« PreviousContinue »
but we take occasion to pronounce it one of the most forcible and eloquent delineations in the whole range of the English language.
Were we to give briefly an analysis of this divine art, or rather, of so much of it as depends on natural capacity, we should sum it up in these attributes: Force of intellect, vigor of imagination, and sensibility of mind.
To the first of these belong quickness and clearness of intellectual perception, and boldness of inference; to the second, power of invention, or the power of developing truth, and investing it with the form of beauty; and to the last, susceptibility of being moved by the subject; of being enrapt in it; of having the energies of the soul thoroughly roused by the depth and strength of its own convictions. Where these qualities exist, there is true oratory. Where they are wanting, the efforts and arts of the mere declaimer are employed to no purpose.
There is an invisible and mysterious bond of union that links the hearer, in thought and feeling, with the individual who addresses him. It informs the speaker, with unerring certainty, when he is eloquent, and when he is not. If his conceptions be clear and bold, his propositions simple, intelligible, and true, his sentiments lofty and just; if his manner have the earnestness of sincerity, and his language the ardent glow of conviction, he will strike the chord of sympathy till it shall vibrate from his own bosom to that of each of his hearers, and back again to himself, with the power of renewed inspiration. Then will he 'pour along a flood of argument and passion' that shall accomplish all that eloquence can effect, and which nothing less than eloquence is able to achieve.
Such was the oratory of Demosthenes, when he roused his assembled countrymen from their fatal lethargy to an overpowering sense of their danger, and thundered terror into the bosom of the Macedonian Philip. Such was the eloquence of Cicero, when he poured out the vials of his withering indignation upon the devoted head of Verres and of Cataline; of the Earl of Chatham, when, in the British Parliament, he remonstrated fervently and powerfully against the colonial policy of the ministry; of the daring and patriotic spirit of the American Henry, when he first sounded the note of resistance to British aggression. Such, too, was the oratory of the NewEngland Senator, when, in the memorable tariff controversy, his unsparing logic and overpowering sarcasm fell upon his southern antagonist; and of the orator of the West, when, on numerous occasions in the high councils of his country, his suasive tones and resistless manner have alternately charmed to stillness and agitated to commotion the assemblage of gifted spirits around him.
In these, and innumerable other instances, the character of true oratory has been happily and powerfully illustrated. He who has been present at the arena of high debate, when giant minds have met in frequent and fierce collision, or at the tribunal of justice when innocence has triumphed over guilt, even against fearful odds in the testimony, by the power of the advocate, or who has sat in the temple of God, when the still small voice of the herald of the cross has spoken alarm to the quiet conscience, or soothed to peace the agitated mind; he who has witnessed any of these, must have experienced a true and vivid conception of the nature and power of eloquence.
C. H. L.
OR A TRUE KEY TO THE 'PARAGON OF ANIMALS.'
EY A NEW CONTRIBUTOR.
THERE are perhaps few subjects in the whole circle of the sciences more universally and readily admitted, and yet at the same time apparently less reducible to principles of scientific demonstration, than that of PHYSIOGNOMY. The phrenologists indeed, seem here to have the advantage; for whatever may be said of the correctness of their delineations, and their adaptation to positive principles, they certainly present to us more palpable and more tangible evidence in the multiplicity and variety of their protuberent and characteristic bumps. I cannot but believe that there is much truth in each of these sciences, notwithstanding it has been contended that such a designation is by far too dignified an appellation for them. Undoubtedly both, being in such juxta-position, may be supposed to possess a common affinity, although the validity of the one in no degree involves that of the other. The advocates of phrenology have been by far the more numerous; it has consequently received a larger share of the popular consideration. For this reason, I have ventured to select that of physiognomy as the subject of a few remarks. I shall endeavor to present some of the leading principles of the science, with an occasional illustration, simply 'premising,' by a few common-places touching the more prominent features of the countenance, by way of prima facie evidence.
And first, I shall begin with noses. Every one knows he has a nose, and he knows that it is the leading feature, since all follow it. Noses, then, are of divers kinds. There is the Roman, the Grecian, the Aquiline, the Snub, the Bottle, the Turn-up, the Mulberry, the Snout, the Crooked, the Pimple, and the No-nose! In attempting an analytical description of these varieties of the organ, I confess myself not a little embarrassed for terms, by which to accurately delineate their respective characteristics. With the first-named, the Roman, we are all familiarly acquainted. The excess of its conformation, however, strikingly resembles the bill of the parrot; hence this nose is sometimes facetiously termed, the 'beak.' For an illustrious specimen of this variety, we may refer to that world-renowned son of Mars, the Duke of Wellington, vulgarly known by the cognomen of 'Nosey' — 'Old Nosey!' There are doubtless many similar instances to be met with, but let this suffice. The classic honor bestowed on this species of the nasal organ, is from the well-known circumstance of its having been so generally in vogue with the people of that name. The same, as its title imports, is also the case with the second class, called Grecian. This may be said to possess by far the greatest pretensions of any to beauty of figure. It is more perpendicular from the forehead, and without any of the projection of the bridge, comes straight down, with rather an acute angular termination. The Aquiline somewhat approaches the latter, with the exception of a slight indentation from the frontal bone, with rather an inclination upward at the
This has been sometimes
extremity. We come next to the 'Snub.' vulgarly but expressively termed 'the Pug.' It has great expansivesiveness of the nostrils, is rather short and wide, and uncommonly fleshy withal. The Bottle-nose belongs almost exclusively to the victim of intemperance, of which it may be considered the sure concomitant. It is a kind of bulbous plant, or absorbent, concentrating in itself the fiery essences of the potations deep' of the devotee of Bacchus. Its appearance is the physical embodiment of the rosy juice. The Turn-up' is a caricature of the Snub,' possessing all its peculiarities in more startling relief, and is commonly supposed, although perhaps unjustly, to characterise the more vulgar of the species. We have an illustration of this variety in the case of the great 'schoolmaster,' Lord Brougham, who sports a nose of this description, which, in an eloquent harangue, possesses the most extraordinary nervous action. This however should be regarded rather as an anomaly than as an illustration of the class. There is also the 'Mulberry.'. This is a most abominable specimen of the bottle-nose, in all its worst features. Nothing indeed can outvie its hideous characteristics. I have yet another to describe in my catagraph of the genus the Snout. This is a nose concerning which there can be no mistake. It seems to project almost horizontally from the face, a little inclined to turn up, and appears to be made solely to accommodate a pair of elongated nostrils, of outrageous proportion; while from its very peculiarly projecting conformation, it seems to induce in the beholder an irresistible desire to have a pull at it, for which office indeed it is singularly adapted. Little need be said about the 'Pimple.' It is the smallest apology for a nose extant, being small by degrees, and beautifully less; hence it will be only proportionably just to the others, to say as little about this variety as possible. I may remark, however, that it is sometimes observable in the young boarding-school Miss. But I must not omit to notice Crooked-noses, as well as the 'No-noses.' It is a curious fact, although common to the observation of all, that there is scarcely a straight nose to be met with. None may be said to be entirely without irregularity. Almost all noses incline either to the right or left of the direct line, in a slight degree, caused most probably by the frequent and indispensable application of manual service to that worthy member. It is also equally curious, that no two faces are to be found precisely alike in expression.
The next feature I shall glance at will be the eyes, 'those windows of the soul.' I am not acquainted with a very extensive variety in this delicate and insinuating member. There appears, however, to be certain broad characteristic differences between the following varieties; viz: the dark eye, the gray, the blue, and the gimblet. The dark eye, although proper to no particular class of character, may yet be said to possess some peculiarities. It is not only a token of beauty, and capable of imparting to features of even defective outline a highly pleasing effect, but it is of itself always powerfully expressive. Of the gray, there are some minor varieties, such as the dark gray, which is also expressive, and seems to be a medium between the black and blue. Then there is the light-gray, which seems to belong peculiarly to elderly maiden ladies, nurses, and regular devils.
Why this peculiarity is so apparent, I confess myself unable to explain. Perhaps those more efficient in physiological science, may be able to offer some elucidation of a subject so confessedly shrouded in mystery.
The cat's-eye is another variety of the gray, caused apparently by a slight infusion of yellow. It is extremely disagreeable to look upon, and its possessor is supposed to share some affinity in character and disposition with the feline race. The blue eye is always beautiful ; it is one of Nature's own sweet tints, and consequently ever delightful to contemplate. It betokens mildness and amiability of disposition, and is most generally monopolized, as indeed it should be, by the fair sex. The gimblet, otherwise called the swivel-eye, is a kind of anomaly in the world of eyes. It being an exception to all rule, no direct application can be made of it to any distinct individual class. The swivel, however, is of a very penetrating nature, since it at once insinuates itself into your affections. Sometimes it is seen to ornament the unmarried, of both sexes oftentimes; also the more courageous disciples of St. Benedict. Some prominent individuals have possessed this peculiarity. I remember several instances; among them, the late Rev. Edward Irving.
There are three or four varieties of the Mouth. It will not however be required that these should be very minutely particularized. A small mouth being justly considered the test of beauty, it would be ungallant to mar its fair proportions by attempting to enlarge upon it; while the large one, being already an outrage upon the true standard, any extended remarks upon it would be uncharitable.
The science of physiognomy, as already stated, although frequently condemned as being fallacious, and liable to mislead us in our estimate of character, is yet every where practically admitted among us. And although it may seem to be difficult to reduce it to positive principles, yet to reject it altogether, on this account, is indeed a very unphilosophical method of solving the problem. Nothing is more common than exclamations like the following, on first seeing an individual: 'What an honest-looking face he has!' 'How forbidding an expression this one has!' 'How the rogue is depicted in the other!' etc. Have we not our likings and our aversions? Do we not involuntarily shrink from one person whose face does not comport with our ideas of honesty, and rush with open arms to another, whose countenance more nearly approaches our imaginary standard? This proves that we are all physiognomists. Then there are the equally broad national characteristics, distinctions which have even become a proverb amongst us. We say, for instance, of the Englishman, from his habitually grave deportment, that he is never happy but when he is miserable of the Irishman, also, from his strongly-marked and well known belligerent qualities, that he is never quiet but when he is kicking up a row: of the Scotchman, from his enterprising activity, that he is never at home but when he is abroad. thetical jokes, but palpable and admitted facts. lar traits observable among other nations. The French, for example, from their vivaciousness, are said to be never at rest but when they are dancing; while we say of the phlegmatic sons of Yarmany, from their seeming obtuseness and indolence, that they can never see any
These are not antiThere are also simi