On Phyftognomy* 431 



This controverfy commenced with a diflertation 

 on the advantages and difadvantages of phy- 

 fiognomy by M. Le Catt. In the fupceeding 

 volume, (the twenty-fifth) is an anfwer by 

 M. Pernetty ; to which follows a reply by 

 M. Le Catt ; and a fupplementary reply by 

 tUc; fame in the twenty-fixth volume. This 

 contains alfo three more difTertations by way 

 of rejoinder on the part of M. Pernetty. I 

 have already noticed this difcufTion fo far as 

 it relates to the definition of phyfiognomy. The 

 reft of itj turned upon thefe two queftions : ■ . 



Firll, Whether it would be advantageous or 

 Olherwife to fociety, if each individual carried 

 in his appearance, fuch marks of his charader, 

 difpofition and talents, as would enable others 

 to collefl with certainty thefe latter, from the 

 former. 



Secondly, Whether on the fuppofition that 

 the fcience of phyfiognomy would enable us 

 to difcern a part only pf the internal character, 

 and mankind in general being but imperfedt 

 phyfiognomifts, it would be advantageous to 

 fociety to cultivate the ftudy of phyfiognomy. 



Thefe queftions were agitated, with more 

 prolixity, than their importance to the fubjefb 

 of phyfiognomy in my opinion deferved. No 

 reafoning a priori can pofTibly determine them 

 with any degree of certainty. Time and ex- 

 perience alone will afcertain what degree of 



influence 



