Is a word formed from the Greek ευρεις nature, and γνωσις I know. It is the name of a science which 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 two last 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 (physiognomica), 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.
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 pages 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 contests the extent assigned by Lavater to his favourite science.
Before the era of Pythagoras the Greeks had little Pythagoras or no science, and of course could not be scientific probably physiognomists. Physiognomy, however, was much brought cultivated in Egypt and India; and from these countries the 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 adopted as a profession. Of this the well-known anecdote 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.
It may be worth while to give a brief outline of Aristotle's sentiments on the subject.
Physiognomy, he in substance observes, had been treated of in three ways: Some philosophers clasped animals into genera, and ascribed to each genus a certain mental disposition corresponding to their corporal 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 individuals, 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 dispos-
(a) They'll find i' the physiognomies O' th' planets all mens destinies. Hudibras. 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 pellucidous 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 theory, 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 his 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 energetic, 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, indeterminative, 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.
Next after Aristotle, his disciple and successor Theophrastus would deserve to be particularly mentioned as a writer on the subject in question. His ethical characters, a singular and entertaining performance, composed at the age of 99, form a distinct treatise on a most important branch of physiognomy, the physiognomy of manners: but the translations and imitations of La Bruyère 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 of attention.
Polemon of Athens, Adamantius the sophist, and other several others, wrote on the subject about the same period. Lately there was published a collection of the Greek authors on physiognomy: the book is intitled, *Physiognomiae veteris scriptores Graeci Gr. & Lat.* a Francio Altenb. 1780, 8vo. From the number of these authors, it appears that the science was much cultivated in Greece; but the professors seem soon to have connected with it something of the marvellous. This we have cause to suspect from the story told by Apion of thing of the Apelles: *Imaginem adeo similitudinis indifferente pinxit, ut marvellous (incredibilem dixit) Apion Grammaticus Scriptum relinquisset quaedam ex facie hominum addivinantem (quos melapsoceos vocat) ex istis dixisse aut future mortis amores, aut praeterita.* Pliny
The novitiates of the Pythagorean school were subjected to the physiognomic observation of their teachers, and it is probable the first physiognomists by profession among the Greeks were of this sect. They, too, to whom, from the nature of 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.
From the period of which we have been treating to the close of the Roman republic, nothing worthy of remark occurs in the literary history of physiognomy. About the last mentioned era, however, and from thence 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 oration 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, 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 all others, when the Roman empire was overthrown by the northern barbarians. About the beginning of the sixteenth century it began again to be noticed.—From that time till the close of the seventeenth, it was one of the most fashionable studies. Within that space have appeared almost all the approved modern authors on the subject (B.)
---
(8) They are, Bartholem. Cocles, Baptista Porta, Honoratus Nuquetius, Jacobus de Indagine, Alstedius, Michaelis. 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 the early period, for instance, of Grecian literature, mythological morality claimed the chief attention of the philosophers. 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, chemistry, the philosophy of history, the history of man, and the science of politics.
About the commencement of the eighteenth century, and thence forward, the occult sciences, as they are termed, had declined very considerably in the estimation of the learned; and those who treated of physiognomy forbore to disgrace it by a connection with those branches of ideal learning with which formerly it had been invariably 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 Croonian 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.
During the present century, although physiognomy has been now and then attended to, nothing of importance appeared on the subject till the discussion already mentioned between Pernety and Le Cat, in the Berlin Transactions. The sentiments of these authors, in so far as relates to the definition of physiognomy, have been above noticed. Their essays are besides employed in 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? 2ndly, 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 a 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 anything but beneficial.
Soon after this controversy in the Berlin Transactions, appeared the great work of M. Lavater, dean of Zurich, which has excited no inconsiderable portion of attention 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 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 defective and unconnected. It contains, however, many particulars much superior to anything 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
---
Michael Schottus, Gaspar Schottus, Cardan, Taisnierus, Fludd, Behmen, Barclay, Claromontius, Conringius, the commentaries of Augustin Niphus, and Camillus Balbus on the Physiognomica of Aristotle,—Spontanus, Andreas Henricus, Joannes Digander, Rud. Goclenius, Alex. Achillius, Joh. Praetorius, Jo. Belot, Guliel. Gratatorus, &c. They are noticed in the Polyhitor. of Morhoff, vol. i. lib. 1. cap. 15. § 4. and vol. ii. lib. 3. cap. 1. § 4. 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 indeed 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 pervade the whole performance render 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 often be 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 conceives it necessary for a physiognomist to be a well-shaped handsome man†. He employs a language which is often much too peremptory and decisive, disproportionate 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.
Lavater certainly errs in bestowing too great a reliance on single features, as the foundation of decision on character. His opinions on the physiognomy of the ears, hands, nails, and feet, of the human species, on hand-writing, on the physiognomy of birds, insects, reptiles, and fishes, are obviously premature, as hitherto no sufficient number of accurate observations have been made, in regard to either of these particulars, to authorize any conclusion. He has erred in the opposite extreme, when treating of the important topic of national physiognomy, where he has by no means professed 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 acquiescence in his physiognomical decisions.
In the Berlin Transactions for 1775, there appears a formal attack upon Lavater's work by M. Formey. This essay we have already mentioned. After disputing the propriety of the extensive signification applied by Lavater and Pernetty to the term physiognomy, M. Formey adopts nearly the same definition which we conceive to be the most proper, and which we have put down as such near the beginning of this article. He allows 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.
We shall give a specimen of M. Lavater's manner of treating the subject on the opposite side of the same mode of treatment: a specimen, not in Lavater's precise words, but conveying more shortly an idea at once of his sentiments, and of his manner of expressing them.
No study, says he, excepting mathematics, more justly deserves to be termed a science than physiognomy. It is a department of physics, including theology and belles lettres, and in the same manner with these sciences may be reduced to rule. It may acquire a fixed and appropriate character; it may be communicated and taught.
Truth or knowledge, explained by fixed principles, becomes science. Words, lines, rules, definitions, are the medium of communication. The question, then, with respect to physiognomy, will thus be fairly stated. Can the striking and marked differences which are visible between one human face, one human form, and another, be explained, not by obscure and confused conceptions, but by certain characters, signs, and expressions? Are these signs capable of communicating the vigour or imbecility, the sickness or health, of the body; the wisdom, the folly, the magnanimity, the meanness, the virtue, or the vice, of the mind?
It is only to a certain extent that even the experimental philosopher can pursue his researches. The active and vigorous mind, employed in such studies, will often form conceptions which he shall be incapable of expressing in words, so as to communicate his ideas to the feebler mind, which was itself unable to make the discovery; but the lofty, the exalted mind, which soars beyond all written rule, which possesses feelings and energies reducible to no law, must be pronounced unscientific.
It will be admitted, then, that to a certain degree phsyognomical truth may as a science be defined and communicated. Of the truth of the science there cannot exist a doubt. Every countenance, every form, every created existence, is individually distinct, as well as different, in respect of class, race, and kind. No one being in nature is precisely similar to another. This proposition, in so far as regards man, is the foundation-stone of physiognomy. There may exist an intimate analogy, a striking similarity, between two men, who yet being brought together, and accurately compared, will appear to be remarkably different. No two minds perfectly resemble each other. Now, is it possible to doubt that there must be a certain native analogy between the external varieties of countenance and form and the internal varieties of the mind? By anger the muscles are rendered protuberant: Are not, then, the angry mind, and the protuberant muscles, as cause and effect? The man of acute wit has frequently a quick and lively eye. Is it possible to resist the conclusion, that between such a mind and such a countenance there is a determinate relation?
Every thing in nature is estimated by its physiognomy; that is, its external appearance. The trader judges by the colour, the fineness, the exterior, the physiognomy of every article of traffic; and he at once decides that the buyer "has an honest look," or "a pleasing or forbidding countenance."
That knowledge and science are detrimental to man, that a state of rudeness and ignorance are preferable and productive of more happiness, are tenets now deservedly exploded. They do not merit serious opposition. The extension and increase of knowledge, then, is an object of importance to man: and what object can be so important as the knowledge of man himself? If knowledge can influence his happiness, the knowledge of himself must influence it the most. This useful knowledge is the peculiar province of the science of physiognomy. To conceive a just idea of the advantages of physiognomy, let us for a moment suppose that all phsyognomical knowledge were totally forgotten among men; what confusion, what uncertainty, what numberless mistakes, would be the consequence? Men destined to live in society must hold mutual intercourse. The knowledge of man imparts to this intercourse its spirit, its pleasures, its advantages.
Physiognomy is a source of pure and exalted mental gratification. It affords a new view of the perfection of Deity; it displays a new scene of harmony and beauty in his works; it reveals internal motives, which without it would only have been discovered in the world to come. The physiognomist distinguishes accurately the permanent from the habitual, the habitual from the accidental, in character. Difficulties, no doubt, attend the study of this science. The most minute shades, scarcely discernible to the unexperienced eye, denote often total opposition of character. A small inflexion, diminution, lengthening or sharpening, even though but of a hair's breadth, may alter in an astonishing degree the expression of countenance and character. How difficult then, how impossible indeed, must this variety of the same countenance render precision? The seat of character is often so hidden, so masked, that it can only be detected in certain, perhaps uncommon, positions of countenance. These positions may be so quickly changed, the signs may so spontaneously disappear, and their impression on the mind of the observer may be so slight, or these distinguishing traits themselves so difficult to seize, that it shall be impossible to paint them or describe them in language. Innumerable great and small accidents, whether physical or moral, various incidents and passions, the diversity of dress, of position, of light or shade, tend to display the countenance often in a disadvantageous a point of view, that the physiognomist is betrayed into an erroneous judgment of the true qualities of the countenance and character. Such causes often occasion him to overlook the essential traits of character, and to form a decision on what is purely accidental.—How surprisingly, for instance, may the smallpox disfigure the countenance, and destroy or confound, or render imperceptible, traits otherwise the most decisive?
We shall, then, continues Lavater, grant to the May one opposer of physiognomy all he can ask; and yet we do say be not live without hopes that many of the difficulties shall be resolved which at first appeared inexplicable.
He then proceeds to a specific illustration of his subject under a great variety of titles, in which he offers Lavater's treats of human nature in general, and of each particular work feature separately.
To enumerate the different divisions of his book would not be more satisfactory to our readers than the perusal of the contents of the book itself; and an attempt to epitomize even the essential substance of the vast multiplicity of matter contained in his essays, (which are yet only fragments, and to which indeed he himself does not pretend to give any higher appellation), would extend this article to a disproportionate length. Such an abridgement, after all, would convey no solid information on a subject which merits all the time and study that an attentive perusal of Lavater's works at large would require.
From the historical deduction of the literary progress of physiognomy which we have thus attempted to lay before our readers, it appears, that although the difference has fallen into disrepute, there can scarcely be mentioned a period in which any cultivation of science has took place when physiognomy was not likewise the fallen study, nay sometimes even the profession, of men of the most eminent abilities and the greatest learning.
The reasons why at present so little attention is paid to the subject probably are,
1st, That it has been treated in conjunction with subjects now with propriety exploded: And,
2ndly, That it has been injured by the injudicious assertions and arguments of those who have undertaken its defence.
Sometimes, however, the wise and the learned may err. The use of any thing must not be rejected for no better reason than that it is capable of abuse. Perhaps the era is not distant when physiognomy shall be reinstated in the rank which she merits among the valuable branches of human knowledge, and be studied with that degree of attention and perseverance which a subject deserves so essentially connected with the science of man.
That there is an intimate relation between the different positions