"cepted." He ought to be able to fee the youth in the boy, and the man in the youth; and, on the reverse, the youth in the man, the boy in the youth, the infant in the boy, and, laftly, the embryo in its proper individual form.

Let us, O ye who adore that Wisdom which has framed all things! contemplate, a moment longer, the human fcull. There are, in the bare fcull of man, the fame varieties as are to be found in the whole external form of the living man.

As the infinite varieties of the external form of man is one of the indeftructible pillars of phyfiognomy, no lefs fo, in my opinion, must the infinite varieties of the fcull itself be. What I have hereafter to remark will, in part, fhew that we ought particularly to begin by that, if, instead of a fubject of curiofity or amufement, we would wifh to make the fcience of phyfiognomy univerfally ufeful.

. I fhall fhew that from the ftructure, form, outline, and properties of the bones, not all, indeed, but much may be discovered, and probably more than from all the other parts.

Objection and Answer.

What anfwer fhall I make to that objection, with which a certain anti-phyfiognomift has made himself fo merry?

"In the catacombs near Rome (fays he) a num ber of skeletons were found, which were fuppofed to be the relics of faints, and, as fuch, were honoured. After fome time, feveral learned men began to doubt whether these had really been the fepulchres of the firft chriftians and martyrs, and even to fufpect that malefactors and banditti might have been buried there. The piety of the faithful

E

faithful was thus much puzzled; but if the fcience of phyfiognomy be fo certain, they might have removed all their doubts by fending for Lavater, who with very little trouble, by merely examining and touching them, might have diftinguished the bones of the faints from the bones of the banditti, and thus have restored the true relics to their just and original pre-eminence."

The conceit is whimfical enough (answers a cold and phlegmatic friend of phyfiognomy); but, having tired ourselves with laughing, let us examine what would have been the confequence had this story been fact. According to our opinion, the phyfiognomift would have remarked great differences in a number of bones, particularly in the fculls, which, to the ignorant, would have appeared perfectly fimilar; and, having claffed his heads, and fhewn their immediate gradations, and the contrast of the two extremes, we may prefume, the attentive spectator would have been inclined to pay fome refpect to his conjectures on the qualities and activity of brain which each formerly

contained.

"Befides, when we reflect how certain it is that many malefactors have been poffeffed of extraordinary abilities and energy, and how uncertain it is whether many of the faints who are honoured with red-letter days in the calendar, ever poffeffed fuch qualities, we find the question fo intricate that we fhould be inclined to pardon the poor phyfiognomist were he to refuse an answer, and leave the decifion to the great infallible Judge."

Further Reply.

Let us endeavour farther to investigate the queftion; for, though this answer is good, it is infufficient.

Who

Who ever yet pretended abfolutely to diftinguifk faints from banditti, by inspecting only the fcull?

To me it appears, that juftice requires we should, in all our decifions concerning books, men, and opinions, judge each according to their pretenfions, and not afcribe pretenfions which have not been made to any man.

I have heard of no phyfiognomist who has had, and I am certain that I myself never have had, any fuch prefumption. Notwithstanding which ĺ maintain as a truth moft demonftrable, that, by the mere form, proportion, hardness, or weakness of the fcull, the ftrength or weakness of the general character may be known with the greatest certainty. But, as hath been often repeated, ftrength and weakness are neither virtue nor vice, faint nor malefactor.

Power, like riches, may be employed to the advantage or detriment of fociety, the fame as wealth may be in the poffeffion of a faint or a demon; and as it is with wealth, or arbitrary pofitive power, fo is it with natural innate power. As in an hundred rich men there are ninety-nine who are not faints, fo will there fcarcely be one faint among an hundred men born with this power.

When, therefore, we remark in a fcull great original and percuffive power, we cannot indeed fay this man was a malefactor; but we may af firm there was this excefs of power, which, if it were not qualified and tempered during life, there is the highest probability it would have been agitated by the spirit of conqueft, would have become a general, a conqueror, à Cæfar, a Cartouch. Under certain circumftances he would probably have acted in a certain manner, and his actions would have varied according to the variation of circumftances;

E 2

tances; but he would always have acted with ardour, tempestuously, always as a ruler and a conqueror.

Thus, alfo, we may affirm of certain other fculls, which, in their whole ftructure and form, difcover tenderness, and a refemblance to parchment, that they denote weaknefs; a mere capability of perceptive, without percuffive, without creative power. Therefore, under certain circumftances, fuch persons would have acted weakly. They would not have had the native power of withstanding this or that temptation, of engaging in this or that enterprise. In the fashionable world, they would have acted the fop, the libertine in a more confined circle, and the enthufiaftic faint in a convent.

Oh! how differently may the fame power, the fame fenfibility, the fame capacity, act, feel, and conceive, under different circumstances! And hence we may, in part, comprehend the poffibility of predestination and liberty in one and the fame fubject.

Take a man of the commoneft understanding to a charnel-house, and make him attentive to the differences of fculls; in a fhort time he will either perceive of himself, or understand when told, here is ftrength, there weakness; here obftinacy, and there indecifion.

If fhewn the bald head of Cæfar, as painted by Rubens or Titian, or that of Michael Angelo, what man would be dull enough not to discover that impulfive power, that rocky comprehenfion, by which they were peculiarly characterised; and that more ardour, more action must be expected, than from a fmooth, round, flat head?

How characteristic is the fcull of Charles XII! How different from the fcull of his biographer

Voltaire !

Voltaire Compare the fcull of Judas with the fcull of Christ, after Holbein, difcarding the muf cular parts, and I doubt, if afked which was the wicked betrayer, which the innocent betrayed, whether any one would hefitate.

I will acknowledge, that when two determinate heads are prefented to us, with fuch ftriking differences, and the one of which is known to be that of a malefactor, the other that of a faint, it is infinitely more eafy to decide; but he who can diftinguish between them, fhould not therefore affirm he can distinguish the sculls of faints from the fculls of malefactors.

To conclude this chapter. Who is unacquainted with the anecdote in Herodotus, that it was poffible, many years afterwards, on the field of battle, to diftinguish the fculls of the effeminate Medes from thofe of the manly Perfians? I think I have heard the fame remark made of the Swifs and the Burgundians. This at leaft proves it is granted that we may perceive, in the fcull only, a difference of ftrength and manners, as well as of nations.

CHA P. XIV.

Of the Difference of Sculls, as they relate to Sex, and particularly to Nations. Of the Sculls of Chil

dren.

A N Effay on the difference of bones, as they relate to fex, and particularly to nations, has been published by M. Fifcher, which is well de

E 3

ferving