On Phyftognomy. 439 



which goes near to a revival of the old opinions 

 of the fympathifts.* 



10. To thefe may be added the general 

 charafter of enthufiafm in favour of phyfiog- 

 nomy, which is ftampt on every page of the 

 work, and to which indeed a great part of the 

 merit of it may be due. But it certainly has 

 the falutary tendency of fetting his readers on 

 their guard againft a too precipitate admiflion 

 gf his phyfiognomical decifions. 



Such appears to me the character of a work 

 which altogether does credit to the times as 

 well as to the author. 



M. Lavater's book produced an attack upon 

 it, from M. Formey, in the Berlin Tranf- 

 aftions for the year 1775. ^* Fo^mcy having 

 difcufled the propriety of the extenfive figni- 

 fication given to the term phyfiognomy by 

 M. Pernetty and Lavater, adopts a definition 

 nearly the fame with that which I have taken. 

 He allows that every fibre of the body influen- 

 ces and is intimately conneded with the mental 

 chara6ler ; but he urges, as his principal argu- 

 ment, that our frame is liable to fo many acci- 

 dents by which it may be altered or modified, 



• Vol. III. p. 164. The fubftance of M. Lavater's 

 hypothefis. Dr. Feriar has already quoted in Effay on 

 Popular Illufions. M. Lavater's own opinion of it is curious. 

 Nous parviendrons a etablir uit hypothefe, digne d'occupa un 

 dts premier i rang dans la clajfe des probabilites philo/ophiques ! 

 F f 4. that 



