88
servers contradict the supposition, and declare that men ofuncommon strength have such; hut they are rarely of thatpure white, so necessary to preserve the general beauty ofthe countenance. Teeth of usual length and narrow, aresigns of weakness and cowardice. Those justly propor-tioned to each other, white, and transparent, which appearimmediately upon opening of the lips, though not pro-jecting, and entirely exposed to view from the inset tion onthe first opening of the mouth, are seldom to be met withiu the jaws of persons who possess unumiable propensities;when teeth of a different description are discovered belong-ing to amiable and worthy characters, inquiry will greatlysatisfy the physiognomist that his conclusions on this headwere just; and that the blackness aud derangement wereoccasioned by disease.
“ In one way the observer and admirer of this art cannotpossibly be mistaken, for he who neglects his teeth, suffer-ing them to decay through contempt of public opinion andindolence, may be safely pronounced an unhappy character,with many evil propensities.”
The chin alone remains to be noticed in this slightsurvey of the human face, as connected with the internaloperations of the soul or mind.
The Chin , when prominent, is said to mark somethingdecided; and the receding the reverse; and it has beenasserted, that the presence or absence of strength is fre-quently demonstrated by the form of this part of the coun-tenance: it has been also said, that sudden indentings inthe midst of the chin are peculiar to men of excellent coolunderstandings, unless attended by marks of a contrarytendency. When the chin is pointed, the possessor is sup-posed to be penetrating and cunning; and here again thechin offers a certain criterion to the physiognomist, whomay securely pronounce a large, fat, double chin an ap-pendage to gluttony. Flatness of chin speaks the cold anddrv; smallness, fear; and roundness, with a dimple, bene-volence.
“ No one,” says Lavater , “ whose person is not wellformed, can become a good physiognomist. Those painterswere the best whose persons were the handsomest. Rubens,Vandyke, and Raphael, possessing these gradations ofbeauty, possessed these gradations of the genius in paint-
“ The physiognomists of the greatest,” we conceive mostcorrect physiognomy themselves, is meant, “ whose sym-