form, in distinct subjects. This, therefore, only speaks to the agreement of human countenances, so far as they have each two eyes, one nose, one mouth, and other features thus or thus disposed.

This natural formation is certainly as different as human countenances afterwards are; which difference is the work of Nature, the original destination of the Lord and Creator of all things. The physiognomist distinguishes between original form and deviations.

Each bone hath its original form, its individual capacity of form. It may, it does continually alter; but it never acquires the peculiar form of another bone, which was originally different. The accidental changes of bones, however great, or different from the original form, are yet ever governed by the nature of this original individualform; nor can any power of pressure ever so change the original form, but that, if compared to another system of bones that has suffered an equal pressure, it will be perfectly distinct. As little as the Ethiopian can change his skin, or the leopard his spots, whatever be the changes to which they may be subject, as little can the original form of any bone be changed into the original form of any other bone.

Vessels every where penetrate the bones, supplying them with juices and marrow. The younger the bone is, the more are there of these vessels-consequently the more porous and flexible are the bones, and the reverse. The period when such or such changes take place in the

bones, cannot easily be defined; it differs according to the nature of men in accidental circumstances.

Large and long and multiform bones, in order to facilitate their ossificatation and growth, at first consist of several pieces, the smaller of which are called supplemental. The bone remains imperfect till these become incorporated. Hence their possible distortion in children, by the rickets, and other diseases,

CHAP. XIII.

Suggestions to the physiognomist concerning the Scull.

THE scientific physiognomist ought to direct his attention to the distortion of the bones, espe cially those of the head. He ought to learn accurately to remark, compare, and define, the first form of children, and the numerous relative deviations. He ought to have attained that precision that should enable him to say, at beholding the head of a new-born infant, of half a year, a year, or two years old," Such and such will be the form of the system of the bones, under such and such limitations;" and on viewing the scull at ten, twelve, twenty, or twenty-four years of age, "Such or such was the form, eight, ten, or twenty years ago; and such or such will be the form, eight, ten, or twenty years hence, vio

lence excepted." He ought to be able to see 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, lastly, 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 scull. There are, in the bare scull of man, the same 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, indestructible pillars of physiognomy, no less so, in my opinion, must the infinite varieties of the scull itself be. What I have hereafter to remark will, in part, shew that we ought particularly to begin by that, if instead of a subject of curiosity and amusement, we would wish to make the science of physiognomy universally useful.

I shall shew that from the structure, form, out line, 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 answer shall I make to that objection, with which a certain anti-physiognomist has made himself so merry?

"In the catacombs near Rome (says he) a number of skeletons were found, which were supposed to be the relics of saints, and, as

such, were honoured. After some time, several 'learned men began to doubt whether these had really been the sepulchres of the first christians and martyrs, and even to suspect that malefactors and banditti might have been buried there. The piety of the faithful was thus much puzzled; but if the science of physiognomy be so certain, they might have removed all their doubts by sending for Lavater, who with very little trouble, by merely examining and touching them, might have distinguished the bones of the saints from the bones of the banditti, and thus have restored the true relics to their just and original preeminence."

"The conceit is whimsical enough (answers a cold and phlegmatic friend of physiognomy;) but, having tired ourselves with laughing, let us examine what would have been the consequence had this story been fact. According to our opinion, the physiognomist would have remarked great differences in a number of bones, particularly in the sculls, which, to the ignorant, would have appeared perfectly similar; and, having classed his heads, and shewn their immediate gradations, and the contrast of the two extremes, we may presume, the attentive spectator would have been inclined to pay some respect to his conjectures on the qualities and activity of brain which each formerly contained.

"Besides, when we reflect how certain it is that many malefactors have been possessed of extraordinary abilities and energy, and how un

certain it is whether many of the saints who are honoured with red-letter days in the calendar, ever possessed such qualities, we find the question so intricate that we should be inclined to pardon the poor physiognomist were he to refuse an answer, and leave the decision to the great infallible Judge."

Further Reply.

Let us endeavour farther to investigate the question; for, though this answer is good, it is insufficient. Who ever yet pretended absolutely to distinguish saints from banditti, by inspecting only the scull?

To me it appears, that justice requires we should, in all our decisions concerning books, men, and opinions, judge each according to their pretensions, and not ascribe pretensions which have not been made to any man.

I have heard of no physiognomist who has had, and I am certain that I myself never have had, any such presumption. Notwithstanding which, I maintain as a truth most demonstrable, that, by the mere form, proportion, hardness, or weakness of the scull, the strength or weakness of the general character may be known with the greatest certainty. But, as hath been often repeated, strength and weakness are neither virtue nor vice, saint nor malefactor.

Power, like riches, may be employed to the advantage or detriment of society, the same as