Objection 3. "We perceive the signs of bravery and heroism in the countenances of men, who are, notwithstanding, the first to run away." Answer. The less the man is, the greater he wishes to appear. But what were these signs of heroism? Did they resemble those found in the Farnesian Hercules?—Of this I doubt: let them be drawn, let them be produced; the physiognomist will probably say, at the second, if not at the first, glance, quanta species! Sickness, accident, melancholy, likewise, deprive the bravest men of courage. This contradiction, however, ought to be apparent to the physiognomist. Objection 4. "We find persons whose exterior appearance denotes extreme pride, and who, in their actions, never betray the least symptom of pride." Answer. A man may be proud and affect humility. Education and habit may give an appearance of pride, although the heart be humble; but this humility of heart will shine through an appearance of pride, as sunbeams through transparent clouds. It is true, that this apparently proud man would have more humility had he less of the appearance of pride. Objection 5. "We see mechanics, who, with incredible ingenuity, produce the most curious works of art, and bring them to the greatest perfection; yet who, in their hands and bodies, resemble the rudest peasants and wood-cutters; while the hands of fine ladies are totally incapable of such minute and curious performances." Answer. I should desire these rude and delicate frames to be brought together and compared.-Most naturalists describe the elephant as gross and stupid in appearance; and according to this apparent stupidity, or rather according to that stupidity which they ascribe to him, wonder at his address. Let the elephant and the tender lamb be placed side by side, and the superiority of address will be visible from the formation and flexibility of the body, without farther trial. Ingenuity and address do not so much depend upon the mass as upon the nature, mobility, internal sensation, nerves, construction, and suppleness of the body and its parts. Delicacy is not power, power is not minuteness. Apelles would have drawn better with charcoal than many miniature painters with the finest pencil. The tools of a mechanic may be rude, and his mind the very reverse. Genius will work better with a clumsy hand than stupidity with a hand the most pliable.—I will indeed allow your objection to be well founded if nothing of the character of an artist is discoverable in his countenance; but, before you come to a decision, it is necessary you should be acquainted with the various marks that denote mechanical genius in the face. Have you considered the lustre, the acuteness, the penetration of his eyes; his rapid, his decisive, his firm aspect; the projecting bones of his brow, his arched forehead, the suppleness, the delicacy, or the massiness of his limbs? Have you well considered these particulars? "I could not see it in him," is easily said. More consideration is requisite to discover the character of the man. Objection 6. "There are persons of peculiar penetration who have very unmeaning countenances." Answer. The assertion requires proof. For my own part, after many hundred mistakes, I have continually found the fault was in my want of proper observation.-At first, for example, I looked for the tokens of any particular quality too much in one place; I sought and found it not, although I knew the person possessed extraordinary powers. I have been long before I could discover the seat of character. I was deceived, sometimes by seeking too partially, at others, too generally. To this I was particularly liable in examining those who had only distinguished themselves in some particular pur suit; and, in other respects, appeared to be persons of very common abilities, men whose powers were all concentrated to a point, to the examination of one subject; or men whose powers were very indeterminate: I express myself improperly, powers which had never been excited, brought into action. Many years ago, I was acquainted with a great mathematician, the astonishment of Europe; who, at the first sight, and even long after, appeared to have a very common countenance. I drew a good likeness of him, which obliged me to pay a more minute attention, and found a particular trait which was very marking and decisive. A similar trait to this I many years afterward discovered in another person, who, though widely different, was also a man of great talents; and who, this trait excepted, had an unmeaning countenance, which seemed to prove the science of physiognomy all erroneous. Never since this time have I discovered that particular trait in any man who did not possess some peculiar merit, however simple his appearance might be. This proves how true and false, at once, the objection may be which states, "Such a person appears to be a weak man, yet has great powers of mind.” I have been written to concerning D'Alembert, whose countenance, contrary to all physiognomonical science, was one of the most common. To this I can make no answer, unless I had seen D'Alembert. This much is certain, that his profile, by Cochin, which yet must be very inferior to the original, not to mention other less obvious traits, has a forehead, and in part a nose, which were never seen in the countenance of any person of moderate, not to say mean, abilities. Objection 7. "We find very silly people with very expressive countenances." Who does not daily make this remark? My only answer, which I have repeatedly given, and which I think perfectly satisfactory, is, that the endowments of nature may be excellent; and yet, by want of use, or abuse, may be destroyed. Power is there, but it is power misapplied: the fire wasted in the pursuit of pleasure can no longer be applied to the discovery and display of truth—it is fire without light, fire that ineffectually burns. I have the happiness to be acquainted with some of the greatest men in Germany and Switzerland; and I can, upon my honour, assert, that of all the men of genius with whom I am acquainted, there is not one who does not express the degree of invention and powers of mind he possesses in the features of his countenance, and particularly in the form of his head. I shall only select the following names from an innumerable multitude. Charles XII. Louis XIV. Turenne, Sully, Polignac, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Diderot.-Newton, Clarke, Maupertuis, |