PHRENOLOGY AND PHYSIOGNOMY. ,9%^ 



heads, he would find they had large perceptive faculties (particularly 

 Form, Size, and Number) and the reasoning faculties ample. 

 When the late excellent Dr. Spurzheim lectured in Cambridge, he 

 pointed out the very large organ of Number in Professor Airy, 

 without knowing who he was. 



All that can be said for Physiognomy, in reference to the intelli- 

 gence of persons, is, that it can recognise a person of general good 

 talent, without explaining the details, or his particular excellence ; 

 and it will also point out an idiotic person, but without specifying 

 whether he is wholly or only partially so. But Phrenology can ac- 

 complish these distinctions in both cases. 



Physiognomy is of some value in extreme cases of the animal pro- 

 pensities, though even then it is rather something almost instinc- 

 lively recognised than actually comprehended. But its data are so 

 vague and undefined that it is an imperfect guide, often misleading 

 the judgment. This is easily accounted for, as the modifications of 

 human character depend on many and dissimilar causes, yet in every 

 instance the effects are to individualize each person. It must, 

 therefore, be a very difficult task to furnish a theory to explain such 

 difi^erences as the modifications in the outward and visible signs, 

 which must be as numerous as they are evanescent. If we examine 

 national expression, for example, we find a certain general form of 

 feature, but modified by such imperceptible shades that still there 

 are not two faces exactly alike. What produces these results ? — the 

 mental faculties, imparting, by their almost iTinumerable combina- 

 tions, some slight difference to the muscles of the face in general, 

 and of the mouth, nostrils, eye-lid, &c., in particular. It is the 

 vagueness which such fleeting impressions produce that increases the 

 great difficulties of comprehending the commonplace in human cha- 

 racter. We may immediately determine strong-marked cases, such 

 as the confirmed sensualist, the savage, the revengeful, the stubborn, 

 the proud, the vain, the sly and cunning, the ingenuous, the timid, 

 the brave, &c., but what rules have we to discriminate, with any 

 accuracy, persons who are very revengeful but who can conceal 

 their feelings? or those who, with the most sensual and animal 

 pursuits, assume the character for being religious and moral agents ? 

 In short, how are we to indicate cases when there are the greatest 

 anomalies in the sum total of the character ? Hence the following 

 may be taken as a strictly legitimate estimate of the actual value of 

 Physiognomy : — 1st. That, as far as the intellectual qualifications 

 of any individual are concerned, only a general notion can be ob- 

 tained ; 2nd. That we can only trust to its rules in extreme cases 



