Moss-clad took me a really long time to get how it meant “sluggish,” but might I suggest instead “lag”? What other suggestions do you guys have.
?
Black bile - earth - melancholy - depressed, moody
Blood - air - sanguine - sociable, pleasure seeking
Phlegm - water - phlegmatic - steady, stodgy
Yellow bile - fire - choler - aggressive
At least in European tradition. And I find it somewhat disconcerting that I know this offhand, as well as the proper Tacuinum Sanitatis prescribed diet and lifestyle changes to correct an overabundance of these. :dubious:
For dietary purposes, all things were broken down to a position on a cold–hot axis and on a dry–wet axis. The humors broke down"
melancholic - cold/dry
sanguine - hot/moist
phlegmatic - cold/wet
choleric - hot/dry.
Healthy humans were supposed to be mildly warm and mildly moist. So you could be too sanguine.
I’m guessing that someone being either melancholic or phlegmatic were being unemotional, but that a melancholic would be irritated by it and a phlegmatic would be, if not content with it, at least not bothered by it.
Cecil says: mad, sad, glad, and moss-clad. I don’t think you can beat that and still rhyme. If you want to break the rhyme scheme, you could go for batrachian. Lovecraft would have.
Nothing rhymes with “phlegmatic”? What about Enigmatic?
“Automatic”, “phatic”, “enigmatic”, “static”, “emphatic”… But it’s not “phlegmatic” that needs to be rhymed.
Sanguine need the -ic rhyme.
“Had” rhymes.
Make some sense too, if you look at only one part of the picture - the negative aspect of being ‘doormats’.
http://temperaments.fighunter.com/?page=phlegmatic
Mind you, I don’t think one word can sum up any of the “temperaments” exactly. Neither do I think four distinct groups is a valid classification of the endless range of possible individual variations - to say nothing of the way our attitudes and modes of interaction might change throughout life.
Still, it was fun to think about… Cheers.
I’m not well-versed in the theory, but I believe it doesn’t require each person to be categorized into one of the four temperaments. Rather, each person has his own unique blend of the four that produces his unique personality.
Powers &8^]
That is correct, I think. Had I examined the site I cited more carefully, I would’ve found it says as much.
It might be worth noting also, each of the “temperaments” represents an imbalance respecting two of the four “humours” (or “elements”).
In that sense they are all “bad”, in one way or another. 
I think it is worth pointing out that each of the humors (and associated personalities) was supposed to have complementaty good and bad aspects.
[ul]
[li]The melancholic (black bile) person, as well being depressed and moody was also likely to be someone with psychological, emotional, and intellectual depth and insight. Creative geniuses (perhaps creative people in general) were generally expected to be melancholics.[/li][li]The sanguine (blood), as well as being cheerful and easy-going were also vapid and shallow.[/li][li]The phlegmatic, as well as being stogy stick-in-the-muds were also supposedly calm and level-headed. Immanuel Kant claimed that he saw a phlegmatic, and that it was the best of the four sorts of personality to have.)[/li][li]The choleric (yellow bile), as well as being aggressive and quick to anger was also a decisive person, a man of action. Great leaders were typically expected to be cholerics.[/li][/ul]
Well, all bad and all good in corresponding ways. See my post above.
Excessive imbalance would be bad, but some degree of imbalance would be normal.
Correct. The perfectly balanced “ideal”, warm-moist, temperament would be abnormal. Abnormal in the sense of being unusual - so unusual it probably doesn’t exist (hence, “ideal” rather than “real”).
Plus, I made a mistake: The imbalance is in regard to one (or three) of the four homours/elements, not two. I guess what I was thinking of is two of the four hot/cold/wet/dry conditions.:smack:
OTH, there could be intermediate states involving two of the four humours. Or, for that matter, a “balance” in all four. “…yielding a total of nine temperaments.” according to Four temperaments - Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Temperaments#Development_of_related_.22two_factor.22_models_and_the_regaining_popularity_of_the_ancient_temperaments , I think, illustrates the idea well enough. Tho, in this model Phlegmatic is the most balanced and calm and Supine takes the place of the older idea of phlegmatic - in being “needy”, therefore easily “had”.
Can you provide a reference?
Looks like Four temperaments - Wikipedia got it wrong, compared with this. Lack of “affect” isn’t ‘absence of personality’.
When I was at school, I had the impression Sanguine was the best regarded.
Looking at this tho, I’d think phlegmatic more a desirable type.
Sanguines there are described as “carefree”, which might be equated with “shallow”. They are also said to be attention-seeking and vain - probably ambitious too, but not in a good way.