PRESIDENT HALL: It is almost too good to be true if Dr. Southard has really made connections between delusions of personality and the great topic of character. It illustrates the old Hippocratic saw, "God-like is the man who is also a philosopher." Character might almost be called a name for all the mysteries of psychology, and from Mill's ethology and the old phrenologies of temperament that Wundt adopts with slight modifications, we have really made little progress. It seems to me very significant that Dr. Southard should interest himself, as his paper leads one to judge he does, in such problems as Shand's somewhat abstract work, and should seek correlations with legal characterology like that of Roscoe Pound. It would be of great interest to know whether Dr. Southard obtained his differentiations purely from pathological cases or whether, accepting Shand or Pound or both, using their distinctions as apperceptive organs, he unconsciously reads their distinctions into his cases. His paper, at any rate, is a genuine contribution as well as an encouragement to those who seek to correlate the normal with the abnormal. DR. JAMES J. PUTNAM, Boston: I only want to express my warm sympathy with Dr. Southard's scheme. This careful working out of correlations one would say is a good method of scientific research and must lead to something. I think Dr. Southard would rather avoid the suggestion of CAUSES for the results that he found, but the METHOD appears safe and profitable. DR. JOHN T. MACCURDY, New York: As another psychoanalyst it gives me pleasure to hear this paper. As a psychoanalyst, and one who has done most of his work with the delusions. of the insane, I must say that I have felt all along that psychoanalysis fails utterly when it tries to account for the manifest content of a delusion. We can trace the psychological stages from the manifest content in varying delusions back to a more or less constant unconscious striving-- the latent content. The tendency of this latent content to appear as delusions depends on a defect of adaptation, which must have a physical basis probably of a general nature. The delusions, in many cases, are symbols of the latent content. From a psycho-analytic standpoint, the problem presented in Dr. Southard's paper is "Why is a certain symbol chosen in one case and another in another individual?" It may well be that specific organic factors operate here. One could imagine that the mechanism is purely psychological. In a hepatic condition, for instance, the attention of the patient may be directed to that part of the body which is affected by the pathological process in the liver and that for this reason the ideas which appear refer to generations in that region. At least we may hope for definite and interesting results from elaboration of the method outlined by Dr. Southard's statistics.