Talk:Physiognomonics

Untitled

It is probably better to leave this unmerged and a stub. First, Pseudo-aristotle is not a single author, but the tag we add to any work of the artistotelian corpus that wasn't written by Aristotle himself. Second, there is plenty to be written about this treatise. E. Evans, Physionomics in the Ancient World (1969) or Sassi, The Science of Man in Ancient Greece (2001) are both good places to start. Dark and stormy knight (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. However, the article should be moved, since it is currently orphaned from the framework of Corpus Aristotelicum. That article lists all the works in the corpus under the titles in the Revised Oxford Translation, which seems a reasonable and neutral standard. In this case, that means Physiognomonics, to which I'll move this article. I have Raina's 1994 edition on my desk and will try to augment this article when I get a chance. Wareh (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The reference provided for the claim that the Physiognomics is pseudo-Aristotelian does not say that it way -- on the contrary, no mention is made of the book not being authored by Aristotle in the review -- only that the book reviewed estimated its writing to be "around 300 BC", which is not conclusive. In fact, Sabine Vogt's book declines to judge who the book's author would be and claims that the work is Aristotelian in content. Furthermore, the idea that the work is not by Aristotle is much older than 1945 -- Fülleborn was denying that Aristotle could have written in back in his 1797 Abriss einer Geschichte und Litteratur der Physiognomik. If its authorship has been proven on any grounds more solid than the desire to save Aristotle from having indulged in physiognomy, such proof should be added to the article.--DocVane (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)