Skyscript Astrology Forum

The 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln today offers an opportunity to revisit this famous American President. Here is a summary of my findings on temperament.

Based on historical accounts, I delineate Lincoln?s temperament as primary melancholic and secondary phlegmatic. Applying temperament models of Frawley and Greenbaum picks up phlegmatic but misses melancholic. Why do the models miss? Two reasons.

1. Saturn oriental is classified as cold and moist, drawing on the tradition of Ptolemy which attributes youth, vigor, and flesh to oriental planets. This point has been emphasized by Deborah on the other temperament threads. Yet as Lincoln?s signature for melancholy, Saturn most definitely acts in a cold and dry manner. I think what may be missing here is Saturn is the out-of-sect malefic in Lincoln?s horoscope which is nocturnal. So what about sect? We know that the Hellenistic theory of sect was only partially transferred to the Medieval astrological tradition. Based on surviving aphorisms (e.g., Schoener?s Book of Nativities), the medievals were clearly aware of the ill effects of the out-of-sect malefic. Nowhere have I seen an explicit reference to a nocturnal chart intensifying Saturn?s intrinsic cold & dry qualities, but this is an implicit conclusion which is consistent with the behavior of Saturn which appears intensified when in a nocturnal chart.

2. Saturn falls in the 1st house by whole sign houses. Positioned at 3SA08 compared to the Ascendant degree of 29SA45, Saturn is placed very wide of the Ascendant degree. Greenbaum ignores planets placed in the rising sign in her model. Frawley suggests they are relevant only if they aspect the Ascendant within 4-5 degrees.

The full paper (24 pages) is available for free download from my site. Here is the link:

http://regulus-astrology.com/lincoln.html

Those interested in more on Lincoln should explore Lincoln?s Melancholy, by Joshua Wolf Shenk, published in 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Miscellanous Comments on Temperament

Two books I found of great help in reviewing temperament theory.

Noga Arikha. Passions and Tempers: A History of the Humours. HarperCollins Publishers, 2007

Like Greenbaum, Arikha also studied at the Warburg Institute though I am not sure if they overlapped. Based on her comments Arikha is not in the pro-astrology camp, yet has written a very readable book on the history of humours and temperament theory. It was not until I read her book that I realized just how much later in time astrologers joined the temperament bandwagon which was developed by the Greeks a good five centuries before Ptolemy started to make stabs at assigning primitive qualities to the planets in his Tetrabiblos. The book is also a good reminder that the greatest contributors of humoural theory were really medical-philosophers who did not necessarily practice astrology. Avicenna is one of them who sanctioned astrology for some uses like meteorology but not medical applications.

Randy Rolfe. The Four Temperaments: A Rediscovery of the Ancient Way of Understanding Health and Character. New York: Marlowe & Company, 2002.

I have to say flat out that this is the single best book on temperament on the market today. While Rolfe is not anti-astrology, she largely bypasses astrology in discussing what is by far and away the clearest exposition of the four temperaments with practical guidelines on how temperaments influence behavior, health, career, and relationships. Her results are presented in a clear and organized manner which can be incorporated in natal readings with ease. She also does a credible job on summarizing the historical development of humoural and temperament theory.

The book is also available on Amazon for less than $5.00. Bargain!

-------------------------------------

What I would like feedback on are the two limitations of the Frawley and Greenbaum models identified above. Specifically,

1. Has anyone else found the sect condition of malefics an overriding factor in judging temperament compared to other factors like sign placement and position relative to the Sun?

2. How about planets placed in the 1st house by whole signs which are more than 4-5 degrees away from the Ascendant? Does anyone have examples where these placements matter for temperament?

Thanks for reading.

2. How about planets placed in the 1st house by whole signs which are more than 4-5 degrees away from the Ascendant? Does anyone have examples where these placements matter for temperament?

A slight clarification, which does not answer the specific question, but explains the method a bit: Frawley, like probably every astrologer on earth, notes that the closer a planet or planets are to perfecting an aspect or conjunction or any other measurement, the more influential they are. Therefore, the farther away, the less influential they become. The 4-5 degrees is arbitrary and not based on any traditional authority that I am aware of. The idea is that the most efficient way to read a chart is to concentrate on those things that are the most influential.

Using aspects for example, it is not that a wide aspect has no influence; it is just that a tight one is more important. In Lincoln's chart Saturn in the first will have an effect on all first house issues including temperament, but do we wish to spend a lot of time and energy on a planet that is over 25 degrees from the ASC, when there may be other more influential configurations to work with? The issue is one of degree rather than whether or not.

Tom

RegulusAstrology wrote: 1. Has anyone else found the sect condition of malefics an overriding factor in judging temperament compared to other factors like sign placement and position relative to the Sun?

Consideration if the ruler of the temperament is out of sect it is important to me, but in a second moment.
If I judge that Saturn is the ruler of the temperament, then after I will consider if it is in or out of sect, if it is in its sign, in a proper house and so on.
But these facts do not change the primeval qualities of a planet- I never heard this.
Saturn oriental to the Sun is increasing in moisture, in or out of sect, at least for me.

2. How about planets placed in the 1st house by whole signs which are more than 4-5 degrees away from the Ascendant? Does anyone have examples where these placements matter for temperament?

Because you follow Frawley method In Italy we consider angular planets because they are configurated to the Ascendant, so obviously we consider planets in the first house.
But you should remember that quadrants have their qualities:

"And further, it is the general tendency of the quadrant comprised between the vernal equinox and the summer tropic to produce good complexions, advantageous stature, fine constitutions, and fine eyes; with a temperament abounding in heat and moisture. The quadrant from the summer tropic to the autumnal equinox tends to produce an ordinary complexion, proportionate stature, a healthy constitution, large eyes, a stout person, with curled hair, and a temperament abounding in heat and dryness. The quadrant from the autumnal equinox to the winter tropic causes yellowish complexions, slender, thin, and sickly persons, with a moderate growth of hair, fine eyes, and a temperament abundantly dry and cold. The other quadrant, from the winter tropic to the vernal equinox, gives a dark complexion, proper stature, straight hair on the head and none on the body, a goodly figure, and a temperament abounding in cold and moisture." Ptolemy, THE FORM AND TEMPERAMENT OF THE BODY

So Saturn, as all the planets, near the Ascendant is in the most wet point of the birth chart; on the other hand a planet between the second and the first house is cold rather than moist.

Anyway I have not yet time to read carefully your article, I will surely do during in the weekend.

Margherita

IIRC, Charles Darwin's chart was the same as Lincoln's. You might have some fun looking that one up and doing a compare-and-contrast.

Update/Feedback

1. I made one error in tabulating Frawley's method. It is minor and does not change the conclusions of the paper. I misclassified ASC Sag as hot and moist instead of hot and dry. Sag is correctly listed as hot and dry for Greenbaum's model, just made an error. The way I read Frawley's model, this renders Lincoln primary phlegmatic and secondary choleric. Similar finding to Greenbaum.

2. To return to the central reason for my post to this group is to determine why Saturn in Lincoln's chart acts as a melancholic planet despite the fact that Saturn is oriental, judged cold and moist by some authors including Frawley. The recent posts on temperament in other threads hashed out this point very firmly with Deborah arguing in favor of the Ptolemaic model for oriental planets being more vigorous, youthful, and consequently having more bodily flesh because flesh is an indication of growth.

A planet's latitude is also one indicator of weight, with north latitude said to increase girth and south latitude yielding the opposite effect. Lincoln was very skinny. Did Saturn have south latitude? No Saturn was 2+ degrees north latitude. So we can't go there.

Saturn however does fall in the dwad of Capricorn which is cold & dry. No author I am aware of uses dwads (or bounds for that matter) as modifications of a planet's primitive qualities. That is probably going overboard. And if such tweaking of dignities actually has an effect on temperament, the amount of variables in a regression model to confirm that would take a data sample of well over 1000 and probably 5000 nativities. It might have an effect, but my guess is you are talking about trying to squeeze the last 5% out of what can be possibly known in a hypothetical temperament model with 95% of the effort. On the other hand, I don't think one can discount the influence of dwads or bounds out of hand. These levels of dignity probably have a similar level of influence in a temperament model as to issues like whether we judge the ruler of the Moon by sign or phase.

One also has to consider that Saturn was one of three planets which Abu Ma'shar automatically proscribed a temperament - cold & dry. This is mentioned by Greenbaum in her book. So on Abu Ma'shar's authority (and please let me know if translators have other opinions on Abu Ma'shar's intent), Saturn as a planet may be very difficult to dislodge from its cold & dry qualities no matter what sign or position relative to the Sun he falls. I don't feel strongly about this, just passing it along.

Temperament and the Physical Body

There is one more issue on the area of temperament which I would like to raise. Many authors judged the physical body and temperament jointly; then looked at manners. Most of the discussions on temperament - whether generally or whether in various Skyscript threads - have focused on temperament and not on the physical body. I think that kind of single minded focus on temperament can be limiting; inputs from observing the physical body can be helpful in informing our temperament judgments. Zoller commented that using Bonatti's method for judging the physical body his results were not that great. He resorted to integrating work of 20th century authors, a rare departure for him from using anything written after 1600.

Decans are said to play a role in physical appearance. My work so far confirms Zoller's observation that Chaldean decans do not work for judging physical appearance. You have to use decans based on the triplicity of signs; e.g., for sign of Aries, use Aries, Leo, and Sag as the decans for the first 10, second 10, and final 10 degrees of Aries. These are signs, not planets unlike the system of Chaldean decans which are based on planet. So in this model, one also has to use the ruler of the rising decan to judge physiognamy. I would like to publish something on this some day but the data requirements are too huge for the moment. I have worked through 100 charts using this method and have good results.

For Lincoln, 3rd decan of Sag rising, that decan is Leo. Decan ruler is Sun/Aquarius. Sun is already counted as a season, winter, phlegmatic. So we don't get much here. The Aquarian body type is known for a prominent forehead, kind of a brainiac, or at the extreme, Frankenstein looking forehead. There is a bit of prominence in Lincoln's forehead, but it doesn't strike me as being definitively Aquarian. So again I am coming to a draw here unless if I hang my hat on Saturn's placement in the dwad of Capricorn as the tipping point towards Saturn keeping its cold & dry primitive quality despite being oriental.

Exception to Temperament Model because of Genetic Condition?

The last point on Lincoln's physical body - there is a new book out by JG Sotos on Lincoln's physical condition. Here is the link:

http://www.physical-lincoln.com/

The author discusses a rare genetic disorder which is different from Marfan's Syndrome which many have assumed previously. I have ordered the book and after reading it will offer anything worthwhile to the group. It would not be surprising that a rare genetic disorder would cause failures in temperament models like I have seen with Lincoln.

With Charles Darwin as an astro twin, the question is what differences in the two charts would cause Lincoln to suffer from this disorder and not Darwin (that I am aware). That's a question for much later this year - for me anyway.

RegulusAstrology wrote:
Temperament and the Physical Body

There is one more issue on the area of temperament which I would like to raise. Many authors judged the physical body and temperament jointly; then looked at manners. Most of the discussions on temperament - whether generally or whether in various Skyscript threads - have focused on temperament and not on the physical body.

Temperament and physical body are two faces of the same medal for every traditional astrologer or doctor at least till 1600, I believe this is a point nobody can discuss. If Lincoln was a melancholic temperament this derives from an excess of cold and dry qualities. We should see this in his temperament AND in his body.

We see this from his chart? If not we are sure birth details are right?
In your paper you give an Ascendant at 29 Sagittarius. It could be easily moved to the first degrees of Capricorn, true?

In that case both Moon and Ascendant are in Capricorn. Saturn is oriental and in the first quadrant so it 's a little hotter and moister, but so what? It will be more temperate, but it never can be as wet as the Moon.

And stars are influential too in the shape of body, we know from Ptolemy.
Rising stars were influential in every detail of native life, they are his/her moira, destiny.
Which constellations are rising with the Ascendant? Have you checked?

You are putting into discussion a method which was used by everybody for more than 600 years, think a little.

Margherita

I made one error in tabulating Frawley's method.

I think there were two. I doubt Frawley would have selected Saturn as ruler of the chart. Frawley uses a modified version of Lilly's method of selecting the Lord of the Geniture(CA p. 531 -32) Lilly states:

"I am clearly of this opinion, viz that the Planet with the most essential and accidental dignities in the figure that is posited best, and elevated most in the scheme that he ought to be the Lord of the Geniture."

Frawley defines the LoG:

The Lord of the geniture is the planet with most essential dignities, with the rider that an essentially weaker planet with accidental strength may be preferred to an essentially stronger one in a difficult position. - The Real Astrology Applied page 125

In Lincoln's chart, Saturn has no essential dignity. In fact the only planet in this chart with any strong essential dignity is Jupiter in Pisces. Jupiter is in the third and therefore cadent, but, when looking for the LoG, there is no place else to go. It is Lilly that uses the word "elevated."

I had this discussion with John several years ago asking whether a peregrine planet that was accidentally strong could be used as LoG. The planet in question was angular. John rejected that idea as out of hand. The Lord of the Geniture requires some essential dignity.

However like the simple error of mislabeling the sign, this does not change the outcome. The temperament still comes out phlegmatic.

To return to the central reason for my post to this group is to determine why Saturn in Lincoln's chart acts as a melancholic planet despite the fact that Saturn is oriental, judged cold and moist by some authors including Frawley.

Saturn oriental is considered cold and moist by Frawley and others. I think the answer to this question is that Saturn is acting not as a melancholic but a depressive and they are not necessarily the same thing. In the Astrologer's Apprentice No 15 Frawley, discussing the chart of Janis Joplin makes this statement:

?In distinguishing the phlegmatic (water) and the melancholic (earth) temperaments, much confusion is caused by the gradual change in the meaning of the word ?melancholic.? We think immediately of the sad and gloomy; this is, in some aspects of melancholy, true enough, but it is by no means the whole picture. The hypochondriak melancholy, with which William Lilly suffered, was, in modern terms, depression, the lack of affect that characterizes deep depression is melancholic; but the common modern model of depression as anger turned inward against the self is pure phlegm. We have lost the association of Mars with water.?

The answer then, if we accept or are judging Frawley's method, is that Saturn is not melancholic in the sense that it results in innate behavior and therefore is part of the temperament, but rather that Saturn is phlegmatic and that phlegm can be an indicator of depression, particularly when, in my opinion, Saturn is one of the significators of the manners. There is no question that Lincoln was depressed. The question is did he have a melancholic or phlegmatic temperament?

Tom

Tom wrote:
The answer then, if we accept or are judging Frawley's method, is that Saturn is not melancholic in the sense that it results in innate behavior and therefore is part of the temperament, but rather that Saturn is phlegmatic and that phlegm can be an indicator of depression, particularly when, in my opinion, Saturn is one of the significators of the manners. There is no question that Lincoln was depressed. The question is did he have a melancholic or phlegmatic temperament?

Tom

Hello Tom,
this is a good question, phlegmatic temperaments tends to depression too, I agree.

But what about the shape of the body? Surely the first approach to temperament was the shape of body, the doctor seeing his patient could say which was the temperament. He did not cast his chart before giving a diagnosis.
What I mean is if there is an excess of dry and cold, or wet and cold we should see this both in the chart and in the body. Otherwise we are wrong in something.

And from Regimen Sanitatis lines I recently translated in my blog:
"Phlegmatic men have little strength, large but short in height; phlegm makes them fat, of mediocre blood. They don?t like studying but prefer being idle and sleeping."

This is looks like Lincoln completion? For me it's hardly believe he was a phlegmatic temperament.

What do you think?
Margherita

Margherita -

We have no disagreement that physiognamy and temperament were judged together historically. I was just trying to exhaust all chart factors first before judging physical appearance by inspection.

That said, Lincoln's physical appearance is quite easy to judge as Saturnine. Saturn gives height and the prominence of bones. Lincoln had both characteristics. By physiognamy Lincoln was also a textbook case of the Saturninan body type; Zoller used Lincoln as this example in his course. As you point out, phlegmatics tend to be more fleshy and Lincoln was not. He was tall, skinny, very bony, and often badly dressed with clothing not properly fitted (pant legs too short, etc.,).

Could the Ascendant be early Capricorn not Sagittarius? Yes that could account for the melancholic temperament easily. But my rectification identifies the 30th degree of Sagittarius as his Ascendant, not Capricorn. The rectification and methods are available through my site. It has also stood up to out-of-sample tests based on measurements not used in the original rectification like the death of his mother, 2nd depressive episode of January 1841, and the marriage of his friend Joshua Speed which triggered another melancholy period. I mention these in the paper just posted.

The more interesting question you raise is whether the 30the degree of Sagittarius can be considered 'Capricorn' simply because it is the 30th degree. There is an aphorism which states planets in the 30th degree of a sign begin to show effects of the next sign; perhaps this applies to the Ascendant as well. Should anybody have any actual examples of this, I would interested to hear comments.

As to using fixed stars in temperament and physical appearance, I have had luck in judging the effects of the eyes based on fixed stars conjunct the luminaries, but virtually no success in judging physical appearance by fixed stars conjunct the Ascendant. According to Janus 4.1, Altanin of the constellation Draco at 25SA18 is conjunct Lincoln's Ascendant within 5 degrees; this is a bit wide for the influence of stars, yet it is listed as the nature of Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars in that order. Zoller did not emphasize fixed stars in his instruction on physiognamy. Nor does Judith Hill who has written the most credible book on physiognamy currently in print. For further information:

http://www.judithhillastrology.com/books.html

Hill also pegs Lincoln's body type as Saturnian; specifically possessing a 'Saturninan Aquarian' facial type. She mentions the appearance as lanky and ungainly; the manner as sad yet contemplative. I would quote the whole section but don't want to violate copyright. See pp. 131-132 of 'The Astrological Body Types.' Her description of Lincoln based on the Saturninan Aquarian facial type is consistent with a melancholy temperament.

And so we come full circle on judging physical appearance back to the ruler of the rising decan as a significator for the body; for Lincoln, Sun in Aquarius ruled by Saturn. Saturn also rules the Moon, and is conjunct by antiscia; Moon also signifies the physical body.

Tom-

There are differences between how Zoller and Frawley compute the Lord of the Geniture. I mentioned in my paper that I use the Ibn Ezra method for its computation. In a revision, I will add that I score planetary position exclusively by whole sign houses and that this choice (as well as Ibn Ezra's method generally) may yield a different Lord of the Geniture than what Frawley might choose. At this point, I have no comment on whether strictly taking Ibn Ezra's formula or Frawley's approach which is a bit more qualitative is the better approach.

You state Saturn is peregrine. This is debatable. Saturn in Sag falls in the fiery triplicity of which Saturn is the participating member. So Saturn is in his own triplicity. Jupiter also receives Saturn by sign, triplicity, and bound though the square aspect is outside moiety of orb. In my experience, receptions can alter the status of a peregrine planet, even wide ones like this.

The more interesting question you raise is whether Lincoln's depression was of melancholic or phlegmatic origin. I agree that either of these temperaments can yield depression. Yet the classic melancholic depressive type - such as Ficino - often resorts to thoughtful pondering which is capable of producing great intellectual insight. Historians described Lincoln as a thoughtful ponderer. This style of thinking is not a route taken by phlegmatic depressives that I have seen mentioned or experienced.

I agree, as do both Frawley and Greenbaum methods, that Lincoln had a phlegmatic component to his temperament. But Jupiter/Pisces delineated as a philosophy of sacrifice and pacifism seems a better match to Lincoln's religious doctrine of Necessity, which was completely fatalistic. Placed in the 4th house end-of-the-matter, Jupiter/Pisces fits the comfort Lincoln found in a fatalistic belief that the outcome of the Civil War was in the hands of God and whatever God decided he would have to accept. However we may agree or disagree with this line of religious fatality, Lincoln did accept this philosophy and he found comfort in it as a remedy for his depression. As Saturn's ruler, I read Jupiter as the source/result of Lincoln's Saturnian melancholy, not of the melancholy itself.

As to manners, I am looking at either Saturn-Jupiter or Saturn-Venus as the two significators. Depends on whether you take the sign ruler of Mercury (Jupiter) or the al-mubtazz of Mercury (Venus). There are other considerations for manners which have to be looked at; the superior planets oriental, in the stations, in the angles are given great importance in judgment of manners by Bonatti and others. For Lincoln, we return to Saturn/oriental/angular in the 1st by whole signs. We will also have to consider Mars/oriental/angular in the 10th by quadrant sign - also about to make his first station. Saving that topic for another day.

Have a good weekend.

Margherita:

But what about the shape of the body? Surely the first approach to temperament was the shape of body, the doctor seeing his patient could say which was the temperament. He did not cast his chart before giving a diagnosis.

Lincoln's ASC in this chart is Sagittarius, hot and dry, so there is a choleric component to his temperament. Here is Culpeper on the phlegmatic - choleric:

? ? tall of stature, and not so big and fat as phlegmatic, and are more hairy, and sooner have beards; ? And touching their conditions, they are nimbler, bolder, and kinder then (sic) phlegmatic, and not so drowsy, and sluggish as they are, but merrier, and quick witted. ?

That quote is from Astrological Judgment of Diseases from the Decumbiture of the Sick.


Dr. H

There are differences between how Zoller and Frawley compute the Lord of the Geniture. I mentioned in my paper that I use the Ibn Ezra method for its computation. In a revision, I will add that I score planetary position exclusively by whole sign houses and that this choice (as well as Ibn Ezra's method generally) may yield a different Lord of the Geniture than what Frawley might choose. At this point, I have no comment on whether strictly taking Ibn Ezra's formula or Frawley's approach which is a bit more qualitative is the better approach.

In this case, it didn't make much difference which Lord of the Geniture we used since the temperament comes out strongly phlegmatic either way. However, my point is that if we are going to test and Judge Frawley's method, then we need to be faithful to it all the way through and use his method of determining the Lord of the Geniture since it is used in the determination of temperament. Whether or not Ibn Ezra's method is better or worse is not the issue.

You state Saturn is peregrine. This is debatable. Saturn in Sag falls in the fiery triplicity of which Saturn is the participating member. So Saturn is in his own triplicity.

True enough. Morinus would say he was peregrine as the triplicity rulers are different, and arguably make more sense. However, I still doubt Frawley would have chosen Saturn over Jupiter on the basis Saturn being a participating ruler of Fire. It doesn't come close to outweighing Jupiter in domicile. Furthermore, Frawley would have used Placidus cusps and with the five-degree rule, that puts Saturn in the 12th house. That's a deal killer. That Saturn picks up strength by being in reception with Jupiter is important, but it still grants that Jupiter is far stronger and strength is what we are looking for. Who wants a weak ruler of the chart?

In my experience, receptions can alter the status of a peregrine planet, even wide ones like this.

I'm sure that's true, but again at issue is Frawley (Lilly's) method. I can't say for certain what John would have done in this case. I only know that were I his student and this chart were given to me for temperament analysis, based on how I understand his teaching, I would have selected Jupiter over Saturn.

I'm not certain of the true nature or origin of Lincoln's depression. He needs to get on the couch for that sort of thing. That two different methods of temperament analysis produce the same thing astrologically, has to carry some weight, however. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not claiming that your methods and observations are groundless - far from it. My only question is as stated: was Lincoln phlegmatic or melancholic? You make a strong case for melancholic, but I think Frawley/Greenbaum make a good case for phlegmatic. The fact that Frawley/Greenbaum don't pick up any melancholy is troubling, but as Frawley says, this is rough work. It is not the finished product.

As for manners, like you I was looking at Saturn-Venus or Saturn-Jupiter. I'm leaning towards Venus.

Yours in waiting for warmer weather,

Tom