opposition； thus does not afford the expression which is sought。
If now the external shape and form were able to express the inner individuality only in so far as
that shape is neither an organ nor action； hence only in so far as it is an inert passive whole； it
would then play the r？le of a subsistent thing； which received undisturbed the inner as an alien
element into its own passive being； and thereby became the sign and symbol of it — an external
contingent expression； whose actual concrete aspect has no meaning of its own — a language
whose sounds and tone…combinations are not the real fact itself； but are capriciously connected
with it and a mere accident so far as it is concerned。
Such a capricious association of factors that are external for one another does not give a law。
Physiognomy； however； would claim distinction from other spurious arts and unwholesome
studies on the ground that in dealing with determinate individuality it considers the necessary
opposition of an inner and an outer； of character as a conscious nature and character as a
definitely embodied organic shape； and relates these moments to one another in the way they are
related to one another by their very conception； and hence must constitute the content of a law。 In
astrology； on the other hand； in palmistry and similar 〃sciences〃； there appears merely external
element related to external element； anything whatsoever to an element alien to it。 A given
constellation at birth； and； when the external element is brought closer to the body itself； certain
given lines on the hand； are external factors making for long or short life； and the fate in general of
the particular person。 Being externalities they are indifferent towards one another； and have none
of the necessity for one another which is supposed to lie in the relation of what is outer to what is
inner。
The hand； to be sure； does not seem to be such a very external thing for fate； it seems rather to
stand to it as something inner。 For fate again is also merely the phenomenal manifestation of what
the specifically determinate individuality inherently is as having originally an inner determinate
constitution。 Now to find out what this individuality is in itself； the palmist； as well as the
physiognomist； takes a shorter cut than； e。g。； Solon； who thought he could only know this from
and after the course of the whole life： the latter looked at the phenomenal explicit reality； while the
former considers the implicit nature （das Ansich）。 That the band； however； must exhibit and reveal
the inherent nature of individuality as regards its fate； is easily seen from the fact that after the
organ of speech it is the hand most of all by which a man actualizes and manifests himself。 It is the
animated artificer of his fortune： we may say of the band it is what a man does； for in it as the
effective organ of his self…fulfilment he is there present as the animating soul； and since he is
ultimately and originally his own fate； the hand will thus express this innate inherent nature。
From this peculiarity； that the organ of activity is at once a form of being and the operation going
on within it； or again that the inner inherent being is itself explicitly present in it and has a being for
others； we come upon a further aspect of it different from the preceding。 For if the organs in
general proved to be incapable of being taken as expressions of the inner for the reason that in
them the action is present as a process； while the action as a deed or （finished） act is merely
external； and inner and outer in this way fall apart and are or can be alien to one another； the organ
must； in view of the peculiarity now considered； be again taken as also a middle term for both；
since this very fact； that the operation takes place and is present in it； constitutes eo ipso an
external attribute of it； and indeed one that is different from the deed or act； for the former holds
by the individual and remains with him。
This mediating term uniting inner and outer is in the first place itself external too。 But then this
externality is at the same time taken up into the inner； it stands in the form of simple unbroken
externality opposed to dispersed externality； which either is a single performance or condition
contingent for the individuality as a whole； or else； in the form of a total externality； is fate or
destiny； split up into a plurality of performances and conditions。 The simple lines of the hand； then；
the ring and compass of the voice； as also the individual peculiarity of the language used： or again
this idiosyncracy of language； as expressed where the hand gives it more durable existence than
the voice can do； viz。 in writing； especially in the particular style of 〃handwriting〃 — all this is an
expression of the inner； so that； as against the multifarious externality of action and fate； this
expression again stands in the position of simple externality； plays the part of an inner in relation to
the externality of action and fate。 Thus； then； if at first the specific nature and innate peculiarity of
the individual along with what these become as the result of cultivation and development； are
regarded as the inner reality； as the essence of action and of fate； this inner being finds its
appearance in external fashion to begin with in his mouth； hand； voice； handwriting； and the other
organs and their permanent characteristics。 Thereafter and not till then does it give itself further
outward expression in its realization in the world。
Now because this middle term assumes the nature of an outer expression； which is at the same
time taken back into the inner； its existence is not confined to the immediate organ of action （the
hand）； this middle term is rather the movement and form of countenance and figure in general
which perform no outward act。 These lineaments and their movements on this principle are the
checked and restrained action that stops in the individual and； as regards his relation to what he
actually does； constitute his own personal inspection and observation of the action…outer
expression in the sense of reflexion upon the actual outer expression。
The individual； on the occasion of his external action； is therefore not dumb and silent； because he
is thereby at once reflected into himself； and he gives articulate expression to this self…reflexion。
This theoretical action； the individual's conversing with himself on the matter； is also perceptible to
others； for his speaking is itself an outer expression。
In this inner； then； which in being expressed remains an inner； observation finds the individual
reflected out of his actual reality； and we have to see how the case stands with regard to the
necessity which lies in the unity here。
His being thus reflected is to begin with different from the act itself； and therefore can be； and be
taken for something other than the deed is。 We look at a man's face and see whether he is in
earnest with what he says or does。 Conversely； however； what is here intended to be an
expression of the inner is at the same time an existent objective expression； and hence itself falls to
the level of mere existence； which is absolutely contingent for the self…conscious individual。 It is
therefore no doubt an expression； but at the same time only in the sense of a sign； so that to the
content expressed the peculiar nature of that by which it is expressed is completely indifferent。 The
inner in thus appearing is doubtless an invisible made visible； but without being itself united to this
appearance。 It can just as well make use of some other appearance as another inner can adopt the
same appearance。 Lichtenberg； （2） therefore； is right in saying： 〃Suppose the physiognomist ever
did have a man in his grasp； it would merely require a courageous resolution on the man's part to
make himself again incomprehensible for centuries。〃
In the previous case （3） the immediately given circumstances formed a sphere of existence from
which individuality selected what it could or what it wanted； either submitting to or transmuting this
given existence； for which reason this did not contain the necessity and inner nature of individuality。
Similarly here the immediate being in which individuality clothes its appearance is one which either
expresses the fact of its being reflected back out of reality and existing within itself； or which is for
it merely a sign indifferent to what is signified； and therefore signifying in reality nothing； it is as
much its countenance as its mask； which can be put off when it likes。 Individuality permeates its
own shape； moves； speaks in the shape assumed； but this entire mode of existence equally well
passes over into a state of being indifferent to the will and the act。 Individuality effaces from it the
significance it formerly had — of being that wherein individuality is reflected into itself； or has its
true nature — and instead puts its real nature rather in the will and the deed。
Individuality abandons that condition of being reflected into self which finds expression in lines and
lineaments； and places its real nature in the work done。 Herein it contradicts the re