October 5, 1906.] 



SCIENCE. 



433 



Binet. In ' B ' a large number of mediocri- 

 ties were mingled with Renan, CI. Bernard 

 and Daudet. Several experts were selected to 

 sort these names. Average intelligence was _ 

 classed from 30 to 40; talent, 40 to 50; genius 

 50 to 60; and the inferior grades, 1 to 30. 



To avoid suggestion from the contents of 

 a letter, envelopes were first employed; but 

 the experts objected to the insufficiency of the 

 material " and their efforts were -not 'brilliant. 

 In 80 replies but 61 per cent, were correct." 



Dr. Binet then had recourse to personal 

 letters, but in cutting out the signature and 

 significant words the meaning was made ob- 

 scure. (The fact that a letter was thus mu- 

 tilated would stamp it as of the superior class. 

 P. F.) 



Another error was in the recognition of the 

 handwriting by the expert; thus: Mme. Un- 

 gern Steinberg recognized Zola's writing. 



Dr. Binet submitted to each expert a list 

 of 100 known authors and asked if he knew 

 the handwriting of any of them. 



Chapter XII.: How is intelligence revealed 

 in handwriting? 



M. Crepieux-Jamin recognizes six degrees. 

 Genius, talent, alert intelligence, mediocrity, 

 insignificance and low intelligence. There are 

 pen-strokes characteristic of each of these 

 classes. 



Genius manifests itself by power, clearness, 

 simplicity and activity. The strokes are not 

 of common form, but elegant, or well defined, 

 with inequalities not discordant. 



Talent has the same signs, with less clear- 

 ness, simplicity and activity. The signs of 

 cultivation (modifications of the ordinary 

 forms of writing as abbreviations or simplifi- 

 cations) are as numerous as with genius. 



Alert Intelligence. — Clear and Simple. Un- 

 evenness (index of intellectual sensibility 

 without discordances) is great and gives the 

 impression of a shudder of the pen. Precision 

 not so great as with genius. There appear 

 indications, absent from genius, of cunning, 

 deception, versatility {sic), and violence, 

 though not allied with each other. 



Mediocrity. — Signs of incompleteness, gaps 

 and discordances. The characters labored or 



verging upon vulgarity. Marks of meanness, 

 of clumsiness, exaggerations and inequality 

 of the strokes, lack of harmony, lack of clear- 

 ness, few and not characteristic signs of cul- 

 ture. 



Insignificance. — Infantile simplicity of the 

 strokes, lack of energy, activity and signs of 

 culture; even and monotonous with the spaces 

 often exaggerated. 



Low Intelligence. — Vulgar, confused and 

 exaggerated forms without marks of culture. 



M. Paulhan does not believe in the constant 

 value of even general signs. It is the ' en- 

 semble ' of the writing. M. Vie prepared a 

 table expressing 57 different kinds of writing 

 with their respective significations, but other 

 graphologists criticized the table, and M. Cre- 

 pieux-Jamin refused to use it. 



Chapter XIIL: A general glance at the 

 solutions. 



A table of the 35 pairs of writings repre- 

 senting intelligence and mediocrity are given 

 with the grades assigned by Crepieux-Jamin, 

 Vie and Paulhan. In the 35 cases Crepieux- 

 Jamin gave 32 correct and 3 incorrect replies; 

 Humbert, 28 correct, 5 incorrect and 2 doubt- 

 ful replies; Vie, 29 correct and 6 incorrect 

 replies; Paulhan, 26 correct and 9 incorrect 

 replies. 



This is the author's summary of the con- 

 clusions of the graphologists on the coupled 

 writings. Seven experts gave answers. The 

 majority of them were correct 32 out of 36 

 times. In ten cases all seven were unani- 

 mous and right. In three cases the majority 

 were wrong. Taking the average of all as 

 that of an exceptionally good expert, his av- 

 erage of success would have been 90 per cent. 

 Writing, therefore, reveals unequally the in- 

 telligence of the writer. Graphic signs of in- 

 telligence are incontestable but are not found 

 in the writing of all great intelligences. In 

 this the case resembles physiognomies. 



Chapter XV. Portraits. Successful and 

 unsuccessful. 



Dr. Binet says : " Reading a series of graph- 

 ologists' opinions, one is alternately charmed 

 by their accuracy and disgusted by their er- 

 rors. One can not decide whether or not there 



