Evening star., 1935-11-17

r YAND and brain have been
- partners through the ages.
Either one would be i'm
possible without the other
Step by step in the evolution of the
human race and its ape-like ances-
tors, the development of the mental
has depended on the development Of
the manual, and vice versa.
In the beginning, Of course. the
hands were the front feet The an
cestors of man fought with their
mouths and seized their food with
their mouths. The front feet were Of
value only for balance and for run
ming. When the hand came into use
it freed the skull as a weapon Of de-
fense and offense and this gave room
for the brain to grow. The bigger
brain made increasing use Of the
hand The more skillful the hand
became the more differentiations it
was necessary for the brain to make.
A change in one produced a change
in the other.
So If any external organ might be
supposed to serve as an indication for
what lies behind the skull 1t should
be. the hand. Naturally, no other
feature of the body-except possibly
the face-has formed the basis for SO
many pseudo-scientiflc systems OF
character and personality diagnosis.
Some of these have seemed, upon
superficial consideration, to have con-
siderable empirical validity although
all have suffered under strict scien-
tiflc analysis. They have passed into
eclipse although one-graphology-
seems to be coming into degree OF
respectability once more.
The human organism, of course, Is
not a conglomeration Of unrelated
parts with no laws governing shapes
and sizes. The hand of the individual
fits into the complex of which 1t
forms a part. One would not expect
q giant to have the hand of a dwarf.
The majority of human beings, how
ever, are not extremes and in the vast
middle ground falling about the aver
age there is room for so much in
dividual variation that the formula
ton of any sharply defined relation
ship is very difficult. The anatomist
Cuvier, it was claimed, could recon-
struct an entire extinct animal from
q single bone. Similarly the physical
anthropologist might draw a picture
of an individual from the shape and
size of one of his hands. Few would
deny, however, that the picture would
be more than a vague approximation.
TT MAY be admitted, physical
anthropologists claim, that the
hand is a rough anatomical index.
Whether it can be considered an
index of character and personality
is quite another question, vastly more
complicated, and beyond the borders
of the validated science of the present.
Supposing it does tell something about
the physical picture of the brain?
What has the physical condition Of
the brain to do, except in extreme
cases, with the mental and emotional
qualities of the individual? If men
and women carried their brains out.
side their skulls in plain view little
more could be told about their in.
tangible qualities than at present.
for at best there are only tenuous re-
lationships. Hence the relationship
between character and hand, being
O degree more removed, is still more
tenuous Nevertheless there is a
"hunch" that refuses to be sub
merged.
This Is due partly to the fact that
q skillful observer, like a detective
of the Sherlock Holmes school, often
Is able to build UP many deductions
from an individual hand. But these
are seldom generalized. They refer
to a particular person in particular
circumstances. The hand. taking such
o notable part in nearly all of an
indiYidual's activities, naturally tells
Q good deal about immediate en-