Physiognomy

(physiognomia, gucieyywpue; from puaic, nature, and y:ywoxuw, to know.) “© The science by which the dispositions of mankind are discoverable by the features of the body, and especially by those of the countenance.” Aristotle, who -first employed this term, and profe edly treated of the subject it indicates, has given this definition of the study. His leading principle in treating of it was the following: a peculiar form of body is in vat i ably accompanied by a peculiar disposition of mind: a human intellect is never found in the corporeal form of a beast; and the mind and body exercise a reciprocal affection over each other: thus in intoxication and mania, the mind exhibits the affections of the body; and in fear, in joy, . the body inversely displays the affections of the mind. From such facts he argues, that when in mana 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 nece arily connected; we are entitled 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, asa lion po e es one bodily form and mental character, a hare another, the corporeal characteristics of the lion, such as strong hair, deep voice, large extremities, discernible ina human creature, denote the strength and courage of that noble animal; while the slender extre- -mities,, soft down, and other features of the hare, visible in a man, hetray the mental cha- racter of that pusillanimous creature. Upon this principle Aristotle treats of the corporeal features of man; and the correspond- ent dispositions, so far as observed: he ill us. trates them by the analogy just mentioned, and in some instances he attempts to account for ’ them by physiological reasoning. At the early period in which Aristotle wrote, his theory, plausible certainly, and even pro bable, displays his usual penetration, and. a considerable degree of knowledge. He dis~ tinctly notices individual physiognomy, national physiognomy, and comparative physiognomy. The state of knowledge in his time did not admit of a complete elucidation ofhis general principles; on that account his enumeration of paiticular 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. Arristotle’s performance, however, such as it is, has been taken as the groundryprk 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 Janguage and manner, which are sen ten tions, indiscriminate, and obscure. His comparative physiognomy of men with beasts has been fre« quently though not universally adopted. Besides his treatise expre ly 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 succe or Theophrastus deserves to be particularly mentioned as a writer on the subject in question. His ethic characters, a singular and entertaining performance, composed at the age of 99, form a distinct treatise on a most im-. portant branch of physiognomy, the physiognomy of manners: but the translations and imitations of 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 liveline . of description displayed in the work of Theophrastus will preserve it high in cla ical rank, while the science of man, and the prominent characteristics of human seciety, continue to be objects of attention. Polemon of Athens, Adamant i us the sophist, and several others, wrote on the subject about the same period. Lately there has been published a collection of all the Greek authors on physiognomy.;.the book is entitled, Physiognomie veteris Script ores Greci. Gr. et Lat. a Franzio Altenb. 1780, 8vo. From the number of these authors, it appears that the science was mueh cultivated in Greece; but the profe ors seen soon to have connected with it something of the marvellous, and especially with the art of divination. From this period 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 a umed as a profe ion by persons who had acquired a superior knowledge in it. In the works of Hippo crates 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 likwise in the writings of Sallust, Suet on i us, Seneca, Pliny, Aulus Gellius, Petronius, Plutarch, and others. That in the Roman empire the science was practised as a profe ion, ample evidence appears in the writings of several of the authors just mentioned. Suet on is, for instance, in his life of Titus, mentions that Narci us 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. See the Polyhistor of Morhoff. I. i. 15; and II. iii. 1. It is unfortunate for physiognomy, that by many of these writers it has been held to be connected with doctrines of which the philosoppy of the present day would be ashamed. ith these doctrines it had at one time almost sunk into oblivion. In every period of the history of literature there may easily be marked a prevalence of articular studies. In the early period, for instance, of Grecian literature, mythological morality claimed the chief attention of the eee pir In the more advanced state of earning in Greece and in Rome, poetry, history, and oratory, held the pre-eminence. Under the later emperors, and for some time afterwards, the history of theological controversies occupied the greatest part of the 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 sur- rise, that, so a ociated, 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 cla ic 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. Gwyther noticed it with approbation. His remarks are published in the Philosophical Transactions, vol. xvili. 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 expre ion of the pa ions 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 Pa IONSs in PAINTING. During the present century, although physiognomy has been now and then attended to, nothing of importance appeared on the subject till the discu ion between Per netty and Le Cat, in the Berlin Transactions. ‘Their e ays are employed in discu ing the following questions: 1. 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? 2. Whether, on the supposition that by the highest po ible 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 prior i can po ibly 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. 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 profe es not to give a complete synthetical treatise on physiognomy, but, aware that the science is yet in its in- “fancy, 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, 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, 1s not so universal as to lay a stable foundation for particular deductions. Lavater has illustrated his remarks by engravings; a method first adopted by Baptist a Porta. Lavater’s engravings are’ very numerous, often expre ive, 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 articular attention to o eal physiognomy, and the effect of profiles and contours. His style in general is forcible and lively, although somewhat declamatory and digre ive. His expre ions are frequently precise, and strikingly, characteristic; and the spirit of piety and benevolence which prevades 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 out stript 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 predece ors, and describes the whole material world to be objects of the universal dominion of physiognomy. He whimsically conceives it nece ary for a physiognomist to be a well-shaped handsome man. He employs a language which is often much too peremptory and decisive, disproportioned to the real absiaries 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 ill us- trations 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 ig betes premature, as fhe no sufficient number of accurate observations have " been made, in regard to either of these parti« culars, 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 hysiognomy throughout the course of his work. Fis singular remarks on his own face do not serve to prejudice the reader in favour of his jadgment, how much soever 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 nearlv resemble a revival of the antiquated opinions of the sympathists. To these blemishes, which we have reluctantly enumerated, perhaps may be added that high impa ioned tone of enthusiasm in favour of his science every where 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 po e es the salutary tendency of putting us on our guard against a too implicit acquiescence in his physiognomical decisions. Tn the Berlin Transactions for 1775, there appears a formal attack upon Lavater’s work by M. Formey. After disputing the propriety of the extensive signification applied by Lavater and Per netty to the term physiognomy, M. Formey adopts nearly the definition which conceive to be the most proper. 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 ac¢idents, by which it may be changed in its external appearance, without any correspondent change of the disposition; so that it surpa es 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 educa- tion, 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 cir- cum stances, that the study of physiognomy must ever be attended by hopele . uncertainty. These objections are worthy of uotice, 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: a specimen not in Lavater’s precise words, but conveying more shortly an idea at once of his sentiments, and of his manner of expre ing them. No study, says he, excepting mathematics, more justly deserves to be termed a science than phys tog no my. 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. Trath or knowledge, explained: by fixed principles, becomes science. Words, lines, rules, definitions, are the medium of cony muni cation. 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 charactets, signs, and expre ions? Are these signs capable of communicating the vigour or imbecility, the sickne or health, of the body; the wisdom, the folly, the magnanimity, the meanne , the virtue, or the vice, of the mind? It is only toa 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 i expre ing 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 po e es feelings and energies reducible to no law, must be pronounced unscientific. It will be admitted, then, that toa certain degree physiognomical 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 respe¢t of cla , 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 po ible 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. it po ible 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 appearances The trader judges by the colour, the finene , the exterior, the physiognomy of every article of trafhe; and he at once decides that the buyer «* has an honest look,” or ‘¢ a pleasing or for~ bidding countenance.” That knowledge and science are detrimentak to man, that a state of rudene and ignorance is preferable, and productive of more happine , 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 happine , the knowledge of himself must influence it the most. This useful knowledge is the peculiat province of the science of physiognomy, To conceive a just idea of the advantages of physiognomy, let us for a moment suppose that all physiognomical knowledge were totally forgotten among men; what confusion, what uncertainty, what numberle mistakes would ber 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. Physicgnonyy 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 inflexien, diminution, lengthening or sharpening, even though but of a hair’s breadth, may alter in an astonishing degree the expre ion of countenance and charact ern. How difficult then, how impo ible 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 impre ion on the mind of the observer, may be so slight, or these distinguishing traits themselves so difficult to seize, that it shall be impo ible to paint them or describe them in language. Innumerable great and small accidents, whether physical or moral, various incidents and pa ions, the diversity of dre , of position, of light or shade, tend to display the countenance often in so disadvantageous a point of view, that the physiognomist is betrayed into an erroneous judgment of the true qualities of the countenance and character. Ey causes often occasion him to overlook the e ential 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 nperceptible, traits otherwise the most decisive! We shall then, continues Lavater, grant to the opposer of physiognomy all he can ask; and yet we do not live without hopes that many “of the difficulties may be resolved which at first appeared inexplicable. pide He then proceeds to a specific illustration of his subject under a great variety of titles, in which, he treats of 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 epitomise even the e ential substance of the vast multiplicity of matter contained in his e ays (which are yet only fragments, and to which indeed he Prraselt 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. rom the historical deduction of the literary progre of physiognomy which we have thus attempted to lay before our readers, it appears, that although the science has fallen into disrepute, there can scarcely be mentioned a ‘period in which any cultivation of science took ‘place when physiognomy was not likewise the study, nay sometimes even the profe ion, 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, 1, That it has been treated in conjunction with subjects now with propriety exploded: and, 2. That it has been injured by the injudicious a eriions and argumenis of those who have undertaken its defence. Sometimes, however, the wise and the learned mayerr. The use of any thing must not be rejected for no better reason than that it is ca- _pable 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 e entially connected with the science of man. That 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 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 mistre . A person boiling with anger has a threatening air in his countenance, which the most heedle observer never mistakes; and if any particular disposi- _ tion be indulged till it become habitual, there cannot be a doubt that the corresponding traces will be so fixed in the face as to be discernible by the skilful physiognomist, 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 himgelf has fallen into the gro est mistakes. The latest popular attempt at any depart ment of this science was that of Dr. Gall of Vienna, in his lectures on what he chose to denominate craniology, although he affected to be displeased at every attempt to connect his own peculiar study with that of physiognomy. The theary of this learned but as it appears to us extravagant philosopher endeavoured to account for every variety of habit or of feeling, and in reality for all-the animal senses of every kind both external and internal, by supposing some particular part of the brain to be allotted to each peculiarity, and that the general character and temper of the individual is the result of the different proportions which these different parts or chambers of the brain bear to one another. He supposes also that this/organ is po e ed of two distinct sets of nervous fibres, a secernent and an absorbent; both directly connected with what is called the cineritious or ash-colouréd department of the brain; the former i uing from it and secreting the fluid” of the will, or that by which the mind operates on the muscles; and the latter rather terminating in it, and conveying to it the fluid of the external senses, secreted by those senses themselves, and communicating a knowledge of the presence and degree of power of external objects. This elaborate theory and the facts to which it appeals were very minutely investigated about three or four years ago, by a very excellent committee of the physical cla of the French National Institute, a isted by M, Spurzheim, the most intimate friend and coadjutor of the inventor; who, after a very minute and cautious research, gave it as a part of their report that the doctrine of the origin and_ action of the nerves is probably correct; but that this doctrine does not appear to have any immediate or nece ary connection with that part of Dr. Gall’s theory which relates to distinct functions po e ed by distinct parts of the brain. In refutation, however, of this last part of the theory it will only be sufficient to observe,, that while many of the nerves productive of various functions originate in the same part of the brain, others confined to the same function originate in various parts, Thus the cerebrum, which gives birth to the olfactory and ophthalmic nerves, gives birth also to the oculorum moterii; the cerebellum gives birth to both the trochlea to res and the trigemini; and the medulla oblong at a to the auditory, the par vagum and the lingual, For more on this subject, see CRANIOGNOMY. 374 375 376 377