system which I shall present to your attention,-a system which has occupied the best thought of thirty-five years of my life,-you will doubtless ask what relation there is between the human physiognomy and metaphysical theories. If we were intending to confine our study to ancient metaphysics or even modern metaphysics and theological theories of the mind, I should be compelled to answer that there is no relation between them, since these two classes of thinkers confined themselves to speculations merely and sought no solution in the investigation of the mechanism through which mind is manifested. Modern scientific observers, however, pursue the study of mind by investigating the body it inhabits and of which it is a part, and, as the face is proven to be the index or register of the entire organism (which you will acknowledge as we proceed), we are compelled to study the mechanism within the body which we find to be the moving cause of those expressions, forms, and colors that reveal to us the mind or character of the individual. It Our knowledge of the history of mental science reaches far back into the age of Grecian civilization. The philosophical or metaphysical method of studying the human mind was coeval with the age in which configuration or sculpture reached its acme. was also coeval with the creation of the greatest epic poems, of some of the grandest dramas and most sublime orations known to man. In short, it was an age of art, not of science. The great metaphysicians of Greece,-Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Thales, Pythagoras, Anixamander, and many other ancient philosophers, -however they may have differed in their several systems of philosophy, all alike believed in and used one common method of investigating mind. This method consisted in the investigation of self-consciousness, that is to say, an observation of the manner in which the mental processes-viz., those of memory, reason, will, comprehension, and perception-were carried on in the mind of the observer. Each philosopher sat in judgment, as it were, on his own method of thought, etc., and then gave to his investigations the name of "mental science." Observations were pursued in this manner by all of the Greek thinkers, without any reference to bodily conditions, with the single exception of Aristotle, whose researches in natural history among insects, birds, and beasts, had given him greater insight into the origin and development of mind, both in the lower animals and in man. He, beyond all the other philosophers of his age, possessed a better comprehension of the physiology and anatomy of animal organisms, together with a very moderate knowledge of the physiology of man. The superstitions of his age prevented the dissection of human bodies, and thus these philosophers were cut off from pursuing one practical and scientific method of studying mind. For two thousand years these impractical systems of mental science dominated the world of thought, then the great Bacon arose and began the study of mind from an entirely different standpoint. His studies in the practical sciences-he having been the inventor, it is said, of the telescope, air-pump, diving-bell, and of gun-powder, besides having written very learnedly upon optics, chemistry, medicine, mathematics, and many other sciences-naturally led him to adopt a scientific method of investigating mind; but as very little more of physiology was known in his day than in the age of Aristotle, his writings on mental science are not as reliable as those of the more modern thinkers, yet his method was an advance on those preceding him. The circulation of the blood was not discovered by Harvey until four hundred years after the death of Bacon; the construction and operation of the heart, liver, lungs, and brain were not known until still later periods. How, then, can it be expected that a knowledge of the mind of man could be studied or comprehended without an intimate knowledge of his bodily functions? The subjective method (as it is denominated) of the ancients would not have seemed so impractical a mode of studying mind, had all persons been alike normally constituted; but so large a proportion of persons are insane (it is now estimated that one in five hundred is so at the present day, and there are also many undeveloped races in existence, and were then, as well as children who are also in a state of undevelopment), that if the subjective method is to be employed, we should never know anything at all about these several classes of beings who form a large proportion of our population. Now, in any system of mental science, to ignore the knowledge of the character of all children, of all undeveloped races, and persons such as idiots, imbeciles, and the insane, as well as those who are laboring under temporary aberration and weakness of mind of every degree whatsoever, is to deprive mankind of the most useful and necessary part of the knowledge of himself; hence any system of mental science which fails to treat of these several classes, together with the means for their improvement, cannot be considered either practical or scientific. In order to understand the human mind practically, we must commence with its first manifestations in childhood. It was in this manner that Locke, so justly celebrated for his wonderful essay on the "Human Understanding," commenced the investigation of mind in the eighteenth century. He considered the nature of children and of savage races. He was the first metaphysician who made any decided advance in the method of studying, investigating, and interpreting the human mind, and this advance was due to his observation of Nature, by his discarding the old metaphysical methods, and by basing his laws upon observations made on living subjects. He first observed natural phenomena in children and savages, and then, by generalizing, was able to discover the laws underlying the actions of the individuals thus observed. He also made observations among animals, and here the investigator will find corroboration of many laws which are recognized in the human family. Modern writers of the greatest eminence, among whom we find the celebrated M. de Quatrefages, Mr. Herbert Spencer, Mr. Darwin, Dr. H. Maudsley, and Professor Huxley, all agree in their methods of investigating character by first observing plants and animals. M. de Quatrefages, in his celebrated work on "The Human Species," remarks: Now, plants and animals have been studied for a much longer period than man, and from an exclusively scientific point of view, without any trace of the prejudice and party feeling which interferes with the study of man. Without having penetrated very deeply into all the secrets of animal and vegetable life, science has acquired a certain number of fixed and indisputable results, which constitute a foundation of positive knowledge and a safe starting-point. Whenever there is any doubt of the nature or significance of a phenomenon observed in man, the corresponding phenomena must be examined in animals and even in plants. They must be compared with what takes place in ourselves, and the results accepted as they are exhibited. What is true of other organized beings cannot but be true of man. This method is incontestably scientific. Every solution which makes or tends to make man an exception from those laws which govern other organized and living beings is unsound and unscientific.* Dr. Maudsley asserts: The study of the plan of the development of mind as exhibited in the animal, the barbarian, and the infant furnishes results of the greatest value, and is as essential to a true mental science as the study of its development is to a full knowledge of the bodily organism. Those who have read Lavater's renowned work on physiognomy, will doubtless look for some theoretical testimony from his facile and prolific pen. Now, although Lavater wrote many volumes on physiognomy, and was himself a great intuitional physiognomist, he was, unfortunately, not a scientific student. He says of himself that he did not understand anatomy and physiology, and without a thorough knowledge of these sciences it is impossible to found a system of physiognomy. At the same time, such was his rare gift of observation and correct intuition, and such his ardor, * The Human Species, M. de Quatrefages, p. 27. that, added to his noble character and purity of life, it enabled him to revive the belief in physiognomy, which had waned during the middle ages, or had become classed with the "black art" and works of magic. And this pure-minded minister of the gospel was received at the courts of kings and princes, and his observations and researches were hailed with enthusiasm by the most eminent men of his day. His writings, although they lack system and are really what he terms them, "Fragments" merely, restored physiognomy to that rank which it had held in the estimation of man two thousand years before, when such great minds as Plato, Galen, Aristotle, Pliny, Cicero, Seneca, Hippocrates, and others as learned and renowned, had written upon and taught physiognomy as an art. From Lavater's day to the present, a period of over one hundred years, inventions and discoveries of mechanical instruments and principles have given us means of investigating the human body and mind, wholly unknown to any former age of the world. THEORY OF PRACTICAL AND SCIENTIFIC PHYSIOGNOMY. The theory of mental science which I shall present to you is the most advanced and comprehensive that has ever been offered to the world, and to the discoveries made by the microscope and in anatomy and physiology I am largely indebted for the discoveries which I have made in this department of science. Let it be understood at the outset, that physiognomy teaches and proves that the mind and body are a unity, acting in unison and harmony; that all mental power is originated primarily by sensation; that all parts of the body contribute to mental action; that the heart, the liver, the lungs, the kidneys, the glands, the muscles, the bones, the nerves, and all other organs are each instrumental in creating and assisting mental efforts. This system also teaches that there is a unity of action and universality of law running from the lowest creation, the inorganic or mineral, up to the highest, the animal and human kingdoms. It shows, too, that all form has meaning and character, that every form observed in Nature is shaped by law and design, and discloses the character of the mineral, plant, tree, or animal under observation. This system of physiognomy goes still farther. It proves that certain physical functions are directly related to and sustain certain mental faculties. The idea that all or nearly all parts of the body contribute to mental action was vaguely perceived by some anatomists in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Sir Charles Bell remarks that he had a dim though strong conception that it was an who made any decided advance in the method of studying, investigating, and interpreting the human mind, and this advance was due to his observation of Nature, by his discarding the old metaphysical methods, and by basing his laws upon observations made on living subjects. He first observed natural phenomena in children and savages, and then, by generalizing, was able to discover the laws underlying the actions of the individuals thus observed. He also made observations among animals, and here the investigator will find corroboration of many laws which are recognized in the human family. Modern writers of the greatest eminence, among whom we find the celebrated M. de Quatrefages, Mr. Herbert Spencer, Mr. Darwin, Dr. H. Maudsley, and Professor Huxley, all agree in their methods of investigating character by first observing plants and animals. M. de Quatrefages, in his celebrated work on "The Human Species," remarks: Now, plants and animals have been studied for a much longer period than man, and from an exclusively scientific point of view, without any trace of the prejudice and party feeling which interferes with the study of man. Without having penetrated very deeply into all the secrets of animal and vegetable life, science has acquired a certain number of fixed and indisputable results, which constitute a foundation of positive knowledge and a safe starting-point. Whenever there is any doubt of the nature or significance of a phenomenon observed in man, the corresponding phenomena must be examined in animals and even in plants. They must be compared with what takes place in ourselves, and the results accepted as they are exhibited. What is true of other organized beings cannot but be true of man. This method is incontestably scientific. Every solution which makes or tends to make man an exception from those laws which govern other organized and living beings is unsound and unscientific.* Dr. Maudsley asserts: The study of the plan of the development of mind as exhibited in the animal, the barbarian, and the infant furnishes results of the greatest value, and is as essential to a true mental science as the study of its development is to a full knowledge of the bodily organism. Those who have read Lavater's renowned work on physiog nomy, will doubtless look for some theoretical testimony from his facile and prolific pen. Now, although Lavater wrote many volumes on physiognomy, and was himself a great intuitional physiognomist, he was, unfortunately, not a scientific student. He says of himself that he did not understand anatomy and physiology, and without a thorough knowledge of these sciences it is impossible to found a system of physiognomy. At the same time, such was his rare gift of observation and correct intuition, and such his ardor * The Human Species, M. de Quatrefages, p. 27. |