TWENTY- THIBD ANNUAL MEETING. 69 



emotional expression right into the foundation forms in which are the true sym- 

 bols of the mind's nature." Or as Henry Fielding puts it, "I conceive the passions 

 of men do commonly imprint sufficient marks on the countenance, and it is owing 

 chiefly to the want of skill in the observer that physiognomy is of so little credit in 

 the world." Noble old Bacon hath it that "the lineaments of the body do disclose 

 the disposition and mind in general; but the motions of the countenance do not 

 only so, but do further disclose the present humor and state of the mind and will. 

 Although physiognomy and related sciences have of late years been used to be 

 coupled with superstitious and fantastical arts, yet, being purged and restored to 

 their true state, have a solid ground in nature and are profitable in life." But 

 Lavater, charlatan that he is, in spite of his sentimental assumption of character 

 and mind-reading power and his fantastic use of physiognomy, has much to say 

 that is of value and interest, when his voluminous observations can be culled of his 

 intuitive and self-evolved philosophy. He says, truthfully, ( Physiognomy, 1793): 

 "He is a weak and simple person who affirms that all faces affect him alike. . . . 

 The eye, the nose, the mouth, the forehead — whether considered in a state of rest or 

 during their innumerable varieties of action — whatever is understood by physiog- 

 nomy, are the most expressive, the most convincing picture of interior sensations, 

 passions, will, etc , in fine, of all those properties which exalt the moral nature above 

 animal life. . . . Physiognomy is the science or knowledge of the correspondence 

 between the external and internal man — the visible superficies and invisible contents. 

 It is, properly so called, the observation of character at rest, which is displayed in 

 the form and appearance of the movable parts while at rest. Character impas- 

 sioned is manifested by the movable parts in motion." Many grains of truth and 

 reason may be gathered from the pseudo-scientist, Lavater's, ramblings, but the 

 gathering requires the winnowing out of a deal of chaff. In replying to scoffers, 

 he well says: "The human countenance, that mirror of Divinity, that noblest of the 

 works of the Creator — shall not motive and action, shall not correspondence be- 

 tween the interior and the exterior, the visible and invisible, the cause and effect, 

 be there apparent ?" Or again: "All men (this is indisputable), absolutely all men, 

 estimate all things whatever by their physiognomy, their exterior superficies. By 

 observing these on every occasion they draw their conclusions concerning their 

 internal properties." Truly no one could dispute such a self-evident truth; but 

 then he goes on and loads it down with such a burden of fantasy about character- 

 reading that, while he disclaims any such intention, he has done little to redeem 

 physiognomy from its degr;iding association with chiromancy and the occult arts, 

 and it remained what it had been for centuries — the synonym of quackery and im- 

 posture. Yet he wrote a great, if curious, work. It marked an era in the study 

 of physiognomy, although his science is a burlesque and his philosophy a travesty. 

 It has been said that "Lavater was guided in his estimates of character by a rapid 

 intuition, by a kind of restricted perception, and his assurance of truth was but 

 unintelligent conviction." His great work was too popular in style, and too unsys- 

 tematic, to be of any great value to the world. 



But, "to symbolize is not, indeed, the chief object of the construction of the 

 bodily parts, nor of the features of the face. The general law of symbolic construc- 

 tion is that form is made to be significant without interfering with the fitness of 

 parts for other purposes than those of symbolizing," as a writer says. In other 

 words, the physiognomical function does not interfere with the physiological func- 

 tion, nor vice versa. "The features in which the symbols are most evident, have the 

 fitness for breathing, speech, etc., or their primary design. But their being perfect 

 for these purposes does not hinder their having also a symbolical meaning." 



"The body and the mind, the sign and the thing signified do not correspond as 



