Ziegler Joseph
University of Haifa.
Early Sci Med. 2007;12(3):285-312. doi: 10.1163/157338207x205133.
The 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 philosophers (William of Spain, Jean Buridan, William of Mirica) and academic physicians (Rolandus Scriptor, Michele Savonarola, Bartolomeo della Rocca [Cocles]) as a body of knowledge rooted in a sound theoretical basis. Physiognomy was characterized 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.
本文审视并梳理了13世纪至16世纪早期哲学家和学术医师围绕相面术作为一门有效科学的地位展开的主要争论。文章指出，尽管一直存在质疑，但中世纪后期有学识的拉丁相面术被自然哲学家（西班牙的威廉、让·布里丹、米里卡的威廉）和学术医师（罗兰德斯·斯克里普托、米凯莱·萨沃纳罗拉、巴托洛梅奥·德拉·罗卡[科克勒斯]）认可为一门基于坚实理论基础的知识体系。相面术的特点是稳定性和确定性。作为一门论证性科学，它有望为每一个身体特征提供合理的解释。在这方面，中世纪有学识的相面术与其古典渊源、与伊斯兰相面术以及可能与早期现代相面术都有显著不同。
