On Phyjtognomy. 425 



a profeflion, might be adduced, but the pre- 

 ceding paflages however they may contain a 

 mixture of fable with truth, render the general 

 fa6l fufficiently probable. 



When the Roman empire was overthrown 

 by the eruptions of the northern nations, this 

 fcience Ihared the fame fate with the others, 

 and appears to have been unnoticed (except per- 

 haps by the Arabian commentators on Ariftotle 

 with whom I am unacquainted) till about the 

 beginning of the fixteenth century; from which 

 time to the latter end of the feventeenth it was 

 greatly in vogue, and almofl: all the approved 

 modern authors who have treated praftically on 

 the fubjedl publifhed within that fpace.* I can- 



• Such as Bartholem. Codes, Baptifta Porta. Hono- 

 ratus Nicquetios. Jacobus De Indagine. Alftedius. Mi- 

 chael Schottus and Gafpar Schottus. Cardan. Taifnierus. 

 Fludd. Behmen. Barclay. Claramontias. Conringius. 

 The Commentaries of Auguflin Niphus and Camillus 

 Balbus on the Phyfiognomica of Ariftotle. Spontanus. 

 Andreas Henricus. Joannes Digander. Rud. Goclenius. 

 Alexander Achillinus. Joh. Praetorius. Jo. Belot. Gulielmus 

 Gratalorus and feveral others, whom MorhofF notices in his 

 Polyhiftor. vol. I. lib. I. cap. 15, § 4, and vol. 11. lib. III. 

 cap. I. § 4. It may be proper to mention, that the only 

 writers profeffedly on the fubjeft of pbyfiognomy, whom I 

 have been able to confult on this occafion, are, Ariftotle. 

 Baptifta Porta. Gafpar Schottus. Cardan. Fludd. 

 Behmen. Alftedius. Le Chambre. Letters on Phyfiog- 

 nomy. Evelyn. Lancifi. Dr. Gwither in the Tranfadions 

 of the Royal Society. Pernetly. Le Catt, and Formey, 

 in the Berlin Tranfa(51ions, apd lyavater, 



not 



