Читать книгу Notes on Noses - Eden Warwick - Страница 6

Table of Contents

It has not been hastily, nor until after long and careful observation, that the theory propounded in the following pages has been published; a theory which, at first sight, may appear to some wild and absurd, to others simply ridiculous, to others wicked and heretical,^[1] and to others fraught with social mischief and danger.

Nevertheless, we shall not begin by deprecating the ridicule or the censure of any one. The only vindication which an author is entitled to offer, is that which his works themselves present. If his cause be a good one, it requires no apology; if it be a bad one, to vindicate it is either useless or baneful; useless, if it blind no one to his errors; baneful, if it induce any one blindly to receive his brass for sterling gold.

The only circumstance which can attach any value to our observations is, that they are entirely original, and wholly unbiassed by the theories of any other writers on physiognomy. When we commenced observing Noses, we just knew that some few forms of the Nose had names given them, as the Roman, the Greek, &c.; but we regarded these as mere artistic definitions of form, and were wholly ignorant what mental characteristics had been ascribed to them. So far as this nomenclature went, it appeared best to adopt it, as affording well-known designations of Nasal profiles; and our investigations were, therefore, commenced by endeavouring to discover whether these from of Nose characterised any, and what, mental properties. In order to do this with accuracy, it was absolutely necessary still to keep the mind unacquainted with the system of any other writers, if such there were, lest it should unconsciously imbibe preconceptions and hints which would render its independent researches open to the suspicion of bias. We felt that if the characteristics attributed by us to Noses, after long and extensive observation, corresponded with those of any other writer, a powerful corroboration of our views would thus be gained.

It may happen, therefore (and it is hoped it will be so) that we may sometimes appear to have plagiarised from other physiognomists, and to have adopted their views; but this correspondence must, nevertheless, be accepted as a further proof of the accuracy of their and our honest independent labours.

It was impossible, however, amidst much multifarious reading, to keep the mind, latterly, wholly ignorant that some mental characteristics had been ascribed to Noses; but into the nature of these we never inquired, nor are we aware that anything has been done, beyond throwing out a few unconnected, unattested hints, towards a systematic deduction of mental qualifications from Nasal formation.

If it is improper to vindicate one’s self, it might not seem altogether unfitting to vindicate one’s subject from ridicule; and it might appear prudent, if not altogether necessary, to commence by vindicating the Nose from the charge of being too ridiculous an organ to be seriously discoursed upon. But this ridiculousness is mere prejudice; intrinsically one part of the face is as worthy as another, and we may feel assured that He who gave the os sublime to man, did not place, as its foremost and most prominent feature, a ridiculous appendage.

But this prejudice ought not to weigh with any thinking mind. If it is true—as Dr. Prichard asserts, and as every ethnologist admits—that protruding jaws indicate a low state of civilisation, an animal and degraded mind, is it more ridiculous to assert that the flat, depressed Nose, which always accompanies the prognathous jaws, is likewise an indication of a similar mind? If it is true that the oval form of head indicates a high-class of mind, and a capacity for the highest civilisation, is it absurd to assert that the Romano-Greek Nose, which generally accompanies, and is characteristic of that form of head, is likewise indicative of a similar mind? Nasology is strictly in harmony with the deductions of the ablest physiognomists and ethnologists. It contradicts no laws which have been established between mind and matter; on the contrary, it upholds, supports, and maintains the investigations of the ablest writers on anthropology, and has only not been touched upon by them, because the necessity they are under of forming many of their deductions from skulls, precludes their making the soft parts of the face a standard of comparison.

To come then at once to our subject. We have a belief, founded on long-continued, personal observation, that there is more in a Nose than most owners of that appendage are generally aware. We believe that, besides being an ornament to the face, a breathing apparatus, or a convenient handle by which to grasp an impudent fellow, it is an important index to its owner’s character; and that the accurate observation and minute comparison of an extensive collection of Noses of persons whose mental characteristics are known, justifies a Nasal Classification, and a deduction of some points of mental organisation therefrom. It will not be contended that all the faculties and properties of mind are revealed by the Nose;—for instance, we can read nothing of Temper or the Passions from it.^[2] Perhaps it rather reveals Power and Taste—Power or Energy to carry out Ideas, and the Taste or Inclination which dictates or guides them. As these will always very much form a man’s outward character, the proposition which is sought to be established is this:—“The Nose is an important Index to Character.”

It may be prudent to observe that we utterly repudiate the doctrine of the Phrenologists, that the form of the Body affects the manifestations, and even properties, of the Mind.

We contend that the Mind forms the Nose, and not the Nose the Mind. We have carefully endeavoured to avoid phraseology which should induce a supposition that we entertain the latter absurdity; but here enter this protest once for all, lest a want of precision in our language, or the obtuseness of critics, should cause us to be charged with it.

It is in vain to require proof of a material connection between the Nose and the Mind, for it is utterly impossible to demonstrate to sense the seat of the divine particle. Material organs cannot apprehend immaterial existence: they even fail to perceive some of the more tenuous materialisms, air, light, heat, electricity, &c., which are known only by their effects. It is in vain to deny physiognomy—of which Nasology is only a department—because we cannot understand by what processes mind acts on the features; because we cannot see any material organisms which operate to contract the muscles in laughter or pain, or which impel the blood to or from the countenance when consciousness or fear affects the mind. It is in vain to deny the blush or the pallor because we know not how the pulsations of the heart and the flow of blood are affected by mental impressions. It is one of the strongest proofs of the immateriality of the soul, that while its existence cannot be denied, it cannot be anatomically demonstrated, nor rendered visible to sense. The mode in which Mind acts on Matter is one of the arcana of Nature, which, perhaps, human science will never penetrate. It is a secret reserved for that state in which the mind will act independently of material media. However numerous and plausible the theories propounded to explain the mystery, they all terminate like the Indian’s world-supports, and the chain of connection breaks at the last link. It is, therefore, in vain to deny physiognomy because we can demonstrate no material connection between the mind and the features, nor would any sane objector insist on such demonstration; yet such demonstration has been insisted on, and the absence of it adduced as a fundamental objection both to physiognomy and phrenology by critics at a loss for valid objections.

And here we might descant, at considerable length, and with much show of learning, on the influence of the Mind over the Body. We might impugn the wisdom of those who, undertaking to cure either, have forgotten that they were so intimately united and mutually dependent, that they could not be treated separately with success. We might show that the first step of the physician towards curing mental disorder, is to free the body from disease; and that of him who would cure the body, is, ofttimes, to apply his remedies to the derangement of the mind. But, though by so doing we might swell our pages and eke out an additional chapter—an important consideration if we were a mere book-maker—we shall not, as we have some qualms of conscience whether it would be quite germane to the matter in hand. It might not, however, be out of place to remind the reader that physiognomy, or the form which mind gives to the features, is universally recognised. A pleasant mouth, a merry eye, a sour visage, a stern aspect, are some of the common phrases by which we daily acknowledge ourselves to be physiognomists; for by these expressions we mean, not that the mouth is pleasant or the visage sour, but that such is the mind which shines out from them. If it were the face alone which we thus intended, we should never trouble or concern ourselves about a human countenance, nor be attracted, nor repulsed by one, any more than if it were a carved head on a gothic waterspout, or a citizen’s door-knocker. We all acknowledge the impression given by the mind to the mouth and the eyes because they express Temper and the Passions—those feelings which more immediately interest us in our mutual intercourse—and because they change with the feelings; now flashing with anger, or sparkling with pleasure, compressing with rage, or smiling with delight.

But because the Nose is uninfluenced by the feelings which agitate and vary the mind, and, is, therefore, immovable and unvaried, no one will hear the theory of Nasology broached without incredulity and risibility. Because the Nose is subject only to those faculties of mind which are permanent and unfluctuating; and is, therefore, likewise permanent and unfluctuating in its form, men have paid no attention to its indications, and will, accordingly, abuse as an empiric and dotard the first Nasologist. But, is there, à priori, any thing so unreasonable in attributing mental characteristics to the Nose, when we all daily read each other’s minds in the Nose’s next-door neighbours, the eyes and mouth? Is not the à priori inference entirely in favour of a negative reply? And that, à posteriori, it may confidently be replied to in the negative will, it is hoped, presently appear.

There is here room for another long disquisition to point out the advantages of Nasology. How that the permanency and immobility of the Nose forbid hypocrisy to mould it to any artificial feelings, as the eyes and the mouth may be. And how this immobility, together with its prominency and incapability of being concealed, like bad phrenological bumps, render it a sure guide to some parts of our fellow-creatures’ mental organization. But it would be premature to do this before proving somewhat of the truth of Nasology; and when that is done, no one will deny that it has its uses, though it may be disputed what those are.

Nevertheless, we must earnestly protest against the fallacy of attempting to judge what any person is from his Nose; we can only judge of natural tendency and capacity—education and external circumstances of a thousand different kinds, may have swerved the mind from its original tendency, or prevented the development of inherent faculties. It is in this unfair and uncharitable asserting dogmatically the disposition and character, vices and virtues, of a man, that phrenologists so greatly err; whereas they ought to confine their inferences from external development of organs, to capacity and tendency only.

The impossibility of giving such numerous pictorial illustrations as the subject properly demands, will confine the examples adduced to those only of which portraits are well known and easily accessible. If, therefore, the proofs are thought insufficient in number, it must be attributed to this circumstance alone. It would have been easy to have swelled them by a number of names, the right of which to be included in the lists the majority of persons would have been unable to verify. Nevertheless, the examples will be found much more numerous and more easily verifiable than those which have been deemed sufficient to establish Phrenology as an hypothesis, if not as a science; and, had we, like the principal expounder of Phrenology,^[3] dragged in as ‘proofs’ nameless gentlemen of our acquaintance, we might have still further extended the lists of examples. But it seemed to our humble judgment, to be demanding more from the reader’s good nature than would be compatible with sound criticism, to ask him to accept such unsupported dicta as proofs. Of course, very many of the examples by which our own mind has been satisfied have been drawn from personal observation, among friends and acquaintance; and not only have these been the most numerous proofs, but also by far the most satisfactory, as they afforded the most exact and undeniable profiles, and the most noticeable mental characteristics. The slightest incorrectness in the artist, may render useless a pictorial example; but when we are looking upon the original itself, there can be no mistake. A thousand minutiæ of character may escape a biographer, which appear plainly in the man himself.

Nevertheless, we felt so strongly how unfitting it would be to offer such mere personal observations as proofs, that we have carefully refrained from admitting any example which is not open to the observation of almost every one.

This is a drawback which we feel greatly; it reduces our instances to a hundredth part of those which might be adduced; but we must submit to it, only asking of the reader’s generosity to take it into account. Another favour which we beg is, that the reader will suspend his judgment until the subject is concluded, and he has the whole system, with all its proofs, before him.

We scruple not to admit, that at present the system is incomplete. We rather court inquiry, and solicit additional facts, than peremptorily dogmatize on conclusions drawn from our own limited—though extensive—number of observations. But it is so much the fashion for every wild theorist to dogmatize on his theory, and insist upon it, per fas et nefas, as perfect, unassailable, and complete, that it is almost deemed reprehensible to suggest a notion for the consideration of the world, or to propound anything which the author is modest enough to admit is improvable. Such, however, was not the manner of the true philosophers of former days. If Copernicus had delayed propounding the system of the universe which bears his name, until he could explain by it all the planetary and sidereal motions, it might have slumbered unknown for another century or two, and so we should not yet have arrived at our present enlarged understanding of it. If Bacon had waited for a complete Natural History, ere he published his Novum Organum, we might still have been groping after the Sciences with the dark lantern of Aristotle and the schools. If Newton had withheld his theory of Light until he could burn a diamond, our knowledge of the nature of light might still be in its infancy.

These examples must furnish an apology for submitting for candid consideration and further development, a theory which we believe to be well-founded, but which is capable of improvement and extension.

Subject to the foregoing remarks, the following Physical Classification of Noses^[4] is submitted, as being, in part, well-known and long-established, because well-defined and clearly marked:—

Class	I.	The Roman, or Aquiline Nose.
Class	II.	The Greek, or Straight Nose.
Class	III.	The Cogitative, or Wide-nostrilled Nose.
Class	IV.	The Jewish, or Hawk Nose.
Class	V.	The Snub Nose, and
Class	VI.	The Celestial, or Turn-up Nose.

Between these there are infinite crosses and intermixtures which will at first embarrass the student, but which, after a little practice, he will be able to distinguish with tolerable precision. A compound of different Noses will of course indicate a compound character; and it is only in the rather rare instance of a perfect Nose of any of the classes that we find a character correspondingly strongly developed. We shall endeavour to support each part of the hypothesis by well-defined and striking instances, selecting the most decided and perfect noses of each class, and at the same time the most peculiar and decided characters.

Class I. The Roman, or Aquiline Nose, is rather convex, but undulating, as its name aquiline imports. It is usually rugose and coarse; but when otherwise, it approaches the Greek nose, and the character is materially altered.

It indicates great decision, considerable Energy, Firmness, Absence of Refinement, and Disregard for the bienséances of life.

Class II. The Greek, or Straight Nose, is perfectly straight; any deviation from the right line must be strictly noticed. If the deviation tend to convexity, it approaches the Roman Nose, and the character is improved by an accession of energy; on the other hand, when the deviation is towards concavity, it partakes of the “Celestial,” and the character is weakened. It should be fine and well chiselled, but not sharp.

It indicates Refinement of character, Love for the fine arts and belles-lettres, Astuteness, Craft, and a preference for indirect, rather than direct action. Its owner is not without some energy in pursuit of that which is agreeable to his tastes; but, unlike the owner of the Roman Nose, he cannot exert himself in opposition to his tastes. When associated with the Roman Nose, and distended slightly at the end by the Cogitative, it indicates the most useful and intellectual of characters; and is the highest and most beautiful form which the organ can assume.^[5]

Class III. The Cogitative, or Wide-nostrilled Nose, is, as its secondary name imports, wide at the end, thick and broad; not clubbed, but gradually widening from below the bridge. The other noses are seen in profile, but this in full face.

It indicates a Cogitative mind, having strong powers of Thought, and given to close and serious Meditation. Its indications are, of course, much dependent on the form of the Nose in profile, which decides the turn the cogitative power will take. Of course, it never occurs alone; and is usually associated with Classes I and II, rarely with IV, still more seldom with V and VI.^[6] The entire absence of it produces the “sharp” nose, which is not classified, as sharpness is only a negative quality, being the defect of breadth,^[7] and, therefore, indicates defect of cogitative power.

Class IV. The Jewish, or Hawk Nose, is very convex, and preserves its convexity like a bow, throughout the whole length from the eyes to the tip. It is thin and sharp.

It indicates considerable Shrewdness in worldly matters; a deep insight into character, and facility of turning that insight to profitable account.

Classes V and VI. The Snub Nose, and the Turn-up, poeticè Celestial Nose. The form of the former is sufficiently indicated by its name. The latter is distinguished by its presenting a continuous concavity from the eyes to the tip. It is converse in shape to the Jewish nose.

N.B. The Celestial must not be confounded with a Nose which, belonging to one of the other classes in the upper part, terminates in a slight distension of the tip; for this, so far from prejudicing the character, rather adds to it warmth and activity.

We associate the Snub and the Celestial in nearly the same category, as they both indicate natural weakness, mean, disagreeable disposition, with petty insolence, and divers other characteristics of conscious weakness, which strongly assimilate them (indeed, a true Celestial Nose is only a Snub turned up); while their general poverty of distinctive character, makes it almost impossible to distinguish them. Nevertheless there is a difference between their indications; arising, however, rather from difference of intensity than of character. The Celestial is, by virtue of its greater length, decidedly preferable to the Snub; as it has all the above unfortunate propensities in a much less degree, and is not without some share of small shrewdness and fox-like common sense; on which, however, it is apt to presume, and is, therefore, a more impudent Nose than the Snub.

The following subordinate rules are applicable to all kinds of Noses, and must be attended to before forming a judgment on any Nose.

1. The Power of a Nose depends upon its length in proportion to the profile. A Nose should not be less than one-third of the entire length of the profile, from the root of the hair to the tip of the chin.

2. The character of a Nose is weakened in intensity by forming too great, or too small an angle with the general profile of the face. This angle, if as great as 40°, is not good, anything beyond that is bad; about 30° is best. Angles: —less than becomes a snub.

3. Attention should be paid to the angle which the basal line of the Nose forms with the upper lip. This angle affects intensity, and also temperament. If it is an obtuse angle, as thus , the consequent abbreviation of the Nose (for a long Nose has always more Power than a short one) weakens the character, but the temperament is cheerful, gay, and lively; if on the other hand the angle is acute, as thus , the elongation of the Nose adds much to the intensity of the character indicated by the profile; but the disposition is generally melancholy, and, if a very acute angle, desponding and fond of gloomy thoughts. Fox (the Martyrologist), John Knox, Calvin, George Herbert, Edmund Spenser, and Dante, are illustrations of the melancholy Nose.

DANTE.