the curious thing is that even those who rejected the theory of a
transition of one species to another still maintained that certain traits
in an individual could be associated with and explained by features that
they had in common with some animal or the other. Notable among these was
Giovanni Porta, a most distinguished scholar of the 16{th} century, who
while a believer in magic was also a scientific investigator whose
researches proved of great value in developing a true theory of light and
who among other achievements invented the =camera obscura=. He wrote a
work in Latin, =de Humana Physiognomica= (Sorrento, 1586) which he himself
translated into Italian (Naples, 1598) and which subsequently appeared in
French and German editions. It remained in fact the standard work on the
subject up to the time of Lavater's great work on Physiognomy at the end
of the 18{th} century. Porta opposed Plato's theory that a man has the
traits of the animal that he resembles, on the ground that a man may have
features suggesting =various= animals. His forehead may recall that of a
dog, while his mouth may be like the snout of a swine, and his ears may
resemble those of an ass. In fact Porta maintains that no man has features
all of which suggest a comparison with =one= animal only. Yet Porta is of
the opinion that the resemblance between men and animals, which is
self-evident, forms the basis for the study of human character, with this
modification, however, which makes the theory even more complicated, that
each feature,--the forehead, the eyes, the nose, the mouth, the ears, the
lips and even the eyebrows, and the color of hair of the head or the
beard--betrays some characteristic. It is through the combination of all
these features that the character is to be determined, but each feature is
compared by Porta to the corresponding one of some animal and its
significance set forth according to the idea associated with the animal.
Porta's treatise is, therefore, quite as largely taken up with comparisons
between men and animals as are the treaties of other Physiognomists, only
in more detailed fashion. Thus a long forehead or one not too flat or too
even, suggested to Porta the character of a sagacious dog and by way of
illustration (p. 114 and 118)[158] places the portrait of a dog side by
side with one traditionally supposed to be a likeness of Plato. Dante, so
Porta tells us, also had such a dog forehead. A square forehead suggests
that of a lion (115) and points to magnanimity, courage and
prudence--provided, he adds, the rest of the face is in proportion; a
high, rounded forehead (117) is compared with that of an ass, and is an
indication of stupidity and imprudence. In the case of noses, comparisons
are instituted with the beaks of ravens, eagles and roosters, with the
noses of oxen, swine, dogs, apes and stags, and horses. Since the raven is
an impudent and rapacious bird, he who is endowed by nature with a nose
that curves from the forehead outward will also show these unpleasant
qualities; on the other hand, if the nose is shaped like an eagle's beak,
the person will share the magnanimity and royal spirit of the bird of
Jupiter. The illustration (150) shows the picture of the Emperor Sergius
Galba, side by side with an eagle's face. Cyrus and Artaxerxes, too, are
said to have had noses of this fortunate shape; and by way of confirmation
of the theory, Porta gives illustrations of the magnanimity of these and
of other rulers who had a beak like that of an eagle. A nose broad in the
middle and sloping inwards (154), suggesting that of an ox, indicates a
lying and verbose individual; a thick nose (155) is pictured side by side
with a swine's head with the usual uncomplimentary traits associated with
that animal. In this way and in most detailed fashion Porta takes up in
succession the mouth, the ears, the eyes, the teeth, the lips, the hair
and the face in general[159]. A very large and broad face is compared with
that of an ox or ass (172 seq.) and indicates ignorance, stupidity,
laziness and obstinacy; a very small face resembles that of a cat or an
ape (174 seq.) and prognosticates timidity, shrewd servility and
narrowness; a very fleshy face is again compared with that of an ox
(177); a very bony one with that of an ass, though Porta here as elsewhere
is somewhat embarrassed by the variant opinions of his authorities
Pseudo-Aristotle, Polemon and Adamantius and not infrequently has recourse
to textual changes in order to solve difficulties. The doubt as to the
reasonableness of the whole theory never appears, however, to have entered
his mind, and he cheerfully proceeds with his comparisons in the course of
which he introduces notable historical personages as illustrations. In
this way Socrates is compared to a stag and because of his baldness is
given a malignant, and, according to others, a lascivious nature (87); the
Emperor Vitellius is likened to an owl (12); Actiolinus to a hunting dog
because of the groove above his eyes (125); Plato, as we have seen, to a
dog and Sergius Galba to an eagle, while the head of Alexander the Great,
though only of medium size, is compared with that of a lion (72).
Such was the influence of Porta's work that it remained the authority for
the study of Human Physiognomy till towards the end of the 18{th} century
when Lavater's four volumes of "Physiognomical Fragments"[160] appeared
with their wonderful illustrations, to which the profound impression made
by the work was largely due. Lavater constantly refers to Porta, but one
of his main objects is to controvert the thesis that the comparison of
human features with those of animals should form the means of determining
the trait indicated by the feature in question. Curiously enough in a
preliminary outline of his system of Physiognomy[161], Lavater had
included a chapter on the resemblance between man and animals, but by the
time he came to work out his system he had changed his mind and henceforth
opposed Porta's view. To be sure, the grounds on which he does so are more
of a sentimental than of a scientific character. Lavater--a clergyman and
a believer in the special creation of man by the Divine Power
(Physiognomische Fragmente II 192),--protests against a possible
relationship between man and the animal world, declaring that to see
animal features in the human face is to lower the dignity of mankind. Man
created as God's supreme achievement can have nothing to do with the
animal creation which represents a lower order of being. Even Lavater does
not go so far as to deny all resemblances between human features and those
of animals. He admits and sympathizes and enlarges on them in several
passages (II 192; IV 56); but he ascribes them to accident or to fancy,
and declines to draw therefrom the conclusion that the individual who has
some feature or a number of features that suggest those of some animal
must, therefore, have the traits associated with the animal or the animals
in question. It is rather strange that Lavater should not have hit upon
the =real= objection to Porta's method which lies in the contradictions in
which he necessarily involves himself by comparing the various features of
an individual with various animals, the forehead with one animal, the eyes
with another, the lips with a third and so on; and since the animals in
question show entirely different and contradictory traits, it is
manifestly impossible to reach any rational conclusions as to a man's
character by so absurd a method. However, although Lavater does not reveal
the real weakness of the current theory of Human Physiognomy, yet he
contributed to the overthrow of the theory itself which had reached the
stage of =reductio ad absurdum= through the modifications introduced by
Porta. It often happens that an outlived theory is set aside through
arguments that are in themselves insufficient to do so.
Through Lavater the study of Physiognomy was thrown back on the scrutiny
of human features, and the determination of a man's character by a direct
method and without recourse to comparisons with the features of animals.
In thus removing, however, what had been one of the props of the study of
Human Physiognomy, Lavater shook the foundation of the study itself. With
the advent of modern medicine, the study of Physiognomy was dethroned from
the place that it had so long occupied and was relegated to the
pseudo-sciences--an interesting and in many respects a suggestive
intellectual discipline, but not a science. As a recent writer tersely
puts it 'The physiognomical feeling and sensation will never die out among
people, for the roots lie deep in human nature. It is erroneous, however,
to attempt to construct a science out of it'[162].
The thought, however, of endeavoring to determine the character of an
individual by a study of the peculiarities and striking indications of his
features would never have arisen, but for the antecedent beliefs that gave
to the observation of birth-omens so prominent a place among methods of
divination. Corresponding to the emphasis laid upon the individual factor
when Babylonian-Assyrian Astrology passed to the Greeks and which led to
'Genethlialogy' or the casting of the individual horoscope as the chief
phase of astrology, in contradistinction to the exclusive bearing of
astrology in its native haunt on the general welfare[163], the
Babylonian-Assyrian system of divination through the study of birth-omens
received an individualistic aspect upon passing to the Greeks and Romans,
by leading to the study of human features as a means of determining the
character of an individual; and with the character also the
prognostication of the fate in store for him during his earthly career. In
other words, the rise of the study of Human Physiognomy finds a natural
explanation, if we assume that it takes its rise from a system of
divination based on the observation of peculiarities noted at the time of
birth. It was natural when divination methods were employed to forecast
the future of the individual, that the thought should arise of a close
relationship between the features of an individual and his personality,
which would include the powers and qualities bestowed on him, and which
determine his actions and the experiences he will encounter. The fact that
in this pseudo-science of Physiognomy, the comparison between man and
animals played so significant a part among Greek and Roman Physiognomists
and through them among the scientists of Europe till almost to the
threshold of the modern movement in science, adds an additional force to
the thesis here set forth. Such a method of determining the traits
possessed by an individual, and which was the keynote of Human Physiognomy
till the days of Lavater, would not have maintained so strong a hold on
thinkers and on the masses had it arisen in connection with the study
itself. It was =embodied= into the study of Human Physiognomy as an
integral part of it, because it represented an =established= tradition.
The Babylonian-Assyrian birth-omens in which this very comparison between
man and animals forms so important a factor furnish the natural conditions
for the rise of the tradition, while the long range of time covered by the
Babylonian-Assyrian birth-omens supply the second factor needed to account
for the persistency of the tradition after it had passed beyond the
confines within which it arose.
VII
Now in order to justify the proposition that the study of Human
Physiognomy, as developed among the Greeks and Romans and as passed on to
others with its insistence on the fancied resemblance between man and
animals as a leading and indeed as a fundamental factor, is to be directly
carried back to the birth-omens of Babylonia and Assyria, we ought to be
able to establish that among Greeks and Romans the abnormalities observed
at the birth of infants and of the young of animals were really regarded
as omens, and that such omens show a sufficient affinity to what we find
among Babylonians and Assyrians to warrant the conclusion that, just as
Hepatoscopy and Astrology came to the Greeks and Romans through influences
emanating from the Euphrates Valley, so also the third large division of
divination methods may be traced to the same source. Let us first take up
the Romans for which the material at our disposal is so much more
abundant.
Julius Obsequens, a writer whose exact date has not yet been determined,
collected in his famous =Liber de Prodigiis=[164] all the omens that had
been noted during a certain period of Roman history. He enumerates in all
72 covering the years 55 to 132 A. D. and the list itself is an
instructive commentary on the attention that was paid to 'signs' of all
kinds among the Romans as an index of the will and the intention of the
gods. We find references to such phenomena as a rain of stones,--presumably
hail stones--of oil, blood and milk--apparently allusions to volcanic
eruptions, disguised in somewhat fanciful language--of the sun seen at
night--perhaps a description of an eclipse when to a frightened populace
it might appear as though night had suddenly set in--of blood appearing in
rivers and of milk in lakes--no doubt a pollution of some kind due perhaps
to masses of earth or to glacial deposits pouring into the river--to
burning torches in the heavens--probably comets with long tails--and more
the like, all indicative of the unbridled play of popular fancy and
showing that among the Romans, as among Babylonians and Assyrians, all
unusual occurrences were looked upon as omens--portending some unusual
happenings. Now among the 72 signs of Julius Obsequens there are quite a
number of actual birth-omens, the character of which is so close to what
we find in the collections of the =bârû= priests as to show a practical
identity in the points of view. So we are told of several instances of a
mule (supposed to be sterile) giving birth to a young (§ 65), in one case
even to triplets (§ 15), in another to a young with five feet (§ 27). For
the year 83 he records among various remarkable occurrences all regarded
as omens, the birth of a colt with five feet (§ 24); two years in
succession a two-headed calf (§ 31-32). Very much as in the
Babylonian-Assyrian collections we read (§ 14) of a sow giving birth to a
young with the hands and feet of a man. Among human monstrosities, our
author records the case of a boy with three feet and one hand (§ 20), with
one hand (§ 52), a boy with a closed anus (§ 26, 40), with four feet, four
eyes and four ears and with double genital members (§ 25). Several
instances are given of androgynous infants (§ 22, 32 and 36). Twins born
at Nursia in the year 100 are described as follows, 'the girl with all
parts intact, the boy with the upper part of the belly open, revealing the
intestines[165], the anus closed, and speaking as he expired' (§ 40). The
talking infant is a not infrequent phenomenon[166]. In the following year
the birth of a boy who said 'ave' is recorded (§ 41). Again, as in the
collections of the =bârû= priests[167], we read (§ 57) of a woman giving
birth to a serpent.
To these birth-omens further examples can be added from that inexhaustible
storehouse of encyclopaedic knowledge, the Natural History of Pliny the
Younger who, among other things, tells us (Hist. Nat. VII 3) of a woman
Alcippa who gave birth to a child with the head of an elephant[168].
Valerius Maximus in his =de Dictis Factisque Memorabilibus= devotes a
chapter to =Prodigia=[169] of the same miscellaneous character as the
collection of Julius Obsequens--many in fact identical--among which by the
side of rivers flowing with blood, talking oxen who utter words of
warning[170], rain of stones, mysterious voices, we also find birth-omens
such as the speaking infant and the child with an elephant's head[171].
Suetonius[172] tells us that Caesar's horse had human feet and that the
Haruspices--the Etruscan augurs--declared it to be an omen that the world
would one day belong to Caesar. We see, therefore, that among the Romans
birth-omens were regarded from the same point of view as among the
Babylonians and Assyrians and that the interpretation of the omens was the
concern of a special class who acted as diviners. Now the question may
properly be put at this juncture, whether we are in a position to trace
the actual interpretation of birth-omens among the Romans back to the
Babylonian-Assyrian =bârû=-priests? To this question, I think an
affirmative answer may unhesitatingly be given. We have in the first place
the testimony of Cicero[173], as well as other writers[174] that the
Etruscans who are described as skilled in all kinds of divination were
especially versed in the interpretation of malformations among infants and
among the young of animals. Cicero emphasizes more particularly by the
side of birth-omens, divination through the sacrificial animal and through
phenomenen in the heavens, thus giving us the same three classes that we
find among Babylonians and Assyrians. Since Hepatoscopy and Astrology
among Greeks and Romans can be traced back directly to Babylonia and
Assyria[175], the presumption is in favor of the thesis that the Etruscan
augurs derived their birth-omens also from the same source. The character
of the specimens that we have of the Etruscan interpretations of
birth-omens strengthens this presumption. So, e. g., Cicero preserves the
wording of such a birth-omen[176] which presents a perfect parallel to
what we find in the collections of the Babylonian-Assyrian =bârû= priests,
to wit, that if a woman gives birth to a lion, it is an indication that
the state will be vanquished by an enemy. If we compare with this a
statement in a Babylonian-Assyrian text dealing with birth-omens[177],
vis.:
'If a woman gives birth to a lion, that city will be taken, the king
will be imprisoned',
it will be admitted that the coincidence is too close to be accidental.
The phraseology, resting upon the resemblance between man and animals, is
identical. The comparison of an infant to a lion, as of a new-born lamb to
a lion is characteristic of the Babylonian-Assyrian divination texts and
even the form of the omen, stating that the woman actually gave birth to
a lion is the same in both while the basis of interpretation--the lion
pointing to an exercise of strength--is likewise identical. Ordinarily the
resemblance of the feature of an infant to that of a lion points to
increased power on the part of the king of the country, but in the
specific case, the omen is unfavorable also in the Babylonian text. It is
the enemy who will develop power, so that the agreement between the
Babylonian and Etruscan omen extends even to the exceptional character of
the interpretation in this particular instance.
In the same passage[178], Cicero refers to the two-fold interpretation
given for the case of a girl born with two heads, one that there will be
revolt among the people, the other that the marriage tie will be broken.
We thus have two interpretations, one bearing on the public weal, the
other on private affairs, corresponding to the frequent combination of
'official' and 'unofficial' interpretations in the collections of the
=bârû=-priests[179]. The specific interpretations are again of the same
character as we find in the Babylonian-Assyrian texts, 'revolt'[180] being
in fact one of the most common, while the other corresponds to the phrase
'no unity among man and wife' found in the texts above discussed[181]. It
so happens that in the case of the birth of a two-headed girl we have both
the 'official' and the 'unofficial' interpretation, namely, 'No union
between man and wife and diminution of the land'[182]--forming a really
remarkable parallel to the Etruscan omen.
Further testimony to the parallelism between Etruscan and
Babylonian-Assyrian methods of divination in the case of birth-omens is
born by an interesting passage in the Annals of Tacitus (XV, 47) that
two-headed children or two-headed young of animals were interpreted by the
Haruspices as pointing to an approaching change of dynasty and to the
appearance of a weak ruler. Again, therefore, prognostications that
present a complete parallel to what we find in the Babylonian-Assyrian
texts[183].
Macrobius[184] preserves an Etruscan interpretation of a birth-omen
relating to the color of newly born lambs. A purple or golden color of
the lamb points to good luck. This 'purple' color corresponds to the term
=sâmu= frequently occurring in Babylonian-Assyrian omen texts and which
is generally rendered 'dark red'[185]. In the collections of the
=bârû=-priests, many references are found to the colors of the young
animals and among these we have as a complete parallel to the statement
in Macrobius the following[186]:
[If an ewe] gives birth to a young of dark-red color,--good
fortune[187].
Lastly, the terms used to describe all kinds of malformations--=monstra=
and =prodigia=[188], i. e., phenomena that 'point' to something show a
parallel conception to the Babylonian-Assyrian viewpoint that abnormality
in the case of the young of animals and of infants are primarily =signs=
sent to indicate unusual events that would shortly happen.
That the Greeks also attached an importance to malformations, may be
concluded from Aristotle's protest[189] against the supposition that a
woman can give birth to an infant with the features of some animal[190],
or that an animal can give birth to a young with human features. Such
resemblances, he asserts, are merely superficial and he endeavors to
account for them as for all malformations in a scientific manner, as due
to an insufficient control of the fructifying matter which prevents a
normal development of the embryo. While Aristotle does not directly refer
to the belief that malformations and monstrosities were looked upon by
Greeks as omens, the emphatic manner in which he states that abnormalities
cannot be against nature but only against the ordinary course of
nature[191] indicates that he is polemicizing against a view which looked
upon such anomalies as contrary to nature, and presumably regarded them,
therefore, from the same point of view as did the Babylonians and
Etruscans. We have a direct proof for this view however, in Valerius
Maximus, who includes in his list of =prodigia= birth-omens recorded among
the Greeks, such as a mare giving birth to a hare at the time that Xerxes
was planning his invasion of Greece which was regarded as an omen of the
coming event[192], or again an infant with malformation of the mouth[193].
Herodotus[194] records as another sign at the time of Xerxes' contemplated
invasion of Greece a mule giving birth to a chicken with double genital
organs, male and female, which is clearly again a birth omen. A further
proof is furnished in a passage in Aelian[195], which reports that an ewe
in the herd of Nikippos gave birth to a lion and that this was regarded as
an omen prognosticating that Nikippos, who at the time was a simple
citizen, would become the ruler of the island. It will be recalled that
this birth-omen--the ewe giving birth to a lion--is not only of special
frequency, in the omen series of Babylonia and Assyria[196], but is part
of the conventional divinatory phraseology of these texts, while the
interpretation based on the association of the lion with power forms a
complete and verbal parallel to the system devised by the =bârû=-priests.
The fact that the birth-omen is reported as occurring at Cos is rather
interesting, because it was there that Berosus, who brought Babylonian
Astrology to the Greeks, settled and opened his school for instruction in
the divinatory methods of the =bârû=-priests. We are, therefore, justified
in looking upon this circumstance as a link connecting birth-omens among
Greek settlements with influences, emanating directly from the
civilization of the Euphrates Valley. As another proof of the spread of
Babylonian-Assyrian divination in other parts of the ancient world, we may
point to the story reported by Herodotus[197] of a concubine of King Meles
of Sardis who gave birth to a lion, and of the tale found in Cicero as
well as in Herodotus[198], of the speaking infant of king Croesus of
Lydia which was interpreted as an omen of the coming destruction of the
kingdom and of the royal house. Here, again, we find (a) the familiar
phraseology resting upon the supposed resemblance between man and animals
and (b) the agreement in the interpretation of the anomaly of an infant
capable of speaking--a birth-omen of particularly ominous
significance[199]. Bearing in mind the discovery of clay models of livers
with inscriptions revealing the terminology of Babylonian-Assyrian
Hepatoscopy in the Hittite centre Boghaz-Kewi[200] and which definitely
establishes the spread of this division of Babylonian-Assyrian Divination
to Asia Minor, it is quite in keeping with what we would have a right to
expect, to come across traces of Babylonian-Assyrian birth-omens in this
same general region. That the Etruscans are to be traced back to Asia
Minor is a thesis that is now so generally accepted as to justify us in
regarding it as definitely established[201]. Hepatoscopy and Birth-omens
thus followed the same course in passing from the distant East to the
West. We may sum up our thesis in the general statement that Babylonian
divination made its way from Babylonia to Assyria, subsequently spread to
Asia Minor and through the mediation of Hittites and Etruscans came to the
Greeks and Romans[202]. The same is the case with Astrology so far as the
Romans were concerned, for whom the Etruscans again represent the
mediators, while the Greeks appear to have obtained their knowledge of
Babylonian-Assyrian Astrology through the direct contact between Greece
and Euphratean culture, leading to a mutual exchange of views and customs.
VIII