Little Question Five of Principal Question One
Who judges better concerning the goodness or depravity of the intellect, a physician or an astrologer
It is asked who judges better concerning the goodness and depravity of the intellect, a physician or an astrologer.
To this it is answered that an experienced physician judges better and more certainly concerning the goodness and depravity of an understanding than does an astrologer.
This is proved because the physician judges understandings from a proximate and nearby cause: namely, from the particular inferior root; or from the primary causes, namely, the qualities of the elements; or from secondary causes, namely, soft flesh, slender nails, a head shaped like a ship, and black hair.
In support of this is what Albert says in the book On the Four Coevals. He writes that softness and rarity of flesh—not that which arises from undigested humor and phlegm, as in women, which denotes poor touch and imprudence, but that which arises from subtle, foamy, airy moisture, well bounded and of temperate heat—attests goodness of mind.
For Plato says that the goodness of form is according to the merit of matter. And therefore the Philosopher says in Book II On the Soul that those who are soft in flesh are apt in mind.
And upon Missus est, Albert says that blackness of eyes and hair together with whiteness of skin indicate a warm complexion and a most excellent intellect.
Hence Galen says in the Techne: “Those composed of hot and dry qualities, if these do not abound, are perfect in their senses and most wakeful,” that is, vigorous. For from heat flows swiftness in apprehending, and from dryness firmness in retaining.
For this reason it is said that, generally, softness of flesh, fineness of nails, thinness of hair, and smallness of the teeth and mouth attest gentleness and a good mind; and the opposite features attest the contrary. Sharp nails, strong and large teeth, and a cleft mouth denote ferocity and a depraved intellect.
An astronomer, however, argues and judges concerning understandings and matters of this kind from celestial bodies as from remote causes.
It is therefore concluded that judgment concerning the cognitive powers in a human being cannot be made well from the disposition of the stars at the hours of births, and that an experienced physician judges matters of this kind better from inferior causes than a superstitious astrologer does from the consideration of superior causes.
These things are from Albert and Henry.