444 On Phyfiognomy. 



reproof.* The fixtecnth and feventeenth centuries how- 

 ever, were orall others the moft prolific in ailrologers 

 and aftrologlcal treatifes. Nor was the fcience confined 

 to fuch perfons as Aulus Gelliusf terms " jEru/catorei* 

 who like the Egyptian Chiromancers of the prefent day, 

 merely ftroled about to procure a fcanty and precarious 

 fubfiftence by impofing on the credulity of the ignorant; 

 on the contrary it was cultivated and recommended by per- 

 fons of the firft learning and abilities and of the highell 

 literary reputation. It is fufficient for my prefent purpofe 

 to notice, that the majority of thofe who have been men- 

 tioned as authors of repute on the fubjeft of phyfiognomy 

 have treated alfo diffufely either on aftrology in diftindl 

 treatifes, or on aftrology as connefted effentialiy with phy- 

 fiognomy or chiromancy. Indeed this latter branch of 

 phyfiognomy is fcarcely ever treated but aflrologically, 

 each part of the hand being afligned to a particular planet. 

 Moreover phyfiognomifts have not only called in aftrology in 

 aid of their fcience, but aftrologers have themfelves alfo fre- 

 quently applied aftrology to phyfiognomy ; the fame ftars 

 in the fame fituatipns and afpedts denoting (according to 

 them) with every corporature a certain turn of mind. 



There is a paflage in Strype's Life of Sir John Cheke, 

 which ihews very forcibly the prevailing tafte for aftrology 

 at that time. *' Here then we leave Sir John Cheke, a 

 " difconfolaie prifoner in the tower now the fecond time 

 " under queen Mary, to repent of his credulity to the 

 ** words and promifes of romanifts, and his too much con- 

 " fidence in aftrology, whereby he is impofed upon to his 



•' dellruftion This art of conjecturing at or foreknow- 



" ing things or events by the pofition of the ftars was about 

 '• thefe times exceedingly lludied, by both nobility and 

 '• gentry. Infomuch that Dr. Lawrence Humphrey (who 

 " lived in thofe days and was afterwards a learned profeflbr 

 *' of divinity at Oxford) in a book which he wrote for the 



• See the Index to his Summa fub voce Aftrologia. f Ubi fup. 



" ufe 



