P hi/siognofk]/. 431 



denominated Occult, physiognomical inquiries for 

 a time also declined. 



Philosophers, however, soon learned to distin- 

 guish between the science itself and that perver- 

 sion of it which had arisen from an unnatural con- 

 nection. Accordingly, early in the century under 

 consideration, it was taken notice of respectfully 

 by Dr. Gwither;'' and afterwards, in a still more 

 pointed and able manner by Dr. Parsons.'' Be- 

 sides these British wTiters, Lancisius, of Italy; 

 Haller, of Switzerland; and Buffon, of France, 

 published observations on certain branches of the 

 subject, which it is scarcely necessary to say were 

 ingenious and interesting. But the first discussion 

 relating to the science of physiognomy, in the 

 eighteenth century, which excited much atten- 

 tion, was that which took place in 1769, between 

 M. Pernetty and M. Le Catt, and recorded 

 in the Alemairs of the Academy of Sciences." Both 

 these gentlemen contended for the reality and im- 

 portance of the science; but differed widely with 

 respect to its principles and extent. And though, 

 probably, neither was entirely correct in his views, 

 yet they doubtless contributed to increase the 

 knowledge and study of the subject. 



In a short time atter the discussion in France 

 had been laid before the public, the great and far- 

 famed work of M. Lavater, Dean of Zurich, ap- 

 peared. The opinions respecting physiognomy 

 which he had been for some time divulc:in«: in con- 

 versation, and aissemmating m fragments, were 

 collected by him and his admirers into formal and 

 extensive volumes. This is certainly the most 

 splendid and interesting work on the subject that 

 was ever published ; and the deep and general at- 



e Philosophical Transactions, vol. xviii. 

 d Human Physiognomy explained, 1 747- 



e Mem. AcuJ. Scicn. 1769, Mem. 4th and jtJi. 



