4^6 On Phyfiognomy. 



not help regarding it however, as rather un- 

 fortunate for the fcience of phyfiognomy, that 

 niany opinions now juftly exploded, were holden 

 in high eftimation not only among the literati 

 in general, of the fame period, but by the very 

 perfons who were authors on the fubjed of phy- 

 fiognomy, and patrons of the ftudy. Nay, by 

 fbme of thefe writers, phyfiognomy was regard 

 as effentially connefted with dodlrines, which 

 the literature of the prefent day would be 

 afliamed to adopt, and treated accordingly in 

 conjundlion with them. 



This remark appears to me, fo intimately 

 connedled with the literary hiftory of the fcience 

 in queftion, as to demand fome further dif- 

 cufTion. 



The hiftory of human learning, has periods 

 which are marked by the general prevalence 

 of particular ftudies among the literati of the 

 time. The philofophers of the early period of 

 Grecian literature, attended chiefly to mythologi- 

 cal morality. Among the authors of the moft 

 flourifhing period of Grecian and Roman lite- 

 rature, until the firft emperors, foetryy hiftory 

 and oratory, were the prevailing fubjefts of 

 attention : under the latter emperors, and for 

 fome time after, the works of the learned ex- 

 hibit for the moft part the hiftory of theological 

 controverfies : to them fucceeded metaphyftcs and 

 metapbyftcal theology — when thefe began to de- 

 cline, 



