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

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 affirm 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 parchment, 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 told, 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 known to be that of a malefactor, the other that of a saint, it is infinitely more easy to decide; but he who can distinguish between them, should not therefore affirm he can distinguish the sculls of saints from the sculls of malefactors.

To conclude this chapter. Who is unacquainted with the anecdote in Herodotus, that it was possible, many years afterwards, on the field of battle, to distinguish the sculls of the effeminate Medes from those of the manly Persians? I think I have heard the same remark made of the Swiss and the Burgundians. This at least proves it is 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.