PHYSIOGNOMISTS
(Poyntz, Albany 1845 A World of Wonders, Chaper 11)
(Investigator #221, 2025 March)
The world and its inhabitants are still exposed to a
variety of grievous afflictions and visitations in spite of the infallible
nostrums for preventing them, in general use; which appears surprising when we
consider the number of able scientific men constantly devoted to the study of
our physical nature, and the plausible novel theories which they every now and
then unfold to the world. Let those who devote themselves to the study of
physiological science persevere in their researches; which if not valuable to
others are at least amusing to themselves. According to the Abbé Cottin’s line,
“The pleasure is to learn and not to know.”
Between the successive systems of Lavater and Gall, we give
the decided preference to the latter; the studies and experiments upon which
are founded on principles equally applicable to all human beings, whatever
their condition, sex, age, or habits; whether belonging to an uncultivated or civilised state; while
all other systems for promoting the knowledge of human character, gravitate in
a sphere more or less exceptional; so that the application could never become
general. An eminent magistrate used to pretend that he could capitally convict
a man by a sight of his handwriting; and many people affect to pronounce upon
the shades and variations of human character on a similar indication.
Considering the number of persons ignorant of the
calligraphic art, we almost prefer the system of the barber of Picard, who
needed only to shave a man to judge of his disposition!
All the inferential systems that now command our attention
were subjects of contemplation to the ancients. Human physiognomy, above all,
must have ever presented a subject of powerful interest. It is a daily object
of reflection to all men, though unperceived by ourselves. A countenance
pleases or displeases us at first sight; yet we know not whether it be beauty
that charms, or the want of it that repels us. A face which charms one man,
disgusts another. Such a person is said to have a happy countenance, such
another, an unhappy one, on which the former may be felicitated, the latter
pitied; but it is most unfair to deduce from such evidence the existence of
good qualities in the one, or vices and defects in the[Pg 85] other. Such, however, is the elementary study
of Physiognomy, and such the delusion which our antipathies often create.
Dimension and proportion first attracted the attention of
the philosophers. Aristotle compares a man whose head possesses extraordinary
volume to an owl; while Albertus Magnus looks upon him as an idiot; and the
physician, Porta, significantly informs us that Vitellius had an immense head.
If, on the contrary, a man possess a cerebrum of the usual circumference, but
exceeding by a little the volume of ordinary heads, the same authors regard him
as a man of superior intelligence, endowed with a noble soul, a brilliant and
fertile imagination; and, as an example, adduce the head of Plato which
exceeded in proportion the remainder of his body. Alexander the Great had a
small head, compared even with his person, which as is well known was
diminutive.
The quality and colour of the hair was likewise a subject
of speculative theory for the ancients. Lank hair was considered indicative of
pusillanimity and cowardice; yet the head of Napoleon was guiltless of a curl!
Frizzly hair was thought an indication of coarseness and clumsiness. The hair
most in esteem, was that terminating in ringlets. Dares, the historian, states
that Achilles and Ajax Telamon had curling locks; such also was the hair of
Cymon, the Athenian. As to the Emperor Augustus, nature had favoured[Pg 86] him with such redundant
looks, that no hair-dresser in Rome could produce the like. Auburn or light
brown hair was thought the most distinguished, as portending intelligence,
industry, a peaceful disposition, as well as great susceptibility to the tender
passion. Castor and Pollux had brown hair; so also had Menelaus. Black hair
does not appear to have been esteemed by the Romans; but red was an object of
aversion. Ages before the time of Judas, red hair was thought a mark of
reprobation, both in the case of Typhon, who deprived his brother of the
sceptre of Egypt, and Nebuchednezzar who acquired it in expiation of his
atrocities. Even the donkey tribe suffered from this ill-omened visitation,
according to the proverb of “wicked as a red ass.” Asses of that colour were
held in such detestation among the Copths, that every year they sacrificed one
by hurling it from a high wall.
Next in importance to the hair, were the ears; the size and
shape of which harmless cartilages, supplied important conjectures. According
to Aristotle, large ears are indicative of imbecility; while small ones
announce madness. Ears which are flat, point out the rustic and brutal man.
Those of the fairest promise, are firm and of middling size. Happy the man who
boasts of square ears; a sure indication of sublimity of soul and purity of
life. Such, according to Suetonius, were the ears of the Emperor Augustus.
Having considered the conformation of the head, the colour and
quality of the hair, and the shape of the ears, let us treat of the complexion;
of which the most unfavourable is the yellow, livid, or leaden, like those of
Caligula, Attila, and the most notorious tyrants of the olden time. The eyes
should neither be too large nor too little; the first announcing laziness, like
those of the ox. Such were the eyes of Domitian, the vainest, most inert, and
cowardly of men. Upon this point, Aristotle is at complete variance with Homer;
who is so enraptured with large eyes, that, in order to define the beauty of
those of Juno, he names her Boopis or “ox-eyed.” Neither large nor small
eyes afford proof of intellect; and no person who is not afflicted with
squinting has any right to complain.
It is usual to consider large eyes the finest, a prejudice
so universal, that it is commonly said, “She is ugly, certainly; but then she
has such fine eyes!”—or, “She is a pretty woman; but her eyes are too small.”
Whereas neither form nor dimension constitutes the beauty or influence of eyes;
but rather their expression. The colour of eyes is a mere matter of taste;
though Aristotle asserts that persons gifted with almond shaped blue eyes, are
frank and intelligent; with brown, clever and good; with green, courageous and
enterprising. As to black eyes, Aristotle pronounces them to be the sure
prognostics[Pg 88] of timidity
and pusillanimity. Red eyes are indicative of bad temper. The gossips of France
have quite as good a theory as that of Aristotle; viz: that “Les yeux bleus
vont aux cieux; les yeux gris, en Paradis; les yeux noirs, en purgatoire, les
yeux verts, en enfer!”
Bushy eyebrows are indicative of a brutal obstinate and
impious character; long eyebrows, of arrogance, and insolence; spare eyebrows,
of effeminacy and cowardice. But if they are thick, flexible, and parallel, you
may rely on a sound judgment and superior wisdom. Such are ever the brows of
Jupiter; attesting the theory of Aristotle.
The question of noses occupies a prominent place in
theories of the human physiognomy. The flat nose is indicative of a propensity
to pleasure and luxury; the pointed, of ill-temper and frivolity; a deviation
from the straight line, of a disposition to malice and repartee. Since the days
of Aristotle, this opinion has been permanent; a crooked nose, being the attribute
of a satirical mind. The owner of a diminutive nose, is usually cunning and
dissimulating; of a large nose, imprudent and discourteous.
Let us here observe, that if there be one feature in the
human face more characteristic than another, it is the nose. Examine the head
of a skeleton which exhibits trace of human features, save the nasal bone;
which though prominent, is an integral part of the cerebral globe. Now if the brain be the seat
of intelligence, may not the nose be influenced by its propinquity to the
brain? Humbly submitting this question to the consideration of science, we
proceed to consider the theories of other speculators.
Amongst Europeans, the Italians rank first for beauty of
nose; the Dutch, for the excessive ugliness of that feature. The English nose
is apt to be thick and cartilaginous; that of the Jews, somewhat crooked. In
France, almost every man of genius has had a well-formed nose. Short and flat
noses, so censured by Aristotle, still rank low in the science of physiognomy.
Socrates, however, was a singular instance of a hideous nose. Boerhaave and
Gibbon possessed one of the same disagreeable form.
The mouth attracted the notice of the ancients as much as
the nose. A moderate mouth was, in their estimation, a symbol of courage,
capacity, and nobleness of heart. The indication indeed was infallible when
accompanied with a square and well-formed chin, an expansive forehead, and firm
and rosy cheeks. The Greeks did not confine their observations to the head and
face in forming a judgment of the moral and intellectual faculties; but
regarded every component part of the human frame. Since, however, we are more
discreetly clothed than the Greeks, we decline following their researches. The
eyelids, nails, moles, and even teeth, were taken into consideration: more especially the
latter, as indicative of the workings of the mind. If authentic, the science of
physiognomy would be universally studied, for how useful would it be to detect
the good or evil qualities of man or woman by a glance at their faces! As it
stands at present, however, many false inferences would be made. For instance,
we are told that well shaped blue eyes, portend intelligence and frankness;
qualities incompatible with a sound nose. But if found together, as is often
the case, what is to be decided between two positive contradictions, the nose
rendering impossible the virtues promised by the eyes? The indications of the
mouth and eyebrows may be equally at variance; and physiognomy presents a
tissue of similar contradictions.
Having established the fallacy of the physiognomical
system, we must nevertheless render homage to the sagacity of Lavater, to his
ingenious and fascinating system, and conscientious enthusiasm for an art which
he has enriched with much valuable observations, and endeavoured to elevate
into a science. Lavater was sincerely devoted to his art, which predominated
over every other idea, and exalted his imagination to such a degree, that he
became rather the poet than the disciple of physiognomy. Gifted with a highly
impressionable nature, the countenances of certain persons used to haunt his
memory; and in early life, he made such striking inferences from certain physiognomies, that he
was induced to persist in his studies.
"My first attempts," said he, "were pitiful. Required to
furnish a discourse to the Society of Sciences at Zurich, I decided upon the
theme of physiognomy, and composed it with heedlessness and precipitation.
"I was censured, praised, and laughed at; and could not
refrain from smiling, well aware how much of this was undeserved. At this
moment, my physiognomical convictions are so strong that I decide upon certain
faces with as absolute a certainty as of my existence."
The sincerity of Lavater is undeniable. But even had we his
convictions, we should hesitate to decide in favour of the infallibility or
applicability of his system; which is more the result of a peculiar personal
sagacity, constantly on the watch, than the efficacy of the art. A man may be
born a physiognomist. But to become one by mere force of study, is next to
impossible.
Zopirus was doubtless a great physiognomist. One day, on
entering the school of Socrates, he pronounced, at a glance, a man who was
present to be extremely vicious; and his conjecture was correct. But such
sweeping applications of the art of physiognomy would sanction calumny, by
allowing the accidents of nature to be made a test of character; when the influence of
religion, reason, or education might have successfully subdued them. Were such
a verdict held good, a fatal impediment would be placed against all moral
improvement. Refinement of intellect is often connected with a coarse exterior;
and the most prepossessing physiognomy with the grossest violations of decency.
“A pretty woman deficient in sense,” says Madame de Staël, "is a flower without
fragrance;" and how many scentless flowers of this kind are to be met with in
society!—The face of the esteemed La Fontaine was that of an idiot.
Jean
Jacques Rousseau was remarkable for a stupid serenity of countenance, wholly at
variance with the impetuous and volcanic nature of his mind. The face of
Fénélon was devoid of all expression. I have heard of two brothers, one possessing
a charming countenance, and yet a rascal; the other, a villainous face, yet a
perfectly honest man. Moreover, our features are constantly varying; and if our
moral and intellectual faculties are to be inferred from these changes, how are
we to establish or follow up any fixed principle, amid such a labyrinth of
confusion? A system based upon the general development of the brain is far more
rational; because the lobes of the brain are born with us, and if time develop
them, it is in manifest proportions.
We admit, therefore, the talents of certain individuals for
pronouncing upon the characters of men, according to their physiognomy; and that they may, by constant
practice, enhance this personal aptitude. Individuals educated for a diplomatic
career, ought not to neglect this study, proficiency in which is essential to
their success. To divine, yet never be divined; to read the physiognomy of
others, while your own is devoid of expression, formed one of the grand secrets
of Monsieur de Talleyrand. Most people who converse with a multiplicity of
persons become physiognomists; and if mistaken in their judgments, are less
often so than those who have intercourse with few. But the civilized man is so
different from the being pure from the hands of his Creator, that any system
comprising confusedly the state of nature and of civilization must necessarily
be fallacious.
Study Lavater, therefore, and practice his art as a
recreation among friends; but make no serious conclusions drawn from physiognomical
rules, which abound in contradictions.
Let us now proceed to point out the similitudes of feature
betwixt certain men and certain animals. Though we were created after the image
of God, many theorists establish physiognomical analogies between man and the
animal race. These speculators pretend that every human being had his
correspondent beast in this world; just as every good Christian has his patron
among the elect of Paradise. Charles Lebrun, the favourite painter of Louis
XIV, was a zealous adherent to this theory. Before his time, Porta had devoted his attention to this
ancient supposition; and congratulated himself upon having detected a likeness
between the face of a setter and that of the divine Plato; an idea which prompted
further speculation. That a painter continually watching nature under every
aspect should be allured by such a theory, in which his practised eye has
compared and approximated objects, and detected similitudes unintelligible to
the vulgar, cannot be surprising. A mere hint, or trace suffices him for the
composition of a face, just as Cuvier recomposed the Mastodon by merely seeing
one of the bones.
After profound studies, Charles Lebrun concluded that every
human face had features more or less correspondant with those of the various
animal species. His opinion rested upon a diagram, uniting a quantity of
designs with an explanatory text. The designs still exist, but the text is not
forthcoming; though something is known of it by means of one of his pupils who
survived him. Lebrun could distinguish by a glance at an animal’s head, whether
it were carnivorous, or herbivorous, timid, or bold, peaceful, or ferocious. To
the bump on the higher part of the nose, he assigned the locality of courage.
To ascertain this endowment, either in man or animals, therefore, you had only
to cast an eye on the nose. "All men of eminence," said he, “have well
proportioned noses, of which the aquiline has ever been esteemed the most distinguished; probably
from its similitude to the beak of the king of the air—the eagle. The Persians
esteemed the aquiline nose so highly, that supreme power was inaccessible
without it. Cyrus, Artaxerxes, and every monarch who ever swayed the eastern
world, boasted of this mark of distinction.
Like all new theories, the paradoxes of Lebrun commanded
much attention, presenting a subject of inexhaustible controversy, as coming
within the scope of every one’s observation. According to the system of Lebrun,
the Great Condé enjoyed the distinction of possessing the most heroic nose in
the kingdom, which, of course, brought the system into credit. Examine the
designs of Lebrun. The analogy between certain men and animals there portrayed,
is most striking. But the skill of a clever artist contrives and exaggerates
resemblances, like the wit of the caricaturist, whose monstrosities, however
absurd, often exhibit a remarkable degree of likeness.
As regards mere physical analogy, nothing can be cleverer
than the works of Grandville, whose animals seem to emulate our absurdities,
habits, and manners. But Lebrun and his disciples looked upon the thing
seriously; instituting pernicious deductions from certain accidents of form,
and tending to approximate enlightened man to the brute creation. The
materialism thus inculcated, would lead to the most serious moral results.
https://investigatormagazine.net
|