in religion,

But there is no class of men to whom this science is of more service than to those who hold the honour-able office of the teachers of religion. Their knowledge in their own science, and their public utility, are prodigiously hurt by ignorance of the general frame and constitution of nature; and it is much to be lamented that this science is so generally neglected by them, or considered only as an elegant accomplishment : nay, it is too frequently shunned as a dangerous attainment, as likely to unhinge their own faith, and taint the minds of their hearers. We hope, however, that few are either so feebly rooted in the belief of the great doctrines of religion as to fear this, or of minds so base and corrupted as to adopt and inculcate a belief which they have any suspicion of being ill-founded. But many have a sort of horror at all attempts to account for the events of nature by the intervention of general causes, and think this procedure derogatory to the Divine nature, and inconsistent with the doctrine of his particular providence; believing, that "a sparrow does not fall to the ground without the knowledge of our heavenly Father." Their limited conceptions cannot perceive, that, in forming the general law, the Great Artist did at one glance see it in its remotest and most minute consequence, and adjust the vast assemblage so as completely to answer every purpose of His providence. There never was a more eager enquirer into the laws of nature, or more ardent admirer of its glorious Author, than the Hon. Robert Boyle. This gentleman says, that he will always think more highly of the skill and power of that artist who should construct a machine, which, being once set a going, would of itself continue its motion for ages, and from its inherent principles continue to answer all the purposes for which it was first contrived, than of him whose machine required the continual aid of the hand which first constructed it. It is owing to great inattention that this aversion to the operation of secondary causes has any influence on our mind. What do we mean by the introduction of secondary causes? How do we infer the agency of any cause whatever? Would we ever have supposed any cause of the operations of nature, had they gone on without any order or regularity? Or would such a chaos of events, any more than a chaos of existences, have given us any notion of a forming and directing hand? No surely. We see the hand of God in the regular and unvaried course of nature, only because it is regular and unvaried. The philosopher expresses this by saying, that the phenomena proceed by unalterable laws. Greatly mistaken therefore are they who think that we supersede the existence of mind and of providence when we trace things to their causes. A physical law being an unvaried fact, is an indication, and the strongest possible indication, of an unerring mind, who is incapable of change, and must do to day *Fergu- what He always did: for to change is to deviate from son's Lec- what is best *. The operations of unerring mind will therefore be regular and invariable. Physical laws,

tures on Ethics.

therefore, or secondary causes, are the best proofs of Experiunerring wisdom. Such regularity of conduct is univer- mental Ptisally considered as an indication of wisdom among men. losophy. The wise man is known by the constancy of his conduct, while no man can depend on the future conduct of a fool.

And what astonishing evidences of wisdom do we not observe in the general laws of the material world? They will ever be considered by the intelligent philosopher as the most glorious display of inconceivable wisdom, which has been able, by means so few and so simple, to produce effects which by their grandeur astonish our feeble understandings, and by their inexhaustible variety elude all possibility of enumeration.

While the teachers of religion remain ignorant of the beautiful laws of nature, the great characteristics of the wisdom and goodness of the Almighty Creator, their hearers are deprived of much sublime pleasure; God is robbed of that praise which he would have received from an enlightened people; and the only worship he receives is tainted with mean notions of his attributes, and groundless fears of his power.

But besides these advantages which accrue to different classes of men from this study, there are some effects which are general, and are too important to be passed over unnoticed.

115

ences.

That spirit of dispassionate experimental enquiry and in o which has so greatly promoted this study, will carry ther sciwith it, into every subject of enquiry, that precision and that constant appeal to fact and experience which characterize it. And we may venture to assert, that the superior good order and method which distinguish some of the later productions in other sciences, have been in a great measure owing to this mathematical spirit, the success of which in natural philosophy bas gained it credit, and thus given it an unperceived influence even over those who have not made it their study.

117

The truths also which the naturalist discovers are More gesuch as do not in general affect the passions of men, neral adand have therefore a good chance of meeting with a vantages of candid reception. Those whose interest it is to keep philosophy. men in political or religious ignorance, cannot easily suspect bad consequences from improvements in this science; and if they did, have hardly any pretext for checking its progress. And discoveries accustom the mind to novelty; and it will no longer be startled by any consequences, however contrary to common opinion. Thus the way is paved for a rational and discreet scepticism, and a free enquiry on other subjects. Experiment, not authority, will be considered as the test of truth; and under the guidance of fair experience we need fear no ill as long as the laws of nature remain as they are.

Lastly, since it is the business of philosophy to describe the phenomena of nature, to discover their causes, to trace the connection and subordination of these causes, and thus obtain a view of the whole constitution of nature; it is plain that it affords the surest path for arriving at the knowledge of the great cause of all, of God himself, and for forming proper conceptions of him and of our relations to him: notions infinitely more just than can ever be entertained by the careless spectator of his works. Things which to this man appear solitary and detached, having no other connec

Experi- tion with the rest of the universe but the shadowy and mental Phi fleeting relation of co-existence, will, to the diligent losophy philosopher, declare themselves to be parts of a great and harmonious whole, connected by the general laws of nature, and tending to one grand and beneficent purpose. Such a contemplation is in the highest degree pleasant and cheering, and cannot fail of impressing us with the wish to co-operate in this glorious plan, by acting worthy of the place we hold among the works of

PHYSIOGNOMONICS, among physicians, denote such signs as, being taken from the countenance, serve to indicate the state, disposition, &c. both of the body

and mind and hence the art of reducing these signs to practice is termed physiognomy.

I

my ancient and mo

dern.

Various de- TS a word formed from the Greek quis, nature, and finitions of γινωσκώ, I know. It is the name of a science which physiogno- occupied much of the attention of ancient philosophers, and which, since the revival of learning, has in a great degree been disregarded. Till of late it has seldom in modern times been mentioned, except in conjunction with the exploded arts of magic, alchemy, and judicial astrology. Within the last two centuries, no doubt, the bounds of human knowledge have been greatly extended by means of the patient pursuit of fact and experiment, instead of the hasty adoption of conjecture and hypothesis. We have certainly discovered many of the ancient systems to be merely creatures of imagination. Perhaps, however, in some instances, we have decided too rapidly, and rejected real knowledge, which we would have found it tedious and troublesome to acquire. Such has been the fate of the science of physiognomy; which certainly merits to be considered in a light very different from alchemy and those other fanciful studies with which it had accidentally been coupled. The work lately published by M. Lavater on the subject has indeed excited attention, and may perhaps tend to replace physiognomy in that rank in the circle of the sciences to which it seems to be intitled.

It does not appear that the ancients extended the compass of physiognomy beyond man, or at least animated nature: But the study of that art was revived in the middle ages, when, misled probably by the comprehensiveness of the etymological meaning of the word, or incited by the prevalent taste for the marvellous, those who treated of the subject stretched the range of their speculation far beyond the ancient limits. The extension of the signification of the term was adopted universally by those naturalists who admitted the theory of signatures (see SIGNATURE); and physiognomy came thus to mean, the knowledge of the

internal properties of any corporeal existence from the external appearances. Joannes Baptista Porta, for instance, who was a physiognomist and philosopher of considerable eminence, wrote a treatise on the physiognomy of plants (philognomonica), in which he employs physiognomy as the generic term. There is a treatise likewise De Physiognomia Avium, written, we believe, by the same person. In the Magia Physiognomica of Gaspar Schottus, physiognomia humana is made a subdivision of the science.

66

Boyle too adopts the extensive signification mentioned, which indeed seems to have been at one time the usual acceptation of the word (A). At present physiognomy seems to mean no more than a knowledge of the moral character and extent of intellectual powers of human beings, from their external appearance and manners." In the Berlin Transactions for the

years 1769 and 1770 there appears a long controversial discussion on the subject of the definition of physiognomy between M. Pernetty and M. Le Cat, two modern authors of some note. Pernetty contends that all knowledge whatever is physiognomy; Le Cat confines the subject to the human face. Neither seems to have hit the medium of truth. Soon after the celebrated book of Lavater appeared. He indeed defines physiognomy to be "the art of discovering the interior of man by means of his exterior; but in different passages of his work he evidently favours the extended signification of Pernetty. This work gave occasion to M. Formey's attack upon the science itself in the same Berlin Transactions for 1775. Formey strenuously controverts the extent assigned by Lavater to his favourite science.

3

ft was a

of Socrates.

sage of Samos probably introduced the rudiments of this science, as he did those of many others, generally deemed more important into Greece.

In the time of Socrates it appears even to have been profession adopted as a profession. Of this the well-known anecin the time dote of the decision of Zopyrus, on the real character of Socrates himself, judging from his countenance, is sufficient evidence. Plato mentions the subject; and by Aristotle it is formally treated of in a book allotted to the purpose.

4

General

this sub

ject.

It may be worth while to give a brief outline of Aristotles sentiments on the subject.

Physiognomy, he in substance observes, had been outline of treated of in three ways. Some philosophers classed Aristotle's animals into genera, and ascribed to each genus a ceropinion on tain mental disposition corresponding to their corporeal appearance. Others made a farther distinction of dividing the genera into species. Among men, for instance, they distinguished the Thracians, the Scythians, the Egyptians, and whatever nations were strikingly different in manners and habits, to whom accordingly they assigned the distinctive physiognomical characteristics. A third set of physiognomists judged of the actions and manners of the individual, and presumed that certain manners proceeded from certain dispositions. But the method of treating the subject adopted by Aristotle himself was this: A peculiar form of body is invariably accompanied by a peculiar disposition of mind; a human intellect is never found in the corporeal form of a beast. The mind and body reciprocally affect each other; thus in intoxication and mania the mind exhibits the affections of the body; and in fear, joy, &c. the body displays the affections of the mind.

From such facts he argues, that when in man a particular bodily character appears, which by prior experience and observation has been found uniformly accompanied by a certain mental disposition, with which therefore it must have been necessarily connected; we are intitled in all such cases to infer the disposition from the appearance. Our observations, he conceives, may be drawn from other animals as well as from men: for as a lion possesses one bodily form and mental character, a hare another, the corporeal characteristics of the lion, such as strong hair, deep voice, large extremities, discernible in a human creature, denote the strength and courage of that noble animal; while the slender extremities, soft down, and other features of the hare, visible in a man, betray the mental character of that pusillani

mous creature.

Upon this principle Aristotle treats of the corporeal features of man, and the correspondent dispositions, so far as observed: he illustrates them by the analogy just mentioned, and in some instances attempts to account for them by physiological reasoning.

At the early period in which Aristotle wrote, his the ory, plausible certainly, and even probable, displays his usual penetration, and a considerable degree of knowledge. He distinctly notices individual physiognomy, national physiognomy, and comparative physiognomy. The state of knowledge in his time did not admit of a complete elucidation of his general principles; on that account bis enumeration of particular observations and precepts is by no means so well founded or so accurate as his method of study. Even his style, concise and energe

tic, was inimical to the subject; which, to be made clearly comprehensible, must require frequent paraphrases. Aristotle's performance, however, such as it is, has been taken as the groundwork and model of every physiognomical treatise that has since appeared. The imitators of this great man in the 16th and 17th centuries, have even copied his language and manner, which are sententious, indiscriminate, and obscure. His comparative physiognomy of men with beasts has been frequently though not universally adopted. Besides his treatise expressly on the subject, many incidental observations on physiognomy will be found interspersed through his other works, particularly in his history of animals.

form an

Next after Aristotle, his disciple and successor The-Theophras ophrastus would deserve to be particularly mentioned tus's ethie as a writer on the subject in question. His ethic cha-characters racters, a singular and entertaining performance, com-important posed at the age of 99, form a distinct treatise on a branch of most important branch of physiognomy, the physiogno- physiognomy of manners; but the translations and imitations of my. La Bruyere are so excellent, that by referring to them we do greater justice than would otherwise be in our power, both to Theophrastus and to our readers. We cannot, however, omit observing, that the accuracy of observation and liveliness of description displayed in the work of Theophrastus will preserve it high in classical rank, while the science of man and the prominent characteristics of human society continue to be objects

this sub

7

Polemon of Athens, Adamantius the sophist, and se- Other veral others, wrote on the subject about the same peri- Greek auod. Lately there was published a collection of all the thorou Greek authors on physiognomy: the book is entitled, ject. Physiognomia veteris scriptores Græci, Gr. et Lat. à Franzio Altenb. 1780, 8vo. From the number of these The science authors, it appears that the science was much cultivated was then in Greece; but the professors seem soon to have con-coupled nected with it something of the marvellous. This we with somehave cause to suspect from the story told by Apion of marvellous. thing of the Apelles: Imaginem adeo similitudinis indiscreta pinxit, ut (incredibile dictu) Apion Grammaticus Scriptum reliquerit quemdam ex facie hominum ad divinantem (quos melaposcopos vocant) ex is dixisse aut futuræ mortis annos, aut præterita*. The noviciates of the Pytha-* Pliny gorean school were subjected to the physiognomic ob- Nat. Hist. servation of their teachers, and it is probable the first lib. 35 physiognomists by profession among the Greeks were 35. par. of this sect. They, too, to whom, from the nature of 39. their doctrines and discipline, mystery was familiar, were the first, it is likely, who exposed the science of physiognomy in Greece to disgrace, by blending with it the art of divination.

8

vations of

From the period of which we have been treating to The obserthe close of the Roman republic, nothing worthy of Roman and remark occurs in the literary history of physiognomy. other wriAbout the last-mentioned era, however, and from thence ters. to the decline of the empire under the later emperors, the science appears to have been cultivated as an important branch of erudition, and assumed as a profession by persons who had acquired a superior knowledge in it.

In the works of Hippocrates and Galen, many physiognomical observations occur. Cicero appears to have been peculiarly attached to the science. In his ora

This

with the Roman empire.

tion against Piso, and in that in favour of Roscius, the reader will at the same time perceive in what manner the orator employs physiognomy to his purposes, and find a curious instance of the ancient manner of oratorical abuse.

Many physiognomical remarks are to be found likewise in the writings of Sallust, Suetonius, Seneca, Pliny, Aulus Gellius, Petronius, Plutarch, and others.

That in the Roman empire the science was practised ́as a profession, ample evidence appears in the writings of several of the authors just mentioned. Suetonius, Suetonius, for instance, in his Life of Titus, mentions that Narcissus employed a physiognomist to examine the features of Britannicus, who predicted that Britannicus would not succeed, but that the empire would devolve on Titus.

The science of physiognomy shared the same fate with science fell all others, when the Roman empire was overthrown by the northern barbarians. About the beginning of the 16th century it began again to be noticed.-From that time till the close of the 17th, it was one of the most fashionable studies. Within that space have appeared almost all the approved modern authors on the subject (B).

Particular studies

times.

It has been unfortunate for physiognomy, that by many of these writers it was held to be connected with doctrines of which the philosophy of the present day would be ashamed. With these doctrines it had almost sunk into oblivion.

In every period of the history of literature there may easily be marked a prevalence of particular studies. In have pecu- the early period, for instance, of Grecian literature, myliarly prevailed at thological morality claimed the chief attention of the phiparticular losophers. In the more advanced state of learning in Greece and in Rome, poetry, history, and oratory, held the pre-eminence. Under the latter emperors, and for some time afterwards, the history of theological controversies occupied the greatest part of works of the learned. Next succeeded metaphysics, and metaphysical theology. These gave place to alchemy, magic, judicial astrology, the doctrine of signatures and sympathies, the mystic, theosophic, and Rosicrucian theology, with physiognomy. Such were the pursuits contemporary with the science which is the object of our present inquiry. It is no matter of surprise, that, so associated, it should have fallen into contempt. It is not unusual for mankind hastily to reject valuable opinions, when accidentally or artificially connected with others which are absurd and untenable. Of the truth of this remark, the history of theology, and the present tone of theological opinions in Europe, furnish a pregnant example.

To physiognomy, and the exploded sciences last mentioned, succeeded classic philology; which gave place to modern poetry and natural philosophy; to which recently have been added the studies of rational theology, che

mistry, the philosophy of history, the history of man, and the science of politics.

About the commencement of the 18th century, and The obserthenceforward, the occult sciences, as they are termed, vations of the writers had declined very considerably in the estimation of the of the prelearned; and those who treated of physiognomy forbore sent centu to disgrace it by a connection with those branches of ry on this ideal learning with which formerly it had been invari-subject. ably conjoined. In Britain, Dr Gwither noticed it with approbation.-His remarks are published in the Philosophical Transactions, vol. xviii.; and Dr Parsons chose it for the subject of the Croonean lectures, published at first in the second supplement to the 44th volume of the Philosophical Transactions, and afterwards (1747) in. a separate treatise, entitled Human Physiognomy explained.

The observations, however, of these writers, as well as of Lancisius, Haller, and Buffon, relate rather to the transient expression of the passions than to the permanent features of the face and body. The well-known characters of Le Brun likewise are illustrative of the transient physiognomy, or (as it is termed) pathognomy.-See PASSIONS in Painting.

12

During the present century, although physiognomy We find has been now and then attended to, nothing of import- nothing ance appeared on the subject till the discussion already very important mentioned between Pernetty and Le Cat, in the Berlin till the Transactions. The sentiments of these authors, in so far controver as relates to the definition of physiognomy, have been sy between above noticed. Their essays are, besides, employed in Pernetty discussing the following questions: 1st, Whether it' would or would not be advantageous to society, were the character, disposition, and abilities, of each individual so marked in his appearance as to be discovered with certainty?

2dly, Whether, on the supposition that by the highest possible proficiency in physiognomy, we could attain a knowledge in part only of the internal character, it would be advantageous to society to cultivate the study, mankind being in general imperfect physiognomists?

No reasoning à priori can possibly determine these questions. Time and experience alone must ascertain the degree of influence which any particular acquisition of knowledge would have on the manners and characters of mankind; but it is difficult to conceive how the result of any portion of knowledge, formerly unknown, and which mankind would be permitted to discover, could be any thing but beneficial.

and Le Cat

13

Soon after this controversy in the Berlin Transactions, Lavater's appeared the great work of M. Lavater, dean of Zurich, celebrate which has excited no inconsiderable portion of attention Work. in the literary world. The work itself is magnificent: That circumstance, as well as the nature of the subject, which was supposed to be fanciful, have contributed to

extend

VOL. XVI. Part II.

3 K

14

His opinions the

result of observation.

15

Mis ima

gination has, however, often

ment.

extend its fame; and certainly, if we may judge, the book, though many faults may be detected in it, is the most important of any that has appeared on the subject since the days of Aristotle. Lavater professes not to give a complete synthetical treatise on physiognomy, but, aware that the science is yet in its infancy, he exhibits fragments only, illustrative of its different parts. His performance is no doubt desultory and unconnected. It contains, however, many particulars much superior to any thing that had ever before appeared on the subject.

With the scholastic and systematic method adopted by the physiognomists of the last and preceding centuries, Lavater has rejected their manner of writing, which was dry, concise, indeterminate, and general: His remarks, on the contrary, are, for the most part, precise and particular, frequently founded on distinctions extremely acute. He has omitted entirely (as was to be expected from a writer of the present day) the astrological reveries, and such like, which deform the writings of former physiognomists; and he has with much propriety deduced his physiognomical observations but seldom from anatomical or physiological reasoning. Such reasoning may perhaps at some future period become important; but at present our knowledge of facts, although extensive, is not so universal, as to become the stable foundation of particular deductions. Lavater has illustrated his remarks by engravings; a method first adopted by Baptista Porta.-Lavater's engravings are very numerous, often expressive, and tolerably executed.

The opinions of this celebrated physiognomist are evidently the result of actual observation. He appears in deed to have made the science his peculiar study, and the grand pursuit of his life. His performance exhibits an extended comprehension of the subject, by a particular attention to osseal physiognomy, and the effect of profiles and contours. His style in general is forcible and lively, although somewhat declamatory and digressive. His expressions are frequently precise, and strikingly characteristic; and the spirit of piety and benevolence which pervades the whole performance renders it highly interesting.

The defects of the work, however, detract much from the weight which Lavater's opinions might otherwise challenge. His imagination has frequently so far outstript his judgment, that an ordinary reader would of his judge- ten he apt to reject the whole system as the extravagant reverie of an ingenious theorist. He has clothed his favourite science in that affected mysterious air of importance, which was so usual with his predecessors, and describes the whole material world to be objects of the universal dominion of physiognomy *. He whimsically P. 33-38. conceives it necessary for a physiognomist to be a wellshaped handsome man t. He employs a language which is often much too peremptory and decisive, disproportioned to the real substance of his remarks, or to the occasion of making them. The remarks themselves are frequently opposite in appearance to common observation, and yet unsupported by any illustrations of his.

* Vel. i.

vol. ii.

p 89. French translation. + Vol i p. 126.

16 Other

Lavater certainly errs in placing too great a reliweaknesses ance on single features, as the foundation of decision on of this character. His opinions on the physiognomy of the great phy siognomist. ears, hands, nails, and feet of the human species, on hand-writing, on the physiognomy of birds, insects, rep

tiles, and fishes, are obviously premature, as hitherto no sufficient number of accurate observations has been made, in regard to either of these particulars, to authorise any conclusion. He has erred in the opposite extreme, when treating of the important topic of national physiognomy, where he has by no means prosecuted the subject so far as facts might have warranted. We must farther take the liberty to object to the frequent introduction of the author's own physiognomy throughout the course of his work. His singular remarks on his own face do not serve to prejudice the reader in favour of his judgment, however much his character may justify the truth of them. We must regret likewise, for the credit of the science, that the author's singularly fanciful theory of apparitions should so nearly resemble a revival of the antiquated opinions of the sympathists.

To these blemishes, which we have reluctantly enumerated, perhaps may be added that high impassioned tone of enthusiasm in favour of his science everywhere displayed throughout the work of this author, which is certainly very opposite to the cool patient investigation befitting philosophy. To that enthusiasm, however, it is probable that in this instance (as is, indeed, no unfrequent effect of enthusiasm) we are indebted for the excellency which the author has attained in his pursuit ; and it possesses the salutary tendency of putting us on our guard against a too implicit acquiescense in his physiognomical decisions.

17

Berlin

In the Berlin Transactions for 1775, there appears a His work formal attack upon Lavater's work by M. Formey, was attackThis essay we have already mentioned. After disputing ed in the the propriety of the extensive signification applied by TransacLavater and Pernetty to the term physiognomy, M. tions by M. Formey adopts nearly the same definition which we con- Formey. ceive to be the most proper, and which we have put down as such near the beginning of this article. He al lows that the mental character is intimately connected with, and sensibly influenced by, every fibre of the body; but his principal argument against physiognomy is, that the human frame is liable to innumerable accidents, by which it may be changed in its external appearance, without any correspondent change of the disposition; so that it surpasses the extent of the skill of mortals to distinguish the modifications of feature that are natural, from those which may be accidental. Although, therefore, the science of physiognomy may be founded in truth, he infers that the Deity only can exercise it.

M. Formey further contends, that education, diet, climate, and sudden emotions, nay even the temperaments of ancestors, affect the cast of human features; so that the influence of mental character on these features may be so involved with, or hidden by, accidental circumstances, that the study of physiognomy must ever be attended by hopeless uncertainty. These objections are worthy of notice, but they are by no means conclusive.

18

We shall give a specimen of M. Lavater's manner of Lavater's treating the subject on the opposite side of the question: mode of A specimen, not in Lavater's precise words, but convey- treating ing more shortly an idea at once of his sentiments, and his subject. of his manner of expressing them.

19

No study, says he, excepting mathematics, more just- Physiog ly deserves to be termed a science than physiognomy. nomy is It is a department of physics, including theology and justly cal belles lettres, and in the same manner with these sciences

ed a sci

ence,

may