tain, upon the whole, any thing worthy of peculiar notice. The subject seems to have been attended to now and then during this century, but I do not find any thing remarkable concerning it, till the discussion already mentioned, in the Berlin Transactions, between M. Pernetty and M. Le Catt. This controversy commenced with a Dissertation on the Advantages and Disadvantages of Physiognomy, by M. Le Catt. In the succeeding volume (the twenty-fifth) is an answer by M. Pernetty; to which follows a reply by M. Le Catt, and a supplementary reply, by the same, in the twenty-sixth volume. This contains also three more dissertations, by way of rejoinder on the part of M. Pernetty. I have already noticed this discussion so far as it relates to the definition of phy. siognomy. The rest of it turned upon these two questions. First, Whether it would be advantageous or otherwise to society, if each individual carried in his appearance such marks of his character, disposition, and talents, as would enable others to collect with certainty these latter from the former. Secondly, Whether, on the supposition that the science of physiognomy would enable us to discern a part only of the internal character, and mankind in general being but imperfect physiognomists, it would be advantageous to society to culti vate the study of physiognomy. These questions were agitated with more prolixity than their importance to the subject of physiognomy in my opinion deserved. No reasoning à priori can possibly determme them with any degree of certainty. Time and experience alone will ascertain what degree of influ ence any particular kind of knowledge will have upon the manners and characters of mankind. In the mean time it is reasonable to conclude, from the analogy of every fact respecting human science, that the result upon the whole, of attaining any portion of knowledge heretofore unknown, will not be otherwise than beneficial. Nor is it likely, that mankind will be permitted to attain any branch of knowledge, not ultimately conducive to the happiness of the species. Indeed the same questions might have been agitated as preliminaries to every science already known: and if the affirmative in similar cases must be clearly established, before we proceed to the investigation of the science itself, the course of human improvement might be stopt for ever. During this controversy, M. Pernetty laid it down as a principle, that no man can be a physiognomist unless he receives a knowledge of the science originally as a gift from the Deity; and that the faculty of physiognomizing is not acquired, but innate. It is obvious to remark, that if M. Pernetty's opinion be well founded, it was mere waste of time to discuss either the questions before-mentioned or any others relating to the subject; for, whichever way they might be determined, the existence or non-existence of physiognomy, as a species of knowledge, not being optional to the persons addressed, would not be affected by the determination. Such gratuitous and unpbilosophical assertions from the supporters of physiognomy, cast a ridicule upon the science itself; and induce mankind to associate the idea of fallacy, even with the well-founded arguments of those who advance them. This remark, however, is not applicable to M. Pernetty alone. Soon after this controversy, appeared the great work of M. Lavater, dean of Zurich, which has excited no inconsiderable degree of attention in the literary world. The magnificence of the work itself, and the supposed visionary nature of the subject treated, has contributed not a little to make it generally known. Indeed, so far as I am able to judge, it is (with all its faults) the most important book on the subject since the days of Aristotle. Sensible that the science is yet in its infancy, M. Lavater professes to give, not a complete synthetical treatise on physiognomy but fragments only, illustrative of the different parts of this branch of knowledge; and it must be confessed that his performance, however desultory and unconnected, is in many particulars much superior to those that have preceded. In conformity with his design, he has rejected the scholastic systematic method so common among the physiognomists of the last and preceding centuries, and with it be rejected also their manner of writing, dry, concise, indeterminate, and general: the remarks of M. Lavater, on the contrary, are, for the most part, precise and particular, and frequently founded on distinctions extremely acute. He has omitted entirely (as indeed might reasonably be expected from a writer of the present day) the astrological and similar reveries, so disgraceful to the writings of the generality of his predecessors. He has (with great good sense) very rarely deduced or confirmed his physiognomical re marks by anatomical or physiological reasonings ; which, indeed, however important they may prove bereafter, seem even in this present advanced state of our knowledge respecting them, an insufficient foundation to support particular observations. He has pursued the methodfirstadopted, Ibelieve,byJ.Baptista Porta, of illustratinghisremarks by engravings,extremely numerous, oftentimes expressive, and, upon the whole, tolerably executed, even for the taste of modern times. Nor are these variations from the generality of the authors who have gone before him in the same track, the only particulars which justly entitle Mr. Lavater's work to a preeminence among the books on this subject. His opinions are more evidently the result of actual observation than those of preceding physiognomists. He appears also to have made the science more peculiarly his study than any other person; and (excepting, indeed, his profession as a divine) it seems to have been the grand pursuit of his life. His attention moreover to osseal physiognomy, and the effects of profiles and contours, evince a comprehension of the subject, much superior to what appears in those who have treated it heretofore. And in addition to these, his style, though somewhat declamatory and digressive, yet forcible and lively; his expressions frequently precise and characteristic, and the spirit of piety and benevolence which pervades the whole of his performance, contribute not a little to render it highly interesting. With all these good qualities, however, M. Lavater's work has faalts that take away considerably from the deference which his physiog nomical nomical opinions would otherwise have claimed. And his imagination has in many instances so evidently gotten the better of his judgment, that a reader who should take up his volumes for the mere purpose of amusement, would be strongly tempted to reject the whole system, as the fanciful conceit of an ingenious but extravagant theorist. Among the objectionable parts of his book are the following: 1. The mysterious air of importance with which (like many of his predecessors) he has clothed his favourite science, and described the whole of the material world as objects of her dominion. 2. The fanciful necessity which he imposes, that a physiognomist should be a well-shaped handsome man. 3. His language very frequently too peremptory and decisive; not warranted by the substance of his remarks, and disproportioned to the occasion.* 4. His remarks themselves, in numerous instances, unsupported by the illustrations, and sometimes apparently opposite to common observation.* 5. His too great reliance on sin gle features as the foundation for deciding on a character.+ 6. His premature opinions on the physiognomy of the ears, hands, nails, and feet, of the human species; on hand-writing; on the physiognomy of birds, insects, reptiles, and fishes. On none of these can a sufficient number of accurate observations have been made to warrant the slightest conclusion. 7. His introduction of objects, such as the preceding, is the more singular, from the slight and inadequate attention he appears hitherto to have bestowed on gesture, voice, manner, and the important topic of national physiognomy: all of which he has indeed in some degree touched upon, but far less than facts might have warranted, or their importance demanded. 8. The repeated introduction of his own face throughout the course of the work, and the singular remarks he makes on it, although his character may fully justify the truth ofthem, do not serve to prejudice the reader in favour of his judgment. 9. The same observation may be made on his singularly fanciful Theory of Apparitions, which goes * Dear • Instances of these, I think, will occur frequently, especially on perusing his Physiognomical Remarks on the illustrative engravings; but of these each reader will be the best enabled to judge for himself, until the science shall put on a more systematic form than the present collection of observations will permit. + That there is such a thing as homogeneity and harmony of feature, there is no doubt; but the instances of exception are so numerous, and the illustrative cases so scattered and unarranged, that it appears to me injudicious presumption in most instances to decide positively on the observation of a single feature. The old Physiognomists, who (in the spirit of the times) would in no wise have omitted to treat the subject systematically, were on that account induced to take into consideration every part of the body in its turn. But the manner of M. Lavater, professedly desultory, did not lead him to this; and he has even exceeded the faults of his predecessors, by the introduction of physiognomical observations on the hand-writing. on insects, &c. which the present state of physiognomy is very short indeed of being 60 far advanced as to include. near to a revival of the old opinions of the sympathists. 10. To these may be added the general character of enthusiasm in favour of physiognomy, which is stamped on every page of the work, and to which, indeed, a great part of the merit of it may be due. But it certainly has the salutary tendency of setting his readers on their guard against a too precipitate admission of his physiognomical decisions. Such appears to me the character of a work, which altogether does credit to the times, as well as to the author. con M. Lavater's book produced an attack upon it from M. Formey, in the Berlin Transactions for the year 1775. M. Formey having discussed the propriety of the extensive signification given to the term physiog nomy, by M. Pernetty and Lavater, adopts a definition nearly the same with that which I have taken. He allows that every fibre of the body influences, and is intimately connected with the mental character; but he urges, as his principal argument, that our frame is liable to many accidents, by which it may be altered or modified, that have no nection with the disposition or talents of the person who may be exposed to them, that it far surpasses human skill to distinguish between such modifications of feature as are, and such as are not, connected with the mind; and therefore although there may be truth in the science of physiognomy, the Deity alone can be aphysiognomist. He observes, moreover, that our cast of features is liable to be determined by the temperaments of our ancestors,lineal and collateral, by education, by diet, by climate, by sudden emotions, &c. so that the determination given to our features by our mental character, may be so involved with, or hidden by, accidental circumstances, that it is in vain to attempt the study of a science whose limits are so confined. These objections of M. Formey are worth noticing, although they do not strike me as conclusive on the points towards which he urges them. Beside this essay by M. Formey, I know of no other subsequent publication of any moment on the subject. From this historical deduction, however, of the literary progress of physiognomy, it appears, that into whatever disrepute the science may now be fallen, there is scarcely a period to be mentioned, wherein any thing of science was known, in which physiognomy had not its abettors and its professors, among men of the greatest learning, and most undoubted abilities; and that, in all probability, the chief reasons why so little attention is paid to the subject at present, are, First, that it has been treated in conjunction with subjects now properly exploded as unworthy of attention; and secondly, That it has been injured by the injudicious assertions and arguments of those who have undertaken its defence. The learned and the wise,however, may sometimes be mistaken; nor should any decisive conclusion be drawn against the use of any thing, from its having been abused. The time, therefore, may not be far distant, when physiognomy will be reinstated in her rank among the valuable branches of human knowledge, and be studied with that degree of attention and perseverance which a subject deserves, so essentially connected with the science of man. On On the comparative excellence of the sciences and arts, By Mr. William Roscoe ; from the same. TH HERE is, perhaps, no circumstance more injurious, both to our improvement and happiness, than a propensity to engage and persevere in the study of particular branches of science, without first taking that enlarged and general view of our nature and destination, by which we ought to ascertain, and arrange in due succession, the proper objects of our pursuit. For want of attention to this important subject, learning and industry have frequently been exerted on unworthy objects; and genius and taste trifled away, without either affording advantage to mankind, or obtaining reputation to their posses sor. If, from the time of our entrance on the world, we were enabled fully to exercise those powers of mind which are but gradually unfolded, this would be the first consideration which would suggest itself to a rational being; and though those powers are developed only by degrees, yet, there is a period in the life of every man, when, collecting together those ideas which have been suffered to wander almost unrestrained, over the fields of amusement, it behoves him to consider, with serious attention, that tablet which is to contain, in eternal colours, the picture of his future life; and, like a skilful artist, to observe what requires his first attention, and what are only secondary objects of his regard. As it is the first aim of the painter to produce on his canvas some great and striking effect; and, by a proper arrangement of parts, to form a beautiful and consistent whole; so it is the business of every man, in the conduct of life, to exhibit to the world a great and consistent character. In order to accomplish this end, it is necessary to keep one grand object in view, and never suffer ourselves to be drawn from it, by too minute an attention to less important parts; for though these may be in themselves commendable, yet, if the principal object has been neglected, in order to bestow more assiduity on these inferior parts, it betrays a deficiency in judgment and true taste, which it will be impossible any other merit can fully compensate. It is, however, much to be apprehended, that many persons have passed through the world, not only without discovering, but without once reflecting on the proper objects of their pursuit; and the number is not less, perhaps, of those who, having formed clear and determinate ideas of their duty, have, in the course of their conduct, lost sight of them; and suffered those things which required their immediate exertions, totally to supersede the higher ends, to which they ought only to have been auxiliary. In general life, what is more common, than to suffer the laudable desire of acquiring independence, to degenerate into an eagerness for accumulating riches, without a reference to any farther end? But, can we avoid pitying the man, who employs his time in gilding the frame, when he should be finishing the picture? In the pursuits of science, this error continually occurs; we suffer some particular study, which, perhaps, accident rather than choice first suggested, to claim the con |