Physiognomy Mariska Leunissen The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Introduction Physiognomy(fromthelaterGreek physiognōmia ,whichisacontractionoftheclassicalform physiognōmonia )referstotheancientscienceofdeterminingsomeone’sinnatecharacteronthe basisoftheiroutward,andhenceobservable,bodilyfeatures.Forinstance,Socrates’famous snubnosewasuniversallyinterpretedbyancientphysiognomistsasaphysiognomicalsignof hisinnatelustfulness,whichheonlyovercamethroughphilosophicaltraining.Thediscipline initstechnicalformwithitsownspecializedpractitionersfirstsurfacesinGreeceinthefifth century BCE ,possiblythroughconnectionswiththeNearEast,wherebodilysignswere takenasindicatorsofsomeone’sfutureratherthanhischaracter.Theshifttocharacter perhapsarisesfromthewidespreadculturalpracticeintheancientGreekandRomanworld oftreatingsomeone’soutwardappearanceasindicativeforhispersonality,whichisalready visibleinHomer(eighthcentury BCE ).Inthe Iliad ,forinstance,adescriptionofThersites’ quarrelsomeandrepulsivecharacterisfollowedbyadescriptionofhisequallyuglybody(see Iliad 2.211–219),suggestingthatthiscorrespondencebetweenbodyandcharacterisno accident.ThersitesisthustheperfectfoilfortheGreekidealofthe kaloskagathos –theman whoisbothbeautifulandgood.Thesameholdsforthepracticeofattributingcharacter traitsassociatedwithaparticularanimalspeciestoapersonbasedonsimilaritiesintheir physique:itisfirstformalizedinphysiognomy,butwasalreadywidelyusedinanon- 1 technicalwayinancientliterature.Themostfamousexampleofthelatterisperhaps SemonidesofAmorgos’satireofwomen(fragment7 On Women ;seventhcentury BCE ), whichprofilestendifferent‘women-types’,mostlybyreferencetotheirsimilaritiestoanimal species:thus,onewoman-typeisfilthyandfatasthesow,anotherischarmless,sex-crazed, andcriminalastheweasel,andyetanotherisdeformedandshamelessastheape.Onlythe bee-womanstandsoutpositivelyforhermodestyandindustriousness. TheencompassingnatureofphysiognomicalthoughtinAntiquity,bothas crystallizedintheformoftechnicalhandbooksandinitsinformalusesinliterature, historiography,philosophy,medicine,andrhetoriccanbegleanedfromFörster’stwo- volumeedition Scriptores Physiognomonici Graeci et Latini (1893),whichisstillthemost comprehensivecollectionofancientphysiognomicalmaterialavailable(foranupdated editionandtranslationofthephysiognomicalhandbooksintoEnglish,seeSwain2007a). Thischapterfocusesmorenarrowlyonphysiognomyasaformalized,technicaldiscipline (foranoverviewofphysiognomicalpracticesinGreekandRomanliterature,seeEvans1969 andSassi2001),butasshouldbenoticedfromtheoutset,physiognomyneveroperatedina scientificorculturalvacuum.Intheextantsource-material,themostthoroughtheoretical discussionsofphysiognomyareprovidedeitherbyphilosophers,whoworriedaboutthe validityofphysiognomicalinferencesortheidentificationofsigns,andwhoseowntheories abouttherelationbetweenbodyandsoulallowedphysiognomytobeusedasadiagnostic toolforthepredictionofthemoralpotentialofprospectivestudents,orbyphysicians,who foundinphysiognomyacognatewayofreadingthehumanbody,andintegratedmedical diagnosesandprognoseswithmoralones.Similarly,thehandbookswehavearewrittenby menwhowereprimarilyphilosophers,physicians,orevenrhetors,whoappropriated physiognomyforimprovingthedeliveryoftheirspeeches,butalsoforbeingmoreeffective 2 inthe(negative)characterizationofothersaspartofapoliticalstrategy.Inthesections below,Ifirstprovideanoverviewofthemostimportantphysiognomicalsources(section1), followedbyadiscussion(insection2)oftheassumptionsandmethodsofreasoningusedin physiognomicalscience.Thecloserelationshipbetweenphysiognomyandphilosophy, medicine,andrhetoricisthetopicofsections3–5.Suggestionsforfurtherreadingcanbe foundinthereference-section. . Physiognomical Sources and Handbooks Accordingtooursources,physiognomyfirststartedtobecomeatopicoftheoretical reflectiontowardstheendofthefifthcentury BCE Antisthenes,afollowerofSocratesand headoftheCynics,isreportedtohavewrittena Physiognomical Treatise on the Sophists (mentionedbyDiogenesLaertius6.16),whichunfortunatelyislostandweknowalmost nothingofitscontents(perhapsitofferedanattackofphysiognomicaldiagnosesofferedby thesophist:seeTsouna1998).Theoldestextantmaterialroughlyconsistsoftwocategories: discussionsfocusingonthemethodsofphysiognomystemmingfromthefourthandthird century BCE ,writtenbyAristotleandhisstudents,andhandbooksfocusingonthecollection ofphysiognomicalsignsfromthefourthcentury CE ,preserving–invariousforms–a treatisebythephysicianLoxusfromprobablythethirdcentury BCE (althoughseeMisener 1923foranearlierdate)andarhetoricaltreatisebytherhetorPolemonofLaodiceafromthe SecondSophistic(secondcentury CE ). Theoldesttheoreticaldiscussionofphysiognomycanbefoundinchapter 2.27.70b7–38ofAristotle’s Prior Analytics ,datingfromthefourthcentury BCE .Inthelastfive chaptersofthistreatise,Aristotleexplainshowthevalidityofnon-deductivetypesof 3 reasoning,suchasinductionsorinferencesfromsignsorprobabilities(theso-called enthymemes,whichareoftenusedinrhetoricalcontextsandyieldpersuasionratherthan truth),canbetested.AccordingtoAristotle,thesenon-deductiveinferencesarelogically validiftheycanberesolvedintothesyllogisticfigureshehadpreviouslyestablished. Physiognomicalinferencesarediscussedattheveryend( APr 2.27.70b7–38),andalthough thereisno explicit linkbetweentheprecedingdiscussionofsign-inferencesandthissection (ithasbeensuggestedthatthephysiognomicalsectionisunrelatedoralaterappendix:see Burnyeat1982andSmith1989),itexpressesthesameinterestinshowingthepotential validityofanon-deductivetypeofreasoningthatisapparentlyprevalentinAristotle’stime. Byusinganexampleofaphysiognomicalinferencethattakesitssignsfromanimals, Aristotlelaysouttheconditionsunderwhich“itispossibletophysiognomize”(seefurther section2below),andarguesthatphysiognomicalinferencesarevalidaslongastheproofis inthefirstfigure(i.e.,allpremisesmustconsistofuniversalaffirmativepropositionsandthe syllogismmusthavetheform“AbelongstoallB,BbelongstoallC,thereforeAbelongsto allC”),justashehadarguedearlierinthechapterwithregardtoothertypesofsign- inferences.Aristotle’streatmentofphysiognomyinthe Prior Analytics opensthedoortoa scientificuseofthediscipline,butitisnotclearwhetherheendorsesithimself:Aristotle’s useofconditionallanguage–itispossibletophysiognomize if certainconditionsaremet– warrantscaution.However,givenhisinclusionofphysiognomicalmaterialinthebiological treatises(inthe History of Animals 1.8.491b9–11.492b4, Aristotlelistsphysiognomicalsigns alongwithfunctionaldescriptionsofpartsonthehumanhead;seesection3below),itlooks likeAristotleincorporatedphysiognomyasavalidwayofreasoningintohisown philosophy. Theoldestphysiognomicalhandbookthathasbeenpreservedisthe Physiognomy , 4 falselyattributedtoAristotle(seeps.-Aristotle Physiognomy ,1.805a1–6.814b9).Thehandbook whichconsistsoftwopartsstemsmostlikelyfromthethirdcentury BCE ,andwaswrittenby twoPeripateticauthorswhowereeachresponsiblefortheirowntext(seeBoys-Stones2007, pace Vogt1999whobelievesthatthehandbookwaswrittenbyoneauthorattwodifferent stagesinhislife).TreatiseA(solabeledinFörster’s1893collection)runsfrom1.805a1to 3.808b10.Itopensbystatingthatmindandbodyaremutuallyaffectedbyeachother,offers examplesofthesemutualaffections,criticizesthethreeexistingphysiognomicalmethodsfor identifyingsigns(fromanimals,humanethnicities,andexpressionsofemotion:onthese methods,seefurtherinsection2),andarguesforamodifiedformofanimalphysiognomy.It alsoprovidesadetailedlistofthoseaspectsofthebodywhichcanconstitute physiognomicalsigns,andliststwenty-twocharacterstraitsandthesignsbywhichtheycan berecognized.TreatiseBrunsfrom4.808b11to6.814b9,andsimilarlyopenswithapreface confirmingthe“sympathetic”( sumpathein )relationshipbetweenbodyandsoulandalistof examplesillustratingtheircausaldependency.Itcontinuesbydiscussingtheproblemsand difficultiesinusingthemethodofanimalphysiognomy,introducestheideathatfordoing thistypeofanimal-physiognomyappropriatelytheanimalkingdomshouldbedividedinto twoclasses,i.e.,themaleandthefemale,andoffersalistofbodypartsandthecharacters theysignify(movingfromfoottohead,andthenontogait,voice,andstature).The methodologythatisputforwardinbothtreatises,aswewillseeinsection2below,isquite sophisticatedandroughlyAristotelianinnature.TheattributionofthetreatisestoAristotle isthereforequiteunderstandable:bothtreatisesopenbyrespondingtothecondition formulatedbyAristotleinthe Prior Analytics thatthebodyandsoulmustchange simultaneouslyforphysiognomytobepossible,andmakeuseofsimilartechnicalterms borrowedfromAristotleintheirmethodologicalsections(seeBoys-Stones2007onthe 5 convergencesbetweenthethreeauthors).Inaddition,bothPliny( Natural History 11.273– 274)andDiogenesLaertius(5.25)believedthatAristotlehadwrittenaphysiognomical treatise,sothatalreadyinAntiquitytheoldestextanthandbookwassimplyattributedtohim. Thehandbooksfromthefourthcentury CE preserveoldersectionsofhandbooks originallywrittenbytwodifferentauthors,LoxusandPolemon.Fromthehandbookon physiognomybythephysicianLoxusfromthethirdcentury BCE weonlypossessacoupleof fragments,translatedfromitsoriginalGreekintoLatinandscatteredthroughvarious chaptersoftheeclectic Book of Physiognomy or Liber Phisiognomoniae fromthefourthcentury CE (fortheLatintextofthishandbookwithtranslations,seeAndré1981andRepath2007b, whobothrelyheavilyonFörster1893;seealsoOrigen, Against Celsus 1.33).Theauthorof the Book of Physiognomy –whowasoncefalselyidentifiedasApuleius–isunknownandis henceforthreferredtoas‘AnonymusLatinus’.Thehandbookopenswithareferencetothe threesourcestheauthordrewhismaterialfrom:“Ihadathandthebooksofthreeauthors whohavewrittenonphysiognomy,Loxusthephysician,Aristotlethephilosopher[the