CHAPTER IV.OF THE COGITATIVE NOSE.

CHAPTER IV.OF THE COGITATIVE NOSE.

Class III.—The Cogitative, or Wide-Nostrilled Nose, is, as its secondary name imports, wide at the end, thick and broad, not clubbed, butgraduallywidening 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. The entire absence of it produces the “sharp” Nose, which is not classified, a sharpness is only a negative quality, being defect of breadth, and therefore indicates defect of Cogitative power.

It is manifest that without some portion of the Cogitative power,i. e., the capacity of concentrating the thoughts earnestly and powerfully in one focus, no character can be truly great. It is therefore a quality essential to high and durable eminence in every department of life. It matters not what a man’s natural talents may be, they will be utterly useless, or worse than useless, if he has not schooled his mind into habits of concentrated thought. It is the want of this severe training which causes so many men of fine talents to be a burden to themselves and others. How frequently have we to lament the humiliating spectacle of a great genius—as the phrase is—flitting about from pursuit to pursuit, without any settled end or aim; now attempting this thing, now dabbling in that; doing all things tolerably well, but nothing perfectly; aiming at everything, but holding fast to nothing; and merely from want of steady settled habits of thought! How melancholy is it to reflect that the want of self-training in early life has converted the blessing of talents into a curse, andturned the fine wheat of heaven’s planting into the rank tares of Hell!

It is from beholding this too frequent spectacle that dull-pated Ignorance repeats with self-complacency the trite proverb, “Geniuses rarely do any good for themselves,” professes to despise the talents in which he is consciously deficient, and thanks God that He has not made him a genius.

Begone, thou muddle-pated imbecile! and learn that it is not his genius which has made him what he is, but the want of that in which you equally fail—self-training. Instead of idly despising the noblest gifts of Heaven, strive, from his example, to avoid the rock on which he has split, and endeavour, by stern, close, severe mental discipline, to elevate yourself to a fractional part of the high estate from which he has fallen. Pull him not down to your debasement, but soar upward towards the eminence which he has voluntarily (alas!) abandoned; well assured that thoughyoumay never reach it, your labour will not have been in vain, but that you may yet place yourself far above the level of the common despisers of genius.

But to our subject—the Cogitative Nose. This Nose long puzzled us. We found it among men of all pursuits, from the warrior to the peaceful theologian. Noticing it more particularly among the latter, we were at one time inclined to call it the religious Nose; but further observation convincing us that that term was too limited, we were compelled to abandon it. We were next, from seeing it frequent among scientific men, disposed to call it the philosophic Nose; but this was found to be too confined also, as, in the modern acceptation of the term, it seemed to exclude the theologians, and we moreover traced it accompanying other and very different conditions of mind. It soon became manifest, however, that it was noticeable only among very first-rate men (men of the veryhighestexcellence in their several departments), and that search must be made for some common property of mind which however directed by other causes, would always lead to eminence. It appeared to us that this property was deep, close Meditation, intense concentrated Thought, eminently“cogitative” in fact; and, therefore, we adopted this term, which permits to have included in it all serious thinkers, whatever the subject of their cogitations.

It would be wrong to regard it as a mere coincidence, that, after having from deductionà posteriorilearnt that this common property is exhibited in thebreadthof the Nose, we find that if we were,à priori, to consider in which part of the Nose acommonproperty was to be looked for, we must decide it to be in thebreadth, for the profile is already in every part mapped out and appropriated tospecialproperties.

May we not hail this as one of the beautiful harmonious truths which spring up from time to time, the deeper the subject is investigated, to attest the accuracy of the system? for where by a careful deduction,à posteriori, we discover the common property is, there,à priori, we perceive it must be in order to act in concert with thespecialproperties exhibited by the profile.

To entitle a Nose to rank among the Cogitatives, it should be above the medium between the very full broad Nose, and the very sharp thin Nose. The observation is to be confined to the partsbelowthe bridge; what may be the properties of breadthabovethe bridge we have not at present observed satisfactorily. It may be remarked as a general rule, that the further a Nose recedes from sharpness the better.

We have said that minds of every bias are found accompanying Cogitative Noses, and this necessarily; for the tendency of the cogitations will be determined by the profile. Thus the Cogitative acts in concert with the other Noses, making useful those qualities which would, otherwise, for ever slumber unknown. The very best Nose in profile may be utterly worthless from defect of breadth; for, as before observed, no talent is of any use without Cogitative power; and every Nose, having breadth as well as length (profile), must be submitted to the test of this Class before a judgment is pronounced upon it. Being, however, anxious to simplify the subject, we have not, in our notices of Classes I. and II., remarked specially on the Cogitative part of their formation, and have reserved untilthis chapter the instances of those Classes partaking largely of Class III.

In the present brief sketch of the science, however, we shall not attempt to distinguish our instances under the heads of distinct profiles, as, Romano-Cogitative, Greco-Cogitative, &c.; but class together all the compounds partaking sufficiently of the Cogitative form to entitle them to a place among Cogitative Noses.

The following persons have Noses which largely partake of this important formation:—

THEOLOGIANS.Wickliff.Luther.Cranmer.Knox.Tyndale.Fuller.Hall, BishopTillotson.Baxter.Bunyan.Hooker.Taylor, JeremySouth.Warburton.Paley.Stillingfleet.Chalmers.Priestley.Wesley.Hall, RobertSCIENTIFIC MEN.Hunter.Jenner.Galileo.Dollond.Caxton.Bacon.Whiston.Delambre.Wollaston.Smeaton.Newton.Halley.Banks, Sir JosephWatt.Cartwright.Cuvier.Descartes.Humboldt, Alex. VonLAWYERS.Erskine.Blackstone.Mansfield.Hale.Coke.Somers.ARTISTS.Angelo, MichaelHogarth.POETS.Homer.Chaucer.Tasso.Jonson, BenShakspere.Milton (in age).Molière.Göethe.Wordsworth.Mrs. Hemans.Burns.STATESMENANDMETAPHYSICIANS.Cromwell, O.Grotius.Burke.Franklin.Johnson, Dr. S.Mackintosh, Sir J.Walpole.Colbert.Talleyrand.Fox.Coleridge.Washington.Hobbes.De Witt.HISTORIANS.Selden.Camden.Usher, ArchbishopClarendon.Burnet, BishopBuchanan.Hume.Robertson.

THEOLOGIANS.Wickliff.Luther.Cranmer.Knox.Tyndale.Fuller.Hall, BishopTillotson.Baxter.Bunyan.Hooker.Taylor, JeremySouth.Warburton.Paley.Stillingfleet.Chalmers.Priestley.Wesley.Hall, RobertSCIENTIFIC MEN.Hunter.Jenner.Galileo.Dollond.Caxton.Bacon.Whiston.Delambre.Wollaston.Smeaton.Newton.Halley.Banks, Sir JosephWatt.Cartwright.Cuvier.Descartes.Humboldt, Alex. VonLAWYERS.Erskine.Blackstone.Mansfield.Hale.Coke.Somers.ARTISTS.Angelo, MichaelHogarth.POETS.Homer.Chaucer.Tasso.Jonson, BenShakspere.Milton (in age).Molière.Göethe.Wordsworth.Mrs. Hemans.Burns.STATESMENANDMETAPHYSICIANS.Cromwell, O.Grotius.Burke.Franklin.Johnson, Dr. S.Mackintosh, Sir J.Walpole.Colbert.Talleyrand.Fox.Coleridge.Washington.Hobbes.De Witt.HISTORIANS.Selden.Camden.Usher, ArchbishopClarendon.Burnet, BishopBuchanan.Hume.Robertson.

THEOLOGIANS.

THEOLOGIANS.

Wickliff.Luther.Cranmer.Knox.Tyndale.Fuller.Hall, BishopTillotson.Baxter.Bunyan.Hooker.Taylor, JeremySouth.Warburton.Paley.Stillingfleet.Chalmers.Priestley.Wesley.Hall, Robert

Wickliff.

Luther.

Cranmer.

Knox.

Tyndale.

Fuller.

Hall, Bishop

Tillotson.

Baxter.

Bunyan.

Hooker.

Taylor, Jeremy

South.

Warburton.

Paley.

Stillingfleet.

Chalmers.

Priestley.

Wesley.

Hall, Robert

SCIENTIFIC MEN.

SCIENTIFIC MEN.

Hunter.Jenner.Galileo.Dollond.Caxton.Bacon.Whiston.Delambre.Wollaston.Smeaton.Newton.Halley.Banks, Sir JosephWatt.Cartwright.Cuvier.Descartes.Humboldt, Alex. Von

Hunter.

Jenner.

Galileo.

Dollond.

Caxton.

Bacon.

Whiston.

Delambre.

Wollaston.

Smeaton.

Newton.

Halley.

Banks, Sir Joseph

Watt.

Cartwright.

Cuvier.

Descartes.

Humboldt, Alex. Von

LAWYERS.

LAWYERS.

Erskine.Blackstone.Mansfield.Hale.Coke.Somers.

Erskine.

Blackstone.

Mansfield.

Hale.

Coke.

Somers.

ARTISTS.

ARTISTS.

Angelo, MichaelHogarth.

Angelo, Michael

Hogarth.

POETS.

POETS.

Homer.Chaucer.Tasso.Jonson, BenShakspere.Milton (in age).Molière.Göethe.Wordsworth.Mrs. Hemans.Burns.

Homer.

Chaucer.

Tasso.

Jonson, Ben

Shakspere.

Milton (in age).

Molière.

Göethe.

Wordsworth.

Mrs. Hemans.

Burns.

STATESMENANDMETAPHYSICIANS.

STATESMEN

AND

METAPHYSICIANS.

Cromwell, O.Grotius.Burke.Franklin.Johnson, Dr. S.Mackintosh, Sir J.Walpole.Colbert.Talleyrand.Fox.Coleridge.Washington.Hobbes.De Witt.

Cromwell, O.

Grotius.

Burke.

Franklin.

Johnson, Dr. S.

Mackintosh, Sir J.

Walpole.

Colbert.

Talleyrand.

Fox.

Coleridge.

Washington.

Hobbes.

De Witt.

HISTORIANS.

HISTORIANS.

Selden.Camden.Usher, ArchbishopClarendon.Burnet, BishopBuchanan.Hume.Robertson.

Selden.

Camden.

Usher, Archbishop

Clarendon.

Burnet, Bishop

Buchanan.

Hume.

Robertson.

HOOKER.

HOOKER.

HOOKER.

In the above instances every one is compounded with Class I, or II, or both; and would be writtenIIII, orIIIII, orI + IIIII, orII + IIII, according to the class or sub-class of profile to which it might belong.

The list given is more extensive than usual; yet it might be much extended, and should comprise all the greatest names in Theology, Science, and Art.

It has been said, that “the form of the Nose in profile, decides the turn which the Cogitative power will take.” Thus the Romano-Cogitative will prefer to exercise its cogitativeness in the bustle of active life, and Washington and Cromwell present remarkable proofs of the truth of this assertion. Another striking instance is the energeticand fervent John Knox, who bearded monarchs on their thrones, and lawless nobles in their strongholds.

But we must again guard the reader against the assumption that energy of character can only be displayed in physical action.

The energy of the Romano-Cogitative may display itself in a vigorous and nervous style of literary composition, and so be distinguished from the beauty and euphony indicated by the Greco-Cogitative. The former will disregard style, if it interfere with the force and power of expression, or weakens the vigour and terseness of an important paragraph; while the latter will labour and polish his style till the sense is almost obliterated, and little remains but a beautiful and melodious sound.

Luther, whose Nose was highly Roman, is an illustrious example that Power and Energy may be displayed otherwise than in physical action, and many other examples might be cited, were it necessary to substantiate a proposition which every reader may confirm for himself by examination of any accurately illustrated General Biography. But we cite Luther, because he presents a contrast, both in feature and mind, to many other men of the same nation, warm friends, ardently embarked in the same cause, impressed with the same truths, and equally desirous to propagate them for the enlightenment and salvation of their fellow-men.

In Luther we behold a man of intense Energy and undaunted Firmness; bold, forward, ever rushing into action; attacking Falsehood everywhere; volunteering his theses; challenging disputation; ever in wars of words, regardless of danger; fearless of death, imprisonment, or torture; reckless whom he offended—rather seeking to offend—careless of other’s feelings; coarse, violent, and repulsive in language; indifferent in what terms he propounded truth or exposed error. Thus did the intense Energy, prompt Decision, and immovable Firmness, with the coarseness and disregard to his own and others’ physical welfare, indicated by his Roman Nose, display themselves in Luther, to his own detriment, the sorrow of his friends, the loss of many adherents, and the still-continuedscoffs of the enemies and the censure of the friends of the Reformation.

In contrast with the fully-developed Cogitativeness of the Noses of Luther, Wickliff, Cranmer, and other leaders in the Reformation, may be placed the Nose of a man who was called to take a prominent part in the same movement, but whose deficiency in thoughtfulness and serious determination paralyzed his usefulness, and flung him back into the abyss of Romanism, from which his soul naturally revolted. We allude to Erasmus. His nose was a sharp Greek nose, indicative of the refinement and delicacy of mind which made him a Reformer in heart, and of the want of cogitative power which disabled him from joining the good cause when adherence to it called for serious enterprise and thoughtful energy. He was content to be a Reformer in heart only, and thus became the lukewarm enemy of both Romanists and Protestants. He lashed the vices and follies of the monks in sharp satires; but he shrunk from interference when the intensely energetic and Roman-Nosed Luther would have annihilated them.

The historian of the Reformation thus describes him.[22]“In the result Erasmus knew not on which side to range himself. None pleased him, and he dreaded all. ‘It is dangerous to speak,’ said he, ‘and dangerous to be silent.’ In all great religious movements there are such undecided characters—respectable in some things, but hindering the truth, and who, from a desire to displease no one, displease all.” Erasmus, though a clever and learned man, lacked the wisdom and sagacity necessary to penetrate the future. He could criticize a Greek historian, and correct the Greek Testament, but he could not discern the signs of the times. Timid and retiring by nature, he feared to fail in the contest with the spirits of darkness; he had no confidence in the righteousness of the cause of the Reformation, and, knowing his constitutional weakness, shrunk from the penalties of failure. A sagacity and power of penetration equal to that of his more cogitative brother-Reformers would have cured his cowardice by shewing him its causelessness. Luther, on the other hand, fearednothing; he knew that the truth, if energetically urged, must prevail,—though it would be crushed, if permitted to lie quietly dormant. Truth will not conquer of its own force; it must be promulgated, insisted on, and brought home to men’s minds. They will not seek it, preferring rather to enjoy the peaceable stagnation of error. While Luther was respected and admired even by his bitterest enemies, Erasmus was despised by all parties. His vacillation was aptly hit off by a cotemporary, who, in one of his works depicting two heavens, the Papal and the Christian, says, “I find Erasmus in neither; but perceive him incessantly wheeling, in never-ending eddies between both.” Certainly a fitting destination for the man who advises his friend to dissemble his opinions, as a certain dying man eluded the devil. The devil asked him what he believed? The dying man, fearing to be surprised into some heresy, answered, “What the Church believes.” “What does the Church believe?” persisted his Satanic enemy. “What I believe,” replied the cautious man. Again, the devil, “And what do you believe?” “What the Church believes.” Whereupon the devil, being unable to convict him of lax Churchism, left him to the mercy of the Pope, who, he knew, would deal with him after his—gifts forpious uses.

If the pencil of the Artist be the adopted vehicle of thought, the natural differences of character will be equally betrayed. Thus the Romano-Cogitative Michael Angelo exhibited the thoughtful energy of his mind in a fervid and exaggerated opinion of the fiercest passions, and delighted in representations—not always the most refined—of scenes from which most minds revolt, to which he even added a horror all his own. The exaggerated action and muscular development of Michael Angelo’s figures, the gigantic scale on which he preferred to draw them, and the stupendous works which he unhesitatingly undertook, betray an energetic and coarse mind, quite accordant with his Roman profile. The Greek-Nosed Raffaelle, on the other hand, paid exclusive attention to beauty of form, and the pourtraying of the gentler and more amiable sentiments, especially of the female character. He was neverbetrayed into any extravagancies of action or passion; but delighted to dwell on the peaceful holiness and gentle sentiment of the Virgin Mother and the Infant Jesus, or the graceful virtues of the female saints.

HOBBES.

HOBBES.

HOBBES.

The major part of our illustrations being taken from purely literary men, present Greco-Cogitative Noses. It is not our intention to descant at length on persons whose works are well known, by name at least, to every one, and whose lives were, for the most part, passed in the usual monotonous tenour of those of literary men; but Bacon may be referred to as an important corroborative instance of the shrewd, wily measures by which the astute Greek prefers to further his ambition. Bacon as a man presents such a lamentable contrast to Bacon as a philosopher, and the wretched underhand means by which he attained eminence are so well known, and so painful to dwell upon, that we refrain from doing more than referring the reader to the facts for comparison with his profile. Wretchedly inconsistent as his character appears, it is not inconsistent with his Nose; and, perhaps, what are termed his inconsistencies, are only a proof that the intellectual and moral powers are distinct, and that the most profuse development of the former, cannot compensate for a deficiency of the latter.

It is unnecessary to dissertate upon the names in thepresent list in order to demonstrate their right to appear among the Cogitatives. No one will deny their title to that most enviable epithet, and it would be by portraits alone that the identity between their minds and noses could be exhibited to any who are incredulous on that subject. To such we can only say, examine for yourselves; the portraits are, for the most part, easily attainable; and an attentive examination of them will well repay the labour, and, without doubt, satisfy the most sceptical of the truth of the hypothesis.

The names on that list are, for the most part, names which are a volume in themselves: they write their own history; certainly no encomiums of ours can add anything to their glory. It is undeniable that it was by close cogitation, serious, hard thinking, that each of them obtained a place in the rolls of Fame; and it is equally certain that almost every person may, by the same process obtain, if not an equal, yet certainly no mean place in the same estimable record.

It is a common and veracious observation, that certain faces prevail in certain ages; but it may be further added, that this epochal character frequently arises from the formation of the Nose, more especially of the Cogitative part.

Up to about the close of the reign of James I. the Greco-Cogitative prevailed; during the time of Charles I. and the Protectorate, the Romano-Cogitative was almost universal, and the Cogitative part was much increased in intensity. The Noses of the time are remarkably broad and thick, a circumstance which can only be attributed to the serious religious and political questions which then agitated the minds of all men. With the careless dissipated days of the second Charles came in the thin, long Greek, or Greco-Roman Nose, with little or none of the Cogitative element; and this for the most part prevailed up to the commencement of the present century. What future ages may determine to be the form of Nose characteristic of our age it is impossible to say.Wecan form no accurate judgment, for time alone can separate thetares from the wheat, and decide who are the great men of our age.

To an observant mind there is something very remarkable in the striking contrast between the physiognomies of the leaders in our own Rebellion (as it is historically termed) and of those of the French revolutionists. Besides a certain serious determination, a stern, unflinching, dogged consciousness of right, that nothing could turn to the right hand or to the left, which is visible in the countenances of the former, and to be contrasted with the flippant, wicked, blood-thirsty-looking smirk of the latter, there is a remarkable contrast in their Noses. The thick, broad, Cogitative Nose is visible in all of the former, from Old Noll himself to honest Andrew Marvel; while the void of thought, sharp, captious,vulpineNose is to be seen in every one of the bloody tyrants of the Frenchsans-culotterie.

The latter look like men who

“Could smile, and murder while they smile.”

“Could smile, and murder while they smile.”

“Could smile, and murder while they smile.”

“Could smile, and murder while they smile.”

The former like men who

“Put their trust in God, and keep their powder dry.”

“Put their trust in God, and keep their powder dry.”

“Put their trust in God, and keep their powder dry.”

“Put their trust in God, and keep their powder dry.”

Wordsworth has so splendidly and truly contrasted the men of either age that we cannot resist inserting his lines entire:

“Great men have been among us; hands that pennedAnd tongues that uttered wisdom—better none;The later Sydney, Marvel, Harrington,Young Vane, and others who called Milton friend.These moralists could act and comprehend;They knew how genuine glory was put on;Taught us how rightfully a nation shoneIn splendour; what strength was, that would not benBut in magnanimous meekness. France, ’tis strange,Hath brought forth no such souls as we had then.Perpetual emptiness! unceasing change!No single volume paramount, no code,No master-spirit, no determined road;—But equally a want of Books and Men!”

“Great men have been among us; hands that pennedAnd tongues that uttered wisdom—better none;The later Sydney, Marvel, Harrington,Young Vane, and others who called Milton friend.These moralists could act and comprehend;They knew how genuine glory was put on;Taught us how rightfully a nation shoneIn splendour; what strength was, that would not benBut in magnanimous meekness. France, ’tis strange,Hath brought forth no such souls as we had then.Perpetual emptiness! unceasing change!No single volume paramount, no code,No master-spirit, no determined road;—But equally a want of Books and Men!”

“Great men have been among us; hands that pennedAnd tongues that uttered wisdom—better none;The later Sydney, Marvel, Harrington,Young Vane, and others who called Milton friend.These moralists could act and comprehend;They knew how genuine glory was put on;Taught us how rightfully a nation shoneIn splendour; what strength was, that would not benBut in magnanimous meekness. France, ’tis strange,Hath brought forth no such souls as we had then.Perpetual emptiness! unceasing change!No single volume paramount, no code,No master-spirit, no determined road;—But equally a want of Books and Men!”

“Great men have been among us; hands that penned

And tongues that uttered wisdom—better none;

The later Sydney, Marvel, Harrington,

Young Vane, and others who called Milton friend.

These moralists could act and comprehend;

They knew how genuine glory was put on;

Taught us how rightfully a nation shone

In splendour; what strength was, that would not ben

But in magnanimous meekness. France, ’tis strange,

Hath brought forth no such souls as we had then.

Perpetual emptiness! unceasing change!

No single volume paramount, no code,

No master-spirit, no determined road;—

But equally a want of Books and Men!”

In the fifth line, “These moralists couldactANDcomprehend,”we have a beautiful and exact paraphrase of the Romano-Cogitative, which we noticed as characteristic of the Cromwellian age—the union of physical energy with mental power.

It was a remark which we heard made some thirty years ago, by a very observant man, that there was a wonderful identity of expression in the countenances of all the men of the French Revolution, and that the same peculiar expression is to be seen in the faces of the conspirators of the Gunpowder Plot. Subsequent personal observation has confirmed this remark, of which it is a curious and recent corroboration, that the same expression is visible in the countenances of some of the leading Terrorists of the late French Revolution.[23]The countenance of “bloody Mary” is an instance of the same peculiar expression.

The old gentleman who made the remark which drew our infantine attention added, (and it was this perhaps which impressed it upon our memory) that there was “blood” written in all their faces.

We cannot improve upon this definition, though in one word, it might also be called awolfishlook—lean, cruel, hungry, grinning.

When treating of the Greek Nose, we stated that the Nose of Milton expanded into the Cogitative form when, in the latter part of his life, he was compelled to turn his thoughts anxiously and seriously to the condition of his unhappy country, and when, with a holy and unswerving determination he devoted his whole soul to the composition of a poem, whose fame should be co-extensive with the world whose creation it described. We then claimed this instance of change of form coincident with change of character, as a proof of the correctness of the hypothesis. It was however a superfluous precaution, for the coincident change is equally true in almost every instance of the Cogitative Nose. No man can alter the profile of his Nose, but he may increase its latitudinal diameter. Asto the former, he must submit to have it what shape God pleases; as to the latter, he may make it almost any shape he himself pleases—for the one indicates acquired habits, the other inherent properties.

The Cogitative Nose expands with expanding thoughts and is therefore rarely, if ever, much developed in youth; neither, on the other hand, is the very sharp or Noncogitative Nose frequently visible in early life, for there are few to whom God has not given the elements of thought. It is our own faults, therefore, if we throw away the talents bestowed upon us, and suffer our minds to degenerate into inanity and our Noses into sharpness.

For this reason, it is a laudable ambition in a young man to cultivate a Cogitative Nose, for he can only do so by cultivating his mind. And, forasmuch as it is the only part of the Nose which is under the controul of the owner, so it is that which can be most distinctly judged of and its expansion watched; for, though the owner can never see the perfect profile of his Nose, he may always form a correct estimate of itsbreadth. We should be quite justified in adding this to the numerous proofs of design in the adaptation of the human body to the soul, but as many persons cannot surmount a certain sense of the ridiculous in the subject before us, we forbear. Those who are impressed with the truth of our system, will at once admit the inference, and perceive its value in Natural Theology.[24]

As it has been deemed unnecessary to extend the present chapter with any biographical or critical sketches of the examples adduced in corroboration of Class III, we will devote the next to the more useful task of inquiring how a Cogitative Mind and its certain accompaniment, a Cogitative Nose, may be acquired.


Back to IndexNext