We cannot easily conquer the feeling of repugnance which is sometimes excited by the countenance of a stranger. can we always explain the cause, even to ourselves. I do not like thee, Doctor Fell; The reason why I cannot tell. Neither Even when subsequent familiarity, an exchange of kind offices, and a strong desire to shake off an apparently ungenerous prejudice, suppress for a time all harsh and unfriendly thoughts, some accidental exposure of character, either in word, deed, or look, is almost sure to confirm our first impression. There is a curious passage in Gessner's Life of Lavater, that may serve as illustration. I quote the translation by Thomas Holcroft*. "A person to whom he was an entire stranger was once announced, and introduced to him as a visitor. The first idea that rose in his mind, the moment he saw him, was-This man is a murderer.'-He however suppressed the thought as unjustifiably severe and hasty, and conversed with the person with his accustomed civility. The cultivated understanding, extensive imformation, and ease of manner which he discovered in his visitor, inspired him with the highest respect for his intellectual endowments; and his esteem for these, added to the benevolence and candour natural to him, induced him to disregard the unfavourable impression he had received from his first appearance with respect to his moral character. The next day he dined with him by invitation; but soon after it was known that this accomplished gentleman was one of the assassins of the late king of Sweden; and he found it advisable to leave the country as speedily as possible." Rousseau somewhere speaks of a man in whose countenance he traced certain obscure and mysterious indications of an evil character, and he accordingly resolved to avoid him quietly while there was yet peace between them; for he felt, he knew not why, *The son of this well-known writer, Villiers Holcroft, died in Calcutta a few years ago. He lived and died neglected. His death, I believe, was not even announced in the newspaper obituaries. that it could not long continue. Every man has experienced from repulsive features the same strong but undefinable impressions. Rousseau, however, often fell into great mistakes, for his fancy outran his observation. He regarded the face as a book in which he might read strange matters, and was far too whimsical and distrustful to make a just and accurate physiognomist. In the account of the controversy between him and Hume there is a curious and characteristic instance of his too fanciful interpretation of the face. It is given in Rousseau's own words. : "As we were sitting one evening, after supper, silent by the fire-side, I caught his (Hume's) eyes intently fixed on mine, as indeed happened very often and that in a manner of which it is very difficult to give an idea. At that time he gave me a steadfast, piercing look, mixed with a sneer which greatly disturbed me. To get rid of the embarrassment I lay under, I endeavoured to look full at him in my turn; but in fixing my eyes against his I felt the most inexpressible terror, and was obliged soon to turn them away. The speech and physiognomy of the good David is that of an honest man; but where, great God! did this good man borrow those eyes he fixes so sternly and unaccountably on those of his friends? "The impression of this look remained with me, and gave me much uneasiness. My trouble increased even to a degree of fainting; and if I had not been relieved by an effusion of tears, I had been suffocated. Presently after this I was seized with the most violent remorse; I even despised myself; till at length, in a transport which I still remember with delight, I sprang on his neck, embraced him eagerly; while almost choked with sobbing, and bathed in tears, I cried out, in broken accents, No, no, David Hume cannot be treacherous. If he be not the best of men, he must be the basest of mankind. David Hume politely returned my embraces, and, gently tapping me on the back, repeated several times, in a goodnatured and easy tone, Why, what, my dear Sir! Nay, my dear Sir! Oh, my dear Sir! He said nothing more. I felt my heart yearn within We went to bed; and I set out the next day for the country." me. Hume answers all this by explaining, that like most studious men, he was subject to reveries and fits of absence, in which he sometimes had a fixed look or stare. A cool and sober physiognomist could not have made so ridiculous a mistake as that of Rousseau. Thomas Moore has a poetical fling at physiognomy. "In vain we fondly strive to trace In vain we dwell on lines and crosses And many a sage and learned skull Has peeped through windows dark and dull.” This may be wit, but it is not philosophy. I have answered its logic by anticipation, in noticing the ordinary objections. He has even Holy Writ against him. "Wisdom maketh the countenance bright*." Spenser was not only a greater poet, but a better philosopher than Moore, and saw the strict analogy between the mind and body. "For of the soul the body form doth take." Spenser. Has nature bestowed upon man such an admirable mechanism of features for no useful end? The purport of outward expression is to show what passes in the mind, and as we have already said, it is far more true than words. Speech, it has been wittily observed, was given to man to conceal his thoughts. But looks cannot often deceive the most inexperienced of mankind. All children have skill in physiognomy. It is our mother tongue. We understand it in our cradles. It is universal. Even animals can read it in the faces of their kind, and sometimes in that of men. It is wonderful with what precision we peruse the countenances of those on whom our hopes and happiness depend. Thus boys at school exhibit a remarkable quickness in discovering the mood of their master in the condition of his features "Well do the boding tremblers learn to trace * Lavater also gives Scriptural authority for the truth of physiognomy, and makes the following quotation.-" A man may be known by his look, and one that has understanding by his countenance, when thou meetest him." "There is surely," says Sir Thomas Browne, "a physiognomy which master mendicants observe; whereby they instantly discover a merciful aspect, and will single out a face wherein they spy the signatures and marks of mercy; for there are mystically in our faces certain characters, which carry in them the motto of our souls, wherein he that can read A, B, C, may read our natures." Lavater describes a particular kind of nose which in his opinion is of more worth than a kingdom. This is somewhat too extravagant, but the value of an honest and noble face can hardly be over-rated. Montaigne says, that on the mere credit of his open aspect, persons who had no other knowledge of his character had the most implicit confidence in his honor. He gives some curious illustrations of this fact. Even Moore, whose versified attack on physiognomy we have just quoted, has shown his just appreciation of beauty of person as associated with beauty of mind, and has on all occasions connected certain internal qualities with certain exterior marks in the persons of his heroes and his heroines. The veiled Prophet of Khorassan has a visage in keeping with his hideous soul, and the light of the haram, the young Nourmahal, is blessed with a set of features and a figure that are worthy of an angel. "While her laugh, full of life, without any controul, But the sweet one of gracefulness, rung from her soul; When it breaks into dimples and laughs in the sun!" For this exquisite description the poet may be forgiven the obnoxious passage about physiognomy. It would redeem a darker sin. If any man were to find a face like that of Nourmahal's concealing a cold and diabolical character, he might have some shadow of a reason to deny that there is a correspondence between the features and the soul, though even in such a case the shock that the discovery would occasion would be a sufficient proof that anomalies of this nature are extremely rare and strikingly at variance with our general experience. Lavater lays great stress on the very unequivocal and decisive character of a laugh. If it be free and hearty, and occasion a general and light movement in all the features, and dimple the cheek and chin, it is an almost infallible evidence of the absence of any great natural wickedness of disposition. In judging of the character from the countenance, it is of great importance to observe which emotions are most happily expressed. The frequency of a smile is not so true a sign of gentleness and good humour as its facility. In considering the truth or falsehood of the general proposition that the body corresponds with the soul, we may fairly illustrate it by extreme cases. No man for instance connects in his own mind corporeal deformity with a perfect beauty of soul. As we cannot conceive pure unembodied spirit, we give it a fleshly but most glorious external. An angel with a low monkey forehead and a flat or a pug nose, is a contradiction which neither reason nor fancy can wholly reconcile. We derive this impression of the fitness of things from Nature herself, who reveals the harmony of the mysterious system which connects the flesh and the spirit of all mortal beings. Occasional and slight deviations from the general rule do not shake the faith of philosophic minds. Even admitting (but only, however, for the sake of the argument) that some of the most amiable and intellectual men have had the faces of villains and of idiots; what does it prove? Such exceptions are not more remarkable than the occasional monstrous births of men and brutes. Because some individuals have been born with two heads or a hairy hide, it is not the less a law of nature that mankind have only one head a piece, and smooth uncovered skins. The majestic external conformation of the greatest poets and philosophers, both of ancient and modern times, is a strong evidence in favour of physiognomy. The heads of these men are |