6oo TEE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



thusiastic but unintelligent industry may build a monumental con- 

 struction upon a hollow foundation. It illustrates as well a specific 

 psychological fallacy: that of exaggerating the significance of traits in 

 which we have an interest. It is the general human appeal of the face 

 and its expression and its place in human intercourse that supplies the 

 interest so readily abused by popular writers or commercial charlatans. 

 It is just this realm of loose analogy and unchecked ambitious con- 

 clusions that attracts feeble minds with a taste for speculation and an 

 inclination for the occult, the bizarre, the esoteric; such a taste, as if 

 to appease a neglected, logical conscience, usually finds refuge in a 

 practical semblance of verification. It is this combination of interests 

 that supports physiognomy or phrenology, palmistry or fortune-telling, 

 and (with an altered complexion) Christian Science or Theosophy, — 

 in which latter examples cures or miracles instead of readings supply 

 the realistic support.' 



A possible redeeming feature of Lavater's work is his recognition of 

 facial expression as worthy of study; in this he followed the leadership 

 of the artist LeBrun. Expression is much more generic and more 

 readily interpreted than are peculiarities of feature. In such biblical 

 maxims as " though a wicked man constrain his countenance, the wise 

 can distinctly discern his purpose," Lavater found a text for his 

 exposition. Of the true meaning of expression, so far as it was 

 possible before Darwin, he had slight understanding. His physiog- 

 nomical sense conferred no physiological comprehension. Indeed, so 

 far as he ventured into the biological territory, he reverted to the older 

 notions, and made fish and fowl and even insects reveal their character 

 by their effects upon the human impression. In an engraving of the 

 heads of snakes he pointed out the reprobate qualities distinguishable in 

 their form, the deceit of their colors, and the naturalness with which we 

 shrink from such a countenance. The logic of physiognomy, ancient 

 or modern, learned or ignorant, is of one kinship; it is the family 

 associations that in time and circumstance come to be less and less 

 respectable. 



The next and last stage in the antecedents of the study of char- 

 acter presented a new role, or, it may be, an old one in a new and 

 distinctive costume. In its practical eSect and later career it resembles 

 the system of Lavater, and invited yet greater popular abuse. Its 

 founder was Dr. Franz Joseph Gall (1757-1828) ; and it achieved 

 popularity under the name of Phrenology. While Lavater stood be- 

 yond the pale of the scientific activity of his day. Gall was an influential 

 part of it. Gall's scientific service must be acknowledged even if he be 

 held responsible for the extravagances of phrenology. The system was 



3 For the general subject I may refer to my volume: "Fact and Fable in 

 Psychology," 1900. 



