of sensibility. They are restless, timid, contemplative, likely to be pessimists. (2) Les actifs are like machines always in operation, and live an external life. They tend to be optimists. Observation shows that we must also recognize (3) Les apathiques, who have what almost corresponds to the 'lymphatic temperament' of physiology. The two other classes are positive; this is negative, but very real. Inertia is its characteristic. Shall we admit (4) Les tempérés? This type exists, but deserves no place in a fundamental classification. When we pass from genera to species, a new factor comes in, — intellectual dispositions. Intellect is not a fundamental element of character; it is the light, not the life. Character sinks its roots into the unconscious, and hence is so difficult to change. (1) Les sensitifs. Under this genus R. describes three species: (a) Les humbles: excessive sensibility, limited intelligence, no energy, — such are the constituent elements of this type of character; (b) Les contemplatifs, who are distinguished from the above by a very superior mental development, e.g., Maine de Biran and Alfieri; (c) Les émotionels, in the restricted sense. To the extreme sensibility and the intellectual subtlety of les contemplatifs, activity is added. To this group belong very many great artists. (2) Les actifs. R. divides this class into two species, according as intellect is mediocre or powerful: (a) Les actifs médiocres. To this class belong many who have a rich fund of physical energy together with a constitutional need of spending it, e.g., tradesmen, sportsmen, etc. (b) Les grands actifs, who abound in history and play the chief roles in it. Great military leaders belong to this type. (3) Les apathiques. R. distinguishes two species: (a) the purely apathetic type, — little sensibility, little activity, little intelligence; and (b), where a powerful intellect makes all different. Two cases are to be distinguished: the first includes certain men of genius (e.g., great mathematicians); the second R. calls les calculateurs. Franklin is a good example. We now pass from species to varieties, from characters relatively simple to those that are more complex. R. proposes the following groups: (1) Sensitifs-actifs, (2) Apathiques-actifs, and (3) Apathiques-sensitifs. The last is a contradictory synthesis, which nevertheless exists. This is less normal than semi-pathological. In this investigation R. has neglected all strictly pathological forms of character. He ends by showing that what he regards as true character does not change.
1. Introduction. The notion of aphasia has grown steadily more complex. Difficulties in the way of its investigation are: (a) the
