On Phyfiognomy. 409 



fercnee to conjedure and hypothefis. I cannot 

 help thinking however, that although we may 

 have (hewn many of the ancient fyftems to be 

 merely the creatures of imagination, we have 

 in fome cafes concluded much too haftily; and 

 unreafonably denied the exiftence of that know- 

 ledge, which we have not been at the pains of 

 acquiring. 



Thefe obfervations feem to me to be fuffici- 

 cntly applicable to the Jcience of phyfiognomy j 

 a fcience, which, though praftifed by Pytha- 

 goras,* defended by Socrates, -j- approved by 

 Plato, J and treated by Ariftotle,|| is hardly 

 mentioned at prefent, but in conjunftion with 

 magic, alchemy and judicial aftrology. With- 

 out any pretenfions however to a knowledge of 

 phyfiognomy as a fcience myfelf, I have always 

 regarded it in a light more refpedlable ; and as 

 the recently publifhed work of M. Lavater feems 

 to have excited a confiderable degree of atten- 

 tion on the continent, the fociety perhaps will 

 not be difpleafed, if I lay before them fuch 



* Auli Gellii, lib. I. cap. 9. 



t Cic. de fat. V. & Tufc. Qu^ft. XX. IV. 



X In Timaeo. 



II Phyfiognom. Ariftotles Phyfiognomy has been fuf. 

 pefted as fpurious, but without fufficient reafon. Dioge- 

 nes Laert. quotes it, lib. V. 



literary 



