The Politics of Aristotle

by Aristotle

  A nose thick at the tip means laziness, as witness cattle: but if thick from the [30] tip, it means dullness of sense, as in swine; if the tip is pointed, irascibility, as in dogs; whilst a round, blunt tip indicates pride, as in lions. Men with a nose thin at the tip have the characteristics of birds. When such a nose curves slightly right [35] away from the forehead, it indicates impudence, as in ravens: but when it is strongly aquiline and demarcated from the forehead by a well-defined articulation, it indicates a proud soul, as in the eagle; and when it is hollow, with the part next the forehead rounded and the curve rising upwards, it signifies lasciviousness, as in [811b1] cocks. A snub nose means lasciviousness, as in deer. Open nostrils are a sign of fierce temper, for they enter into the facial expression of temper.

  [5] The face, when fleshy, indicates laziness, as in cattle: if gaunt, assiduity, and if bony,13 cowardice, on the analogy of asses and deer. A small face marks a small [10] soul, as in the cat and the ape: a large face means lethargy, as in asses and cattle. So the face must be neither large not little: an intermediate size is therefore best. A mean-looking face signifies by congruity an illiberal spirit.

  As to the eyes, when the lower lids are pendulous and baggy, you may know a [15] bibulous fellow, for heavy drinking produces bagginess below the eyes; but when the upper lids are baggy and hang over the eyes, that signifies somnolence, for on first waking from sleep our upper lids hang heavily. Small eyes mean a small soul, by congruity and on the evidence of the ape: large eyes, lethargy, as in cattle. In a man [20] of good natural parts, therefore, the eyes will be neither large nor small. Hollow eyes mean villainy, as in the ape: protruding eyes, imbecility, by congruity and as in the ass. The eyes, therefore, must neither recede nor protrude: an intermediate [25] position is best. When the eyes are slightly deep-set, they signify a proud soul, as in lions: and when a little deeper still, gentleness, as in cattle.

  A small forehead means stupidity, as in swine: too large a forehead, lethargy, as in cattle. A round forehead means dullness of sense, as in the ass: a somewhat [30] long and flat forehead, quickness of sense, as in the dog. A square and well-proportioned forehead is a sign of a proud soul, as in the lion. A cloudy brow signifies self-will, as in the lion and the bull: a smooth brow is taken from [35] observation to mark the flatterer, and you may notice how a dog’s brow smooths out when he fawns upon you. So, a cloudy brow indicating self-will and a smooth brow [812a1] obsequiousness, the proper condition must be intermediate between these extremes. A scowling brow means a morose disposition, for we observe that vexation is thus expressed: a downcast brow means querulousness, as may also be verified by [5] observation.

  A large head means quickness and a small head dullness of sense, on the evidence of the dog and the ass respectively. A peaked head means impudence, as in those birds which have curved claws.

  Men with small ears have the disposition of monkeys, those with large ears the disposition of asses, and you may notice that the best breeds of dogs have ears of [10] moderate size.

  Too black a hue marks the coward, as witness Egyptians and Ethiopians, and so does also too white a complexion, as you may see from women. So the hue that makes for courage must be intermediate between these extremes. A tawny colour [15] indicates a bold spirit, as in lions: but too ruddy a hue marks a rogue, as in the case of the fox. A pale mottled hue signifies cowardice, for that is the colour one turns in terror. The honey-pale are cold, and coldness means immobility, and an immobile [20] body means slowness. A red hue indicates hastiness, for all parts of the body on being heated by movement turn red. A flaming skin, however, indicates mania, for it results from an overheated body, and extreme bodily heat is likely to mean [25] mania.

  A fiery colour on the chest signifies irascibility, for it is part of the expression of the onset of anger. Swollen veins on the neck and temples also signify irascibility, being part of the expression of anger. A face that reddens easily marks a bashful [30] man, for blushing is an expression of bashfulness. But when the jowl goes red, you have a drunkard, for a red jowl is an expression of heavy drinking: whilst eyes that flush red indicate uncontrollable temper, for in a wild outburst of temper the eyes flush red. If the eyes are too black, they signify cowardice, for we saw above that [812b1] this is the signification of too black a hue: if they are not too black, but inclining to chestnut, they indicate a bold spirit. Grey or white eyes indicate cowardice, for we saw above that this is the signification of a white hue: but if they are gleaming [5] rather than grey, they mean a bold spirit, as in lions and eagles. Goatish eyes mean lustfulness, as in goats: fiery eyes, impudence, as in dogs: eyes pale and mottled, [10] cowardice, for in terror the eyes go pale with splotches of colour: glistening eyes, lasciviousness, on the analogy of the cock and the raven.

  Hairy legs mean lasciviousness, as in goats. Too much hair on breast and belly [15] mean lack of persistence, as argued from birds, in which this bodily characteristic is most developed; but breasts too devoid of hair indicate impudence, as in women. So both extremes are bad, and an intermediate condition must be best. Hairy shoulders [20] mean lack of persistence, on the analogy of birds: too much hair on the back, impudence, as in wild beasts. Hair on the nape of the neck indicates liberality, as in lions: hair on the point of the chin, a bold spirit, on the evidence of dogs. Eyebrows [25] that meet signify moroseness, by congruity: eyebrows that droop on the nasal and rise on the temporal side, silliness, as is seen in swine. When the hair of the head stands up stiff, it signifies cowardice, by congruity, for fright makes the hair stand [30] on end: and very woolly hair also signifies cowardice, as may be seen in Ethiopians. Thus extremely bristly and extremely woolly hair alike signify cowardice, and so hair gently curling at the end will make for boldness of spirit, as is to be seen in lions. [35] A ridge of hair14 on the upper part of the forehead indicates a liberal disposition, as in the lion: but a growth of hair on the forehead down by the nose indicates [813a1] illiberality, the argument being from congruity, because such a growth presents a servile appearance.

  A long and slow step indicates a mind slow to begin, but persistent when started, for the length of the stride shows determination, but its slowness procrastination. [5] A short slow step means tardiness without persistence, for shortness and slowness indicate lack of determination. A long quick step means enterprise and persistence, for its speed indicates enterprise and its length determination. A short quick step signifies enterprise without persistence.

  [10] Identical references are made about gesture of hand, elbow, and arm. To hold one’s shoulders straight and stiff and roll them as one walks and to have weasel-arms. . .15 on the analogy of the horse: but to roll the shoulders if one stoops a little forwards means a proud soul, as in the lion. To walk with feet and legs bent out [15] means femininity,16 as being a characteristic of women. To keep turning and bending the body is a sign of obsequiousness, for that is the gesture of the flatterer. To walk with a stoop to the right is by congruity of appearance held to argue effeminacy.

  [20] Mobile eyes signify keenness and rapacity, as in hawks: blinking eyes, cowardice, for flight begins with the eyes. Sidelong leering glances are held to be characteristic of a fop, and so are drooping movements of one lid half over a motionless eye, and an upward roll of the eyes under the upper lids with a tender [25] gaze and drooping eyelids, and in general all tender melting glances; we argue partly from congruity, partly from the fact that these looks are common in women. A slow movement of the eyes which allows a tinge of white to show all the time, so that they look stationary, indicates a reflective character; for when the mind is [30] absorbed in reflection, our eyes also are motionless.

  A big, deep voice indicates insolence, as in the ass: a voice which, starting low, rises to a high pitch, indicates despondency and querulousness, the argument being partly from cattle and partly from congruity. Shrill, soft, broken tones mark the speech of the effeminate; for such a voice is found in women and is congruous. A [813b1] deep, hollow, simple voice. . .17as
in the stronger breeds of dogs, and also by the argument from congruity. A soft, languid voice means gentleness, as in sheep: a shrill, shrieking voice, lewdness, as in goats. [5]

  Men of abnormally small stature are hasty, for the flow of their blood having but a small area to cover, its movements are too rapidly propagated to the organ of intelligence. Men of abnormally large stature, on the other hand, are slow, for the flow of the blood has to cover a large area, and its movements are therefore [10] propagated to the organ of intelligence slowly. Small men with dry flesh, or of the hue that heat produces in the body, have not persistence enough to effect their purposes; for their blood flowing in a confined space, and at the same time, in consequence of the fiery condition of the body, flowing rapidly, their thought never keeps to a single topic, but is always passing to something new before being done [15] with the old. Again, big men with moist flesh or of the hue that results from cold, also lack persistence; for their blood flowing over a large area, and slowly, on account of the cold condition of the body, its movement does not manage to reach the organ of intelligence entire. On the other hand, small men with moist flesh and [20] of the hue that results from cold, do effect their purposes; for their blood moving in a confined area, the less mobile constituent in its composition produces a proportion which conduces to effectiveness. And again, big men with dry flesh, and of the hue that results from heat, are also persistent, and are keen of sense; for the warmth of [25] flesh and complexion counteracts the excessive size, so that a proportion conducive to effectiveness is attained. Such, then, are the conditions under which opposite extremes of stature tend now to effective activity, and now to ineffectiveness. But a stature intermediate between these extremes confers upon its possessors the [30] greatest acuity of sense and the greatest general effectiveness, for on the one hand, movements of the blood, not having a long distance to travel, easily reach the reason, while on the other hand, not being confined in too small a space, they do not withdraw. Thus the greatest tenacity of purpose and the greatest acuity of sense will be found in persons of moderate stature.

  An ill-proportioned body indicates a rogue, the argument being partly from [814a1] congruity and partly from the female sex. But18 if bad proportions mean villainy, a well-proportioned frame must be characteristic of upright men and brave: only, the standard of the right proportions must be sought in the good training and good breeding of the body, and not in the male type, as we said at the beginning. [5]

  It is advisable, in elucidating all the signs I have mentioned, to take into consideration both their congruity with various characters and the distinction of the sexes; for this is the most complete distinction, and, as was shown, the male is more upright and courageous and, in short, altogether better than the female. It will be [814b1] found, moreover, in every selection of signs that some signs are better adapted than others to indicate the mental character behind them. The clearest indications are given by signs in certain particularly suitable parts of the body. The most suitable [5] part of all is the region of the eyes and forehead, head and face; next to it comes the region of the chest and shoulders, and next again, that of the legs and feet; whilst the belly and neighbouring parts are of least service. In a word, the clearest signs are derived from those parts in which intelligence is most manifest.

  **TEXT: R. Förster, Scriptores Physiognomonici, Teubner, Leipzig, 1893

  1Reading διάνoιαν oʭα ↚πεται τῷ τoιoύτῳ σώματι, εἶτα τòν ꜏ μoιoν τoύτῳ τò σῶμα ἔχoντα.

  2Förster thinks that there is a lacuna in the text here.

  3Reading ꜏ ταν γὰρ πάσχῃ τι, εἰ τoιoῦτóν τι γίνεται oἷoν ἔχει ꜏ ταν τις ὀργίζηται, ὀργίλoυ τò σημεῖoυ. τoῦ δ’ αὐτoῦ γένoυς.

  4Reading τò γὰρ δύνασθαι ἰδεῖν τινων ὄντων ἀναγκαῖoν τoῦτ’ εἶναι.

  5Reading ἔστι δ’ ꜏ τε ἐναντιoῦται τῷ κατὰ τὰ πάθη φυσιoγνωμoνεῖν τò κατὰ τὰ ζῷα.

  6Förster marks a lacuna here.

  7Reading ἀσθενῆ, καὶ μικρὰ σκέλη.

  8Reading μικρòν ἔγκυρτα.

  9Retaining γυπώδεις.

  10Förster marks a lacuna here.

  11Reading μετρίoυς.

  12Förster marks a lacuna here.

  13Reading ὀστώδη.

  14Reading ἀνάσιλλoν.

  15There is a lacuna here, or else the text is corrupt.

  16Reading θήλεις.

  17Förster marks a lacuna.

  18Reading εἰ δέ.

  ON PLANTS**

  E. S. Forster

  BOOK I

  1 · Life is found in animals and plants; but while in animals it is clearly [815a10] manifest, in plants it is hidden and not evident. For before we can assert the presence of life in plants, a long inquiry must be held1 as to whether plants possess a soul and a distinguishing capacity for desire and pleasure and pain. Now Anaxagoras and Empedocles say that they are influenced by desire; they also assert that they [15] have sensation and sadness and pleasure. Anaxagoras declared that plants are animals and feel joy and sadness, deducing this from the fall of their leaves; while Empedocles held the opinion that sex has a place in their composition. Plato indeed [20] declares2 that they feel desire only on account of their compelling need of nutriment. If this be granted, it will follow that they also feel joy and sadness and have sensation. I should also like to reach some conclusion as to whether they are refreshed by sleep and wake up again, and also whether they breathe, and whether [25] they have sex and the mingling of the sexes or not. But the great diversity of opinion on these subjects involves too long an inquiry, and the best course is to pass over these topics and not to waste time on the unprofitable investigation of details. Some [30] have asserted that plants have souls, because they have seen that they are generated and receive nutriment and grow, and have the bloom of youth and the dissolution of old age—characteristics which nothing inanimate shares with plants; if plants possess these characteristics, they believed them also to be affected by desire. [815b10]

  Let us first examine their obvious characteristics, and afterwards those which are less evident. I say that whatsoever takes food desires food, and feels pleasure in satiety and pain when it is hungry, and that these dispositions do not occur without the accompaniment of sensation. The view of Plato, then, who held that plants have sensation and desire was remarkable, but not unsound; but Anaxagoras and [15] Democritus and Empedocles declared that they possessed intellect and intelligence. These views we must repudiate as unsound and pursue a sane statement of the case. I assert, then, that plants have neither sensation nor desire; for desire can only [20] proceed from sensation, and the end proposed by our volition changes in accordance with sensation. In plants we do not find sensation nor any organ of sensation, nor any semblance of it, nor any definite form or capacity to pursue objects, nor [25] movement or means of approach to any object perceived, nor any sign whereby we may judge that they possess sense-perception corresponding to the signs by which we know that they receive nutriment and grow. Of this we can only be certain because nutrition and growth are parts of the soul, and when we find a plant to be [30] possessed of such a nature, we perceive of necessity that some part of a soul is present in it which lacks sensation; but we ought not to allow that a plant is a thing possessed of sense, because while sensation is the cause of the glorification of life, nutrition is the cause of growth in the living thing.

  [35] These differences of opinion come into consideration in their own proper place. It is certainly difficult to find a state intermediate between life and the absence of [816a1] life. Some, too, will urge that a plant, if it be alive, is therefore an animal; for it is difficult to assign any principle to the life of plants except that of the life of nutrition. But, when men deny that plants have life, they do so b
ecause plants do not [5] possess sensation—for there are certain animals which lack foresight and intelligence. For nature, which destroys the life of the animal in death, preserves it in the continuation of its kind by generation, and it is wrong for us to suppose any [10] intermediate state between the animate and the inanimate. We know that sea-shells are animals which lack foresight and intelligence and are at once plants and animals. The only reason, therefore, for their being called animals is that they have sensation; for genera give names and definitions to the species which fall under them, while the species give names to the individuals, and the genus ought to rest on [15] a common cause present in the several individuals and not on several causes; but the nature of the cause, on which the genus is based, is not familiar to every one. Now there are animals which have no female sex, and some which do not procreate their kind, and some which lack the power of movement, and some in which the colour [20] varies, and some which produce an offspring unlike themselves, and some which grow from the earth or from trees.

  What, therefore, is the principle of life in animals? What is it that raises the noble animal, i.e. that which surrounds the heavens, the sun and the planets, from [25] the sphere of perplexity and doubt? For the heavenly bodies feel no outside influence, and sensation is an effect produced on a sentient being. Now a plant has no movement of itself, for it is fixed in the earth, which is itself immovable. Whence, then, shall we infer any similarity which may enable us to attribute life to the plant? [30] For there is no one thing which includes all of them. We therefore assert that sensation is common to all animal life, because sensation marks the distinction between life and death; but the heavens, which pursue a nobler and more sublime path than we do, are far removed from life and death. But it is fitting that animals should have3 some common characteristic perfect in itself but less sublime, and this [35] is the acquisition and deprivation of life. And one ought not to shrink from the use of these terms on the ground that there is no mean between the animate and the inanimate, between life and the deprivation of life; indeed, there is a mean between life and the inanimate, because the inanimate is that which has no soul nor any portion of it. But a plant is not one of those things which entirely lack a soul, because there is some portion of a soul in it; and it is not an animal, because there is no sensation in it, and things pass one by one gradually from life into non-life. We can [816b1] put the matter in a different way and say that a plant is animate. I cannot, however, assert that it is inanimate as long as it possesses soul and some form of sensation; for that which receives food is not entirely without soul. And every animal has soul, but [5] a plant is imperfect, and, whereas an animal has definite limbs, a plant is indefinite in form, and a plant derives its own particular nature from the motion which it possesses in itself. Someone might say that a plant has soul, because the soul is that which causes locomotion and desire to arise, and locomotion can only arise when [10] sensation is present. But the absorption of food is in accordance with a natural principle, and is common both to animals and plants, and no sensation at all will accompany the absorption of food; for everything that absorbs food employs two [15] qualities in feeding, namely, heat and cold, and an animal properly requires moist food and dry food, for coldness is always found in dry food; for neither of these two natures is ever unaccompanied by the other. And so food is continuously being supplied [20] to that which feeds on it till the time when it begins to decay, and animals and plants have to be provided with food similar in kind to themselves.