&c. the body is affected by the affections of the mind. From these facts he concludes, that, wherever a particular form or bodily character appears in a human creature, and we know beforehand from observation, and an induction of particulars, that a certain mental character is constantly concomitant, and therefore necessarily connected therewith, we have a right in all such cases to infer the disposition from the appearance and this, whether we have drawn our observation from men or other animals. For, as there is one mental character, and one corporeal form of a lion, and another of a hare, wherever in human creatures we observe the bodily characteristics of a lion (such as a strong and thick hair, large extremities, a deep tone of voice, &c.), we ought to infer, strength, firmness, and courage. Wherever, on the contrary, we see the slender extremities, soft capillament, or any other feature of the hare, we ought to conclude a proportional correspondence in the mental character. Upon this principle he enumerates the various corporeal features of man, and the correspondent dispositions so far as they have been observed; and as opportunities offer, he illustrates them by an appeal to the foregoing analogy, and in some cases attempts to explain them by physiological reasoning.

This plausible, and even probable theory evinces a considerable degree of knowledge on this subject at a very early period-individual physiognomy, national physiog nomy, and comparative physiognomy, are here distinctly noticed; but it cannot with truth be asserted, that the enumeration of particular precepts and observations in the

physiognomical treatise of this great man, are equally well founded with this outline of the subject. In fact, the state of knowledge in his time did not admit of a complete elucidation of his general principles, nor was the brief and pithy style of Aristotle adapted to a subject, which even at this day will require frequent periphrasis to make it clearly comprehensible. Such as it is, however, this work of Aristotle appears to have served as a foundation for almost every physiognomical treatise that hath since been published. His comparative physiognomy of men with beasts, indeed, though frequently, has not been universally adopted; but his language and his manner, sententious, obscure, and indiscriminate, have been copied too closely by his imitators of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Beside this work of Aristotle expressly on the subject, there are many incidental observations respecting physiognomy that occur in his History of Animals, and cther parts of his writings.

The ethic characters of Theophrastus, the disciple and successor of Aristotle, deserve also to be particularly noticed, as a distinct treatise on a most important branch of the science in question, The Physiognomy of Manners. This singular and entertaining performance, composed by the author at the age of ninety-nine, describes syntheti cally, with great justice and accuracy, the most remarkable traits of behaviour which certainly predominant characters would respectively occasion. The translations and imitations of La Bruyere render it unnecessary to give any examples of what otherwise it would be unpardonable to omit: suffice it to observe, that this

work

work of Theophrastus evinces such a degree of accurate observation and lively description, as will preserve it in the rank of classical performances so long as the science of man, and the prominent features of human society shall continue to be regarded as objects of attention.

About this time Adamantius, the sophist, appears to have written, whose" Physiognomics" were published in several places, about the middle of the sixteenth century. Adamantius, however, only trod in the steps of Polemon, the Athenian, who had written before him, and whose treatise was republished in Greek and Latin much about the time of the former. * So many authorst on the subject sufficiently shew that physiognomy was much cultivated as a science among the Greeks about this period. The professors of physiognomy, however, appear soon to have connected with it something of the marvellous, as we nay suspect from the story told of Apelles by Apion: Imaginem adeo similitudinis indiscrete pinxit ut (incredibile dictu) Apion grammaticus scriptum reliquerit quemdam ex facie hominum addivinantem (quos metoposcopos vocant) ex iis dixisse aut

futuræ mortis annos, aut præteritæ. t From the known practice of the Pythagorean school, whose novitiates were all subjected to the physiognomic observation of the teachers, it is not improbable that the first physiognomists by profession among the Greeks, were of that sect; nor is it unlikely from the mysterious and ascetic nature of the doctrines and discipline of the Pythagoreans, that they also were first tempted to disgrace the science of physiognomy in Greece, by annexing to it the art of divination.

From this time to the close of the Roman republic, few observations occur respecting the literary history of physiognomy. About that period, however, and from thence to the decline of the Roman empire under the late emperors, it appears to have been attended to as an important branch of knowledge, and adopted as a profession by persons pretending to superior skill in it.

There are many physiognomical remarks interspersed in the works of Hyppocrates** and of Galen,++ as may well be presumed from their medical profession-Cicero appears to have been particularly attached to it; for he not only relates the story

of

of Zopyrus and Socrates in his book De Fato,* and his Tusculan Questi ons, but his orations abound with physiognomical opinions. Thus, his oration against Piso commences with the following abusive passage.Jamne vides bellua quæ sit hominum querela frontis tuæ? Nemo queritur syrum nescio quem de grege novitiorum factum esse consulem. Non enim nos Color iste servilis, non pilosa Gena,non dentes putridi deceperunt. Oculi, Supercilia, frons, vultus denique totus qui sermo quidem tacitus mentis est, hic in errorem homines impulit, hic eos quibus eras ignotus decepit fefellit, in fraudem induxit. Pauci ista tua lutulenta vitia noveramus: pauci tarditatem ingenii, stuporem debilitatemque linguæ ; nunquam erat audita vox in foro ; nunquam periculum factum Consilii; nullum non modo illustre sed ne notum quidem factum aut militiæ aut domi; obrepsisti ad honores errore hominum, commendatione famosarum imaginum, quarum simile habes nihil præter Colorem. In the same strain he appeals to his auditors against the physiognomy of C. Fannius Chærea, in his oration in favour of Roscius, the comedian. C. Funnium Chæream, Roscius fraudavit! Oratque obsecro vos qui nostis, vitam inter se utriusque conferte-qui non nostis faciem utriusque considerate-Nonne ipsum caput, et supercilla penitus abrasa, olere malitiam, et clamitare calliditatem videntur ? Nonne ab imis unguibus usque ad verticem summum (siquam conjecturam affert hominibus tacita corporis figura) ex fraude, fallaciis, mendaciis, constare totus videtur? Qui

* Ubi sup.

idcirco capite et superciliis semper est rasis, ne ullum pilum viri boni habere. I have quoted these passages, not only as instances of Cicero's attachment to the science of physiognomy,+ but also as examples of the ancient style of oratorical abuse. Similar instances of Cicero's manner occur in his observation on the features, &c. of Verres, Vatinius, and Anthony:‡ indeed, he asserts generally in his book De Oratore, omnes enim motus animi suum quendam a natura habent vultum; which although it may be construed to relate to the transient physiognomy only, may well be applied to the permanent features, in conformity to the passages already adduced from the same au

thor.

Nor was Cicero singular, among the classic authors of Roman literature, in his attention to physiognomic observation. The extracts in the notes from Sallust, Suetonius, and Seneca, those already adduced from Pliny and Aulus Gellius, and the passages I could mention from Petronius, Plutarch, and others, abundantly establish this remark.

Beside the attention paid to physiognomy as a science by authors of repute during the period of the Roman empire, it should seem also, that it continued to be practised as a profession, as well then, as in the classic age of Grecian philosophy. Plutarch, in his Life of Anthony, tells us ofan Egyptian physiognomist who bade Anthony beware of Octavius. Petronius Arbiter in his Satyricon, introduces a person saying, Vides me? nec auguria novi, nec

mathematicorum

Figuram autem corporis habilem

mathematicorum cælum curare soleo, sed ex vultibus tamen hominum mores colligo, et quum spatiantem vidi, quid cogites scio. Quo enim incessus arte compositus, et ne vestigia quidem pedum extra mensuram aberrantia, nisi quod formam prostituis ut vendas. Suetonius, in the Life of Titus, says, that Narcissus sent a physiog nomist to examine the features of Britannicus, who returned and predicted that Britannicus would not succeed, but the empire would devolve on Titus. Other instances of physiognomy being exercised as a profession might be adduced, but the preceding passages, however they may contain a mixture of fable with truth, render the general fact sufficiently probable.

When the Roman empire was overthrown by the irruptions of the northern nations, this science shared the same fate with the others, and appears to have been unnoticed (except perhaps by the Arabian commentators on Aristotle, with whom I am unacquainted) till about the beginning of the sixteenth century, from which time to the latter end of the seventeenth it was greatly in vogue, and almost all the approved modern authors, who have treated practically on the subject published within that space. I cannot help regarding it, however, as rather unfortunate for the science of physiognomy, that many opinions now justly exploded were holden in high estimation, not only among the literati in general of the same period, but by the very persons who were authors on the subject of physiognomy, and patrons of the study. Nay, by some of these writers, physiognomy was regarded as essentially connected with doctrines which the literature of the present day would

be ashamed to adopt, and treated accordingly in conjunction with them. This remark appears to me so intimately connected with the literary history of the science in question, as to demand some farther discussion.

The history of human learning has periods which are marked by the general prevalence of particular studies among the literati of the time. The philosophers of the early period of Grecian literature attended chiefly to mythological morality. Among the authors of the most flourishing period of Grecian and Roman literature, until the first emperors, poetry, history, and oratory, were the prevailing subjects of attention: under the latter emperors, and for some time after, the works of the learned exhibit, for the most part, the history of theological controversies: to them succeeded metaphysics and metaphysical theology.When these began to decline, the attention of the learned was awakened to alchemy, magic, judicial astrology, the doctrine of signatures and sympathies, the Mystic Theosophic, and Rosicrusian, theology and physiognomy-then succeeded classic philology-this gave way to modern poetry and natural philosophy to which, of late, have been joined the studies of rational theology, chymistry, the philosophy of history, the history of man, and the science of politics.

This very brief and imperfect outline of the progress of human learning, will, nevertheless, sufficiently illustrate my meaning respecting the injury which physiognomy has suffered from a fortuitous connection with exploded literature. Nothing is more common among mankind than the hasty rejection of valuable

opinions

opinions, from their artificial or accidental connection with other opinions untenable and absurd. The history of theology,inparticular, and the present complexion of theological opinions in Europe, furnish a pregnant instance of the truth of this remark. It will, therefore, be sufficientfor me, to observe at present, that during the space of about one hundred and fifty years from the commencement of the sixteenth century, the authors on the subject of physiognomy were very numerous; and that very many, if not the greatest part of them, treated expressly as subjects of importance, either magic, alchemy, the doctrine of signatures, astrology, or the theosophic philosophy. Nor is it any wonder that physiognomy should fall into contempt, when the prevalence of more rational literature rejected its contemporary sciences. Some few facts and observations respecting this part of the literary history of physiognomy, illustrative of its temporary connection with the doctrines above-mentioned, I shall, with the permission of the society, throw into the form of an illustration or appendix to this essay, because they are, in my opinion,not altogether unworthy of notice, but would form a digression too long for the paper itself. Excepting that physiognomy was fashionable among the authors who treated on the abstruse sciences above-mentioned, I do not recollect any thing peculiar respecting this stage of its progress. There were some authors, indeed, even during that period, who treated it free from the absurd conjunction of the prevailing subjects of the day, such as Père Honorat Nicquet and Claramont. But the observations even of these writers are too general, in

determinate, and concise, to be of considerable use; and appear rather as the conclusions of theoretic lucubration, than the well-founded remarks of men conversant with the world. A sufficient specimen of the physiognomic writings of the time may be seen in the quotations which Lavater has selected.

About the commencement of the eighteenth century, and thenceforward, the occult sciences, as they are called, had declined considerably in estimation; and the authors who noticed the science of physiognomy forbore to disgrace it by a connection with those branches of supposed knowledge which had formerly been its companions. Among us, Dr. Gwither noticed it with approbation in the eighteenth volume of the Philosophical Transactions. Dr. Parsons also chose the same subject for the Croonean Lectures, published at first in the second sup plement to the forty-fourth volume of the same transactions, and afterwards (1747) republished in English: but these as well as the cursory observations in Lancisius, Haller, and Buffon, relate rather to the transient physiognomy of the passions, than the permanent features of the face and body; the well-known characters of Le Brun are also illustrative of the transient physiognomy.

Earlier, however, than these writers, our Evelyn had inserted a copious digression on the subject in his Numismata,a Discourse on Medals; in which there is a panegyric on the science, withseveral practical remarks and miscellaneous observations. Among the rest is an analysis of the countenances of many great men whose characters were known. It does not appear, however, to con