October 5, 1906.] 



SCIENCE. 



437 



fragile and can not be put to a rude test. 

 She is imperfectly seconded by will power, 

 but tenacious of truth (!). Very apt to at- 

 tach herself to the object if it conies to her, 

 but will not seek it " ( !). 



Rachel Galtie. — Poisoner, Killed husband, 

 grandmother and loving brother. 



Crepieux- Jamin : " Imagination (large pen 

 movements) ? dominates. Mediocre intelli- 

 gence (graphic discordance, very vulgar and 

 disordered). Lacks judgment and attention. 

 Impulsive, exalted (excessive right and left 

 turns. Words increasing in size), inconsist- 

 ent (graphic discordances), disordered (disor- 

 dered and agitated), negligent (uncrossed ' t's,' 

 disordered). Like most of those deficient, 

 tries to fill gaps by pretention (ornamental, 

 rolled ' d's,' overheightened). Liar from imag- 

 ination and disorder (agitated, discordance, 

 ' t's ' not crossed, right and left turns). Never- 

 theless, not bad (words increasing in size, 

 small unevenness of direction, curved and 

 clear). Dangerous because passionate and 

 ill-fitted for life (uncrossed * t's ' non-coordina- 

 tion of graphic movements) * * * affection- 

 ate (inclined, curved with many right-turn 

 movements). Grateful (!) with excess of 

 demonstrations of her very emotional and 

 open ( !) nature (very unequal in size — words 

 enlarging — agitated). Has disagreeable rath- 

 er than odious ( ?) sides." 



The above are selected as samples. 



Chapter XXVI.: Measure of individuality. 



The author says disagreements of grapholo- 

 gists prove nothing. They disagree just as 

 physicians disagree at the bedside of a patient. 

 Crepieux-Jamin, as the best, is assumed to 

 represent graphology. Of seven portraits he 

 failed in four and succeeded in three. The 

 writings of a batch of really high characters 

 were submitted to him. He was asked to ar- 

 range the twenty-two good and criminal in 

 four series of good, medium, wanting and in- 

 ferior. In the first class he put one good. 

 In the second three murderers and two good. 

 In the third class one murderer and five good. 

 In the fourth seven murderers and two good 

 — dividing the names into two classes, he has 

 seven good and four criminals in the first — 



four good and seven criminals in the second. 



Arranging the names in couples of one 

 good and one criminal and asking his judg- 

 ment as to their comparison with each other 

 he was right in eight and wrong in three. 



Vie and Eloy erred five times in eleven in 

 the same experiment. 



Dr. Binet says the graphologists agreed in 

 nine out of twenty-two cases. They can not 

 decide character as well as they can intelli- 

 gence, and it is uncertain if they ever will. 



Chapter XXVII. : General conclusions by 

 Dr. Binet. 



" The principal end is less to ascertain 

 whether intelligence and character can be 

 learned from writing, than to point the path 

 to follow in demonstrating moral phenomena. 

 ProhaMy there is some truth in graphology, 

 cephalometry (phrenology) and chiromancy." 



" The most dangerous foe to experiment is 

 suggestion, ' the cholera of psychology,' * * * 

 after the malice of chance. There are answers 

 given by chance which have such a form as 

 to fall out almost always right * * *. Cal- 

 culation of chance is not alone the province of 

 the mathematician but of the psychologist. 



* * * The determination of graphologists is 

 always superior to chance and yet not infal- 

 lible * * *." 



" Graphological signs seem to be elastic 

 enough to fit the most contradictory cases." 



" The fault lies not in the signs but in the 

 significations assigned to them." 



" Graphology is respected more highly by 

 the public because it is mysterious and incom- 

 prehensible." 



" It is intuitive. One does not reason, one 

 affirms, and one only affirms with insistence 

 what is doubtful. * * * If the client is satis- 

 fied the performance is said to have succeeded. 



* * * Yet science in disdaining graphology 

 neglects a domain vaster than one thinks. It 

 stretches beyond the view, and contains all 

 the empiric knowledge which is of such use 

 to us daily, such as characters of men, previ- 

 sion of their acts, and sentiments, merely 

 from the sound of the voice, etc. When sci- 

 ence invades this domain the present priests 

 of half-light will flee to the realms of the 



