On Phyjtognomy. 413 



the term, and which had been controverted by 

 M. Le Cat. The fubjed did not drop here : 

 foon after appeared the celebrated Treatife of 

 Mr. Lavater, who although he exprefsly defines 

 phyfiognomy, the art of difcovering the interior 

 of a man by means of his exterior j* does more 

 than countenance f the extended fignification 

 of the term, adopted by M. Pernetty. This 

 work produced an attack upon phyfiognomy itfelf 

 in the Memoires of the fame academy for the 

 year 1775, by • M. Formey, who beftowed a 

 great deal of pains in controverting the extent 

 which M. Lavater had affigned, to his favourite 

 fcience. The common idea annexed to phyfiog- 

 nomy before mentioned, feems upon the whole 

 as proper as any that have been given. 



I do not find any authority fufficient to con- 

 clude that phyfiognomy was treated as a Jcience, 

 {at lead in Greece,) before the time of Pytha- 

 goras. Of him it is afierted by Aulus Gellius, j; 

 Ordo atque ratio Pythagora ac deinceps Familia 

 Jucceffionis ejus recipiendi injittuendique dijcipulos 

 hujujmodi fuijfe traditur. Jam a principio Adolo- 

 Jcentes qui Jeje ad difcendum obtulerunt tipuamvoixom. 



* Vol. I. p. 22, of the French edition, 4to. 

 f Ibid, p. 33, and vol. II. p. 89. 



J Lib, I. cap. 9. — Proclus in Alcib. prim. Plat. — Iamb, 

 in vit. Pythag. fub. Init. 



M 



