ament might have
excited him to try the effect of a new Religion. He was said to have
believed in the continuance of the power of working miracles, and to
have equally believed in the modern power of exorcists. Fortunately his
talent was turned to a harmless pursuit; and he amused, without
bewildering, the minds of men.

The grand principle of his physiognomical system is, that human
character is to be looked for, not as is usually supposed, in the
movable features and lines of the face, but in its solid structure. And
he also imagined that the degree of intellectual acuteness is to be
ascertained by the same indications. But his theory in the former
instance is but feebly supported by fact; for it is by the movements of
the features that the passions are most distinctly displayed: and in the
latter, his theory is constantly contradicted by facts, for many of the
most powerful minds that the world has ever seen have been masked under
heavy countenances.

Perhaps the true limit of the Science is to be discovered by the
knowledge of its use. Every man is more or less a physiognomist. It is
of obvious importance for us to have some knowledge of the passions and
propensities of our fellow men; for these constitute the instruments of
human association, and form the dangers or advantages of human
intercourse. Thus, a countenance of ill temper or of habitual guile, of
daring violence or of brutish profligacy, warns the spectator at once.
But the knowledge of intellectual capacity is comparatively unimportant
to us as either a guide or a protection, and it is therefore not given,
but left to be ascertained by its practical operation.

Phrenology has since taken up the challenge which Physiognomy once gave
to mankind:--equally ingenious and equally fantastic, equally offering a
semblance of truth, and equally incapable of leading us beyond the
simple observation which strikes the eye. A well-formed head will
probably contain a well-formed brain; and a well-formed brain will
probably be the fittest for the operations of the intellect. But beyond
this, Phrenology has not gone, and probably will never go. The attempts
to define the faculties by their position in the structure of the bone
or the brain, have been so perpetually contradicted by fact; its
prognostics of capacity have been so perpetually defeated; and its
mistakes of character have been so constantly thrown into burlesque by
the precipitancy and presumption of its ad