shewn that ten, twenty, or thirty men, by the aid of eyes, are all capable of seeing. From a part I draw a conclusion to the whole; whether those I have seen or those I have not.

But it will be answered, though this may be proved of certain features, does it, therefore, follow that it may be proved of all ?—I am persuaded it may if I am wrong, shew me my

error.

Having remarked that men who have eyes and ears, see and hear, and being convinced that eyes were given him for the purpose of sight, and ears for that of hearing; being unable longer to doubt that eyes and ears have their destined office, I think I draw no improper conclusion, when I suppose that every other sense, and member, of this same human body, which so wonderfully form a whole, has each a particular purpose; although it should happen that I am unable to discover what the particular purposes of so many senses, members, and integuments may be. Thus do I reason also, concerning the signification of the countenance of man, the formation of his body, and the disposition of his members.

If it can be proved that any two or three features have a certain determinate signification, as determinate as that the eye is the expression of the countenance, is it not accurate to conclude, according to the mode of reasoning above cited, universally acknowledged to be just, that those features are also significant, with the sig-.

1

nification of which I am unacquainted.-I think myself able to prove, to every person of the commonest understanding, that all men without exception, at least under certain circumstances, and in some particular feature, may, indeed, have more than one feature, of a certain determinate signification; as surely as I can render it comprehensible, to the simplest person, that certain determinate members of the human body are to answer certain determinate purposes.

Twenty or thirty men, taken promiscuously, when they laugh, or weep, will, in the expression of their joy or grief, possess something in common with, or similar to each other. Certain features will bear a greater resemblance to each other among them than they otherwise do, when not in the like sympathetic state of mind.

To me it appears evident, that since excessive joy and grief are universally acknowledged to have their peculiar expressions, and that the expression of each is as different as the different passions of joy and grief, it must, therefore, be allowed that the state of rest, the medium between joy and grief, shall likewise have its peculiar expression; or, in other words, that the muscles which surround the eyes and lips, will indubitably be found to be in a different

state.

If this be granted concerning the state of the mind in joy, grief, or tranquillity; why should not the same be true concerning pride, humility, patience, magnanimity, and other affections ?

According to certain laws the stone flies upward, when thrown with sufficient force; by other laws, equally certain, it afterwards falls to the earth; and will it not remain unmoved according to laws equally fixed, if suffered to be at rest? Joy, according to certain laws, is expressed in one manner, grief in another, and tranquillity in a third. Wherefore then shall not anger, gentleness, pride, humility, and other passions, be subject to certain laws; that is, to certain fixed laws?

All things in nature are or are not subjected to certain laws. There is a cause for all things, or there is not. All things are cause and effect, or are not. Ought we not hence to derive one of the first axioms of philosophy? And, if this be granted, how immediately is physiognomy relieved from all objections, even from those which we know not how to answer; that is, as soon as it shall be granted there are certain characteristic features, in all men, as characteristic as the eyes are to the countenance !

But, it will be said, how different are the expressions of joy and grief, of the thoughtful and the thoughtless! And how may these expressions be reduced to rule ?

of

How different from each other are the eyes men, and of all creatures ; the eye of an eagle from the eye of a mole, an elephant, and a fly! and yet we believe of all who have no evident signs of infirmity, or death, that they see.

The feet and ears are as various as are the

eyes; yet we universally conclude of them all they were given us for the purposes of hearing and walking.

These varieties by no means prevent our believing that the eyes, ears, and feet, are the expressions, the organs of seeing, hearing, and walking; and why should we not draw the same conclusions concerning all features and lineaments of the human body? The expressions of similar dispositions of mind cannot have greater variety than have the eyes, ears, and feet, of all beings that see, hear, and walk; yet may we as easily observe and determine what they have in common as we can observe and determine what the eyes, ears, and feet, which are so various, among all beings that see, hear, and walk, have also in common. This well considered, how many objections will be answered, or become insignificant !

Various Objections to Physiognomy Answered.

Objection 1.

"It is said we find persons who, from youth to old age, without sickness, without debauchery, have continually a pale, death-like aspect; who, nevertheless, enjoy an uninterrupted and confirmed state of health."

Answer.

These are uncommon cases. A thousand men will shew their state of health by the complexion

and roundness of the countenance, to one in whom these appearances will differ from the truth.—I suspect that these uncommon cases are the effect of impressions made on the mother, during her state of pregnancy. Such cases may be considered as exceptions, the accidental causes of which may, perhaps, not be difficult to discover.

To me it seems we have as little just cause hence to draw conclusions against the science of physiognomy, as we have against the proportion of the human body because there are dwarfs, giants, and monstrous births.

Objection 2.

A friend writes me word, "He is acquainted with a man of prodigious strength, who, the hands excepted, has every appearance of weakness, and would be supposed weak by all to whom he should be unknown."

Answer.

I much doubt

I could wish to see this man. whether his strength be only expressed in his hands, or, if it were, still it is expressed, in the hands; and, were no exterior signs of strength to be found, still he must be considered as an

exception, an example unexampled. But, as I have said, I much doubt the fact. I have never yet seen a strong man whose strength was not discoverable in various parts.