Academy; and in the separate writings of Lancisi, Haller, and Buffon; it was not till the appearance of the elegant and popular work of M. Lavater, the well-known dean of Zurich, that physiognomy was again able to establish itself as a scientific pursuit in the good opinion of mankind. The two grand objects of M. Lavater were to clear physiognomy of its mystical and other adventitious connexions, and to advance it to the rank of an exact and demonstrable science. The first of these was as judicious as the second was absurd: for he himself was at the time in possession of nothing more than a certain number of detached facts or fragments, which he did not venture to communicate to the world in any higher form than that of essays. His work is chiefly distinguished by a spirit of analysis, and at times of anatomy, to which no other work on the subject had hitherto pretended. Instead of generalizing the human form, and taking the features by the group, as was the case with Aristotle, and is the case with mankind at large, he aimed at separating the features from each other, and endeavoured to assign to each its peculiar bearing. And, fully believing that the general character of the mental disposition runs with a uniform and uninterrupted harmony through every feature and every organ, he frequently trusted to a single feature or a single organ for its developement. In doing which he usually selected such as were least flexible, and by the mass of mankind least suspected; as the form of the bones, particularly those of the head or face; the shape of the ears, hands, feet, or even of the nails; and he hereby endeavoured to baffle all dissimulation, and to avoid confounding the permanent temper with those occasional flights of passion by which the flexible features are disturbed and varied. We have not time to follow up M. Lavater's hypothesis into these points of detail, nor would it be altogether worth our while if we had. The author was a learned and most excellent man, but at the same time a man of a warm and enthusiastic imagination; and notwithstanding that his remarks are in many respects precise, and his distinctions acute, and afford evident proof of their being the result of actual observation; and notwithstanding, moreover, that they are richly illustrated, after the laudable example of Baptista Porta, by expressive and elegant engravings,-the declamatory tenor of his style, the singularity and extravagance of many of his opinions, his peremptory and decisive tone upon the most vague and disputable topics, his puffing up trifles into matters of magnitude, and the absurd extreme to which he pushed his hypothesis, so as to make it embrace and exemplify the face and features of all nature as well as those of man and the higher ranks of quadrupeds; these and various other sproutings of the warm and luxuriant fancy I have just referred to, prevented his work from obtaining more than a transient popularity; and it sunk beneath the attacks of M. Formey and other continental writers, who laboured, and some of them perhaps disingenuously, to point out its defects and extravagances. Perhaps one of the most whimsical of M. Lavater's opinions is, that no person can make a good physiognomist unless he is a well-proportioned and handsome man; a position which seems to be altogether at variance with his own progress in the study, for the dean of Zurich had few pretensions to such a figure. Another singularity of opinion was that of his extending his physiognomic characters to the peculiarity of the handwriting; and in this instance reviving the reveries of many of the ancient mystics, who pretended to confide in the same mark; while by interweaving into the body of this science a belief in apparitions, and this, too, upon very peculiar and fanciful principles, he has indirectly connected it with the dark and exploded study of divination, from which it was one of his first and most prominent objects to separate it. I will only farther observe, that in the wide extent to which he carried this favourite and fascinating science of his heart, he describes the whole material world as subject to its dominion; amuses us with a developement of the propensities, partialities, and ruling passions, not only of men and quadrupeds, but of birds, fishes, reptiles, and insects, from the unequivocal language of their external expression; and makes the reputable class of tradesmen, prabably without their knowledge, the deepest physiognomists in the world; for the trader, says he, when in the act of dealing, not only at once decides that his customer has an honest look, a pleasing or forbidding countenance, and trusts or forbears to trust him accordingly; but determines by its colour, its fineness, its exterior, the physiognomy of every article of traffic. How far the former part of this last remark may apply to M. Lavater's own countrymen, the honest and enlightened traders of Zurich, I will not pretend to say; but it is highly probable that there are some before me who have not always felt themselves able to read the characters of the countenance quite so well as is here supposed of them, and to whom a few additional lessons from the Zurich counting-house, or the Zurich professor, might have been every now and then of no small service in the transactions of buying and selling; and have saved them, in various instances, from bad debts and impositions. Having pointed out these defects, it becomes me to observe, that, with all its blemishes, M. Lavater's Essays form the best and fullest book on the subject we at present possess. To say nothing of its language, which, though far too florid, is animated, and often elegant, it is a rich repository of isolated facts, shrewd remarks, and ingenious suggestions; and with less fancy, and more judgment, would have been, and must have been, the favourite text-book of every physiologist in this branch of natural philosophy. Nor, even as it is, can it ever be neglected by any one who is desirous of establishing physiognomy upon a permanent and sober basis; and of analyzing the causes, and determining the real principles, upon which every one pretends to judge, whether rightly or wrongly, of the internal qualities of the mind, by the external features of the body; and, consequently, as in the case of astronomy, gives proof that the study is founded in nature, although its specific laws have not had the good fortune, like those of gravitation, to be systematically sought out and exemplified. It is from this last circumstance, in connexion with M. Lavater's desultory and erratic mode of handling his subject, that other philosophers have been induced to abandon altogether the common ground of the general form and features, upon which mankind in all ages, whether learned or unlearned, have hitherto reasoned, and to inquire whether there may not be some less sensible and obvious, but at the same time more. fixed and scientific, more exact and immediate, index in some part of the human figure, which may infallibly direct us to the same ends. No minister has hence devised more schemes for taxation, no insurance-broker more modifications for a lottery, than this general research has given rise to—this philosophical rage T'expatiate free o'er all this scene of man, This wild where weeds and flowers promiscuous shoot; Of all these attempts, however, there is but one that is in any degree worthy of notice, or that has acquired any considerable degree even of transitory popularity; and this is the hypothesis of Dr. Gall of Jena, who has been greatly indebted to his friend Dr. Spurzheim for a popular diffusion of his doctrine over most parts of Europe. This learned philosopher, being determined to deviate as far as possible from the beaten path, left the face or front of the head to the rest of the world, and took the crown and back part for his own use. He conceived, first, that as all the faculties of the mind are limited to the common sensory or organ of the brain, nature, like a skilful general, instead of confounding every part with every part, and every faculty with every faculty, has marshalled this important organ into a definite number of divisions, and has given to every faculty the command of a separate post. He conceived, secondly, as the general mass of the brain lies immediately under the cranium or scull-bone, and is impacted into its cavity with the utmost exactness, that if any one or more of the aforesaid faculties, or, which is the same thing, any one or more of the aforesaid divisions of the brain allotted to their control, should be peculiarly forward and active, such divisions must necessarily grow more abundant, and give some external token of such abundance by a constant pressure against those particular portions of the cranium under which they are immediately seated, and which, by uninterrupted perseverance, and especially in infancy and early life, when the bones of the cranium yield or are absorbed easily, they must elevate and render more prominent than any other part.* And, thirdly, he conceived, that every man having some faculty or other more marked or active than the rest, or, in his own phraseology, more sensibly manifested, from which, indeed, his peculiar disposition or propensity takes its cast, must necessarily also have some peculiar prominence, some characteristic bump or embossment, by which his head is distinguishable from all others, or at least from all others of a different temper, or attracted by different objects of pursuit; and that nothing more is necessary than to determine the respective regions of the different faculties which belong to the brain, in order to determine, at the same time, from the external bump or prominence, the internal propensity or character. These premises being in his own mind satisfactorily established, Dr. Gall next set to work with a view of deciding the relative parts of the brain possessed by the different faculties or their respective sentient organs, And having settled this important point to his own thorough conviction, he immediately made a map of the outside of the head, divided it into corresponding regions, and was able, in his own opinion, to indicate to a demon. stration the characteristic temper or tendency of every man presented to him by a mere glance of the eye, or a mere touch of the finger. For, in the language of Dr. Spurzheim," in order to distinguish the developement of the organs, it is not always necessary to touch the head; in many cases the eye is sufficient."t Let me not, however, do injustice to the talents of the inventor of this hypothesis. For he is not only possessed of a lively ingenuity and fancy, as his speculation, thus far unfolded, must suggest to every one, but he is also a man of learning, and of patient and indefatigable research. And such is the plausibility of his scheme, that he has contrived to enlist under his banners not a few philosophers and physiologists of considerable eminence and merit, among whom I may especially mention Dr. Bojames, who was one of the first to publish an account of this singular line of study to the world, and, as already observed, Dr. Spurzheim, who is at this moment lecturing upon the subject in this metropolis.‡ The allotments of the different parts of the brain, and the consequent laying down of the outside of the cranium into a superficial map of mental qualities or sensations, was a work of great patience and investigation. To accomplish it, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of human sculls, of known characters and propensities, were examined, and their peculiar impressions, whether prominences or indentations, were noticed and arranged. These were afterward compared with the respective tempers and inclinations of the particular subjects while alive; and the whole tried by the craniognomy, as it was called, of other animals celebrated, in common language, for the acute * "It seems to me, that at least a great part of every organ lies at the surface; and that if the part of any organ be well developed, the whole participates of this developement." Spurzheim, Physiognom System, p. 264.-In p. 240, he admits, however, "that the organs are not confined to the surface." Physing. System, p. 261. This lecture was delivered at the time of Dr. Spurzheim's first visit to England, for the purpose of illustrating his hypothesis, which has certainly possessed every advantage of which it is susceptible from his exertions and talents. Yet it is well known, that scarcely an individual among the more distinguished anatomists or physiologists of our own country have been led to adopt his views. To the discrepancy of Sir Everard Home's conceptions the author will have occasion to advert in a subsequent note. The following is the opinion of Mr. Charles Bell in his very excellent paper on the nerves of the orbit of the eye, as contained in the Philosophical Transactions for 1823, p. 306:"But the most extravagant departure from all the legitimate modes of reasoning, though still under the colour of anatomical investigation, is the system of Dr. Gall. It is sufficient to say, that, without comprehending the grand divisions of the nervous system; without a notion of the distinct properties of the individual nerves; or, without having made any distinction of the columns of the spinal marrow; without even having ascertained the difference of cerebrum and cerebellum, Gall proceeded to describe the brain as composed of many articular and independent organs, and to assign to each the residence of some special faculty." ness of their respective instincts; but, in the language of Dr. Gall, for the acuteness of their predominant organs of sensation; in whose sculls correspondent symbols were observed, or supposed to be observed. The whole was hence reduced to one regular system: the brain was found to consist of thirty-three separate parts or chambers, and, consequently, the superincumbent cranium was divided into as many sections, from the lowest part of the back of the head, over the crown, to the orbits of the eyes. It is not my intention to dwell upon any of these chambers or superficial sections. To enumerate them, with a few explanatory hints, is all we can find space for; and even this, I am afraid, cannot be done without an occasional verification of the poet's remark, that there may be situations in which, although To laugh is want of goodliness and grace, The following is the classification of the different mental powers of the brain, and the order in which they lie, according to the table of Dr. Bojames, one of Dr. Gall's earliest and most assiduous pupils, commencing, as I have already observed, at the lowest part of the back of the head:-I. Organ of tenacity of life. II. Of self-preservation. III. Selection of food. IV. Organ of the external senses. V. Instinctive sexual union. VI. Organ of the mutual love of parents and their offspring. VII. Organ of friendship. VIII. Organ of courage. IX. Organ of murder or assassination. X. Of cunning. XI. Circumspection. XII. Vanity, conceit, or self-love. XIII. Love of glory. XIV. Love of truth. XV. General memory, otherwise called sense of places and things. XVI. Painting, or sense of colours. XVII. Sense of numbers. XVIII. Musical sense. XIX. Sense for mechanics. XX. Verbal memory. XXI. Sense for languages. XXII. Memory of persons. XXIII. Liberality. XXIV. Talent for satire. XXV. Talent for comparing things. XXVI. Metaphysical talent. XXVII. Talent for observation. XXVIII. Goodness. XXIX. Theatrical talent. XXX. Theosophy. XXXI. Perseverance. The remaining two, to complete the thirtythree, being, at the time Dr. Bojames wrote, unappropriated; a sort of terra incognita, which the master of the system had not yet sufficiently explored, but one of which he subsequently discovered to be, the natural organ for theft or stealing.* A few alterations have since been made in the general arrangement, both by Dr. Gall himself and by several of his pupils, especially by Dr. Spurzheim, but of no essential moment in a cursory survey.f It is not a little singular that men should be supposed to be provided by nature with express organs for the cultivation of murder and theft; terms which are softened down by Dr. Spurzheim, in his own catalogue, into the words DESTRUCTIVENESS and COVETISENESS: but which, in the body of his work, he treats of under the common and more intelligible names. The proofs of these organs have been laboured with peculiar force, and not without some apology for their formation. "Our opponents," says Dr. Spurzheim, "maintain that such a doctrine is both ridiculous and dangerous; ridiculous, because nature could not produce any faculty absolutely hurtful to man; dangerous, because it would permit what is punished as a crime by the laws. Gall was accustomed to answer, nobody can deny the facts which prove that theft exists; and as it exists, it is not against the will of the Creator; and there are very few persons who have never stolen any thing. The organ is, moreover, very considerable in inveterate thieves." The morality here offered is certainly not of the purest kind. It directly 6. De. *The Physiognomonical System of Drs. Gall and Spurzheim, &c. p. 280, 8vo. Lond. 1815. †The table, as modified by Dr. Spurzheim, gives us the following arrangement:-1. Order of amativeness. 2. Philoprogenitiveness. 3. Inhabitiveness. 4. Adhesiveness. 5. Combativeness. structiveness. 7. Constructiveness. 8. Covetiseness. 9. Secretiveness. 10. Self-love. 11. Approbation. J2. Cautiousness. 13. Benevolence. 14. Veneration. 18. Firmness. 19. Individuality. 20. Form. 21. Size. 22. Weight. 23. Colour. 24. Space. 25. Order. 26. Time. 27. Number. 28. Tune. 29. Language. 33. Imitation. 15. Hope. 16. Ideality. 17. Consciousness. 30. Čomparison. 31. Causality. 32. Wit. Phyiolog. System, &c. p. 398, 8vo. Lond. 1815. avows that the Creator has given an express sanction and countenance to robbery and murder by the construction both of the body and mind; by natural organs and propensities for the commission of these crimes. It cannot, indeed, be denied, that God has twilled them, for nothing can take place contrary to his will. But there is little logical nicety or special pleading in this assertion, and it is necessary to recall to our recollection what I endea voured to prove in a late lecture,* that the WILL and the the DESIRE are two distinct attributes; though in ordinary language confounded and used synonymously. It is true, then, that God has willed robbery and murder ; but it is equally true that he has not desired them: it is equally true, that he has most positively expressed his desire upon the subject, and has forbidden them under the severest threats. Our duty, therefore, is to attend to the prohibition: our moral conduct is to be collected from his desire, and not from his will, excepting where the word will is employed in its popular sense, and synonymously with desire. The professors of this new physiognomy, however, having thus advanced their peculiar doctrine upon the subject before us, endeavour to illustrate it by copious examples of persons, who, from being endowed with the stealing bump and stealing organ, had a peculiar and irre. sistible propensity to rob and plunder. Among these, Dr. Spurzheim introduces various characters whom we should not very readily have suspected of belonging to a gang of thieves. He tells us of a chaplain in a Prussian regiment, a man of great intelligence and ability, who could not avoid (for these are his words) stealing handkerchiefs from the officers at the parade. He informs us, that Victor Amadeus I., king of Sardinia, took every where objects of little importance; and, what will still more astonish the audience before me, that M. Saurin, the Genevese pastor, though acquainted with the best principles of reason and religion, was overcome continually by this propensity to steal. He has given us, however, no authority for this last assertion; and no such calumny should be believed without full proof. There is, indeed, an endeavour, on the part of Dr. Spurzheim, though I do not find he is supported by any of his colleagues, to let down, in some degree, this charge against nature and the Author of nature, by telling us, that though the organs exist that bear these names and produce a specific propensity, they do not urge on the individual to the actual commission of great crimes of this kind till they are very largely developed, and the developement has not been controlled by other faculties, which he seems to intimate may have an influence upon them. "These functions," says he," are ABUSES, which result from the highest degree of activity of certain organs, which are not directed by other faculties." Now, in the first place, it should seem, by his own examples, that other faculties have very little control over the master-organ or propensity at any time for even admitting the truth of his extraordinary anecdote concerning M. de Saurin, there can be no doubt that all his faculties of morality and religion were habitually at work in repugnancy to his faculty of thieving, and yet, according to Dr. Spurzheim, to no purpose. But, secondly, the learned writer exhibits a strange inconsistency, in regarding the full developement of a function" as the abuse of a function." The function is a natural power; its growth is a natural power; and hence its full developement, or highest activity of the organ," instead of being an ABUSE of such organ or function, ought only to be regarded as its NATURAL PERFECTION. And, lastly, let the matter be how it may, the man, even in his moral character, is passive under every stage of its progress; or, in the more tangible and explicit language of M. Magendie, “Il est impossible de se changer à cet égard. Nous RESTONS TELS QUE LA NATURE NOUS A FAITS."† "the Not a few persons will, perhaps, be surprised at finding, that nature has likewise kindly provided us with an impulsory organ for theatrical amusements; and that she thus seems satisfactorily to have settled the lawfulness and expediency, so eloquently and forcibly controverted by the learned Bossuet, about a century ago, of frequenting theatres and encouraging the drama. *Series 111. Lecture viii. † Précis Elémentaire, 2 toms. 8vo Paris, 1816, 1817. |