440 On Phyftognomy, 



that have no connexion with the difpofition or 

 talents of the perfon who may be expofed to 

 them, that it far furpaflfes human fkill to dif- 

 tinguifti between fuch modifications of feature 

 as are, and fuch as are not connefted with 

 the mind ; and therefore although there may 

 be truth in the fcience of phyfiognomy, the 

 Deity alone can be a phyfiognomift. He ob- 

 ferves moreover that our caft of features is 

 liable to be determined by the temperaments 

 of our anceftors lineal and collateral, by edu- 

 cation, by diet, by climate, by fudden emo- 

 tions, &c. fo that the determination given to 

 our features by our mental character, may be 

 fo involved with, or hidden by accidental cir- 

 cumftances, that it is in vain to attempt the 

 ftudy of a fcience whofe limits are fo confined. 

 Thefe objedlions of M. Formey are worth no- 

 ticing, although they do not ftrike me as con- 

 clufive on the points toward which he urges 

 them. 



Befide this Eflay by M. Formey, I know of 

 no other fubfequent publication of any moment 

 on the fubjecl. From this hiftorical deduftion 

 however of the literary progrefs of phyfiognomy, 

 it appears that in whatever difrepute the fcience 

 may now be fallen, there is fcarcely a period 

 to be mentioned wherein any thing of fcience 

 was known, in which phyfiognomy had not 

 its abettors and its profeflbrs among men of 



the 



