G.

THOUGHTS OF A FRIEND ON BRUTAL AND HUMAN PHYSIOGNOMY.

"EACH brute animal has some principal quality by which it is distinguished from all others. As the make of each is distinct from all others, so, likewise, is the character. This principal character is denoted by a peculiar, and visible form. Each species of beast has, certainly, a peculiar character, as it has a peculiar form.

66

May we not hence, by analogy, infer that predominant qualities of the mind are as certainly expressed by predominant forms of the body, as that the peculiar qualities of a species are expressed in the general form of that species?—The principal character of the species, in animals, remains such as it was given by nature; it neither can be obscured by accessory qualities, nor concealed by art. The essential of the character can as little be changed as the peculiarity of the form.

66

-

May we not, therefore, with the highest certainty, affirm such a form is only expressive of such a character?

"We have now to enquire if this be applicable to man, and whether the form which denotes individual character in a beast is significant of similar character in man:-granting that, in man, it may continually be more delicate, hidden, and complicated.

“If, on examination, this question be definitely answered in the affirmative, how much is thereby gained!

"But it is conspicuously evident that, in man, the mind is not one character, or quality; but a world of qualities, interwoven with, and obscuring, each other.

If each quality be expressed by its peculiar form, then must variety of qualities be attended with variety of forms; and these forms, combining and harmonizing together, must become more difficult to select and decipher.

"A quality also may have only a moiety and not the full power of existence, consequently a proportionate degree of form, which must have a proportionate degree of expression, and of difficulty to decipher. Thus, for example, a man may have four whole, and two half qualities; and the body, or the visible exterior on which such qualities are expressed, must, likewise, have four

whole, and two half forms, for the expression, or containing, of these qualities. How much must this increase the difficulty of reading man! And how seldom has he whole, how frequently half, qualities!

66

66

May not souls also differ from each other merely according to their relative connection with bodies?" (Let each person decide for himself concerning this.) May not souls also have a determinate capacity, proportionate to the form and organization of the body? (Water which takes the form of the vessel.) Hence each object may make a different impression on each individual; hence one may bear greater burthens and more misfortunes than another.

66

May not the body be considered as a vessel with various compartments, cavities, pipes, into which the soul is poured, and in consequence of which motion and sensation begin to act? And thus, may not the form of the body define the capacity of the mind ?"

Thus far my unknown friend.-Figurative language is dangerous, when discoursing on the soul; yet how can we discourse on it otherwise?-I pronounce no judgment, but rely on sensation and experience, not on words and metaphors. What is is, be your

language what it will. Whether effects all act from the external to the internal, or the reverse, I know not, cannot, need not, know. -Experience convinces us that, both in man and beast, power and form are in an unchangeable harmonized proportion; but whether the form be determined by the power, or the power by the form, is a question wholly insignificant to the physiognomist.

168

H.

OBSERVATIONS ON SOME ANIMALS.

FEW beasts have so much forehead, above the eyes, as the dog; but as much as he appears to gain in the forehead he loses in the excess of brutal nose, which has every token of acute scent. Man, too, in the act of smelling, elevates the nostrils. The dog is also defective in the distance of the mouth from the nose, and in the meanness, or rather the nullity of chin.

Whether the hanging ears of a dog are characteristic of slavish subjection, as Buffon has affirmed, who has written much more reasonably on brute than on human physiognomy, I cannot determine.

The camel and the dromedary are a mixture of the horse, sheep, and ass, without what is noble in the first. They also appear

to have something of the monkey, at least in the nose. Not made to suffer the bit in the mouth, the power of jaw is wanting. The determining marks concerning the bit are found between the eyes and the nose. No traces of courage or daring are found in these parts. The threatening snort of the ox and horse is not perceptible in these ape