On Phyfiognomy. 415 



thejudgment pafled upon Socrates by Zopyrus* 

 is a fufficient proof; fubfequently it was noticed 

 by Plato, t and exprefsly treated by Ariftotle 

 in a diftind): book. As this forms a kind of 

 literary epoch in the fcience of phyfiognomy 

 it may be worth while to give a brief outline of 

 Ariftotle's fentiments on the fubjecl. 



He obferves (in fubftance) that the fubjeft 

 had been treated in three different ways. That 

 fome phyfiognomifts claffed animals into genera, 

 and afcribed a certain corporeal appearance, 

 and a correfponding mental difpofition to each 

 genus. Others diftinguifhed ftill farther and 

 divided the genera into fpecies. Thus among 

 men, they diftinguifhed the Egyptians, the 

 Thracians, and the Scythians, and wherever 

 elfe there was a known difference in habits and 

 manners, and affigned the phyfiognomic marks 

 accordingly. Some decided more from the 

 actions and manners of the individual, taking 

 for granted that fuch and fuch manners, pro- 

 ceeded from fuch and fuch difpofitions. His 

 own method of confidering the fubjeft was this : 

 there is always a peculiar difpofition of mind, 

 attendant on a peculiar form of body ; fo that 

 there is never found a human mind, in the 

 corporeal form of any beaft. Again ; it is 

 evident that the mind and the body aft mutu- 



• Cic. de fato V. f t" ^'^^ TImxus. 



ally 



