I recently mentioned the gift to the JREF library of a collection of books on phrenology. In one volume, "Heads and How to Read Them" (That's the title, I kid you not!) subtitled, "A Popular Guide to Phrenology," (1932) under Chapter 18, "How to choose Servants," we read:

Service is altogether honourable if rightly understood, The General Servant, Cook, Housekeeper, Butler, Coachman, Labourer, each and all good if his or her qualities and powers are of a suitable sort. PLATE XVIII shows to us five heads, each denoting some special department for which its possessor would be suited, in connection with domestic work.

No. 1 presents to us a good specimen of a general servant, one who will do anything within the compass of her capacities. Though she does not possess that formation of head which would denote any special department beyond that of a general worker or household help, great confidence may be placed in her to do her best with much readiness under a variety of circumstances. This head denotes a domesticated mind, therefore she will be inclined to remain in a family for a lengthened period. As her Philoprogenitiveness is prominent she will manifest strong affection for the children and younger members of the family. As her Veneration is large she will have great respect for those in authority over her, while her Conscientiousness will make her most trustworthy. Her organ of Secretiveness is prominent; this will cause her to be very reserved at first, but with time she will acquire much confidence, and be thoroughly at her ease with those she may consider her superiors. From a family point of view, this Secretiveness combined with small language, will be of advantage. She is not one of these gossiping women who will retail every word and sentence heard, and that generally to the disadvantage of the speakers. Her organ of Self-esteem being rather small she will not be constantly thinking of her own importance and, as is frequently the case with others, place herself above authority.

Head No. 2 on Plate XVIII is a different kind of person altogether, and if ever she finds herself in the position of No. 1 as a matter of necessity, she will very soon be on the look-out for another place more suited to her, and if she fails in this, she will strive to her very utmost to get married, and that will, in all likelihood, be the end of her so far as domestic service goes, for either in her own home or any other she will not care for it, not at least in the same sense as No. 1. If you want a real, good, lively, hopeful, cheerful and even, to some extent, companionable soul in your house, for light duties where there will be a little outing and harmless gadding about, this is the maid for you. A romp with the children will be one of her chief delights; and she would be a bright and capable sick-nurse.

There are two positions in particular that we recognise as suitable for the formation of head No. 3; one is that of cook, the other of housekeeper. She should take her place among cooks who love their art, and love it with much intensity, and are as unwilling to be interfered with as an artist might be, while they are extremely sensitive to either censure or praise.

There is much width of head in No. 3 over the eyes. This denotes artistic ability. A little higher up from the outer angle of both eyes, where Constructiveness is placed, you will also notice width. A good cook cannot do without constructive ingenuity. You will also find width between the two ears. This denotes energy. You never came across a really good cook yet that was not energetic. If between the fire outside and the fire inside she is a little warm tempered it is surely allowable. But if she is not thwarted, if she only receives gentle recognition and kindly words, she will turn out to be one of the kindliest and most affectionate souls in all your domestic establishment.

Another position for head No. 3 would be that of housekeeper, though we should not look upon this as a preferment, that is, it would not in our estimation be of a higher grade, though we have great respect for the housekeeper on account of her responsibilities. Here we perceive the ability requisite to organise, command, win obedience and respect. In this, again, the artistic and constructive ability would come in, for in the arrangement and management of a domestic establishment, an artistic eye for decorative taste is necessary. As in the other two we find in No. 3 that amount of Conscientiousness which will give a desire to fulfil the duties devolving upon her in a trustworthy manner.

I need hardly comment on the vapidity and smugness of these descriptions, though this notion of phrenology did originate in Victorian times, when class-consciousness was perhaps at an all-time high, and it was generally believed that persons were born into their societal niches, and bound to remain there for the best interests of the public. Strict assignment of "types" to their work, was looked upon as a valuable means of keeping space between "us" and "them." Briefly, for those curious about the two gentlemen pictured here, the text describes No. 4 as one who possesses "an amount of Veneration that will make him respectful to those he considers his superiors," and "his all round good sense will cause him to make the most of, and to value, a good position." However, "No. 5 has a smaller head than usual." This defect makes him capable of commanding "horses and other animals," but he "cannot exercise authority over his fellow men in any position." Drat! I was about to promote one of my employees, but his resemblance to No. 5 makes that a futile move.... Or I could buy some Clydesdales.....

Next week, students, we will look into Chapter 16, "Women Men Should Marry," and we'll see the plate titled, "Typical Heads of Women Suited for Domestic Life." That should be educational!

Russ Venables, of Seattle, writes to remind me of something I'd quite forgotten:

The Sylvia Browne clock should read over 15 years. Let me explain. In 1986 you appeared on the "Town Meeting" program, hosted by Ken Schram, at the KOMO studios in Seattle Washington. During the question period a loud woman toward the back of the studio told you that she was a psychic and then predicted that someone would collect the prize money that you offered for proof of paranormal powers — then $10,000 — by the end of that year, 1986.

That woman was Sylvia Browne.

You told her that if her prediction came true that you would come back to Seattle and give her, Sylvia Browne, an additional $10,000.

The reason that I'm telling you this is that I suspect that you may not remember this incident as she was not a well known personality at the time. I watched with amusement and I hoped that there would be some follow-up the next year, but of course the challenge was forgotten by Sylvia, Ken Schram and the rest of Seattle.

But I didn't forget.

So, for the Sylvia Browne clock to be accurate it should be at least 15 years along.

---

Indecision; it may — or may not — be your problem.

Richard J. Milbourn sends us this excerpt from a Sharper Image catalog, describing a fraud they're currently selling that they say sharpens razor blades overnight by simply placing the blades on the small box:

Inside the holder are three linearly sequenced, neodymium rare earth magnets, each of an unusually powerful 12,000 gauss rating. They are positioned to envelop the blades in an intense magnetic field aligned with the linear construction of the blades. The process, called magnetostriction, aligns the edges by the power of the magnetic field along the longitudinal axis. Such strong magnetic action is believed to extend the life of blades . . .

And people will buy it, they'll believe it works, and they'll be looking for the next farce they can adopt. "Sharper Image"? Their marketing deception is sharp, I'll agree. But their customers and the customers' razor blades aren't very sharp....

John Lockard got my attention with this note:

I do believe you can get a patent on anything. United States Patent number 6,004,596 is for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich sans crust.

Hey, John! I'm not that much of a fool, said I. So I looked it up. Yes, even I can get surprised, and this one did it. The "abstract" for this patent reads:

A sealed crustless sandwich for providing a convenient sandwich without an outer crust which can be stored for long periods of time without a central filling from leaking outwardly. The sandwich includes a lower bread portion, an upper bread portion, an upper filling and a lower filling between the lower and upper bread portions, a center filling sealed between the upper and lower fillings, and a crimped edge along an outer perimeter of the bread portions for sealing the fillings therebetween. The upper and lower fillings are preferably comprised of peanut butter and the center filling is comprised of at least jelly. The center filling is prevented from radiating outwardly into and through the bread portions from the surrounding peanut butter.

Jelly. At least. But it's the official language of the patent description that really gets to you. Here's just the first part of the specifics.....

We claim:
    1. A sealed crustless sandwich, comprising: a first bread layer having a first perimeter surface coplanar to a contact surface; at least one filling of an edible food juxtaposed to said contact surface; a second bread layer juxtaposed to said at least one filling opposite of said first bread layer, wherein said second bread layer includes a second perimeter surface similar to said first perimeter surface; a crimped edge directly between said first perimeter surface and said second perimeter surface for sealing said at least one filling between said first bread layer and said second bread layer; wherein a crust portion of said first bread layer and said second bread layer has been removed.

There's more — much more — which I'll spare you. I'm glad to see that the first perimeter surface coplanar to a contact surface is to be juxtaposed to at least one filling of an edible food. I'd hate to juxtapose my coplanar surface to an inedible food.....

But now I'm worried. Since I was about 9 years old, I've been juxtaposing peanut butter and jelly and placing it between two coplanar bread layers. Shamelessly. Mind you, I've not cut away the crusts, so maybe I'm safe, but from now on, I'm going to stay away from the kitchen window when I do the deed. The patent-infringement police — and the dreaded mattress police who hunt down from helicopters those who remove the tags from bedding — may be watching me. And maybe you, too.....

Sometimes the jokes go right over my head. Several readers commented on my recent discussion about homeopathic preparations made from anatidal liver. "Quack remedies from Duck Liver?" asked one. Okay, I get it. Sometimes I have to wonder whether I'm in a Fellini movie, and the whole thing's a colossal joke.....

A reader sends me this sample of the teachings of a Reiki "master" to whom his wife is devoted, for reasons that are not made evident from this excerpt:

Our planet is governed by a confederation of about 26 alien civilizations, all far more advanced than us. They have bases on earth [sic] and on Ganymede (which they call "Morlen") and other places, but they are so good at stealth technology that we never see them. Up to now, this confederation has protected us against natural and manmade disasters as well as "bad" aliens (the bad ones look like little green men with big eyes, the good ones look like humans).

However, the confederation has decided to stop protecting us in 2004, and after that date all hell will break loose. It starts with a huge earthquake that will make half of Japan disappear into the ocean, a comet will hit us, there will be a devastating nuclear war, etc. Only the "good" people will be saved, and when all is over they will be allowed to join the confederation. By the way, all this is a "military secret of the confederation." So don't tell anyone. They have ways to find out that you did.....

Remember the Mattress Squad and the Sandwich Police!

Originally, my reader tells me, this prediction was made for 1999, but when it didn't happen — as you may have noticed — the Confederation gave us five more years. Sounds like another one of those convenient loopholes, don't you think? His wife discontinued payments to her pension fund, because what's the use of a pension, she asks, after all this has happened?

Reviewer Hilary Mantel, writing for the London Review of Books, has shown a remarkable understanding of the whole art and artifice behind the "speaking-with-the-dead" farce that has once again taken the limelight. She has written an essay on the new book by Malcolm Gaskill, "Hellish Nell: Last of Britain's Witches." The book is the story of spiritualist Helen Duncan, the last woman to be tried, in 1944 — for "pretending to conjure up spirits" — under the UK's 1735 Witchcraft Act. I am not accustomed to this level of perception from someone who is not an "insider" to the trade, and I must compliment Ms. Mantel on her grasp of what is at best a difficult concept for the lay person to grasp and deal with. Here, courtesy of the Guardian & Observer, is a short excerpt from Ms. Mantel's essay which explores the general atmosphere in which belief in spiritualism thrived — and continues to thrive. The entire essay will be published in the next issue of SWIFT.

Anyone who explores the issue of the paranormal is vulnerable, both to accusations of crankiness and to a sort of self-disgust about the sensationalism involved; and it is hard to sift out an acceptable truth, given the human tendency to confabulate, the fallibility of memory, the wide scope for interpretation, and the prejudice which invests the whole subject.

Spiritualism thrived on disaster, and on poverty. The comfort of "proved survival" was superior to the airy assurances, given over the years by the orthodox churches, that the deficits of this life would be repaired in the next. For the working classes it had this advantage: it did not operate de haut en bas. A practising and proficient medium was likely to arise in any stratum of society, and if you lived in one of Britain's cities you were likely to find one a few streets away. Spiritualism was a neighbourly, engrossing business, offering a particular and home-grown comfort. It thrived in the Mechanics Institutes [educational groups for working folks] and the philanthropic and self-improvement societies of the industrial towns. The great war [World War I] gave it impetus: all kinds of occult belief flourished, among the fighting forces and among civilians. In the trenches, among men facing death minute by minute, chance incidents were blown up and acquired a magical dimension. When death is dealt out so randomly, the notion of cause and effect is lost. Phenomena like the "Angel of Mons", invented by a popular writer, were subsequently "seen" by thousands of soldiers.

If the context is tragic, however, the daily practice of spiritualism was a theatrical spectacle that, as Gaskill says, drew on "farce, burlesque and vaudeville". Spiritualism, in its modern form, began in 1848 in upstate New York, where the teenage Fox sisters heard rapping noises in their farmhouse, found human bones in their cellar, and soon afterwards struck a deal with the showman Phineas T. Barnum. Gaskill has a whole catalogue of comic and grotesque manifestations which could only have fooled the most suggestible of sitters, or those determined to get value for money. Performing mediums were hated by magicians and illusionists who, having laboriously copied their feats, would expose them as frauds; some of these illusionists, like Houdini, were disaffected believers for whom the spirits had declined to perform. It would be natural to assume that the spiritualist movement was a branch of the music-hall, a low-class amusement, reactive even: washed in on a tide of irrationality, lapping against the stony convictions of Victorian science. But, as Gaskill describes, the opposite case is true: the rise of spiritualism coincided with the high point of scientific materialism, and the assumptions of one creed fed the other.

(From Hilary Mantel's review of the Gaskill book, London Review of Books, © 2001)

While we're dealing with this guessing-game called spiritualism, I'll share with you here a short analysis of a James Van Praagh reading. On this occasion the "sensitive" made 69 guesses at possible names, nine of which were "hits." Remarkably, this 13% hit-rate is exactly the same as a similar study — mentioned previously — of John Edward's guesses, though that count included professions, connections, relations, places, as well as names. I ask you: if a child of yours returned from school with a test paper showing a score of 13 out of 100, would you not send that child back to study the subject further?

In this list, the correct guesses are marked with an asterisk.....

Anna Anne Annie Bea Beatrice Bert Charlie Chuck Cici Cilli Dave David "E" Eddie Edith Edward Elaine* Elliot*

Harriett Hersch Herschel Id Joseph Levin Levine Lillian* Lilly "M" (wife) Marilyn Max* Millie Molly* Mork Morrie Morris

"N" (wife) "P" Pat Patricia Phil Phillip Rachel Reed Rhea Rita Robbie Robert* Rose Sam Sandy Sarah Saul

Sheryl Shirley Si Sid* Simon Stan Steffie Steph Stephanie Steve* Sue Susan* Sylvia (aunt) Ted Tita Trudy Yonku

Gee, that "hit" on "Robert" is a far reach, right......? And "Steve" — Wow! How did he know?

Incidentally, next week I'll be posting an analysis of the Rosemary Altea "readings" done on the Larry King Live show on June 5th. Those who thought Rosemary did well, will be surprised.....!

Okay. The *UDDDD DRRDU DDDDD RRURD UUUUU DDRUD DDU got only a few correct answers, mostly from folks who were already familiar with the source. Scott Burrington was first with the correct answer. A couple of you solved the coding method, but couldn't identify the tune because of the nature of the coding method. Any tune will have just one coding, but it is not defined by that coding.....

The sequence given is the coding for "The Christmas Song," the "Chestnuts roasting on an open fire...." song that we all know and love. It's written by Tormé and Wells in 1946, according to a fascinating book. It is one of some 15,000 tunes and themes listed in "The Directory of Tunes and Musical Themes," by my late friend Denys Parsons. He was the father of Alan Parsons, of Alan Parsons Project fame, and he was an amateur classical cellist. Bothered by the fact that he often had tunes running through his head that he could not identify, Denys devised an astonishingly simple system that enables anyone to look up a tune without being able to write or read music. It uses an asterisk — always the first note of any sequence — followed by an "R" for a repeat of the previous note, a "D" for a note lower than the previous, and a "U" for a note higher than the previous one. For convenience only, we use groups of 5 letters, and within 15 letters, any tune is differentiated from another. (I gave you lots more data, above, for a better chance at a solution.) Easy system? You bet!

Example: "My Country 'Tis of Thee" is also "God Save the Queen/King." It would appear as: *RUDUU URUDD DUDDU.... Follow? Note, however, that the first two groupings of five letters, plus one "D," are also applied to the first theme of Chausson's "Poème" for violin and orchestra. The first six letters also code "How Are Things in Glocca Morra," "I Know a Place" (by Tony Hatch, 1965) and "Walking My Baby Back Home" by Fred E. Ahlert, 1930. Betcha didn't know that, didya?

Just one of those highly specialized bits of arcane knowledge..... This book is very rare, and out of print, I'm sorry to report. And I'm not selling my copy! The only other copy I ever got, I sent to Scott Kim, author of "Inversions," which is also out of print, for reasons I cannot fathom. Scott is someone about whom I'll tell you here one of these days....

And the origin of Matthew's message was the UK, because of his use of "centre" and "realise." These are British spellings.....

This week, chew on this: You can buy a closed chain of 50 links for $2.40. You have these nine segments. It costs 10¢ to open a link, and 20¢ to close it again. Can you join them into a closed chain of 50 links for less than it would cost to simply buy a new chain?