D.

CONCLUSION OF NATIONAL PHYSIOG NOMY.

THE natural history of national physiognomy is possible, and important, to the philosopher, and the man, as well of business as of contemplation. It is one of the most profound, indestructible, and eternal principles of physiognomy. I repeat it, to deny national physiognomy and national character is equal to denying the light of the sun at noon day. I will grant that integrity and wisdom may reside in every climate, and under every national form, and that God respects not persons or climates, but that all people, of all countries, when virtuous, are to him acceptable. I am of the opinion of Juvenal,

Summos posse viros et magna exempla daturos
Vervecum in patriâ, crassoque sub aere, nasci.

Yet is it undeniably true that the all-freedom of God, under every climate, by the present, the active, and the thus or thus defined secondary causes, generally forms such characters as when compared to other characters, born in other climates, are so distinct that they cannot be confounded; and that

it must be an extremely interesting spectacle to him, and to all rational beings, to view, at a single glance, the physiognomonical varieties, connections, and combinations, of so many millions of people. This infinite variety, which yet conspiring forms one whole, must and shall be eternal. How much soever all may be ennobled, changed, and deified, each must be ennobled according to its primitive nature. Species shall no more be confounded than individuals. Therefore, as an individual's excellence of mind and physiognomy are the favour and the gift of God, so are they equally the favour and the gift of God when bestowed upon nations, who, by residing in a more fortunate climate, have, for that reason, greater excellence of understanding and of form. Yet ought not the lowest of the human race to be discouraged. They are the children of one common father, and their brother is the first born of the brethren. He shall collect to himself from all nations, tongues and people, those who shall inherit his kingdom.

VI.

RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN PARENTS AND CHILDREN.

Fit, quoque, ut interdum similes existere avorum
Possint, et referant proavorum sæpe figuras;
Propterea, quia multimodis primordia multis
Mixta suo celant in corpore sæpe parentes,
Quæ patribus patres tradunt a stirpe profecta;
Inde Venus varias producit scite figuras,
Majorumque refert vultus, vocesque, comasque;
Quandoquidem nihilo magis hæc de semine certo
Fiunt quam facies et corpora membraque nobis.

LUCRETIUS.

A.

THE resemblance between parents and children is very commonly remarkable.

Family physiognomy is as undeniable as

national. To doubt this is to doubt what is self-evident; to wish to interpret it is to wish to explore the inexplicable secret of existence. Striking and frequent as the resemblance between parents and children is, yet have the relations between the characters and countenances of families never been enquired into. No one has, to my knowledge,

made any regular observations on this subject. I must also confess that I have, myself, made but few, with that circumstantial attention which is necessary. All I have to remark is what follows.

When the father is considerably stupid, and the mother exceedingly the reverse, then will most of the children be endued with extraordinary understanding.

When the father is good, truly good, the children will, in general, be well disposed; at least most of them will be benevolent.

The son appears most to inherit moral goodness from the good father, and intelligence from the intelligent mother; the daughter to partake of the character of the

mother.

If we wish to find the most certain marks of resemblance between parents and children, they should be observed within an hour or two after birth. We may then perceive whom the child most resembles in its formation. The most essential resemblance is usually afterward lost, and does not, perhaps, appear for many years; or not till after death.

When children, as they increase in years, visibly increase in the resemblance of form and features to their parents, we cannot

doubt but that there is an increasing resemblance of character. How much soever the characters of children may appear unlike that of the parents they resemble, yet will this dissimilarity be found to originate in external circumstances, and the variety of these must be great indeed if the difference of character be not, at length, overpowered by the resemblance of form.

From the strongly delineated father, I believe, the firmness and the kind (I do not say the form, but the kind) of bones and muscles are derived; and from the strongly delineated mother the kind of nerves and form of the countenance; if the imagination and love of the mother have not fixed themselves too deeply in the countenance of the man.

Certain forms of countenance, in children, appear for a time undecided whether they shall take the resemblance of the father or of the mother; in which case I will grant that external circumstances, preponderating love for the father or mother, or a greater degree of intercourse with either, may influence the form.

We sometimes see children who long retain a remarkable resemblance to the father, but, at length, change and become more like the mother.