thought their doctrines universally and immediately applicable in practice. They did not, as theorists, sufficiently take into account national diversities or different stages in social development; nor did they, as politicians, adequately estimate the impediments which ignorance, prejudice and interested opposition present to enlightened statesmanship.
The physiocratic system, after guiding in some degree the policy of the Constituent Assembly, and awakening a few echoes here and there in foreign countries, soon ceased to exist as a living power; but the good elements it comprised were not lost to mankind, being incorporated into the more complete construction of Adam Smith.
See the article on Quesnay, with bibliography appended thereto, also the articles on Mirabeau and Turgot. Most French histories contain an account of the school; see especially Tocqueville, L’Ancien régime et la révolution, ch. iii.; Taine, Les Origines de la France contemporaine, vol. i.; R. Stourm, Les Finances de l’ancien régime et de la révolution (1885); Droz, Histoire du règne de Louis XVI.; also L. de Lavergne, Économistes français du XVIIIe siècle; H. Higgs, The Physiocrats (London, 1897, with authorities).
PHYSIOGNOMY, the English form of the middle Greek
φυσιογνωμία, a contraction of the classical φυσιογνωμονία
(from φύσις, nature, and γνώμων, an interpreter), (1) a term
which denotes a supposed science for the “discovery of the
disposition of the mind by the lineaments of the body” (Bacon);
(2) is also used colloquially as a synonym for the face or outward
appearance, being variously spelled by the old writers: fysenamy
by Lydgate, phisnomi in Udall’s translation of Erasmus on
Mark iv., physnomie in Bale’s English Votaries (i. 2. p. 44), and
fisnomie in All’s well that ends well, iv. 5 (first folio).
Physiognomy was regarded by those who cultivated it as a twofold science: (1) a mode of discriminating character by the outward appearance, and (2) a method of divination from form and feature. On account of the abuses of the latter aspect of the subject its practice was forbidden by the English law. By the act of parliament 17 George II. c. 5 (1743) all persons pretending to have skill in physiognomy were deemed rogues and vagabonds, and were liable to be publicly whipped, or sent to the house of correction until next sessions.[1] The pursuit thus stigmatized as unlawful is one of great antiquity, and one which in ancient and medieval times had an extensive though now almost forgotten literature. It was very early noticed that the good and evil passions by their continual exercise stamp their impress on the face, and that each particular passion has its own expression. Thus far physiognomy is a branch of physiology. But in its second aspect it touched divination and astrology, of which Galen[2] says that the physiognomical part is the greater, and this aspect of the subject bulked largely in the fanciful literature of the middle ages. There is evidence in the earliest classical literature that physiognomy formed part of the most ancient practical philosophy. Homer was a close observer of expression and of appearance as correlated with character, as is shown by his description of Thersites[3] and elsewhere. Hippocrates, writing about 4 50 B.C., expresses his belief in the influence of environment in determining disposition, and in the reaction of these upon feature,[4] a view in which he is supported later by Trogus. Galen, in his work Περί τών τής ψυχής ήθών, having discussed the nature and immortality of the soul, proceeds in ch. vii. to a brief study of physiognomy (ed. Kuhn iv. 795). In this passage he deprecates current physiognomical speculations, saying that he might criticize them but feared to waste time and become tedious over them. In chapter viii. he quotes with approbation the Hippocratic doctrine referred to above; and in a later work, Περί κατακλίσεως προγνωστικά, he speaks of the advantage of a knowledge of physiognomy to the physician.[5] We learn both from Iamblichus[6] and Porphyry[7] that Pythagoras practised the diagnosis of the characters of candidates for pupilage before admitting them, although he seems to have discredited the current physiognomy of the schools, as he rejected Cylo, the Crotonian, on account of his professing these doctrines, and thereby was brought into some trouble.[8] Plato also tells us that Socrates predicted the promotion of Alcibiades from his appearance; and Apuleius[9] speaks of Socrates recognizing the abilities of Plato at first view. On the other hand, it has been recorded by Cicero[10] that a certain physiognomist, Zopyrus, who professed to know the habits and manners of men from their bodies, eyes, face and forehead, characterized Socrates as stupid, sensual and dull (bardus), “in quo Alcibiades cachinnum dicitur sustulisse.” Alexander Aphrodisiensis adds that, when his disciples laughed at the judgment, Socrates said it was true, for such had been his nature before the study of philosophy had modified it. Zopyrus is also referred to by Maximus Tyrius[11] as making his recognitions “intuitu solo.”
That one’s occupation stamps its impress on the outward appearance was also noticed at an early period. In the curious poem in the Sallier papyrus (II.), written about 1800 B.C., Duan, son of Khertu, expatiates on the effects of divers handicrafts on the workmen as compared with the elevating influences of a literary life.[12] Josephus tells us that Caesar detected the pretence of the spurious Alexander by his rough hands and surface.[13]
The first systematic treatise which has come down to us is that attributed to Aristotle,[14] in which he devotes six chapters to the consideration of the method of study, the general signs of character, the particular appearances characteristic of the dispositions, of strength and weakness, of genius and stupidity, of timidity, impudence, anger, and their opposites, &c. 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 retroussé noses to the luxurious, like barndoor 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.
The practice of physiognomy is alluded to in many of the Greek classics[15] Apion speaks of the metoposcopists, who judge by the appearance of the face, and Cleanthes the Stoic says it is
- ↑ The Act 39 Elizabeth c. 4 (1597–1598) declared “all persons fayning to have knowledge of Phisiognomie or like Fantasticall Ymaginacious” liable to “be stripped naked from the middle upwards and openly whipped until his body be bloudye.” This was modified by 13 Anne c 26 (1713), still further by 17 George II. c 5, which was re-enacted by the Vagrancy Act 1824. This last act only specifies palmistry.
- ↑ Galen. Περί κατακλίσεως προγνωστικά (ed. Kühn xix. 530).
- ↑ Iliad, ii. 214. See also Blackwell’s Inquiry, (2nd ed. 1736), 330. A physiognomical study of the Homeric heroes is given by Mlalalas, Chronogr ed. Dindorf, v. 105.
- ↑ Περί άέρων ύόάτων, τόπων (ed. Kühn, i. 547).
- ↑ Op. cit., xix. 530.
- ↑ Περί βίου Πυθαγορικού λόγος, i. 17 59 (Amsterdam, 1707).
- ↑ De vita Pythagorae, p. 16 (Amsterdam, 1707). This author tells us that he applied the same rule to his friends. See also Aulus Gellius, i. ix.
- ↑ Iamblichus, p. 49.
- ↑ De dogmate Platonis, i. 567, p. 34 (Leiden, 1714).
- ↑ Tuscul. quaestionum, iv. 37. De fato, v.
- ↑ Diss., xv. 157 (Cambridge, 1703).
- ↑ Select Papyri, Pl. xv., xix., and (Anastasi) ibid., cxxviii., cxxxiii.
- ↑ Ant., xvii. 12, 2.
- ↑ Authors differ in their views as to its authenticity, but Diogenes Laertius (v. 22) and Stobaeus (Serm. clxxxix.) both believe it to be genuine. The chief difficulty is the reference to a certain sophist, Dionysius, but this is probably an interpolation. There are physiognomic references in other writings of Aristotle (cf. Anal. pr., ii. c. 30; Hist. anim., i. 8, &c.) sufficient to justify the attribution of the treatise to him. On this, see Franz, Preface, p. vi. seq., of his Scriptores physiognomiae veteres (Leipzig, 1780).
- ↑ See an interesting paper on “Stretching and Yawning as Signs of Madness,” by Professor Ridgeway (Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc., i. 201), which refers to Aristoph. Wasps, 642, with which he compares Plautus, Menaechmi, 279. Other references exist to physiognomy in Cassiodorus, Isidorus, Meletius and Nemesius, but none of any great importance.
