NOTES ON NOSES.
BY
EDEN WARWICK.
“‘Mayhap there is more meant than is said in it,’ quoth my father.
‘Learned men, brother Toby, don’t write dialogues upon Long Noses for
nothing.’”—TRISTRAM SHANDY.
[Illustration]
_NEW EDITION._
LONDON:
RICHARD BENTLEY, NEW BURLINGTON STREET.
1864.
LONDON
PRINTED BY SPOTTISWOODE AND CO.
NEW-STREET SQUARE
PREFACE.
With regard to a Preface to his Book, an Author has to contend with
three great, but unequal, difficulties. The first and greatest, is to
persuade his Publisher to issue it without a Preface; the next, is to
write one himself; and the third and least, is to get some one to write
it for him. Now there is a wise old saw which says, “Of divers evils
choose the least;” and as the learned Slawkenbergius (so says Tristram
Shandy) has prefaced his FOLIO on Noses with a clause which exactly
explains our own qualifications and reasons for writing on the same
important subject, we invoke him to relieve us of the third difficulty:
“‘ever since I understood,’ quoth Slawkenbergius, ‘anything—or rather
_what was what_,—and could perceive that the point of Long Noses had
been too loosely handled by all who had gone before—have I,
Slawkenbergius, felt a strong impulse, with a mighty and irresistible
call within me, to gird up myself to this undertaking.’”
Now this is exactly our own case, and must, therefore, suffice for our
Preface; nevertheless, we cannot flatter ourselves that our brief hints
will be eulogized, like the gigantic folio of Hafen Slawkenbergius, as
“an institute of all that is necessary to be known of Noses.” It
professes to be nothing more than an introduction to the subject of
Nasology; written originally for the use of friends, and afterwards
extended for publication. This will account for some discrepancies which
may be perceptible in the style—discrepancies which it was thought best
not to remove, as the additions were on subjects of a more grave and
important character than the original sketch; and, therefore, the
diversities of style appeared to be rather consistent and advantageous.
_May 26, 1848._
CONTENTS.
PAGE
PREFACE iii
CHAPTER I.
OF THE CLASSIFICATION OF NOSES 1
CHAPTER II.
OF THE ROMAN NOSE 13
CHAPTER III.
OF THE GREEK NOSE 43
CHAPTER IV.
OF THE COGITATIVE NOSE 50
CHAPTER V.
HOW TO GET A COGITATIVE NOSE 63
CHAPTER VI.
OF THE JEWISH NOSE 89
CHAPTER VII.
OF THE SNUB NOSE AND THE CELESTIAL NOSE 97
CHAPTER VIII.
OF FEMININE NOSES 107
CHAPTER IX.
OF NATIONAL NOSES 120
NOTES ON NOSES.
CHAPTER I.
OF THE CLASSIFICATION OF NOSES.
It has not been hastily, nor until after long and careful observation,
that the theory propounded in the following pages has been published; a
theory which, at first sight, may appear to some wild and absurd, to
others simply ridiculous, to others wicked and heretical,[1] and to
others fraught with social mischief and danger.
Nevertheless, we shall not begin by deprecating the ridicule or the
censure of any one. The only vindication which an author is entitled to
offer, is that which his works themselves present. If his cause be a
good one, it requires no apology; if it be a bad one, to vindicate it is
either useless or baneful; useless, if it blind no one to his errors;
baneful, if it induce any one blindly to receive his brass for sterling
gold.
The only circumstance which can attach any value to our observations is,
that they are entirely original, and wholly unbiassed by the theories of
any other writers on physiognomy. When we commenced observing Noses, we
just knew that some few forms of the Nose had names given them, as the
Roman, the Greek, &c.; but we regarded these as mere artistic
definitions of form, and were wholly ignorant what mental
characteristics had been ascribed to them. So far as this nomenclature
went, it appeared best to adopt it, as affording well-known designations
of Nasal profiles; and our investigations were, therefore, commenced by
endeavouring to discover whether these from of Nose characterised any,
and what, mental properties. In order to do this with accuracy, it was
absolutely necessary still to keep the mind unacquainted with the system
of any other writers, if such there were, lest it should unconsciously
imbibe preconceptions and hints which would render its independent
researches open to the suspicion of bias. We felt that if the
characteristics attributed by us to Noses, after long and extensive
observation, corresponded with those of any other writer, a powerful
corroboration of our views would thus be gained.
It may happen, therefore (and it is hoped it will be so) that we may
sometimes appear to have plagiarised from other physiognomists, and to
have adopted their views; but this correspondence must, nevertheless, be
accepted as a further proof of the accuracy of their and our honest
independent labours.
It was impossible, however, amidst much multifarious reading, to keep
the mind, latterly, wholly ignorant that some mental characteristics had
been ascribed to Noses; but into the nature of these we never inquired,
nor are we aware that anything has been done, beyond throwing out a few
unconnected, unattested hints, towards a systematic deduction of mental
qualifications from Nasal formation.
If it is improper to vindicate one’s self, it might not seem altogether
unfitting to vindicate one’s subject from ridicule; and it might appear
prudent, if not altogether necessary, to commence by vindicating the
Nose from the charge of being too ridiculous an organ to be seriously
discoursed upon. But this ridiculousness is mere prejudice;
intrinsically one part of the face is as worthy as another, and we may
feel assured that He who gave the _os sublime_ to man, did not place, as
its foremost and most prominent feature, a _ridiculous_ appendage.
But this prejudice ought not to weigh with any thinking mind. If it is
true—as Dr. Prichard asserts, and as every ethnologist admits—that
protruding jaws indicate a low state of civilisation, an animal and
degraded mind, is it more ridiculous to assert that the flat, depressed
Nose, which always accompanies the prognathous jaws, is likewise an
indication of a similar mind? If it is true that the oval form of head
indicates a high-class of mind, and a capacity for the highest
civilisation, is it absurd to assert that the Romano-Greek Nose, which
generally accompanies, and is characteristic of that form of head, is
likewise indicative of a similar mind? Nasology is strictly in harmony
with the deductions of the ablest physiognomists and ethnologists. It
contradicts no laws which have been established between mind and matter;
on the contrary, it upholds, supports, and maintains the investigations
of the ablest writers on anthropology, and has only not been touched
upon by them, because the necessity they are under of forming many of
their deductions from skulls, precludes their making the soft parts of
the face a standard of comparison.
To come then at once to our subject. We have a belief, founded on
long-continued, personal observation, that there is more in a Nose than
most owners of that appendage are generally aware. We believe that,
besides being an ornament to the face, a breathing apparatus, or a
convenient handle by which to grasp an impudent fellow, it is an
important index to its owner’s character; and that the accurate
observation and minute comparison of an extensive collection of Noses of
persons whose mental characteristics are known, justifies a Nasal
Classification, and a deduction of some points of mental organisation
therefrom. It will not be contended that all the faculties and
properties of mind are revealed by the Nose;—for instance, we can read
nothing of Temper or the Passions from it.[2] Perhaps it rather reveals
Power and Taste—Power or Energy to carry out Ideas, and the Taste or
Inclination which dictates or guides them. As these will always very
much form a man’s outward character, the proposition which is sought to
be established is this:—“THE NOSE IS AN IMPORTANT INDEX TO CHARACTER.”
It may be prudent to observe that we utterly repudiate the doctrine of
the Phrenologists, that the form of the Body affects the manifestations,
and even properties, of the Mind.
We contend that the Mind forms the Nose, and not the Nose the Mind. We
have carefully endeavoured to avoid phraseology which should induce a
supposition that we entertain the latter absurdity; but here enter this
protest once for all, lest a want of precision in our language, or the
obtuseness of critics, should cause us to be charged with it.
It is in vain to require proof of a material connection between the Nose
and the Mind, for it is utterly impossible to demonstrate to sense the
seat of the divine particle. Material organs cannot apprehend immaterial
existence: they even fail to perceive some of the more tenuous
materialisms, air, light, heat, electricity, &c., which are known only
by their effects. It is in vain to deny physiognomy—of which Nasology is
only a department—because we cannot understand by what processes mind
acts on the features; because we cannot see any material organisms which
operate to contract the muscles in laughter or pain, or which impel the
blood to or from the countenance when consciousness or fear affects the
mind. It is in vain to deny the blush or the pallor because we know not
_how_ the pulsations of the heart and the flow of blood are affected by
mental impressions. It is one of the strongest proofs of the
immateriality of the soul, that while its existence cannot be denied, it
cannot be anatomically demonstrated, nor rendered visible to sense. The
mode in which Mind acts on Matter is one of the arcana of Nature, which,
perhaps, human science will never penetrate. It is a secret reserved for
that state in which the mind will act independently of material media.
However numerous and plausible the theories propounded to explain the
mystery, they all terminate like the Indian’s world-supports, and the
chain of connection breaks at the last link. It is, therefore, in vain
to deny physiognomy because we can demonstrate no material connection
between the mind and the features, nor would any sane objector insist on
such demonstration; yet such demonstration has been insisted on, and the
absence of it adduced as a fundamental objection both to physiognomy and
phrenology by critics at a loss for valid objections.
And here we might descant, at considerable length, and with much show of
learning, on the influence of the Mind over the Body. We might impugn
the wisdom of those who, undertaking to cure either, have forgotten that
they were so intimately united and mutually dependent, that they could
not be treated separately with success. We might show that the first
step of the physician towards curing mental disorder, is to free the
body from disease; and that of him who would cure the body, is,
ofttimes, to apply his remedies to the derangement of the mind. But,
though by so doing we might swell our pages and eke out an additional
chapter—an important consideration if we were a mere book-maker—we shall
not, as we have some qualms of conscience whether it would be quite
germane to the matter in hand. It might not, however, be out of place to
remind the reader that physiognomy, or the form which mind gives to the
features, is universally recognised. A pleasant mouth, a merry eye, a
sour visage, a stern aspect, are some of the common phrases by which we
daily acknowledge ourselves to be physiognomists; for by these
expressions we mean, not that the mouth is pleasant or the visage sour,
but that such is the mind which shines out from them. If it were the
face alone which we thus intended, we should never trouble or concern
ourselves about a human countenance, nor be attracted, nor repulsed by
one, any more than if it were a carved head on a gothic waterspout, or a
citizen’s door-knocker. We all acknowledge the impression given by the
mind to the mouth and the eyes because they express Temper and the
Passions—those feelings which more immediately interest us in our mutual
intercourse—and because they change with the feelings; now flashing with
anger, or sparkling with pleasure, compressing with rage, or smiling
with delight.
But because the Nose is uninfluenced by the feelings which agitate and
vary the mind, and, is, therefore, immovable and unvaried, no one will
hear the theory of Nasology broached without incredulity and risibility.
Because the Nose is subject only to those faculties of mind which are
permanent and unfluctuating; and is, therefore, likewise permanent and
unfluctuating in its form, men have paid no attention to its
indications, and will, accordingly, abuse as an empiric and dotard the
first Nasologist. But, is there, _à priori_, any thing so unreasonable
in attributing mental characteristics to the Nose, when we all daily
read each other’s minds in the Nose’s next-door neighbours, the eyes and
mouth? Is not the _à priori_ inference entirely in favour of a negative
reply? And that, _à posteriori_, it may confidently be replied to in the
negative will, it is hoped, presently appear.
There is here room for another long disquisition to point out the
advantages of Nasology. How that the permanency and immobility of the
Nose forbid hypocrisy to mould it to any artificial feelings, as the
eyes and the mouth may be. And how this immobility, together with its
prominency and incapability of being concealed, like bad phrenological
bumps, render it a sure guide to some parts of our fellow-creatures’
mental organization. But it would be premature to do this before proving
somewhat of the truth of Nasology; and when that is done, no one will
deny that it has its uses, though it may be disputed what those are.
Nevertheless, we must earnestly protest against the fallacy of
attempting to judge what any person _is_ from his Nose; we can only
judge of natural tendency and capacity—education and external
circumstances of a thousand different kinds, may have swerved the mind
from its original tendency, or prevented the development of inherent
faculties. It is in this unfair and uncharitable asserting dogmatically
the disposition and character, vices and virtues, of a man, that
phrenologists so greatly err; whereas they ought to confine their
inferences from external development of organs, to capacity and tendency
only.
The impossibility of giving such numerous pictorial illustrations as the
subject properly demands, will confine the examples adduced to those
only of which portraits are well known and easily accessible. If,
therefore, the proofs are thought insufficient in number, it must be
attributed to this circumstance alone. It would have been easy to have
swelled them by a number of names, the right of which to be included in
the lists the majority of persons would have been unable to verify.
Nevertheless, the examples will be found much more numerous and more
easily verifiable than those which have been deemed sufficient to
establish Phrenology as an hypothesis, if not as a science; and, had we,
like the principal expounder of Phrenology,[3] dragged in as ‘proofs’
nameless gentlemen of our acquaintance, we might have still further
extended the lists of examples. But it seemed to our humble judgment, to
be demanding more from the reader’s good nature than would be compatible
with sound criticism, to ask him to accept such unsupported _dicta_ as
_proofs_. Of course, very many of the examples by which our own mind has
been satisfied have been drawn from personal observation, among friends
and acquaintance; and not only have these been the most numerous proofs,
but also by far the most satisfactory, as they afforded the most exact
and undeniable profiles, and the most noticeable mental characteristics.
The slightest incorrectness in the artist, may render useless a
pictorial example; but when we are looking upon the original itself,
there can be no mistake. A thousand minutiæ of character may escape a
biographer, which appear plainly in the man himself.
Nevertheless, we felt so strongly how unfitting it would be to offer
such mere personal observations as _proofs_, that we have carefully
refrained from admitting any example which is not open to the
observation of almost every one.
This is a drawback which we feel greatly; it reduces our instances to a
hundredth part of those which might be adduced; but we must submit to
it, only asking of the reader’s generosity to take it into account.
Another favour which we beg is, that the reader will suspend his
judgment until the subject is concluded, and he has the whole system,
with all its proofs, before him.
We scruple not to admit, that at present the system is incomplete. We
rather court inquiry, and solicit additional facts, than peremptorily
dogmatize on conclusions drawn from our own limited—though
extensive—number of observations. But it is so much the fashion for
every wild theorist to dogmatize on his theory, and insist upon it, _per
fas et nefas_, as perfect, unassailable, and complete, that it is almost
deemed reprehensible to suggest a notion for the consideration of the
world, or to propound anything which the author is modest enough to
admit is improvable. Such, however, was not the manner of the true
philosophers of former days. If Copernicus had delayed propounding the
system of the universe which bears his name, until he could explain by
it all the planetary and sidereal motions, it might have slumbered
unknown for another century or two, and so we should not yet have
arrived at our present enlarged understanding of it. If Bacon had waited
for a complete Natural History, ere he published his Novum Organum, we
might still have been groping after the Sciences with the dark lantern
of Aristotle and the schools. If Newton had withheld his theory of Light
until he could burn a diamond, our knowledge of the nature of light
might still be in its infancy.
These examples must furnish an apology for submitting for candid
consideration and further development, a theory which we believe to be
well-founded, but which is capable of improvement and extension.
Subject to the foregoing remarks, the following Physical Classification
of Noses[4] is submitted, as being, in part, well-known and
long-established, because well-defined and clearly marked:—
Class I. THE ROMAN, or Aquiline Nose.
Class II. THE GREEK, or Straight Nose.
Class III. THE COGITATIVE, or Wide-nostrilled Nose.
Class IV. THE JEWISH, or Hawk Nose.
Class V. THE SNUB NOSE, and
Class VI. THE CELESTIAL, or Turn-up Nose.
Between these there are infinite crosses and intermixtures which will at
first embarrass the student, but which, after a little practice, he will
be able to distinguish with tolerable precision. A compound of different
Noses will of course indicate a compound character; and it is only in
the rather rare instance of a perfect Nose of any of the classes that we
find a character correspondingly strongly developed. We shall endeavour
to support each part of the hypothesis by well-defined and striking
instances, selecting the most decided and perfect noses of each class,
and at the same time the most peculiar and decided characters.
[Illustration]
CLASS I. THE ROMAN, or Aquiline Nose, is rather convex, but undulating,
as its name aquiline imports. It is usually rugose and coarse; but when
otherwise, it approaches the Greek nose, and the character is materially
altered.
It indicates great decision, considerable Energy, Firmness, Absence of
Refinement, and Disregard for the _bienséances_ of life.
[Illustration]
CLASS II. THE GREEK, or Straight Nose, is perfectly straight; any
deviation from the right line must be strictly noticed. If the deviation
tend to convexity, it approaches the Roman Nose, and the character is
improved by an accession of energy; on the other hand, when the
deviation is towards concavity, it partakes of the “Celestial,” and the
character is weakened. It should be fine and well chiselled, but not
sharp.
It indicates Refinement of character, Love for the fine arts and
_belles-lettres_, Astuteness, Craft, and a preference for indirect,
rather than direct action. Its owner is not without some energy in
pursuit of that which is agreeable to his tastes; but, unlike the owner
of the Roman Nose, he cannot exert himself in _opposition_ to his
tastes. When associated with the Roman Nose, and distended slightly at
the end by the Cogitative, it indicates the most useful and intellectual
of characters; and is the highest and most beautiful form which the
organ can assume.[5]
[Illustration]
CLASS III. THE COGITATIVE, or Wide-nostrilled Nose, is, as its secondary
name imports, wide at the end, thick and broad; not clubbed, but
_gradually_ widening from below the bridge. The other noses are seen in
profile, but this in full face.
It indicates a Cogitative mind, having strong powers of Thought, and
given to close and serious Meditation. Its indications are, of course,
much dependent on the form of the Nose in profile, which decides the
turn the cogitative power will take. Of course, it never occurs alone;
and is usually associated with Classes I and II, rarely with IV, still
more seldom with V and VI.[6] The entire absence of it produces the
“sharp” nose, which is not classified, as sharpness is only a negative
quality, being the defect of breadth,[7] and, therefore, indicates
defect of cogitative power.
[Illustration]
CLASS IV. THE JEWISH, or Hawk Nose, is very convex, and preserves its
convexity like a bow, throughout the whole length from the eyes to the
tip. It is thin and sharp.
It indicates considerable Shrewdness in worldly matters; a deep insight
into character, and facility of turning that insight to profitable
account.
[Illustration]
CLASSES V AND VI. THE SNUB NOSE, and the Turn-up, _poeticè_ CELESTIAL
Nose. The form of the former is sufficiently indicated by its name. The
latter is distinguished by its presenting a continuous concavity from
the eyes to the tip. It is converse in shape to the Jewish nose.
N.B. The Celestial must not be confounded with a Nose which, belonging
to one of the other classes in the upper part, terminates in a slight
distension of the tip; for this, so far from prejudicing the character,
rather adds to it warmth and activity.
We associate the Snub and the Celestial in nearly the same category, as
they both indicate natural weakness, mean, disagreeable disposition,
with petty insolence, and divers other characteristics of conscious
weakness, which strongly assimilate them (indeed, a true Celestial Nose
is only a Snub turned up); while their general poverty of distinctive
character, makes it almost impossible to distinguish them. Nevertheless
there is a difference between their indications; arising, however,
rather from difference of intensity than of character. The Celestial is,
by virtue of its greater length, decidedly preferable to the Snub; as it
has all the above unfortunate propensities in a much less degree, and is
not without some share of small shrewdness and fox-like common sense; on
which, however, it is apt to presume, and is, therefore, a more impudent
Nose than the Snub.
The following subordinate rules are applicable to all kinds of Noses,
and must be attended to before forming a judgment on any Nose.
1. The Power of a Nose depends upon its length in proportion to the
profile. A Nose should not be less than one-third of the entire length
of the profile, from the root of the hair to the tip of the chin.
2. The character of a Nose is weakened in intensity by forming too
great, or too small an angle with the general profile of the face. This
angle, if as great as 40°, is not good, anything beyond that is bad;
about 30° is best. Angles: [Illustration: 45°.] [Illustration: 40°.]
[Illustration: 30°.] —less than [Illustration: 25°.] becomes a snub.
3. Attention should be paid to the angle which the basal line of the
Nose forms with the upper lip. This angle affects intensity, and also
temperament. If it is an obtuse angle, as thus [Illustration], the
consequent abbreviation of the Nose (for a long Nose has always more
Power than a short one) weakens the character, but the temperament is
cheerful, gay, and lively; if on the other hand the angle is acute, as
thus [Illustration], the elongation of the Nose adds much to the
intensity of the character indicated by the profile; but the disposition
is generally melancholy, and, if a very acute angle, desponding and fond
of gloomy thoughts. Fox (the Martyrologist), John Knox, Calvin, George
Herbert, Edmund Spenser, and Dante, are illustrations of the melancholy
Nose.
[Illustration:
DANTE.
]