Hi there - I wasn't sure whether to post this thread in Mundane or the Nativities and General Astrology. Anyway, since all four characters are at the top of US Government I went for Mundane. Temperament is a very useful way of gaining a broad insight into an individual's innate approach to the world. Dorian Greenbaum says that "...temperament...has to do with a person's nature or disposition." (D Gieseler Greenbaum [2005] Temperament: Astrology's Forgotten Key. Wessex Astrologer, Bournemouth. p. 1) She describes temperament as inherent in the person. Broadly speaking we are born with a particular temperament profile and we die with it. As she says "A card carrying phlegmatic does not suddenly become a raging choleric."

I won't go into the four temperaments in detail here. Greenbaum's book is a good introduction to the history, theory and practice of temperament analysis in astrology. I don't completely subscribe to her methodology however, and the algorithm that I use was developed by myself. It shares some characteristics with her method, and with others, and, broadly speaking will generate similar but not identical results to other methods.

I took a look at the temperament profiles of Trump, Vance, Thiel (unknown time but see this thread - https://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/view ... hp?t=12990) and Elon Musk. Temperament is an obvious, but little used way, of understanding the dynamics between individuals at a broad level.

Three of the four individuals are highly choleric, with some measure of sanguine thrown in to soften the punch. Choler is the hot, dry temperament - fiery, dynamic, opinionated, combative and irascible. Sanguine is hot and wet - more convivial, approachable, 'hail fellow well met', positive, fun loving and upbeat. Boris Johnson is the archetypal sanguine politician, and everybody I know would love to have a drink with him.

The King of Choler is Donald Trump, although he has a good admixture of sanguine. This makes him much more (dare I say it) likeable than he might otherwise be. Perhaps it's not so much about likeability as relate-ability. This is an important characteristic for voters who often, it seems, make serious electoral decisions on whether they can see themselves having a drink with the candidate that they are thinking about supporting. I've no doubt that a rather large proportion of the American population see Trump as a potential drinking partner. (Just watch out American cousins as he will want you to pay. The Donald never ever buys his own drinks and he's never knowingly got a round in.) Nevertheless, leaving these things aside, King Donald the Choleric is the closest thing to a walking, talking, fist-pumping human volcano that we've ever seen. (Thank goodness for the sanguine as he mostly seems to produce hot air and steam.)

You can review his temperament profile below:


Next up, VP J D Vance. Vance is right up there in the choleric stakes. In fact, he rivals Trump for choler, and I can see him taking the crown one day. Vance's challenge is that his relate-ability is less obviously apparent than Trump's. He is probably relateable enough to succeed at the highest level, but he is a more purely choleric type than Trump. Really popular politicians - in the drinking partner sense - tend to have significant amounts of moistness to make them relateable and more human. Note that this should not be the phlegmatic type of moisture (cold - yuk!) This is a sentence of death for a politician who wants make it - after all, who wants to have a drink with someone who cries into their beer.

Vance also has a sneakily hidden element of melancholy. He's a lawyer after all, and dissecting legal niceties is much easier with some cold, dry melancholic analysis. This probably makes him pretty dangerous in my books. He knows what's going on and can hold the course while his King of Choler boss rants and raves.


Thiel based on his rectified time has a very similar profile to the King and Prince of Choler. I've discussed this briefly on the other thread. Thiel may well have the choleric component of the other two, but he lacks the significant amount of sanguine. This is why he's not the front man. I'm fairly sure he fancies himself as a bit of an intellectual and may see himself as the ideas man. He has a significant amount of melancholy, the philosopher's temperament. Unfortunately for Thiel the ideas are pretty dry and boring - AI, life extension, seasteading and getting to Mars. He probably likes talking about them over a beer or two, but anyone listening is going to nod off after the first couple of rounds. Politicians of the drinking partner type are not generally melancholic - nobody likes to vote for anyone who appears too clever, or maybe we never get to vote for anyone who is too clever.


And now we come to Musk. Nobody is ever likely to vote for Musk, and it seems pretty unlikely that he is ever going to be very relateable. Musk is definitely the odd one out here: a phlegmatic type (cold and wet) with a large admixture of melancholy (cold and dry). If you do find yourself drinking with him, he's definitely going to want to demonstrate the superiority of his mind and ideas to you, but if you don't buy it he might well burst into tears. Or at least become very confused. It seems so obvious to Musk to want to get to Mars. Why doesn't everyone want to go to Mars? Musk will never have the qualities needed to be an elected official, let alone POTUS, but King Choler clearly sees something of value in him having given him a role as the Government Department Culler in Chief. Perhaps Trump feels he brings a softer, more feminine side to the team.

(I will post Musk's temperament profile in another post. I don't seem to be able to add another image here.)

The four individuals make up an interesting case study in temperament. All have been brought together to do whatever it is that think they need to do, and it is instructive to see how their different temperaments play out. Thiel's, of course, is speculative, but with this birth time he seems to fit in with the others and fill a gap between the choleric/sanginue of Trump and Vance, and the melancholy/phlegmatic Musk.

Musk's temperament profile:

Thanks for reading.

Hi there - J Lee Lehman's book on medical astrology is an additional resource with interesting material on temperament

She sees temperament, understandably, as fundamental to the methods of traditional medical astrology. The material is in Ch. 3 - The Body, Its Health, Temperament, and Virtue as Shown by the Natal Chart.

Lehman acknowledges Greenbaum's thorough investigation of the topic in Temperament: Astrology's Lost Key, but feels she needs to amend Greenbaum's algorithm for identifying temperament. This is to reduce the number of the soli-lunar characteristics considered and to slightly vary the factors under consideration:

Lehman's modification is to look at:

Ascendant sign (by element)
Ascendant ruler (by planet quality)
Moon phase (following Lilly)
Moon sign (element)
Moon ruler (by planet quality)
Sun placement (by element)

The last characteristic is a major modification. All the other methods I have come across use the Sun's season at birth (Aries-Gemini = spring) etc. For what its worth, when I did a lot of exploration of the topic myself I looked at this alternative and came to the conclusion that the season was the critical factor for the Sun. However Lehman's work is always thoughtful, thorough and high quality so I will look at her material in more detail.

Lehman's modification also drops the use of the almuten ruler for ascendant (used in Greenbaum's method) in favour of the ruler of the ascendant (used additionally by Greenbaum). Again, fwiw, my conclusion was that the almuten was the key ruler for both the Moon and Ascendant so I dropped the straightforward rulers. The almuten seemed to be a truer guide to temperament than the sign ruler only.

Greenbaum's use of both for the ascendant seemed unnecessary. In many cases, the ruler of the ascendant sign and the almuten of the degree of the ascendant will be the same. However when the almuten and ruler were different it was the almuten that offered the truer guide to temperament in my view.

Like both of them I only use a single factor for the sun - its seasonal placement. I explored the Sun's sign position, almuten etc but concluded that they did not add anything to our understanding of an individual's temperament. Using the element of the Sun's sign position (to mirror the use of the ascendant and moon sign by element) did not seem to work at all for me.

Lehman also modifies Greenbaum's method by weighting the score of any characteristic that is 'angular'. She interprets this as either by house, or by angular relationship (in the case of lunar phase). When placements are angular she doubles the score assigned to the characteristic from 1 to 2. Again I did something similar in the course of my investigations but felt that it didn't work satisfactorily. However Lehman's work is always deeply researched so I will have another look at this.

Both books are well worth exploring in detailing if you are interested in temperament.

The full reference for Lehman is:

J Lee Lehman (2011) Traditional Medical Astrology: Medical Astrology from Celestial Omens to 1930CE. Schiffer Publishing Ltd, PA.

thanks ed... i am curious how if you adopted lee lehmans approach here, how the overview on trump, vance and thiels temperament analysis would change??

i am a bit confused by the way to arrive at the almuten.. the planet that rules the sign is part of it, but i don't properly understand how it is gotten in the end.. with the sign scorpio - mars is ruler, so it goes back to where mars is and who the ruler of mars is in the natal chart?? clearly i don't use the almuten... if you could give me the beginners course on how to arrive at the almuten, that would be great.. thanks!

Hi James - thanks for your feedback. I'm working on a comparison such as this at the moment. I will post the results in a day or two.

The almuten is a form of compound dignity. This is from the Skyscript glossary:

https://www.skyscript.co.uk/glossary/almuten/

Almuten

The strongest planet when all essential dignities are considered. The term is Arabic and derives from al-mateen, meaning 'the firm one' or 'strong in power', but the concept exists in the works of Ptolemy and other early classical astrologers.

The method of identifying the almuten involves considering the full range of essential dignities, so that rulership by sign, exaltation, triplicity, term and face is considered - not just rulership by sign. Hence Venus is said to rule the sign of Libra but Saturn is the almuten, being capable of assuming rulership by exaltation, triplicity, term and face.

A point scoring technique is often used to determine the almuten of any given point. This, and further details are outlined in part 5 of the tutorial Understanding Planetary Dignity and Debility.

The sign of Libra is a good example where the sign ruler (Venus) and the overall ruler of particular degrees will vary. Saturn is often the almuten of placements in Libra. One might conclude that there are charts where placements in Libra are more Saturnian than Venusian in quality.

Lehman's simple definition of 'almuten' is the "planet with the greatest amount of dignity in a given degree".

In another fabulous book, Classical Astrology for Modern Living, she gives a couple of very helpful tables of the almuten ruler of each degree of the zodiac by sect. (Of course, the almuten of any particular degree will be influenced by the bound rulership scheme and the triplicity scheme that you use.)

In the case of Libra in a day chart, Saturn is an almuten of all the degrees of the sign. Venus is the co-almuten of the degrees seven to ten (taking the first degree as 0-59.99999 minutes of Libra. Clearly Saturn, a diurnal planet, is a big hitter for diurnal charts with Libra placements.

By night, Saturn is again the sole almuten of a number of degrees - but only degrees 1 to 6 (0 Libra to 5d 59m 59s Libra). Venus is the sole almuten of degrees 7 to 11 and the final 6 degrees. Venus is co-almuten with Saturn for degrees 12 to 19. The twentieth degree has a triple almuten - Venus, Mercury and Saturn. Degrees 21 to 24 have Mercury and Venus as the co-almutens.

So by night there is a much more mixed picture, but Venus gets more of a look in. This is appropriate as it is a nocturnal planet. Saturn's prominence as an almuten in Libra in day charts is due to its being the diurnal triplicity ruler of air. It is, of course, also the exaltation lord of the sign. This bumps it's profile up in Libra considerably.

In night charts, Venus becomes more important as Mercury takes over the role of triplicity lord and reduces Saturn's influence in the sign considerably,. However it has little other dignity in Libra, being neither ruler nor exaltation lord. It is bound lord of degrees 7 to 15 but it does not rule a decan.

Using the almuten ruler of particular degrees really teases out the planetary influences that underpin the qualities of specific areas of signs. This is why I favour the use of the almuten of degrees in temperament analysis rather than just the sign ruler.

thanks ed!

it is interesting to me how important sect is in determining the almuten... it seems like a combo of old astrological traditions which includes the term/bounds as well.. i have lehmans book classical astrology for living, and haven't looked at it in some time as well.. i see the graphs you refer to on pages 93/94 of my copy.. perhaps why i find some of this interesting is the reliance on sect, when i see very little of this consideration from astrologers in general.. maybe this is their way of utilizing it.. i am not a fan of terms/bounds as i have said here at skyscript before.. aside from 3 sets to choose from, there is some debate that they apply more to sidereal zodiac then tropical.. for an interesting conversation that is indirectly related to this, here is an article form a week or so ago by anthony louis - https://tonylouis.wordpress.com/2025/02 ... al-zodiac/

some of the signs it is indeed the sign ruler - scorpio for example, but libra is more complicated by sect and term/bound ideas..

thanks for explaining all this and giving the link at the top of your post on the almuten.. i look forward to your forthcoming post..

astralwanderer wrote: Sat Mar 08, 2025 7:27 pmIn another fabulous book, Classical Astrology for Modern Living, she gives a couple of very helpful tables of the almuten ruler of each degree of the zodiac by sect. (Of course, the almuten of any particular degree will be influenced by the bound rulership scheme and the triplicity scheme that you use.)
[…]
Clearly Saturn, a diurnal planet, is a big hitter for diurnal charts with Libra placements.

From your description I conclude that she uses only the diurnal or nightly ruler of triplicity respectively. Am I right? (I own three other books by Lee Lehman but not this one. )

astralwanderer wrote: Sat Mar 08, 2025 7:27 pm The twentieth degree has a triple almuten…

A triple almuten sounds very strange to me. How small has the score distance between possible almutens to be to count them as co-almutens according to Lehman?

Helena Avelar and Luís Ribeiro use the house placement, the day/night ruler and the lord of the hour too in determining the almuten of the chart. All three triplicity rulers get equal points but considering the ruler of the day or the ruler of the night respectively (7 points – more than for rulership by sign) births by day or night are mapped.

Hi Georgius - I'm afraid I don't have a lot of time to reply today.

A triple almuten sounds very strange to me. How small has the score distance between possible almutens to be to count them as co-almutens according to Lehman?

Lehman adopts the standard scoring scheme for almutens:

Rulership = 5
Exaltation = 4
Triplicity = 3
Bound = 2
Face = 1

Using a single triplicity lord you can end up with:

Planet A in rulership = 5
Planet B in exaltation and face = 4 + 1 = 5
Planet C in triplicity and bound = 3 + 2 = 5

In this case Lehman grants each planet co-almuten status.

From your description I conclude that she uses only the diurnal or nightly ruler of triplicity respectively. Am I right? (I own three other books by Lee Lehman but not this one. )

The scoring principles above suggest this but I would have to dig in to the text to confirm.

Helena Avelar and Luís Ribeiro use the house placement, the day/night ruler and the lord of the hour too in determining the almuten of the chart. All three triplicity rulers get equal points but considering the ruler of the day or the ruler of the night respectively (7 points – more than for rulership by sign) births by day or night are mapped.

I am familiar with their method, which seems to come more directly from Lilly. I feel the method is too complex and when I looked at employing house placements in temperament analysis it didn't seem to work to well. House placements are forms of accidental dignity in my understanding and including thes in the analysis of temperament seemed to 'muddy the waters' so to speak. Of course their work is extremely important but my conclusion was that temperament analysis is best done with simpler methods.

Hi James - thanks for the link to Anthony Louis's article. I have a lot of time for his work, but this post seems to be a bit 'loose' for want of a better word. There seems to be a pretty straightforward explanation for this sportsperson's success, irrespective of the zodiac - Mars rising in a Gauquelin plus zone, opposite Jupiter, all aligned with the horizon. My conclusion is that angularity trumps dignity which perhaps ought not to surprise us in light of the Gauquelin's work. In my view it's a huge leap to decide on the basis of this chart that one needs to adopt a sidereal zodiac to understand his sporting prowess.

aside from 3 sets to choose

Only three sets of terms/bounds to choose from! My version of Planetdance, which is underpinned by Swiss Ephemeris, has about 50-60 ayanamsas. It was interesting that the below the line comments immediately turn to this topic, or at least raise the question.

In some cases the differences between ayanamsas are so small that without using amplification techniques such as harmonics, which taken in high doses introduce the potential for serious longitudinal errors unless the time of the chart is known to the second. To be fair to Anthony, who is a deep thinker on matters astrological, he acknowledges this point in one of his replies.

The idea that the terms/bounds might be 'sidereal' or constellationally based is an interesting one. There's always a nugget in Anthony's work, and this one's potentially a gem, if you excuse the mixed metaphor.

Ed

astralwanderer wrote: Sun Mar 09, 2025 10:35 am Hi Georgius - I'm afraid I don't have a lot of time to reply today.

Your answer is clear enough, thank you!

astralwanderer wrote: Sun Mar 09, 2025 10:35 am Lehman adopts the standard scoring scheme for almutens:

[…]

Using a single triplicity lord you can end up with:

Planet A in rulership = 5
Planet B in exaltation and face = 4 + 1 = 5
Planet C in triplicity and bound = 3 + 2 = 5

In this case Lehman grants each planet co-almuten status.

Ok, when there is equal scoring I could agree. But if one uses more criteria the likelihood of equal scores minimizes.

astralwanderer wrote: Sun Mar 09, 2025 10:35 am House placements are forms of accidental dignity in my understanding and including thes in the analysis of temperament seemed to 'muddy the waters' so to speak.

I understand. Yet I’m not satisfied with any method I know. Lehman’s I have not tested yet, Greenbaum’s is wrong too often. On the other hand first we have to define what is ”wrong”. Are the ratings of the teachers of her little study ”correct”? They knew their pupils in a special surrounding of a school. Even Waldorf schools may stimulate competition between the pupils so the coleric temperament comes more in front. Sanguine may not be the best for studying, maybe it is surpressed somehow in a school… How to check which delineation is right or wrong?

Planets have essential dignities or debilities and accidental ones. Do they not show if a planet is able to express his qualities in a stable and effective way or not? I think this has to be addressed in temperament calculations.

thanks ed!

i like that parallel - 3 sets of bounds to choose from verses how many ayanamsas! yes! i don't have a horse in the race and am in a small category that thinks both zodiacs work, but obviously not on all levels and in the same way... i have a busy day today.. back tomorrow.. cheers!

Hi again - I have been doing some comparisons for these charts based on the methods of Greenbaum and Lehman. I have compared their temperament analyses with my own. All the algorithms are available in the Medieval Traditional Chart module within Planetdance (https://www.jcremers.com/). This is a free download kindly made available by Dutch programmer and astrologer Jean Cremers.

I'm rather busy at the moment so I will have to chip away at this one chart at a time. In most cases the methods produce very little change.

Just for noting, both Greenbaum and Lehman give an occidental Venus (rising after the Sun) a phlegmatic (cold, wet) character. Greenbaum and Lehman give oriental Mercury (rising before the Sun) a sanguine (hot, wet) character. These are traditional assignments. I am continuing to experiment with the characters of the inner planets Venus and Mercury. I am currently adopting a phlegmatic occidental Venus, but I use a choleric (hot, dry) oriental Mercury. In any case, this makes little difference to these analyses.

Donald Trump

Using all three methods, Trump has a strong choleric core. In all cases, choler is the largest component of his temperament mix. Both Lehman's and Greenbaum's methods reduce the proportion of sanguine in his makeup. Using my method Trump has a more even balance of sanguine and choleric. Now I would say this, but I think that he has more sanguine than Greenbaum's and Lehman's methods suggest. The reason comes back to 'relateability'. This is essential for a politician like Trump who uses his 'charisma' to sway people's attitudes towards his view of the world. In my view he would not be able to pull off the 'man of the people, destroyer of the elites' thing without sanguine. Without the hot, moist component tempering his choleric core he would be an outrageous angry man with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Now of course he is that, but the tempering effect of sanguine (specifically the moist quality) balances the choler sufficiently to give him a degree of relatability that works for a good number of voters.

Here are the graphs:

Greenbaum method:



Lehman method:


Reference method in Planetdance: