42* On Phyfiognomy» 



tures, aftrology, or the thcofophic philofophy. 

 N6r is it any wonder that phyfiognomy 

 fhouM fall into contempt when the prevalence 

 of more rational literature rejeded its cotem- 

 porary fciences. Some few fads and obferva- 

 tions refpcding this part of the literary hiftory 

 of phyfiognomy, illuftrative of its temporary 

 connexion with the dodrines above mentioned, 

 I Ihall, with the permiflion of the Society, 

 throw into the form of an illuftration or appen- 

 dix to this effay, becaufe they are in my 

 opinion not altogether unworthy of notice, but 

 would form a digreflion too long for the paper 

 itfelf. 



Excepting that phyfiognomy was fafhionable 

 among the authors who treated on the abftrufe 

 fciences above mentioned, I do not recoiled 

 any thing peculiar refpeding this ftage of its 

 progrefs. There were fome authors indeed 

 even during that period who treated it free 

 from the abfurd conjundion of the prevailing 

 fubjeds of the day, fuch as Pere Honorat 

 Nicquet and Claramont. But the obfervations 

 even of thefe writers* are too general, indeter- 

 minate and concife, to be of confiderable ufe j j^ 

 and appear rather, as the conclufions of theo- 



* I judge from Gafp, Schott, who has followed Nicquet, 

 and from the quotation in Lavater from Claramontius. 



retic 



