July 19, 1895.] 



SCIENCE. 



79 



Alphabetical Index. Six pages. 



Nine tables. 



Besides these there is an introduction of 

 four pages not eniimerated. In this we 

 became acquainted with ' Prof. Dr. W. 

 Preyer,' written in three different stjdes, 

 which we are asked to accept as typical 

 English, French and Italian hands. We 

 cannot do so. There are certain peculiari- 

 ties of each writer manifest, but whether 

 one considers each letter separately, or 

 ' all together,' it is more than doubtful if a 

 conscientious expert could assign the na- 

 tionality of each writer without further 

 help than the writing only. This national 

 character, we are told, changes with the cen- 

 turies. Another set of examples are given 

 to show that the commercial differs from 

 the scholarly handwriting. Again we ac- 

 knowledge the differences between the 

 specimens, but are compelled to reject the 

 conclusions as to class, always conceding, 

 however, that the specimen he calls typical 

 is perfectly consistent with the popular idea 

 of the character of the class in which he 

 puts it. 



Thus early in the book it begins to ap- 

 pear that our German author is committing 

 the un-German fault of reaching conclu- 

 sions through a defective second premise. 

 This fault is the kejTiote to the entire 

 treatise and it seems to us the keystone of 

 the entu-e structure which Herr Preyer has 

 built. In the first chapter he has richly 

 illustrated platitudes such as 'the differ- 

 ences which belong to the standpoint of the 

 observer,' ' "Writings may be distinct and 

 strong yet legible, etc' In some cases 

 the classification seems puerile ; as, for in- 

 stance, when it is proposed to count in 100 

 words how many curves occur where angles 

 should be and vice versa, and to consider the 

 percentage of both kinds of faults as an ele- 

 ment of judging of the psychological condi- 

 tion of the wi-iter (Chap. I., p. 8), or where 

 it is proposed to draw the radii of a circle 



on a sheet of glass (' or transparent paper, 

 where great accuracy (!) is not necessary ') 

 in order to measure the slopes of letters 

 (Chap. III., p. 47-1- ). It would seem from 

 this last ingenuous remark that the common 

 horn protractor was unknown to Herr 

 Preyer. He divides Chapter IV. into : (1) 

 tliis form of the writers' characters ; (2) the 

 junction of the letters with each other ; (.S) 

 the completeness of the copy (^. e., the ab- 

 sence of gaps where letters, words or their 

 abbreviations should be) ; (4) the size of 

 characters; (6) the direction of the com- 

 ponent character of the writing; (7) the 

 direction of the lines ; (8) the length of the 

 lines ; (9) the distance apart of the letters, 

 words and lines; (10) the flourish under 

 the name. 



This chapter takes up 149 pages, or much 

 more than half the book, which latter may 

 be considered to have been constructed 

 around it, as the Atlanta has been said by 

 her constructor, Charles Cramp, to be a hull 

 constructed around a pair of boilers. 



The last chapter on the Pathology of 

 Handwriting is rather on the indications of 

 the moods of the writer, and has the fault 

 of the rest of the book, superficiality. 



But, as if it were not possible for a Ger- 

 man in earnest (as Herr Preyer evidently 

 is) to completely belie the system and 

 scrupulousness which have made the Ger- 

 man scientific literature absolutely indis- 

 pensable to any worker, he displays his 

 faults of method completely in his appendix. 

 The questions here are: Did Goethe believe 

 in graphology ? Did he invent it and sug- 

 gest it to Lavater or not ? 



Out of a large mass of erudite citations 

 showing commendable industry and intel- 

 ligence, the reader who strips the verbiage 

 from the idea conveyed discovers that there 

 is not a scintilla of proof that Goethe ever 

 seriously maintained that one's character 

 could be discovered by his handwriting. 

 Suphan thinks that Goethe probably was 



