I've long been puzzled by the term, "A sense of humo(u)r. Since the ancients believed that four humours controlled one's disposition, why have we decreed that a "sense of humor" depicts just one of them? Why can't we bilious people be considered to be "humorous," or why can't phlegmatics? Why do the sanguine types have title to the term?

Asa of the black bile

Uh, there's more here than Asa's fascinating question. I have to admit that I can't remember the four ancient humours. Help requested.

Yet another word that fascinates me is temper.

Mostly we hear it as "He lost his temper," meaning he got angry.

Then there is the illogical, puzzling use of temper, as in "Boy! That guy's really got a temper!"

This seems sort of oxy-moronic, since the truth is that the guy no longer has a temper --- he lost it!!

~~~ jerry

Someone with a quick temper is someone liable to get angry quickly. The verb to temper, however, means to reduce, make less extreme. Thus it is possible to temper your temper.

There's a third meaning as well; when talking about metals, it means to harden by alternately heating and cooling.

Actually both these words are similar. You can be in a good humour or a good temper, or, conversely, in a bad one, and the meaning is pretty well identical.

Basically, they mean State of mind, whether habitual or temporary. This state of mind was formerly supposed to depend on the character or combination of the fluids of the body, the four humours.

To answer Shufitz' question, the four humours were blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile. We have the words, bilious, phlegmatic, and sanguine from them. Come to ghink of it, we could go further back and remember that more ancient people ascribed characteristics to the gods, as in Jovial, mercurial, martial, et al.

I still haven't seen you people come up with an explanation of my original query. Why does the sanguine, or blood humour get all the credit these days? Why is a "sense of humour" only in reference to a comedic bent?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:
I've long been puzzled by the term, "A sense of humo(u)r. Since the ancients believed that four humours controlled one's disposition, why have we decreed that a "sense of humor" depicts just one of them? Why can't we bilious people be considered to be "humorous," or why can't phlegmatics? Why do the sanguine types have title to the term?

Asa of the black bile

---

I don't see the connection between "a sense of humor" and any one of the four ancient humors any more than I can detect a connection between that same "sense of humor" and any of the five senses we recognize today.

Also, now that you mention it, let's start a movement to retire the word "phlegmatic" on the basis of aesthetics. Is there an uglier sounding or looking word??

Asa, your first post in the thread inspired this week's theme, and your second anticipated the theme.

Like many of the threads here, this is one that I never really thought about before and I certainly wasn't aware that the word came from bodily fluids that help to determine character. I confess I was intrigued as to why the phrase 'sense of humour' should only refer to a positive temperament but I have sadly been unable to locate any definate answers to the original query. As with many words and phrases I suspect it has just gradually evolved over time.

In 1475 it was certainly associated with mental disposition due to the proportion of the bodily humours. There was an important development by 1525 when it was defined as a 'temporary state of mind' because now it seems that the significance of the bodily humours was removed. This trend had gone even further by 1565 when humour was 'A state of mind having no apparent ground or reason; mere fancy, whim or caprice'. I think even at this early stage we can see associations with our modern sense of humour. I think that from this point it was only a relatively short journey to the definition of 1682 that stated 'That quality of action, speech or writing, which excites amusement; oddity, comicality. The faculty of perceiving what is ludicrous or amusing'.

Interestingly, in relation to another thread, in 1682 there was a clear difference between humour and wit as humour was seen as being 'Less purely intellectual' and while I think that distinction may still hold true today I think the boundary is rather less clearly defined.

As I learned about the humors, there are the four mentioned, and they can be linked to 4 temperaments. I have found that a basic understanding of these can go a long way to understanding people and how we all interact.

You might find this link interesting if you want to know more. (See? Contrary to what I have said of myself, I really do look things up from time to time.)

Wow, that was fascinating! It is interesting how they linked those 4 humors to the Meyers Briggs Type Inventory. I took one awhile ago, but I can't remember anything, except that I came out as extroverted, which surprised me.

quote:

Meyers Briggs Type Inventory. I took one awhile ago, but I can't remember anything, except that I came out as extroverted, which surprised me.

I took one too. I came out as an ISOB. But then I'm also a Scorpio, so it figures. Oh, Kalleh, read the book, "Please Understand Me" for more explanation of the meanings of the four axes represented in the MBTI.

Here is a place to take a personality test online. I'm sure there are many others, too. Might be fun to know what everyone is!

So I'm an idealist. Hmmmmm

I'm an idealist, too!

Snap!

It would appear that we are all of one mind here!

I'd never before thought of comparing the Myers Briggs Type Inventory (introvert/extrovert, sensing/intuition, thinking/feeling, and judging/perceiving) with the classical concept of the four bodily humors (sanguine, phlegmatic, choleric, and melancholic).

Since the MBTI is based on Jung's ideas, and he was very interested in ancient ideas of science and what we now term pseudo-science, such as astrology, humors, etc, it isn't really much of a stretch to connect the dots here.

In my management manual where I deal with this topic I make the point that more people would recognose the old Greek designations than would understand the modern behavioural psychologists' names.

Most people would know what was meant by a "sanguine" personality but might find it harder to appreciate what a "stable/extravert" is. (Incidentally, these are the Jung Type Indicators, not the MBTI - although there's much crossover).

Yes, Richard. I'm generally considered to be Sanguine/Melancholic. Usually folks have one dominant of the four, and one secondary.

Dammit! You really must provide a spew alert, CW. Do you know how hard it is to clean coffee off the monitor?

FWIW I'm "idealist" ENFJ

~~~ jerry