Their distinction of character, or gradation of passive and active power, is expressed by the following physiognomonical varieties:

1. By the form of the scull. The more flat the scull, the more weak, flexible, tender, and sensible is the character of the animal. This flatness contains less, and resists less.

2. By the length, breadth, and arching, or obliquity of their beaks. And here again we find, when there is arching, there is a greater extent of docility and capacity.

3. By the eyes, which appear to have an exact correspondence with the arching of the beak.

4. Particularly by the middle line, I cannot say of the mouth, but what is analogous to the mouth, the beak; the obliquity of which is ever in a remarkable proportion with the outline of the profile of the head.

Who can behold the eagle hovering in the air, the powerful lord of so many creatures, without perceiving the seal, the native star of royalty, in his piercing round eye, the form of his head, his strong wings, his talons of brass, and, in his whole form, his victorious strength, his contemptuous arrogance, his fearful cruelty, and his ravenous propensity?

Consider the eyes of all living creatures, from the eagle to the mole; where else can be found that lightning glance, which defies the rays of the sun? Where that capacity for the reception of light? How truly, how emphatically, to all who will hear and understand, is the majesty of his kingly character visible, not alone in his

burning eye, but in the outline of what is analogous to the eyebone, and in the skin of the head, where anger and courage are seated! But, throughout his whole form, where are they not?

Compare the vulture with the eagle, and who does not observe, in his lengthened neck and beak, and in his more extended form, less power and nobility than in the eagle? In the head of the owl, the ignoble greedy prey; in the dove, mild, humble timidity; and in the swan, more nobility than in the goose, with less power than in the eagle, and tenderness than in the dove; more pliability than in the ostrich; and, in the wild duck, a more savage animal than in the swan, without the force of the eagle?

Fish.

How different is the profile of a fish from that of a man! How much the reverse of human perpendicularity! How little is there of countenance when compared to the lion! How visible is the want of mind, reflection, and cunning! What little or no analogy to forehead! What an impossibility of covering or entirely closing the eyes! The eye itself is merely circular and prominent, has nothing of the lengthened form of the eye of the fox or elephant.

Serpents.

I will allow physiognomy, when applied to man, to be a false science, if any being throughout nature can be discovered void of physiogno

my, or a countenance which does not express its character. What has less, yet more physiognomy, than the serpent? May we not perceive in it tokens of cunning and treachery? Certainly not a trace of understanding or deliberate plan. No memory, no comprehension, but the most unbounded craft and falsehood. How are these reprobate qualities distinguished in their forms? The very play of their colours, and wonderful meandering of their spots, appear to announce and to warn us of their deceit.

All men possessed of real power are upright and honest; craft is but the substitute of power. I do not here speak of the power contained in the folds of the serpent; they all want the power to act immediately, without the aid of cunning. They are formed to "bruise the heel, and to have the head bruised." The judgment which God has pronounced against them is written on their flat, impotent forehead, mouth, and eyes.

Insects.

How inexpressibly various are the characteristics impressed by the eternal Creator on all living beings! How has he stamped on each its legible and peculiar properties! How especially visible is this in the lowest classes of animal life! The world of insects is a world of itself. distance between this and the world of men I own is great; yet, were it sufficiently known, how useful would it be to human physiognomy!

The

What certain proofs of the physiognomy of men must be obtained from insect physiognomy!

How visible are their powers of destruction, of suffering and resisting, of sensibility and insensibility, through all their forms and gradations! Are not all the compact, hard-winged insects, physiognomonically and characteristically more capable and retentive than various light and tender species of the butterfly? Is not the softest flesh the weakest, the most suffering, the easiest to destroy? Are not the insects of least brain the beings most removed from man, who has the most brain? Is it not perceptible in each species whether it be warlike, defensive, enduring, weak, enjoying, destructive, easy to be crushed, or crushing? How distinct in the external character are their degrees of strength, of defence, of stinging, or of appetite!

The great dragon fly shews its agility and swiftness in the structure of its wings; perpetually on flight in search of small flies. How sluggish, on the contrary, is the crawling caterpillar! how carefully does he set his feet as he ascends a leaf! How yielding his substance, incapable of resistance! How peaceable, harmless, and indolent is the moth! How full of motion, bravery, and hardiness, is the industrious ant! How loath to remove, on the contrary, is the harnessed lady-bird!

T

man.

CHAP. XLII.

On Shades.

THOUGH shades are the weakest and most vapid, yet they are at the same time, when the light is at a proper distance, and falls properly on the countenance to take the profile accurately, the truest representation that can be given of The weakest, for it is not positive, it is only something negative, only the boundary line of half the countenance. The truest, because it is the immediate expressiou of nature, such as not the ablest painter is capable of drawing by hand after nature. What can be less the image of a living man than a shade? Yet how full of speech! Little gold, but the purest.

The shade contains but one line; no motion, light, colour, height, or depth; no eye, ear, nostril, or cheek; but a very small part of the lip; yet how decisively it is significant! Drawing and painting, it is probable, originated in shades. They express, as I have said, but little; but the little they do express is exact. No art can attain to the truth of the shade taken with precision. Let a shade be taken after nature with the greatest accuracy, and with equal accuracy be afterwards reduced upon fine transparent oil paper. Let a profile, of the same size, be taken, by the greatest master, in his happiest moment; then let the two be laid upon each other, and the difference will be immediately evident.