3
From Lilly:

New to 1st quarter - hot & moist (sanguine)
1st quarter to full - hot & dry (choleric)
Full to last quarter - cold & dry (melancholic)
Last quarter to new - cold & moist (phlegmatic)

5
Interesting article, Andrew, though I'm not sure that I agree with Crane's argument for starting at the winter solstice, as per Ptolemy, rather than the spring equinox.

6
Thanks you for your replies.
For now I prefer Ptolemy's method as it seems more logical to me: the new moon whose surface is under no sun beams is cold and wet, first quarter is still wet, but hotter, then the moon goes dry at the full moon phase when it is still hot, then it starts to become colder.

If I recall correctly, I read Lilly himself is not certain of his method. Do you have any observations which one is closer to the truth - Lilly's or Ptolemy's, and which one do you prefer?

7
Ptolemy's reasons for the elemental makeup of the planets is muddled (See Tetrabiblos I chapter 4 in Robbins). He claims the effect of the Sun is heating and to a certain degree drying. Then he says the Moon humidifies because it is close to the earth, but when the Moon and the Sun are conjunct the effect is cold and moist as though the power of the Moon overtakes the power of the Sun. Then the further the Moon is removed from the Sun the warmer it gets. This makes little sense to me. I'd stick with Lilly.

Tom

8
Maybe Ptolemy has in mind only the visible side of the moon?
On the other hand, I see the change of distance between Sun and Moon (as the Moon rotates around the Earth) as too small to be sensible difference between hot and cold.

9
Actually, to quote Dorian Greenbaum (Temperament, p. 81):
While Ptolemy talks about increasing wetness between New Moon and First Quarter, he specifically does not say that the New Moon is wet; it is at the Emergence phase that wet begins to increase. Therefore, as Robert Hand points out in his note in the Schmidt translation of the Tetrabiblos, the New Moon must be cold, not wet.
As Hand states in his note to the Tetrabiblos, Book I, p. 19:
We have here not four boxes containing qualities but four phases in the continuous ebb and flow of the four qualities.
Does the power of the Moon overtakes the power of the Sun? Sir Harold Spencer Jones writes in General Astronomy, p. 111:
When the Moon overtakes the Sun it is said to be in conjunction. This occurs when the longitudes of the Sun and Moon are equal.
K. S. Charak in Elements of Vedic Astrology writes much the same.

See for example:

http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Astronomy/Rahu.html

Ptolemy may have had eclipses on his mind.

But I too would stick with Lilly. As well as with Al Biruni, Ibn Ezra, Bonatti, Dariot, and Schoener.

10
It is the Greenbaum's method I used to determine the temperament of a person I know. Her temperament is Melancholic and psychological tests confirm this. (As we know, in reality there are no pure temperaments - a person has one primary temperament mixed with the others in different correlation.)
With Greenbaum's method, she gets 0 points Choleric, 5 points Sanguine, 3 points Melancholic and 2 points Phlegmatic. Which isn't the truth. Also, she has more choleric than sanguine qualities. Greenbaum's method doesn't work with my friend. On the other hand, it works fine with me.

11
Greenbaum's method doesn't work with my friend. On the other hand, it works fine with me.
I think her method is an inspired attempt at simplification and systematization. I see it as a work-in-progress rather than a definitive and final view.

I also think that temperament is confused with manners. Temperament is character, sufficient unto itself, but manners is personality; it is essentially expressed in relation to other people. Character is who you are, personality is how you behave, and what others see (or think they see) of you.

12
Andrew wrote:I also think that temperament is confused with manners. Temperament is character, sufficient unto itself, but manners is personality; it is essentially expressed in relation to other people. Character is who you are, personality is how you behave, and what others see (or think they see) of you.
Agree. That's why, if one is going to compare real vs. predicted temperament, one needs to use a psychological test; personal observations are not enough.