PHYSIOGNOMY of genius and stupidity, of timidity, impudence, anger, and^their opposite*, Ac. Then he studies the physiognomy of the sexes, and the characters derived from the different features, and from colour, hair, body, limbs, gait, and voice. He compares the varieties of mankind to animals, the male to the lion, the female to the leopard. The general character of the work may be gathered from the following specimen. While discussing noses, he says that those with thick bulbous ends belong to persons who are insensitive, swinish ; sharp -tipped belong to the irascible, those easily provoked, like dogs ; rounded, large, obtuse noses to the magnanimous, the lion-like ; slender hooked noses to the eagle-like, the noble but grasping; round-tipped retrousse noses to the luxurious, like barn door fowl ; noses with a very slight notch at the root belong to the impudent, the crow-like ; while snub noses belong to persons of luxurious habits, whom he compares to deer ; open nostrils are signs of passion, &c. Several good editions have been published, 1 and numerous voluminous commentaries written upon it ; 2 most subsequent authors have copied from it, with or without acknowledgment. References exist to a work on physiognomy by Theo- phrastus, but it is not extant ; and the next important author is Melampus, the Egyptian hierogrammateus, w r ho lived at the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and wrote, about 270 B.C., the work Uepl Trafj.wv /HCU TIKT;. This, while descriptive, like that of Aristotle, deals largely in omens, in divination from naevi and the twitchings of limbs. It was edited by Camillus Peruscus, and published at Rome (1545) along with those of Polemon and Adaman- tius. 3 References to physiognomy are to be found in many of the Greek classics. 4 Apion speaks of the metopo- scopists who judge by the appearance of the face, and Cleanthes the Stoic says it is possible to tell habits from the aspect (cf. Ecclus. xix. 29, 30). Polemon (c. 150 A.D.) is the next in order who has left a treatise on the subject, similar in character to that of Aristotle ; but he excels in graphic descriptions of different dispositions and differs only from Aristotle in some of his animal com parisons. The best modern edition of his work is contained in Franz s Scriptoret physiognomist veteres. It was trans lated into Latin and published at Venice by Nicholas Petreius in 1534. This book was referred to by Albertus Magnus, who attributes to its author a second work on the subject. A more important contribution to the literature of physiognomy was added by a converted Jew, Adaman- tius, about 415. This Avork is in two books, the first on the expression of the eye, the second on physiognomy in general, mostly Aristotelian in character. He professes to have learned much from the Egyptians, and tells us that nature speaks in the forehead and face and in the silence of the mouth. He follows Aristotle in holding rather a low opinion of the intellect of the female sex, whom he makes the subject of some rather depreciating com parisons. His work was edited with the foregoing by Franz. 5 Artemidorus, Loxus, Philemon, Posidonius, 6 Con- 1 That of J. G. Franz (Leipsic, 1780) is the best ; Andreas Lacuna published a Latin version, Paris, 1535 ; Willichius, another at Wittenberg, 1538. - Fontain s Commentary (Paris. 1611), Camillus Baldus of Bologna (1621), Sauchez of Toulouse (1636). 3 And later by Franz (op. cit., p. 470). 4 See an interesting paper on "Stretching and Yawning as Signs of Madness," by Professor Ridgeway (Traits. Carrih. Philol. Soc., vol. i. p. 210), which refers to Aristoph., Wasps, 642, with which he compares Plautus, Mensechmi, 279. Other references exist to physiognomy iu Cassiodorus, Isidorus, Meletius, and Xemesius, but none of any very great importance.
- It was edited by Janus Cornaro at Marburg, 1543, by Bonum of
Paris ten years later, by Camillus Peruscus, by Petreius, and by Sylburg in the sixth volume of his Aristotle. 6 Hfpl ira.^v. See Justin Martyr s Qusest. ad orthodox., xix., vol. ii , Paris, 1742, p. 461. stantinus," are other early authors frequently quoted by 16th-century writers, while Phemonoe, Antiphon, Helenus of Syracuse, and Eumolpius are mentioned as writers by Porta, Albertus Magnus, and others, but their works are not extant. The Latin classics occasionally refer to physiognomy : Juvenal (vi. 383) speaks of the examination of forehead and face, but not with much respect ; Suetonius ( Vita Titi, 2) tells us, "Quo quidem tempore, aiunt, metoposcopum a Narcisso, Claudio liberto, adhibitum, ut Britannicus in- spiceret " ; and Pliny also refers to it (//. A"., xxxv. 10). References also exist in the writings of Clement of Alexandria ; and Origen, 8 while speaking of the Jewish fable as to the birth of Christ, asks, Is it possible, if there be any truth in the science taught by Zopyrus, Loxus, and Polemon, that such a soul as Christ s could have been provided with a suitable body in such a way ? Sir George Wharton quotes the text Job xxxvii. 7, " He impresseth (DinrP) the hand of every man, that all may know His work," as an authority for chiromancy, and other chiro mantists have followed him in so doing. 9 Hitherto the physiognomy of the schools had been chiefly descriptive ; in the succeeding period the astro logical side, whose gradual development may be noted, becomes the most important part. Hence in the sub sequent or second stage of history chiromancy is specially predictive in character, and attains an importance it had not originally possessed. The treatises also contain occa sional digressions on onychomancy, alectoromancy, cliclo- mancy, coscinomancy, podoscopy, spasmatomancy, &c. Along Avith the medical science of the period the Arabians took up the study of physiognomy : Ali 1). Ragel wrote a book on nsevi ; Rhazes (1040) devoted several chapters of his medical work to it ; and Averroes (1165) made many references to it in his De Sanitate (p. 82, Leyden, 1537). Avicenna also makes some acute physiognomical remarks in his De Animalibus, Avhich Ava.s translated by Michael Scott about 1270, but printed subsequently (Avithout date or place). Albertus Magnus (born 1205) devotes much of the second tract of his De Animalibiis to the consideration of physiognomy. There is, hoAvever, nothing original in the treatise, vhich largely consists of extracts from Aristotle, Polemon, and Loxus. He does not enter so much into the animal comparisons of his predecessors, but occupies himself chiefly Avith simple descriptive physiognomy as indicative of character ; and the same is true of the many scattered notes in the Avrit- ings of Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas. The famous sage of Bahvearie, Michael Scott, while court astrologer to the emperor Frederick II., Avrote his treatise De hominis pkisionomia (c. 1272), much of Avhich is physiological and of curious interest. It Avas not printed until 1477, and the edition Avas not illustrated. The physiognomical treatise forms the third part of his Avork De secretis naturse. In 1335 Petrus de Abano of Padua delivered in Paris a course of lectures on this subject (afterwards edited by Blondus, 1544), a feAV years before he Avas burned for heresy. Shortly after the introduction of printing in the 15th century a large number of works on physiognomy Avere produced ; probably the oldest is the block book by Hartlieb, Die Kunst Ciromantia. This is an exceedingly rare folio, of Avhich one fine copy is extant in Paris ; each page bears a figure of a giant hand from 7 to 10i inches long, inscribed Avith characteristic Avords, and Avith a small amount of description below ; there are tAventy-seven such 7 Constantinus Africanus, De humana natura et principal ibus membris corporis hmnani, Basel, 1541, folio. 8 Contra Celsum, i. 33. 9 For other references to Scriptural allusions to physiognomy, see
Vecchius, Observation s in div. script., Naples, 1641.