velopment of the prominence, which indicates the existence of this faculty, the preservative of the species.

"The observations, which we have made on the Papous, the justness of which appears to us to be confirmed to a certain extent, by the study of the character of the individuals, who form the subject of them, seem to us to contradict the paradoxes of those morose philosophers, who, angry with the vices of men as they exist in society, have represented the man in the state of nature such as he is not, and have made of him an ideal being, in order to bestow on him attributes of power and means of happiness, which civilization can alone confer.

"We ought to add, that the Papous would be susceptible of education; that their intellectual faculties would require only to be exercised and developed, to make them hold a distinguished rank among the numerous varieties of the human race." (QUOY et GAIMARD, Zoology of Capt. Freycinet's voyage round the world.)

We see by this relation, that other travellers have given a very mistaken idea of the organization of the head of the Papous, by representing it as extremely defective. The two heads here described are now preserved in my collection.

Of Physiognomy, or the Talent of Knowing the Interior of Man by his Exterior.

We understand by the expression physiognomy, the art of knowing the moral and intellectual character of man, by the sole external conformation, not of his face alone, but of all the other parts of the body, without these parts being put in action.

Not only the vulgar, but even philosophers, give to this art the preference, over the physiology of the brain. Others imagine, that my researches on the

functions of the individual cerebral parts, and on the inferences to be drawn from a certain form of head, are of the same nature as those of the physiognomists. There is, however, absolutely, no relation between the two. A physiognomist, Lavater for example, is not at all guided by the knowledge of anatomy and of physiology; the laws of the organization of the nervous system in general, and of the brain in particular, are unknown to them; they have no idea of the different composition of the brain in different species of animals; they take no account of the different results of the different development of the cerebral parts. They know not the influence, which the brain exerts on the form of the head; they have no notion of the changes, which the encephalon and the cranium undergo in the different ages of life, in different diseases, in mania, &c. They are still imbued with prejudices imbibed in regard to the causes of the different moral qualities, and the different intellectual faculties, and to the divisions of them, which philosophers have established. Now, if we consider, that the material cause of all the qualities and all the faculties exists in the brain, how can we expect ideas conformable to nature, from men wholly strangers to the knowledge of the structure and functions of the brain?

Accordingly, all the observations of the physiognomists are founded on extremely variable indications. Physiognomists have not yet established a single solid principle, a single immutable sign. All that they have advanced amounts merely to sensiblerie and declamation. Read all the writings of Lavater, and you will every where find the same wanderings of the imagination, the same exaltation so contrary to the spirit of observatiou. The same character has its sign sometimes in a certain form of the eyes, sometimes in a certain form of the nose, mouth, hand, and even in a peculiar position of the teeth. This is easily explained; when the physiognomist knows the character of the person, and finds in him any part

formed in a manner which strikes him, this conformation becomes for him the distinctive mark of this character. When a criminal is led to the scaffold, there is no one who does not read his character in his face; whereas so long as he kept his place in society, no one saw, what is now seen written in such distinct characters.

Submit the same head, the same drawing to the judgment of three zealous physiognomists. Each of them is persuaded of the infallibility of his knowledge; and yet each of them will pronounce a totally different judgment. I have often shown a collection of four hundred casts to physiognomists, fully persuaded of the truth of this science. My casts give very faithfully all the forms of the forehead, of the nose, eyes, cheeks, lips, chin, &c., and yet not one of these physiognomists has ever either determined the general character, or indicated even a particular quality or faculty of either of the originals of my four hundred casts. All have constantly been deceived.

That, says one of my readers, would not have happened to me; a hundred times have I judged the character of persons from their physiognomy, and I doubt if I was ever deceived. Have you judged persons whose character was previously unknown to you? Have you given yourself the trouble, and have you had time to substantiate your judgment? Have you eaten a bushel of salt, with each of the persons whom you have judged? And how do you announce your judgments? This is a good man, an essentially honest soul; this man has something deceitful in his eyes, I would not trust him; that is an amiable woman and of angelic temper; what a venerable matron! &c. But what is there determinate in all these judgments? Do they teach us by what quality or what faculty, such an individual is distinguished?

I have proved, that the brain is exclusively the organ of the soul. There is then only the form of the brain or that of the osseous box, as far as it is deter

mined by the form of the brain, which can enable us to judge of the qualities or faculties. There can exist no relation whatever between any other part, and the qualities or faculties. There is not, either in the nose, or in the teeth, or in the lips, in the jaws, hand, or knee, any thing, which can determine the existence of a quality or a faculty; these parts, therefore, cannot furnish any indication relative to the moral or intellectual character.

I know well, that, according to the physiognomists, there exists a certain harmony between all the parts of the body. "It is evident," says Lavater, "that the intellectual life, the faculties of the human understanding and mind, manifest themselves especially, in the conformation and situation of the bones of the head, and principally of the forehead; although, to the eyes of an attentive observer, they are sensible in all the points of the human body, on account of its harmony and its homogeneousness." On this hypothesis, it would be matter of indifference to take for the subject of observation, the nose, the knee, the foot, the chest, hand, or brain.

I have conversed on this subject with the most learned artists. Generally, they hold the opinion, that the form of a determinate part of the body being given, one can determine the form of the other parts; that the nose suggests the forehead, and the whole head; that a determinate form of the forehead necessarily supposes such a form of the nose. These assertions have induced me to make the most exact researches. I have examined with care, devotees, poets, philologists, voluptuaries, warriors, ambitious men, who had each the cerebral organ of their dominant quality or faculty extremely developed, and in each, I have found a different nose, different lips, different hands, &c.

In general, the physiognomists have recourse to more than one gratuitous hypothesis. They go so far as to say, that it is the soul, which builds itself its

external envelope, and, consequently, that this last must necessarily bear the impress of the qualities and faculties of the former.

1st. This assertion is proved by nothing.

2nd. It supposes that the cause of the difference of the qualities and faculties of the soul depends on the soul itself, and not on the material organs.

3d. Experience proves, that, both in man and in woman, the virtues and the faculties are not proportional to the beauty of the different parts of their body, or, of the harmony which reigns among them.

And after all, when a physiognomist has pronounced a judgment, by what has he been determined? Will he be able to tell me, what kind of eyes, nose, mouth, the person has, whom he has judged? He has, therefore, not judged from the forms of the parts, and, consequently, not as a physiognomist. The gestures, the movement, the habit of body, the motion of the eyes, the speech, &c., have determined his judgment, without his being able to render an account to himself, how he has passed a pathognomic judgment; that is, he has judged of the motion, and not of the form of the parts; in this case, we shall be able to understand each other.

It is not without a kind of confusion, that I mention the opinion, according to which one may judge the character of a man, by the resemblance he has to some animal. Where are these resemblances found? Again in the nose, the jaws, the eyes, the mouth; and what can they, consequently, indicate? Let two persons undertake to guess what animal I resemble, and each of them will name a different one. Yet, say they, Socrates resembled a Satyr, and he confessed himself, that he had the inclinations of one. But what kind of animal is a Satyr? And where is the strong head, whatever its physiognomy, which has not to struggle against the desires of the flesh?