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, 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 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).

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, mythology 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, charity, the philosophy of history, the history of man, and the science of politics.

About the commencement of the 18th century, and the observation forward, the occult sciences, as they are termed, vations of had declined very considerably in the estimation of the writers of the pre-learned; and those who treated of physiognomy forbore to disgrace it by a connection with those branches of study on this ideal learning with which formerly it had been invariably joined. 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 Lancius, 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 we find has been now and then attended to, nothing of importance appeared on the subject till the discussion already mentioned between Pernetty and Le Cat, in the Berlin Transactions. The sentiments of these authors, in so far controversial as relates to the definition of physiognomy, have been by between 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, Lavater appeared the great work of M. Lavater, dean of Zurich, celebrated 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

(B) They are, Bartholem. Cocles, Baptista Porta, Honoratus Nuquetius, Jacobus de Indagine, Alstedius, 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 Diggander, Rud, Goclenius, Alex. Achillinius, Joh. Praetorius, Jo. Belot, Guliel. Gratalorus, &c. They are noticed in the Polyhistor of Morhoff, vol. i. lib. i. cap. 15. § 4, and vol. ii. lib. iii. cap. i. § 4. 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 defultory 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 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 aerial 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 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 presumptuous 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 placing 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 handwriting, on the physiognomy of birds, insects, reptiles, 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 palliates 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, was attacked by 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 question: mode of a specimen, not in Lavater's precise words, but convey, treating more shortly an idea at once of his sentiments, and 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 justly called belles lettres, and in the same manner with these sciences, may 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 phsyiognomy, 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 feeblest mind, which was itself unable to make the discovery: But the lofty, the exalted mind, which soars beyond all written rule, which potentiates feelings and energies reducible to no law, must be pronounced unscientific.

It will be admitted, then, that to a certain degree phsyiognomical 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 phsyiognomy. 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 phsyiognomy; that is, its external appearance. The trader judges by the colour, the fineness, the exterior, the phsyiognomy 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 phsyiognomy. To conceive a just idea of the advantages of phsyiognomy, let us for a moment suppose that all phsyiognomical 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.

Phsyiognomy is a source of pure and exalted mental gratification. It affords a new view of the perfection of great men. Deity; it displays a new scene of harmony and beauty in his works; it reveals internal motives, which without gratification, it would only have been discovered in the world to come. The phsyiognomist 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 in the fluctuation 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 instantaneously 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 so disadvantageous a point of view, that the phsyiognomist 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 opponent of phsyiognomy all he can ask; and yet we do not day be alive without hopes that many of the difficulties shall be visited, 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 treats of Lavater's human nature in general, and of each particular 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 phsyiognomy which we have thus attempted to lay before our readers, it appears, that although the science has fallen into disrepute, there can scarcely be mention made of it. ed a period in which any cultivation of science took place when phsyiognomy was not likewise the 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, 2dly, 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 phsyiognomy 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.

There is an intimate relation between the dispositions of the mind and the features of the countenance is a fact which cannot be questioned. He who is sinking under a load of grief for the death of an affectionate wife or a dutiful child, has a very different cast of features from the man who is happy in the prospect of meeting his mistress. A person boiling with anger has a threatening air in his countenance, which the most heedless observer never mistakes; and if any particular disposition be indulged till it become habitual, there cannot be a doubt but that the corresponding traces will be so fixed in the face as to be discernible by the skilful phsyiognomist, under every effort made to disguise them. But when we attempt to decide on a man's intellectual powers by the rules of this science, we are often deceived; and in this respect we have reason to believe that Lavater himself has fallen into the grossest mistakes.

Connected with phsyiognomy, we may consider the craniognomic system of Dr Gall of Vienna, which is so called, because, from the exterior form of the cranium, he infers the powers and dispositions of the mind. The brain, he observes, is the material organ of the action of the mind; and as it increases in direct proportion to the faculties of animals, he has endeavoured to prove, that the faculties are distinct and independent on each other; that each has its proper material organ, and that the expansion of the organ is in proportion to the strength of the faculty. This system is attempted to be established by the following reasoning.

"The internal faculties, (says Dr Bojanus, the author of a view of this system), do not always exist in the same proportion to each other. There are some men who have a great deal of genius without having a memory, who have courage without circumspection, and who possess a metaphysical spirit without being good observers.

Besides, the phenomena of dreaming, of somnambulism, of delirium, &c. prove to us that the internal faculties do not always act together; that there is often a very great activity of one, while the rest are not sensible.

Thus, in old age, and sometimes in disease, such, for example as madness, several faculties are lost, while others subsist; besides a continued employment of the same faculty sensibly diminishes its energy: If we employ another, we find it has all the force of which it is susceptible; and if we return to the former faculty, it is observed that it has resumed its usual vigour. It is thus that, when fatigued with reading an abstract philosophical work, we proceed with pleasure to a poetical one, and then return with the same attention our former occupation."

"All these phenomena prove that the faculties are distinct and independent of each other, and we are inclined to believe that the case is the same with their material organs."

"We do not entirely agree with this idea of Dr Gall, and we believe, on the contrary, that the separation of the material organs ought to be considered as the cause of the distinction of the internal faculties. It appears, to us at least, that by supposing the faculties themselves as originally separated, we cannot save ourselves from falling into materialism, which exists when the mind is no longer considered as unity."

"The expansion of the organs contained in the cranium is in the direct ratio of the force of their corresponding faculties."

"This principle, dictated by analogy, rests on this axiom, that throughout all nature the faculties are always found to be proportioned to their relative organs; and the truth of it is proved in a special manner by the particular observations of Dr Gall.

It is however to be remarked, that exercise has a great influence on the force of the faculties, and that an organ moderately expanded, but often exercised, can give a faculty superior to that which accompanies a very extensive organ never put in action; as we see that a man of a weak conformation acquires, by continued exercise, strength superior to another of a more athletic structure.

"We must here mention an opinion which seems to result immediately from this principle, and which, however, is false: It is, that the volume of the brain, in general, is in the direct ratio of the energy of its faculties. Observation has proved to Dr Gall, that we cannot judge of the strength of the faculties but by the development of the separate organs which form distinct eminences in the cranium; and that a cranium perfectly round, of whatever size it may be, is never a proof of many or of great faculties.

"We do not recollect to have heard the reason assigned by Dr Gall; but, in our opinion, these brains may be considered as in a state analogous to obesity; and as we do not judge of the muscular force of a man or an animal by the volume of their members, but by the development of the muscles in particular, one would think we ought, in like manner, to judge of the strength of the faculties by the development of the relative organs.

In the last place, the 4th principle, the most important for practice in regard to the system of Dr Gall, is:

"We may judge of these different organs and of their faculties by the exterior form of the cranium.

"The truth of this principle is founded upon another, viz. that the conformation of the cranium depends on that of the brain; a truth generally acknowledged, and proved by the anterior part of the brain, by the impressions in the anterior part of the cranium, and by other facts.

[There are skulls, it is true, in which an external protuberance

protuberance of the bone corresponds to an interior one; and this irregularity, which is found sometimes as a dif- ficult, and most commonly at an advanced age, when the cerebral organs do not oppose the same resistance to the cranium, renders the practice of Dr Gall's system, in some measure, uncertain.]

"Guided by these principles, Dr Gall examines the nature of the skull, compares the crania of animals and those of men analogous and different in faculties. His researches have proved to him, in a manner almost in- contestable, not only the above truths, but that the fa- culties of animals are analogous to those of man; that what we call instinct in animals is found also in the lat- ter, such as attachment, cunning, circumspection, cou- rage, &c.; that the quantity of the organs fixes the difference of the genus of animals, their reciprocal pro- portion that of individuals; that the disposition original- ly given to each faculty by nature may be called forth by exercise and favourable circumstances, and sometimes by disease, but that it never can be created in the case where it has not been given by nature (c); that the ac- cumulation of the organs takes place in a constant man- ner from the hind part forwards, from the bottom to the top, in such a manner, that animals in proportion as they approach man in the quantity of their faculties have the superior and anterior part of the brain more ex- panded; and, in the last place, that in the most perfect animal, man, there are organs in the anterior and supe- rior parts of the frontal bone, and of the parietals, de- fined for faculties which belong to them exclusively. It is under the latter point of view that the discoveries of Dr Gall agree perfectly with the theory of the facial angle, which seems still further to establish the truth of them."

Most of our readers will probably be satisfied with the short view which we have now given of this fanciful and visionary system; but such as wish for a fuller exposition of it, may consult the Philosophical Magazine, vol. xiv. p. 77., from which the above is extracted. We shall only add the names of a few of the organs, which the author of the system thinks he has discovered. Organ of the tenacity of life. Organ of music. Organ of fighting. Organ of murder. Organ of cunning. Organ of arithmetic. Organ of thieving, &c.