In April 1889 the Chirological Society of Great Britain was founded in London by Katherine St Hill, joined shortly thereafter by Ina Oxenford and the publisher Charles Rideal. The explicit aim of the society was to seriously investigate all aspects of chirological analysis and raise the study of the hand to the level of scientific research. The society initiated a system of courses and examinations and also functioned as a professional body to safeguard the public from charlatans and imposters. By 1892, the society was sufficiently established to publish its own journal, 'The Palmist' through the assistance of Charles Rideal who owned the Roxburghe Press, and which was freely available at WH Smith's Railway Bookstalls for sixpence. Later, this came to be called 'The Palmist's Review' and was published regularly until 1901. Study visits to hospitals, schools and mental institutions were also organised in order to examine as many different hands as possible. The general intention of the society was to raise the standards within chirological endeavour and promote the study of the hand as a serious and worthy subject of benefit to all.

Katherine St Hill wrote at least three books on chirology, the first of which was 'The Grammar of Palmistry' of 1889 which was intended as an introductory primer and was used by the Society as the basic text book for classes and tuition. It encompassed the fundamental teachings of the French pioneers in modern handreading, D'Arpentigny and Desbarolles but she also outlines various psychological qualities, virtues and vices and the indications of how these are manifested in the hand. With no easy method of taking good hand imprints at this time, although she does also suggest the taking of plaster casts, she strongly urges developing the habit of carefully drawing detailed sketches of hands so as to preserve a collection of faithful reproductions.

Her second book, 'The Hands of Celebrities' of 1896 is an anthology of hand drawings and interpretations originally printed in earlier editions of the society journal. These include the hands of entertainers, policemen, justices, doctors and even murderers. She also includes the hands from studies she instigated at Dartford Asylum and the Victoria Hospital for children and she gives examples of the hands of those suffering insanity and idiocy as well as cases of paralysis and diphtheria.

Her third work, 'The Book of the Hand' of 1927 is a work in three volumes and here there is more emphasis on medical analysis from the hand. The first volume outlines the whole subject of chirology and suggests various ways in which the study of the hand can usefully be applied within society, especially within the fields of education and vocational guidance. The second volume concerns itself with medical indications in the hand, whilst the third is an exposition on astrological physiognomy.

This last book is by far the most comprehensive of all her works, but it must be said that despite her unwavering dedication and enthusiasm to pursue the development of chirology, much of what she has to say owes a great deal to D'Arpentigny and Desbarolles. That she is indebted to D'Arpentigny is evident from her discussion of big/small hands, skin types, fingertips and joints. However, it is notable that nowhere does she ever follow D'Arpentigny's seven-fold system of handshape classification. On this basis alone though, it is clear that she is not a slavish devotee of the French chirognomist.

With Desbarolles, it is a slightly different story. At times she almost seems to have too great a reverence for the man as she refers to him as 'the great master of chiromancy'. having said that, she also feels quite at liberty to disagree with many of his ideas and interpretations. For instance, she doesn't like his interpretation of the Girdle of Venus and also refutes his assertion that the Saturn line is not to be found in non-European races. Moreover, she disputes his division of the hand into the 'Three Worlds', a cornerstone of Desbarolles' whole approach to the study of the hand. She is clearly familiar with the writings of all the major writers of the day - Benham, Cheiro, Frith, Desbarolles, D'Arpentigny, EH Allen - and 'The Book of the Hand' clearly shows she was interested in collating, comparing and discussing all the different ideas on the interpretation of different features of the hand. Although her comments indicate that she was not content to merely follow the lead of the French authors blindly, she does acknowledge them as important influences on her work and as important figures in the development of chirology in the nineteenth century.

Katherine St Hill's general approach was to contact or correspond with all the people involved in handreading at that time. However, it is obvious from reading her works that there is absolutely no influence from any oriental or Buddhist traditions of hand analysis whatsoever. One of the bases by which Terry Dukes claims a connection between his Cheirological Society and the original society of Katherine St Hill is his assertion that several mysterious 'oriental persons' met and taught Mrs St Hill and had a 'behind the scenes' influence upon the Chirological Society. However, if Katherine St Hill ever met the wives of any tea merchants who had travelled to the East and studied with Buddhist Masters, she shows no indication of ever having listened to them. She never mentions having met any such persons in the Chirological Society journal and none of the ideas she presents in her written works show any similarity to any Chinese ideas at all, whether palmist, Taoist, Buddhist or otherwise.

Rather, it is clear that Katherine St Hill was perhaps more strongly influenced by the seventeenth century palmists Richard Saunders and Martin Cureau de la Chambre, for in her later works we can see that she has started to become rather more chiromantic than chirological. She became quite obsessed with the idea that 'one mark has one meaning' and in one part of her medical palmistry she proceeds to identify the specific type of accident that would occur given the location of particular stars and crosses in the palm! She is also familiar with the works of Benham, who she admires, and Cheiro, with whom there may have been some distrust. Although they did indeed correspond at some time, Cheiro was never a member of the Chirological Society and perhaps would never have been allowed to have been. From reading about the proceedings of the society as given in the early journals, it is clear that there is some considerable disdain for the use of pseudonyms and indeed the rules of the society forbade practising chirologists from doing so. One can't help feeling that this was almost especially directed at Cheiro himself, and to anyone else who might want to use pretentious titles - such as 'Father teacher' (shifu) for instance.

Katherine St Hill remained President of the society until around the end of the 1920's as it seems she died shortly after the publication of her last work. In her will she bequeathed her estate to her sister, not having had any direct descendants. However, the main impetus of the Chirological Society itself petered out long before that, for the society journal was published only up until about 1901 and, apart from the written works of society members, no records exist of the society's activities after that time.

Ina Oxenford was at various times the society treasurer and secretary and she too contributed much written work to the society journals. She wrote four books and, curiously, they follow much the same pattern as those of Katherine St Hill. One book was an anthology of hand interpretations, her 'Life Studies in Palmistry' of 1899, though it must be said that the drawings here are much better and much more detailed than those in St Hill's work. She also produced a work on 'Characteristic Hands' in 1912 which was a consideration of the hands of famous people as judged from portraits or photographs. Her 'Modern Palmistry' of 1900 is essentially a reprint of her earlier work of 1895, 'The New Chirology'. Both are really nothing more than restatements of D'Arpentigny, Desbarolles, Cheiro and EH Allen and so both books turn out to be rather disappointing. For very little of what they contain is 'new' chirology at all!

After Katherine St Hill, Ina Oxenford was undoubtedly the most important member of the early Chirological Society, her energy and dedication contributing greatly to the successful promotion of the study of the hand. Their approach, however, is evidently strictly in line with the Western developments in hand analysis at that time. There is no radical departure into the mystical and the spiritual here and there is not the vaguest confirmation, let alone proof, of Terry Dukes' version of 'history'. What the Chirological Society of Katherine St Hill practised and taught over a forty year period owed nothing to any Chinese or 'Buddhist' ideas at all.

Extract from 'The History of Hand Analysis' (Swan Paradise, 1994) by Christopher Jones
Reproduced with permission