Karakter, oder befoer Sanftmut, wird durch die Mafiigung, welche die
groSe Welt gibt, ungemein imponierend" Schiller wrote about a guest at a
social gathering (Schiller 2002). Yet Schiller remained skeptical about the
validity of physiognomy. The act of describing his protagonist as ugly
does engage physiognomy and a superficial reading of the text could
conclude that it upholds the tenets of it. However, too many facets of the
text undermine physiognomy.
Central to Schiller's dismissal of Lavater lies the idea that ugliness
is the result of an ugly soul. By stating this, Lavater refers to an age-old
topos that ugliness was synonymous with evil: "Die Schonheit und
HaSlichkeit des Angesichts, hat ein richtiges und genaues Verhaltnis zur
Schonheit und HaSlichkeit der moralischen Beschaffenheit des
Menschen. Je moralischer; desto schoner. Je moralisch schlimmer; desto
halSlicher" (Lavater 1984). Lavater asserts that man's moral character is
directly proportional to his physical beauty or ugliness. According to
Lavater's system, an ugly man must therefore be morally ugly as well.
However, there is a blatant counter-example with this line of
thought: Socrates. Lavater dismisses reports of Socrates's ugliness as a
misprint, "eine Anomalie der Natur." His disbelief stems from the inner
beauty of Socrates: "Und doch was Sokrates aus allem, was wir von ihm
wissen, ein weiser und edler Mensch" (Lavater 1996). The ease with
which Lavater is able to dismiss Socrates's ugliness is a problem
inherent to the pseudo-science. At the heart of physiognomy lay