462 On Phyftognmy. 



tion ; but however ftrange and fanciful their opinioni may 

 be, thefe are not fo fingular as the language and manner 

 in which they are deli%'ered. Of thefe opinions indeed 

 fome are not very diffimilar to fuch as had been advanced 

 aforetime among the Gnoftics, Platonics, and Chrillian 

 Cabalifts ; although, excepting fuch information as con- 

 verfation might fupply, there is no room to fufped that 

 Paracelfus and Behmen drew from thofe fources, whatever 

 Fludd might do ; and even of him, it cannot be proved that 

 he borrowed from any preceding writer. 



Upon the whole of this enumeration then, it appears 

 that the defenders of phyfiognomy, the profeiTed teachers 

 of the fcience, have been either teachers and defenders of 

 alchemy, magic, aftrology, or theofophy, or all of them ; 

 and of courfe that it was utterly impoflible that thefe doc- 

 trines fhould be rejefted without fome contamination on the 

 charafter of the companion fcience of phyfiognomy.* A 

 circumftance which to have omitted would have rendered, 

 the flighteft (ketch of the literary hiflory of phyfiognomy 

 grofsly deficient. 



• It happens rather unfortunately for the fcience in queftion that even in 

 this day her principal votary (Lavater) (hould be generally confidered as 

 a ftrenuous fupporter of a feft of myftics. Vid, Mirabeau's Secret Hift. 

 of the court of Berlin. 



Descriptiok 



