Sir David Brewster, in his introductory Address to the University of
Edinburgh, 1862-3, remarked that one of the characteristics of the age
in which we live was its love of the mysterious and marvellous.
I refer (said Sir David) to the so-called science of physiognomy,
but more especially to that morbid expansion of it called the
physiognomy of the human form, which has been elaborated in Germany,
and is now likely to obtain possession of the English mind. In want
of any other arguments, our physiognomists assert that it is simply
probable that the outer form would be designed on purpose to
represent the mental character, and on this ground they dogmatically
declare that the expressions of rage, or grief, or fear have been
“divinely designed on purpose that the inner mind may be known to
those who watch the outer man.” The persons who use such arguments
and have recourse to such assumptions never propose to make any
inductive comparison of a certain number of well-measured forms with
the well-ascertained mental phases with which they are associated.
Were such experiments made, they would yield no result. No two
physiognomists, acting separately, would agree in measuring and
characterising the forms and indications of the head, the features,
the hands, and the feet of the patient; and no two men—neither the
sagacious judge on the bench, nor the shrewd counsel at the
bar—could determine his real character were they to conjure with all
the events of his life. In this new physiognomy, a head large in the
mid region indicates a predominance of the feelings over the other
faculties; a proneness to superstition and fanaticism is shown by a
little increase in the elevation; and a head large behind evinces
practical ability; and, as Dr. Carus says, characterises a race
which will give birth to great historic names! Small heads, however,
are not to be despised. They indicate talent, but not genius; while
very small ones belong, he says, to the excitable class, from whom
“a great part of the misery of society arises.” In the varying
expressions of the human face physiognomists find a better support
for their views. That the emotions of the past and the present leave
permanent traces on the human countenance is doubtless true, and to
this extent we are all physiognomists, often very presumptuous ones,
and, excepting accidental coincidences, always in the wrong, when we
infer from any external appearance the character and disposition of
our neighbour. In every class of society we encounter faces which we
instinctively shun, and others to which we as instinctively cling.
But how frequently have we found our estimates to be false! The
repulsive aspect has proved to be the result of physical suffering,
of domestic disquiet, or of ruined fortunes; and under the bland and
smiling countenance a heart deceitful and vindictive, and
“desperately wicked,” has often been found concealed.
----------------------------