Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312 www.brill.

nl/esm

Philosophers and Physicians on the Scientific Validity

of Latin Physiognomy, 1200-1500*

Joseph Ziegler
University of Haifa

Abstract
e article surveys and contextualizes the main arguments among philosophers and
academic physicians surrounding the status of physiognomy as a valid science from
the thirteenth to the early sixteenth centuries. It suggests that despite constant doubts,
learned Latin physiognomy in the later Middle Ages was recognized by natural phi-
losophers (William of Spain, Jean Buridan, William of Mirica) and academic physi-
cians (Rolandus Scriptor, Michele Savonarola, Bartolomeo della Rocca [Cocles]) as a
body of knowledge rooted in a sound theoretical basis. Physiognomy was character-
ized by stability and certainty. As a demonstrative science it was expected to provide
rational explanation for every bodily sign. In this respect, learned physiognomy in the
Middle Ages was dramatically different from its classical sources, from Islamic and
possibly from early-modern physiognomy as well.

Keywords
physiognomy, certainty, body, John Buridan, William of Spain, William of Mirica,
Rolandus Scriptor, Michele Savonarola, Bartolomeo della Rocca, Cocles

Physiognomy belongs to a group of practices (including medicine)

that revolve around the semiotics of the body. e physiognomer
has always used the same analytical categories (colour, movement,
shape, texture, temperature) that also help the physician determine

*) For insightful comments I am grateful to the participants of the Nijmegen Work-

shop “Medicine, Alchemy, Magic and the Study of Living Beings: 1200-1700” of the
European Science Foundation programme From Natural Philosophy to Science 1200-
1700, to anonymous readers on behalf of ESM, to Anna Akasoy (Warburg Institute)
and to Orna Harari (Tel-Aviv University).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 DOI: 10.1163/157338207X205133

esm12-3.indd 285 5-7-2007 11:50:33

 286 J. Ziegler / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312

a diagnosis. Now what really lies behind this symptomatic model

shared in this case by medicine and physiognomy? Intuition? Access
to occult knowledge? Or a solid theoretical framework, which can
crown these practices with the desired diadem of the predicate ‘scien-
tia’? If this question had been asked before the year 1200 in the
Latin West, the answer would probably have been that with this
kind of knowledge factors are at play which cannot be measured—
a whiff, a glance, an intuition. Carlo Ginzburg has described these
practitioners as the successors of primordial hunters crouching in
the mud, examining their quarry’s tracks.1 is ‘low intuition’, which
is rooted in the senses, forms a tight link between the human ani-
mal and other animal species and is not based on any theoretical
foundation. But parallel to that well-documented process that led
to the recognition of medicine as a medieval science, a similar
(though a much slower) process can be detected in physiognomy.
e great contribution of the Middle Ages to physiognomy would
be to free it from this intuitive, conjectural stage by supplying it
with a firm theoretical foundation.2
Earlier debates about the status of physiognomy within the body
of the sciences appeared in the Islamic world in the eleventh cen-
tury.3 Avicenna, who apparently never wrote a physiognomic trea-

1)
Carlo Ginzburg, “Morelli, Freud, and Sherlock Holmes: Clues and Scientific
Method,” e Sign of ree: Dupin, Holmes, Peirce, ed. U. Eco and T.A. Sebeok
(Bloomington, 1983), 81-118, at 91 [originally “Spie. Radici di un paradigma indi-
ziario,” in A. Gargagni, ed., Crisi della ragione (Turin, 1979), 59-106].
2)
Joseph Ziegler, “Médecine et physiognomonie du xive au début du xvie siècle,”
Médiévale, 45 (2004), 87-105.
3)
Robert Hoyland, “Physiognomy in Islam,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 30
(2005), 361-402 (391-396); Anna Akasoy, “Arabic Physiognomy as a Link between
Astrology and Medicine,” in Anna Akasoy, Charles Burnett and Ronit Yoeli-Tlalim,
eds., Astromedicine; Medicine and Astrology, East and West: Conference Proceedings
(forthcoming); Youssef Mourad, La physiognomonie arabe et la Kitāb al-Firāsa de Fakhr
al-dīn al-Rāzī (Paris, 1939); Toufic Fahd, La divination arabe: Etudes réligieuses, socio-
logiques et folkloriques sur le milieu natif de l’Islam (Paris, 1987), 369-429; Antonella
Ghersetti, “e Semiotic Paradigm: Physiognomy and Medicine in Islamic Culture,”
in Simon Swain, ed., Seeing the Face, Seeing the Soul: Polemons Physiognomy from Clas-
sical Antiquity to Medieval Islam (Oxford, 2007), 281-308.

esm12-3.indd 286 5-7-2007 11:50:34

 J. Ziegler / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312 287

tise and ignored physiognomy in his Canon,4 is generally viewed

as the first author to have regarded it explicitly as a discipline
belonging to the theoretical sciences. He made it one of the sec-
ondary (that is practical) divisions of physica after medicine and
astrology and alongside interpretation of dreams, magic, and al-
chemy.5 roughout several philosophical and medical treatises he
favourably mentioned physiognomy as a rational science relying on
logically sound syllogisms. But the Arabic physiognomic compen-
dia which mixed contradictory signs from varied traditions show
how distant the practice of medicine was from Avicenna’s ideal of
a logic-based physiognomy. Some of the main thirteenth- and four-
teenth-century physiognomic treatises emerging in the Islamic world
(starting with the Kitāb al-firāsa by Fakher al-Dīn al-Rāsī [d. 1209])
included attempts to give physiognomy a proper theoretical foun-
dation (temperamental and humoral) as well as clear assertions that
firāsa is based on natural science and experience, and so is of the
same worth as medicine. But these attempts were rudimentary in
comparison with the parallel attempts in the West. Islamic physi-
ognomy essentially remained a divinatory art which should be seen
as an offshoot of Babylonian prophetic physiognomy.6
In the West, possibly inspired by these approaches in Islamic
physiognomy, it was Michael Scot who for the first time, around
1230, explicitly called physiognomy a scientia naturae, upgrading
this pursuit to the status of a scientific branch of natural philosophy.
In his proem to the Liber physonomiae the author advises the emperor
to encourage physiognomic interest and learning at his court as one
of the sciences that are beneficial to the ruler in helping him to dis-
tinguish between good and evil. Referring to this proem, Jole Agrimi
has described Michael’s physiognomy as an important stage in the

4)
For a discussion of the two allusions to physiognomy in Avicenna’s Liber canonis
III.1.10 and IV.2.1.26, see Ziegler, “Médecine et physiognomonie,” 96-97.
5)
Johannes omann, “Avicenna über die physiognomische Methode,” in Rüdiger
Campe and Manfred Schneider, eds., Geschichten der Physiognomik: Text, Bild, Wissen
(Freiburg, 1996), 47-63, at 52.
6)
omann, “Avicenna über die physiognomische Methode,” 63.

esm12-3.indd 287 5-7-2007 11:50:34

 288 J. Ziegler / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312

‘scholastisation’ of this body of knowledge.7 But this act of upgrading

was not that simple—it first had to convince the audience. Michael
Scot did not provide any argument (convincing or otherwise) to
back up his view of physiognomy. While he introduced into the
Latin physiognomic discourse order, analytical concepts (complex-
ion and other concepts related to humoral theory) and a crude
explanatory framework, he failed to provide a systematic theoretical
setting for physiognomy. During the years of his activity and in the
generation after him the classical physiognomic texts, which gradually
became available to the Latin readers of Europe, only reinforced
long-standing doubts about the seriousness—even the validity—of
physiognomic judgement.8 ese long lists of signs and significances,
very often badly ordered and unsystematic, and always lacking any
attempt to provide some sort of causal explanation, could not be
allowed into the pantheon of the sciences without challenge. e
method of combined evidence (whereby several pieces of evidence
support a specific conclusion even if the individual pieces are weak)
adopted by ancient physiognomers to counterbalance the uncertainty
characterizing their subject did not remove the doubts engulfing
that science.9
In the late twelfth century, two important classical authorities
became generally available, which both provided significant arguments
in support of those critical of physiognomy’s uncertainty and lack

7)
Jole Agrimi, “Fisiognomica e ‘Scolastica’,” Micrologus, 1 (1993), 235-271 (253-
263).
8)
Such doubts existed also among Jewish thinkers. See, for example, Maimonides’
disparaging view of physiognomy. According to him, one should avoid reading the
apocryphal Book of Ben-Sira [Ecclesiasticus], because it allegedly contains physiog-
nomy. Ben-Sira “was a man who composed books of fantasy on matters relating to al-
firāsa. [ese books] contain no wisdom and have no usefulness; they merely waste
one’s time with vain things....” (Maimonides’ commentary on the Mishnah, tractate
Sanhedrin 10.1, in Mishna im Perush Rabenu Mosheh ben Maimon, trans. Yosef Kapah
(Jerusalem, 1965), 140-141; full English translation in Maimonides’ Commentary on
the Mishnah, Tractate Sanhedrin, trans. with introduction and notes Fred Rosner (New
York, 1981), 150). I am indebted to Yedael Waldman who first drew my attention to
this citation.
9)
James Franklin, e Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability before Pascal (Bal-
timore, 2001), 329.

esm12-3.indd 288 5-7-2007 11:50:35

 J. Ziegler / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312 289

of explanatory value. e first was Galen, who in De complexionibus

2.6 subtly inserted a severe critique of physiognomers when com-
paring them with the physicians. Galen tied together Aristotelian
and Hippocratic threads in attempting to provide a humoral frame-
work for physiognomy, the basic principles of which he seems to
have endorsed, while criticizing physiognomists for their failure to
address the issue of causation.10 Warning physicians against diag-
nosing a person’s complexion on the basis of a single particular sign,
he proceeded to give an example that underpinned the affinity
between the two disciplines. Not even the physiognomers, says
Galen, make a simple judgement on the basis of a single sign, for
they have learnt from experience. Yet they do not come up with a
satisfactory causal explanation. When they say that a hairy chest sig-
nifies an irascible person and hairy hips a lustful person, they do
not identify the first cause in the lion, which has a hairy chest and
is irascible or in the goat, which has hairy hips and is lustful. ey
merely observe the similarity as it is, but they do not try to ven-
ture into the causes of this phenomenon in the animals themselves.
But the physician (physicus) makes an attempt to uncover the causes
of every observation he makes. Each complexion must be analyzed
per se on the basis of a cumulative analysis of the complexion of
the particular organs.
e second ancient source was Pliny the Elder, who throughout
the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was by far less popular than
he would be in the fifteenth and sixteenth, but whose criticism of
Aristotle’s interests in physiognomy was generally available through
its incorporation into Vincent of Beauvais’s encyclopaedic Speculum
naturale.11 In book 11 of his Natural History, Pliny characterized
the conclusions of physiognomy as frivolous and expressed his sur-
prise that the great Aristotle had considered them worthy of his

10)
Galen, De complexionibus 2.6, in Burgundio of Pisa’s Translation of Galen’s “De Com-
plexionibus,” ed. R.J. Durling, Galenus Latinus I (Berlin, 1976), 84. See also T.S. Bar-
ton, Power and Knowledge: Astrology, Physiognomics, and Medicine under the Roman
Empire (Ann Arbor, 1994), 98-99, 170. On ancient physiognomy reacting to the scep-
tics’ doubts concerning other minds, see Voula Tsouna, “Doubts about Other Minds
and the Science of Physiognomy,” Classical Quarterly, 48 (1998), 175-186.
11)
Vincent de Beauvais, Speculum naturale (Douai, 1624), xxviii.95, cols 2058-9.

esm12-3.indd 289 5-7-2007 11:50:36

 290 J. Ziegler / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312

teaching. Under attack were notably physiognomy’s prognostic pre-

tences, as well as its role as a decoder of human character.12
It seems, however, that learned thirteenth- and fourteenth-century
physiognomers (mainly philosophers, to judge by the authors of
treatises on physiognomy) did not feel threatened by these Plinian
or Galenic objections, for there is no direct reference to them in
their writings. Only around 1500 do we find for the first time in
a physiognomic text direct and apologetic references to the Plinian
challenge to the theory and practice of physiognomy.13 And this
is perhaps not surprising: furnished by what they believed was a
body of knowledge fully endorsed and partly invented by Aristotle,
authority was on the physiognomers’ side. Furthermore, they could
also make use of Aristotle’s discussion of inference by signs in Ana-
lytica Priora II.27. ere Aristotle suggests the possibility of a science
of physiognomy which can be based on a ‘physiognomic syllogism’
(syllogismum fysiognomonicum). Signs (signa) which appear evidently
in the body divulge certain information about the soul, its nature,
and its character (habitus animae, natura animae). e methodolog-
ical foundation of Aristotelian and pseudo-Aristotelian physiognomy

12)
Pliny, Natural History, 11. 273-274, ed. H. Rackham, (London and Cambridge,
MA, 1967), vol. iii, 604-605: “I am surprised that Aristotle not only believed but also
published his belief that our bodies contain premonitory signs of life <its length and
its course>. Although I think these views unfounded and must not be divulged with-
out hesitation, lest everybody should anxiously seek these auguries in himself, never-
theless I will touch upon it, because so great a man of the sciences has not despised
it… . Yet he does not, I imagine, note all these attributes present in one person, but
separately, trifling things, as I consider them, though nevertheless commonly talked
about.” See Benjamin Isaac, e Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity (Princeton,
2004), 155-156 for other critics of physiognomy in antiquity. Pliny’s criticism of
physiognomy should be read in the context of his scathing attacks against Greek med-
icine and magic. Vivian Nutton, “e Perils of Patriotism: Pliny and Roman Medi-
cine,” in Roger French and Frank Greenway, eds., Science in the Early Roman Empire:
Pliny the Elder, his Sources and Influences (London, 1986), 30-58.
13)
Bartholomei Coclitis Chiromantie ac physionomie anastasis cum approbatione magis-
tri Alexandri de Achillinis (Bologna, 1504), I. 2-3 (entitled: “contra Plinium et suos
sequaces in undecimo libro capite 52 ubi stimulat metoposcopos atque chyromanti-
cos et precipue phylosophum et trogum…”) (henceforth Cocles).

esm12-3.indd 290 5-7-2007 11:50:37

 J. Ziegler / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312 291

could be easily based on the logical validity of the physiognomic

syllogism as presented here.14
But even this was not enough to provide physiognomy with a
sound scientific basis. Given that an explanation is a marked char-
acteristic of demonstrative science according to Aristotle,15 how
does a new body of knowledge acquire the status of science in the
scholastic world of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries? In the
particular case of physiognomy the question is even more interest-
ing, because physiognomy was of interest to philosophers and phy-
sicians alike, since it started as a branch of natural philosophy but
gradually became medicalized. Elaborating on such a question may
better enable us to grasp the nuances characterizing the doubts con-
cerning physiognomy and their solutions among philosophers and
physicians.
I use three commentaries (two in the form of scholastic quaes-
tiones, the other a running commentary) on the pseudo-Aristote-
lian physiognomy, all from the period of the last decade of the
thirteenth century until c. 1350 and all related to the faculty of
Philosophy in Paris—William of Spain or of Aragon,16 William of
Mirica,17 and John Buridan18—to survey the main doubts of phi-

14)
Aristotle, Analytica priora II.27, 70b in Aristoteles Latinus III 1-4, Analytica priora,
ed. L. Minio-Paluelo (Bruges, 1962), 138-139, 190-191, 370-372.
15)
See, for example, Averroes’s introduction to Aristotle’s Physics in Aristotelis de
physico auditu libri octo cum Averrois Cordubensis variis in eosdem commentariis (Ven-
ice, 1562-1575), vol. iv, fol. 4ra.
16)
On William of Aragon and his commentary, see Jole Agrimi, “La fisiognomica e
l’insegnamento universitario: La ricezione del testo pseudoaristotelico nella facoltà
delle arti,” in Ingeniosa scientia nature: Studi sulla fisiognomica medievale (Florence,
2002), 101-166, at 125-141. I consulted Paris, BnF, MS lat. 16089, fols 244ra-257rb
and Erfurt, Wissenschaftliche Allgemeinbibliothek, MS Ampolon. Qu. 306, fols 47-
61.
17)
On William of Mirica’s commentary see Agrimi, “La fisiognomica e l’insegna-
mento,” 141-155. I consulted Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Canon. Misc. 350
[henceforth Mirica].
18)
On Buridan’s commentary see Agrimi, “La fisiognomica e l’insegnamento,” 155-
163 and Lynn orndike, “Buridan’s Questions on the Physiognomy Ascribed to Aris-
totle,” Speculum, 18 (1943), 99-103. I consulted Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS
Canon. Misc. 422, fols 111r-128r [henceforth Buridan].

esm12-3.indd 291 5-7-2007 11:50:38

 292 J. Ziegler / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312

losophers about the validity of physiognomy as a science. I then

reflect on the different ways that three fifteenth-century physicians
took when presenting the science of physiognomy—Rolandus Scrip-
tor (1430s),19 Michele Savonarola (1450s),20 and Bartolomeo della
Rocca, known as Cocles, (1504).21 e opening chapters of these
texts present a scientific justification for physiognomy, which was
occasionally elaborated further throughout the text.
e above-mentioned philosophers and physicians suggest a clear
academic context for the debates about physiognomy’s scientific valid-
ity. But direct evidence to suggest that physiognomy was regularly
taught at medieval universities is scarce. I found no such evidence
for the medical faculties. As for the arts faculties, the picture is
slightly clearer, but calls for further investigation.22 e first such
piece of evidence for Paris appears in a list of books and their prices
which booksellers should have on stock so that students could hire
the exemplar, for reading or copying. e list composed between
1275 and 1286 includes a phisiognomia Aristotelis, which is bound
together with a commentum Alexandri super librum Metheororum. It
encompasses 19 pecias and is valued at nine pence.23 Similar later
Parisian lists ignore physiognomy. e earliest document, which actu-
ally mentions physiognomy as part of the academic curriculum,
comes from the 1405 statutes of Bologna which anticipate an extra-
ordinary teaching of physiognomy during the first year.24 e early
Latin statutes of the university of Freiburg of 1463 assigns to the
bachelor of arts who continues for a Master’s license the duty to

19)
Rolandus Scriptor, Reductorium phisonomie, in Lisbon, Bib. Ajuda, MS 52. XIII.
18 [henceforth Rolandus]. On Rolandus see Ziegler, “Médecine et physiognomonie,”
99-100.
20)
Michele Savonarola, Speculum phisonomie, in Paris, BnF, MS lat. 7357.
21)
See n. 13 above.
22)
Agrimi, “La fisiognomica e l’insegnamento,” 108-111 and “Fisiognomica e ‘Sco-
lastica’.”
23)
Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, ed. Heinrich Denifle and Emile Louis Marie
Chatelain, 4 vols. (Bruxelles, 1964) (repr. 1891-1899), I: 644: “Librorum theologiae
et philosophiae et iuris pretium ab universitate Parisiensi taxatum quod debent habere
librarii pro exemplari commodato scholaribus.”
24)
C. Malagola, Statuti delle Università e dei Collegi dello Studio Bolognese (Bologna,
1888), 274 in Agrimi, “La fisiognomica e l’insegnamento,” 109, n. 42.

esm12-3.indd 292 5-7-2007 11:50:38

 J. Ziegler / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312 293

have followed lectures on Aristotle’s Physiognomy (which is grouped

together with his Politics, Economics and the treatise De bona for-
tuna).25 But the production of academic commentaries and scho-
lastic quaestiones by leading masters in Paris from the 1290s onwards
(from Pietro d’Abano, William of Spain, and John of Jandun to
John Buridan) and the inclusion of pseudo-Aristotle’s physiognomy
in many (and occasionally annotated) academic collections of Aris-
totelian natural philosophy in an apparently standard order of books
suggests that physiognomy was regularly read in Paris and beyond
even if it may not have acquired a fixed place in the standard cur-
riculum.26

e Philosophers’ View
e philosophers interested in physiognomy were not much both-
ered by the above-mentioned doubts concerning the inferior qual-
ity of physiognomic demonstrations. Recognizing that not all sciences
proceed from causes to effect, and that sciences exist that conversely
proceed from the knowledge of effect to knowledge of causes, they
defined physiognomy as an a posteriori science: from the disposi-
tions of the body one could show the dispositions of the soul.27
ey were, however, troubled by the content of some of the under-

25)
H. Ott and J.M. Fletcher, eds., e Mediaeval Statutes of the Faculty of the Arts of
the University of Freiburg im Breisgau (Notre Dame, IN, 1964), 47, no. 23.
26)
e abundant evidence for the academic success of the Secret of Secrets after 1250
in Paris and Oxford is relevant as well. e Secret of Secrets served as an important
vehicle for the transmission of rudimentary physiognomic thought. Steven J. Wil-
liams, e Secret of Secrets: e Scholarly Career of a Pseudo-Aristotelian Text in the Latin
Middle Ages (Ann Arbor, 2003), chapter 6 passim and esp. 195-211, 245-247.
27)
Mirica, fol. 7r: “Quia igitur in scientiis non solum proceditur apriori siue a cogni-
tione causarum ad cognitionem effectuum sed etiam e contrario aposteriori a cogni-
tione effectuum ad cognitionem causarum, et hoc in omni genere causarum ut patet
ex 4o libro posteriorum. Ex dispositionibus igitur corporum aposteriori congrue potest
argui dispositio animarum. Congrue igitur processerunt philosophi in tradendo phi-
sonomiam, quia per signum et dispositiones corporis iudicabant de moribus et dispo-
sitionibus mentis.”

esm12-3.indd 293 5-7-2007 11:50:39

 294 J. Ziegler / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312

lying assumptions of physiognomy and by some of its structural

characteristics.
First, there was the fundamental question of certainty. Can phys-
iognomy provide its practitioner with fixed or certain judgement
(certum iudicium)?28 e fact that one’s external bodily dispositions
can change (through age and physical exercise) without being accom-
panied by a character change precludes certainty as a characteristic
of physiognomy. Conversely, character change was also seen to be
possible without changing bodily dispositions. Otherwise all those
ethical treatises and theories, which presumed a change in behav-
iour without demanding a parallel change in bodily shape, would
be of no use. For these reasons, physiognomy seemed to possess no
fixed judgement. Furthermore, zoological physiognomy, in which a
comparison between two individuals of different species provided
the source of a physiognomic argument, did not manage to prop
up the wobbly foundation of physiognomic judgement. Rather, it
further burdened it with a heavy load of uncertainty and pushed
philosophers to draw a conceptual distinction between two kinds
of comparisons: complete or specific (absolute or proprie), in com-
paring individuals of the same species, or general (comparatio large
sumpta), in comparing a corresponding likeness (proportionalis simi-
litudo) in individuals of different species.29 e second was a phys-
iognomic comparison with animals, which hence was wholly safe
and legitimate. At no stage did the comparison between bodily signs
and behavioural patterns among humans and other animals amount
to a philosophically and religiously unacceptable crossing between
species.
is feeling of uncertainty was further strengthened by experi-
ence as, for example, with persons showing physical traits that should

28)
Buridan, fol. 111ra: “Circa librum physonomie aristotelis queritur. Primum utrum
per physonomiam postest haberi aliquod certum iudicium de moribus hominum.”
29)
William of Aragon, MS Erfurt, fol. 53ra-b: “Consequenter queritur de modis phi-
sonomandi quos tangit philosophus. Utrum secundum omnes phisonomare contin-
gat ut ipse dicit et videtur quod non quoniam inter ea que sunt diuersarum specierum
non debet esse comparatio, ut patet 1o phisicorum, sed alia animalia ab homine sunt
diuerse specie ab ipso igitur enim debet non aliis animalibus comparari….”

esm12-3.indd 294 5-7-2007 11:50:39

 J. Ziegler / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312 295

have disposed them to boldness and courage (for example, because

of their powerful bodies), but who actually displayed weak and cow-
ardly behavior. Consequently critics could assert that if anything
could be attributed to physiognomy, it was deception, not certainty.
To remove these doubts the philosophers came to define physiog-
nomy in a manner that acknowledged the qualitative difference in
physiognomic signs but at the same time could provide a simple
mechanism for the use of all these signs in yielding valid and safe
judgement. Physiognomy was largely defined as “a science by which
we make judgement concerning natural passions of the soul by means
of external bodily signs that are either transitory or permanently
fixed.”30 Its subject is the human soul.31 And it is possible, use-
ful, and necessary.32 According to Buridan,33 there are signs that
are transitory (signa transitoria), such as blushing when ashamed or
paleness in fear or anger, and there are those that are permanent
and fixed (signa radicalia). But this distinction does not undermine
the scientific validity of physiognomy: first, because physiognomy
is about probability and not about necessity;34 second, because phys-
iognomy is not about deciphering acquired characteristics or acci-
dental behaviour, which can change, but about uncovering the
natural or radical complexion which inheres in the individual from

30)
Buridan, fol. 111rb: “sciencia qua iudicamus de passionibus anime per signa
exteriora corporis.” Mirica, fol. 4v: “philosophi uiderunt necessariam esse scientiam
per quam possit de facili iudicari de quolibet utrum sit naturaliter dispositus ad ope-
rationes nobiles uel ad uiles.” Savonarola, fol. 1vb: “phisionomia est scientia ad natu-
rales anime passiones cognoscens principaliter inuenta, corporisque accidentia quibus
habituatum est. Unde mutua in utrisque permutatio contingit.”
31)
Mirica, fol. 8v: “anima humana ut receptibilis morum naturalium est subiectum in
ista scientia.”
32)
Mirica, fol. 6r: “Et ita ad huc ista scientia erit possibilis, necessaria et utilis ut dic-
tum est.”
33)
Buridan, fol. 111vb: “per signa transitoria et adueniencia potest quandoque fieri
certum iudicium de passionibus anime transitoriis… si rubescit in facie et supercilia
deprimendo est signum verecundie si palescit timoris vel iracundie propter concursum
sanguinis ad cor…” .
34)
Buridan, fol. 111rb: “Sciendum est quod phisonomia non impelit hominibus
necessitatem ad male uel ad bene operandum sed quadam probabilitatem et estima-
tionem propinquam….”; Mirica, fol. 7r.

esm12-3.indd 295 5-7-2007 11:50:39

 296 J. Ziegler / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312

birth and is unchangeable;35 and third, because every physiognomic

judgement is made on the basis of all available bodily signs (includ-
ing contradictory signs), not of a single sign.36 Hence the margin
of error is dramatically reduced and the certainty increases. Two
complexions exist in every human being: a radical complexion, which
inheres from birth, and an acquired complexion, which is the out-
come of the chosen regimen of life. It is the natural inclination
rooted in the radical complexion that the physiognomer seeks to
uncover. His judgement is therefore based on a relatively stable cat-
egory, which allows a reasonable level of certainty. e story of the
son of an artisan who became king but despite intensive training
in regal mores could not resist his artisan inclinations (attributed
by Buridan to book 2 of Haly Ridwan’s [Ali ibn Ridwān] commen-
tary on Galen’s Tegni) and the story of Hippocrates’ students con-
fronting the physiognomer Phylomen37 are repeatedly invoked to
illustrate this concept of two complexions and the ability (with great
difficulty) of the free will to suppress the first complexion of nat-
ural inclinations. e physiognomer does not judge how a person
actually behaves, but what he is really like by nature.38
But physiognomy’s unsteady certainty was not the only challenge
to its scientific status. Pseudo-Aristotle’s dictum in the opening sen-

35)
Buridan, fol. 111va: “Ex quo sequitur corpore quod de moribus hominum acquisi-
tis non potest fieri certum iudicium per physonomiam. Istud patet quia tales mores
dependent a uoluntate non per complexionem precedentem non potest de eis certum
iudicium haberi per physonomiam. Alia conclusio sit ista quod de inclinacione natu-
rali potest per physonomiam haberi certum iudicium ita uidelicet quod homo per
signa exteriora potest certe cognoscere quod talis non est naturaliter inclinatus ad frau-
dem uel ad libertatem uel ad prodigacionem uel ad luxuriam et sic de aliis.”
36)
Buridan, fol. 111vb-112ra: “Alia conclusio est quod ad iudicandum de moribus
hominum per signa physonomica non standum est uni signo. Ista probatur quia uide-
mus in aliquo homine est aliquod signum pro uno et tamen sunt plura signa ad
oppositum. Si iudicaret illud solum signum ipse deciperetur quare non est hoc modo
iudicandum.”
37)
Physiognomoniae secreti secretorum, in Scriptores physiognomonici graeci et latini, ed.
Richard Förster, 2 vols. (Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1893), II: 187-191 [henceforth
SPGL].
38)
Buridan, fol. 112ra: “difficile est inclinationem naturalem omnino supprimere qua-
muis sit possibile.” Ibid., 115va: “phisonomus non iudicat qualis sit homo sed qualis
sit naturaliter….”

esm12-3.indd 296 5-7-2007 11:50:40

 J. Ziegler / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312 297

tence of his Physiognomy that “souls (animae) both follow bodies

and are, as such, not unaffected (non sunt impassibiles) by the motions
of the body”39 created grave doubts and raised intriguing questions.
“Is physiognomy possible at all and is it one?,”40 asks William of
Aragon, and he elaborates on a question already debated by Albert
the Great possibly in 1258 and reported by Konrad of Austria in
the 1280s.41 Albert defended physiognomy’s rationale by suggest-
ing that virtuous behaviour (mores) depends on two variables: a sen-
sitive appetite (appetitus sensitivus) and uprightness of reason (rec-
titudo rationis). e appetite is regulated by reason to produce
virtuous behaviour. But since the sensitive appetite employs bodily
organs for its function, these become signs revealing the natural
behavioural aptitudes (aptitudines naturales). Physiognomy’s ratio-
nale that the body affects the soul was thus vindicated. But the phi-
losophers were not satisfied with this simple Albertine solution, as
evinced by the lengthy discussions of the same question in their
commentaries. at the soul affects the body goes without saying
and poses no real problem. But is this a commutative equation?
Does the soul follow the body in the same way as the body fol-
lows the soul? Do souls submit to the motions of the body? In Aris-
totelian terms: how can form follow (and thus be subservient to)
matter? If the soul relates to the body as an agent (agens) to an
instrument, as an end (finis), a form (forma), or an efficient cause
(efficiens), how can it follow the body?42 ese questions suggest

39)
“Quoniam et animae sequuntur corpora et ipsae secundum se ipsas non sunt
impassibiles a motibus corporis, hoc autem manifestum fit valde in ebrietatibus et in
egritudinibus. Multum namque animae mutatae videntur a passionibus corporis, et e
contrario utique corpus compatitur passionibus animae” (SPGL, I: 5).
40)
William of Aragon, MS Erfurt, fol. 48va: “Utrum phisonomia sit possibilis et
utrum una?"
41)
Albert the Great, Quaestiones super de animalibus quas reportavit frater Conradus de
Austria, I. 21, ed. Ephrem Filthaut, in Alberti Magni Opera omnia, vol. 12 (Aschen-
dorff, 1955), 94-95: “Utrum physiognomia sit possibilis haberi per partes corporis.”
42)
William of Aragon, MS Erfurt, fols 48vb-50ra: “Utrum ad diuersitatem corporum
sequatur diuersitas animarum?” Buridan, fol. 112ra-vb: “queritur utrum anime
sequuntur corpora sic quod ad diuersam disposicionem corporum in specie humana
sequantur diuerse disposiciones animarum.”

esm12-3.indd 297 5-7-2007 11:50:41

 298 J. Ziegler / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312

that the opening sentences in pseudo-Aristotle’s Physiognomy cre-

ated a sense of unease among medieval readers. ey may have been
intrigued by the apparent contradiction with Aristotle’s teaching in
De anima, where the soul is described as the first entelechy of the
body potentially being ensouled. But between the lines one may
also read Christian anxiety concerning the potential danger to the
primacy of soul over body.
If the soul follows the dispositions of the body, altered dispositions
(by age, for example) will lead to an alteration in the dispositions
of the soul.43 is will undermine the uniqueness, indivisibility,
impassibility, and incorruptibility of one’s soul. If only one soul
informs one body, the notion of a changed soul according to a
changing body—and one’s body changes constantly—invites a notion
of the plurality of souls in a human being, which is patently false.
We witness so many shapes of the same species in nature: is this
then no proof that the soul, which is the form of the human spe-
cies, is independent of the body and its diversity? Furthermore, the
fact that the heart is the organic source of the formative power
responsible for generating all bodily members, and that it does so
as an instrument of the soul (mediante anima), singles out the latter
as the generator of the whole body and renders invalid the possibility
that the soul follows the body.44
e way out of this mist of doubts undermining the whole ratio-
nale of physiognomy consisted in the view that with respect to sub-

43)
William of Aragon, MS Erfurt, fol. 53rb: ” consequenter queritur occasione cuius-
dam verbi quod dicit philosophus in quadam ratione, scilicet quod secundum quedam
tempora mutentur mores utrum mores naturales circa quos est phisonomia debeant
mutari propter mutationem temporis… Ad questionem istam breuiter respondendum
est quod mores naturales non debent mutari propter mutacionem temporum… natu-
rales mores sequuntur radicalem complexionem corporis que inuariabilis manet in
tota vita quantum ad speciem complexionis; qui enim sanguineus est a naturali com-
plexione semper talis erit licet respectu sui ipsius gradus habeat diuersos qui dicuntur
etates.” Buridan, fol. 112ra-vb: “Et queritur utrum anime sequuntur corpora sic quod
ad diuersam disposicionem corporum in specie humana sequantur diuerse disposicio-
nes animarum."
44)
Buridan, fol. 112rb: “….primo producitur cor quod mediante anima habet virtu-
tem formatiuam omnium aliorum membrorum ex quo sequitur quod anima habeat
illa membra formare et totum corpus perficere, quarum non sequitur corpus."

esm12-3.indd 298 5-7-2007 11:50:42

 J. Ziegler / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312 299

stantial change (mutatio substantialis) souls do not follow bodies,

because whatever is changed substantially can be corrupted. e
incorruptibility of the soul precludes such a change. Aristotle’s dic-
tum refers to a change in the functioning of the soul (operationes,
motus) as a result of a bodily change, hence it does not in any way
endanger the soul’s dominance over the body and its chronological
precedence (anima precedit totum corpus). e fact that Aristotle
intentionally speaks of the soul being affected by the motions of
the body (a motibus corporis) and not by the body (a corpore) was
also useful in neutralizing the potential danger to the idea of the
soul’s dominance over body.45 An alternative way out was to use
the analogy of the relationship between the craftsman and his instru-
ment to explain the relationship between soul and body. William
of Aragon determined that the soul follows the body in the same
way as the craftsman is said to follow his instrument. For in a cer-
tain way principal causes follow instrumental ones.46 e cases of
the impact of disease, drunkenness, or handicapped bodies on the
soul are often common examples for this phenomenon (all origi-
nally mentioned in pseudo-Aristotle’s Physiognomy as well as in the
Secretum secretorum version), whereby the body clearly affects the
passions of the soul.47
e need to put the science of physiognomy on a sure footing
involved not only a redefinition of the relationship between body
and soul, but also a rejection of the possibility of transmigration

45)
William of Aragon, MS Paris, fol. 246vb.
46)
William of Aragon, MS Erfurt, fols 48vb-49ra: “Utrum ad diuersitatem corporum
sequatur diuersitas animarum? Videtur quod non... Oppositum dicit philosophus hic
et inferius et uniuersaliter omnes phisonomones et medici etiam qui ad diuersitates
complexionis corporis concludunt mores naturales diuersos et anime habitus et con-
ceptus. hoc idem potest ratione probari quoniam omne agens quod habet per instru-
mentum suam operationem explicare operatur non tamen secundum suam potentiam
sed etiam facultatem sequitur instrumenti. Sed anime sunt agentes per corpora ut per
instrumentum. Ergo anime sequuntur corpora... Ad questionem igitur dicendum
secundum intentionem philosophi quod ad diuersitatem corporum diuersitas sequi-
tur animarum et quod secundum aliquod modum anime sequuntur corpora....”
47)
Buridan, fol. 112vb; SPGL i. 5 and ii 194-195.

esm12-3.indd 299 5-7-2007 11:50:42

 300 J. Ziegler / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312

of souls from one body to another.48 Is it possible that an animal

will have a body of one species and a soul of another?—asks Wil-
liam of Aragon. In other words, is transmigration possible among
animals (including, of course, the human species)?49 An affirma-
tive answer is given by Pythagoras, who allegedly said that when
the soul of a lustful person is separated from the body it migrates
into the body of a goat. is applies to the souls of all others who
are infected with vices; they transmigrate into other animals. Con-
versely, the souls of the virtuous are said to transmigrate into var-
ious celestial beings (stars—in stellas; or airy gods—in deos aereos)
according to the respective degree of nobility of their virtues. If pop-
ular beliefs are to be taken seriously (“si dictis popularibus dignum
sit credere”), some men have actually turned into wolves, asses, and
the like. Furthermore, books of secrets, attributed to Plato, also teach
that man is transformed into different animal species. Against this
notion of transmigration, which undermines the foundations of the
science of physiognomy in general, not just of its zoological aspects,
William, who is backed by Aristotle’s powerful authority, puts for-
ward the notion of ordered nature in which a union between soul
and body of different animal species is impossible. Pythagoras either
spoke falsely (falsum dixit), or else never intended to represent truth
but rather to direct the behaviour of mankind to good deeds. All
popular fables about transmigration should be utterly rejected. As
for Plato, while the said treatise does exist, its opinion on the issue
of transmigration is wrong.
But how can the body suffer, be subjected to or affected by (pa-
titur) the soul, which is connected to the body as its form? Being

48)
For the classical origins of the idea of transmigration of souls, see Plato, Phaedo
81b1-82b9; Lucretius, De rerum natura, I. 116; Ovid, Metamorphoses XV. 157-178. It
may also have been gleaned from standard patristic sources (such as Augustine’s letter
144 to Jerome, On the Origins of the Soul, or his discussion of migrating souls in De
civitate Dei VIII and IX (esp. ch. 11), which frequently refers to Apuleius’ De deo So-
cratis), or from later commentators on Aristotle’s De anima (for example, Albertus
Magnus, Liber de natura et origine animae II. 7-8, ed. Bernhard Geyer, in Alberti
Magni Opera omnia, vol. 12 (Aschendorff, 1955), 29-32).
49)
William of Aragon, MS Erfurt fols 51vb-52rb: “Queratur utrum aliquod animal
possit esse vel sit quod habeat corpus alicuius animalis et anima alterius diuersorum
in specie et videtur quod sic... .” e text employs the verb transcorporare.

esm12-3.indd 300 5-7-2007 11:50:42

 J. Ziegler / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312 301

the preserver of the body (conservans corpus), the soul by definition

cannot undermine its dispositions or make it suffer. As mover
(motrix) of the body, it is separated from it and is connected only
via the intermediary spirit (spiritus), which is the physical vehicle
allowing the soul to affect the body. When the spirit cools down
or is heated, the body, directly affected by this change, becomes cold
or hot and alters its constitution and disposition.50
But the unstable nature of the physiognomic signs also created
further doubts and questions, exerting a pronounced effect on the
perceived validity of the physiognomic judgement. Our Parisian phi-
losophers ask, for example, whether it is allowed (licitus) to make
a physiognomic judgement through analyzing the external shape.51
While certain shapes may indeed be the simple outcome of intrin-
sic and innate principles (for example, celestial influences, or embry-
onic conditions), others are the result of artificial, accidental, or
transitory interventions (for example, midwives who reshape the
skull and the limbs of new born babies, or certain dispositions of
the womb causing a special bodily shape). e physiognomer must
not only be able to distinguish the two, but he must discard at the
time of his judgement all accidental signs.
Another related question was whether it is correct to make a phys-
iognomic judgement based on facial characteristics.52 is suggests
that the modern gradual narrowing of the physiognomic gaze to
the head and the face may have started much earlier. e mutabil-
ity of the face, its distance from the heart which is the source of
every bodily or spiritual virtue, the infinite human ability to pre-
tend—all these features seem to render the face an unsuitable locus
for safe physiognomic analysis. But the fact that an extensive part

50)
William of Aragon, MS Erfurt, fol. 50vb: “queritur utrum corpus paciatur ab
anima et videtur quod non quia a conservante non sit passio… anima secundum quod
est forma corporis est coniuncta et sic ab ipsa non patitur, sed secundum quod est
motrix corporis est separata et non coniungitur corpori nisi per spiritum qui species
sit vel sit infrigidatus uel calefactus infrigidat corpus uel calefacit et sic patitur.”
51)
Buridan, fol. 114rb-vb: “queritur si sit licitus modus physonomandi per figu-
ram.”
52)
Buridan, fols 114vb-115va: “utrum modus physonomandi per mores faciei sit
bonus.”

esm12-3.indd 301 5-7-2007 11:50:43

 302 J. Ziegler / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312

of every physiognomic text was devoted to facial signs made it nec-

essary to find a convincing answer as to why the face is after all the
best locus for safe physiognomic judgement. It was argued that the
face, being the window to all cerebral powers, was the most indi-
vidual of all bodily organs. In the face appeared most clearly the
differences between individuals of the same species, so that it was
the best source of information for casting a physiognomic judge-
ment, which was always individual.
It should presumably not be considered a coincidence if such a
preoccupation with the face as the locus of individuality occurred
at a time that historians of art view as the beginning of the modern
portrait. e earliest example of an awareness that portraits are pro-
duced not only to reproduce bodily similarity (for recognition and
identification), but also to expose their object’s soul is given in Pietro
d’Abano’s Expositio in problematibus Aristotelis xxxvi.1. ere Giotto
(Zoto) is mentioned as an exemplary artist who can produce abso-
lute similarity that exposes also the character and moral quality of
a person.53
e inherent instability of the physiognomic sign, which threat-
ened to undermine the validity of physiognomic judgement, was
expressed in two particular cases. First, does the natural character
(mores naturales), which physiognomy aims to decipher, depend on
environmental conditions (mutationes temporis, aetates) and in par-
ticular on changes in climate and variations of age?54 e reply
must be negative if the science of physiognomy is to be kept intact.
Character, according to William of Aragon, follows the radical com-
plexion, which is immutable throughout life. It is affected neither
by age (aetas) nor by climatic seasons (tempora anni). e radical

53)
Johannes omann, “Anfänge der Physiognomik zwischen Kyōto und Athen:
Sokratische Begriffsbestimmung und aristotelische Methodisierung eines globalen
Phänomens,” in Ilsebill Barta Fliedl and Christoph Geissmar, eds., Beredsamkeit des
Leibes: Zur Körpersprache in der Kunst, (Salzburg, 1992), 209-215, at 214-215; and
“Pietro d’Abano on Giotto,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 54
(1991), 238-244; H. Steinke, “Giotto und die Physiognomik,” Zeitschrift für Kunstge-
schichte, 57 (1996), 523-547, esp. 531-547.
54)
William of Aragon, MS Erfurt, fol. 53rb-va: “Utrum mores naturales circa quos est
phisonomia debeant mutari propter mutacionem temporis? Et videtur quod non.”

esm12-3.indd 302 5-7-2007 11:50:43

 J. Ziegler / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312 303

complexion has internal positions, which reflect age and weather.

us in the state of childhood the person is more sanguine, in
mature adolescence he tends to be more choleric, then follows a
melancholic stage, and at the end the radical complexion tends to
be more phlegmatic. Still, these are all internal categories, which
do not denote different radical complexions, but only characterize
different stages in the development of one and the same complex-
ion.55
e second case to be considered is the influence of holding a
powerful position on one’s character. It is popularly held that posi-
tions of power (honores) alter one’s character. But is this true?, asks
William of Aragon.56 e observation that people who assume posi-
tions which confer upon them dignity and honour forget old friend-
ships and even suddenly become inimical is the basis for this
popular belief. But this is only an illusion. Honores do not change
the natural character (mores naturales), they merely reveal what has
previously been hidden. People in positions of honour and author-

55)
William of Aragon, MS Erfurt, fol. 53rb-va: “Ad questionem istam breuiter respon-
dendum est quod mores naturales non debent mutari propter mutacionem temporum
sicut satis tangent rationes ad hanc partem. Prima, naturales mores sequuntur radi-
calem complexionem corporis que inuariabilis manet in tota uita quantum ad speciem
complexionis. Qui enim sanguineus est a naturali complexione semper talis erit licet
respectu sui ipsius gradus habeat diuersos qui dicuntur etates. Unde ad primum in
oppositum dicendum quod etates non uariant radicalem complexionem sed ipsius
radicalis complexionis status diuersos ostendunt. Unde in prima parte quecumque sit
complexio radicalis, quia calor et humiditas radicalis habundant respectu aliarum
etatum dicuntur adoloscentes sanguinei, et quia in secunda iam humiditas teriatur et
desiccatur et calor est acutior, dicuntur iuuenes colerici, humiditate uero magis con-
sumpta talis refrigeratur et ita tertia etas dicitur frigida sicca et melancolica respectu
aliarum etatum non quin ad hoc. Respectu aliarum complexionum sit eadem com-
plexio radicaliter nam sanguineus secundum omnes etates est sanguineus respectu
aliarum complexionum licet respectu sui ipsiu diuersificetur ut dictum est.”
56)
William of Aragon, MS Erfurt, fol. 53va: “Circa hoc queritur de quodam prover-
bio quod honores mutant mores naturals et videtur quod sic ex hoc quod apparet in
pluribus qui antequam ad dignitatem aliquam sumerentur boni et virtuosi iudicaban-
tur, assumpti autem ad dignitatem et honorem mores induebant contrarios et valde
viciosi reperti sunt. Multi etiam amici videntur qui postquam ad aliquod gradum
honoris venerunt subito totius amicitie fiunt immemores et fiunt quod est deterius
inimici. Ex hiis talibus que frequenter apparent habuit prouerbium originem... .”

esm12-3.indd 303 5-7-2007 11:50:44

 304 J. Ziegler / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312

ity are no longer afraid of following their natural inclinations (motus

naturae) and hence expose a vicious character that has always been
there. But the same may also be true of a hidden virtuous charac-
ter, which can suddenly be revealed when a person finds himself in
a position of power.
I have already mentioned the principle of individuality, which
was so pertinent for the physiognomers and which had to be
strengthened almost at all costs. is led to two specific questions:
should individuals of the same species have the same shape?57 An
affirmative answer to this question had to be found so that the com-
mon denominator, which was essential for physiognomic analysis,
would remain intact. Without this, no common list of signs could
be universally applied to all individuals of the human race. One of
the arguments in favour of a negative answer was the monstrous
shape of Ethiopians, hermaphrodites, hunchbacked people, and other
‘monsters’. William of Aragon adamantly insists that individuals of
the same species must have the same shape; however there are acci-
dental mutations, which are responsible for external variations within
the species. For William, blacks (Ethiopians), hermaphrodites, ‘gib-
bosi’ all belong without doubt to the human species, even though
their figure or shape is deformed.58 e species is unalterable, but
there may be variations within it. ere are many equilateral trian-
gles, but they differ according to the length of their sides. e mixed
benefit of including these groups within the human species is that
they eventually do acquire an unflattering physiognomic profile,
which undermines their status in human society.
It is furthermore asked whether absolute similarity between two
individuals really exists: are identical twins really identical?59 e
negative answer (necessary to protect the principle of individuality

57)
William of Aragon, MS Erfurt, fol. 54va: “Utrum omnia indiuidua eisdem speciei
debeant habere eandem figuram.”
58)
William of Aragon, MS Erfurt, fol. 54va: “sicut iam patet quod ethiopes bene salu-
ant speciei figuram nec mutatur licet deturpetur, idem dicendum de hermofrodicis et
gibbosis et huiusmodi monstris, quod monstrum quando totaliter cadit a figura speciei
iam non iudicatur illius speciei indiuiduum sed alterius.”
59)
William of Aragon, MS Erfurt, fol. 54va-55ra: “Utrum duo homines possint om-
nino reperiri similes?.”

esm12-3.indd 304 5-7-2007 11:50:44

 J. Ziegler / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312 305

which is at the basis of physiognomy) relies heavily on astrological

considerations and the individual astral plan for each and every per-
son. Among William of Aragon’s arguments we find one invoking
Ptolemy’s words that celestial constellations repeat themselves only
every 36,000 years, which means that it is impossible to find two
identical individuals at any one time. e evidence of twins in Ara-
gon who were said to have been so identical that they even thought
alike and whose patterns of health and disease were as that of one
person is bluntly rejected as false by William: the twins were indeed
extremely similar, but not entirely.60

e Physicians’ View
Physicians who were engaged in physiognomy were less bothered
by all these questions. One can only guess that the great affinity
between medical and physiognomic examination rendered physiog-
nomy in their eyes more conventional and less problematic. e
theoretical framework in medicine could equally serve physiognomy.
Physicians defined physiognomy exactly as did the philosophers,61
but only few traces of doubt about the scientific validity of physi-
ognomy are encountered in their treatises. I found no trace, for
example, of a discussion of the fundamental question of certainty
in their treatises. rough the senses of sight and touch, the sci-
ence of physiognomy gives demonstrative proof of the passions of
the soul (manifeste demonstrat). “Nobody doubts that by some law
of nature, body and soul are connected in a powerful connection
and mutually affect each other in their operations.”62 With such

60)
William of Aragon, MS Erfurt, fol. 54vb: “tales fuerunt reperti in aragonia ali-
quando fratres gemelli inter quos erat tanta similitudo quod nunquam unus infirma-
batur quando alius infirmaretur, qui frequentissime idem cogitabant et in figura ualde
similes fuerint’. His reply on fol. 55ra is short and sharp: ‘dico quod falsum est licet
enim multum similes non tamen omnino.”
61)
Savonarola, fol. 1vb: “phisionomia est scientia ad naturales anime passiones cogno-
scens principaliter inuenta corporisque accidentia quibus habituatum est. Unde mutua
in utrisque permutatio contingit.”
62)
Savonarola, fol. 2rb: “Nemo quidem ambigit animam cum corpore quadam lege

esm12-3.indd 305 5-7-2007 11:50:45

 306 J. Ziegler / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312

words of great conviction, Michele Savonarola expressed his belief

that lengthy discussions concerning the relationship between body
and soul and the priority of the one over the other were really not
necessary. Physicians literally accepted the pseudo-Aristotelian tenet
about the mutual relationship of body and soul, and felt no need
to justify the fact that as a science of signs physiognomy was an a
posteriori science and hence empirical (and perhaps inferior in na-
ture). e firm connection between behavioural patterns and the
idea of complexion was an ancient idea, which they could find in
Galen’s Ars medica and therefore also in Ali ibn Ridwān’s commentary
on the second book of Galen’s Tegni (entitled De signis in Articella
editions), and which was consequently introduced into physiognomic
discourse by Rhases (Ibn Zakariyya al-Rāzī, d. 925) in his treatment
of physiognomy in book ii of Liber Almansoris and adopted for the
first time by Michael Scot in his Liber physonomiae (c. 1230). Accord-
ing to this tradition, all physiognomic signs observed by physicians
were taken to be external expressions of humoral or complexional
changes. On this view, a more balanced complexion is inevitably
accompanied by a more perfect character, and to possess perfect
physiognomic knowledge one needs to have a full grasp of com-
plexional theory.63 e forceful presence of the term ‘complexion’
in medical treatises and its frequent use both rendered it a key
explanatory tool for the meaning of the physiognomic sign. Com-
plexion was taken to be the cause of human character. As we saw
earlier, philosophers were not ignorant of the term when discuss-
ing the philosophy of physiognomy, but they seem to have been
inclined to see it as a sign (signum) of natural character, not as its
cause.64 A more material, physical air surrounded the medical dis-
cussion of physiognomy than the philosophical discourse.
e first treatise in Rolandus Scriptor’s Reductorium phisonomie
is a detailed explanation of the mutual relationship between body

nature uallida connexione coniungi ut suis in operationibus alterum ab altero pacia-

tur.”
63)
Savonarola, fol. 3vb: “Unde Hali. Et mores anime sunt sequentes complexiones
corporis et caliditatem cordis sequitur uirilitas et festinantia et huiusmodi. Quibus
quantum ad habendam phisionomie scientiam perfectam necessaria sit humanarum
complexionum cognitio, facile comprehenditur.”
64)
Agrimi, “La fisiognomica e l’insegnamento,” in Ingeniosa scientia nature, 140.

esm12-3.indd 306 5-7-2007 11:50:45

 J. Ziegler / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312 307

and soul. It provides a comprehensive causal framework for the phys-

iognomic signs.65 It relies on a plethora of authoritative sources,
in particular Aristotle’s non-biological books on Politics and Ethics.
e tone is non-apologetic: that the body follows the soul goes with-
out saying. But that the soul follows the body is more problematic
and demands the support of authorities. e argument centres on
common theories of generation, embryology, ensoulment, and astral
influences. is opening treatise comes as a fulfillment of the prom-
ise made by Rolandus in the introduction to the book: by compil-
ing the book, he undertakes to repair an inherent flaw in all the
surviving physiognomic texts, which resided in their brevity, their
inability to give a causal explanation for the physiognomic signs,
and their confused references to a paradigmatic law of nature or the
mutual relationship between body and soul.66 e first chapter con-
fidently hammers home the notion that the soul naturally follows
the body, that the material form in a mixed body necessarily pre-
cedes the substantial form, and that many material dispositions
characterizing the human body (including many aspects of human
behaviour) precede in generation the introduction of the rational
soul. In generation bodily form (forma corporeitatis) exists almost
independently and is only remotely connected to the prime cause.67
e soul (or souls, vegetative and sensitive) as the organizing prin-
ciple of the organic body corresponds to the elemental components
of the body, in a manner that is similar to the correspondence (pro-
portio) existing between the form (forma mixtionis) in a mixed body
and the mixed body itself. In the case of humans, the shape and

65)
Rolandus, fol 2v: “Primus tractatus est causarum signorum intus dicendorum
demonstratiuus. Primum capitulum docet diuersos modos sequele corporis ad ani-
mam et econtra.”; fol. 12r: “Capitulum secundum a quibus et qualibus causis diuer-
sitas multiplex impressionum in anima et corpore causatur. Per quam diuersitatem
diversitas morum efficitur.”; fol. 28r: “Capitulum tercium: In qualibus motibus a
diuersis impressionibus factis passiones anime et corporis capiunt originem.”
66)
Rolandus, fol. 1v: “Sed tanta breuitate rescisa, ut nullum conscriptum viderim
completum. Sed solummodo figuras cum significationibus declarans nullam causam
subiungendo; ac si omnium conscriptorum ad solam ordinationem seu legem nature
aut, ut clarius dicam, sequelam mutuam anime et corporis universaliter et confuse
multum referendo.”
67)
Rolandus, fol. 2v: “quedam participatio obscura luminis prime cause….”

esm12-3.indd 307 5-7-2007 11:50:46

 308 J. Ziegler / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312

complexion of the organic body will determine the actions and oper-
ations triggered by the soul.68 e process of generation lends phys-
iognomy its scientific credibility. We have come across references to
the theory of generation in the philosophers’ discussion of physi-
ognomy. But there it played the opposite role, namely to back the
argument that the soul precedes the body in generation and con-
trols its formation via the spirit.
Rolandus elegantly removes doubts concerning the suggestion that
the soul follows the body. Particularly problematic seems the rela-
tionship between the body and the intellective soul, which is exter-
nal to the body, separate from it, immaterial, immortal, and of
divine origin, and hence cannot be affected by the body.69 Rolan-
dus pays lip service to the notion that the rational soul is the key
to man’s superiority over all bodily beings, granting him an almost
angelic status.70 e rational soul does not simply follow the body;
it needs no intermediary created material to undergo a change, and
it is subordinate to God.71 But after having acknowledged this,

68)
Rolandus, fol. 3v: “Quia quale fuerit corpus organicum in figura et complexione,
talis erit anima in suis actionibus et operationibus quia suum modum essendi siue
suam existentiam aut actualitatem que non est purus actus sed commixta potentie
materiali, que quidem potentia actus efficitur per generans determinatum ad animati
productionem habet tale corpus animatum ex suo actu et sua potentia talem operatio-
nem que semper secundum quemdam habitum relatiue se habet cum quadam equi-
parantiam ad suum corpus. Quare necessario insequuntur anime corpora.” is ex-
planation is attributed to Giles of Rome’s treatise on physiognomy.
69)
Rolandus, fol. 5r: “Sed qualiter anima nostra corpus insequitur, non immerito quis
dubitabit, cum ipsa sit separabilis a corpore immortalis existens ac immaterialis in-
diuisibilis per se et per accidens. Nec est intellectiua anima forma corporis, ita quod
est per corpus subsistens. Nec est actus corporis per virtutem corpoream de corpore
eductus. Nec intellectus organis indiget aut materia in esse suo. Intellectus vero alio
modo et sub alia ratione est actus seu forma corporis quam ipsa sensitiua aut vegeta-
tiua forma aut anima. Quomodo intellectus ipse qui est forma hominis cum philoso-
phus hominem dicit intellectum esse principaliter seu maxime corpus sequitur.
Dubium propter pretacta non est modicum.”
70)
Rolandus, fols 7v-8r: “per ipsam animam racionalem homo superior est omni
motu et nobili corpore ac omni tempore coequatur intelligentie siue angelo in natura
generis licet sit infra ipsum, officio ministrationis et otio contemplationis.”
71)
Rolandus, fol. 7v: “Secundum ordinem anime quem diuinum diximus, anima
racionalis corpus humanum non insequitur, nec ab eo patitur. Sed secundum hunc

esm12-3.indd 308 5-7-2007 11:50:47

 J. Ziegler / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312 309

Rolandus reiterates throughout the chapter the notion that the soul
is affected by the body. Referring to Aristotle’s Politics he determines
that man receives the power of understanding from nature at birth.72
e body as a receptacle of the soul, which precedes the soul in
generation; the biological elements of the soul (the vegetative and
sensitive souls), which inhere in us from conception and genera-
tion; the condition of the body as an instrument of the soul affect-
ing it as any instrument would affect its mover (motor); and the
intermediary role of the spirit which links body and soul and is
exposed to material manipulations—these are the main arguments
supporting the conviction that the body affects the soul.73
Rolandus’ unique contribution to Western physiognomy is con-
stituted by his attempt to go beyond the usual lament and to pro-
vide actual reasons for the physiognomic signs. Ten or fifteen years
later Savonarola did the same independently of Rolandus. ese fif-
teenth-century physicians were not satisfied with a simple repeti-
tion of the traditional lists of signs and their meanings. ey were
seeking an ordered theory that would enable them to structure phys-
iognomy on a firm causal basis. Temperamental humorology pro-
vided this theoretical basis on which the traditional set of signs and
their significance could rest peacefully, and consequently be safely
and validly employed by those who possessed the proper knowl-
edge.74
Bartolomeo della Rocca, better known as Cocles, devoted chap-
ters 2 and 3 of his physiognomic bestseller of 1504 to a frontal
attack on Pliny and his followers, who had derided physiognomy
and other arts that decoded bodily signs (chiromancy and meto-

ordinem prime cause siue deo coniuncta est potestate et possibilitate. Inter quam et
diuinam potestatem non est medium quo indigeat anima in sua operatione et in sua
perfectione. Sed immediate a deo perficitur. Et in hoc ordine considerate anima ratio-
nalis habet imperium rationis causa liberum, quod a solo deo mutabile est et perfec-
tibile sine alia media creatura.”
72)
Rolandus, fol. 5v: “oportet esse natura pura homines nasci, potentiam utique intel-
ligendi habentes a natura.”
73)
Rolandus, fol. 10v: “anima igitur rationalis considerata sub ratione motoris conse-
quitur instrumentum suum videlicet spiritum.”
74)
Ziegler, “Médecine et physiognomonie,” 99-105.

esm12-3.indd 309 5-7-2007 11:50:47

 310 J. Ziegler / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312

poscopy). is happened some twelve years after Niccolò Leoniceno

(1428-1524), the author of De Plinii et plurium aliorum medicorum
in medicina erroribus, had provoked an international controversy
which dethroned Avicenna and replaced him and Pliny with Dio-
scorides, Galen, and Hippocrates.75 For Cocles the definition of
physiognomy as a science is almost axiomatic: “Physiognomy is the
science of the natural passions of the soul and accidents of the body
which alternately change each other’s state.”76 Backed by a list of
all ancient and contemporary authorities that were not unfavour-
able to physiognomy (these include Rhases, Peter of Abano, Michael
Scot, and Albert the Great), he flayed Pliny for not backing his cri-
tique up with any acceptable mode of demonstration (quia, prop-
ter quid, propter experientiam). He undermined Pliny’s credibility by
showing various contradictions in Pliny’s own works, where occa-
sionally behavioural patterns are inferred from bodily marks, or
where marvellous and incredible phenomena are uncritically docu-
mented without being backed by logical explanations. Cocles cited
Albert’s unflattering remarks about Pliny’s ignorance in mineralogy
and concluded that Pliny’s criticism of physiognomy was frivolous
and frail (frivola et caduca). is critique thus strongly echoed the
Hellenists’ anti-Plinian rhetoric of physicians such as Leoniceno.
Obviously, however, Cocles was very much bothered by the core
of what he called Pliny’s criticism, namely the absence of a causal
argument in traditional physiognomic discourse. Against this heavy
charge Cocles introduced a long defense of the celestial causation
behind every natural object in the inferior world, including the
human body. Nature, he argued, inserts everywhere signs and images

75)
Charles G. Nauert, “Humanism, Scientists, and Pliny: Changing Approaches to
Classical Authors,” American Historical Review, 84 (1979), 72-85; Roger K. French,
“Pliny and Renaissance Medicine,” in Roger French and Frank Greenway, eds., Science
in the Early Roman Empire: Pliny the Elder, His Sources and Influences (London, 1986),
252-281 (263-268); Vivian Nutton, “e Rise of Medical Humanism: Ferrara, 1464-
1555,” Renaissance Studies, 11(1) (1997), 2-19 (4).
76)
Cocles I.2: “Ideo physionomia sic diffinitur: Physionomia est scientia passionum
anime naturalium corporisque accidentium habitum vicissim permutantium utrius-
que.” is definition is taken verbatim from Pietro d’Abano’s definition in Liber com-
pilationis phisonomie, 1.2.1.

esm12-3.indd 310 5-7-2007 11:50:48

 J. Ziegler / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312 311

of enormous diversity without clearly explaining them. In the case

of physiognomy these signs are a divine gift reflecting God’s clem-
ency and protective care, which should save the human species in
general from enemies, imprisonment, violence and disease. Hence
physiognomers invent nothing, mislead no one, and act not acci-
dentally but through divine intention.77

Conclusion
Students of pre-modern approaches to probability use the concept
of ‘soft science’ when discussing medicine, astronomy, and
physiognomy. For them these are all sciences in which the data are,
in the modern understanding, all noise and no laws.78 inking
of medieval and early renaissance physiognomy in these terms is
however unhelpful. True, doubts about the scientific validity of phys-
iognomy never disappeared. Its conjectural dimension could not eas-
ily be denied.79 But by 1500 two theoretical frameworks, the
medical or complexional and the astrological, were available for those
who wished to anchor physiognomic signs in the conventional sci-
entific context. e portrayal of physiognomy as a part of the secrets
literature and as belonging to the realm of the occult was marginal
in the physiognomic discourse before 1500. Nevertheless, Cocles’s
need to recruit God in defence of physiognomy’s validity suggests
that even these powerful theories were no longer sufficient to con-
vince sceptics that physiognomy was a legitimate science and a valid
practice. Living at the threshold of a new era, Cocles was perhaps
heralding a change.
is picture of the learned perception of the status of physiog-
nomy as a valid science before 1500 is fundamentally different from

77)
Cocles I.3 (end): “Aristoteles, secundo de anima ubi inquit quod postquam deus
hominem in indiuiduo perpetuo seruare non potuit, seruat in specie. Uide quanta sit
in nos diuina clementia. Hec igitur vides qua nam lege constituta sunt. Concluden-
dum est igitur chyromanticos, physionomos et huiusmodi homines non accidentali-
ter sed diuino profluxisse consilio.”
78)
Franklin, e Science of Conjecture, 162-164.
79)
Ian Maclean, Logic, Sign and Nature in the Renaissance: e Case of Learned Medi-
cine (Cambridge, 2001), 315-319, 328.

esm12-3.indd 311 5-7-2007 11:50:48

 312 J. Ziegler / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 285-312

the mystical, almost occult art of physiognomy after 1500 as

described in a recent study.80 Does this mean that a dramatic change
of mind occurred within the community of the literati at the turn
of the sixteenth century? Or should we rather seek to balance Mar-
tin Porter’s picture with more evidence for sixteenth- and seven-
teenth-century continuity of this non-mystical medieval way of
looking at physiognomy? Did the relegation of Secretum secretorum
in the sixteenth century to the sidelines of scholarly discourse, as
doubts of its authenticity increased, play a significant role in under-
mining physiognomy’s status as a valid science? Was physiognomy
in the sixteenth century being discussed more in the academies than
in the universities and as part of a critique of the established aca-
demic syllabi?81 And was there in early-modern universities any sig-
nificant academic interest in physiognomy as a science? ese are
only some unanswered questions, which need to be addressed before
a full comparison between late-medieval and early-modern physi-
ognomy can be undertaken.

80)
Martin Porter, Windows of the Soul: Physiognomy in European Culture 1470-1780
(Oxford, 2005).
81)
Porter, Windows of the Soul, 76, 161.

esm12-3.indd 312 5-7-2007 11:50:49