THE GEORGIAN AND BASHKIR.
Figs. 12, 13.-Two heads, the extreme difference of which must strike the most stupid eye. The physiognomist may consider them very variously, either as they relate to humanity. national character, beauty, or deformity. How great soever may be the distance between human forms, between men and men, this Bashkir, fig. 12, certainly stands on the lowest step ; therefore, from his skull and the outlines of his countenance, we may abstract the lines and angles of the lowest, of the meanest, gradation of humanity. Let us therefore determinately inquire what it is that has so much sunken this countenance, and rendered it so abhorrent.
It is, 1, the unnaturally projecting, not human, and, indeed, impossible, inclination of the forehead downwards; its unevenness; its incapability of raising itself like another forehead, or of looking up to heaven: 2, the small brutal eye, to which, properly speaking, there is no eyelid: 3, the savage, large, bristly, eyebrows; 4, the sharp cavity under the forehead; the extreme disproportion of the small blunt nose; 5, the small upper lip; 6, the monstrous out-pouting under lip; and 7, the small chin. These traits, individually, decisively, speak stupidity, and impossibility of improvement.
The countenance here depicted appears equally incapable of love, hatred, and all metaphysical abstraction. It may be enraged for a moment, brutally, but cannot hate; for hatred implies a voluntary recollection of the imperfections of our enemy: and the love of which this countenance is capable, is probably nothing more than the absence of anger.
The Georgian, fig. 13, proves the truth of the observation, that the ancient artists did not endeavour to surpass but to equal nature. Generally considered, this form has much of the antique ideal; of its simplicity, softness, outline, and harmony. But having said this, we must add, the countenance is void of mind and of love. Its form may be capable of love, but as here drawn has none. Animated true beauty has its source in love; nor can it be too often, too forcibly repeated, that each active moral power, each glowing property of mildly ruling benevolence, excites and prompts physical beauty, in the worst form, if it be capable of love; for where that capability is, there is a capability of beauty. This Georgian has but the appearance, not the essence of beauty. Harmless innocence is here, but the forehead and the descent to the nose are as contradictory as possible. The rest of the outline, from the end of the nose to the chin, contains only indefinite shades of the beauteous form, therefore neither great nor exciting love. There is a greatness in the eve, but not of that of the youthful virgin. I may venture to say that there is the discord of harmony in the Bashkir, and the harmony of discord in the Georgian ; or, rather, indeed, the countenance of the Georgian is not so much a whole as that of the Bashkir. Viewing them both together, having conceived disgust and abhorrence at the one, we seek repose in the other, in which there is much real beauty, and the defects of which we endeavour to conceal from ourselves, recollecting the comparative pleasure it gives.
http://www.newcastle.edu.au/school/fine-art/publications/lavater/l-index3.htm