"best bib and tucker," and proceeded to go around the other way to the front door of the offices. As I rang the bell the dear old man who always opened the door greeted me warmly and said: "Yes, Mrs. Douglas Robinson, your appointment is at nine. You are just on time." I went into the outer hall, where a number of the appointees of 9.15, 9.30, etc., were already waiting, to be on hand for their appointments, and in a moment or two Mr. Loeb opened the door of the private office of the President and came out into the hall and said in a rather impersonal way, "Mrs. Douglas Robinson's appointment," and I was shown into the room. My brother was seated at a large table, and on it was every imaginable paper marked "Porto Rico." As I entered he was still reading one of these papers. Looking up, I almost felt a shock as I met what seemed to be a pair of perfectly opaque blue eyes. I could hardly believe they were the eyes of the brother with whom I had so lately parted, the eyes that had glistened as he recited the great poems of Kipling and Swinburne, the eyes that had almost closed to see better the tiny breast fluff of the fox-sparrow. These were rather cold eyes, the eyes of a just judge, eyes that were turned upon his sister as they would have been turned upon any other individual who came to him in connection with a cause to which he must give his most careful attention. He waved me to a chair, finished the paper he was reading, and then, turning to me, his eyes still stern and opaque, he said: "I believe you have come to see me on business connected with Porto Rico. Kindly be as condensed as possible." I decided to meet him on his own ground, and made my eyes as much like his as possible, and was as condensed as possible. Having listened carefully to my short story, he said: "Have you proof of this?"-still rather sternly. Again I decided to answer him with much of his own manner. So I replied: "I should not be here, wasting your time or mine, did I not have adequate proof." With that I handed him the notes made by the governor of Porto Rico, and proceeded to explain them. He became a little less severe after reading them but no less serious, and turning to me more gently, said: "This is a very serious matter. I

have got to be sure of the correctness of these statements. A man's whole future hangs upon my decision." For a moment I felt like an executioner, but realizing as I did the shocking and disgraceful behavior of the official in question, I knew that no sentimentality on my part should be allowed to interfere with the important decision to be made, and I briefly backed up all that the governor had written. I can still hear the sound of the President's pen as he took out the paper on which the man's name was inscribed, and with one strong stroke effaced that name from official connection with Porto Rico forever. That was the way that Theodore Roosevelt did business with his sister.

That same year, 1905, the old Provençal poet Frédéric Mistral sent him his poem called "Mireille," and in acknowledging the book my brother seems to me to express more than in almost any other letter the spirit which permeated his whole life. I close this chapter with this letter, feeling that it shows indisputably that though he had reached the apex of his desires, that though he was now a great President by the free choice of the people of a great country-perhaps the most powerful ruler at the moment of any country-his ideals for that country, just as his ideals for himself and for his own beloved home life, were what they had always been before the sceptre of a ruler had been clasped in his outstretched hand:

"White House, Washington, December 15, 1904.

"MY DEAR M. MISTRAL:

"Mrs. Roosevelt and I were equally pleased with the book and the medal, and none the less because for nearly twenty years we have possessed a copy of Mireille. That copy we shall keep for old association's sake; though this new copy with the personal inscription by you must hereafter occupy the place of honour.

"All success to you and your associates! You are teaching the lesson that none need more to learn than we of the West, we of the eager, restless, wealthseeking nation; the lesson that after a certain not very high level of material well-being has been reached, then the things that really count in life are the things of the spirit. Factories and railways are good up to a certain point, but

THIRD kind of psychology goldbrick is character analysis. The forms which it has taken have been so numerous that discussion will be limited to character analysis through the study of physiognomy and phrenology.

Surprisingly enough, the sponsors of these schemes have left untouched the only workable approach-inferring traits of character from actions and from the traces left as results of actions. Consequently, any method of reading character from structural peculiarities is opposed by orthodox psychology.

For instance, we are quite justified in saying that one who is sunburned has been out of doors; that the one who has an upward tilt at the corners of the mouth has either inherited a family peculiarity or has developed that expression through his habit of smiling. This method of approach through actions and through their results is entirely justifiable and may be used with comparative safety. On the other hand, the endeavor to diagnose mental peculiarities as a result of structural

See "The Mythology and Science of Character Analy sis," by the same author in SCRIBNER'S MAGAZINE for May.

signs, i. e., shape of the nose, size of the mouth, etc., has been attended by negligible success.

The hybrid mixture of phrenology and physiognomy appeared very early, an unverified statement places the earliest reference to them in a recently discovered Egyptian papyrus, which dates back to 2000 B. C. Early authentic instances are likewise contained in the Bible apropos of Gideon and his fight against the Midianites, and also in Homer, who is supposed to have written about 800 B. C. The following quotation from the "Iliad," as well as the story of Gideon, show, however, that the earliest examples are based definitely upon the activities of the individual rather than upon his static physical structures.

"For if a coward, his color keeps changing, nor does his spirit restrain him to sit quietly, but he shifts his knees and crouches upon both his feet, and in his breast his heart beats loudly, as he thinks on his doom, and there is a chatter of his teeth; but in the brave man the color changes not, nor is he sorely afraid, when once he sits down in an ambush of heroes, but he prays right quickly to win in the dread struggle."

Here the functional, rather than structural phase of physiognomy is obvious. Socrates and Aristotle, living in the

fourth century B. C., are supposed to have written on the topic. Below is given a quotation from the "Physiognomonica," attributed to Aristotle.

"For minds evidently change greatly under the influence of the affections of the body. And vice versa the body is obviously sympathetic with the affections of the soul in the matter of love, fear, pain, and pleasure. And moreover in the natural happenings one would better see that body and soul are so closely connected that they are each responsible for most of the affections of the other. For there has never been such a living thing as had the form of one animal and the mind of another; but the body and the soul are of the same animal, so that it is necessary that such and such a mind shall accompany such and such a body. And besides, those who are skilled judges of other animals are able to come to conclusions from the appearance, horsemen as to horses, hunters as to dogs. And if this is true it would be possible to practise the art of physiognomy.

2. "Previous physiognomists have attempted to work along three lines, each along one. For some read character from the genera of the living beings, setting down a certain appearance and mind for each genus of being. But others assumed in such matters that one who had a body like the body of another, had a soul like his also, and certain others did the same thing to be sure, but did not form their judgments from all living beings but from the human race itself, and dividing it by races, as many as differ in appearance and customs, e. g., the Egyptians, the Thracians, and the Scythians, in a similar way they selected the sign. And certain ones took their sign from the characters that appear-what sort of disposition each character follows with, e. g., one who is subject to anger, fear, libidinous passion, and each of the various affections. And it is possible to practise physiognomy by all of these methods and by others also, and to make the selection of signs in a different way."

It will be seen that these latter authors emphasize the structural side. Only in the last few years has there been the tendency to regard ACTION as symbolic of character in disregard of the structure.

Phrenology is the study whereby one

infers traits of character from the configuration of the head. A bump is supposed to indicate some well developed trait, whereas a hollow is taken to mean the lack of it. Phrenology, as a definite system, began in the eighteenth century as a direct result of the studies of the physiologist, Gall. He had succeeded in his laboratory in determining certain of the sensory and motor functions of the brain. Generalizing from inadequate findings, he and his disciple Spurzheim attributed definite faculties to the different brain areas. In their effort they divided the brain into tiny rooms, each room being supposed to possess some faculty. As the room became more and more crowded by the development of the particular faculty, expansion was necessary, and the phrenologist inferred that outward force was exerted, displacing the bone of the skull which lay outside and so producing a bump.

There are two objections to this system of phrenology. The first is that it divides the brain into compartments and assigns to each a faculty. More recent study has shown that these faculties do not exist. There is no one specific honesty, but there are rather as many honesties as different situations call for.

With the abandonment of this structural theory the main claim of the phrenologist to credence was removed.

More ludicrous even is their later assumption, that bumps on the skull are indices of a certain well-developed trait. For surrounding the brain are three membranes, one of which is comparatively thick and rich in blood-vessels. These structures can usually adopt any change of shape of the brain below, without affecting the outer skull in any particular area.

From the common sense point of view there is no reason for assuming a relationship between any part of the brain and any particular trait of character. Possibly two or three examples will disclose the fundamental fallacy of phrenology better than pages of logical disproof. At the crown of the head there is located, by one system of phrenology, the "faculty" of reverence. Scientific studies of the function of the brain which underlies this portion show that it is concerned with the reception of muscular sensations from the feet and legs. Similarly the phrenologist

If the majority of entries fall in squares A and D, it would be proof of a causal connection; if the majority appear in B and C, it would prove an inverse relationship; if A and D equal B and C, there would be no relationship at all.

So far as we can infer from the writings of physiognomists they take account of only two, A and D, of the four possible relationships, and look only for correspondence between strong will and strong jaw and weak will and slack jaw. And of course they find many cases which are accidentally, at least, in accord with their theory..

The second important objection to physiognomy is the practical impossibility of agreement upon the definition of a single trait of character. It has been pointed out earlier that with the abandonment of structural psychology and the development of the functional theory we are forced to abandon the idea of separate entities or faculties and are compelled to speak of doing and accomplishing rather than of the THING which does and accomplishes. In other words, we search for a higher unit rather than a lower one, the unit of action rather than the unit of structure. And this multiplies the number of units indefinitely. There is no one will entity, but rather as many different willings as there are different situations in which individuals can select and choose. We may well expect to be above the average in some of these relationships and below in a number of others. When we put them all together, the sum total for a number of individuals will probably not differ very widely. Exactly the same thing is true of honesty, trustworthiness, and a host of kindred qualities.

Another of the many faults of physiognomy is a subtle one, and certainly not at first sight apparent. To show where this inaccuracy lies, we shall make five assumptions, each one of which we believe to be self-evident.

First, all traits of character exist in contrary pairs, as for example, honestydishonesty, tenderness-cruelty, verboseness-conciseness, promptness- tardiness. No one is absolutely honest or sympathetic or prompt, so there is always in him some of the opposite trait. Therefore, VOL. LXX.-7

you can say anything about a person, and it will be, to some extent, true.

Second, it follows that if you are looking for a trait in a person you can always find it to some degree. Third, if tell you that he posa person sesses a trait, he will go out of his way to demonstrate the soundness of your judgment by displaying that trait to you in a more than average degree. He will also be convinced that he does possess it to an unusual extent, for he will be watching for it and prompt to note its every manifestation. This is due to the fact that his attention has been directed to focus on it, whereas before, he was more or less unconscious of its presence.

Fourth, both you and the person under consideration are led to believe in and anticipate certain traits because of our traditional physiognomy which has augmented its hold upon popular fancy as a result of stage tradition, descriptions by writers of fiction, and portraits of prominent men.

Fifth, as was shown above, the anticipation or expectation of a trait leads to its being emphasized, for our attention is all set for it and we notice it on every possible occasion. Therefore, physical sign is not the cause of the trait nor the result of it, but is the cause of the expectation of that trait. The expectation, in its turn, is the cause not of the trait but of our finding and exaggerating it.

To illustrate, let us assume that prominent eyes are a sign of linguistic ability. There are obviously varying degrees of this. No normal person is absolutely perfect in this respect nor absolutely defective. Because we have heard the tradition, when we see prominent eyes we look for one who is a language artist. Because that is our anticipation, any wellturned phrase which falls from his lips, or any words of foreign origin which adorn his conversation, lead us to believe that he really is a superior linguist. ability is emphasized simply because we are looking for it."

The

Taking up another system which claims a scientific basis, we find that the fundamental assumption does have definite scientific value. Dividing human beings on biological grounds into two classes, blonds and brunettes, and inferring that