ter! The physiognomy of laughter would be the est of elementary books for the knowledge of nan. If the laugh be good, so is the person. It s said of Christ that he never laughed. I believe t; but, had he never smiled, he would not have Deen human. The smile of Christ must have contained the precise outline of brotherly love.

17.

"Heraclitus says, a dry eye, a wise mind."

18.

We shall discover few men of great undertanding who write a fine hand.”

It might have been said, with more accuracy, schoolmaster's hand.

CHAP. XXXI.

Remarks on an Essay on Physiognomy, by Professor Lichtenberg.

MUCH intelligence, much ornament, and a mild diffusive eloquence, are blended in this essay. It is the work of a learned, penetrating, and, in many respects, highly meritorious person, who appears to possess much knowledge of men, and a large portion of the prompt spirit of observation. This essay merits the utmost attention and investigation. It is so interesting, so comprehensive, affords so much opportunity of remark for the physiognomist, and of remarks which I

have

yet to make, that I cannot avoid citing the

most important passages, and submitting them an unprejudiced and accurate examination.

,,་

It is far from my intention or wish, to compar myself with the excellent author, to make an pretensions to his fanciful and brilliant wit, and still less to his learning and penetration. It perhaps my wish, though I dare not hope, to meet and answer him with the same elegance his polished mind and fine taste seem to demand I am sensible of those wants which are peculiar to myself, and which must remain mine, even when I have truth on my side. Yet, worthy Sir be assured that I shall never be unjust, and that even where I cannot assent to your observations I shall never forget the esteem I owe your talens learning, and merits.

We will now, in supposition, sit down in friendship with your essay before us, and, with that benevolence which is most becoming men, philosophers in particular, explain our mutual sentiments concerning nature and truth.

ON PHYSIOGNOMY.

"Certainly (says our author) the freedom thought, and the very recesses of the heart, were never more severely scrutinized than in the present age."

I cannot help thinking, that, at the very be ginning, an improper point of view is taken, which may probably lead the author and reader astray through the whole essay. For my own

rt, at least, I know of no attacks on the freem of thought, or the secret recesses of the art. It is universally known, that my labours tve been less directed to this than to the knowdge of predominant character, capacities, lents, powers, inclinations, activity, genius, ligion, sensibility, irritability, and elasticity, of en in general, and not to the discovery of acal and present thought. As far as I am conrned, the soul may, and can, in our witty auor's own words, " brood as secretly over its easures as it might have done centuries ago; y as tranquilly smile at the progress of all abylonian works, at all proud assailants of hea

convinced that, long before the completion their work, there shall be a confusion of ngues, and the master and the labourers shall e scattered."

I should enjoy the laugh as much as any one at he arrogance of that physiognomist, who should pretend to read in the countenance the most secret thoughts and motions of the soul, at any given moment, although there are moments, in which they are legible to the most unpractised physiognomist.

I am also of opinion, that the secrets of the heart belong to pathognomy, to which I direct my attention much less than to physiognomy; of which the author says, more wittily than truly, "it is as unnecessary to write as on the art of love."

The author is very right in reminding us, "that

we ought to seek physiognomonical instruction from known characters with great caution, and even diffidence."

Our author then says, "Whether physiogno my, in its utmost perfection, would promote phi lanthropy, is at least questionable.”

in

I confidently answer unquestionable, and hope immediately to induce the reasonable and philanthropic author to say the same. Physiog nomy, in its utmost perfection, must mean the knowledge of men in its utmost perfection. And shall not this promote the love of man? or, other words, shall it not discover innumerable per fections, which the half physiognomist, or the unphysiognomist, are unable to discover? Noble and penetrating friend of man, while writing this, you had forgotten what you had so truly, beautifully said, "that the most hateful deformity might, by the aid of virtue, acquire irresistible charms:" and to whom more irresistible, more legible, than to the perfect physiognomist? Irresistible charms certainly promote not hatred, but love. From my own experience, I can sin cerely declare, that the improvement of my phy siognomonical knowledge has extended and i creased the power of love in my heart.

Though this knowledge may sometimes be the author of affliction, still it is ever true, that the affliction occasioned by certain countenances, en

dears, sanctifies, and renders enchanting what ever is noble and lovely, which often glows in the human countenance, like embers among

hes. My attention to the discovery of this secret odness is increased, and the object of my laurs is its increase and improvement; and how esteem and love extend themselves, wherever ›erceive a preponderance of goodness! On a >re accurate observation, the very countenances at afflict me, and which, for some moments, inase me against humanity, do but increase a lerant and benevolent spirit; for I then disrn the load and the nature of that sensuality, ainst which they have to combat.

All truth, all knowledge of what is, of what ts upon, and on which we act, promotes geneand individnal happiness. Whoever denies s is incapable of investigation. The more peret this knowledge is, the greater are its advanges. Whatever profits, whatever promotes appiness, promotes philanthropy. Where are appy men to be found without philanthropy? re such beings possible? Were happiness and hilanthrpoy to be destroyed or lessened, by any perfect science, truth would war with truth, and ternal wisdom with itself.

He who can seriously maintain, "that a perfect cience may be detrimental to human society, r may not promote philanthropy, (without which appiness among men cannot be supposed) is certainly not a man, in whose company our author would wish to philosophize, as he certainly will, with me, assume it as an axiom, that " the nearer truth the nearer happiness." The more Our knowledge and judgment resemble the