describe this analogy properly, but believe we are always seeking on some semi or subconscious level what is missing in our temperament, as opposed to working with our strengths - which we also do... perhaps this is why we are drawn to individuals who have something we are missing in our own consciousness... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie-Louise_von_Franz

i am intrigued with your use of the lot of spirit.. i don't know that much about it, let alone the lot of fortune... i have tried to understand these parts in the chart, but have not made a lot of progress..

thanks for clarifying the issue of seasons and not signs for me with regard the sun.. i have sun in aries and i think i come across as more sanguine in person then might be conveyed in writing... mercury is also in aries... however, this brings me to an ongoing topic of interest and my curiousity just how it factors into temperament... it is the issue of sect...

in my own chart - nocturnal - i have moon in scorpio rising a few degrees above the ascendant also in scorpio... in spite of this, most people pick up a sanguine energy from me in person.. as my wife likes to say - they don't know me very well! maybe the moon in scorpio and scorpio generally is unwilling to open up and let others know just how they feel about something!! but i do find it interesting just how sect would play a role in determining temperament.. i have lot of spirit in cancer too, so again moon becomes another factor in the overview you give of temperament.. however the sun in aries - or sun in the season of spring - sanguine - seems to really come thru in my temperament.. as you say - perhaps looking for the balance, as opposed to not, is an important way to think of temperament..

thank you again astrojin for the very educational tutorial on temperament here... much appreciated!

1. Season of birth (phasing of the sun); spring-sanguine, summer-choleric, autumn-melancholic, winter-phlegmatic

According to ancient medicine, the one born during autumn would have preponderance of black bile and thus more likely to suffer from depression. However, according to modern scientific studies - http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0034866
the greatest risk of developing such is during the opposite season - spring (marginally, but statistically significant). What do we do about that? Has anyone tried to incorporate ''seasonal biology'' into astrology?

Hi Petosiris,

Comment on the Statistics:
Like you mentioned, the study (though significant) has rather small effect size which is common in study with very large sample size. You tend to get significant difference even with small effect size with very large sample size. The question is whether we should make any conclusion with small effect size even though it is significant because significance here only means "statistically significant" (shown by the p-value being smaller than alpha value) and not "practically significant" (shown by large effect size when it is statistically significant). I would vote "No". I am only comfortable in making a conclusion based on both statistically and practically significant (statisticians are turning in their graves!!!!)

Comments on the Labeling of Disorders
Melancholia though associated with depression does not mean that it leads to only specific types of depression like the ones researched in the study (Schizophrenia, Bipolar Affective Disorder or Recurrent Depression Disorder)... I am pretty sure that there are a lot more people who are depressed but are not diagnosed as such or even make a report to the resident psychiatrists!
Limiting depression to only a few outlined in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM) and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is well...limited, to say the least.

Comments on Definition
There might a difference between what the ancients meant by "depression" and the definition put forth by modern psychiatrists. The ancients used to conflate organic mental disorders (psychiatric) and being possessed by demons into just one category. On the other hand, the psychiatrist dismissed the idea of demon possession altogether which many of us (even now) have been priviledged to witness...

According to ancient medicine, the one born during autumn would have preponderance of black bile and thus more likely to suffer from depression.

Preponderance of black bile is associated to being born in autumn as autumn is associated to melancholia but we could say that this testimony (in isolation) does not lead to depression unless supported by other indicators of humours (Moon, Ascendant,...). In addition, the onset of organic "diseases" is only indicated by the humours but the potentials usually come from the sixth house (disease that the native has a hand in) or when associated with Lot of disease (disease that the native has no hand in but not genetically related) as well as Lot of Necessity (diseases that are genetically related).

it came out of reading john frawleys the real astrology applied, which i am still reading.. in it he seems to put a very big emphasis on temperament..

No more. In fact he says he regrets putting the emphasis on it that he once did except in the cases of extremes. Most people are a combination of two or more types, and they don't always manifest in the way we thing they might. Extremes are easier to spot whether they are an extreme choleric, melancholic, sanguine, or phlegmatic, or whether the chart is unusually well balanced.

For what it's worth, I still think it has value, but I tend to think we are all looking in the wrong place for it to manifest. Tennis players are always good astrological examples for a lot of things because pretty much what they are can be seen on the court. John McEnroe was known for his temper tantrums on the court and his anger and rage when things didn't go his way in a tight match. Choleric? No, he's sanguine according to his chart. And if you listen to him doing analysis on TV he is pretty sanguine. You have to wonder if we need to differentiate personality (defined here as the way a person acts in front of others) from temperament. Mac has Mars on the ASC. That's what we "see" on the court and perhaps in his personal relationships. After tennis he became an art dealer and painter - sanguine activities to be sure.

General George Patton was a melancholic type - pragmatic. His nickname may have been "Old Blood and Guts" but he was single minded and driven to understand combat tactics and strategy throughout history and then apply what he learned in war Farmers do much the same thing: learn all they can about farming and things related to it and apply that for a successful outcome. The stereotypical farmer hasn't much use for knowledge that does not pertain to farming. Patton had little use for things that didn't pertain to warfare.

My own less than valuable opinion on such matters is that our is the era of the cult of personality. We're obsessed with it. We've come to the point with the current President of the US that some people seem to genuinely believe it is far worse to have a successful, if at times tactless President, than have a suave, urbane, charismatic individual who can "act Presidential: as he presides over the destruction of the nation, and no that last isn't aimed at anyone. It's a general description to make a point, and the point is we've lost the ability to judge based on results. Ted Bundy, by all accounts, had a great personality.

This naturally transfers to astrology. We end up concentrating on, if not the superficial, at least what is less important to character. Modern astrology teachers use the term "mask" to define the ASC as though everyone except those born at dawn are a bunch of phonies.

So maybe Frawley was right the first time and we are misdirecting our efforts. Temperament might be very important, but we look for it in the wrong places.

tom,

thanks for your comments - most of all which i am in agreement with..and, - i think they are good comments! i think it is difficult to ascertain temperament, except in outstanding circumstances where there is a real imbalance... as i see it - we are a collection of all the humours, although i think it is fair to say some of them stand out more clearly then others.... and, just how much are we confusing what we see on the surface - the angles perhaps - verses what is within the chart? the tennis player example is a good case in point..

even trying to figure out what the dominant themes are in my own life is difficult.. in that regard, i do think most people will be fairly balanced and able to see some of themselves in each of the temperaments..

i am again reading the greenbaum book and reviewing book 3 of lillys too.. i like the simplified approach for finding temperament - season, ascendant sign, moon sign/ and or phase - appearing to be the main 3 considerations that tracks around 80 % accuracy rate... but, i continue to believe it is the more silent parts to our temperament that may be doing a lot more driving, then we might want to realize... this theory of mine makes it more difficult to gage, just what is driving a person, but considering temperament is a valid way to help guide one in understanding others..

about a week ago i had an interesting experience with someone whose actions seemed very choleric! i happen to know their sun and moon sign, but not there ascendant sign.. sun in cancer, moon in leo.... regardless of how i could respond, it seemed to me a phlegmatic response of some sort might be the way to go!!! water on fire kind of approach...

i have more to say, but i am kind of tied up until tomorrow... i am not sure what you are getting at in the comment i saved below, so i have quoted you.. it is the last part i don't properly understand.. i think the term mask for the ascendant is a pretty good word to use for it.. it is what we see, but it can hide much more behind it, that it is impossible to know about..

my thinking is that planets on angles do come out more fully, which are not a complete picture of a person, but what we might see more immediately.. i also think planets making strong aspects to the ascendant/descendant degree might qualify as well.. it gets complicated when there are more then one planet in an angle or aspecting an angle closely.. thanks for your comments!!!

Tom wrote:
This naturally transfers to astrology. We end up concentrating on, if not the superficial, at least what is less important to character. Modern astrology teachers use the term "mask" to define the ASC as though everyone except those born at dawn are a bunch of phonies.

So maybe Frawley was right the first time and we are misdirecting our efforts. Temperament might be very important, but we look for it in the wrong places.[/color]

james_m wrote:i thought i understood these terms, but i am rethinking it and wondering if others would like to chime in..

it came out of reading john frawleys the real astrology applied, which i am still reading.. in it he seems to put a very big emphasis on temperament..

arriving at just what temperament is via the chart is more ambiguous as i read it.. but an important way of arriving at a conclusion on this is thru understanding whether a planet in the chart is oriental or occidental..

simply put - a planet is oriental if it rises before the sun, or occidental if it rises after the sun...

however, a planet is also oriental if it is in the eastern part of the chart - from the i.c. up into the ascendant and into the midheaven... any planet that is on the western side of a planet - falling away from the midheaven and headed towards the descendant and into the i.c. is occidental..

where it gets more tricky is if for example when a planet could be classified as both oriental and occidental.. a simple example would be sun in the 2nd house, with a planet in the 3rd house rising after the sun.. it is occidental to the sun, but it is oriental in the chart given it's being in the eastern hemisphere of the chart...

so, what does lilly say about all this? Frawley seems to be obsessed with what lilly did or didn't do..

here is a link to skyscripts description of these terms..
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/oriental.html

you will note that in this link, any planets in the 4,5,6th house area are considered - the phlegmatic quarter.

planets in the 1st, 12th and 11th houses are considered in - the sanguine quarter..

- note the 5th/6th houses in the phlegmatic quarter are opposite to the 12th and 11th houses in the sanguine quarter.. thus, i am left to guess - phlegmatic and sanguine are somewhat opposed to one another..

there is no mention of what the choleric, or melancholic quarter would be.. anyone care to comment on this??

also - planets would seem to have a type of temperament on their own.. the moon - phlegmatic? planets in water signs - phlegmatic, with a question mark on planets in the sign scorpio?

planets in fire signs, or the planet mars - choleric?

planets in air signs, or the planet mercury - sanguine?

planets in earth signs, or the planet saturn - melancholic?

is jupiter choleric, or phlegmatic? the sun? what about venus? no one says so far as i know! it must be a combo platter type of situation..

from what i understand about temperament, the moon plays the most important role, in combo with the ascendant.. maybe i got that from my reading.. i can't remember..


comments?

i have read greenbaums book on temperament.. maybe i could benefit from reading it again.. it still isn't fully clear to me how one arrives at an accurate assessment of temperament via the chart...
planets in earth signs, or the planet saturn - melancholic?

The topic of the elements' associations with the planets IME frequently leads to a lot of confusion on esoteric forums. However, the old astrologers followed a really simple scheme, in which the 'real' planets directly represented the four elements:

Mars = Fire (choleric)
Venus = Water (phlegmatic)
Jupiter = Air (sanguine)
Saturn = Earth (melancholic)

Mercury (always the oddball) was a little hard to pin down, but I would think that, for the most part, his association with Aether or Quintessence (the Aristotelian fifth element that interlinks the other four) should have been rather obvious.

The earliest explicit example of these attributions that I know of is to be found in the writings of the medieval Catalanian philosopher Ramon Llull (Raymond Lull). However, they were strongly implied already by Hellenistic and Arabic astrologers, who, for example, described Mars as hot and dry, i.e. by the same two Aristotelian qualities that also characterize the Fire element, and likewise for the other planets, notwithstanding some minor variations in a few cases.

Remarkably though, Mercury, in line with his notorious ambiguity, was occasionally considered cold and dry, and that must be where Lilly's evaluation (as mentioned above by Tanit3333) has its origin. I find this interesting insofar one of Mercury's two domiciles is an Earth sign, even though, overall, his attribution to Quintessence works best for me.

And (again as has been mentioned previously) the planets and associated temperaments used to play an important role in medical astrology, which was pretty much the astrological interpretation of Galen's medicine with its four humours.

So there you have some historical context for good measure.