by Aristotle
Voices are rough when the impact of all the breath upon the air is not single but divided and dispersed. For each portion of the air striking separately upon the [5] hearing—as if each were moved by a different impact—the sense-impression is dispersed, so that one vocal utterance fails to produce any sound, while another strikes with great violence upon the ear, and the contact with the hearing is not [10] evenly sustained; just as when a rough object touches the skin. This can be best illustrated from the file; for the air is set in motion simultaneously at a number of separate minute points, and so the sounds passing from these points to strike the ear seem rough, and especially so when the file is scraped against a hard substance. One may compare the sense of touch; hard, rough objects produce perception more [15] forcefully. The matter can also be illustrated from the pouring of liquids, for the sound made by olive-oil is less noticeable than that made by any other liquid, owing to the continuity of its parts.
Voices are thin, when the breath that is emitted is small in quantity. Children’s [20] voices, therefore, are thin, and those of women and eunuchs, and in like manner those of persons who are enfeebled by disease or over-exertion or want of nourishment; for owing to their weakness they cannot expel the breath in large quantities. The same thing may be seen in the case of stringed instruments; the sounds produced from thin strings are thin and narrow and fine as hairs, because [25] the impacts upon the air have only a narrow surface of origin. For the sounds that are produced and strike on the ear are of the same quality as the source of movement which gives rise to the impacts; for example, they are rare or dense, soft [30] or hard, thin or full. For one portion of the air striking upon another portion of the air preserves the quality of the sound, as is the case also in respect of shrillness and depth; for the quick impulsions of the air caused by the impact, quickly succeeding one another, preserve the quality of the voice, as it was in its first origin. Now the [35] impacts upon the air from strings are many and are distinct from one another, but because, owing to the shortness of the intermittence, the ear cannot appreciate the intervals, the sound appears to us to be united and continuous. The same thing is the case with colours; for separate coloured objects appear to join, when they are moved [804a1] rapidly. The same thing happens, too, when notes form a concord; for owing to the fact that the notes overlap and include one another and cease at the same moment, the intermediate sounds escape our notice. For in all concords more frequent impacts upon the air are caused by the shriller note, owing to the quickness of its movement; and the last note strikes upon our hearing simultaneously with an earlier sound produced by the slower impact. Thus, because, as has been said, the ear [5] cannot perceive all the intermediate sounds, we seem to hear both notes together and continuously.
Thick sounds, on the contrary, are produced when the breath is emitted in great quantity and all together. Therefore the voices of men are inclined to be thick, [10] and the notes of the so-called ‘perfect’ oboes, especially when the latter are well filled with air. This is clear from the fact that if you compress the mouthpiece the sound tends to become shrill and thin, as also if one draws the ‘speaker’ downwards; but if one stops up the exits, the volume of the sound becomes far greater owing to [15] the amount of breath, like the notes produced from thicker strings. The sounds uttered by those whose voices are breaking and persons suffering from sore-throats, and after vomiting, are thick owing to the roughness of the windpipe and the fact that the voice does not escape, but striking upon it is pent up and acquires volume; [20] and above all, owing to the moist condition of the body.
Piping voices are those which are thin and concentrated, such as those of grasshoppers and locusts and the nightingale’s song, and, generally speaking, cries which are thin, and are not followed by a second and different sound. For this piping quality does not depend on volume of sound nor on the tones being without tension [25] and deep, nor yet upon the close sequence of the sounds, but rather upon shrillness and thinness and accuracy. Therefore it is the instruments which are lightly constructed and tightly stretched, and those which have no horn-work about them, that produce piping notes. The sound of running water, and generally speaking, any [30] sound which, whatever its cause keeps up an unbroken continuity, preserve the accuracy of their tone.
Cracked voices which suddenly give way are those which travel along in a solid mass for a certain distance and then become dispersed. The best illustration may be taken from an earthenware vessel; every such vessel when broken as the result of a blow gives forth a cracked sound, for the course of the sound is broken at the point at [35] which the blow was struck, so that the sounds which it gives forth no longer form a solid mass. The same thing happens in the case of broken horns and badly strung strings; in all such cases the sound travels in a solid mass up to a certain point and is then dispersed, wherever the medium which supports it is not continuous, so that the [804b1] impact upon the air is not single but dispersed, and the sound produced seems cracked. Cracked voices closely resemble harsh voices, except that in the latter case the sounds are themselves dispersed into small portions, while cracked voices, for [5] the most part, form a solid mass at first and afterwards become split up into a number of parts.
Aspirated sounds are formed when we emit the breath from within immediately together with the sounds; smooth sounds, on the contrary, are those which are [10] formed without the emission of the breath.
Voices become broken when they have no longer strength enough to expel the air with an impact, but the region about the lungs collapses after distension. For just as the legs and shoulders eventually collapse when they are in a strained position, so [15] too the region about the lungs. The breath comes forth lightly, because the impact which it produces is not forcible enough; at the same time, owing to the fact that the windpipe has become exceedingly rough, the breath cannot pass out in a solid mass, [20] but is dispersed, and so the sounds which it produces are broken. Some people hold that it is owing to the adhesive condition of the lungs that the breath cannot pass out and abroad; but they are wrong, for what really happens is that they make a sound but cannot be heard, because the impact upon the air does not take place with [25] sufficient energy, but they only make a sound such as the breath would make when forced merely from the throat.
When people stammer, it is due not to an affection of the veins or windpipe, but to the movement of the tongue; for they find a difficulty in changing the position of the tongue when they have to utter a second sound. They therefore keep on [30] repeating the same word, for they cannot utter the next word; but the movements of articulation continue and the lungs go on working with an impetus in the same direction as before, owing to the quantity and force of the breath. For just as when one is running fast it is difficult to divert the whole body from its impetus in one direction to some other movement, so likewise is it with the individual parts of the [35] body. So people who stammer are often unable to say the next word, but can easily say the next but one, when they make a fresh start to the movement. This is clear from the fact that people often stammer when angry, because then they force out their breath.
**TEXT: C. Prantl, Teubner, Leipzig, 1881
1Retaining κέραμoν.
2Reading τὴν δὲ τῇ πλησίoν.
3Reading ζευλῶν.
PHYSIOGNOMONICS**
T. Loveday and E. S. Forster
1 · Mental character is not independent of and unaffected by bodily [805a1] processes, but is conditioned by the state of the body; this is well exemplified by drunkenness and sickness, where altered bodily conditions produce obvious mental modifications. And contrariwise the body is evidently influenced by the affections [5] of the soul—by the emotions of love and fear, and by states of pleasure and pain. But still better instances of the fundamental connexion of body and soul and their very extensive interaction may be found in the normal products of nature. There [10] never was an animal with the form of one kind and the mental character of another: the soul and
body appropriate to the same kind always go together, and this shows that a specific body involves a specific mental character. Moreover, experts on the [15] animals are always able to judge of character by bodily form: it is thus that a horseman chooses his horse or a sportsman his dogs. Now, supposing all this to be true, physiognomy must be practicable.
Three methods have been essayed in the past, each having had its special adherents.
The first method took as the basis for physiognomic inferences the various [20] genera of animals, positing for each genus a peculiar animal form, and a peculiar mental character appropriate to such a body, and then assuming that if a man resembles such and such a genus in body he will resemble it also in soul.1
Those who adopted the second method proceeded in the same way, except that they did not draw their inferences from all kinds of animals but confined themselves [25] to human beings: they distinguished various races of men (e.g. Egyptian, Thracian, Scythian) by differences of appearance and of character, and drew their signs of character from these races.
The third method took as its basis the characteristic facial expressions which are observed to accompany different conditions of mind, such as anger, fear, erotic [30] excitement, and all the other passions.
All these methods are possible, and others as well: the selection of signs may be made in diverse ways. The last mentioned method by itself, however, is defective in [805b1] more than one respect. For one thing, the same facial expression may belong to different characters: the brave and the impudent, for example, look alike, though [5] their characters are far asunder. Besides, a man may at times wear an expression which is not normally his: for instance, a morose person will now and again spend an enjoyable day and assume a cheerful countenance, whilst a naturally cheerful man, if he be distressed, will change his expression accordingly. And, thirdly, the number of inferences that can be drawn from facial expression alone is small.
[10] As to arguments from beasts, the selection of signs is made on wrong principles. Suppose you have passed in review one by one the forms of all the different kinds of animals, you still have no right to assert that a man who resembles a given kind in body will resemble it in soul also. In the first place, speaking broadly, [15] you will never find this complete likeness, but only a resemblance. Moreover, very few signs are peculiar to individual genera; most of them are common to more than one kind, and of what use is resemblance in a common attribute? A man will resemble a lion, let us say, neither more nor less than a deer. (For we have a right to [20] suppose that common signs indicate common mental characters and peculiar signs peculiar characters.) Thus the physiognomist will not get any clear evidence from common signs. But is he any better off if he takes every genus by itself and selects signs that are peculiar to each? Surely not, for he cannot tell what they are signs of. They ought to be signs of peculiar characteristics, but we have no right to assume that there are any mental characteristics peculiar to the different kinds of animals [25] that we examine in physiognomy. Courage is not confined to the lion, but is found in many other creatures; nor timidity to the hare, but it shares this quality with numberless other creatures. Thus it is equally fruitless to select the common and the peculiar features, and we must abandon the attempt to proceed by an examination of every kind of animal singly. Rather, we ought to select our signs from all animals [30] that have some mental affection in common. For instance, when investigating the external marks of courage, we ought to collect all brave animals, and then to inquire what sort of affections are natural to all of them but absent in all other animals. For [806a1] if we were to select this or that as the signs of courage in the animals chosen in such a way as not to exclude the possibility of the presence in all these animals of some other mental affection, we should not be able to tell whether our selected marks were really signs of courage or of this other character. The animals from which we [5] choose our signs must be as numerous as possible, and they must not have any mental affection in common except that one of which we are investigating the signs.
Permanent bodily signs will indicate permanent mental qualities, but what about those that come and go? How can they be true signs if the mental character [10] does not also come and go? No doubt if you took a transitory sign to be permanent, it might be true once in a way, but still it would be worthless because it would not be a constant concomitant of the affection.
Then again there are affections of soul whose occurrence produces no change in the bodily marks on which the physiognomist relies, and they will not provide his [15] art with recognizable signs. Thus as regards opinions or scientific knowledge, you cannot recognize a doctor or a musician, for the fact of having acquired a piece of knowledge will not have produced any alteration in the bodily signs on which physiognomy relies.
2 · We must now determine the special province of physiognomy (for the range of its application is limited), and the sources from which its various kinds of [20] signs are drawn, and then we may proceed to a detailed exposition of the more convincing among its conclusions.
Physiognomy has for its province, as the name implies, all natural affections of mental content, and also such acquired affections as on their occurrence modify the external signs which physiognomists interpret. I will explain later what kinds of [25] acquired characters are meant, but now I will give a list—a complete list—of the sources from which physiognomic signs are drawn. They are these: movements, gestures of the body, colour, characteristic facial expression, the growth of the hair, [30] the smoothness of the skin, the voice, condition of the flesh, the parts of the body, and the build of the body as a whole. Such is the list that physiognomists always give of the sources in which they find their signs. Were this list plain or not obscure, what [35] I have said would suffice; but, as things are, it may be worth while to give a more detailed description of the more convincing of the inferences that they draw from [806b1] their material, and to state what their various signs are and on what they are supposed to be founded, so far as I have not already done so.
A brilliant complexion indicates a hot sanguine temper, whilst a pale pink complexion signifies naturally good parts, when it occurs on a smooth skin. [5]
Soft hair indicates cowardice, and coarse hair courage. This inference is based on observation of the whole animal kingdom. The most timid of animals are deer, hares, and sheep, and they have the softest coats; whilst the lion and wild-boar are [10] bravest and have the coarsest coats. Precisely the same holds good of birds, for it is the rule that birds with coarse plumage are brave and those with soft plumage timid, particular instances being the cock and the quail. And again, among the different races of mankind the same combination of qualities may be observed, the [15] inhabitants of the north being brave and coarse-haired, whilst southern peoples are cowardly and have soft hair. A thick growth of hair about the belly signifies loquacity, on the evidence of the whole tribe of birds, for the one is a bodily and the other a mental property peculiar to birds. [20]
When the flesh is hard and constitutionally firm, it indicates dullness of sense; when smooth, it indicates naturally good parts combined with instability of character, except when smooth flesh goes with a strong frame and powerful extremities.
Lethargic movements are a sign of a soft character, rapid movements of a [25] fervid temper.
As to the voice,2 when deep and full it is a sign of courage; when high-pitched and languid, of cowardice.
Gesture and the varieties of facial expression are interpreted by their affinity [30] to different emotions: if, for instance, when disagreeably affected, a man takes on the look which normally characterizes an angry person, irascibility is signified.3
Males are bigger and stronger than females of the same kind, and their extremities are stronger and sleeker and firmer and capable of more perfect performance of all functions. But inferences drawn from the parts of the body are less secure than those based on facial expression of character and movements and [807a1] gesture. In general it is silly to r
ely on a single sign: you will have more reason for confidence in your conclusions when you find several signs all pointing one way.
Here I may mention a possible method of physiognomy which has never yet [5] been tried. Suppose, e.g., that irascibility and morose sulkiness necessarily involve an envious disposition, and that the physiognomist could, without any bodily signs of the last character, deduce its presence from the presence of the other characters, [10] we should then have a method peculiarly appropriate to masters of philosophy, since it is, we suppose, the peculiar mark of philosophy to be able to tell that, when certain premisses are given, something necessarily follows.4 But this method which considers the interrelations of mental affections and that which proceeds by observation of animals sometimes arrive at contrary conclusions.5 Take the voice, for example. By the former method you might feel bound to connect a shrill voice [15] with a fierce temper, because in vexation and anger one’s voice tends to become loud and shrill, whilst placid people speak in tones at once languid and deep. But as against this, if you observe beasts, you find that a deep voice goes with courage and [20] a shrill voice with timidity, as witness on the one hand the roar of a lion and bull, the hound’s bay, and the deep-noted crow of high-spirited cocks, and on the other, the high-pitched tones of deer and hares. Yet perhaps even in these cases it is better not to connect courage and cowardice with the pitch of the voice, but rather with its intensity, so that6 it is strength of voice that marks the brave and a languid and [25] feeble voice the coward. It is safest, however, to refrain from all positive assertion when you find that your signs are inconsistent and contrary to one another in detail, unless they belong to classes, some of which you have determined to be more trustworthy than others. Above all it is best to base your arguments upon assertions about species and not about entire genera, for the species more nearly resembles what we are concerned with, for in physiognomy we try to infer from bodily signs [30] the character of this or that particular person, and not the characters of the whole human race.