Skyscript Astrology Forum

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2004 11:54 am**

Hi all

For those of you interested in humours and temperament, I invite you to read the following article:

http://www.simillimum.com/Thelittlelibr ... ment4.html

According to the author of the article, astrologers have got the relationships between temperaments and elements all wrong. Having studied his Mappa Mundi, I agree with him!

For example, why do we associate Sanguine with Air, when Sanguine is hot and moist (i.e. Fire + Water), whereas Air is cold? Jupiter is the hot and moist planet, through which the Sanguine temperament expresses itself best. Therefore it should be through a Fire or Water sign, NOT an Air sign. This makes perfect sense when we consider that Jupiter rules Sagittarius and Pisces, and is exalted in Cancer. This system works with each of the other planets until we get to Venus and Mars, where the argument breaks down. Libra and Aries work ok, but not Taurus and Scorpio. I would therefore (daringly) suggest that Venus should rule Scorpio and Mars should rule Taurus. Makes much more sense when considering the reasoning behind rulerships from this standpoint!

Furthermore I don't believe we should equate each humour with just one element - we should equate them with two. The Mappa Mundi diagram makes this perfectly clear. Following on from this idea, when we are going through the scoring process for temperament, should we perhaps consider that Fire is hot (not hot and dry), Water is moist (not cold and moist) etc?

It was Hitler's chart and the subsequent conversation on that topic here which started me puzzling over this conundrum. Hitler is mainly Choleric - all his planets are in Fire and Earth (which fits, doesn't it?). He is also somewhat Sanguine (Fire and Water). He has no planets in Water, so perhaps his "sub-temperament" could be described as Firey Sanguine? I.e. his Sanguine temperament is expressed through his Fire planets. If you read the author's descriptions of the temperaments, these seem to fit Hitler. He gives Sanguine to Fire - "prone to pride, passion and cruelty". He gives Choleric to Earth - "prone to anger, irritability and impatience". I've quoted only the "negative" descriptions since the associated planets in Hitler's chart are weak (and we tend to view him negatively anyway!).

(As an aside, my idea of swapping Venus & Mars rulerships seem to be relevant here - Venus, chart-ruler, would be in detriment, but malefic Mars in dignity!)

I've said much more than I meant to. I do tend to get carried away

Please read the article and study the diagram and let me know what you think. It all seems very logical to me but maybe I've missed something somewhere.....

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2004 2:00 am**

I don't know that we ought to be so ready to reverse a few thousand years of teachings based on a a single article on homeopathy and reference to a single chart. We live in a material world and it is only natural that someone looks at words like "warm and moist" and imediately associates them with the material manifestation rather than the essence. Lee Lehman explains it this way:

The four primary qualities that comprise the temperament are hot, cold, wet, and dry. In food this is represented by cooked (hot), raw (cold), soft food (wet), or hard food (dry). Each of these qualities actually represents a cluster of concepts, and their opposites. For example, the qualities hot and cold do not represent extremes of a temperature continuum. The represent qualities of energy, where hot represents high energy or physical heat, and cold represents low energy or physical cold. But these qualities are opposite in a critically different way than the way we normally envision them. Take temperature. We moderns would see "cold" as the "absence" of heat. From a purely chemical perspective, molecules in a hotter gas vibrate more rapidly on average than molecules in a colder gas. Mixing the gases will produce an immediate result. In other words, in our thinking the "cold" portion is completely cancelled out by a portion of the "hot" component. But his is not how it works! People are in fact more than capable of expressing opposite qualities without one canceling the other! ...

Thus a person may have hot and cold qualities simultaneously. In fact to be in balance would be to manifest equal qualities of each, not to have a "zero sum state" in which "hot cancels "cold, " perhaps producing lukewarm.

The balanced state should not be lukewarm. Rather it is the ability to be high energy (hot) , or completely at rest (cold) as the moment and the circumstances require.

(Classical Astrology For Modern Living, p. 27-28 )

The short version is this: hot and cold refer to levels of activity, not necessarily to temperature. Mars is active. Taurus is not associated with vigor. Giving the planet associated with luxury and lust (Venus) dominion over the sign associated with activity and adventure seems way way out of place.

We discussed Hitler's chart and its temperament in pretty good detail here recently. I've done his temperament using two methods and I don't get predominantly choleric either way (although heat dominates in both methods). However, sanguine is active because it is hot. His sanguine nature is ruled by a Jupiter in fall, which is something else that needs to be taken into consideration. Furthermore, the lack of an element is as important in a chart as is the predominance of an element. Hitler lacks water or phlegm. Phlegmatic types are soft, sympathetic, emotional and dreamy. Hitler had none of this. He had no connection (connecting is another phlegmatic trait) or understanding of human suffering, save perhaps his own. This is as important as deciding which element dominates. So we have a highly active individual with no compassion regardless of whether that activity is coupled with moisture or dryness.

His Venus is debilited and seriously so. Yes she is in Taurus , her domicile, and that gives her strength and she does rule the ASC. But look at the condition of this Venus besides her sign. She is conjunct one malefic, Mars in detriment and square the other, Saturn Rx, also in detriment, She is retrograde so whatever she is works against the native. All of this occurs in fixed signs making it difficult for the native to change, or put another way, makes the native rigid. If all this weren't bad enough, Venus' exaltation ruler, the Moon, is in her detriment as well. I cannot recall seeing an ascendant ruler in worse shape.

For example, why do we associate Sanguine with Air, when Sanguine is hot and moist (i.e. Fire + Water), whereas Air is cold? Jupiter is the hot and moist planet, through which the Sanguine temperament expresses itself best. Therefore it should be through a Fire or Water sign, NOT an Air sign. This makes perfect sense when we consider that Jupiter rules Sagittarius and Pisces, and is exalted in Cancer

.

I've been to Arizona in the summer. That air is not cold. I once came across an explanation for the assignation of the elements to the planets. The Sun gives heat, and the Earth gives moisture. Saturn is farthest from both so Saturn is cold and dry. Mars is close to the Sun and far from the earth, so very hot and very dry. Jupiter is a bit tougher to explain this way as he is fairly close to the Sun (hot) but pretty far from the Earth as well. This does put a glitch in this system. Perhaps someone has an answer, but the rest of the planets seem to hold up. Venus is close to the Sun so hot and close to the earth so moist. The Moon is far from the Sun so cold, and close to the earth so moist. Mercury assumes whatever he is connected with, but is considered hot when oriental (close to the Sun) and dry when occidental (not too close to the earth).

Lehman has done a great deal of work with the elements in her book Essential Dignities, and I recommend it to anyone with a serious interest in this part of astrology. Also recommended is her book Classical Astrology For Modern Living, which goes into this subject in less detail.

Tom

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2004 1:24 pm**

Hi all

Hi Fi'

According to the author of the article, astrologers have got the
relationships between temperaments and elements all wrong. Having
studied his Mappa Mundi, I agree with him!

It took me a while to get my head around the Mappa Mundi diagram but once I 'got' it I could certainly see the symmetry behind it. David Little's caution to astrologers about ascribing the wrong elemental qualities and zodiacal rulerships is interesting, to say the least. I wonder if Culpepper followed the Aristotelian-Galanic relationships?

For example, why do we associate Sanguine with Air, when Sanguine is hot
and moist (i.e. Fire + Water), whereas Air is cold? Jupiter is the hot
and moist planet, through which the Sanguine temperament expresses
itself best. Therefore it should be through a Fire or Water sign, NOT an
Air sign. This makes perfect sense when we consider that Jupiter rules
Sagittarius and Pisces, and is exalted in Cancer.

I have to say I've never felt completely comfortable when associating Jupiter/ Sanguine to Air because I never comprehended the sympathy, which seemed unnatural to me. Air is not naturally "hot"; it becomes hot if subjected to an external source of heat, such as the Sun or an open fire, but in itself gas ( Air ) is cold. The Mappa Mundi includes the Air element in the Melancholic and Phlegmatic temperaments (cold/dry & moist/cold respectively) and this makes much more sense to me, even though I acknowledge that the Air element belongs to the solar sect and one would presume that this would allow it a measure of heat. This is probably mixing apples & oranges though!

I would therefore (daringly) suggest that Venus should rule
Scorpio and Mars should rule Taurus. Makes much more sense when
considering the reasoning behind rulerships from this standpoint!

I never had you pegged as a daring iconoclast, Fi!

In order to make the system fit then yes, I'd like to think that Mars ought to rule Taurus, and Venus Scorpio. After all, Taurus is naturally dry, like Mars, and Scorpio naturally moist, like Venus.
But if we were to adopt these new rulerships it would totally overturn the symmetry behind the two-planet rulerships, where the signs directly ahead of Leo and behind Cancer are ruled by the same planet. ( Virgo/Gemini Mercury, Libra/Taurus Venus, etc. ) Hmmm...

Furthermore I don't believe we should equate each humour with just one
element - we should equate them with two. The Mappa Mundi diagram makes
this perfectly clear. Following on from this idea, when we are going
through the scoring process for temperament, should we perhaps consider
that Fire is hot (not hot and dry), Water is moist (not cold and moist)
etc?

We've discussed this privately haven't we, and as you know I agree with this. Having re-assessed your temperament using just the one element idea and John Frawley's method of scoring, you come out as predominently Melancholic with just a streak of Sanguine in you, the latter thanks primarily to your Moon being in the Sanguine phase. Using Lilly's method your temperament comes out predominently Sanguine, which I think we both agree doesn't seem to fit your lifestyle choices at all. Of course I didn't know you 20 years ago, but certainly these days you appear to be far more of a Melancholic "type" than Sanguine.

It was Hitler's chart and the subsequent conversation on that topic here
which started me puzzling over this conundrum. Hitler is mainly
Choleric - all his planets are in Fire and Earth (which fits, doesn't
it?).

If we equate Air with Cold and Earth with Dry, and remember that his Venus, Mars, and Saturn are all occidental, therefore losing their temperature, and factor in his cold dry Moon ( albeit conjunct Jupiter ), then the testimony comes out Melancholic. The only moisture comes from the occidental Venus which is dried considerably from it's placement in Taurus conjunct Mars, and the Sun in the hot-MOIST season. There is a lot of heat here though: Mercury oriental opposed to the Asc from Aries, the Sun in the HOT-moist season and of course, we can just feel the dryness from that Mars and Saturn aspecting Venus! Therefore, I would, on balance and on this basis, classify Hitler as Choleric with a powerful streak of Melancholy. In other words, a classic bi-polar personality. That's not to say that everyone who comes out Choleric/Melancholic should be classed as bi-polar, but I would certainly see Hitler in this manner, given the overall pattern of his chart.

Please read the article and study the diagram and let me know what you
think. It all seems very logical to me but maybe I've missed something
somewhere.....

It certainly offers food for thought, being as it seems to be, based on a much earlier system of assignments than we're used to working with. Thanks for posting the link Fi, as well as your ideas about it, and giving us a chance to try the system out.

Cheers...

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2004 1:58 pm**

Hi Tom and thanks for responding

I don't know that we ought to be so ready to reverse a few thousand years of teachings based on a a single article on homeopathy and reference to a single chart.

I don't think it's going so far as reversing the teachings - more a case of examining those teachings and questioning the logic and reasoning behind them. Yes, it is a single article but the arguments seem sound to me and contain historical references. And yes, it is connected with homeopathy but in the days when temperament was considered an important factor in the chart, the emphasis was on its use in medical matters, unlike nowadays when we seem obsessed with personality traits. Yes, I did refer to one single chart and that was partly to explain why I delved into this matter initially and partly to give an example. I could easily have given others but I didn't wish to make my post overly long.

Thanks for the Lee Lehman quote. It's an interesting point of view, but I'm not sure I agree with it.

The short version is this: hot and cold refer to levels of activity, not necessarily to temperature. Mars is active. Taurus is not associated with vigor.

Nor is Scorpio (another fixed sign). Mars is hot and dry, Taurus is dry. There is a connection there. But Scorpio is a water sign! (This reminds me of another thread where Mars' rulership of the water triplicity was discussed.)

Giving the planet associated with luxury and lust (Venus) dominion over the sign associated with activity and adventure seems way way out of place.

Since when was Scorpio associated with activity and adventure? As for lust (the negative side of Venus) being associated with Scorpio - that would certainly fit with the modern(?) view of the sign.

His sanguine nature is ruled by a Jupiter in fall, which is something else that needs to be taken into consideration.

Of course!

Furthermore, the lack of an element is as important in a chart as is the predominance of an element.

I agree. That's basic astrology.

I've been to Arizona in the summer. That air is not cold.

Well, I suppose in hot areas of the world, the air isn't so cold, presumably because it's warmed by the sun? But in its natural state, it is cold. People with a predominance of Air in their charts are generally considered to be cool by nature, aren't they.

I agree with what you say about the nature of the planets, but I wasn't questioning that. It was the nature of the elements and their association with the temperaments that I was putting under scrutiny.

Yes, I've seen Lee Lehman's books and I will get round to them one of these days. I attended one of her talks when she was over here back in the nineties. It was on sports astrology - a subject close to my heart. She was attired in a tracksuit with a whistle hung round her neck - she has a great sense of humour

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2004 3:46 pm**

A great sense of humour or a great knowledge of humour??

I?m dubious about this article?s historical sources. It refers to ?the old Pythagorean sources? and the pre-Socratic texts, but doesn?t give any specific information. Pythagoras left nothing in writing himself and there?s nothing from the writings of his early followers I know of that refers to the astrological use of elements. Pre-Socratic texts would take us into the 6th century BC and if anything the author's seen was actually written down that early it would be extremely fragmentary and almost certainly wouldn?t be relating the astrological trigons to the elements. Even Ptolemy doesn?t make that connection. He refers to the Aries trigon, not the fire triplicity. Trigons are associated with directions, not elements, and not in any way that connects with this man?s scheme. He implies that the medieval astrological texts have got it wrong, but his scheme contradicts classical schemes as well which don?t agree with his allocation of directions.

The theory of the elements and their incorporation into medical use developed through the philosophies of the Pythagoreans and Ionian philosophers (maybe influenced by earlier schemes originating in the east), refined by philosophers such as Empedocles and Hippocrates, who, according to the notes I made a few years back when I was studying this, did claim that air is hot and moist and corresponds to the humour of blood. However, I no longer have the reference for that, so I can?t verify it. It doesn?t appear to be until around the time of Galen, who was contemporary with Ptolemy, that the use of the four elements in the study of anatomy and physiology became firmly incorporated into astrological technique. Culpeper certainly followed what this man calls the ?Aristotelian-Galanic? relationships.

You do, however, find a lot of conflicting philosophies and schemes that tie planets and signs together in the early classical period in different ways. They haven't all survived. Most astrological philosophies have developed through consensus of opinion over many centuries and after passing through various cultures and civilisations. So even if there were an earlier contradictory scheme it wouldn?t necessarily be more useful. The point is, that if you want to use the temperaments and humours in a way that say, Lilly or Culpeper were using them, you need to accept their use as an integral part of the western tradition because it correlates with all the other philosophies that interweave with it. Air isn?t considered hot and wet, it?s warm and moist, and it?s the sanguine, healthful humour because it carries the warmth and moisture necessary to sustain life. For the same reason Jupiter is considered a sanguine planet, warm and moist in nature and therefore conducive to growth and fertility. So much drops out of place if you start to see the philosophy in any other way. Of the elements two are warming and two are cooling. If you classify air as cold are you going to redefine earth or water as warm?

I?d love to see the sources this man claims to have seen himself but until I do, I?m sceptical and suspicious that he hasn?t fully understood the reasoning behind the philosophy of humours as it relates to their use in traditional western astrological practice.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2004 10:53 pm**

Deb wrote:I?d love to see the sources this man claims to have seen himself but until I do, I?m sceptical and suspicious that he hasn?t fully understood the reasoning behind the philosophy of humours as it relates to their use in traditional western astrological practice.

I'm not sure he understands the humours as they relate to homoeopathy either. He's certainly not using them in the way that is the general consensus among most homoeopaths.

Posted: **Sun May 23, 2004 6:07 am**

Deb wrote:
I?d love to see the sources this man claims to have seen himself but until I do, I?m sceptical and suspicious that he hasn?t fully understood the reasoning behind the philosophy of humours as it relates to their use in traditional western astrological practice

Why not email him and ask for his references?

Cheers
LindaR

Posted: **Sun May 23, 2004 3:12 pm**

Hi Pete

The Mappa Mundi includes the Air element in the Melancholic and Phlegmatic temperaments (cold/dry & moist/cold respectively) and this makes much more sense to me, even though I acknowledge that the Air element belongs to the solar sect and one would presume that this would allow it a measure of heat. This is probably mixing apples & oranges though!

I'm not sure if it is or not, but it could be what Deb is referring to in her reply (which I'll comment on separately). However, the fact that Air belongs to the solar sect would also allow it a measure of dryness, wouldn't it?

I never had you pegged as a daring iconoclast, Fi!

Heheh! Blame that new-fangled planet in my 4th. What's it called? Oh yes, Uranus - always a trouble-maker

But if we were to adopt these new rulerships it would totally overturn the symmetry behind the two-planet rulerships, where the signs directly ahead of Leo and behind Cancer are ruled by the same planet. ( Virgo/Gemini Mercury, Libra/Taurus Venus, etc. ) Hmmm...

Yes, I realise that and must admit that I'm not too happy seeing that neat pattern of rulerships disrupted. Hmmm indeed. However, if we look at the exaltations of Venus and Mars, then they would fit the theory ok.

Of course I didn't know you 20 years ago, but certainly these days you appear to be far more of a Melancholic "type" than Sanguine.

Yes, I did have trouble at first getting my head round the idea of my being more strongly Melancholic than Sanguine. Graeme Tobyn (Culpeper's Medicine) does say that the Melancholic temperament relates to middle-age, so perhaps that's why my Melancholic side is more apparent now? I'd presumed that all the Air in my chart corresponded to Sanguine, but after reading Little's article, it would appear to correspond to Melancholic. I know quite a few people with a lot of Air, and the descriptions for Melancholic seem to fit them better than those for Sanguine.

Thanks for posting the link Fi, as well as your ideas about it, and giving us a chance to try the system out.

Thanks for responding and, yes, it's always fun to try out new systems, even if we do eventually abandon them! I'm not giving up on this one yet though

Posted: **Sun May 23, 2004 3:53 pm**

Hi Deb

Thanks for filling in some of the historical details. I understand why you'd like to see where he got his references from. Since I find his diagram so logical, his lack of references isn't so important to me - even if he'd got it off the back of a cornflake packet! Well, maybe I wouldn't go that far

But if it makes sense and appears to work, then that is enough for me. The proof of the pudding....

The point is, that if you want to use the temperaments and humours in a way that say, Lilly or Culpeper were using them, you need to accept their use as an integral part of the western tradition because it correlates with all the other philosophies that interweave with it. Air isn?t considered hot and wet, it?s warm and moist, and it?s the sanguine, healthful humour because it carries the warmth and moisture necessary to sustain life.

Sanguine relates to blood which is warm and moist. It is the blood pumping round the body which keeps us alive. (We also need air and water to keep us alive of course.) If Sanguine relates to blood, then why should it be associated with the Air element? And whether you call Sanguine hot and wet or warm and moist, it's Fire that gives it heat/warmth and Water that gives it moisture. Ergo Sanguine is a combination of Fire and Water - nothing to do with Air at all. That's why I think the diagram makes sense and seems to work.

For the same reason Jupiter is considered a sanguine planet, warm and moist in nature and therefore conducive to growth and fertility. So much drops out of place if you start to see the philosophy in any other way. Of the elements two are warming and two are cooling.

Is this because two are of the solar (diurnal) sect and two of the lunar (nocturnal) sect, that Pete was referring to?

If you classify air as cold are you going to redefine earth or water as warm?

Well, going by the diagram, earth is dry and water is moist. Temperature doesn't seem to come into it until they are combined with Fire or Air.

Thanks for your thoughts on this, Deb

Posted: **Sun May 23, 2004 5:42 pm**

Hi Deb,
I've just sent David Little the following e-mail:

---
Hello David,
I'm a traditional astrologer with an interest in homoepathy and having just read with great interest your article at http://www.simillimum.com/Thelittlelibr ... ment4.html I would be grateful if you would be willing to supply your references for the paragraph immediately below the Mappa Mundi diagram?
I'm referring specifically to where you say:

"...This is why most books based on the middle age version have the wrong elemental qualities and zodiacal rulerships. This corruption is found in most modern books that deal with the subject. Not only did Galen record the Pythagorean elements wrong, he also changed the ancient law of Likes Cure Likes to Opposites Cure Opposites. Only a study of the ancient pre-Socratic texts reveal the mistakes made by the Scholastic schools."

I'm in the middle of an interesting debate concerning the original astrological designations of the temperaments and one of my colleagues feels that any pre-Socratic texts that may survive would be at best extremely fragmentary and would almost certainly not relate the astrological trigons to the elements.
I have to say I can't argue with that point of view and that's why I'm requesting any references you may be willing to share that corroborate your statements.
I know we'd all be grateful for your co-operation :-)

Thanks in advance...

Best wishes,
--
Pete Phoenix

-------

It'll be interesting to see what he has to say (if anything!).

Cheers,

Posted: **Mon May 24, 2004 11:17 am**

A very interesting thread! Dorian Gieseler Greenbaum has written a book on the analysis of temperament from the birth chart, based on traditional sources and her own research. It should be out before the end of the year, and puts together a very convincing method for working out temperament.

Now, this is a bit awkward - I don't want to describe the method, because I want Dorian to sell lots of books.

You'll find a little bit about her work on temperament on her website:

http://www.classicalastrology.org/forgottenkey.html

One thing I would say, is that I think Tom's hit on an important point when he talks about the need to consider the planet which rules the temperament. An e.g. which seems to make this quite clear is John McEnroe, who comes out sanguine by most ways of reckoning it; but Jupiter (sanguine ruler) is opposition Mars (& loosely, Moon) & square Pluto. Which might just be enough to account for those tantrums!

One more thing to throw into the pot is that last year, Rob Hand was talking about the planets having *one* quality each, which apparently is the Stoic (as opposed to Aristotelian) arrangement. So under that scheme, air is cold, not hot & wet. Historically interesting, but I haven't seen this approach yield convincing temperament analyses yet.

Posted: **Mon May 24, 2004 12:48 pm**

I've just received a reply from David Little to my e-mail request for references to his Mappa Mundi article. It was good of him to respond so quickly and comprehensively.

I reproduce the full response below. I'm not an expert on the historical sources that underpin some of our traditional practices, so I'll leave any comments on David's reply to those who are.
Here it is:

Dear Peter,

First of all, the difference is in the rulerships of the four elements
and their relationships to the humours (hot, cold, wet and dry). There are
no astrological details per se. The pre-Aristotelean schools like the
Pythagorean school and Hippocratic school taught that the air element was
cold and the fire element was hot. The interaction of the these two light
elements drove respiration and circulation. This held up to the time of
Plato.Aristotle taught that the air element was moist and hot and the fire
element was hot and dry. This changed everything. Here are a few examples
that show the difference between the Pythagorean-Hippocratic schools vs the
Aristoltean-Galenic schools.

Philolaus, an early Pythagorean, explained:

"As the former (the universe) has its central fire, so the human body has
its essence in heat; the heat of the seed and of the uterus are the origin
of all life; the body attracts to itself the external air on account of its
desire that heat should be tempered by cold and thus resolves itself in
respiration." (Theories and Philosophies of Medicine; Institute of History
of Medicine and Medical Research).

We can see from this that Pythagorean school taught Air element is cold not
hot. Hippocrates also stated that the lungs and air are cold not moist and
hot. The Heart it states:

"It (the heart) is enwrapped and cushioned in the lung, and being
surrounded by it, it controls and tempers its own heat. For the lung is
both cold in itself and is also cooled by respiration".

The Heart; Hippocrates.

In the Timaeus Plato gave his view of the 5 elements and their geometric
shapes and explains how they relate to the human body. These 5 geometric
shapes are called the Platonic solids although they have their origin with
the Pythagoreans. Plato felt that it was the geometric shapes and sizes of
these 5 elemental solids that were responsible for the qualities of the
five elements and their combinations. In Plato's system disease is
classified into three sections; those caused by imbalances of the 4
elements (air, fire, water, and earth); those caused by imbalances in the
secondary formations (marrow, bone, flesh, sinew and blood); and those
caused by disturbances of the 3 humours (breath-energy, heat-bile and
cold-phlegm). The fire and air elements were considered the subtlest of the
4 elemental atoms due to their particular sizes and shapes. These elements
are related with the functions of respiration and vital energy and form a
network of channels with the fire ruling the inmost areas and the air the
outermost. The fire heats the air when it enters the body and at the same
time is cooled by it. In this way the vital forces manifested as
inspiration and expiration. The intake of solids (earth) and liquids
(water) works through the medium of the digestive system as they possess
grosser shapes and larger sizes so they can not penetrate the subtle
network of the channels. This is very similar to the Aryur Veda of India
and yoga.

So Philolaus, Hippocrates and Plato said that the fire is hot and the air
is COLD.

In his work On Generation and Corruption, Aristotle gives an entirely
new rendition of the five elements and their qualities from the view of the
actual transmutation from one element into another. Pythagoras,
Hippocrates, and Plato viewed the elements as the unchanging roots that
create all phenomena through different combinations rather than by
transmutation or complete change. In Aristotle's version of the five
elements he took the qualities of the Hippocratic humours and tried to
relate them to the elements. In this way Aristotle based his elements on
the humours rather than the humours on the elements as in the older
physiology. In his work On Generation and Corruption Aristotle considered
the four humoural qualities as follows.

1. Air is predominantly moist but also hot.
2. Fire is predominantly hot but also dry.
3. Water is predominantly cold but also wet.
4. Earth is predominantly dry but also cold.

This means both Air and Fire are hot!!! This is totally different from all
the previous teachers who taught that the light and heavier elements were
complementary opposites. After this the related the moist-hot force of the
sanguine humor to the air element and the hot and dry choleric force to the
fire element. This then meant that the the cold and moist to the water
element, and the dry and cold atrabile to earth element. The Pythagorean
school, on the other hand, associated the root qualities of the five
elements as follows:

1. Air with sensation and coldness.
2. Fire with heat and radiance.
3. Water with fluidity and softness.
4. Earth with solidity and dryness.

Aristotle's system makes the Air element moist and hot and related to
the fiery sanguine temperament. The fire in the heart is also hot and dry
and relates to the choleric. This does not follow all the previous teachers
who said the heart and fire were hot and the lungs and air were cold. These
complementary opposites are responsible for respiration and circulation. In
the old system the heavier choleric force is a digestive power not
something related to the heart, blood and circulation. Plato taught that
the intake of solids (earth) and liquids (water) works through the medium
of the digestive system as they possess grosser shapes and larger sizes so
they can not penetrate the subtle network of the channels related to fire
and air. It is easy to see that the old pre-Aristotelean system is
different from the pre-Socratic Pythagorean system used by Hippocrates and
even Plato.

It was the changing of the rulerships of the Fire and Air element in
the Aristotlelean-Galenic system that changed the temperaments. Aristotle's
air element is moist and hot and fire is hot and dry. In the
Pythagorean-Hippocratic system the Air and lungs are cold and the heart and
fire are hot. Now in simple astrological terms Leo is ruled by the Fire
element and rules the heart and blood and is very sanguine and fixed. Leo
is not ruled by Air and does not rule the lungs. Gemini is Air and rules
the lungs, and is more cool, nervous and mutable. The change of elements to
Air moist and hot and Fire dry and hot changed the older system. I don't
have the time to enter the debate and I am not an astrologer although I
study Vedic astronomy and astrology related to yoga practice. I have given
a few hints that might help.

Sincerely, David

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Humorous Conundrum

Humorous Conundrum