Talk:Johann Kaspar Lavater

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 September 2021 and 21 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Msdemure, ERSIEBER, Naowa, Jerman0822, Nabourbeau, Spookyelle, Indridspook, Rjoy000.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2021 and 31 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vansybil, Jiffy98, FloppyCrow, The Enchiridion, Everwind30, Soulkiley, Oscarw3113, Meg's Goldfish, AnnieCarlson09.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

lacking neturality?
I'm concerned about the following: "Lavater's name would be forgotten but for his work in the field of physiognomy, Physiognomische Fragmente zur Beförderung der Menschenkenntnis und Menschenliebe (1775–1778). The fame of this book, which found admirers in France and England as well as Germany, rests largely upon the handsome style of publication and the accompanying illustrations." I'm not sure that there is evidence that Lavater's influence comes solely from his physiognomic work. More troubling is the second sentence, which suggests that the primary reason Lavater was read at all was the"handsome[ness]" of his book. As eminently astute readers as Goethe and Blake found much more worth in the content of Lavater's writing than in the look and feel of the binding and illustrations. (Perhaps the fact that Blake annotated his copy of Lavater's Aphorisms should be noted somewhere in the article as well? See Blake's Complete Works)

The claim in the final paragraph that Lavater became unpopular because of his "vanity" also seems unfitting for an encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.68.219 (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The article seems to be a verbatim copy of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, hence the various (for contemporary readers) odd subjective judgements about his "handsome style" and his "vanity". These sort of things should preferably be changed to more neutral language or deleted outright. However I must agree to the assertation that he is most wellknown (for better or worse) today on account of his physiognomic theories. I would of course word it differently. He would not have been forgotten, but today his claim to fame rests mainly on his physiognomic theories. However you are welcome to edit the article and hopefully fix its shortcomings. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Moby Dick
Lavater is mentioned in Moby Dick on pg 371 ch.79 The Prairie. Just thought I'd mention if anyone thought that it is noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.184.205.99 (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)