Temperament
Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:48 pm
I recently finished reading The Four Temperaments: A Rediscovery of the Ancient Way of Understanding Health and Character by Randy Rolfe (Marlowe and Company, 2002) and thought I'd pass along some information about it and astrology. This is not an astrology book. Ms Rolfe is not anti-astrology either and in fact welcomes astrologers to the topic. She is a nutritionist and holds a law degree. She became interested in the temperament of four humors when she was a teenager, and maintained the interest throughout her life. Her hobby became an avocation and her avocation became a book.
For many traditional astrologers temperament was the first thing worked out prior to a full natal delineation or perhaps the second after length of life. It is the basis for all that follows, yet it is hardly mentioned in some traditional texts, and never in modern astrology. However it seems only common sense that a highly choleric individual would react to, say a Mars - Jupiter square differently than the phlegmatic would react to the same configuration. The problem sets in when contemporary astrologers look at the temperament and assume it will be the same as the personality ("persona" is probably more accurate). It isn't and in fact what we readily see may not be what the person is at his or her core. Since modern astrologers are geared towards looking at everything in the chart as part of the personality, it makes no sense that a person we see as perpetually angry is really sanguine or melancholic by temperament. It just won't compute. Rolfe's book can help with this.
Temperament, both in and out of astrology, has much to do with the body as it does with the mind. In fact temperament theory predates horoscopic astrology by centuries, so those that incorporated it into astrology had a good grasp of its nature as it was so ingrained in the culture by the time astrology became well known. Rolfe gives sketches of facial characteristics and body types to help identify the various temperaments or humors as they are also called. Since most people are a combination of two or more humors a little imagination is required to blend the combinations.
Ancient medicine treated diseases and people according to their temperaments. We can see this in more modern works, Culpeper, for example. The idea is to seek a balance. If things are too hot, cool them off. If they are too dry, moisten them or vice versa. Rolfe does this with diet and exercise she claims will work with the various humors. Relationships are also covered. As we seek balance in our bodies in order to be at our best, the same is true in our relationships. We seek to find a kind of balance in that area as well. And finally some people are better suited to some careers than they are to others. This is a given. If we know a person is highly choleric and take away any chance of leadership opportunity, the native will be miserable. Or should we suggest a sanguine take up life in a monastery, he nor we will be pleased with the outcome.
These are the sorts of things that can be discussed during an astrological consultation. The temperament isn't all we will take into consideration, but we will miss a great deal if we ignore it.
Rolfe gives a test early on and the reader can quickly determine his or her dominant humor and read on accordingly. How does this test stack up with astrological determination? It's no substitute. To use an extreme example, I tested strongly melancholic. I have no earth in my chart (except the MC which is not used in the astrological determination of temperament). Furthermore I was born in the winter (phlegmatic) and have a choleric Moon (second quarter). Yet Ms Rolfe says I am melancholic and I do exhibit the melancholic characteristics covered in her book, but not the melancholic attributes mentioned in the astrology texts. Others may work out the same way in both. I've done no comparisons.
There are other points that the astrologer needs to keep in mind. The body types do not necessarily match the astrology texts. The traditional authors usually describe the choleric as medium height or slightly above, and a stocky build. Think of the warriors shown on ancient pottery or a modern European football player. ROlfe describes the choleric as tall with a "V" shaped upper torso (think Tiger Woods) with longer muscles. Both describe well formed muscular structure. Rolfe is describing contemporary Westerners. Culpeper was describing typical 17th century men. There may be a way to reconcile this sort of thing.
She actually uses the word "mercurial" to describe the melancholic, and I was taken aback by that, but Mercury rules and is exalted in Virgo, a melancholic sign. Maybe Mercury needs to be considered in assessing this temperament.
I draw the line where it says an ideal profession for a phlegmatic is a soldier. She looks at the military as service, and it is, but combat is a service better suited to cholerics.
Overall, coming to grips with this book is a great way to understand the concept and get a handle on the temperaments and how they manifest and can be put to good use. The differences between her take and astrology's can be reconciled one way or another. It's not difficult to become adept at identifying types either. I'll give a single anecdote.
This past Saturday I was out by myself and stopped in a cafe for lunch. I was sitting at an empty table when three young women (early to mid 20s at the oldest) sat down at the table next to mine and were gabbing amiably. I couldn't concentrate on my book and I looked up and watched as unobtrusively as I could. One woman was doing almost all of the talking. She had her back to me, so I couldn't see her face and as they were all sitting, I didn't get a precise idea of the body types of any of them, but I could pick out obvious physical characteristics. The woman to the talker's left looked phlegmatic and her reactions to the speaker were almost entirely emotional. She hung on every word and her responses when they came at all were accompanied by sighs and smiles all of which were indicating emotional involvement with the speaker's topic (I couldn't make out the topic or topics for that matter; it was too noisy). The more slender woman to the speaker's right was, I determined by the shape of her face and her long thin muscles, melancholic. She appeared to analyzed everything that was said and her interest was more analytical than emotional. Both were content to let the speaker do all the talking. My guess is the speaker was either choleric or sanguine, but that is more of a guess than a detailed observation.
They were pretty obviously friends and they were reacting to the temperament that balanced their own. The phlegmatic (cold and moist) would be an ideal complement to a choleric (warm and dry) but still would become involved (heat) with a sanguine (warm and moist). The melancholic would also compliment the warmer speaker. The phlegmatic and melancholic did not interact so much with each other as they both did with the speaker. The cold would prevent that, even as the moist and dry did compliment each other.
We could do the same thing internally, too. A choleric phlegmatic, might exhibit the inner turmoil extremes those opposites could produce, or might be balanced by them. Best to let the chart tell us that.
The book can be found on line for $5 US (plus shipping) or less if one hunts . It's an easy read and the topic is fascinating, or I found it to be so. It sure beats "His Mars is on my Venus so are we soul mates?" No if you're both choleric you'll fight a lot.
Give yourselves Christmas present and buy this one.
For many traditional astrologers temperament was the first thing worked out prior to a full natal delineation or perhaps the second after length of life. It is the basis for all that follows, yet it is hardly mentioned in some traditional texts, and never in modern astrology. However it seems only common sense that a highly choleric individual would react to, say a Mars - Jupiter square differently than the phlegmatic would react to the same configuration. The problem sets in when contemporary astrologers look at the temperament and assume it will be the same as the personality ("persona" is probably more accurate). It isn't and in fact what we readily see may not be what the person is at his or her core. Since modern astrologers are geared towards looking at everything in the chart as part of the personality, it makes no sense that a person we see as perpetually angry is really sanguine or melancholic by temperament. It just won't compute. Rolfe's book can help with this.
Temperament, both in and out of astrology, has much to do with the body as it does with the mind. In fact temperament theory predates horoscopic astrology by centuries, so those that incorporated it into astrology had a good grasp of its nature as it was so ingrained in the culture by the time astrology became well known. Rolfe gives sketches of facial characteristics and body types to help identify the various temperaments or humors as they are also called. Since most people are a combination of two or more humors a little imagination is required to blend the combinations.
Ancient medicine treated diseases and people according to their temperaments. We can see this in more modern works, Culpeper, for example. The idea is to seek a balance. If things are too hot, cool them off. If they are too dry, moisten them or vice versa. Rolfe does this with diet and exercise she claims will work with the various humors. Relationships are also covered. As we seek balance in our bodies in order to be at our best, the same is true in our relationships. We seek to find a kind of balance in that area as well. And finally some people are better suited to some careers than they are to others. This is a given. If we know a person is highly choleric and take away any chance of leadership opportunity, the native will be miserable. Or should we suggest a sanguine take up life in a monastery, he nor we will be pleased with the outcome.
These are the sorts of things that can be discussed during an astrological consultation. The temperament isn't all we will take into consideration, but we will miss a great deal if we ignore it.
Rolfe gives a test early on and the reader can quickly determine his or her dominant humor and read on accordingly. How does this test stack up with astrological determination? It's no substitute. To use an extreme example, I tested strongly melancholic. I have no earth in my chart (except the MC which is not used in the astrological determination of temperament). Furthermore I was born in the winter (phlegmatic) and have a choleric Moon (second quarter). Yet Ms Rolfe says I am melancholic and I do exhibit the melancholic characteristics covered in her book, but not the melancholic attributes mentioned in the astrology texts. Others may work out the same way in both. I've done no comparisons.
There are other points that the astrologer needs to keep in mind. The body types do not necessarily match the astrology texts. The traditional authors usually describe the choleric as medium height or slightly above, and a stocky build. Think of the warriors shown on ancient pottery or a modern European football player. ROlfe describes the choleric as tall with a "V" shaped upper torso (think Tiger Woods) with longer muscles. Both describe well formed muscular structure. Rolfe is describing contemporary Westerners. Culpeper was describing typical 17th century men. There may be a way to reconcile this sort of thing.
She actually uses the word "mercurial" to describe the melancholic, and I was taken aback by that, but Mercury rules and is exalted in Virgo, a melancholic sign. Maybe Mercury needs to be considered in assessing this temperament.
I draw the line where it says an ideal profession for a phlegmatic is a soldier. She looks at the military as service, and it is, but combat is a service better suited to cholerics.
Overall, coming to grips with this book is a great way to understand the concept and get a handle on the temperaments and how they manifest and can be put to good use. The differences between her take and astrology's can be reconciled one way or another. It's not difficult to become adept at identifying types either. I'll give a single anecdote.
This past Saturday I was out by myself and stopped in a cafe for lunch. I was sitting at an empty table when three young women (early to mid 20s at the oldest) sat down at the table next to mine and were gabbing amiably. I couldn't concentrate on my book and I looked up and watched as unobtrusively as I could. One woman was doing almost all of the talking. She had her back to me, so I couldn't see her face and as they were all sitting, I didn't get a precise idea of the body types of any of them, but I could pick out obvious physical characteristics. The woman to the talker's left looked phlegmatic and her reactions to the speaker were almost entirely emotional. She hung on every word and her responses when they came at all were accompanied by sighs and smiles all of which were indicating emotional involvement with the speaker's topic (I couldn't make out the topic or topics for that matter; it was too noisy). The more slender woman to the speaker's right was, I determined by the shape of her face and her long thin muscles, melancholic. She appeared to analyzed everything that was said and her interest was more analytical than emotional. Both were content to let the speaker do all the talking. My guess is the speaker was either choleric or sanguine, but that is more of a guess than a detailed observation.
They were pretty obviously friends and they were reacting to the temperament that balanced their own. The phlegmatic (cold and moist) would be an ideal complement to a choleric (warm and dry) but still would become involved (heat) with a sanguine (warm and moist). The melancholic would also compliment the warmer speaker. The phlegmatic and melancholic did not interact so much with each other as they both did with the speaker. The cold would prevent that, even as the moist and dry did compliment each other.
We could do the same thing internally, too. A choleric phlegmatic, might exhibit the inner turmoil extremes those opposites could produce, or might be balanced by them. Best to let the chart tell us that.
The book can be found on line for $5 US (plus shipping) or less if one hunts . It's an easy read and the topic is fascinating, or I found it to be so. It sure beats "His Mars is on my Venus so are we soul mates?" No if you're both choleric you'll fight a lot.
Give yourselves Christmas present and buy this one.
