This essay consists of an examination of the claims and assertions made by Terence Dukes in various of his publications, concerning the history and development of his Cheirological Society. Although it takes many years to develop sufficient knowledge and understanding of the whole field of hand analysis, and very few and far between are those who have taken the trouble to study the history of the development of hand analysis, when Dukes' claims are subjected to a critical evaluation rather than through the eyes of a convert or follower of his methods, it becomes quite clear what it is that is actually going on here. Terry Dukes' Cheirological Society is not what he prefers to present it as being. The quotes given below can all be found within Dukes' own written works and all refutations are based on either first hand accounts or on documentation which any serious researcher into the field may easily obtain.

This first introductory sentence to Dukes' work lends an air of authority and gives the impression of a depth and breadth of study over a long period of time which actually has little basis. It is quite possible that his interest in hands may have been first stimulated by his grandmother - he once recounted when asked by the Careers Advisor at his school what he wanted to be in life that he replied: "A palmist" so, assuming this story is true, he had begun his interest in hands from an early age. However, having said that, the phraseology used by Dukes here gives the impression that he was 'taught' by his grandmother as if it were some kind of especial and thorough series of classes or initiations, as if a working-class grandmother would be able to keep a highly active young eight year old boy in one place long enough to 'teach' him.

Besides, as we are informed here, his maternal grandmother actually was a cartomancer - ie she made predictive use of either playing cards or the Tarot. This is undoubtedly why he describes his first encounter with hand analysis as "divination in the form of teachings imparted me by my maternal grandmother" rather than describe the palmistry that he was taught then. His grandmother may well have known something about palmistry, as many gipsy-type card readers do. But if that is so, then it is evident that she would not have been able to 'teach' anything of significance whatsoever. It is hard to see how one's granny would be able to 'impart teachings' in any other form than just either talking about card-reading casually or by laying out a spread for the young boy Dukes.

The air of authority for this apocryphal tale concerning his grandmother is given apparent weight by the listing of the "teachings of China, Tibet, India, Japan and the Ancient Middle East" which he implies are handreading traditions that he has studied.

However, there is no known tradition of handreading in Tibet and any such as there might be is not in translation in the English language - and certainly not in the 1960's and 1970's when Dukes claims to have done his studies and travels. Written texts on palmistry from China that are available show an almost completely Taoist/Confucianist influence, not a Buddhist one at all; and the Japanese traditions that Dukes says he came into contact with he himself described as "quaint and archaic". Indian traditions of palmistry are a combination of indigenous superstition and Victorian chiromancy as the Indian handreading traditions of today are very evidently almost completely influenced by the writings of nineteenth century European palmists such as D'Arpentigny, Desbarolles, Compte de St Germain and Cheiro (William John Warner).

As to the Ancient Middle East, there has indeed been a tradition of handreading within Arabic countries since at least the ninth century - and, indeed, most European palmistry stems directly from such sources from about the twelfth century onwards. However, as anyone with any knowledge of hand reading is all too well aware there is almost nothing of any use or significance written about the hand pre-dating the middle of the nineteenth century; it is all, almost without exception, complete superstitious nonsense.

If all that is not enough to put paid to his claims of having studied so broadly, it should be noted that Dukes neither reads nor speaks Arabic and Tibetan and holds no qualification, much less has a degree in, either Japanese or Chinese. He certainly had not studied these languages in any depth prior to 1977 and any Japanese and Chinese he may have acquired in the twenty years since he first wrote this book has been self-taught from dictionaries.

This is what Dukes himself has written about the hand reading traditions he encountered in this so-called 'esoteric Buddhist school':

Notice how these versions contradict the story of his maternal grandmother. In any case, to describe the esoteric Buddhist school teachings as "quaint and archaic" does not commend them to be something worth pursuing and maintaining. Moreover, if it is true that the teachings he studied came from China and India, they will thereby not have the excellence that such associations he tries to make would actually lend them. That merely confirms that what he learnt in the monastery was superstition, nonsense and, at best, Taoist/Confucianist at that. It does not suggest an important or significant tradition of hand analysis at all.

As we discussed earlier, Terry Dukes has had no formal education in either of the Japanese or Chinese languages and certainly, if he had been to a 'Japanese monastery' in the years from 1965-67 as he has frequently claimed, he would not have been able to understand a word that they said. However, Terry Dukes was in England in the years 1965-67 - so the claim that he has even been to stay in a Japanese monastery has also been shown to be untrue.

This assertion is interesting in as much as Dukes refers to only the "four elements", just as Gettings does, when the Indian/Buddhist tradition he claims to have inherited always refers to five elements - Earth, Water, Fire, Air and Ether. Given the symbolic importance of the element Ether as a significator of the spiritual dimension to life this is a very interesting omission to make; it does not add confidence that Dukes was in receipt of any esoteric Buddhist tradition of hand analysis at all.

Rather, it tends to confirm the suspicion that Dukes' first came across the elemental system of hand analysis from reading Fred Gettings' book: "The Book of the Hand" (Hamlyn 1965). Gettings was the first western author to utilise the four elements as a means of classifying the hands' overall shape - at a time when Dukes himself was only nineteen years of age. On being questioned about the similarities between the ideas in Gettings' book and those of Dukes' Cheirological Society, Dukes has said (on several occasions) that Gettings copied these ideas from him - more specifically, Gettings' secretary came to classes run by the Cheirological Society and passed these ideas on to Gettings! However, by several of Dukes' own acounts, the activities of the society had dwindled during the 1960's and it was necessary for him to re-found (found, actually) the Cheirological Society in 1976.

Most interesting of all is that 1965 is the year that Dukes claims he went to Okinawa/Japan to 'discover' an esoteric tradition of handreading based on the four elements which, despite its absolute secrecy, Fred Gettings had already described, written about and based a whole system of hand analysis upon! It is hard to imagine the secretary of Fred Gettings taking notes at classes given by a non-active society by a teenage Terence Dukes in a tradition of elemental analysis which, by his own admission, he had not yet even learnt. Other conclusions are more obvious!

Here we see that his grandmother only "encouraged" him rather than taught him and a statement that confirms that he was an avid reader of palmistry books, including no doubt those published by Fred Gettings. The references to Henry Barr are interesting: in one place he is the society's "president", in another he is the "Head Tutor" and in this third example he is the "last surviving member". It then becomes obvious why he must have held so many posts: it was hardly a very active society with only a membership of one! The need Dukes frequently expresses to assert that he has 'inherited' traditions, firstly from his grandmother or Japanese Buddhist monks and now Henry Barr, demonstrates a curious obsession with self-legitimisation or perhaps a psychological need for approval or recognition. Why this should be so can be understood when one understands something of his childhood and upbringing.

Henry Barr is completely unknown in the world of handreading and no known book or other work has ever been published by him. If he did exist and he did indeed know anything of the traditions of the Chirological Society, then presumably what he taught was a continuation of what can be found in all of Katherine St Hill's and Ina Oxenford's books. However, even a casual study of these books show that what they taught was completely in alignment with the writings of Cheiro and the two French authors responsible for the revival of handreading within Europe in the nineteenth century, D'Arpentigny and Desbarolles. Since nearly all twentieth century palmists, including K St Hill, have drawn heavily from the writings of these two men, there was no need to go to Henry Barr for a 'special transmission' to receive the mantle of the "European traditions" of handreading. These ideas were already very widely available.

None of the written works of either Katherine St Hill or Ina Oxenford and none of the issues of The Palmist or The Palmists' Review, the Chirological Society's journals, show any knowledge of any oriental traditions of hand reading whatsoever. If K St Hill learnt anything through this strange grapevine of the wives of sea merchants trading in tea who happened to be able to learn of esoteric Buddhist teachings from monks who are already described as being esoteric, secret, unknown and Japanese (rather than Chinese) and being, of course, monks who could quite happily and readily teach women - and foreign women at that - when naturally they would have a great reluctance to teach any Westerner anything, much less a bunch of wives who had been on an overseas jaunt with their husbands; if anything did get down this absurd and convoluted grapevine, then nothing of it got through to Katherine St Hill and the Chirological Society.

Rather, whilst her earlier books show greatest indebtedness to D'Arpentigny and Desbarolles, her last publication of 1927 shows an even greater interest in the writings of seventeeth century chiromants such as Richard Saunders and Martin Cureau de la Chambre. Why she should 'revert' in her understanding of hands in this way is a mystery to scientific hand readers; why she should chose to fall back on outmoded and superstitious European palmistic interpretations of the sign and symbol type when she had the Great Words of Masters Li Wen Tien and Li Tsu Cheng ringing in her ears is an even greater mystery. It would seem that their influence was so "behind the scenes" that not even the founding president was aware of it. What, then, could she have possibly taught Henry Barr!

A short line in on p331 of Dukes' text which takes an opportunity to re-inforce the suggestion that his society was a continuation of the original Chirological Society of Katherine St Hill. Except for the fact that such a statement can only be made by someone who knows nothing about the original Chirological Society, rather odd for someone who claims to be its inheritor!

The original Chirological Society was founded in 1889. It only started producing its own journals, usually monthly, in 1892 but ceased publication of these in 1901! Copies of all of these journals can be found in the Bodleian Library at Oxford University. The publication of quarterly journals by Terry Dukes' Cheirological Society only began in earnest in 1981, though he had put out various sheets and articles in a somewhat haphazard and random manner in the five years immediately prior to this. Most of the sheets issued between 1976 and 1980 were either one page long and thereby short or else were articles and drawings which eventually found their way into Dukes' book No-nonsense Handreading (1978). As regards any publication that may merit the title of journal, there is a gap of some eighty years from which you will not be able to obtain back issues. Even upon request.