comment, and he of the shifting eye be forced to steal for a living.

4. Another source of these notions is mainly responsible for such of them as refer to definitely undesirable traits. This is the belief, so well played upon by the school of Lombroso in criminology, that many of these characteristics, along with the so-called physical stigmata, are indicative of a degenerative or atavistic trend in the constitution of the individual. Among these stigmata were enumerated every conceivable extreme variation of every identifiable part of the human anatomy. Lombroso was inclined to believe not only that the presence of such traits was a certain mark of criminal propensities, but even that various types of criminals could be recognized by the cataloging of their stigmata, as thieves, murderers, forgers, etc. The history of the criticism of this view need not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that we now understand that the underlying truth of the matter is only that these stigmata are somewhat more frequent among the vicious, degenerate, and defective groups than they are among people selected on the basis of their morality and intelligence. The criminally inclined individual may possess no stigmata, while an Abraham Lincoln may possess several of them, and in marked degree. To be sure, when an unusual number of stigmata are presented by an individual, we feel disposed to suspect that the abnormal condition is not confined to his bones and peripheral organs alone, but is probably so deep-seated as to involve his nervous system as well. But on the basis of these stigmata alone we are quite unable to decide whether he is an imbecile, a degenerate criminal, a pervert, a genius, or only an average man, with an undue burden of physical infirmity; still less can we diagnose his special mental or moral qualities.

5. A further source of these physiognomic beliefs may be discerned: namely, the fact that the features of a stranger are very likely to call more or less clearly to our memory some other acquaintance whose traits we know, to our sorrow perhaps, and whose features or manner or voice or apparel chance to be very similar to that of the stranger. At once we are inclined to endow the stranger with the character of the individual he resembles. We seldom accurately check up these impressions on the basis of subsequent discovery. Indeed we are much more likely to evoke the suspected traits by our own attitude and by our treatment of the stranger, and we are eager to pounce upon any act that may be construed as a confirmation of our snap judgment. It is obvious that these impressions will vary from individual to individual and that any attempt to formulate them would expose their fallaciousness.

6. Finally, in this analysis of the origin of our belief in the signs of physiognomy, is the mere insistence that as a matter of fact there are definite relationships discoverable and formulable between typical features and typical characteristics of personality. Beliefs of this dogmatic kind are most likely to be exploited by the professional counsellor, since they appear to the examinee to be unknown, mysterious, esoteric facts. The following formulations, taken from an account of the performance of one of the most widely advertised of professional vocational counsellors, may serve as an example of this type of dogmatic physiognomic doctrine.

"The sensitive, delicate-minded man usually has a fine-textured skin; the coarse-minded man a coarse-textured skin. It is an embryological fact that the skin was and is the original seat of all sensations, and that spinal cords and nerves are but modified and specialized in-turned skin. Of necessity a man's skin indicates the texture of his brain.

"Texture is a great classifier of humanity. The individual of fine hair, fine-textured skin, delicately chiseled features, slender, graceful body and limbs, as a general rule, is refined, loves beauty and grace, and likes work either purely mental in its nature or offering an opportunity to handle fine, delicate materials and tools. On the other hand the man with coarse hair, coarse-textured skin, and large, strongly formed features inclines as a general rule to occupations in which strength, vigor, virility, and ability to live and work in the midst of harsh, rough and unbeautiful conditions are prime requirements.

"It is no secret to observant employers of labor that blondes, as a general rule, are changeable, variety loving, optimistic, and speculative, while brunettes are consistent, steady, dependable, serious, and conservative."

"It turns out as one might naturally expect that the man who resembles the greyhound in form is quicker, keener, more responsive, and less enduring than the man who resembles the bulldog in form.

"A most cursory examination of the portraits of poets, educators, and essayists will show a marked tendency in them to resemble the triangle in structure of the head and body—both head and body wide above and narrower in the lower portions. An examination of the portraits of a hundred great generals, pioneers, builders, engineers, explorers, athletes, automobile racers, aëronauts, and others who lead a life of great activity will show a general tendency toward structure on the lines of the square—square face, square body, square hands. Reference to the portraits of great judges, financiers, organizers, and commercial kings will show a general tendency toward structure upon the lines of the circle—round face, rounded body and a tendency to roundness in hands and limbs.

"Anything which is hard in consistency has comparatively great resistance and persistence. That which is elastic in consistency is adaptable and seems to have spring, life, and energy within it. These principles have been found to apply to human beings."

The existence of quite definite beliefs in these relations between character and physiognomy is readily shown by experiments in which groups of ten people were asked to arrange twenty photographs of women in an order of merit. On different occasions and by varying groups of mature college students, these photographs were arranged on the basis of seven different traits, viz.: intelligence, humor, perseverance, kindness, conceit, courage, and deceitfulness. Different judges show quite striking agreement in their estimates of the characteristics suggested by a given photograph. Thus, if the average position assigned to each photograph be taken as the standard and the divergences of the ten judges from this standard be averaged in the case of all the photographs, the average divergences for the different traits are as follows[2]: