I am really fascinated by the topic of temperament analysis. I have used several methods and found that for me, Avelar and Ribeiro?s comes closest to my temperament, followed by Greenbaum?s. Frawley?s is so completely off it is almost comical!

Here is my question and concern. When it comes to looking to the Ascendant?s ruler (but in other matters too), there seems to be debate about whether to use the intrinsic nature of the planets themselves, or the signs they happen to be in?or some combination of both.

At first blush, it may appear to be largely academic. But there are at least TWO instances in which the difference can be overwhelming and utterly alter the temperament analysis.

In my own chart, my Aquarius Ascendant, Sanguine Hot and Moist is ruled by Saturn, Cold and Dry, Melancholic?two totally different qualities?almost having the effect of ?cancelling? out one or the other. The same issue occurs with at least one other sign: Scorpio Cold Moist Phlegmatic ruled by Mars Hot Dry Choleric.

?Losing? the testimony of either the Ascendant or its Ruler in such a way is a big problem. So for me, with these two examples, it doesn?t seem right to include the intrinsic nature of the planet in the analysis. Rather, we should consider the sign placement of the ruling planet?as the sign is ?coloring? and impacting the planet and how it works in the chart.

My Leonine Saturn contributes to the heavy Choleric emphasis of my temperament, but the Sanguine sub-temperament is picked up by the Ascendant?s nature, and two planets in Air signs tightly and partilely aspecting the Ascendant. The Moon is also in Leo, and I was born in late August?more Choleric features. If, however, I went with the inherent nature of the planets instead of the signs they are in, I would ?lose? both dominant temperaments?the Choleric from Saturn in Leo and the Sanguine from Ascendant?effectively canceling out of two of the most important features in temperament analysis.

Does anyone have thoughts on this matter? Do people see how, at least with the examples of Aquarius and Scorpio there is an inherent problem using the planet?s intrinsic nature, rather than sign? I wouldn?t be surprised if there are some VERY differing opinions on this, and welcome polite debate!

Thanks! JP

Well, what's your temperament in your opinion?

Principally, the planets are more influential than the signs, so I would put more weight in the planets than the signs. However, this emphasis is, I believe, more present in Hellenistic times. On the other hand, all these temperament techniques were developed based on Medieval works (again this is my opinion), so that principle may not apply.

I would propose that instead of using these techniques only on yourself, you should use it on at least a small number of people (N=10 minimum, N=30 is preferred.) This way you can determine in a more universal manner the effectiveness of the techniques.

Lilly does address this in his short work "Necessary Observations" He says of Saturn

If Saturn be in Aries his driness is increased and his coldness abated,or he is intensly dry or remissly cold. In Taurus he acts with a double force he is intensly cold and dry, in Gemini he is remissly (less) cold and dry, In Cancer he is intensly cold but remissly dry

If the Planet aspects the ascendent then it has a major influence on the temperament as you know.

In these schema we tend to give one point to each quality but just prior to this Lilly says

Saturn is extremely cold and dry Jupiter is remissly hot and dry

and so on through the planets. Maybe we should award say Saturn three points each for cold and dry and Jupiter one only for hot and dry.

Morin proposes something similar. In the appendix of AG Book eighteen he says Saturn is 3.5 cold and 3 dry whilst Jupiter is just 1.5 hot and 1 point cold with other values for the rest.

This may avoid the cancelling out factor that often leads to final results being fairly even for all four temperaments

Matthew

Interesting point, Matthew. I think it's definitely a good idea to add a quantitative magnitude to the planet's nature.

However, we need to be very careful in our assignment of such quantities. Empirical studies are warranted before we accept any of the values assigned.

Another issue is that if we accept that planets have different levels of their nature, what about the signs? Do they have a 1 magnitude for each of their nature always? These are things we may have to think about.


Truly, if we look at Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, we will find that each planet not only bears different natures, but also have differing levels of these natures.

For example, Mars is excessively dry (likely drier than Saturn) and hotter than Jupiter, and Ptolemy says that Jupiter is more warm than moist, while Venus is more moist than warm.

Thanks Larxene and Matthew. Yes, I should have also said that in addition to my own chart, I noticed similar things in other charts, most notably with Scorpio Rising. Some of these people I knew well and could see something was just way 'off', and others I didnt know well and they told me "that's just not me at all." Of course then there are the times when the temperament analysis just works uncannily well--but in those (most) cases, the problem I identified was not present.

I use my example because I know both my chart and myself well enough (at least I hope!) to know that if I went purely with the intrinsic nature of the planets, the analysis goes way off. My Choleric (dominant) Sanguine (sub-dominant) temperament turns more Melancholic. Frawley's analysis actually says I'm Phlegmatic, the temperament that is furthest from me!--that was through a computer program that claimed to use Frawley's method, I should hasten to add, and I was born 13 hours before the Moon became a new moon, which would be a balsamic moon--barely--and that imparts Phlegmatic--but nothing else hits upon Phlegmatic. Of course we are all mixtures, aren't we? We are trying to determine which--if any--factors are dominant.

Interesting that Lilly calls Jupiter Hot and Dry! I thought Jupiter was fairly consistently Hot and Wet and Sanguine, as part of its buoyancy and expressiveness and enthusiasm.

I want to think more about how Lilly and other combine the effects of Planets and Signs. Avelar and Ribiero's "On the Heavenly Spheres" seems to point toward using the signs that the planets are in, rather than 'mixing' the affects of intrinsic nature of planets with nature of signs. Again, that method comes closest for me and for several others, where there had been conflicting results.

By the way, in case anyone is interested, there are a few temperament 'tests' available online. Obviously, this needs to be considered just for fun, rather than anything like a serious scientifically-based personality assessment.

Here is a link to one--it doesn't open well in Chrome, but does fine in Safari.

http://neoxenos.org/wp-content/blogs.di ... t_test.htm

Tom wrote:
But as Frawley notes, temperament is rough work. Quantitative systems can cause the astrologer to miss that point by their nature. The qualitative approach has the advantage of letting the astrologer see that temperament is not cast in stone.

I don't see how the last statement is supported by your previous statements, though I agree to some extent that temperament is rough, not precise.

Tom wrote:
That two charts turn out to have choleric dominant does not mean the temperament's are identical. One could be hotter and drier and therefore more choleric than the other despite both dominating an individual chart. Temperament is the basis, it is not the end.

Agreed, as even the planets have differing degrees of heat and moisture, though again the last line, "...it is not the end", what does this mean?

Tom wrote:
A Phlegmatic with Mars on the ASC in a fire sign might not appear so phlegmatic, but the phlegm is there and becomes noticeable only after really getting to know the person.

Tom wrote:
My favorite example is General George Patton whom most people would leap to the conclusion that his temperament is choleric. It isn't. He was melancholic. His Mars dominated though and that is what people saw.

Yes. I have experienced this firsthand.

Tom wrote:
Melancholics are known for their superior memories. Patton had learning difficulties and virtually memorized his way through West Point. His Mars put what he learned into action.

Really? As a Melancholic/Phlegmatic myself, I don't consider my memory that great. I can remember the general thread of a story, but I often retain only a rough version of the details.

However, I guess there are some exceptions. I can recall information quite well if a) I'm interested and b) the information is processed in a visual-tactile manner.

Tom wrote:
Temperament can be very deep. "I'm not that way" might be objectively true if we limit the observation to what is first seen by others. Temperament is what is underneath "that way."

Agreed.

I don't see how the last statement is supported by your previous statements,

Which previous statements? I don't see the contradiction.

the last line, "...it is not the end", what does this mean?

Poorly constructed sentence on my part. It should have read "Temperament is the beginning of the delineation, not the end (of the delineation)." Too many people confuse temperament with personality, i.e. the obvious behavior of the native. That is not subtle temperament.

Really? As a Melancholic/Phlegmatic myself, I don't consider my memory that great.

No one's experience is universal. Memory and the melancholic temperament are usually linked. For example it was said that the great English poet John Milton, a melancholic, had memorized most or all of the Bible. He wrote Paradise Lost while blind - that takes a great memory. This is, of course a generalization. But temperament is also a generalization. Regardless the Patton example was to point out that despite his, at times - he was a complex character- choleric behavior he was melancholic.

JPskyman wrote:By the way, in case anyone is interested, there are a few temperament 'tests' available online. Obviously, this needs to be considered just for fun, rather than anything like a serious scientifically-based personality assessment.

Here is a link to one--it doesn't open well in Chrome, but does fine in Safari.

http://neoxenos.org/wp-content/blogs.di ... t_test.htm

I did it twice cause some questions are tricky and get sanguine followed by melancholy,this fits gemini AC and lord in another air sign. But by Greenbaum method I was mainly phlegmatic-sanguine

Yes, some of them are tricky and like most 'tests' like this, there is either no ideal option or it is close between a couple of options.

For me, the tests are most helpful to see which clearly temperament emphasis sticks out, but also to see the temperaments proportionally in a person. So for me, it ends up being close to 45% Choleric, 30% Sanguine, and then the rest is Melancholic, with only a modicum of Phlegmatic.

So finding methods astrologically that come close to the proportions in tests like the one I linked to can be helpful.

Now of course, as a BIG caveat, this is NOT science--nor is it intended to be science or in anyway exact! I think a lot of astrology is about looking deeper through the symbols and trying to discern some understanding--temperament is just one of the fascinating things can we attempt to use astrology to discern.

And I totally agree with Tom and some of the others who have talked about temperament not being static nor personality. Those are important distinctions, and I am glad that Tom thoughtfully raised them.

But using the test is a fun and interesting way--not the only way, by any means--for people to assess methodologies.

For me, if I use a method that looks at:

a) the Sign on the Ascendant
b) the Sign of the Ascendant's Ruler
c) the Sign of the Moon
d) Season of the Year (e.g., Summer-Choleric)

I get a very good match for me, and for several other charts--it is quick and simple, and combines key features of what most commentators believe affect temperament: Ascendant Sign and its Ruler, the Moon and the Sun. This works most of the time, I have found.

I can expand the analysis and 'fill it out' with a few others, and still maintain a proper ratio of temperament emphases:

e) the Signs of Planets that Aspect the Ascendant, Moon [and/or Sun]*
f) the Sign of the Sun
g) the Phase of the Moon.

* I bracketed the Sun here because it doesn't seem that too many commentators discuss aspects to the Sun, compared to aspects to the Moon or Ascendant.

I should note that I do not separate out Hot Cold, Dry Moist, but the combinations themselves. So Hot Dry = Choleric; Hot Moist = Sanguine; Cold Dry = Melancholic; Cold Wet = Phlegmatic. So I do not separate out the qualities themselves and then add those together--I know that others do do that.

Now, this method also gets at the issue that I initially posed--should we use the Planet's SIGN or its NATURE? Again, for me, the results would be rather different and inconsistent with my actual temperament (fully noting the exceptions and examples given by Tom and others) if we went with the planets' intrinsic natures rather than signs. When the nature of one's Ascendant Ruler is of totally different nature than the nature of the Ascendant itself, you can get a mismatch--and the Aquarius/Saturn, Scorpio/Mars, are two striking examples of that.

Perhaps the lesson of all of this is to look as deeply as possible at the symbols, using the rules and conventions of astrological interpretation and delineation to help guide your thinking and analysis. And of course, to think deeply about the chart and the person in front of you--especially if that person is yourself.