G.

THOUGHTS OF A FRIEND ON BRUTAL AND HUMAN PHYSIOG NOMY.

“EACH brute animal has some principal quality by which it is distinguished from all others. As the make of each is distinct from all others, so, likewise, is the character. This principal character is denoted by a peculiar, and visible form. Each species of beast has, certainly, a peculiar character, as it has a peculiar form.

"May we not hence, by analogy, infer that predominant qualities of the mind are as certainly expressed by predominant forms of the body, as that the peculiar qualities of a species are expressed in the general form of that species?-The principal character of the species, in animals, remains such as it was given by nature; it neither can be obscured by accessory qualities, nor concealed by art. The essential of the character can as little be changed as the peculiarity of the form.

66

May we not, therefore, with the highest certainty, affirm such a form is only expressive of such a character?

"We have now to enquire if this be applicable to man, and whether the form which denotes individual character in a beast is significant of similar character in man :-granting that, in man, it may continually be more delicate, hidden, and complicated.

“If, on examination, this question be definitely answered in the affirmative, how much is thereby gained!

"But it is conspicuously evident that, in man, the mind is not one character, or quality; but a world of qualities, interwoven with, and obscuring, each other.

"If each quality be expressed by its peculiar form, then must variety of qualities be attended with variety of forms; and these forms, combining and harmonizing together, must become more difficult to select and decipher.

"A quality also may have only a moiety and not the full power of existence, consequently a proportionate degree of form, which must have a proportionate degree of expression, and of difficulty to decipher. Thus, for example, a man may have four whole, and two half qualities; and the body, or the visible exterior on which such qualities are expressed, must, likewise, have four

168

H.

OBSERVATIONS ON SOME ANIMALS.

FEW beasts have so much forehead, above the eyes, as the dog; but as much as he appears to gain in the forehead he loses in the excess of brutal nose, which has every token of acute scent. Man, too, in the act of smelling, elevates the nostrils. The dog is also defective in the distance of the mouth from the nose, and in the meanness, or rather the nullity of chin.

Whether the hanging ears of a dog are characteristic of slavish subjection, as Buffon has affirmed, who has written much more reasonably on brute than on human physiognomy, I cannot determine.

The camel and the dromedary are a mixture of the horse, sheep, and ass, without what is noble in the first.

to have something of the

in the nose.

They also appear

monkey, at least

Not made to suffer the bit in the mouth, the power of jaw is wanting. The determining marks concerning the bit are found between the eyes and the nose. No traces of courage or daring are found in these parts. The threatening snort of the ox and horse is not perceptible in these ape

like nostrils. None of the powers of plunder and prey, in the feeble upper and under jaw. Nothing but burden-bearing patience in the eyes.

The bear expresses wild cruelty, the menacing power of rending; abhorring man, the friend of ancient, savage, nature.

The UNAU, AI, or sloth, is the most indolent, helpless, wretched, creature, and of the most imperfect formation. How extraordinary is the feebleness of the outline of the head, body, and feet! No sole of the feet, no toes small or great, which move independently, having but two or three long, inbent claws, which can only move together. Its sluggishness, stupidity, and selfneglect, are indescribable. How might physiognomy be more true to the expression of nature? How might it be more obtuse, sluggish, helpless?

Who does not read ferocity in the wild boar; a want of all that is noble; greediness, stupidity, blunt feeling, gross appetite; and, in the badger, ignoble, faithless, malignant, savage, gluttony?

The profile of the lion is remarkable, especially the outline of the forehead and nose. How does this outline retreat, almost in a right angle, from the nose to the under jaw!

A man whose profile of forehead and nose should resemble that of the lion, would, certainly, be no common man. But I have never yet seen any person in whom this resemblance was exact.

I own the nose of the lion is much less prominent than that of man, but much more than that of any other quadruped.

Royal, brutal, strength, and arrogant usurpation are evident, partly in the arching of the nose, partly in its breadth and parallel lines, and, especially in the almost right angle, which the outline of the eyelid forms with the side of the nose.

What blood-thirsty cruelty, what insidious craft in the eye and snout of the tiger! Can the laugh of Satan himself, at a falling saint, be more fiendlike than the head of the triumphant tiger?

Cats are tigers in miniature, with the advantage of domestic education. Little better in character, inferior in power. Unmerciful to birds and mice as the tiger to the lamb. They delight in prolonging torture before they devour; and, in this, they exceed the tiger.