J.—PSYCHOLOGY. 221 
demonstrably associated with tested mental differences.’ Fat and lean 
is an antithesis as old as the legend of Jack Spratt and his wife; and 
modern physiology, it will be noted, agrees with the ancient rhyme in 
referring the difference largely to dietetic habits, and in connecting it 
in part with a difference in sex and the sex-glands. As to the con- 
comitant psychical differences, fancies on this subject (if Plutarch is to 
be trusted) were entertained by so eminent a master of men as Julius 
Cesar.* ‘ Your fat, sleek-headed men,’ he is made to exclaim, ‘ I 
neyer reck of; they sleep o’ nights. But these pale-visaged carrion, 
with the lean and hungry look, they think too much; such men are 
dangerous.” ‘That the new observers have confirmed the old is 
more than I venture to assert. But at least they have applied the 
proper method to the problem. 
Of their somewhat singular conclusions the real import lies in this: 
they emphasise, and justly emphasise, the supreme importance, for 
right psychological diagnosis, of viewing body and mind as a single 
unitary organism. A man is something more than a carcass loosely 
coupled with a ghost. Material and spiritual are reciprocally involved ; 
and the two together are to be treated as inseparable aspects of one 
highly complex whole. Thus, in both physical and mental working, 
the restless, unreliable, ‘ carnivorous’ type may be likened to a high- 
compression engine, capable of short but forcible output of energy, yet 
unsuited for long and steady running; the plodding, sedentary, ‘ herbi- 
vorous’” type, to a low-compression engine, with a lower maximum 
efficiency, but a more continuous level of sustained activity. And in 
each the mental and physical symptoms are joint products of one 
fundamental mechanism. It will be remarked in passing that, alike 
in mind and body, the former—the slender ‘ microsplanchnic’ type— 
is suggestive of hyperthyroidism, and of the tall, long-headed, active 
races; while the latter—the heavy ‘ macrosplanchnic’ type—is_ simi- 
larly suggestive of hypothyroidism, and of the short, round-headed, 
stolid race. 
Possibly the same twofold hypothesis—of racial stock and glandular 
influences—may be adduced to explain what little correlations the 
phrenologist ® can claim between mental characteristics and the con- 
formation of skull and face. The appearance of cranial types is cer- 
tainly suggestive of what is known of racial stocks. The doctrine of 
stigmata of degeneration also finds a partial explanation in the double 
effects of disturbances in the ductless glands, impairing simultaneously 
the normal development of both skeleton and intelligence. Low, 
narrow, and bossed foreheads, broad, depressed, and upturned noses, 
narrow, high, and V-shaped palates, lobeless, projecting, and mal- 
formed ears, asymmetrical, misshapen, and small skulls—these 
7 See Naccarati, ‘The Morphological Aspect of Intelligence,’ Arch. Psych., 
No. 45, 1921. The coefficients are low. .35 or less. 
8 The remark is freely paraphrased bv Shakespeare, Julius Cesar, I., ii., 191. 
® Psvchologists will be astonished to hear that in spite of all the recent work 
on intelligence-tests. one British Education Authority recently preferred to invite 
a practising phrenologist to assist in the examination of candidates for junior 
county scholarships. How many school medical officers still rely, in diagnosing 
mental deficiency, more upon stigmata than tests? 
