wealth may be in the possession of a saint or a demon; and as it is with wealth, or arbitrary positive power, so is it with natural innate power. As in an hundred rich men there are ninety-nine who are not saints, so will there scarcely be one saint among an hundred men born with this power.

When, therefore, we remark in a scull great original and percussive power, we cannot indeed say this man was a malefactor; but we may af firm there was this excess 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 conquest, would have become a general, a conqueror, a Cæsar, a Cartouch. Under certain circumstances he would probably have acted in a certain manner, and his actions would have varied according to the variation of circumstances; but he would always have acted with ardour, tempestuously, always as a ruler and a conqueror.

Thus, also, we may affirm of certain other sculls, which in their whole structure and form, discover tenderness, and resemblance to parch ment, that they denote weakness; a mere capability of perceptive, without percussive, without creative power. Therefore, under certain circumstances, such 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 enthusiastic saint in a convent.

Oh! how differently may the same power, the same sensibility, the same capacity, act, feel, and conceive under different circumstances! And hence we may, in part, comprehend the possibility of predestination and liberty in one and the same subject.

Take a man of the commonest understanding to a charnel-house, and make him attentive to the differences of sculls; in a short time he will either perceive of himself, or understand when old, here is strength, there weakness; here obstinacy, and there indecision.

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

How characteristic is the scull of Charles XII ! How different from the scull of his biographer Voltaire! Compare the scull of Judas with the scull of Christ, after Holbein, discarding the muscular parts, and I doubt, if asked which was the wicked betrayer, which the innocent betrayed, whether any one would hesitate.

I will acknowledge, that when two determinate heads are presented to us, with such strik

ing differences, and the one of which is know to be that of a malefactor, the other that of saint, it is infinitely more easy to decide; but h who can distinguish between them, should no therefore affirm he can distinguish the sculls saints from the sculls of malefactors.

To conclude this chapter. Who is unacquaint ed with the anecdote in Herodotus, that it wa possible, many years afterwards, on the field battle, to distinguish the sculls of the effeminat Medes from those of the manly Persians? I thin I have heard the same remark made of the Swis and the Burgundians. This at least proves it i granted that we may perceive, in the scull only a difference of strength and manners, as well as of nations.

CHAP. XIV.

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

AN Essay on the difference of bones, as they relate to sex, and particularly to nations, has been published by M. Fischer, which is well deserving of attention. The following are some thoughts on the subject, concerning which nothing will be expected from me, but very much from M Kamper.

Consideration and comparison of the external

and internal make of the body, in male and female, teaches us, that the one is destined for labour and strength, and the other for beauty and propagation. The bones particularly denote masculine strength in the former; and, so far as the stronger and the prominent are more easy to describe than the less prominent and the weaker, so far is the male skeleton and the scull the easiest to define.

The general structure of the bones in the male, and of the scull in particular, is evidently of stronger formation than in the female. The body of the male increases, from the hip to the shoulder, in breadth and thickness; hence the broad shoulders and square form of the strong: whereas the female skeleton gradually grows thinner and weaker from the hip upwards, and by degrees appears as if it were rounded.

Even single bones in the female are more tender, smooth, and round; have fewer sharp edges, cutting and prominent corners.

We may here properly cite the remark of Santorinus, concerning the difference of sculls, as they relate to sex. "The aperture of the mouth, the palate, and in general the parts which form the voice, are less in the female; and the more small and round chin, consequently the under part of the mouth, correspond."

The round or angular form of the scull may be very powerfully and essentially turned to the advantage of the physiognomist, and becomes a source of innumerable individual judgments.

Of this the whole work abounds with proof and examples.

No man is perfectly like another, either in ex ternal construction or internal parts, whether great or small, or in the system of the bones I find this difference, not only between nations but between persons of the nearest kindred but not so great between these, and between persons of the same nation, as between nations remote from each other, whose manners and food are very different. The more confidently men converse with, the more they resemble each other, as well in the formation of the parts of the body, as in language, manners, and food; that is, so far as the formation of the body can be influenced by external accidents. Those nations, in a certain degree, will resemble each other, that have commercial intercourse, they being acted upon by the effect of climate, imitation, and habit, which have so great an influence in forming the body and mind; that is to say, the visible and invisible powers of man; although national character still remains, and which character, in reality, is much easier to remark than to describe.

We shall leave more extensive inquiries and observations concerning this subject to some such person as Kamper, and refrain, as becomes us; not having obtained sufficient knowledge of the subject to make remarks of our own, of sufficient importance.

Differences with respect to strength, firm