PHY 
our readers not to form hafty conclufions from the ftudy 
of Phyfiognomy. We have fliown throughout, that there 
is nothing fixed and certainly known ; and that phyfical 
and moral caufes have, in many inftances, the fame effefts. 
Even to thofe who firmly believe the doflrines of Gall and 
Spurzheim, we muft requeft the fame flownefs in their 
conclufions ; for the molt careful obfervers can form no 
clear eftimate of the fize of the head, until they have 
take!) accurate (hades of it in three directions, and exa¬ 
mined thefe with mathematical precifion. How abfurd, 
then, it mult be to be guided in our opinions of mankind 
by the inaccurate and curfory obfervations that the eye 
can make, more efpecially when a particular mufcular 
aCtion,or other adventitious circumftances, tend fo (trongly 
to deceive our penetration. We are compelled to advert, 
in this place, to a circumftance that has recently occurred 
in France, becaufe it exemplifies Itrongly this ridiculous 
haftinefs in adopting novel doCtrines. We allude to the 
faCi, that an examination of a criminal’s head has been 
required in a French court of juftice. Well may we boaft 
the fuperiority of our judicial inlfitutions over thofe of 
our neighbours, when we fee the prefident of a court fo 
mifapplyinga doubtful fcience, as by its very admiffion 
to render any trial ufelefs, and any conviction unjuft. 
While on this topic, we may juft mention, that two 
affaflins, lately executed for cool and premeditated murder, 
are find to have had the organs of deftruCtivenefs deve¬ 
loped only in a minute degree. The names of the male¬ 
factors alluded to were Thurtell and Pallett; the former 
of whom, by his extraordinary character, raifed the cu- 
riofity of the phrenologifts in a wonderful degree. 
This difappointmer.t was followed by a hoax upon the' 
phrenologifts. A very (liort time ago, a gentleman found 
a large turnip in his field, (haped like a man’s head, and 
with the refemblance of the features of a man. Struck 
with the curiofity, he had a caft made from it, which 
he fent to the Phrenological Society, dating that it was 
taken from the head of Baron Turempourtz, a celebra¬ 
ted Polifli profeflor, and requefting their opinion there¬ 
on. After fitting in judgment, they fcientifically exa¬ 
mined the caft, in which they declared that they had 
difcovered an unufual prominence, which denoted that 
he was a man of an acute mind and deep refearch, that 
he had the organ of quick perception, and alfo of perfe- 
verance, with another that indicated credulity. The 
opinion was tranfmitted to the owner of the caft, with a 
letter, requefting as a particular favour that he would 
fend them the head. To this he politely replied, “that 
lie would willingly do fo, but was prevented, as he and 
his family had eaten it the day before with their mutton 
at dinner.” 
Upon the whole, viewing the many contradictions and 
errors both of Lavater, and of Gall and Spurzheim ; and 
confidering, that mankind in general have granted their 
PHY 338 
aflent to no one rule under either fyftem ; we cannot but 
conclude, that the efforts hitherto made for reducing 
phyfiognomy to a fcience, however praifeworthy, have 
been almoft nugatory. It is long fince the clofeft obfer- 
ver of human nature that ever exifted remarked, that 
There is no art 
To find the mind’s conftruCtion in the face;’ 
and, in the prefent ftate of our knowledge, we cannot 
confidently deny the truth of the aphorifm. 
The writer of this is bound in honour to give one 
more quotation from Lavater, left he might be thought 
to fupprefs it out of tendernefs to himfelf; for, (hould 
it be difcovered that he is an ugly rather than a hand- 
fome man, the (launch believers in Phyfiognomy may 
triumphantly declare him totally unfit for the ta(k he has 
undertaken. “ No one,” fays Lavater, “ whofe perfon 
is not well formed, can become a good phyfiognomift. 
Thofe painters were the belt whofe perfons were the 
handfomeft. Reubens, Vandyke, and Raphael, poffef- 
fing three gradations of beauty; poffeffed three gradations 
of the genius of painting. The phyfiognomifts of the 
greateftfymmetry %re the belt. As the mod virtuous can 
bed determine on virtue, fo can the mod handfome coun¬ 
tenances on the goodnefs, beauty, and noble traits, of the 
human countenance, and confequently on its defeCts and 
ignoble properties. Thefcarcity of human beauty is the 
reafon why phyfiognomy is fo much decried, and finds fo 
many opponents. No perfon, therefore, ought to enter 
the fanCluary of phyfiognomy, who has a debafed miftd, 
an ill-formed forehead, a blinking eye, or a diftorted 
mouth.” 
PHYSIOL'OGER, f. A phyfiologift. This is the old 
word. —He [Hobbes] was fanguineo-melancholicus, 
which the phyjiologers fay is the mod ingeniofe complex¬ 
ion. Aubrey's Atiecd. —He blames pliyjiologers for at¬ 
tempting to account for phaenomena, overlooking the 
to ayaAov and to Sbov. Bp. Berkeley's Siris. 
PHYSIOL'OGI, J. in botany, a name given by fome to 
thofe authors whofe writings tend to fet that ftudy in its 
cleared light, by explicating and enumerating the various 
difpofitions of the male and female parts in the flowers 
of plants. 
PHYSIOLOG'IC, or Physiological, adj. Relating 
to the dodtrine of the natural conftitution of things.— 
Some of them feem rather metaphyfical than phyjiological 
notions. Boyle. 
PHYSIOL'OGIST, f. One verfed in phyfiology; a 
w'riterof natural philofophy.—The national menagerie is 
collefted by thefirft pliyfiologijls of the times ; and it is 
defective in no defcription of favage nature. Burke's 
Letters. 
4 Q 
Vol, XX, No. 1371, 
PHY- - 
