On Phyfiogiiomy, 417 



analogy, and in fome cafes attempts to explain 

 them by phyfiological realbning* 



This plaufible and even probable theory, 

 evinces a confiderable degree of knowledge on 

 this fubjc(fl, at a very early period -^indivi-* 

 dual phyfiognomy, national phyfiognomy, and 

 comparative phyfiognomy, are here diftin(?lly 

 noticed j but it cannot with truth be aflerted> 

 that the enumeration of particular precepts and 

 obfervations in the phyfiognomical treatife of 

 this great man, are equally well founded with 

 this outline of the fubjedt. In faft, the ftate of 

 knowledge in his tioie, did not admit of a com- 

 plete elucidation of his general principles, nor 

 was the brief and pithy ftyle of Ariftotle adapted 

 to a fubjedl, which even at this day will require 

 frequent periphrafis to make it clearly compre- 

 henfible. Such as it is however, this work of 

 Ariftotle, appears to have ferved as a foundation 

 for almoft every phyfiognomical treatife that 

 hath fince been publifhed. His comparative 

 phyfiognomy of men with bealls indeed, though 

 frequently, has not been univerfally adopted, 

 but his language and his manner, fententious, 

 obfcure and indifcriminate, have been copied 

 too clofely, by his imitators of the fixteenth and 

 feventeenth centuries. Befide this work of 

 Ariftotle exprefsly on the fubjedt, there are 

 many incidental obfervations refpecling phy- 

 fiognomy that occur in his Hiftory of Animals, 

 and other pans of his writings. 

 Vot. III. E e The 



