On Phyjiognomy. 43 j 



to the perfons addrefled, would not be affefted 

 by the determination. Such gratuitous and un- 

 philofophical afiertions from the fupporters of 

 phyfiognomy, caft a ridicule upon the fcience 

 itfelf; and induce mankind to affociate the 

 idea of fallacy, even with the well-founded 

 arguments of thofe who advance them.* This 

 remark however is not applicable to M. Per- 

 netty alone. 



Soon after this controverfy, appeared the 

 great work of M. Lavater, dean of Zurich, which 

 has excited no inconfiderable degree of atten- 

 tion in the literary world. The magnificence of 

 the work itfelf, and the fuppofed vifionary nature 

 of the fubje<5l treated, has contributed not a little 

 to make it generally known. f Indeed, fo far as 

 I am able to judge, it is (with all Its faults) the 

 mod important book on the fubjeft, fince the 

 days of Ariftotle. Senfible that the fcience is 



* M. Perneity alfo fomewhere intimates that a 'phyfiog- 

 nomift to form a good judgement, ought to have the 

 difpofitions of the perfons phyiiognomized, an opinion, 

 fo obvioufly unfounded that it is Itrange its abfurdity did 

 not ftrike him at once. 



t The German edition of M. Lavater's Work (which I 

 have never feen) was in four volumes quarto. Since this Eflay 

 was written, the thiid volume of the French Tranflation 

 has appeared, and I have therefore altered my original 

 accouiu of M. Lavater's book by referring to it. 



Vor,. Ill, F f not 



