the art of knowing the humour, temperament, or disposition of a person, from observation of the lines of his face, and the characters of its members or features. The word is formed from the Greek φύσις, "nature," and γνώσκω, "I know."

Baptista Porta and Robert Fludd are the principal modern authors on physiognomy. The ancient ones are the sophist Adamantius, and Aristotle; the physiognomy of which last we have translated into Latin by De Lacuna.

There seems to be something in physiognomy, and it may perhaps bear a much purer philosophy than what these authors were acquainted withal. This, at least, we dare say, that of all the fanciful arts of the ancients, diffused among the moderns, there is none has so much foundation in nature as this.

There is an apparent correspondence between the face and the mind. The features and lineaments of the one are directed by the motions and affections of the other, there is even a peculiar arrangement of the members of the face, a peculiar disposition of the countenance, to each particular affection, perhaps to each particular idea of the mind. In effect, the language of the face, physiognomy, is as copious, nay, perhaps as distinct and intelligible, as that of the tongue.

The foundation of physiognomy is this: The different objects that present themselves to the senses, nay, the different ideas that arise in the mind, do each make some impression on the spirits; and each an impression correspondent or adequate to its cause; therefore each a different impression.

Now, if by repeated acts, or the frequent entertaining of a favourite passion, or vice, which natural temperament has hurried or custom dragged one to, the face is often put in that posture which attends such acts; the animal-spirits will make such patent passages through the nerves (in which the essence of a habit consists), that the face is sometimes unalterably set in that posture, or at least falls insensibly and mechanically into that posture, unless some present object distorts it therefrom, or dissimulation hides it.

This reasoning is confirmed by observation. Thus we see great drinkers with eyes generally set to the nose; the adducent muscles being often employed to put them in that posture, in order to view their loved liquor in the glass in the time of drinking; whence those muscles are also denominated bibitory muscles. Thus also lascivious persons are remarkable for the

oculorum mobilis petulantia, as Petronius calls it.—Physiognomy. Hence we may account for the Quakers expecting face waiting the spirit, the melancholy face of most sectaries, the studious face of men of great application of mind, &c.

Were our observation a little more strict and delicate, we might doubtless not only distinguish habits and tempers, but even professions.—In effect, does there need much penetration to distinguish the fierce look of the veteran soldier, the contentious look of the practised pleader, the solemn look of the minister of state, &c.

Within these few years, one M. Lavater of Zurich has attempted to revive the trade of physiognomy, and published a quarto volume on the certainty and utility of the art. His reasons for believing in it, besides those already given, are to the following purpose.

"Every moment we are acting upon physiognomical principles, without being aware of it; and not men only, but the brutes also, even insects, both know their most convenient food, and their enemies, by the outside. What are we doing when we choose out some fruits as the best, or when we prefer one horse to another, but judging, from the outside, of the internal qualities? We then certainly act the physiognomer. That every man is undoubtedly a natural physiognomer, is still more apparent from considering the effects which result from the first sight of persons unknown. We are often much inclined to tell our friends, that we do not like the man before us, although we be in no degree acquainted with him. Whoever is an attentive observer of what passes in his own mind, knows that he no sooner sees any person, than certain attendant ideas succeed the first impression, which involve nothing less than a judgment over his dispositions of mind, so far that we pronounce him to be of a quite different cast from some others of our acquaintance. We cannot, in every case, tell exactly why we judge thus, whether it be from his figure, from his eyes, or from his nose. Nor can we always determine, whether the impression be not from different ideas complicated. This is not to be learned by rule; we judge only from a feeling acquired by experience. As physiognomical practice is general, it cannot be but founded in nature; and one should think, therefore, that it possibly might be the subject of science. Does not practice always precede theoretical knowledge?"

The rules for this extraordinary art are not laid down in the volume we now speak of; however, so many things are necessary on the part of the artist, that no body, it would seem, without a tolerable share of self-sufficiency, could engage in the art. The reason is, that it requires virtue in the artist to perceive virtue in the face of him whom he inspects; and consequently, unless the physiognomist is possessed of all the virtues in the world, he will be perpetually drawing false conclusions; for, "No one, (says our author,) certainly is able to discern the look of magnanimity, or the countenance of an exalted soul, but he who is magnanimous himself, who thinks nobly, and who is disposed to act generously."