THE

ENGLISH

REVIEW,

For JANUARY 1790.

ART. I. Efays on Phyfiognomy; defigned to promote the Knowledge and the Love of Mankind. By John Cafpar Lavater, Citizen of Zurich, and Minister of the Gospel. Illuftrated by more than Eight Hundred Engravings accurately copied, and fome Duplicates added from Originals. Executed by, or under the Infpection of, Thomas Holloway. Tranflated from the French by Henry Hunter, D. D. Minifler of the Scots Church, London-Wall. Vol. I. Imperial 4to. 61. 6s. boards. Murray. Lon

don, 1789.

ALL

LL the arts dependent on defign have, within these few years, made a most astonishing progrefs in Britain. Any person who remembers what we were in this refpect, has only to open his eyes, and almost every furrounding object will convince him of our progrefs. The paintings which adorn the apartments of the great and rich, the prints which ornament the houses of the middling ranks, the forms which present themselves in every piece of furniture, all fpeak the fame language, announcing the triumph of the arts.

ཀཱལ

When we fee the hand of the artist every day occupied in converting things employed in the most common ufes of life into objects of tafte, it would have been furprising indeed had the adorning the vehicles of literature been neglected. The embellishment of books therefore by the hand of the engraver is becoming every day more common; and our country has produced ENG. REV. VOL. XV. JAN. 1790.

A

feveral

feveral publications of this kind which have great merit. Bat the present tranflation of Lavater's Effays on Phyfiognomy is the most truly fplendid work that has hitherto appeared from the British prefs; and the exertions of all concerned in it surely deferve that patronage which they have received, and we doubt not will continue to receive from a generous public.

To enter into an examination of the merits of the various engravings executed by Sharp, Hall, Holloway, Trotter, and other celebrated artifts employed in this work, would require a volume instead of the fmall room that we can poffibly afford. Nor indeed is it neceffary; their names alone imply excellency, especially when we add that there appears to have been a generous rivalship among them, that no one has proftituted his name, but that each has really executed the work afcribed to him, and in his beft manner.

In moft works where engravings are introduced, the plates can be confidered as nothing more than mere embellishments. In the work now before us this is by no means the cafe. The plates here are effentially neceffary: they are indeed the text which the author illuftrates; without them he would, in many parts, bè unintelligible to every reader, but with them his meaning is perfectly clear to the most inferior capacity. The plates being thus effentials, the artifts were to take care that they should exactly correfpond with the ideas and illuftrations of the author*. Their attention to this great object is highly to be commended; and it is with pleasure we can pronounce, upon an attentive comparison of their engravings with many of thofe of the foreign editions (we pretend not to have examined every plate), that in this, as well as in every other refpect, they have a decided fuperiority.

Dr. Hunter, the tranflator, has executed his department of the work with equal fuccefs. The translation is at the fame time literal and elegant; it poffefles all the ease of a paraphrase, while it adheres ftrictly to the original. In many places it was difficult, yet abfolutely neceffary to give the precife meaning of his author in all fuch paffages that we have examined we muft highly commend the care and attention of the tranflator to preferve unfophifticated the genuine fentiments of Lavater.

That the reader may judge of the tranflation, we shall infert the eighth fragment. We infert it too as it contains a defence

*Had they failed in this, the whole would have been a chaos, and the reader would have rifen from the perufal of the work with conceptions of phyfiognomy very different from thofe which Mr. Lavater intended to convey.

of

of the fcience of phyfiognomy, as it has no reference to the plates, and can therefore be understood 'without them, and as it exhibits a good specimen of the manner of this eccentric author.

• Of PHYSIOGNOMY Confidered as a Science.

Phyfiognomy, admitting it to be fomething real, never can become a science.' This will be repeated a thousand and a thousand times by those who may read my book, and those who may not: this they will, perhaps with obftinacy, maintain, though there be nothing more eafy than to make an unanswerable reply to this affertion. • What then is this reply?

'Here it is:

Phyfiognomy may be improved into a fcience as well as every other thing that bears the name of science. As well as phyfics-for it is a branch of natural philofophy; as well as medicine for it conftitutes a part of that fcience. What would medicine be without the knowledge of fymptoms? and what were fymptomatical knowledge without phyfiognomy? As well as theology-for it belongs to the province of theology. What is it, in effect, that conducts us to the Deity, if it be not the knowledge of man? and how do we attain the knowledge of man, but by his face and form. As well as mathematics for it is connected with the science of calculation; fince it measures and afcertains curves and magnitude, with its relations known and unknown. As well as the belles lettres-for it is comprehended under that department of literature; as it unfolds and determines the idea of the beautiful, the fublime, &c.

Phyfiognomy, like every other fcience, may, to a certain point, be reduced to fixed rules, which it is poffible to teach and learn, to communicate, receive, and tranfmit. But in it, as in every other science, much must be left to genius, to fentiment; and in fome parts it is still deficient in figns and principles, determinate or capable of being determined.

One of two things must be granted. All other fciences must be ftripped of that appellation, or phyfiognomy must be admitted to the fame rank.

6

Every truth, every fpecies of knowledge, which has diftinct figns, which is founded on clear and certain principles, is scientific; and it is fo, as far as it can be communicated by words, images, rules, determinations. The only question therefore is, to determine if the ftriking and inconteftable difference of human phyfionomies and forms may be perceived not only in an obfcure and confufed manner, but whether it be not pofible to fix the characters, the figns, the expreffions of that difference; whether there be not fome means of fettling and indicating certain diftinctive figns of ftrength and weaknefs, of health and sickness, of stupidity and intelligence, of an elevated and a grovelling fpirit, of virtue and vice, &c. and whether there be not fome means of diftinguishing precifely the different degrees

A 2

degrees and fhades of these principal characters; in other words, whether it be poffible to clafs them fcientifically. This is the true ftate of the question, the only point to be inveftigated; and if there be any perfon who will not take the trouble of examining it thoroughly, I tell him plainly it is not for him I write, and that to all the fashionable wit he may choose to employ on the subject, I will make no reply. The fequel of this work will put the matter in dispute beyond a doubt.

What opinion would be formed of the man who should think of banifhing phyfics, medicine, theology, or the belles lettres, from the dominions of fcience-only becaufe each of them ftill presents a vast field hitherto uncultivated, offers fo much obfcurity and uncertainty, fo many objects which require to be determined?

Is it not certain that the naturalist may purfue his first obfervations to a particular point, that he may analife them, clothe them with words, communicate them, and fay, This is the method I obferved in conducting my researches; thefe are the objects which I have confidered, the obfervations I have collected; there is the order in which I arranged, decompounded, compared them; fuch are the confequences I have drawn, fuch the path I have purfued; go and do likewife.' But will it be poffible for him always to hold the fame language? Will his fpirit of obfervation never arrive at truths more refined, and of a nature not to be communicated? Will he never attempt to foar beyond a height to which he can point with his finger? Will he always confine himfelf to what he can, though with difficulty, accommodate to the comprehenfion of the perion who creeps feebly after him? Are phyfics lefs a fcience on that account? Of how many truths had Leibnitz a prefentiment, truths inacceffible to others, before a Wolf had traced in the fpheres, to which his daring genius darted itfelf, thofe paths in which every frigid logician can now faunter at his eafe! Does it not hold equally true of all the fciences? Was any one of them perfectly known from its commencement? The bold flights and the piercing eye of genius must always outftrip, by many ages, the progrefs that leads to perfection. What a space of time muft elapfe before a Wolf arises to › point out the avenues, and to clear the paths of each truth difcovered, foreseen, or feen darkly and at a distance! In modern times, what philofopher more enlightened than Bonnet? In him are happily affociated the genius of Leibnitz, with the coolnefs and penetration of Wolf. Who poffeffes more than he does the spirit of obfervation? Who diftinguishes with more precifion the true from what is only probable, and the obfervation from its confequences?

Is there a better guide, a guide more gentle, more amiable? Yet, is he able to communicate all he knows and feels? To whom shall he disclose that anticipated fentiment of truth, that result, that source of many obfervations, refined, profound, but indeterminable? Is he capable of expreffing fuch obfervations by figns, by founds, by images, and of deducing general rules from them? And is not all this applicable to medicine, to theology, to every fcience and every art?

Is not painting at once the mother and daughter of phyfiognomyis not painting a fcience? and yet, how narrow are its bounds! Here' is harmony, there is difproportion; this is full of truth, force, and life; this is nature itfelf; that is ftiff, placed in a falfe light, badly coloured, low, deformed.'

This you might fay, and prove by arguments which every pupil is capable of comprehending, retaining, and repeating-But can the fchcols of painting convey genius to the painter? No more than theories and courfes of the belles lettres can infpire poetic genius. -To what an amazing height will the painter, the poet, who came fuch from the hands of the Creator, foar above the mere man of rules! But though the energetic fentiment, the inftinct, the faculties, which are peculiar to genius be not of a nature that admits of being caft into an ordinary mould, and fubjected to rules, is there nothing scientific in the art, nothing that is fufceptible of determination? The fame holds as to phyfiognomy. It is poffible, to a certain point, to determine phyfiognomic truth, and to exprefs it by figns and words. It is poffible to say, This is the character of an exalted spirit, this feature is peculiar to gentleness, that other to anger; here is the look of contempt, and there that of candour; in this I difcover judgment; that is the expreffion of talents-this trait is infeparable from genius.' But will it likewise be faid, It is thus you must obferve; this is the road you muft purfue, and you will find what I have found, and you will arrive at certainty?' What, fhall it not be acknowledged that in this fcience, as in every other, an experienced obferver, one endowed with a happier organifation, diftinguifhes himself by an eye more accurate, more penetrating, and capable of more extended and complicated obfervations? that he takes a bolder flight that he frequently makes obfervations which can neither be reduced to rule, nor expreffed in words? Does it follow that the fcience is lefs a fcience, in whatever can be expreffed by figns, and communicated by certain rules? Has not phyfiognomy this in common with all other fciences ?Once more, name me a fcience in which every thing is determined-in which nothing is left that is proper and peculiar to tafte, to fentiment, to genius? Wo to that fcience, if fuch an one could exift!-The mathematical genius himfelf, has not he a prefentiment of certain truths which are not fufceptible of demonstration ?

Albert Durer measured the human figure; Raphael too meafured it, but with the feeling penetration of genius. The former copied nature as an artift, and defigned according to all the rules of the art; the other traced the ideal with the proportions of nature, and his defigns are not lefs her expreffion on that account.

The phyfiognomist who is merely fcientific, measures like Durer; the phyfiognomical genius meafures and feels like Raphael. Befides, in proportion as delicacy and acutenefs are acquired by a fp rit of obfervation, language will be more enriched, the greater progress will be made in the art of defign, the more carefully man will study man, of all beings on the globe the most excellent and the most interefting the more likewife phyfiognomy fhall become fcientic, that is to fay, more reduced to rule, and the more eafy will it be to study A 3 and