creation of the race. The functions included in this division of the organism are those of digestion, reproduction, respiration (through the mouth), secretion, excretion, and growth. These functions are productive of the following faculties: Conscientiousness, Firmness, Benevolence, Amativeness, Love of Children, Mirthfulness, Approbativeness, Modesty, Self-esteem, Friendship, Digestion, Bibativeness, Sanativeness, Hospitality, Pneumativeness, Color, Economy, Love of Home, and Patriotism. These include in their action all the laws common to vegetable life, and the development of all these traits proceeds mainly from chemical action, as, for instance, the sustentation of the body and the procreation of the race. These operations are almost entirely chemical.

The architectural division is shown by a predominance of the muscular, thoracic, and osseous systems, which embrace within their own action almost all of the principles of mechanical forces, such as the different lever powers, different principles of valves, and the representation of a pulley (in the action of the superior oblique muscle in rotating the eye); also other mechanical powers which will be mentioned hereafter. The traits indicated in this division are: Force, Resistance, Secretiveness, Hope, Cautiousness, Analysis, Imitation, Ideality, Sublimity, Human Nature, Constructiveness, Acquisitiveness, Veneration, Executiveness, Self-will, Credenciveness, Prescience, Observation, Memory of Events, Form, Size, Weight, Order, Calculation, Locality, Music, Time, Language. You will observe by these names that the artistic and religious faculties are included in this as subdivisions.

The mathematical division of the face has its work performed mainly by the brain and nerve system. The faculties shown in this division are named Time, Order, Causality, Comparison, Intuition. The several systems of the body and faculties of the mind act and react upon each other and sustain inter-relations to each other, but each division is mainly sustained by the action of the system to which the several different parts of the face indicate it as belonging.

As I have before stated, the principles of physiognomy are founded on the same general laws which underlie all matter, but they have for their demonstration special laws. When we reflect

that brain-matter in the form of nerves and nervous ganglia, as well as the muscles, are instrumental in producing mental manifestations, we must at once conclude that the rather contracted views and theories of the ancient metaphysicians and modern phrenologists must give way to more extended and well-demonstrated facts. The entire surface of the body, being covered with a cuticle upon which a fine net-work of nerves ramifies, gives us a very extensive sense-organ, and makes us cognizant of temperature,

tactile sensations, and pressure, and by the aid of these several sensations very many mental impressions are conveyed.

The theory of mind which is set forth in this system of physiognomy is more comprehensive than any which has been given hitherto. Many advanced and eminent scientists and physicians to the insane have. recently become imbued with the idea that the brain is not the sole and exclusive mental organ, but that the muscles and the nervous ganglia and plexuses of human and animal organisms may be of a mental character and exhibit or assist in illustrating mental manifestations. Not only is the idea held that the nerves and muscles are contributive to mental power and expression, but it is found that the several organ-systems within the body, as, for example, the heart, the liver, the lungs, the glands, and kidneys, also promote and are the direct cause of what has hitherto been held to be produced by brain-power exclusively. This supposition arises probably from the fact that all of these organs have representation in the brain through their connection with the great sympathetic chain of nerves and ganglia, entitled the nervus vagus. Among those who advocate this theory as probable I may mention George Henry Lewes, Dr. Henry Maudsley, Dr. Alexander Bain, and Dr. J. Lauder Lindsay,-men whose opinions are received with credence and respect.

Those who have passed years in the study and investigation of any branch of science are presumed to be more learned on the subject of their pursuit than those who have given it little attention, and I hold that the opinions of the former are entitled to the credence and respect of the latter. Believing this most fully, I append the following extract from the work of Dr. Alexander Bain, who, in his celebrated volume entitled "Mind and Body," remarks as follows:

Yet although the brain is by pre-eminence the mental organ, other organs co-operate; more especially the senses, the muscles, and the great viscera. So far as concerns the entire compass of our feelings or emotions it is the universal testimony of mankind that these have no independent spiritual subsistence, but are in every case embodied in our fleshly form.. This very strong and patent fact has been kept out of view in the multifarious discussions respecting the immaterial soul. Apparent as it is to the vulgar, and intently studied as it has been by the sculptor, the painter, and the poet, it has been disregarded both by metaphysicians and by theologians when engaged in settling the boundaries of mind and body.*

On this same point Dr. Henry Maudsley observes:

We cannot limit a study of mind even by a full knowledge of the functions of the nervous and muscular systems; the organic system has most certainly an essential part in the constitution and functions of mind.†

* Mind and Body, Alexander Bain, LL.D. (Humboldt Library), pp. 2 and 3.
† Body and Mind, Henry Maudsley, M.D., p. 34.

Elsewhere he remarks:

The internal organs are plainly not the agents of their special functions. only, but by reason of the intimate consent or sympathy of functions they are essential constituents of our mental life.*

In corroboration of the views of the highly respected gentlemen above quoted, I add the following from the pen of George Henry Lewes, who observes:

I do not agree in the opinion respecting the brain as the organ of the mind; one of the principal conclusions to which fact and argument will direct us in these pages will be that the brain is only one organ of the mind, and not by any means the exclusive centre of consciousness. It will be understood by the word Mind we do not designate the intellectual operations only. But the word Mind has a broader and deeper signification; it includes all sensation, all volition, and all thought. It means the whole psychical life, and this psychical life has no one special centre any more than the physical life has one special centre; it belongs to the whole and animates the whole. The brain is a part of this whole, a noble part, and its functions are noble, but it is only the organ of special mental functions. It is not the exclusivé sensorium, and its absence does not imply the absence of all consciousness. It cannot, therefore, be considered as the organ, but only as one organ of the mind.†

The following from the work of Dr. J. Lauder Lindsay, entitled "Mind in the Lower Animals," will not be without interest, and is entitled to our respect in consideration of the source whence it emanates, Dr. Lindsay being for many years at the head of an institution for the insane in Scotland, and also a Fellow of the Royal Society of England. His investigations of diseased mental peculiarities of the insane have opened the way to an understanding of the locale of the mind, and he states his belief of its location and action thus. He remarks:

The student of comparative psychology cannot too soon divest himself of the erroneous popular idea that brain and mind are in a sense synonymous; that the brain is the sole organ of the mind; that mind cannot exist without brain; or that there is any necessary relation between the size, form, and weight of the brain and the degree of mental development. Even in man there is no necessary relation between the size, form, and weight of the brain and the degree of mental development, while the phenomena of disease in him show to what extent lesions of cerebral substance occur without affecting the mental life. Physiologists are gradually adopting or forming a more and more comprehensive conception of mind, and are coming to regard it as a function or attribute not of any particular organ or part of the body, but of the body as a whole.

Long ago the illustrious Milton, discoursing of mind and its seat, properly described the human mind as an attribute of man's body as a whole. In various forms and words this view has been expressed in recent times by Muller, Lewes, Laycock, Bashman, Bastian, Maudsley, Carpenter,

and others. According to these authors, "the seat of mind is throughout the body" (Muller); "mind pervades the body" (Laycock and Bashman); "mind comprehends the bodily life" (Maudsley); "psychical life has no one especial centre (Lewes); "the whole nervous system is the seat or organ of the mind, the brain being only its chief seat or organ" (Bastian). The brain, then, is only one organ of mind,-the organ, it may be said, only of special mental functions. The old doctrine or assumption of the phrenologists, as represented by Gall and Combe,-the doctrine in which they have so greatly prided themselves and foolishly continue to do so, that, namely, which regards the brain as the sole organ of the mind, must unquestionably be given up. We must henceforth regard the true site, seat, or organ of the mind as the whole body, and this is the only sound basis on which the comparative psychologist can begin his studies. There would be the less difficulty in accepting such a basis were it only borne in view that the muscular as well as the nervous system, that muscular action has an intimate relation to mental phenomena,-to ideas as well as feelings. "Muscular action is essential in certain, if not in all, mental processes,—e.g., in feeling or emotion, outward muscular expression (i.e., facial), and inward ideas and feelings are inseparately correlated" (Maudsley).*

There are many more of our leading physicians, anatomists, and naturalists of every nationality who believe and demonstrate the theory of the physical basis of mind, but enough evidence from the writings of the most eminent has been adduced to assist the reader in gaining a knowledge of the course I propose to take in this work. Further evidence will be presented as the reader advances.

It has been reserved for me to extend their theories and observations to a finality, and to show that mental faculties are directly related to and sustained by the action of physical functions, and also to prove by the face the direct connection of physical functions with mental faculties. The diffusive locale of the mind will become more and more apparent as the rationale develops, and I believe that the proofs will not be wanting to substantiate my position.

I maintain that nearly all errors in regard to man-his life, his surroundings, his relations to them and their relations to him, his religion, his sense of right, his misconceptions of beauty, his exceedingly scant knowledge of governmental principles-proceed directly from utter ignorance of himself; and, while he has a knowledge of the planets, stars, winds, rocks, beasts, birds, snakes, and animalculæ, he does not know the laws which govern his own body. He understands not one single sign of character as indicated by the face; he knows not the meaning of different voices; the walk of man conveys to him no meaning; the color of the eyes and hair declare nothing to his sense of sight. He is like a mole

Mind in the Lower Animals, J. Lauder Lindsay, M.D., Part II, pp. 3, 4.

groping in daylight. He plans and executes grand enterprises; he spans continents; he examines the character of the uttermost stars; calculates eclipses; traces the paths of comets to remote ages; understands to a nicety the great world and the little world. as shown by the telescope and the microscope, and yet cannot sound the depths of his child's character, which appear to him unfathomable. Why is this? Is it because the science of man is more abstruse and occult than all others? Because it belongs to the unknowable? Not so. It is because he has not thought of these things, and because he has not been taught them as he has the other sciences. I regard it as the most simple of all sciences, the most easily demonstrated, the most essential to human happiness and welfare.

And until the science of physiognomy is commonly understood, government, as a science, cannot go forward. Legislating for beings of the laws of whose existence one is in utter ignorance is an absurdity and will fail. Not until the masses can put themselves in harmonious relations to their environment can government go forward, and this can result only from a complete knowledge of man, his capacities, his needs, and his possibilities. This knowledge proceeds only from a scientific study of himself. When man becomes convinced that his face registers his life, and that "he who runs may read" what he has been about, and that he cannot hide his inner self from the gaze of the world, he will endeavor to make his life so good and so noble that he will not be ashamed of the most rigid scrutiny, because it is only in thus doing that he will be enabled to have either a character or a reputation. "Experience daily declares that certain irregular and vicious propensities impress very sensible traces on the countenance. The surest method, then, to embellish our physiognomy is to adorn the mind."

Physiognomy as a science, with rules and established principles so plainly set forth as to be comprehended by the masses, had never been given to the world until my recent publication. Lavater possessed the power of reading the human face intuitively, but he has left among his writings no rules nor principles by which students can learn this science. The best book and school for students is Nature. Still, a keen observer may record such discoveries in this field as to be a benefit to coming generations. This science is gigantic in its proportions, and when we reflect that there are in the world no two organizations with exactly the same combinations of traits we see that the field is wide, with room for many observers. I leave the case in the hands of the scientific, the logical, the unprejudiced reader. My motives are based on a