The Technical Basis of

 Graphology.

A Deepening and furthering 

of Crépieux-Jamin's Ideas

Copyright 2001 by Danièle Dumont

Introduction

In 1879,  Michon, (1806-1881) - the author of the first French books which attempt to build a method of graphology - organised, in France, the first graphology congress. Today thanks to the Internet - a bridge over seas and continents – graphologists can meet each other to exchange ideas about the passion they share. This same passion motivated Abbe Michon when he persisted in listing the graphic signs. Crépieux-Jamin was also stirred by the same passion when he, in turn, following in Michon's footsteps, took up the work of listing the signs of the different features of character, and then of discovering new principles which elevated our science to its present status.

While he was still listing the signs, as Michon had done, Crépieux-Jamin was already being hailed an innovator and a master, as can be seen from the assessment of the state of graphology, written by Louis Deschamps in 1892. In it, Deschamps acknowledged two substantial contributions made by Crépieux-Jamin, from the very moment his first Traite Pratique de Graphologie appeared in 1885 :  the relative value of signs, and the discriminating the value of signs according to the general level of the writing, reflecting the general level of the character, that is to say according to its degree of harmony.

The idea of the relativeness of interpretations, however, had not escaped Michon, since he had written, when stating his "law of resultants", that "any graphic sign is more or less modified by another sign", which was another way of expressing what he had already written concerning what he called "graphic physiology" : "graphic features should be considered in the light of the movements which are related, and according to the laws which govern the infinitely varied combinations giving rise to individual, personal handwritings".

It is therefore this very same idea which Crépieux-Jamin put forward in the Traite Pratique de Graphologie, when he stated that "graphological signs have an absolute value only when considered in themselves. In a writing as a whole, their value is relative". However, unlike Michon, Crépieux-Jamin was expressing this idea after reflecting on an anecdote related by Moreau de la Sarthe and added to his translation of Lavater's The art of knowing men through physiognomy. This anecdote explained that someone had spontaneously taken two handwritings from a batch, saying : here are first class handwritings! Genius, or at least a superior mind, is announced by specifics and all these features as a whole". The two writings concerned were those of Voltaire and Montesquieu.

Considering the fact that, in his own words, "graphologists have for a long time been assessing the degree of superiority of individuals by means of the general harmony", Crépieux-Jamin was going to make this a discriminating principle, interpreting handwritings according to their degree of harmony. Thus, according to the example he gives, right from the first edition of  the Traite Pratique, a sign of naivety in a very harmonious writing means «candour», in a writing of average harmony, "naivety"; in an insignificant one, "silliness" and in a very inharmonious one, "stupidity".

Crépieux-Jamin developed his idea in his subsequent publications up to the end of his work, the ABC of Graphology, published in 1930, which he worded as follows : "The interpretation of the movements of handwriting depends on the context in which they appear. It was necessary to find a rapid way of  determining this context. We have attempted to do this in two ways which can easily be used together. The first one gives information on the evolution of the writer, starting from the unorganised handwriting of children which soon, under the conditions of normal education, becomes organised (...). (The second) is the great synthesis of harmony and disharmony (...). The spirit of our work lies in this idea (of "harmony and disharmony"), thanks to which, often at a single glance, indecision in the choice of positive or negative interpretation disappears".

The perception of the relativity of the value of a graphic sign and the fact that the absence of a graphic sign does not correspond to the absence of the corresponding psychological characteristic, induced Crépieux-Jamin to clarify the method. First of all he defined the word "sign" : «a sign is a graphic manifestation». This observation, however simple it may be, was a decisive step forward in graphology : instead of listing the signs, as Varinard did in the period following Michon, as "signs of liveliness, signs of despotism, signs of tenacity", etc. (apart from considerations on punctuation, t-bars and direction of lines), Crépieux-Jamin was thus able to classify signs exclusively in terms of their graphic characteristics : "harmonious writing, inharmonious writing, descending writing, rising writing, curves, angles, words, letters".

In limiting his classification solely to graphic characteristics (that is to say without bringing psychological characteristics into it), Crépieux-Jamin was able to differentiate between "general signs" (harmonious, inharmonious, large, small, vertical, left-slanted, right-slanted, etc. writing) and "particular signs" (curves, angles, words enlarging, diminishing, left out, filiform words ...) and the letters (connected, disconnected, changing from upright to slanted ... ) etc.

A critical reflection on this classification induced Crépieux-Jamin to refine it in his later publications and in the further editions of the Traite Pratique. "There are no particular signs, there are only general signs, the modes of which vary", he wrote in «L'Ecriture et le Caractere», and he removed the table of "general and particular signs" from the Traite Pratique and replaced it with the "table of essential signs of graphology" which lists the different species established. In the first edition of the Traite pratique, his "table of the general and particular signs" the "particular signs" take more than twice as much space as the "general signs" (5 ½ pages against less than 1 ½ page). In the revised and corrected editions of  the Traite pratique, a "table of the essential signs" replaces the two previous tables : the observation of isolated details has disappeared to be replaced by an alphabetical list of graphic observations approximately corresponding to the species used nowadays.

Pursuing his thoughts on the classification of the graphic signs, Crépieux-Jamin distributed his species according to the types of observation that Lavater had suggested when he wrote: "In handwriting I can see the substance and the body of the letters, their form and roundedness, their height and length, their position, their connections, the interval between the lines, whether these are straight or crooked, the neatness of the writing, its lightness or heaviness". Thus Crépieux-Jamin created the categories practically alongside Lavater's observations: Form, Dimension (height and length of letters), Direction (straight or crooked lines), Continuity (connections between letters), Layout (position of the letters, interval between the lines), Intensity (which could correspond to neatness, lightness and heaviness). Let us note, in passing, that Lavater had already made the subtle distinction between the stroke and the graphic line officially introduced by Magnat, since he distinguished between the "substance" and the "body" of the letters. See Figure 1.

Careful reading shows that the creation of the six Jaminian categories (Intensity, Form, Dimension, Direction, Continuity and Layout) depended on the classification already made and not on a new way of looking at handwriting, since Crépieux-Jamin considered the categories as "fundamental elements", obtained, according to his own words, "by severely reducing the general signs". Over time, the six categories became seven, as Intensity was split into Pressure and Speed ; then eight with the successors of Crépieux-Jamin, as the category Direction was split into Direction and Slant, Lavater had actually suggested this; then nine, as the category Direction was split into Line direction and Stroke direction (Dumont)

Figure 1 The Evolution of Signs

Crépieux-Jamin did not seem to attach much importance to the categories : they seemed to appear to him a mere tool of classification, perhaps useful for avoiding omissions in the definitions. Oddly enough, in the book ABC of Handwriting, one finds concave writing in the category of Form, when Crépieux-Jamin himself clearly explained that "concave writing collapses in the middle of the lines", and that "it is a variety of descending writing", which he classified, quite rightly, in the category of Direction. One also finds narrow writing in the category of Form, whilst its opposite, wide writing, is in the category of Dimension. Similarly, spaced out writing appears in the category of Dimension, when what is involved is spacing between words and between lines, which is decidedly more related to Layout.

These are only a few examples showing that in fact, Crépieux-Jamin did not pay much attention to categories. Yet the classification of the species such as he had designed it, did not fully satisfy him towards the end of his life. Perceiving that all the species were not of the same nature, he had written in his last work "one has, for some time yet, to give up the idea of a classification of the qualitative signs". He had also written : "Tomorrow's work will be the division of the species into qualitative and secondary". It was to Andre Lecerf that he entrusted the task of carrying on with his work. A. Lecerf did what he could in Le Cours Superieur de Graphologie, but was probably too close to the Master to review his work from scratch ; and if he excelled at expressing Crépieux-Jamin's ideas, Lecerf did not bring anything new to the classification made by the Master ; qualitative species and guiding syntheses were synonymous to him. The excellent "Expose de graphologie d'apres la methode de Crépieux-Jamin" which was published in the journal of the Société de Graphologie of March 1940 is quite clear on the subject : after describing the two major guiding syntheses, Organisation and Harmony, Lecerf mentioned the other guiding syntheses briefly, and specified in this respect, that "Crépieux-Jamin, in those few lines, has enumerated the main different aspects (called guiding syntheses or qualitative species) with which one must first examine a writing.....".

So, for Lecerf as for Crépieux-Jamin, as well as their contemporaries and successors, guiding syntheses and qualitative species were mixed up. In assimilating the guiding syntheses into the species - whether qualitative or not - one integrates their observation into categories, and the classification remains vague with the anomalies already mentioned, to which other examples could be added : for instance, in which category is inhibited writing classified ? Some will say, under Continuity. Perhaps, but is Continuity not concerned with connections between letters? Others will say, under Movement. Perhaps, but Movement is not a category. Where does one classify firm, or taut writing? Firm writing is classified in Pressure, according to some people, which seems odd, since firmness is not related to weight, nor to the edges of the stroke. Now, what about taut writing? This is a simple matter ; it is classified in the degrees of tension. Perhaps so, but tension is not a category.

So something is wrong with the classification. It is not clear. This has not escaped the detractors of graphology. The existence in the ABC de la Graphologie of graceful writing and senile writing (the latter mentioned but not described) has not escaped them either, nor has the difficulty of explaining on what our terminology is based and what makes its cohesion. If one peruses graphological literature, it is not uncommon to find two different definitions of the same species ; this also shows the vagueness which threatens us. And what are these species? Whereas everyone agrees on the same definition of large or small writing, or of diminishing, or right-slanted, or superelevated, or light, or heavy writing, it is no longer the case with inhibited, controlled, firm or weak writing, or even personalised or irregular writing. Why? If one considers all these species, one realises that they are in fact qualitative species. And here, we are back with our problem : the need to define and classify qualitative species!

This was exactly the thought I reached some years ago. What are qualitative species? Andre Lecerf tells us that it is a guiding synthesis, and Jean-Charles Gille-Maisani adds - in the first part of Psychologie de l'Ecriture, published by Payot in 1969 - and which was his sequel to the ABC de la Graphologie, that the guiding syntheses are "important qualitative species, very limited in number and presenting such an interest that one is used to observing them first in a handwriting analysis, and to putting them at the head of the definition".

By dint of thinking about the notion of guiding synthesis and about a more precise definition of those terms, I pushed open a door already held wide open by other graphologists but through which no one had gone: a guiding synthesis is a synthesis which guides ; it is a synthesis of graphic observations designed to guide the graphological diagnosis. Each guiding synthesis is made out of synthetic species which characterise it. These synthetic species synthesise graphic observations, arising from direct examination of the handwriting in its simplest components, and possibly synthesise other graphic observations.

The simplest components of handwriting are quite simply the categories suggested by Crépieux-Jamin and his successors, and the small signs. So, one observes handwriting by means of species related to the categories (i.e.) generic species and possibly by means of small signs, and one synthesises these observations within guiding syntheses, by expressing oneself by means of synthetic species, and, of course, within free syntheses, to which reference will be made below..

In other words, there exist :

-         generic species, which are simple observations, characterising a writing in a given category (a category being a division of characteristics of handwriting founded on a common and directly measurable or observable character),

-         and synthetic species, which are synthetic observations characterising a writing in accordance with a given guiding synthesis (a guiding synthesis being a synthesis of graphic observations established according to a specific outline, and designed to guide the graphological diagnosis.)

The habit to practice graphology opening a near immediate way to the synthetic observations, the graphologist easily avoids the synthetic character of the concerned species, yet keystone of the job because only the synthetic observations can be interpreted (synthetic species and free species). As for it, a decontextualised generic species has only potentiality of interpretation.

The interest of this restructuring of the terminology can be revealed by comparing inhibition as dealt with by Lecerf, and the synthesis of Inhibition as I suggest it :

Figure 3

Thus, under inhibition, Lecerf classifies writings which are unorganised, broken, disconnected, in dots, suspended, abbreviated, amended, etc. that is to say 28 species which record traces of inhibition in their own field, and only one which is really synthetic, but which he merely names, without clarifying it in his account : this is held back (restrained) writing.

By comparison, under the synthesis of inhibition, I classify synthetic species recording the different degrees of inhibition : writings which are inhibited, restrained, controlled, spontaneous, progressive, resolute, dynamogeneous and carried away. Each species of inhibition defined in this way is in fact synthetic. All rules having their exceptions, inhibition on finals is a direct observation in the synthesis of inhibition : suspended finals handwriting for inhibited finals, and thrown finals handwriting for those lacking inhibition.

Thus, on examining De Gaulle's writing, following Lecerf's list, one can see that it is in descending steps and is sober. So these species are listed in the definition and interpreted with the others.  

Figure 4

If, on the other hand, one establishes a true synthesis of Inhibition by studying the interplay of what holds a writing back and what moves it forward, limiting or liberating the free expression of the personality and its impulses, one notes the following points :

-    it is progressive in its form (simplified), its slant (right-slanted, irregular to nuanced in its slant), its speed (rapid), its orientation (right-tending), its continuity (connected to grouped), and in certain small signs (no starting stokes, pincer-shaped 'p's, i-dots ahead of the letter);

-    it is resolute in its tension (firm to taut) in addition to its progressiveness;

-    it is also controlled in its inner layout (aerated to spaced out), its height (small), in the presence of diacritics including on the 'j's, and its direction (in descending steps);

-   finally, this writing is restrained in its width (some narrow letters), in some finals and in its outer layout (regressive margins within the paragraphs, relatively large right-hand margin).

Thus we have :

-  a spontaneous self-expression displayed by the progressive writing. This self-expression concerns choices (which go straight to the essential : simplified ), it concerns taking account of other people's opinion without nevertheless being influenced by it (right-slanted  and regular to nuanced slant), speedy and efficient carrying out of ideas (rapid ), objective goal orientation, not self-related (right-tending) deductive and synthetic intelligence (connected to grouped ), rapidity of action (no starting strokes, pincer-shaped 'p's, i-dots head);

-  the writing, resolute in its firm to taut tension, adds to the bold picture self-confidence, positive and willful adaptation;

-  the controlled writing shows that a concern for logic and self-mastery always dominates the intuitive impulses revealed by the progressive writing, reinforcing the objectivity and the ability to listen (small, aerated to spaced out ), and that the risks of discouragement are always counteracted by the strength of the will-power (in descending steps );

-   finally the writing is restrained in its width, in some short finals and its outer layout, showing the demands and the selectivity which prevented the writer from giving in to any emotional impulse or any sloppiness ; prudence, control and reflection governed all his actions.

  Figure 5 :Study of Inhibition in the writing of Charles de Gaulle

It is quite clear that a study of the inhibition of this writing, limited only to its progressiveness, would leave out a whole aspect of the personality.

Crépieux-Jamin defined two guiding syntheses (Organisation and Harmony) and suggested a few others (Irregularity, Inhibition ...). For my part, I have developed Organisation, preferring to call it synthesis of Evolution, which is more in keeping with its contents, since I also place in it the degree of mastery of the graphic movement (including observing the components of children, those of disorganisation and of autonomy) and the degree of personalisation, by differentiating four types of 'personalisation' (copybook, conventional, mannered and personalised writings, which in fact, tallies with Jung's notion of individuation). I have worked on the relationship between form and movement in terms of relationship of forces. I have reconsidered the degrees of tension, differentiating between the tension of the stroke and the tension of the form. I have also created a synthesis of inhibition, based on observation of the interplay of the elements restraining or liberating the progression or the expansion of a handwriting. I have also brought a modest supplement to the reading of Harmony and created a synthesis of irregularity, including the degrees as well as the categories of irregularity. Three of these syntheses have been developed along with observations on the classification into categories and guiding syntheses, and by way of consequence, into generic species and synthetic species (see Dumont 1994).

It it is obvious that the taxonomic work which I have undertaken brings some semantic clarification, this restructuring is also of interest with regard to methodology.

We are now equipped with generic species and synthetic species. Each category corresponds to a class of directly measurable or directly observable graphic observations : Dimension (one can measure the height and width of letters), Slant (one can measure the degree of slant of letters), Form (one can see directly the basic shape, the openings, the simplifications or complications...), Direction (one sees immediately whether the lines rise or descend ... and one can measure the degree of their gradient), etc.

Therefore, to a type of direct observation corresponds a particular range of interpretations, as we all know : Continuity is related to the logic and the following-up of activity, reasoning and contacts; Direction, to fluctuations of mood; orientation (stroke direction), to openness to others, etc. The interpretation of a correctly classified species is easily found, thanks to its definition, the general interpretation of the category to which it belongs, and the symbolism of the graphic space.

Removing the species from the categories to which they do not belong, therefore leaving only the relevant ones, enables graphology students to find their way more easily and, especially, as things have become clearer, enables them to find for themselves the possible interpretations by means of a simple reflection ; this avoids heavy-going and fastidious memorising of a large number of possibilities.

Liberating the synthetic species from the unsuitable straightjacket of the categories, and acknowledging an autonomous type of classification, makes it possible to develop the guiding syntheses and to give them their full dimension, which was awaited : note that the Entretiens de Bichat (Bichat Talks) organised by the Société de Française de Graphologie in January 1993, ended with these words: "French graphology lacks syntheses".

Just as each category informs on a given range of interpretations, each guiding synthesis guides the diagnosis on a given plane. Thus the synthesis of evolution gives information on the skill with which handwriting records thinking, and the degree of autonomy of such thinking, and of the way of life deriving from it. The synthesis of inhibition informs us on the interplay of what limits or liberates the free expression of the personality. The synthesis of irregularity gives information on the more fragile aspects of the writer, the areas in which he is easily perturbed, those in which he stiffens and also those in which he is open and receptive, etc. The greater in number and the richer the guiding syntheses, the safer and more complete the diagnosis.

In the procedure provided by the worksheet, the guiding syntheses are defined, detailed and organised according to priorities, in such a way that the main structure of the graphological portrait takes shape as the worksheet progresses. The most difficult thing for students is probably the observation of the synthetic species. They need to do the same type of work twenty times over, but, surely, is this not the case with all types of apprenticeship? Thus when one wants to learn to recognise styles in the history of art, one must first study their particularities in order to be able to see them as a whole, enabling one to identify them. Once this learning stage is past - and this can be rapid or not so rapid, according to the complexity of the style studied - a mere quick glance enables one to identify the style. Likewise, an experienced graphologist sees straight away, as if by intuition, whether the writing is slightly personalised, whether it is progressive in all its categories, or restrained in some and resolute in others ... whereas a beginner needs time before he/she can make the same observations.

This feeling of intuition is even more apparent when applying the free syntheses, which the graphologist builds up theoretically after the definition of a handwriting, but which come to mind directly when one has had a certain amount of practice.

This "intuition" certainly is an appreciable asset, and we could not ignore it as it is so precious ; but it is also a danger - on the one hand, because the newcomers in the graphological profession may be tempted to go too far too fast ; on the other, because - and however silly this sounds, it needs saying - it gives the uninitiated, and particularly, among them, our most ferocious detractors, the feeling that we are clairvoyants, occultists, or briefly put, that we are rather like sorcerers, and in any case not serious. A solid structuring of both our terminology and our technique of observation, can but be beneficial, by giving an impression of seriousness, and – who knows - this could, independently from grapwwwtry, help us to further the validation of graphology.

Finally here is a diagrammatic presentation of the revised terminology (see Notes)

Figure 6 Diagrammatic Representation of the Revised Terminology

We are now able to respond to those who wonder how our science is structured – as Emmanuel Driant did on the radio (France Culture) - that graphology uses materials of diverse complexity : simple materials (the generic species and the small signs) as well as more complex materials (the synthetic species). It implements these materials by means of tools (the guiding synthesis and the free synthesis). It is in a position to classify such materials, theoretically, in a general way into categories and into guiding synthesis, and to use them, in practice, by a process of observation of handwriting within guiding synthesis, within a definition and within free syntheses, a practice that we can illustrate in the following manner.  

Figure 7

Here are the tools (guiding synthesis and free synthesis) which utilise the materials (synthetic species, generic species and small signs). The guiding synthesis contain the synthetic species which themselves are made of generic species and small signs, and enable one to establish a composite picture of the writer. The definition contains all the synthetic species, the generic species and the small signs which characterise the writing, and which are synthesised within the free syntheses to refine the portrait.

And of course, the practice of graphology could not exist without the graphologist's savoir-faire including, among other things, psychological and psychoanalytical knowledge; a sound knowledge of the symbolism of the graphic space and the contributions from other graphological approaches.

References

Crépieux-Jamin (1887) L'écriture et le Caractère

Crépieux-Jamin (1885) Traite Pratique de Graphologie

Crépieux-Jamin (1930) ABC de Graphologie

Deschamps L (1892) La philosophie de l'écriture - Expose de l'état actuel de la graphologie. Felix Alcan

Dumont D (1993) La Graphologie - Champ d'action - Methode - Utilisation, Retz Editors

Dumont D (1994) Les Bases Techniques de la Graphologie,  Delachaux et Niestlé, which represents a restructuring of the technical bases in handwriting observation.

Gille-Maisani J-C (1969) Psychologie de l'Écriture, Payot

Lavater G ,trans Moreau,de la Sarthe J-L (1806). L'Art de connaitre les hommes par la physionomie, Vol 3 pp70-82, Hardy, Paris. (Reflections sur les caractères tires de la forme de l'écriture)

Lecerf A (1947) Cours Superieur de Graphologie, Dangles

Lecerf  A (1940) Abrégé de graphologie d'apres la methode de Crépieux-Jamin Journal of the Société de Graphologie March No 18 pp1-36

Notes

1. English translation by Monique Stirling, editing by Danièle Dumont and Nigel Bradley.

2. Danièle Dumont has devised a method to teach  handwriting  for the teachers of nursery and primary schools : "Le geste d'écriture – méthode d'apprentissage – cycle 1, cycle 2" Hatier editions – Collection Hatier pédagogie (novembre 2000) and books for www on the same subject: "La méthode pour bien écrire" and "Modèles pour bien écrire" Albin Michel-Education editions. Danièle Dumont teaches this method in the IUFM ( Institute for teacher training), with pedagogical lectures requested by Inspectors of The French national Education and by associations of nursery school teachers.

3. Delachaux et Niestlé gave permission to use Figure 6

IMPORTANT PAGES 

Graphodigest 2001 Programme

Graphology Information Centre

 Last updated 10 December 2001. Please report any corrections to me at this email address bradlen@graphology.ws

This page is reached via

www.graphology.ws

  9 December 2001