ON THE VARIETIES

OF THE

HUMAN FACE.

THE material world, in each of its great divisions, abounds with widely-varied phenomena. Some of these are so palpable as to gain the attention of the most casual or superficial observer; while others— equally (if not, indeed, more) wonderful-are not so clearly apparent to a mere spectator. Yet they are plainly perceived by such as are thoughtfully attentive and carefully observant. Of these phenomena, there is perhaps none more worthy of regard, nor better adapted to be the source of useful knowledge, and also of pleasurable emotion, than is the seemingly unlimited variety which everywhere exists -whether in the mineral, the vegetable, or the animal kingdom. This variety is observable, not only in the difference existing between the respective great classes of objects and beings into which each of the natural kingdoms are subdivided (and which difference has respect to quality, form, and colour), but is equally-perhaps even more-striking in regard to the diversity which marks the several

objects of the same class, or the individual beings of the same species. This widely-extending diversity between objects and beings which otherwise are closely related or connected, is not the less, but perhaps the more, wonderful, from the circumstance of its being found in close connection with a general similarity in regard to the essential qualities or features of the class or species to which they belong. This general resemblance plainly shows that the varieties observable are indicative, not of a different nature or constitution in the respective objects; but rather, and merely, of a difference in character or expression. This diversity is abundantly manifest in many productions of the mineral kingdom; it is more so in the vegetable; while it is yet more so in the animal; and, among the numerous species composing that kingdom, it is in none so wonderful, or so evidently adapted to be useful, as it is in Man.

The varieties in the human species, in respect of stature, bulk, form, and colour, are so numerous, and otherwise considerable, as to have given rise to an opinion that the human race did not (and moreover could not) proceed from one common stock. This opinion is now known to have been erroneous

-as the evidence in favour of a sameness or identity of origin, is so strong as to amount almost to a positive proof or demonstration. Leaving this question, however, as not properly falling within the design or scope of this essay, it may be safely affirmed that the varieties observable in the human face, are

such as to claim the admiration, and to invite the scrutiny, of all who possess an inquiring and reflecting mind. These varieties are, of themselves, very remarkable phenomena; but they will appear yet more remarkable, if the small number, and the (comparatively) minute size, of the several parts which make up the human face, be duly considered.

The science of physiognomy owes its origin to a careful observation of the human face, when acted upon by any powerful emotion of the passions, or any extraordinary effort of the intellect; and there are not many (who are at all capable of forming an opinion) who do not frequently derive either pleasure or useful instruction from this source. It is true that they generally make their observations, and receive their impressions, almost unconsciously, and of course without any direct regard to scientific theories; but this circumstance rather strengthens than weakens the presumption that physiognomy is a branch of genuine science; since that species of knowledge which appears to be nearly, if not quite, intuitive, or which is the result of common and every-day experience, would seem to be more probably founded upon facts, or natural truth, than is that which is acquired under the influence of preconceived notions; and which, therefore, is very likely to have been pursued with a view rather to the confirmation of a favourite theory, than to the discovery of simple and indubitable truth. The universally-prevalent habit of judging or deciding

concerning the quality of objects by their external appearance, would seem to indicate that there was originally an exact agreement, or rather correspondence, between form and character; so that the external, or material, part, was the genuine sign, or the exact representation, of the internal, or essential state and quality. But, waving this, it may fairly be affirmed, that the universality of the habit in question, affords a strong presumptive proof that it is in strict accordance with the dictates of right reason; and, consequently, that it has its origin, not in mere fancy or conjecture, but in the natural, or essential, constitution of the human mind, in connection with the established order of the material and visible world.

While the qualities of all inanimate objects, and the characters of all the inferior animals, are inferred from their respective configuration, colour, or other external attributes, the mental capabilities, and the moral qualities of the human species are, in a more especial manner, and also by universal consent, thus attempted to be discovered and estimated. The very considerable success by which these attempts are often followed, is too evident to admit of a question. The near approach to truth which is frequently made, not only by such as are well instructed in physiognomical science, but also by those who are utterly ignorant of its theory or principles, seems to prove that their conclusions are not the result of mere conjecture, but rather the

consequences of a correct interpretation of natural signs. It may here be added, that many of those who dispute, or even deny, the truthfulness of physiognomical science, are themselves in the constant habit of forming opinions based upon the principles which that science propounds and inculcates. It is, moreover, worthy to be remarked, that their success in this respect is often such as to be a sufficient answer to the objections of the captious, and a satisfactory solution of the doubts which perplex the sceptical.

In further considering the subject, it may be well, for the sake of greater perspicuity, to take it in the following order :—

I. To notice the successive variations in the

same, or individual face.

II. The difference of physiognomy between, or among, the members of the same family. III. The difference existing between the natives of the same country.

IV. The difference which prevails between the inhabitants of different lands.

First. As to the successive variations in the same face. Here, however, it will not be necessary to say much, especially as these variations are not necessarily connected with the subject under consideration. Yet, as they have a relation thereto, and moreover, may possibly be made subservient to its clearer elucidation, the following brief observations may not be superfluous.