ter of the countenance, but endeavoured to trace in its lineaments the destiny of the individual, as the fortune-teller of the present day peruses the lines of the hand. It subsequently fell into a temporary disrepute.

His work

It was about the commencement of the eighteenth century that the science was revived. Several treatises on the subject were then published, both in England and on the Continent, by able and learned men; but Lavater was the first writer of eminence in modern times who made it fashionable and popular. on the subject was got up in so splendid a style and with such numerous illustrative engravings, and the author himself was so much esteemed for his many personal virtues, that though he was opposed by a few of the critics of the day he speedily obtained a large body of disciples, and his writings were translated into various languages. A man more truly pious, or more candid and benevolent, the world has rarely known. His character would suffer nothing by a comparison even with that of Fenelon, whom he in many respects resembled. He was not a profound philosopher, but that he was a man of genius no one can have a moment's doubt who has read his celebrated work on Physiognomy, and the autobiographical notices of his early life. It is true that the former is often much too fanciful. It is also too verbose and desultory, and abounds in useless repetitions. These defects must be at once admitted; but they are redeemed by so many acute and ingenious observations, by so many noble sentiments, and by such a pervading spirit of philanthropy and religion, that the author's enthusiasm is almost irresistibly contagious. Though his ardour in the illustration of his favorite science beguiles him occasionally into very untenable positions, and leads him to speak somewhat too decidedly upon points that are purely speculative, his frank acknowledgments of error, and the curious avowal, more than once repeated, that he knows little or nothing of the subject notwithstanding his long study and experience, disarm the

anger of the reader, and prepare him to make a liberal allowance for every imperfection.

Lavater introduced the study of osseal physiognomy. All preceding authors confined themselves chiefly to a consideration of what has been called pathognomy, which includes only those moveable or accidental or transient appearances in the muscles or soft parts of the human face which betray the vicissitudes of feeling and of thought, while they neglected those permanent outlines which indicate the general and fixed character of the heart and mind. He was not only a physiognomist in the ordinary and limited sense of the term, but as much of a craniologist as Gall or Spurzheim, though he did not pretend to the same degree of preternatural knowledge; nor attempt, as they did, to divide the mind into distinct and opposite faculties, and assign them their several little bumps or cells.

Lavater advises the student to place a collection of sculls or casts of heads of celebrated or well known persons in one horizontal row. After comparing these sculls or casts carefully with each other, and each with the intellectual or moral character of the individual, the student may proceed to the consideration of the external conformation of unknown persons. He who after comparing the heads of men of various degrees of mental power can remain of opinion that there is no difference between the sculls of the highest and lowest order of intellect, or in other words that mind leaves no fixed and legible traces upon matter, whether bone or flesh, must have a cranium of his own that would be a puzzle to the phrenologist, were it to indicate any portion of intelligence beyond the merest instinct. Perhaps there is no instance in the whole history of human greatness of a man of magnificent genius with a head, of which the frontal portion was at once both low and narrow. We occasionally indeed meet with persons of considerable capacity whose foreheads may exhibit either the one or the other of these defects; but never

:

both and the defect is invariably redeemed by the opposite advantage of height or breadth. But though genius refuses to reside in a forehead at once both low and narrow, it is not every high or broad one that is honored by its presence. A large forehead is not always intellectual. Its peculiarity of shape and inclination is of great importance. If it either falls too far back from the face or too much overhangs it, though in other respects of fair proportion, it is indicative of mental imbecility, and approaches too nearly in character to the heads of animals. The old Grecian artists had so strong an impression of the unintellectual aspect of a violently retreating forehead, that in their anxiety to avoid it in their ideal portraits they almost ran into the opposite extreme; and though they never allowed it to bulge out and overhang the lower features, they made it nearly perpendicular, which in the living subject denotes dulness and incapacity. The forehead of an idiot generally either hangs clumsily, like a projecting rock, over a wild and dreary face, or falls directly back, as we find it in the lower animals.

It is very rarely that we find amongst those who deny the truth of Physiognomy, a man of much acuteness or reflection. The few reasonable persons who are met with in the ranks of its opponents are generally influenced more by a mistrust of their own physiognomical discernment, or an apprehension of the mischief and injustice which follow erroneous judgments, than by any serious conviction that the mind is not generally stamped upon the features. To those who object to the science on the ground of its uncertainty, as regards human skill, there are two answers. In the first place truth itself is not to be rejected or denied, because its followers are occasionally at fault: and in the second, let us reason as cautiously and as coldly as we may, we can never wholly resist the impressions which we receive from the perusal of a human face.

There is no science, however useful or important, the professors

of which have not fallen into egregious errors. It is not less unreasonable to reject Physiognomy because the physiognomist is occasionally mistaken, than it would be to reject theology, medicine, and even mathematics on similar grounds. The teachers and students are alike liable to error in them all. Science is fixed, but man is fallible. Lavater acknowledges his repeated blunders, without supposing that his own mistakes form an argument against the truth of his favorite science; but Gall and Spurzheim seem to think themselves as infallible as the Pope, and have so completely identified themselves with the science which they teach, that to confess an error, however slight, in their minutest details or their wildest speculations, would be tantamount to an admission that all the broad principles of phrenology, are like the baseless fabric of a vision. In a lecture delivered by the latter at Liverpool in May 1822, he said that if but one tender and affectionate mother could be proved to be deficient in the organ of philoprogenitiveness or the love of children (a bump at the back of the head), or not have it strongly developed, he would give up Phrenology at once! A decision of this nature is equally unphilosophical and presumptuous. It is like the dogmatism of a religious enthusiast, who stakes the cause of Christianity on the accuracy of his own interpretation.

A profound study of Physiognomy would perhaps enable us to trace the origin of our ideas of beauty. It is a problem that has excruciated many subtle intellects. I may hazard an opinion, that it is not a quality of matter. The face, per se, has probably no more relation to beauty or ugliness than a lamp or transparent vase that betrays the light or colour from within. Beauty is a moral or intellectual quality shining through material forms. Those forms are the most pleasing to the eye which are commonly the medium of the mental quality that we most admire. Mr. Burke, with all his ingenuity and acuteness, seems to have been more successful in showing what beauty is not, than what it is.

I cannot adopt his vague and unsatisfactory definition. "It is for

the greater part," he says, some quality in bodies acting mechanically upon the human mind by the intervention of the senses." Some late writers on the subject, among whom are Mr. Alison and Mr. Jeffrey, suppose that in reality no one form of matter is more beautiful than another, and that all our ideas of beauty are the result of habit and association. This theory has often been opposed with considerable ingenuity. Mr. Hazlitt, in his little

essay on the subject, though he does not define what beauty is, endeavours to show that it is in some way inherent in the object.

To the argument that beauty is a mere quality of mind, it may perhaps be objected that there are certain material objects, unconnected with life or spirit, such as a flower or a shell, which are admired as soon as seen. But even in new and inanimate objects the mind invariably discovers some kind of analogy, however slight or remote, with its own nature. The analogy is not the less decisive, because it is sometimes a secret and almost unconscious process. It is in this way that poets breathe life and passion into all external things, and sympathize with their own creations. The more imagination we possess, the deeper is our sense of beauty. The Medicean Venus, that excites some men to an ecstacy of admiration, is regarded by others whose corporeal vision is in no degree inferior, with absolute indifference. Smollet thought contemptuously of it. The effect depends greatly upon the mind of the observer. exquisite delicacy of taste and feeling recognize traits of a congenial spirit in the smooth elegance and the flowing outlines of the face and figure. We must be capable of conceiving and of sympathizing with the internal spirit, before its outward symbols can awaken a genuine enthusiasm. On this account no man who has not a touch of gentleness or nobility in his own nature can study the science of Physiognomy with complete success. He might quickly discover his own crimes or weaknesses in the faces

Persons of