temperate, quiet, and impartial examination, strengthened and perfected by experience, and by comprehensive powers of discrimination, is all that is wanted; and when the science of Physiognomy comes to be universally studied, should "a consummation so devoutly to be wished," ever take place, the honest man and the hypocrite will be almost as easily distinguished, as the man of a robust form from the "lean and slippered pantaloon." Of this, however, more in a future section.

The distinction between Physiognomy and Pathognomy being now, I trust, sufficiently pointed out, and the fact that there is indeed a physionomy in nature proved beyond dispute, I will endeavour to demonstrate that Physiognomy deserves to be ranked as one of the regular sciences.

If that branch of human knowledge which is governed by definite rules, and has, however, few in number, certain indubitable marks and characteristics, by which clear and invariable

deductions may be drawn, and known truths elicited, be a science, then Physiognomy merits that distinction, as much as theology, morals, or almost any other of the pure or mixed sciences.

In the consideration of this subject, it is not necessary that any portion of human knowledge should have no difficulties-no exceptions to those general principles which establish its claim to rank as a science. For were that the case, I question whether it were possible to give that name to any one of the known sciences. The arts are more certain and defined in their characteristics. Their rules are more the objects of the senses-have greater tangibility, if such a term may be used on such a subject; but so long as certain known and acknowledged results, are found invariably to flow from certain known premises or causes, however few those results may be, the knowledge of them immediately forms a branch of scientific acquirement, as certain and infallible as that the knowledge of the rules of perspective,

the laws of geometry, or the combinations of numbers, connects itself with the arts of de

sign, or of those of the several branches of the mathematics.

Lavater, with an ingenuity peculiarly his own, and a warmth of feeling which the honest enthusiast only is capable of experiencing, asserts that the science of Physiognomy, partakes of a mixture of several other branches of knowledge."It is," says he, "a branch of natural philosophy, as well as medicine, for it constitutes a part of that science. It is related to theology; for it belongs to and forms a part of divine ethics. In mathematics, it is connected with the science of calculation.

It

is comprehended under the department of the Belle Lettres, because it unfolds and determines the idea of the beautiful and the sublime." I cannot say that I am prepared to go the entire lengths of this truly ingenious philosopher. His heart and soul were too deeply absorbed in the subject, to allow at all times that cool and dispassionate reasoning which so

abstruse and occult a study demands. But it cannot be denied, that Physiognomy forms a very material part of medical science. For what, asks Lavater, would physic be, without the knowledge of symptoms? And what symptomatical intimations without Physiognomy?

The connection of Physiognomy with the science of Theology, is as certain as that we are conducted to the Deity by our knowledge of men; and the science of man can only be ascertained but by his face and form.

As Physiognomy measures and considers causes, ascertains body and magnitude, it seems clearly to incorporate itself with mathematical reasoning. Indeed, there are few branches of science with which Physiognomy does not directly, or indirectly, either unite itself, or lend its aid to; and it may be observed, that those points in the study of this science which establish its claim to that rank in human knowledge for which I am now contending, are, perhaps, more certain, clear, and invariable

than the distinct signs by which any other species of learning and truth is denominated scientific.

Physiognomy, like any other science, may, and does to a certain point, digest itself, and is reduced to fixed rules, which are possible to be taught and learnt, to be communicated and received, and transmitted to posterity, by the same medium through which all other knowledge passes from one generation to another. But in this, perhaps, more than in any other science, much must be left to genius and sentiment; and in some parts it is observable to be still deficient in signs and principles determinate, or capable of being determined.

Such are the clear definitions and the candid concessions of Lavater. If it shall appear that Physiognomy lays down such rules as cannot be mistaken in the study of the human character, however few those rules are, the fact will be established, that it is indeed a science of a high and important order. The only question,