[ 320 ] 
PHYSIO 
PHYSIOG'NOMY, or Physiognom'ony, f [from 
nature, and ywacnia, to know.] The art of difeover- 
ing the temper, and foreknowing the fortune, by the 
features of the face.—In all phyfiognomy, the lineaments 
of the body will difeover thole natural inclinations of the 
mind which diffimulation will conceal, or difcipline will 
fupprefs. Bacons Nat. Hijl .—The face; the calf of the 
look.—The end of portraits conlifts in exprefling the true 
temper of thofe perfons which it reprefents, and to make 
known their phyfiognomy. Dry den's Dufrefnoy .—The dif- 
tinguifliing characters of the face, and the lineaments of 
the body, grow more plain and vifible with time and age ; 
but the peculiar ■phyfiognomy of the mind is mod difeern- 
ible in children. Locke. 
The aftrologer, who fpells the ftars, 
Mi flakes his globes, and in h’er brighter eye 
Interprets heaven’s phyfiognomy. Cleaveland. 
By Physiognomy we now underftand the fcience of 
difeerning the mental faculties of man from his external 
form and aftions. This word, however, when firft ufed 
in Arid accordance with its derivation as given above, 
embraced all natural philofophy; fo that we find the 
early writers fpeaking of the phyfiognomy of planets, of 
birds, of beafls, &c. On the other hand, foine of the 
moderns have limited its meaning confiderably ; for they 
would have ns underftand by phyfiognomy that know¬ 
ledge only of mental operations, which may be gained 
from obferving the face in its quiefeent ftate ; and they 
ufe pathognomy to define the information we derive from 
the movements of the countenance. According to the 
fenfe we. have employed it in, it embraces all external 
figns of internal thought. Thus it includes pathognomy 
and craniology, now more commonly called phrenology., 
Before we begin to detail what is known of this fcience, 
it is necefiary to premife, that it has been much debated 
whether phyfiognomy altogether has any foundation in 
truth; whether the external form (unlefs in adftion) has 
any relation whatever to the internal powers. We an- 
fwer this queftion in the affirmative, becaufe the common 
and general opinion of mankind has long, though indeed 
unwillingly, favoured fuch a reply. In all ages the 
countenance and appearance of man have been the pafis- 
ports to the love or hatred of his fellow-creatures; 
and, fince fuch refults have been too common to allow 
us to attribute them to caprice, it is fair to enquire into 
their caufes. The fafts themfelves we believe none will 
difpute; for, though the fame features and forms do not 
equally pleafe all mankind, yet, it muft be remembered, 
that in other purfuits, as well as in phyfiognomy, we do 
not all obferve the fame points, nor are all pleafed with 
the fame perfections or difgufted with the fame defefls. 
Certain it is that the face has a peculiar language of its 
own ; a language which pointedly marks thofe flighter 
gradations of feeling, that w'ords fail to communicate. 
We obferve daily wdiat furprifing antipathies and affec¬ 
tions are dilplayed by children, or unfophifticated per¬ 
fons, towards others, for no reafon but their good or bad 
looks : and maturer age, though it corrects, does not en¬ 
tirely remove, the prejudices we acquired from phyfiogno- 
monical fenfation ; but we become more guarded in our 
expreffions of love or hate. 
Admitting thefe fads, the next queftion to be afked is, 
whether the impreffions made on our breafts by the face 
are capable of analyfis and defeription, and can be reduced 
to written rules; or whether they are infcrutable and 
indefcribable. The little progrefs which has been made in 
this ftudy might almoft incline us to the latter opinion, 
did we not confider that the phyfiognomift has to contend 
GNO M Y. 
with enormous difficulties,not the leaft ofwhich are a nearly 
total ignorance of the mind itfelf, an imperfeCt knowledge 
of the ftruCfure and functions of the nervous fyftem, and 
laftly the deficiency of language, which fails to afford 
names for hundreds of emotions which are neverthelefs 
unequivocally felt. 
It muft be remarked, in oppofition to the belief of phy¬ 
fiognomy, that, though pleafure or pain do refult from the 
contemplation of particular features, yet that fuch emo¬ 
tions may belong to that univerfal tafte for beauty in 
general, which, though it belongs to all, has never been 
accounted for. 
As to the hiftory of this fcience, it has been laid that 
the Egyptians knew fomething of it, and that Pythagoras 
brought it to Greece. In the latter country it certainly 
exifted; we find Zopyrus judging of Socrates from his 
countenance; and Plato alfo mentions the fubjeCL But 
the chief phyfiognomift among the Greeks was Ariftotle. 
He has left us nothing, however, worth knowing, except 
his method, which was to ftudy phyfiognomy in the indi¬ 
vidual, in the nation, and by comparifon with beafts; 
a fyftem of philofophical obfervation followed by moll 
phyfiognomifts of note, who have lived after him. Ex¬ 
cept Theophraftus, who wrote a good work on the phy¬ 
fiognomy of manners, generally fpeaking, the ancients 
did nothing of importance for this fcience ; for the Greeks 
mixed it with the art of divination, and the fame union 
obtained among the Romans. The authors of the latter 
notion, as Sailuft, Suetonius, Seneca, Pliny, and Cicero, 
contain only fotne loofe phyfiognomical remarks. In 
modern times nothing was written concerning phyfiog¬ 
nomy worth mention till Lavater’s grand work appear¬ 
ed. Lancifi, Haller, Buffon, Dr. Gurther, (Phil. Tranf. 
vol.xviii.) and Dr. Parfons, (Supplement to Phil. Tranl. 
vol. xliv.) wrote, indeed, fome interefting remarks ; but 
they were confined chiefly to pathognomy ; and the dif- 
culfion of Pernethy and Le Cat, as well as the curfory re¬ 
marks of others, tended rather to eftablifli the advantages 
proper of phyfiognomical knowledge when known, and the 
mode of ftudying it, than to furnilh actual obfervations. 
The indefatigable induftry, the profound enthufiafm, 
and amiable philanthropy, which diftinguifti the work of 
Lavater, would entitle it to a high rank in the records of 
fame, had not thefe qualities been overbalanced by an 
imagination which knew no bounds in its flights, by a 
temperament fuffering the moll exceflxve and unufual 
emotions, and by a method of reafoning entirely at 
variance with true logical deduflion. Certainly, how¬ 
ever, Lavater paid more attention to the indications of 
the countenance, while in a quiefeent ftate, than any one 
did before him; and he extended-phyfiognomical rules, 
which till his time were confined to the foft parts, to the 
bony profile, and the contours of the different afpefts. 
But one of his mo ft important remarks was that on the 
general conformity or adaptation of the feparate features 
one to another: he faid, that features beautiful in them- 
felves were often, by the mode in which they were joined, 
extremely ludicrous or difgufting. Moreover Lavater 
never overlooked the various accidental circumftances, as 
drefs, difeafe, &c. which might alter the appearance of 
the face. But, with all this, it would be difficult to find 
a work containing more abfurd pofitions, or erroneous 
ways of proving them, than are found in this author’s 
Physiognomy. Such are his remarks on his own face.; 
his pofition, that the phyfiognomift muft be a fine and 
beautiful man ; his affertion, that when we think of any 
one, we affume a fimilarity of expreflion with the obje&o.f 
our thoughts; his notions of the importance of phyfiog¬ 
nomy, and thofe concerning the nature of apparitions. 
