BONNET, concerning organized Bodies.

"Are the germs of one and the fame fpecies of organized bodies perfectly like each other, or individually diftinct? Are they only diftinct in the organs which characterize fex, or have they a refembling difference to each other, fuch as we obferve in individual substances of the fame fpecies of plants or animals?

"Answer.-If we confider the infinite variety to be observed in all the products of nature, the latter will appear moft probable. The differences which are obferved in the individuals of the fame fpecies, probably depend more on the primitive form of the germs, than on the connection of the fexes."

On the Refemblance between Children and their

Parents.

"I must own, that, by the foregoing hypothefis, I have not been fuccefsful in explaining the refemblance of features found between parents and children. But are not these features very ambiguous? Do we not fuppofe that to be the cause, which probably is not fo? The father is deformed, the fon is deformed after the fame manner, and it is therefore concluded that deformity is inherited. This may be true; but it may be false. The deformity of each may arife from very different causes, and these causes may be infinitely varied.

"It is lefs difficult to explain hereditary difeafes. We can easily conceive, that defective juices may produce defective germs; and when the fame parts of the body are affected by disease in father or mother, and in child, this arifes from the fimilar

G 5

fimilar conformation of the parts, by which they are fubject to like inconveniencies. Befides, the mifhapen body often originates in disease being hereditary, which much diminishes the first difficulty. For, fince the juices conducted to those parts are of a bad quality, the parts must be more or lefs ill formed, according as they are more or lefs capable of being affected by these juices."

REFLECTION.

Bonnet cannot find the origin of family likeness in his fyftem. But let us take this his fyftem in the part where he finds the origin of hereditary difeafe. Shall the defective juices of father or mother very much alter the germ, and produce, in the very parts where the father or mother is injured, important changes of bad formation, more or lefs, according to the capability of the germ, and its power of refiftance? And fhall the healthy juices of the parent in no manner affect the germ? Why fhould not the healthy juices be as active as the unhealthy? Why fhould they not introduce the fame qualities in miniature, which the father and mother have in the grofs, fince the father and mother affimilate the nutriment they receive to their own nature, and fince the feminal juices are the fpiritual extract of all their juices and powers, as we have just reafon to conclude from the most continued and accurate obfervations? Why should they not as naturally, and as powerfully, act upon the germ, to produce all poffible refemblance? But which refemblance is infinitely varied, by differently changeable and changed circumftances; so that the germ continually preferves fufficient of its own original nature and properties, yet is always

6

very

very diftinct from the parents, and fometimes even seems to have derived very little from them, which may happen from a thoufand accidental caufes or changes.

Hence family resemblance and diffimilarity being fummarily confidered, we fhall find that nature, wholly employed to propagate, appears to be entirely directed to produce an equilibrium between the individual power of the germ, in its first formation, and the refembling power of the parents; that the originality of the first form of the germ may not wholly disappear before the too great power of refemblance to the parents, but that they may mutually concur, and both be fubject to numberlefs circumstances, which may increase or diminish their respective powers, in order that the riches of variety, and the utility of the creature, and its dependence on the whole, and the general Creator, may be the greater and more predomi

nant.

From all obfervations on the refemblance between parents and children which I have been enabled to make, it appears to me evident, that neither the theories of Bonnet nor Buffon give any fyftematic explanation of phenomena, the exiftence of which cannot be denied by the fophiftry of hypothefis. Diminish the difficulties as much as we will, facts will ftill ftare us in the face. If the germ exift preformed in the mother, can this germ, at that time, have phyfiognomy? Can it, at that time, refemble the future, promifcuous, firft, or fecond father? Is it not perfectly indifferent to either? or, if the phyfiognomonical germ exift in the father, how can it fometimes refemble the mother, fometimes the father, often both, and often neither?

To me it appears, that fomething germ-like, or a whole capable of receiving the human form, muft previously exift in the mother; but which is nothing more than the foundation of the future fatherly or motherly I know not what, and is the efficient cause of the future living fruit. This germ-like fomething, which, most especially conftituted agreeable to the human form, is analogous to the nature and temperature of the mother, receives a peculiar individual perfonal phyfiognomy, according to the propenfities of the father or mother, the difpofition of the moment of conception, and probably of many other future decifive mo

ments.

Still much remains to the freedom and predispofition of man. He may deprave or improve the fate of the juices, he may calm or agitate his mind, may awaken every fenfation of love, and by various modes increase or relax them. Yet I think, that neither the nature of the bones, nor the muscles and nerves, confequently the character, depends on the phyfiognomonical preformation preceding generation; at least, they are far from depending on thefe alone, though I allow the organizable, the primitive form, always has a peculiar individuality, which is only capable of receiving certain fubtile influences, and which must rejec others.

СНАР.

CHAP. XXV.

Obfervations on the New-born, the Dying, and the

Dead.

I HAVE remarked in fome children, about an hour after a not difficult birth, a ftriking, though infantine refemblance, in the profile, to the profile of the father. In a few days, this refemblance had nearly difappeared. The impreffion of the open air, nutriment, and perhaps of pofition, had fo far altered the outlines, that the child feemed entirely different.

Two of these children I faw dead, the one about fix weeks, and the other about four years old; and nearly twelve hours after death, I obferved the fame profile which I had before remarked an hour after birth, with this difference, that the profile of the dead child, as is natural, was fomething more tense and fixed than the living. A part of this refemblance, however, on the third day was remarkably gone.

One man of fifty, and another of seventy years of age, who fell under my obfervation while they were living and after death, appeared, while living, not to have the leaft refemblance to their fons, and whofe countenances feemed to be of a quite different clafs: yet, the fecond day after death, the profile of the one had a striking refemblance to that of his eldest, and, of the other, to the profile of his third fon; as much fo as the profile of the dead children before mentioned refembled the living profile an hour after birth, ftronger indeed,