That Nature has instituted a science of physiognomy seems to us to be proclaimed by the very instincts, not only of humanity, but of the lower animals themselves. Yet the attempt to raise the art of reading the countenance to the dignity of a practical science, although, often made, has never yet been very successful. Della Porta, a Neapolitan, instituted comparisons between the physiognomies of human beings and of species of animals noted for the possession of peculiar qualities. This was afterwards carried further by Tischbein. Physiognomy was also eagerly prosecuted by Thomas Campanella; and when his labours were nearly forgotten, attention was again strongly directed to it by the writings of Lavater. But although most other sciences are insignificant compared with this, the majority of _men_ can hardly be said to know the alphabet of human nature. Woman in her perceptions of grace, propriety, ridicule—her power of detecting artifice, hypocrisy, and affection—is, beyond all doubt, his superior. It is wonderful how often, in nicely balanced cases, when we appeal to the judgment of a woman, how instantly she decides the question for us, and how generally she is right. _PIETY._ There is a passage in the book Ecclesiastes, which that contemptible class of men—the satirists of the female sex—have delighted to quote and misapply. “One man among a thousand have I found, but a woman amongst all these have I not found.” Solomon did not mean that there were fewer good women than good men in the world. This reference was to the members of that royal household; and judging from that class of women with whom unhappily he associated, we do not wonder at the experience he left on record. The wisest of men did not mean, as a satirist, to libel one half of the human race, but as a penitent to admonish others against the snares into which he had fallen. It cannot be doubted that there are far more pious women in every quarter of the globe than pious men.