The Temperament

1
Although this is a traditional technique, we?ve been discussing it in this Forum in a thread that started out as pertaining to the US Presidential candidates. A couple of things came up regarding temperament, so I thought I?d put some information about it here. Sadly, space and time to not permit a full explanation of even one technique used to determine temperament. I refer interested readers to John Frawley?s book The Real Astrology Applied and from there to the chapter on temperament. I also highly recommend Dorian Greenbaum?s work Temperament Astrology?s Forgotten Key. Greenbaum and Frawley use different methods but usually end up at the same place or close enough to it.

?Temperament? is actually the contemporary English word for the most basic part of our psychological make-up. The earlier astrological writers used the words ?temperature? or ?complexion? (see Christian Astrology page 532) to describe this facet of the native. In addition to any psychological components, it was used to determine physical appearance and the kinds of illnesses a person would be subject to during his or her life (Astrological Judgment of Diseases from the Decumbiture of the Sick, by Nicholas Culpeper).

Frawley compares the natal reading to that of a pyramid. The astrologer builds on the broad base and gradually narrows things down to a fine point. That broad base is the temperament. Everything, therefore, about the native is ultimately based on the temperament. If we put temperament at the foundation, and aspects closer to the top, the choleric native will react differently to a Mars ? Jupiter aspect than the melancholic native. This is why it is considered so important in a natal reading and also why one person will experience placements differently than another.

There are four basic temperaments, but most people are a combination of two or more.

Choleric is the fire temperament and it is related to Mars. It is hot and dry. Think of the warrior, or in contemporary society, the athlete. It is the temperament of action and of bringing about a change. Keep in mind we are not simply talking about temperature and humidity. All the descriptive words may be used as metaphors such as ?hot head? or ?cold shoulder? or ?dry sense of humor.?

Melancholic is the earth temperament and is associated with farmers. Its ruling planet is Saturn. It is cold and dry. It is not necessarily depressed in the modern sense of that word, although it can be. Melancholics are persistent once motivated. They are also capable of great feats of memory. Find someone with a great memory and you?ll probably find he or she has a strong melancholic streak.

Sanguine is the air temperament and is associated with scholars. It is hot and moist. Sanguine types are known for their social skills and easy movement among people. People may flock to and gawk at the famous athlete, but they will like the sanguine type.

Phlegmatic is the water temperament and is ruled by the Moon. This is the most difficult temperament to work with. More on that below. If you have an acquaintance that is relatively unmotivated until he or she ?feels like it,? they are probably strongly phlegmatic. They are often voted the most likely to end up alcoholic or drug addicted and if they don?t go to that extreme, they won?t be far from it. This represents the desire nature, i.e. a person motivated usually be desire and not by self improvement or responsibility.

As stated above two or more temperaments usually dominate. This is because we determine temperament by looking at several factors and combining them one way or the other to reach a broad composite. This is not precision work. Close is usually good enough. So one can be Choleric/melancholic or sanguine/phlegmatic. This usually means they exhibit the qualities of one or the other at different times or it can be blended.

The biggest problem is divorcing temperament from personality. By ?personality? I mean those characteristics of the individual that are readily seen by others. The ?class clown? is what we see. The terrible depression or low self esteem is hidden by it. It is possible to be jocular and melancholic if Mercury dominates Saturn for example. It is also true that some people wear their temperament on their sleeve, say, a choleric with Mars rising. The point is to determine the temperament without regard to what we know of the native. We need to force ourselves to be objective. John McEnroe?s sanguine temperament is ideally suited for the announcer?s booth, but what we saw and remember is his hyper-active Mars on the tennis court.

Temperament can be used quite effectively to determine a suitable profession. I?m thinking of a friend of my son?s who graduated from a prestigious university with a degree in engineering. He is an outgoing, assertive, athletic individual with a great sense of humor. I remember saying to my son that I couldn?t see him as an engineer at all. The engineers I work with are prissy, introverted, and think their wives should come with a manual that they could memorize and implement in order to get them to function better (they are said to have one of the highest divorce rates). Engineers don?t understand the difference between an erogenous zone and a check valve. They are melancholic types. True to form this young man, although he graduated near the top of his class has yet to practice engineering and went into sales and is quite successful to boot.

The main purpose of determining temperament is learning the best way to direct the life in profession as well as in other areas. Fire temperaments will usually end up well as fire rises naturally. Melancholics need a push, but like a boulder going downhill, once it starts it is difficult to stop. Phlegmatics are a problem. And here the moderns, once they have risen from their swoon, realize traditional astrology is not politically correct. Some people just have a harder time with life than others regardless of circumstances. I can?t help but think of young men who become instantly wealthy and famous by dint of their athletic prowess who then waste no time in throwing it all away. We all make mistakes, but some people never tire of it.

John Frawley explains the problems with the phlegmatic temperament in an old Astrologer?s Apprentice article on Janice Joplin. (No. 15). Janice is strongly phlegmatic, he tells us she needs the presence of a strong malefic in her chart or else she ends up just another anonymous dead junkie. Drop the anonymity and the result was the same. Janice did have a strong angular Saturn ruling her ASC. After all she did sing the blues. The most striking feature in her chart was the negative mutual reception between Saturn in Gemini (detriment of Jupiter) and Jupiter in Cancer (detriment of Saturn). Saturn as ASC ruler represented the depression in her life. Jupiter in his exaltation in the 5th house represented the excess. The mutual reception represented one feeding the other. The depression fed the excess and the excess fed the depression and the cycle continued until her death. A strong sanguine would not have reacted to the configuration that way or a strong choleric. She was phlegmatic. She gave into her desires.


Temperament can be used to help with interpersonal relationships. The strong sanguine is not going to remotely understand the strong melancholic and vice versa. But one who has sanguine as slightly dominating might be attracted to an individual who has melancholy in slight predominance. They will compliment each other rather than oppose each other. This astrological match making is far more likely to produce positive results than ?synastry? alone. It will work with professional relationships as well as sexual relationships and friendships.

I?ve only skimmed the subject and much more remains to be said. Again I recommend Greenbaum and Frawley as they are the two astrologers who seem to be doing more with this than anyone else. It is worth the study and effort. Moderns will be further shocked to discover that neither Frawley nor Greenbaum use the outer planets for the assessment of temperament: traditional rulerships only. Once the shock passes, it isn?t too difficult to handle.

If there are questions or comments, please feel free to post them here.


Tom

2
Two things that may cause confusion in the ones who are coming from modern astrology background.

first is to think that temperament is the "let?s add up" approach of astrology softwares. Say, you have pluto and uranus in libra, quiron and lilith in scorpio, let?s add them all up. You don?t calculate temperment that way.

second is that are many "pop interpretations" of the nature of the elements. Like "fire is creativity, drama, popularity". Air is "cold and intelectual" Don?t ! Stick to traditional definition of the elements. It is not jungian astrology, it is not tarot, it is not Myers-Briggs.

Creativity is one of those words which doesn?t mean anything anymore. And the original "fertility" idea is from water. Drama is also a water quality. Popularity in a choleric ? It may be, but in general cholera doesn?t like people, their weakness and needness. People may be attracted to this, but it doesn?t make a choleric a "people?`s person".

Air is related to thinking, but it doesn?t mean that the person is an intelectual. Air is hot, not cold, if you want to see a "cold intelectual" go for a strong melancholic !

To say a little good things about phleugmatics (as Tom thrashed them :P )
they are more "dramatic", have strong emotions, have a need to avoid conflict, are caring, passionate and compassionate with others.

Also, the temperament has great reflection in your phisical body, au contraire of the "psychological test" type of fake-temperament. The body of a strong choleric doesn?t resemble in anyway the body of a phleugmatic.

Temperament is a "rough guide" but it does work. In my work with clients, I only use temperament and lord of manners and people are very content with their description. No need to see if quiron is squaring pluto.
Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com

3
I do not think Culpepper had much to say about phlegmatics either when he described them.Not only that, his definitions seem biased in favour of men.I am presently looking at a chart of a female athlete who is quite feminine and self-assured when off duty. I do not have her birth-time and the add 'em up methods seem to rely on things like asc and aspects to them. I think that she has a melancholic streak mixed with sanguine.

Matt

PS Tom - She does not work with me so I cannot assess her office decorations and whether they are made of brass, fake fur or whatever :-?

4
I do not think Culpepper had much to say about phlegmatics either when he described them.
He said about as much about phlegmatics as he did the other temperaments. There is another bias held by the earlier writers. They all liked cholerics and sanguines and everything else pretty much stunk. The idea is that heat rises naturally whereas earth, water, and air all need help. Water needs the most help. Traditional astrology is not politically correct.

Not only that, his definitions seem biased in favour of men.

Yes they are, as are Lilly's, Gadbury's and every other writer in the 17th century later and before. You'll notice in CA all sorts of horary methods on how to determine if the wife is virtuous and not cheating, but very little to determine the same thing about men. It wasn't right, but it is a fact nonetheless.

Tom

5
Yes they are, as are Lilly's, Gadbury's and every other writer in the 17th century later and before.
Unfortunately this is very true.
Tommaso Campanella, the well known author of The City of the Sun, in his prediction for the Great Conjunction of 1603 mentioned as one of the most wicked examples of heresy of his times the fact that Elisabeth I was ruling in Great Britain and Caterina de Medici in France.
I'm sure women don't miss those times.

Margherita
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com

6
yuzuru wrote: Creativity is one of those words which doesn?t mean anything anymore. And the original "fertility" idea is from water. Drama is also a water quality. Popularity in a choleric ? It may be, but in general cholera doesn?t like people, their weakness and needness. People may be attracted to this, but it doesn?t make a choleric a "people?`s person".

Air is related to thinking, but it doesn?t mean that the person is an intelectual. Air is hot, not cold, if you want to see a "cold intelectual" go for a strong melancholic !
Exactly! It?s funny that in modern astrology Air is related to detachment, intellectualism, theory, etc. though it?s traditionally a warm and moist element. I agree fully that melancholic is the intellectual temperament (cold rationality, dry analysis).

One reason for calling Fire dramatic or even fertile lies probably in the Astrological Alphabet system: comparing houses 1-5-9 dealing with the body and regeneration with Fire, comparing houses 3-7-11 with Air etc. In the Thema Mundi chart the 1-5-9 trigon goes with Water (fertility, body and its desires, instincts etc.); the 2-6-10 trigon goes with Fire (competition, higher goals); the 3-7-11 trigon goes with Earth (the intellect, compares also quite well with the Jungian thinking type); and the 4-8-12 trigon goes with Air.
yuzuru wrote:To say a little good things about phleugmatics (as Tom thrashed them :P ) they are more "dramatic", have strong emotions, have a need to avoid conflict, are caring, passionate and compassionate with others.
Maybe we should establish a society for us trashed phlegmatics? my predominant temperament is phlegmatic but there is a strong Mars in Aries (undoubtedly the Lord of the Geniture) squaring the Ascendant. It helps fighting the inertia but it brings a lot of inner tension too. I tend to take up challenges and I?m usually not afraid to tell my opinion, but that?s detrimental to my mental / physical wellbeing (the Ascendant) which is nourished by a more slow and peaceful atmosphere and I'm often regretting the challenges and disagreements I've put myself into. People who don?t know me well see only that Mars, they wouldn?t see me as phlegmatic at all! But at home I?m slow, lazy and accommodating.

Sari

PS. I?ve finally started to look at tropical charts after all. All of the above is written from the tropical point of view. The traditional idea behind the elements works tropically better (which probably is not a surprise for you).

7
I remember that the vedic astrologer also have temperament, but apparently there are only three temperaments in vedic (and also in chinese medicine, I believe).

Maybe if you use the three vedic temperaments you will have better results. Western temperament is a very occidental, "tropical" concept :-)

I also am a phleugmatic, but with an aries asc. So I first want to punch people, and start the flames, but later on I am not ready to take all the bothering, as my cold temperament can?t get all the heat and dryness, and I start feeling very sick.

So, generally, when I see something very stupid and feel aries rising, I try to say "oh, well, live and let live" and just try to get into ignore mode.
Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com

8
I?ve been wondering to what extent the traditional and modern definitions of temperament and type correspond. If anyone has any better definitions than these or feel any of the following is inaccurate I would be grateful if they could let me know.


TRADITIONAL TEMPERAMENTS :

CHOLERIC: QUICKLY ROUSED, EGOCENTRIC, EXHIBITIONIST, HOT-HEADED, HISTRIONIC, ACTIVE

MELANCHOLIC: ANXIOUS, WORRIED, UNHAPPY, SUSPICIOUS, SERIOUS, THOUGHTFUL

SANGUINE: PLAYFUL, EASY GOING, SOCIABLE, CAREFREE, HOPEFUL, CONTENTED.

PHLEGMATIC: REASONABLE, HIGH-PRINCIPLED, CONTROLLED, PERSISTENT, STEADFAST, CALM
(Nb-this differs quite radically from Tom?s 1st post and Yuzuru?s 2nd post descriptions!)


SOURCE ? EYSENCK-?PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES?, 1985.
definitions - LINKED TO KANT (1798) AND WUNDT?S (1903) DESCRIPTIONS.


MODERN TYPES

FIRE / INTUITION: ?VITALITY AND SPONTANEITY?, ?CHILDREN AT HEART?, ?LIVE IN A WORLD OF FANTASY?, EXAGGERATED BEHAVIOUR.

EARTH / SENSATION: ?MAKES ORDER OUT OF THE RANDOM ARRAY OF STIMULI WHICH ASSAULT THE SENSE BY RELATING TO EACH ONE INDIVIDUALLY, SAVOURING IT, LEARNING ITS NATURE, AND MOVING ON TO THE NEXT?, ?AT HOME WITH THINGS?, ?USUALLY MANAGE MONEY AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN AN EFFORTLESS WAY?, ?UNCONCERNED WITH JUDEGEMNT EITHER BY PRINCIPLE OR BY FEELING, BUT SIMPLY TAKE EXPERIENCE AND EXPERIENCE IT?

AIR / THINKING: ?DETACHED, COMMUNICATIVE, INTERESTED IN THE WORLD OF IDEAS, AND FAVOURING RATIONALITY?.

WATER / FEELING: ?IMPORTANCE OF PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS AND HUMAN VALUES, AND WITHOUT THEM THE WORLD IS BARREN, DEVOID OF HOPE OR JOY?.

SOURCE ? GREENE- ?RELATING (1977)
Nb- Greene may well have refined these since this time.

Greene says that ? Jung?s four function type fit hand in glove with astrology?s ancient division of the four elements?.

If these temperament descriptions are accurate Greene?s merging of them with Jung?s types seems to create a 20th century type/temperament very different from the traditional descriptions. Almost unrecognisable for Phlegmatic. Papretis has already pointed out how Melancholic seems to fit the THINKING type more than SENSATION.

Another interesting aspect to this is how Jung was known to have been influenced by the humors, as well as other aspects to astrology, prior to writing his Psychological Types.

Finally, which interests me the most, the modern meanings of the signs resemble Greene?s types so presumably we have seen an enormous shift in meanings for these?

9
Billy wrote:Greene says that ? Jung?s four function type fit hand in glove with astrology?s ancient division of the four elements?.
I cannot understand how Greene can say this. Anyone who has read what Jung actually says in Psychological Types can see that those types don't fit with the four temperaments in the way Greene suggests (and the way Jung has suggested himself before). Warm and moist, sanguine Air is not like Jung's strict, disciplined Thinking type at all, neither is cold and dry, melancholic Earth like Jung's exuberant, epicurean Sensation type.

10
I agree it?s very interesting. Greene sees Jung?s thinking type as being your superior function indicating a rational mentality and perhaps more extroverted (interested in the object) than introverted. For her Air is masculine like Fire.

In ?Relating? she is talking about it in relation to the commonalities found amongst Gemini, Libra and Aquarius.

For me her ?detached, communicative, interested in the world of ideas, and favouring rationality? says more about these 3 signs than ?playful, easy going, sociable, carefree, hopeful, contented?. However I?m biased in terms of being familiar with the modern meanings of these signs and have little knowledge as to how they were seen in the past. For example, which of these 3 signs was linked to hopeful, carefree or contented. These strike me as being qualities more linked to Fire signs today

Psychological Astrologers are seeking to understand a person?s orientation primarily through the Sun, Moon, Asc, Ruling Planet, and Angular planets. Whereas looking at for example, Greenbaum?s temperament analysis Season, Moon Ruler, Moon Phase, and Almuten are seen as relevant to determining the temperament/type. So we have quite a profound shift in focus and weight here.

The only Temperament that I can relate to, albeit very superficially, is Melancholic. Yet when I put my chart through the Greenbaum analysis I come out 9-Phlegmatic, 3-Choleric and 0 for the other two. I fit Greene?s water type very precisely and the earth type second to this. So I?m really wondering about what Phlegmatic might have meant in the past and have I, we, misunderstood it somehow? The dictionary says a ?slow and stolid? temperament. What does this have to do with Cancer, Scorpio and Pisces? Sounds like Taurus to me? Or ? dull and apathetic indifference? , I can?t think of any sign this resonates with. Water signs are rarely indifferent I?d have thought. So I?m still lost with this humor.

I looked at Zondag?s ?Astro-Psychology? (1978) another Jungian Analyst (from memory?), I?d assume her and Greene have studied Jung more than me at least. She describes ?AIR/THINKING? as ?harmonious, friendly and agreeable?spoilt by a lack of firmness and consistency?, ?intellectual pre-disposition?, ?seeks logical relationships?, 'life is lived in the individuals own abstract and ideal world?.

She cites Jung as saying about this extraverted thinking type ?someone who is orientated towards objective phenomena in the form either of concrete facts or general ideas?.

So Zondag and Greene tend to agree on the relationship between Air signs and Jung?s Thinking type from what I can see here!

My version of Psychological Types is hidden or missing so I can?t check this out but looked at some of Jung?s comments in his Tavistock Lectures and Jacobi?s outline of his ideas and I can see where Greene and Zondag are coming from.

11
For me her ?detached, communicative, interested in the world of ideas, and favouring rationality? says more about these 3 signs than ?playful, easy going, sociable, carefree, hopeful, contented?. However I?m biased in terms of being familiar with the modern meanings of these signs and have little knowledge as to how they were seen in the past. For example, which of these 3 signs was linked to hopeful, carefree or contented. These strike me as being qualities more linked to Fire signs today
I don't ever recall meeting a "hopeful, carefree contented" Aries type. Aries seems to be the antithesis of contented in modern as well as traditional astrology. The same can be said of Leo and Sagittarius.
"Arians are full of energy and enthusiasm (because Aries is a fire sign ruled by Mars and Pluto); and because Aries is a cardinal sign Arians initiate new activities, which will keep them occupied until the novelty wears off." The Astrologer's Handbook by Sakoian and Acker

"Aries are like commandos; they charge right in and wipe out the opposition" Secrets From a Star Gazer's Notebook by Debbie Kempton Smith

Leo Desirable Characteristics, Loyalty, outspokenness, ardor tolerance, generosity philanthropy inspiration, magnetism, inspiration, hope industry fearlessness, ...

Leo Undesirable Characteristics: Arrogance, dictatorial manner, overbearing, condescension, impetuousness ... The A to Z Horoscope Maker and Delineator LLewellyn George 1981 edition
And for the traditional:
"Aries is a masculine, diurnal sign, moveable, Cardinal [not sure what Lilly is doing here: moveable and cardinal are synonymous in traditional astrology - tc] equinoctial; in nature fiery, hot and dry, choleric, bestial, luxurious, intemperate and violent: ..." Christian Astrology by William Lilly

Aries:Laughing and talkative, kingly and haughty, fond of poetry, sharp tongued, lustful, brave The Elements of Astrology Al Biruni

Sagittarius:
Kingly, reticent, liberal, tricky, prejudiced, a capable mathematician, surveyor, thoughtful about the next world, fond of horses, ... virile." Al Biruni
Most traditional texts list for fire signs "hot and dry" and then move on to body parts, diseases, places, minerals and animals ruled by the signs. How this plays out in the life is derived from that. The point is that traditional astrology would not delineate fire as "sociable, carefree, hopeful and contented" and neither do any moderns that I can find. Admittedly, I no longer have many sources for modern astrology.

The only Temperament that I can relate to, albeit very superficially, is Melancholic. Yet when I put my chart through the Greenbaum analysis I come out 9-Phlegmatic, 3-Choleric and 0 for the other two. I fit Greene?s water type very precisely and the earth type second to this. So I?m really wondering about what Phlegmatic might have meant in the past and have I, we, misunderstood it somehow?
In this and other parts of your post I wonder if you're using contemporary definitions to understand how older authors used these words. Contemporary definitions may not have been how older astrologers understood the words. For example today we would (correctly) use "depressed" as a synonym for "melancholic," but that word would not have necessarily meant "depressed" to Lilly, Culpeper, et al., if they understood "depressed" the way we do. Then there is the problem of translation from the Greek, Latin, Arab and other languages. But sticking with English, melancholic meant earthy, difficult to get moving, persistent, and practical to Lilly et al. This is the astrological temperament. If these words are taken to mean something else by contemporary readers it is understandable that the astrology will not make sense to them.

The dictionary says a ?slow and stolid? temperament. What does this have to do with Cancer, Scorpio and Pisces?
What does a contemporary dictionary have to do with traditional astrology? Words change meaning over time. The word "awful" used to mean "full of awe." That definition no longer holds.

Phlegmatic is the water temperament and it is difficult to direct. A melancholic type may be difficult to rouse, but he will be directed once he gets going. Directing water ranges from difficult to impossible. While older astrologers might have agreed with contemporary astrologers that it indicates a certain sensitivity (I can't imagine they would, but one never knows), they would also have quickly added "lazy," "self-indulgent," and "cowardly." Our modern sensibilities might find that a bit harsh, and it probably is, but judgments were more harsh in the 17th century and before. In Lilly's day, people may have seen a lazy, self indulgent, cowardly person as beyond salvation or close to it. 21st century folks might be more hopeful about such a person's prospects for positive change. Neither would see such characteristics as desirable.

Perhaps "phlegmatic" in the traditional sense is best explained by the greatest of all astrologers, William Shakespeare, through his character Falstaff, the corpulent hanger-on, expecting favors from his friend to carry him through his life of self indulgence. This is the phlegmatic "archetype (did I really use that word?)" in traditional astrology. Henry changes. Falstaff does not. Henry's temperament is different and he ultimately is no longer ruled by his base desires. Falstaff never overcomes his weaknesses. He lives for them.

I strongly advise avoiding modern texts and definitions when attempting to understand the past. Look at the Online Dictionary of Etymology, or (best) the OED. If you're really lucky and can find one, try Johnson's Dictionary. It is only about 100 years after Lilly's time.

We have to understand older astrology on its own terms and worldview. We are not, of course, required to accept it as correct, but if we don't understand it, criticism is pointless as it is not based on informed knowledge, and therefore the criticism is little more than prejudice. That traditional understanding of temperament differs from Jung is not surprising. But just as moderns are not required to accept the tradition, traditionalists are not required to accept Jung on astrology or anything else.

Tom

12
Hi Tom

I was wondering about ?content? being linked to Fire signs more than the others after I posted. Perhaps it?s more accurate to focus on how each sign obtains contentment than to say one, or a group, is more likely to be in this state. It?s not a word I would use in relation to any sign today by the way just trying to work out these humors.

I don?t have the Sakoain, Kempton-Smith and Llewelyn books but by reputation I understand these are quite superficial popular type books. The quotes you provided support this impression.

I only have the Concise Oxford here and it gives for Phlegmatic ? Unemotional and stolidly calm?. For phlegm ? a thick viscous substance?. produced in massive quantities during a cold and one of the 4 medieval humors ? believed to be associated with a calm or apathetic temperament?.

So not much joy here as the ?modern? water signs are hardly seen as calm, unemotional, apathetic, or stolidly calm?.

You have brought in lazy, self-indulgent and cowardly. The first and last resonate with the modern Pisces and the middle with Cancer to a lesser extent. Although Pisceans can be very brave in certain circumstances.

Kant?s 1798 description of Phlegmatic
?Phlegma means lack of emotion, not laziness; it implies the tendency to be moved, neither quickly or easily, but persistently. Such a person warms up slowly, but he retains the warmth longer. He acts on principle, not by instinct, his happy temperament may supply the lack of sagacity and wisdom. He is reasonable in his dealings with other people, and usually gets his way by persisting in objectives while appearing to give way to others?.

Wiki gives this:
A phlegmatic person is calm and unemotional. Phlegmatic means "pertaining to phlegm", corresponds to the season of winter (wet and cold), and connotes the element of water.
While phlegmatics are generally self-content and kind, their shy personality can often inhibit enthusiasm in others and make themselves lazy and resistant to change. They are very consistent, relaxed, rational, curious, and observant, making them good administrators and diplomats. Like the sanguine personality, the phlegmatic has many friends. However the phlegmatic is more reliable and compassionate; these characteristics typically make the phlegmatic a more dependable friend.

It strikes me as probable that Jung, Greene and Zondag would have researched Phlegmatic to the extent that they felt it was related to the genesis of meanings given to the 'modern' water signs. But I at least don?t know their sources. I can?t see Kant helping them much but the Wiki gets more watery in the modern sense, but only marginally.

The other way of doing it is to go from modern to traditional so I?ve picked some terms used at Wikipedia for the Water signs, which seem to crop up regularly even in the more advanced literature.

Protective, Shrewd, Clinging, Intense, Reserved, Compassionate, Impractical, Gullible.

So in your opinion which of these wiki water words, if any, relate to any (not just phlegmatic) of the old humors?

Also do you have any alternative traditional descriptions for Phlegmatic? I?m conscious that Kant, as far as I know, wasn?t an astrologer.