You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Reading “character” in handwriting has been a parlor game for centuries. It has always been on the fringe of respectability and although from time to time certain enthusiasts have attempted to give it “scientific “sanction interpretations have always been so general and practically
valueless that even those most rigidly controlled of its applications, namely identifications for legal purposes, are too often suspect.
In comparatively recent years the work of Klages has been a rallying ground for a new graphology and a recrudescence of active interest has come chiefly from his recent contributions.
The present work is based chiefly on the Klages' formulations. The handwriting of 400 patients in sanatoria for the tuberculous form the material for this particular study. Out of this material the authors would erect a picture of a “tuberculous character.” They ask, “In how far does this ‘Tuberculous Character’ differ from the normal?” “How do the sexes vary?”; and, “What influence has the severity of the tuberculous illness on the characterological reactions?”
Inasmuch as there are no such things as “normal” handwriting nor a “normal” character the first inquiry is sterile. The second has no significance, and only the third problem is open.
To offer some suggestions in reference to this latter question the authors present a short outline of the most characteristic features in graphology and would ally them to certain findings among the tuberculous.
Here as elsewhere one is not yet ready to come to grips with correlations between the writing and psychological formulations and while the text is of interest it is still so speculative as to suggest questions rather than to answer them. From this viewpoint the work is well worth reading if one can swallow Klages. Thus far we have not been able to.