men to be fools, I value but little. A thick belly certainly is no pofitive token of understanding, it is rather pofitive for fenfuality, which is detrimental to the understanding; but abftractedly, and unconnected with other indubitable marks, I cannot receive this as a general propofition.

IO.

"Ariftotle holds the fmalleft heads to be the wifeft."

But this, with all reverence for fo great a man, I think was spoken without reflection. Let a fmall head be imagined on a great body, or a great head on a small body, each of which may be found in confequence of accidents that excite or retard growth; and it will be perceived that, without fome more definite diftinction, neither the large nor the fmall head is, in itself, wife or foolish. It is true, that large heads, with fhort triangular foreheads, are foolith; as are thofe large heads which are fat, and incumbered with flesh; but finall, particularly round heads, with the like incumbrance, are intolerably foolish, and generally poffefs that, which renders their intolerable folly more intolerable, a pretenfion to wisdom.

II.

"It is a good fign, when a small perfon has a head fomewhat large, and a large perfon has the head fomewhat small.

Provided this extends no farther than fomewhat, it may be fuffered; but it is certainly beft, when the head is in fuch proportion to the body, that it is not remarkable either for its largenefs or finallness.

12.

12.

"Memory and imagination resemble the understanding as a monkey does a man."

13.

"It is of no confequence to the genius, whether the flesh be hard or tender, if the brain do not partake of the fame quality; for experience tells us, that the latter is very often of a different temperament to the other parts of the body. But when both the brain and the flesh are tender, they betoken ill to the understanding, and equally ill to the imagination.

14.

"The fluids which render the flesh tender are phlegm and blood; and these being moift, according to Galen, render men fimple and ftupid. The fluids, on the contrary, which harden the flesh, are choler and melancholy, (or bile) and these generate wisdom and understanding. It is therefore a much worfe fign to have tender flesh than rough; and tender fignifies a bad memory, with weakness of understanding and imagination.

If I may fo fay there is an intelligent tenderness of flesh, which announces much more understanding than do the oppofite qualities of rough and hard. I can no more clafs coriaceous flefh as the characteriftic of understanding, than I can tenderness of flesh, without being more accurately defined, as the characteristic of folly. It will be proper to diftinguish between tender and porous, or spongy, and between rough and firm without hardness.

15.

"To discover whether the quality of the brain correfponds with the flesh, we muft examine the

hair. If the hair be black, ftrong, rough, and thick, it betokens ftrength of imagination and understanding."

I am of a different opinion. preffed in fuch general terms.

Let not this be ex-
At this moment, I

recollect a very weak man, by nature weak, with exactly fuch hair. This roughness (prodigkeit) is a fatal word, which, taken in what fenfe it will, never fignifies any thing good.

"But if the hair be tender and weak, it denotes nothing more than goodness of memory."

Once more too little: it denotes a finer organization, which receives the impreffion of images at leaft as ftrongly as the figns of images.

16.

"When the hair is of the firft quality, and we would farther diftinguish, whether it betokens goodness of understanding or imagination, we must pay attention to the laugh. Laughter betrays the quality of the imagination."

And I add, of the understanding, of the heart, of power, love, hatred, pride, humility, truth, and falfehood. Would I had artifts, who would watch for and defign the outlines of laughter! The phyfiognomy of laughter would be the beft of elementary books for the knowledge of man. If the laugh be good, fo is the perfon. It is faid of Christ that he never laughed. I believe it; but, had he never fmiled, he would not have been human. The file of Christ must have contained the precife outline of brotherly love.

17.

"Heraclitus fays, a dry eye, a wife mind."

18.

18.

"We fhall discover few men of great understanding who write a fine hand.”

It might have been faid, with more accuracy, a fchoolmaster's hand.

CHAP. XXXI.

Remarks on an Essay on Phyfiognomy, by Profeffor Litchtenberg.

THIS effay is written with much intelligence, much ornament, and a mild diffufive eloquence. It is the work of a very learned, penetrating, and, in many respects, highly meritorious perfon, who appears to poffefs much knowledge of men, and a large portion of the prompt fpirit of obfervation. This effay merits the utmost attention and inveftigation. It is fo interefting, fo comprehenfive, affords fo much opportunity of remark for the phyfiognomist, and of remarks which I have yet to make, that I cannot avoid citing the most important paffages, and fubmitting them to an unprejudiced and accurate examination.

It is far from my intention or wifh, to compare myself with the excellent author, to make any pretenfion to his fanciful and brilliant wit, and ftill lefs to his learning and penetration. Though I could wifh, I dare not hope, to meet and answer him with the fame elegance as his polifhed mind and fine tafte feem to demand. I am fenfible of those wants which are peculiar to my

self,

felf, and which must remain mine, even when I have truth on my fide. Yet, worthy Sir, be af fured that I fhall never be unjuft, and that, even where I cannot affent to your obfervations, I fhall never forget the esteem I owe your talents, learning, and merits.

Let us in fuppofition, fit down in friendship with your effay before us, and, with that benevolence which is moft becoming men, philofophers in particular, explain our mutual fentiments concerning nature and truth.

ON PHYSIOGNOMY.

"Certainly (fays our author) the freedom of thought, and the very recefles of the heart, were never more feverely fcrutinized than in the present age."

It appears to me that, at the very beginning, an improper point of view is taken, which may probably lead the author and reader aftray through the whole effay. For my own part, at leaft, I know of no attacks on the freedom of thought, or the fecret receffes of the heart. It is univerfally known, that my labours have been lefs directed to this than to the knowledge of predominant character, capacities, talents, powers, inclinations, activity, genius, religion, fenfibility, irritability, and elafticity, of men in general, and not to the discovery of actual and prefent thought. As far as I am concerned, the foul may, and can, in our witty author's own words, "brood as fecretly over its treasures as it might have done centuries ago; may as tranquilly smile at the progress of all Babylonian works, at all proud affailants of heawen, convinced that, long before the completion of