ouis XIV. and his
favourite physician, De la Chambre, on this science. The faith of the
monarch seems to have been great, and the purpose to which this
correspondence tended was extraordinary indeed, and perhaps scarcely
credible. Who will believe that Louis XIV. was so convinced of that
talent which De la Chambre attributed to himself, of deciding merely by
the physiognomy of persons, not only on the real bent of their
character, but to what employment they were adapted, that the king
entered into a _secret correspondence_ to obtain the critical notices of
his _physiognomist?_ That Louis XIV. should have pursued this system,
undetected by his own courtiers, is also singular; but it appears, by
this correspondence, that this art positively swayed him in his choice
of officers and favourites. On one of the backs of these letters De la
Chambre had written, "If I die before his majesty, he will incur great
risk of making many an unfortunate choice!"

This collection of physiognomical correspondence, if it does really
exist, would form a curious publication; we have heard nothing of it! De
la Chambre was an enthusiastic physiognomist, as appears by his works;
"The Characters of the Passions," four volumes in quarto; "The Art of
Knowing Mankind;" and "The Knowledge of Animals." Lavater quotes his
"Vote and Interest," in favour of his favourite science. It is, however,
curious to add, that Philip Earl of Pembroke, under James I., had formed
a particular collection of portraits, with a view to physiognomical
studies. According to Evelyn on Medals, p. 302, such was his sagacity in
discovering the characters and dispositions of men by their
countenances, that James I. made no little use of his extraordinary
talent on _the first arrival of ambassadors at court_.

The following physiological definition of PHYSIOGNOMY is extracted from
a publication by Dr. Gwither, of the year 1604, which, dropping his
history of "The Animal Spirits," is curious:--

"Soft wax cannot receive more various and numerous impressions than are
imprinted on a man's face by _objects_ moving his affections: and not
only the _objects_ themselves have this power, but also the very
_images_ or _ideas_; that is to say, anything that puts the animal
spirits into the same motion that the _object_ present did, will have
the same effect with the object. To prove the first, let one observe a
man's face looking on a pitiful object, then a ridiculous, then a
strange