The science of physiognomy is one of the principal
means of a knowledge of mankind: arts of dissimulation
do not come within the range of physiognomy, but within
that of mere pathognomy and mimicry. This is
precisely why I recommend the physiognomy of a man
to be studied when he is alone and left to his own
thoughts, and before he has been conversed with; partly
because it is only then that his physiognomy can be
seen purely and simply, since in conversation pathognomy
immediately steps in, and he then resorts to the arts
of dissimulation which he has acquired; and partly
because personal intercourse, even of the slightest
nature, makes us prejudiced, and in consequence impairs
our judgment.
Concerning our physiognomy in general, it is still
to be observed that it is much easier to discover
the intellectual capacities of a man than his moral
character. The intellectual capacities take a
much more outward direction. They are expressed
not only in the face and play of his features, but
also in his walk, nay, in every movement, however
slight it may be. One could perhaps discriminate
from behind between a blockhead, a fool, and a man
of genius. A clumsy awkwardness characterises
every movement of the blockhead; folly imprints its
mark on every gesture, and so do genius and a reflective
nature. Hence the outcome of La Bruyere’s
remark: Il n’y a rien de si delie, de
si simple, et de si imperceptible ou il n’y
entrent des manieres, qui nous decelent: un sot
ni n’entre, ni ne sort, ni ne s’assied,
ni ne se leve, ni ne se tait, ni n’est sur ses
jambes, comme un homme d’esprit. This
accounts for, by the way, that instinct stir et
prompt which, according to Helvetius, ordinary
people have of recognising people of genius and of
running away from them. This is to be accounted
for by the fact that the larger and more developed
the brain, and the thinner, in relation to it, the
spine and nerves, the greater not only is the intelligence,
but also at the same time the mobility and pliancy
of all the limbs; because they are controlled more
immediately and decisively by the brain; consequently
everything depends more on a single thread, every
movement of which precisely expresses its purpose.
The whole matter is analogous to, nay dependent on,
the fact that the higher an animal stands in the scale
of development, the easier can it be killed by wounding
it in a single place. Take, for instance, batrachia:
they are as heavy, clumsy, and slow in their movements
as they are unintelligent, and at the same time extremely
tenacious of life. This is explained by the fact
that with a little brain they have a very thick spine
and nerves. But gait and movement of the arms
are for the most part functions of the brain; because
the limbs receive their motion, and even the slightest
modification of it, from the brain through the medium
of the spinal nerves; and this is precisely why voluntary
movements tire us. This feeling of fatigue, like
