CHAPTER I. BASIC PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTIFIC PHYSIOGNOMY. "The mind is invisible to those who understand not the body of physiognomy." -WINKLEMAN. L AVATER defines physiognomy to be the "art or science of discerning the character of the mind from the features of the face, or the art of discovering the predominant temper or other characteristic qualities of the mind by the form of the body, but especially by the external signs of the countenance, or the combination of the features." This definition scientific physiognomy accepts in so far as it relates to the human species, but extends it in a more comprehensive manner so as to include all animate and even inanimate nature. The form of every rock, tree, animal, and object in existence has come by design, and is self-revealing as to its true character. That we fail in many instances to comprehend the meaning of certain forms observed in Nature is due to our lack of acute observation, or want of comparison, or ignorance of the meaning and significance of the basic principles of form,—a science which this system of physiognomy undertakes to unfold and apply to the human and animal face and body, as well as to vegetable and mineral formations. It is logical to infer that form has general laws which are selfrevealing. Without knowledge of these general laws we must forever remain in ignorance of most of Nature's meanings in regard to the myriad things in the universe. Without some principles of form to guide us, character remains a scaled book; but Nature has equipped many if not most of her children with faculties suited to the true interpretation of signs which are thrown out in the most affluent manner by every form in existence. Nature's hieroglyphics are easily deciphered by the keen observer, and the facial signs of every human creature can be understood by those who are willing to study and apply the basic principles of form. In entering upon the study of physiognomy, or mental science, it will be well if we consider briefly the methods formerly employed by metaphysicians in the investigation of the science of mind, and then, as we proceed to contrast them and their results with the 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 |