The original Chirological Society was founded in April 1889 by Katherine St Hill. According to publications from that time, the Society was established by her:

(1) for the purpose of raising the study of the hand to the level of scientific research

(2) for promoting the study of Palmistry in all its branches

(3) as a safeguard to the public against charlatans and imposters

The Society may have been successful in implementing these aims in accordance with its understanding of these things at that time. However, what may have passed as a scientific study of the hand in 1901 almost certainly would not be accepted as scientific by todays standards. The study of dermatoglyphics (fingerprints) had not been integrated into the study of the hand at this time; only William Benham in his 'Laws of Scientific Handreading' of 1900 made any reference to skin ridge patterns at all in his discussion of the triradii patterns that can be found in the mounts of the palm. He did not discuss fingerprints at all; and neither did Katherine St Hill or Ina Oxenford.

For the aims of this society to be implemented in modern times, it would be necessary for students to be familiar with at least some of the 4,000 or more articles to be found in medical, psychological, genetic and anthropological journals on the subject of fingerprints and dermatoglyphics. A familiarity with mathematics and statistical methodology would also be an advantage, certainly if one wanted to establish any discoveries about the significance of any feature of the hand on a firm scientific basis. The modern Society, founded by Terry Dukes in 1976, has never taught such scientific subjects and, as can be seen from Terry Dukes’ own book ‘Chinese Hand Analysis’, is little informed about the work of scientific dermatoglyphicists. Terry Dukes himself freely admits that he has conducted little study into the fingerprint patterns and their genetic or scientific significance.

The modern Cheirological Society under Terry Dukes is therefore simply just not in a position to fulfil the primary objective of the original Chirological Society. Equally, it is incapable of fulfilling the secondary objective of the original Chirological Society. As anyone who has been a member of the modern Cheirological Society for any length of time knows, Terry Dukes has a complete disdain for any forms of 'palmistry' other than that which he himself teaches. By this token, it is hard to imagine in what way Terry Dukes might possibly be able to fulfill the third objective of the original Chirological Society. It might therefore be best to re-found the Chirological Society with a different set of aims and objectives…

The modern Cheirological Society was founded in 1976 by Terry Dukes, along with B Lewis, P Osband, A Audesley, D Swade, C Weinburg and J Bulaitis who were the members of the first Executive Committee. Terry Dukes was, naturally, the President. The aims and objectives of the Society were outlined as being:

(1) to establish, teach, research and publish items of cheirological importance in their wholistic and inter-related aspects

(2) to improve the standard of cheirological practice by establishing verifiable criteria of macro and microcosmic import

(3) to arrange seminars, courses, tutorials and scholarships upon subjects of relevance to cheirological study and practice

(4) to standardise teaching methods, language and philosophy

It is doubtful that many of the 950 or so people who have been members of the Cheirological Society since 1976 ever had any understanding of what these aims and objectives were about at all. Certainly, many members had difficulty pronouncing the name of the society - and many still do even now. The unwarranted insertion of the extra 'e', in contradiction of the usual Greek spelling of the word as it is rendered into English, has caused many a member a problem in pronunciation.

Be that as it may, it is quite clear that they are completely different Societies in that they have completely different aims and objectives. This wouldn't be so bad save for the fact that Terry Dukes insists that his society is a continuation of the original Chirological Society!

This claim is made all the more ridiculous when one reads the approach to the study of the hand taken by Katherine St Hill and compares this with that taken by Terry Dukes. She is all in favour of the 'this marking means this approach'; he repeatedly rails against this. Her approach also undermines his claim that she "came to study the oriental form (of hand analysis) via the Chinese masters Li Wen Tien and Li Tsu Cheng", if it is so that they taught the 'systemmatic method of integral and heuristic evolution' which the modern Cheirological Society endorses as its approach to the study of the hand. Such an approach is completely unsupported by anything Katherine St Hill ever wrote either in her books or in the original Chirological Society journals. She is evidently much more indebted to D'Arpentigny, Desbarolles, Saunders and Cureau de le Chambre than to any Chinese 'masters'.

In 'Chinese Hand Analysis' on p331, Terry Dukes cites the society journal in a generally implausible bibliography describing it as containing: "Research articles published for members of the Society each quarter since 1899. Back issues upon specific themes generally available." Such a comment is ample evidence in and of itself that he neither has those journals, has not ever studied those journals and knows little or nothing about the work of the original Chirological Society. Anybody who took the trouble to read those items can readily see the problems contained in such a statement; anybody who hadn't studied the history of hand analysis in any depth might easily be deceived into thinking that there was a direct and continuous link between K St Hill and Terry Dukes, that Dukes had somehow 'inherited' the mantle of the original Chirological Society.

If that were so, there would have been no need to ‘re-found’ the society in 1976 with a completely different set of aims and objectives. By a consideration of constitution, it is clear that they are two completely different and unrelated organisations.

Next