rately distinguishes falsehood from truth? Yet to whom would he be able to commuicate his sudden perception, of the truth; the result or resources of those numerous, small, indescribable, rapid, profound remarks? To whom could he impart these by signs, tones, images, and rules? Is it not the same with physic, theology, and all the arts and sciences? Is it not the same with painting, at once the mother and daughter of physiognomy?

How infinitely does he, who is painter or poet born, soar beyond all written rule! But must he, who possesses feelings and power which are not to be reduced to rule, be pronounced unscientific? So, physiognomical truth may, to a certain degree, be defined, communicated by signs and words, as a science. This is the look of contempt, this of innocence. Where such signs are, such and such properties reside.

There can be no doubt of the truth of physiognomy. All countenances, all forms, all created beings, are not only different from each other in their classes, races, and kinds, but are also individually distinct. Each being differs from every other being of its species. However generally known, it is a truth the most important to our purpose, and necessary to repeat, that "there is no rose perfectly similar to another rose, no egg to an egg, no eel to an eel, no lion to a lion, no eagle to an eagle, no man to a man."

Confining this proposition to man only, it is

the first, the most profound, most secure and unshaken foundation stone of physiognomy, that, however intimate the analogy and similarity of the innumerable forms of men, no two men can be found, who, brought together, and accurately compared, will not appear to be very remarkably different. Nor is it less incontrovertible, that it is equally impossible to find two minds, as two countenances, which perfectly resemble each other.

Considerations like these will be sufficient to make it received as a truth, not requiring farther demonstration, that there must be a certain native analogy between the external varieties of the countenance and form, and the internal varieties of the mind. Anger renders the muscles protuberant; and shall not therefore an angry mind and protuberant muscles be considered as cause and effect?

After repeated observation, that an active and vivid eye, and an active and acute wit, are frequently found in the same person, shall it be supposed that there is no relation between the active eye and the active mind? Is this the effect of accident? Ought it not rather to be considered as sympathy, an interchangeable and instantaneous effect, when we perceive that, at the very moment the understanding is most acute and penetrating, and the wit the most lively, the motion and fire of the eye undergo, at that moment, the most visible alteration?

But all this is denied by those who oppose the

truth of the science of physiognomy. Truth, according to them, is ever at variance with herself; Eternal order is degraded to a juggler, whose purpose it is to deceive.

Calm reason revolts when it is asserted, that the strong man may appear perfectly like the weak, the man in full health like another in the last stage of a consumption, or that the rash and irascible resemble the cold and phlegmatic. It revolts to hear. it affirmed, that joy and grief, pleasure and pain, love and hatred, all exhibit themselves under the same traits, that is to say, under no traits whatever, on the exterior of man. Yet such are the assertions of those who maintain that physiognomy is a chimerical science. They overturn all that order and combination by which Eternal wisdom so highly astonishes and delights the understanding. It cannot be too emphatically repeated, that blind chance and arbitrary disorder constitute the philosophy of fools, and that they are the bane of natural knowledge, philosophy, and religion. Entirely to banish such a system, is the duty of the true inquirer, the sage, and the divine.

It is indisputable, that all men, absolutely all men, estimate all things whatever by their physiognomy, their exterior temporary superficies. By viewing these on every occasion, they draw their conclusions concerning their internal properties. What merchant, if he be unacquainted with the person of whom he purchases, does not estimate his wares by the physiognomy or ap

pearance of those wares? If he purchase of a distant correspondent, what other means does he use in judging whether they are or are not equal to his expectation? Is not his judgment determined by the colour, the fineness, the superficies, the exterior, the physiognomy? Does he not judge money by its physiognomy? Why does he take one guinea, and reject another? Why weigh a third in his hand? Does he not determine according to its colour, or impressión, its outside, its physiognomy? If a stranger enter his shop, as a buyer or seller, will he not observe him? Will he not draw conclusions from his countenance? Will he not, almost before he is out of hearing, pronounce some opinion of him? and say, “This man has an honest look-this man has a pleasing or forbidding countenance." What is it to the purpose whether his judgment be right or wrong? He judges; and though not wholly, he depends, in part, upon the exterior form, and thence draws inferences concerning the mind.

The farmer, walking through his grounds, regulates his future expectations by the colour, the size, the growth, the exterior; that is to say, by the physiognomy of the bloom, the stalk, or the ear of his corn, the stem and shoots of his vine"This ear of corn is blighted that wood is full of sap-this will grow, that not," affirms he at the first or second glance." Though these vine-shoots look well, they will bear but few grapes." And wherefore? He remarks in

tree.

their appearance, as the physiognomist in the countenances of shallow men, the want of native energy. Does he not judge by the exterior?

Does not the physician pay more attention to the physiognomy of the sick, than to all the accounts that are brought him concerning his patient? Zimmerman, among the living, may be brought as a proof of the great perfection at which this kind of judgment is arrived; and, among the dead, Kempf, whose son has written a treatise on temperament.

I will say nothing of the painter, as his art too evidently reproves the childish and arrogant prejudices of those who pretend to disbelieve physiognomy. The traveller, the philanthropist, the misanthropist, the lover (and who not?), all act according to their feelings and decisions, true or false, confused or clear, concerning physiognomy. These feelings, these decisions, excite compassion, disgust, joy, love, hatred, suspicion, confidence, reserve, or benevolence.

By what rule do we judge of the sky, but by its physiognomy? No food, not a glass of wine or beer, nor a cup of coffee or tea, comes to table, which is not judged by its physiognomy, its exterior, and of which we do not then deduce some conclusion respecting its interior good or bad properties. Is not all nature physiognomy, superficies and contents, body and spirit, exterior effect and internal power, invisible beginning and visible ending?

Physiognomy, whether understood in its most