16
Margherita wrote:
I saw this method used a lot of time- there is no trace of signs. And planets should be evaluated, no Venus is cold and moist or Saturn cold and dry.
I agree with everything you say. I know, I am as surprised as you. :)

As you point out solar phase plays a major part in modifying the quality of the planets. Its a good point you make on the signs. Ptolemy is basically the originator of astrological temperament and discusses this in Book III
chapter 11. 'Of Bodily Form and Temperament.' While he assigns qualities to the signs earlier in the Tetrabiblos he doesn't use these at all in temperament assessment.

It seems that including the quality of the signs in temperament analysis may have been Galen's idea although I haven't read any translations of his astrological work. Quite simply because most of it has never been translated into English. Although there is a very expensive edition of Galen's De diebus decretoriis, (On Critical Days) by Glen M. Cooper. The standard medieval approach to temperament seems to be a cobbling together of elements of both systems.

For Ptolemy it is the the planets that are important in assessing temperament not the signs. We look at all the planetary rulers of the ASC and Moon to see which planets predominate. We also look at any planets or prominent fixed stars near the ascendant. Plus when it comes to the qualities it is the quality of the planets he considers not the signs. Although the planets have essential natures these go through some transformation due to solar phase.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

17
To me, Fern sounds as much phlegmatic as she does melancholic. Her body type sounds melancholic, the phlegmatic type tends to be fleshy, but crying at the drop of a hat and being unsocial is phlegmatic. Melancholic s are not always depressed (although they can be). They might be dour, but still have that dry sense of humor.

18
Deb wrote:
Theresa, I think a problem with this thread was confusion over what you are looking for. By beginning with a question - whether traditional techniques were first used in sidereal charts? ? your post appeared to want to stimulate debate over this.
No, I meant that now we have an open door to test traditional techniques in the sidereal zodiac. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. As far as I could see in all the traditional literature out there, everyone discusses only the tropical.
Reading your latest post I now believe that you weren?t looking to generate debate so much as promote discussion amongst those with a more purely sidereal focus
.

Actually I was hoping that perhaps there might be one or two forum members who were curious about sidereal signs and might want to read something by someone who has worked with them for many years.
Discussion of sidereal perspectives are very welcome here, so please don?t feel the need to leave the forum as I would like to encourage you to keep up the posts.
Thank you, Deb. I will try to be clear in what I post. At present I'm mainly interested in highlighting planetary positions in the sidereal. I am not saying that tropical perspectives don't work for those who use them. I'm giving an alternate view. I'm really not so interested in debate as in friendly discussion. It seems that too often astrologers take an alternate view as an attack on their own perspective.
What might be helpful is to flag your interest in the exploration of sidereal concerns at the start of your posts,
I thought the title of the thread assumed that, but I can continue to emphasize that point.

Therese
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

19
Tom wrote:To me, Fern sounds as much phlegmatic as she does melancholic. Her body type sounds melancholic, the phlegmatic type tends to be fleshy, but crying at the drop of a hat and being unsocial is phlegmatic. Melancholic s are not always depressed (although they can be). They might be dour, but still have that dry sense of humor.
This is the problem with labels, and why I prefer a simple description of behavior over any particular classification system. This is one reason I left the psychological field after going to the trouble of getting an M.A. in psychological counseling. It seems that after all, the planets themselves are the best way to describe our personalities and behavior. That is my own belief and conclusion. The next step for me is to explore how the planets manifest in each sign of the zodiac. It gets complicated, of course, because we have aspects and dispositors to consider.

Therese
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

20
This is the problem with labels, and why I prefer a simple description of behavior over any particular classification system.
And the problem with having been exposed to modern astrology and to pop psychology is that we have a tendency to misunderstand the astrological concept of temperament. We automatically associate it with personality and a description of behavior. It's not, but I admit it is difficult to describe it without making it sound that way.

Temperament in astrology is a description of the body and the diseases it might be most susceptible to. Psychologically it is the base motivation which may or may not be pretty close to the personality. More often than not you have to look at the individual long and hard to see it. I use the same two examples over and over and I should probably switch but until that time think about these:

George S. Patton Old Blood and Guts (a nickname he despised, and in fact is technically sanguine) was not the fiery choleric that we see in the motion picture starring George C. Scott. He was melancholic with a good dose of sanguine. Melancholics persevere (which is why I don't see Fern as a melancholic temperament. She gives up and cries. That's phlegmatic). Melancholics are cold and a wartime field general has to stow the emotions in order to make sound decisions. His significator of manners, closer to the personality or what we see, was Mars. That's where the fire comes from.

The second example is tennis great John McEnroe. On the court he is as fiery a competitor as you'll find. His outbursts and apparently uncontrollable temper are pure choler. But Mac is a sanguine as befits his body type. He is older now and we all change in time, but his sanguine temperament is better noted with his seemingly effortless and precise analysis in his job as commentator. Also when he came up, tennis was less crash and bash and more of a thinking man's sport. It's no coincidence that Mac's favorite player was Rod Laver, a finesse player if there ever was one.

So astrological temperament is not simple behavior (not that all of our behavior is simple). It is that force that motivates us in one direction or in many directions. That force may manifest as personality, but it doesn't have to. It is deeper than personality, and in my very often less than humble opinion, it deserves a good deal of attention.

Re: Fern, an Extreme Melancholic

21
Mmargherita wrote:
I want to add something.

To be more precise I don't know what you mean by Aristotlean qualities, but if you read the chapter dedicated in Ptolemy there is no mention to signs.
I have not used Ptolemy as my reference, Margherita, but various writings of students of philosophy. Ptolemy isn't one of my favorite writers, so I don't refer to him often. I prefer Valens and the Arabic writers. But thank you for the tropical viewpoint, which is also well expressed in Greenbaum's book.

Therese
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

22
Tom wrote:
Temperament in astrology is a description of the body and the diseases it might be most susceptible to. Psychologically it is the base motivation which may or may not be pretty close to the personality. More often than not you have to look at the individual long and hard to see it.
This sounds very similar to India's ayurvedic system. It would be interesting to compare them. Perhaps it's been done. If one must "look at the individual long and hard to see it," then we can't make quick astrological judgments, and you, Tom, already disagree with Greenbaum regarding Fern.

Your post has been very helpful. Then, for myself, it's best to stay with simple psychology (not "pop" psychology since I'm trained in the field)...and I do often shudder at the casual statements astrologers make about personality and character based on the natal chart. Too many astrologers have had little or no training in the psychology they emphasize in their chart readings. And it seems if we're going to be concerned with temperment, then we should be professionally trained in that as well. We can't expect to see the whole picture from the natal chart. As human beings, we are complex creatures!
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

23
Here is an easy way to settle the Tropical v Sidereal zodiac debate:

Examine cardinal ingress figures preceding spectacular (usually violent) world events using both the tropical and sidereal zodiac.

The winner is the one which most freqently places malefics on the angles.

I will admit I have not done such a study, but I am very familiar with cardinal ingress figures using the tropical zodiac and I would be very surprised if the sidreal zodiac gave better results.

24
Stellarium wrote:I will admit I have not done such a study, but I am very familiar with cardinal ingress figures using the tropical zodiac and I would be very surprised if the sidreal zodiac gave better results.
I haven't done so either, but I would not consider it a very useful test of zodiacs. From a siderealist perspective, one chart would be cast for the Aries (etc) ingress, the other for the vernal equinox (etc); and the latter may well be considered an important point in time for mundane astrological purposes without making it define the zodiac. In other words, your test would perhaps show whether the tropical or sidereal year is most useful in mundane astrology, but the zodiacs would have to be tried in some other way.

25
Therese wrote:
I have not used Ptolemy as my reference, Margherita, but various writings of students of philosophy. Ptolemy isn't one of my favorite writers, so I don't refer to him often. I prefer Valens and the Arabic writers. But thank you for the tropical viewpoint, which is also well expressed in Greenbaum's book.
Well we all have preferences. However, in regards a system of assessing astrological temperament Ptolemy is the basic originator of the whole approach. So to leave him out is leaving a massive hole in any attempt to understand the traditional approach to temperament.

Valens hasn't left behind a temperament theory. You cant really assess a person using the scant references in the Anthology. Valens does make our first distinct reference to the elements associated with signs. However, this is a very long way away from a fully fledged technique as we have described by Ptolemy.

As for the Persian and Arabs they are largely deriving their approach to temperament from Ptolemy. The only exceptions being the qualities associated with signs which seems to derive from Galen. Equally, different approaches to the planets essential nature developed and one could adopt those.

Mark
Last edited by Mark on Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

26
Therese Hamilton wrote: This is the problem with labels, and why I prefer a simple description of behavior over any particular classification system.
I don't agree here. The temperament system was a codified system very logic and working too for many aspects. Think to herbal medicine . It worked and in many cases anticipated modern medicine because it was based on temperament theory.

Moreover I agree with Tom, there is not just temperament. Temperament can be one side but what Ptolemy calls "soul" , psychological qualities are other. They can have different significators, because they depend on different planets.

In fact there are authors like Montulmo who try to conciliate them using for determining the ruler of the soul the Ascendant too.

Temperament is more innate, is a priori. Think to Schettino, a typical - for me- phlegmatic (even if with social side but without the generosity of the sanguine). In the difficulty the first thought is for him. It's not his fault in a sense, it's a just a phlegmatic.

It seems that after all, the planets themselves are the best way to describe our personalities and behavior. That is my own belief and conclusion.
There are several authors like Della Porta who talk about the 7 planets and give the qualities of the native. But then he always says that these qualities don't come from the star, but from the temperament.
I have not used Ptolemy as my reference, Margherita, but various writings of students of philosophy. Ptolemy isn't one of my favorite writers, so I don't refer to him often. I prefer Valens and the Arabic writers. But thank you for the tropical viewpoint, which is also well expressed in Greenbaum's book.
I know :)
In my opinion in the English literature there is not a systematic comment to Tetrabiblos. And Ptolemy should be explained a little because it is not always evident and so maybe it is not evident that things are more variegate of what it seems, that some authors commented a way and others in the opposite sense... It's difficult to explain, let us say that I have read even explication line by line.

In every case I know you used qualities taken by several authors, but I'm not sure they really would consider all the planets, stellium included. It sounds a little modern to me, but honestly I don't know.

In every case Fern case is strange to me too, too much Mars.
margherita
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com

27
Stellarium wrote:
I will admit I have not done such a study, but I am very familiar with cardinal ingress figures using the tropical zodiac and I would be very surprised if the sidreal zodiac gave better results.
mmm the problem I have here is that there seems to be a lot of differences in the systems on offer (irrespective of which zodiac we use). They can often produce a quite different outcome depending on how you approach various issues.

Here are some of them:

1 Some use the qualities of the signs -some dont ( e.g. Ptolemy)
2 Some rely on the essential nature of planets others rely more heavily on their solar phase. In contemporary approaches compare Greenbaum, Frawley and Luis Ribeiro.
3 Dignities. Different triplicity and term (bound) rulers. In particular Ptolemy vs Dorothean triplicities or Egyptian bounds.
4 How do we assess rulers of ASC or Moon? Some medievals use domicile ruler + Almuten. Some use just use domicile ruler. Others look at all the planetary rulers using all 5 dignities equally without an Almuten. Some ignore face ruler (decan) e.g. Montulmo.
5 Planets in 1st house ASC. Some systems ignore planets in ASC or aspecting it as this is seen as an accidental dignity. Greenbaum adopts this attitude.
6 Confusion over whether to use the luminaries as ASC ruler
7 Solar season. Some argue Ptolemy wasn't suggesting we use Solar season as part of the calculation. Instead chart quadrants from the angles are used. Examples Guiseppe Bezza and Margherita Fiorello.
8 Some use planetary ruler of the Moon other use its sign.
9 Fixed stars. Some sources use these others dont.

Then there are basic issues like what house system do we use? Relevant if we include planets in the first house affecting temperament.

So if we were going to conduct such a test we need an agreed system which could be very difficult.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly