I. Abstract
Physiognomy is the ability to determine a person’s character and personality simply from observing their physical appearance, with particular emphasis on facial features.[1] Physiognomy is one of several pseudo-sciences that developed in early Greek philosophy.[2] The underlying principles of physiognomy are based in both humoral theory and the Aristotelian relationship between body and soul. Although physiognomy was developed by the philosophers of Ancient Greece, its inclusion in Discourses of the Virtuosi affirms that the practice of physiognomy persisted in European society two millenniums after Hippocrates and Aristotle first contemplated its existence.
II. Basic Concepts
In order to better understand the concepts in this Conference, one must familiarize oneself with the Aristotelian relationship between body and soul. This Aristotelian concept and humoral theory are similar in both logic and rhetoric. Aristotle views the relationship between body and soul as an extension of the relationship between form and matter.[3] According to Aristotle, form is what gives living creatures their vital characteristics while matter is the substance that all physical entities are composed of.[4] In essence, form is the human soul while matter is the human body. Aristotle asserts that biological processes occur within the body but actually depend on the virtue of one’s soul.[5] For example, a person may metabolize food slowly as a result of having a soul that is lacking virtue. In accordance with this theory, body and soul are inextricably linked to the extent that the successful function of one is dependent on the successful function of the other. The principles of physiognomy are derived from this theory. In accordance with the Aristotelian theory of body and soul, a person’s physical characteristics indicate just how virtuous they may be.
Physiognomy is also based in humoral theory. Humorism was an early medicinal practice originally attributed to the Greek physician Hippocrates. He describes humoral theory in his treatise On the Nature of Man. Hippocrates asserts that the human body contains four distinct humors: blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile.[6] Proponents of humoral theory believe that either an excess or a deficiency of any of the four bodily fluids, or humors, will affect a person’s temperament and health.[7] Humorism is holistic by nature, as it asserts an underlying connection between one’s mental and physical well-being. Accordingly, observable physical characteristics, such as the flushing of the skin, can be an indication of a humoral imbalance. Humoral theory asserts that such an imbalance elicits both physical and temperamental reactions. It is from this assertion that proponents of physiognomy deduce a connection between physical appearance and temperament. In accordance with humorism, physical appearance is indicative of an imbalance of the four humors and, as a result, a person’s temperament as well.
Although textual references to physiognomy have been dated to as early as 5th century BC,[8] its acceptance as a legitimate theory is not completely understood, as there was seemingly no general consensus on the validity of it as a scientific practice. However, it is a fact that belief in physiognomy existed among both the elite and lower classes.[9]
The eight speakers in Conference XXIII/I do not reach a consensus on the validity of physiognomy; however, they are generally skeptical. The first and second speaker support physiognomy, with the second relying on the logic of the Aristotelian body and soul. The third and sixth speakers express skepticism, with the sixth perceiving physiognomy to be fallacious by pointing out that man is the only animal that behaves inconsistently. The fourth speaker takes issue with the assumption that physiognomy applies only to men devoid of passion, as he believes that passion is intrinsic in all men. The fifth speaker believes that only a totality of physical characteristics can indicate a person’s character. The seventh speaker is doubtful of the validity of physiognomy, expressing that it is extremely difficult to make such generalizations about man. The eighth speaker takes a biological approach and outright denies the possibility of physiognomy due to his belief that the body and soul operate independently.
In their discussion, the speakers make reference to the four humoral temperaments. In accordance with humoral theory, each temperament is correlated with a distinct humor. Sanguine, the temperament associated with blood, is characterized by an optimistic and lively personality. Phlegmatic is correlated with phlegm and is characterized by a relaxed and unemotional disposition. Choleric, the temperament influenced by yellow bile, is associated with an irritable and short-tempered personality. The final temperament, melancholic, is affected by the presence of black bile and is characterized by a personality that is quiet and serious.
Above text authored by Colin Dailey
III. Conference XXIII.I: Of Physiognomy
THeophrastus accusing Nature for not having made a window to the Heart, perhaps meant; to the Soul. For though the Heart were seen naked, yet would not the intentions be visible; they reside in another apartment. The Countenance, and amongst its other parts, the Eye seemes to be the most faithfull messenger thereof. It doth not onely intimate sickness and health, it shews also hatred and love, anger and fear, joy and sadness. In short, ’tis the true mirror of the Body and the Soul, unless when the Visage puts on the mask of Hypocrisie, against which we read indeed some experiences; as when Ʋlysses discover’d the dissimulation of Achilles, disguis’d in the dress of a Damsel, by the gracefullness wherewith he saw him wield a sword; but there are no rules or maximes against it, and never less then in this Age of counterseits; in which he that is not deceiv’d, well deserves the name of Master. For security from it, some ingenious persons have invented Rules whereby the inclinations of every one may be discern’d; as Masons applying the Rule, Square, and Level upon a stone, judge whether it incline more to one side then the other. For you see there are many different species of Animals, every one whereof is again subdivided into many others, as is observ’d in Doggs and Horses; but there are more different sorts of Men. Whence the Philosophers of old took up the opinion of Metempsychoses, or Transanimations, imagining there could not but be (for example) the Soul of a Fox in those whom they found very crafty; and that the Soul which delighted to plunge it self in filthiness and impurity must needs have been heretofore in the Body of a swine. And though the outward shape of Man puts a vail upon all those differences, yet they are visible through the same to those who have a good sight; as we may distinguish Ladies through the Cypress with which they vail themselves at this day, it we take good heed, otherwise we may be mistaken. We must therefore inquire, here, whether through the external figure common to all Men, what every one hath peculiar be not the sign of his inclinations; either as the Effect, or as the Cause of the same: As redness of the Cheeks is usually an argument of the disposition of the Lungs. Nor is it material to know why it is a sign, it sufficeth to me to know that it is so. To which the variety of Bodies, and especially of Faces, affords great probability, because Nature hath made nothing in vain; and why this variety, unless to serve for a sign, since it serves to distinguish them?
The Second said, Physiognomy is the knowledge of the inside by the outside, that is, of the affections and inclinations of the Mind by external and sensible signes, as colour and Figure. It is grounded upon the correspondence of the Soul with the Body, which is such that they manifestly participate the affections one of the other. If the Body be sick, the Soul is alter’d in its operations, as we see in high Fevers. On the contrary, let the Soul be sad or joyful, the Body is so too. Therefore the Sophisters of old purg’d themselves with Hellebor when they would dispute best. For though in its essence the Soul depends not on the corporeal Organs, yet it depends upon the same in its operations, which are different according to the divers structure of the Organs; which, if they were alike dispos’d, their actions would be alike in all, and at all times. Whence, (saith Aristotle) an old man would see as clear as a young man, if he had the Eyes of a young man.
The Third said, To make a certain judgement upon external signes, heed must be taken that they be natural. For ’tis possible for one of a Sanguine Constitution to have a pale and whitish colour, either through fear, sickness, study, or some other accident. The Phlegmatick when he hath drunk to excess, been at a good fire, is in anger, or asham’d of something, will have a red Face. And yet he that should argue from these signes would be mistaken.
The Fourth said, Since Physiognomists grant that their Rules are not to be apply’d but to Men void of all Passions, which so change the Body that it seemes another from it self; I conceive, this Art is altogether impossible. For I would know in what moment we are to be taken without Sadness, Joy, Hatred, Love, Anger; in short, without any of those Passions so inseparable from our Life, that Xanthus found no better way to be reveng’d on Aesop, then to ask him for a Man that car’d for nothing; such as he would be that should have no Passions. What then will become of the goodly Rules of Physiognomy, after that Education of Youth hath corrected perverse inclinations, that Philosophy hath given the lie to the Physiognomists of this Age, as it did heretofore to Zopyrus, when he pronounc’d his opinion upon Socrates; or that Piety, as is seen in so many holy personages, hath reform’d the Will, evil habits, and Nature it self?
The Fifth said, As there is nothing more wonderful then to judge of a Man’s manners at the first sight, so there is nothing more difficult. It is endeavour’d four wayes. First, By the structure of each part of the Body. So the great Head and square Fore-head, denote Prudence and good judgement; the small Head shews that there is little brain, and narrow room for the exercise of the internal senses; the sharp Head denotes impudence. The Second way, is, by the Temperament. So the ruddy Countenance, yellow hair, and other signes of the Sanguine Humour, shew an indifferent Spirit, pleasant, and inclin’d to Love. A pale complexion, fat Body, clear voice, slow gate, which are the characters of Phlegme, denote cowardice and sloth. Soft and tender flesh is a token of subtlety of the Senses, and consequently of the wit; hard flesh, of dulness. Whence Man, the wisest of all Animals, hath a more delicate flesh then any of them. The Third way, is, by comparing the external signes of every one with those which are observ’d in Men when they are in Passion. So because he that is in Choler hath sparkling Eyes, hoarse voice, and the jugular veins turgid; we conclude that he who hath all these signes naturally, is naturally inclin’d to that Passion. But as for the Fourth and last, which is, by comparing Man with other Animals, heed must be taken how we credit such a sign alone. For as a single letter doth not make a discourse, so an external similitude alone with an Animal doth not infer the resemblance of our Nature to that of that Animal. There must be a concurrence of many of these signes together. As if I see a Man with a neck moderately fleshy, a large breast, and the other parts in proportion, as the Lyon hath; harsh hair, as the Bear; a strong sight, as the Eagle; I shall conclude that this Man is strong and courageous.
The Sixth said, That the reason why Physiognomists choose irrational creatures, to signifie the inclinations and manners of Men rather then Men themselves, is, because Man is a variable Animal, and most commonly useth dissimulation in his actions; Whereas Animals, void of Reason, less conceal from us the inclinations of their Nature, by which they permit themselves to be guided. So we see the same person will sometimes do an act of Courage, sometime another of Cowardice; sometimes he will be merciful, at another time cruel. But other Animals are uniform in all their actions. The Lyon is alwayes generous, the Hare ever cowardly; the Tyger, cruel; the Fox, crafty; the Sheep, harmless. So that a certain judgement may be pass’d upon these, but not upon Men.
The Seventh said, That as the accidents superven’d to our Bodies after our Birth afford no certain judgement, but onely the signes which we bring from our Mothers Womb; so the natural inclinations and habits may be well judg’d of by exact inspection into the constitution on which they depend; but not those which are acquisitious, whereof no certain judgement is to be had. Yet this inspection of the Temperament is very uncertain too, by reason it is extremely difficult to understand the constitution of every one; so that Galen confesses, that after fifty years study in Physick, he could not attain a perfect knowledge thereof.
The Eighth said, It is a groundless thing to make our manners depend upon the colour which the Excrementitious Humours produce in the skin; much less do they depend upon the shape of the Muscles, which alters when a Man grows fat or lean, and followes the conformation of the Bones; and yet less upon the Lineaments, which have nothing to do with our internal disposition; what ever Experiences Spigelius alledgeth, of having observ’d in his dissections, that all those who were executed for Crimes prepens’d long before, had the two lines which are upon the uppermost part of the Nose, crossing one the other when they knit their brows.
IV. Further Reading
Aristotle. Prior Analytics. Translated by Robin Smith. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1989.
Favreau, Anne-Marie. “Physiognomy.” The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. (2012).
Hartley, Lucy. Physiognomy and the Meaning of Expression in Nineteenth-century Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Lloyd, G.E.R. Hippocratic Writings. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1983.
Pearl, Sharrona. About Faces: Physiognomy in Nineteenth-century Britain. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2010.
Porter, Martin. Windows of the Soul Physiognomy in European Culture 1470-1780. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005.
Twine, Richard. “Physiognomy, Phrenology and the Temporality of the Body.” Body and Society 8, no. 1 (2002): 67-88.
[1] Roy Porter, “Marginalized Practices,” In The Cambridge History of Science: Eighteenth-century Science, Vol. 3. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 495.
[2] Porter, 495.
[3] Aristotle, Prior Analytics, Translated by Robin Smith, (Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc, 1989), 2.27.
[4] Aristotle, 2.27.
[5] Aristotle, 2.27.
[6] G.E.R. Lloyd, Hippocratic Writings, (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1983), 262.
[7] William F. Bynum, Companion Encyclopedia of the History of Medicine, (London: Routledge, 1997), 281.
[8] Porter, 496.
[9] Porter, 495.