London Philosophical Society. 389 



the future progress he intends to pursue, in analysing the 

 Hieroglyphical and investigating the Philosophical Lan- 

 guage. 



He began by remarking the rapid conquest which the 

 theory had made over incredulity since the time of Lava- 

 ter; and stated it as a proof of its general soundness, that 

 it should not only be tacitly assented to by the learned, but 

 be received as an axiom (which had really been the case) 

 into ordinary journals and newspapers. 



Mr. Clarkson conceived that Lavater had not reduced 

 physiognomy to a science by induction and logical analysis, 

 and this was the great desideratum for which he had under- 

 taken the subject. The basis on which he founded his su- 

 perstructure was, that we judge of every thing in the world, 

 of animals, vegetables, and minerals, by superficial appear- 

 ances. This superficial judgement is therefore as correct, 

 with regard to man, as any other part of matter of which 

 he forn)S a jwrtion. But it does not involve the conse- 

 quence, that human nature may read as in a volume, from 

 the index of the face, the past or future history of an in- 

 dividual subject. Undoubtedly, Mr. C. observed, an un- 

 erring physiognomical judgement must bean attainment of 

 long and laborious initiation ; for, if every individual of all 

 those numerous multitudes who have by turns possessed the 

 globe differed in external characteristics, the shades of dif- 

 ference must be minute in the extreme for infinite variety 

 to be written on so small a tablet as the human face : — still, 

 if the infinite variety of characters in the Chinese or Hie- 

 roglyphical languages could be faithfully distinguished, 

 those of the face are equally capable of distinction ; — they 

 are more so, because the roots of these characters, viz. the 

 Passions, are known to all men ; — the modifications of 

 these roots, therefore, are all that remain to be understood. 

 Mr. C. then entered into a disiinction between Paihogno- 

 my and Physiognomy. The first he defined to be passion 

 in action, the latter in quiescence. The former was ac- 

 knowledged by all, the latter denied by few ; but if it could 

 be proved that certain lineaments were the provinces of cer- 

 tain emotions and passions, an immoveable fulcrum was 

 obtained on which to rest the physiognomical lever, — be- 

 cause nothing remained but to prove that the admitted ac- 

 tion left traces proportionable to the power exerted. After 

 having demonstrated the former point from paintings and 

 from plates of the passions, he proceeded to prove the lat- 

 ter by syllogism as well as by experience. For if the nerves 



and 



