434 On Phyjiognomy, 



yet in its infancy, M. Lavater profeffes to give, 

 not a complete, fynthetical treatife on phyfiog- 

 nomy, but fragnnents only, illuftrative of the 

 different parts of this branch of knowledge; and 

 it muft be confeffed that his perfornnance, how- 

 ever defultory and unconnefted, is in many 

 particulars much fuperior to thofe that have 

 preceded. 



In conformity with his defign, he has rejcfted 

 the fcholaftic, fyftematic method fo common 

 among the phyfiognomifts of the laft and pre- 

 ceding centuries, and with it he has rejefled alfo 

 their manner of writing, dry, concife, indetermi- 

 nate, and general : the remarks of M. Lavater on 

 the contrary, are for the moft part, precife and 

 particular; and frequently founded on diftinc- 

 tions extrencly acute. — He has omitted entirely 

 (as indeed might reafonably be expected from a 

 writer of the prefent day) the aftrological, and 

 fimilar reveries, fo difgraceful to the writers of the 

 generality of his predeceffors. — He has (with 

 great good fenfe) very rarely deduced or con- 

 firmed his phyfiognomical remarks by anatomical 

 or phyfiological reafonings ; which indeed, how- 

 ever important they may prove hereafter, feem 

 even in this prefent advanced ftate of our know- 

 ledge refpefting them, an infufficient foundation 

 to fupport particular obfervations. — He has 

 purfued the method firft adopt^nisl believe by J. 



■ ' Baptifta 



