§1.8Ἔτι πρὸς τούτοις περὶ ὄλίγων ἄν τις τοῖς ἐπιφαινομένοις τεκμαίροιτο.
Furthermore, in addition to these things, one would be able to judge only a few things by the traits that appear on the surface.
Οἱ δ' ἐκ τῶν θηρίων φυσιογνωμονοῦντες οὐκ ὀρθῶς τὴν ἐκλογὴν τῶν σημείων ποιοῦνται.
And those who practice physiognomy from wild beasts do not make their selection of signs correctly.
Οὐ γὰρ δὴ ἑκάστου τῶν ζῴων τὴν ἰδέαν διεξελθόντα ἔστιν εἰπεῖν ὅτι, ὃς ἂν ὅμοιος τούτῳ τὸ σῶμα ᾖ, καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ὅμοιος ἔσται.
For indeed, it is not possible, by going through the appearance of each of the animals, to say that whoever is similar to this in body will also be similar in soul.
Πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ ὡς ἀπλῶς εἰπεῖν οὕτως ὅμοιον θηρίῳ ἄνθρωπον οὐδεὶς ἂν εὕροι, ἀλλὰ προσεοικόταμέν τι,
For first, to speak simply, no one would find a human so similar to a wild beast, but only resembling it in some respect.
§1.9Ἔτι πρὸς τούτοις τὰ ζῷα ὀλίγα μὲν τὰ ἴδία ἔχει σημεῖα, πολλὰ δὲ τὰ κοινά· ὥστε ἐπειδὰν ὅμοιός τις ᾖ μὴ κατὰ τὸ ἴδιον ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ κοινόν, τί μᾶλλον οὖτος λέοντι ἢ ἐλάφῳ ὁμοιότερος;
Furthermore, in addition to these things, animals have few unique signs but many common ones; so that when someone is similar not in a unique trait but in a common one, why is this person any more similar to a lion than to a deer?
Εἰκος γὰρ τὰ μὲν δία τῶν σημείων ἴδιόν τι σημαίνειν, τὰ δὲ κοινὰ κοινόν.
For it is likely that unique signs signify something unique, while common signs signify something common.
Τὰ μὲν οὖν κοινὰ τῶν σημείων οὐδὲν ἂν διασαφηθείη τῷ φυσιογνωμονοῦντι.
Therefore, nothing would be made clear to the physiognomist by the common signs.
§1.10Εἰ δέ τις τὰ ἴδια ἑκάστου τῶν θηρίων ἐκλέξειεν, οὐκ ἂν ἔχοι ἀποδοῦναι οὗ ἐστὶ ταῦτα σημεῖα.
But if someone should select the unique traits of each of the wild beasts, they would not be able to assign of what these are signs.
Εἰκὸς γὰρ τοῦ ἰδίου, ἴδιον δὲ οὐδενὸς οὐδὲν τῶν ζῴων τῶν φυσιογνωμονουμένων ἔνγε τῇ διανοίᾳ ἔχοι ἄν τις λαβεῖν· οὔτε γὰρ ἀνδρεῖον μόνον ὁ λέων ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλα πολλά, οὔτε δειλὸν ὁ λαγωός, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλα μυρία.
For it is likely to belong to something unique, but one cannot find any unique mental characteristic in any of the animals studied by physiognomy; for neither is the lion only brave, but also many other things, nor is the hare only cowardly, but also countless other things.
§1.11Εἰ οὖν μήτε τὰ κοινὰ σημεῖα ἐκλέξαντι σαφές τι γίνεται μήτε τὰ ἴδια, οὐκ ἂν εἴη καθ’ ἕκαστον τῶν ζῷων σκέπτεσθαι, ἀλλ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων τὴν ἐκλογὴν ποιητέον τῶν τὸ αὐτὸ πάθος πασχόντων, οἷον, ἂν μὲν ἀνδρείου ἐπισκοπῇ τις τὰ σημεῖα, τὰ ἀνδρεῖα τῶν ζῴων εἰς ἓν λαβόντα δεῖ ἐξετάσαι, ποῖα παθήματα τούτοις μὲν ἅπασιν ὑπάρχει, τῶν δὲ ἄλλων ζῴων οὐδενὶ συμβέβηκεν.
If, therefore, nothing becomes clear whether one selects common signs or unique ones, one should not study each of the animals individually, but must make the selection from humans who experience the same affection, for instance, if one examines the signs of the brave man, one must group the brave animals together and investigate what affections belong to all of these, but have occurred in none of the other animals.
§1.12Εἰ γὰρ οὕτω τις ἐκλέξειεν, ὅτι ταῦτά ἐστι τὰ σημεῖα ἀνδρείας τοῖς προκριθεῖσι ζῴοις, μὴμόνον ἀνδρείας κοινὸν ὑπάρχειν πάθημα τῶν ἐν τῇ διανοίᾳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλοτι· οὕτω δ’ ἂν ἀπορήσειε πότερον ἀνδρείας ἢ θατέρου τὰ σημεῖά ἐστιν.
For if someone should make the selection in this way, assuming that these are the signs of bravery in the selected animals, and yet there should exist in common among their mental affections not only bravery but also something else, in that case one would be at a loss as to whether the signs belong to bravery or to the other.
Ἀλλὰ δεῖ ἐκ πλείστων τε ἐκλέγεσθαι ζῴων, καὶ μηδὲν πάθος κοινὸν ἐχόντων ἐν τῇ διανοίᾳ ἄλλο τι, οὗ ἂν τὰ σημεῖα σκοπῇ.
Rather, one must make the selection from as many animals as possible, and from those that have no other common affection in their mind except the one whose signs are being examined.
§1.13Ὅσα μὲν οὖν τῶν σημείων μόνιμά ἐστι, μόνιμον ἄν τι καὶ σημαίνοι· ὅσα δὲ ἐπιγινόμενά τε καὶ ἀπολείποντα, πῶς ἂν τὸ σημεῖον ἀληθὲς εἴη τοῦ ἐν τῇ διανοίᾳ μὴ μένοντος;
Now, as many of the signs as are permanent would also signify something permanent; but as for those that appear and disappear, how could such a sign be true of that which does not remain in the mind?
Εἰ μὲν γὰρ μόνιμον ἐπιγινόμενόν τε καὶ ἀπολεῖπον σημεῖόν τις ὑπολάβοι, ἐνδέχοιτο μὲν ἂν αὐτὸ ἀληθὲς εἶναι, οὐ μὴν ἐπιεικὲς ἂν εἴη, μὴ ἀεὶ τῷ πράγματι παρεπόμενον.
For if one should suppose an appearing and disappearing sign to be a sign of something permanent, it might indeed be true, yet it would not be reliable, since it does not always accompany the subject.
§1.14Ὅσα δὲ παθήματα ἐγγινόμενα τῇ ψυχῇ μηδέν τι ἐνδιαλλάττει τὰ σημεῖα τὰ ἐν τῷ σώματι, οἷς χρῆται ὁ φυσιογνώμων, οὐκ ἂν εἴη τὰ τοιαῦτα γνωρίσματα τῇ τέχνῃ, οἷον τὰ περὶ τὰς δόξας καὶ τὰς ἐπιστήμας ἰατρὸν ἢ κιθαριστὴν οὐκ ἐνδέχεται γνωρίζειν· ὁ γὰρ μαθὼν ὅ τι μάθημα, οὐδὲν ἐξήλλαξε τῶν σημείων οἶς χρῆται ὁ φυσιογνώμων.
On the other hand, as many affections as arise in the soul but do not alter at all the signs in the body which the physiognomist uses, such things would not be signs recognizable by this art, for instance, it is not possible to recognize matters concerning opinions and sciences, such as whether one is a doctor or a lyre-player; for he who has learned any branch of knowledge has changed none of the signs which the physiognomist uses.