| Measurements |Maximum (M.) |Measurements occurring
| S.--Stature |and |in combination with
Age | Cc.--Cranial |minimum (m.) in |the M. or m.
| circumference |millimetres |measurements
-----------+-----------------+----------------+-----------------------
| Males from birth to the age of eleven years
|
At birth |Cranial circumf. {M. = 372 |(S. = 625).
________ | {m. = 326 |(S. = 500).
|Stature {M. = 550 |(Cc. = 369, 365, 354).
| {m. = 480 |(Cc. = 343, 341, 337).
-----------+----------------------------------+-----------------------
1 year |Cranial circumf. {M. = 491 |
______ | {m. = 456 |
|Stature {M. = 805 |(Cc. = 491).
| {m. = 680 |(Cc. = 456).
-----------+----------------------------------+-----------------------
2 years |Cranial circumf. {M. = 506 |(S. = 855).
_______ | {m. = 462 |(S. = 800).
|Stature {M. = 920 |(Cc. = 496).
| {m. = 785 |(Cc. = 467).
-----------+----------------------------------+-----------------------
3 years |Cranial circumf. {M. = 521 |
_______ | {m. = 462 |(S. = 915).
|Stature {M. = 995 |(Cc. = 521, 501).
| {m. = 795 |(Cc. = 472).
-----------+----------------------------------+-----------------------
4 years |Cranial circumf. {M. = 530 |(S. = 1035).
------- | {m. = 465 |(S. = 900).
|Stature {M. = 1090 |(Cc. = 510).
| {m. = 835 |(Cc. = 499, 481).
-----------+-------------------------------------+------------------------
5 years |Cranial circumf. {M. = 527 |(S. = 1070).
------- | {m. = 481 |(S. = 930).
|Stature {M. = 1173 |(Cc. = 519).
| {m. = 920 |(Cc. = 495).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 years |Cranial circumf. {M. = 532 |(S. = 1090).
----- | {m. = 481 |(S. = 1045).
|Stature {M. = 1163 |(Cc. = 517).
| {m. = 950 |(Cc. = 495).
-----------+-------------------------------------+------------------------
7 years |Cranial circumf. {M. = 541 |(S. = 1232).
_____ | {m. = 502 |(S. = 1156, 1223).
|Stature {M. = 1276 |(Cc. = 527).
| {m. = 1092 |(Cc. = 514).
-----------+-------------------------------------+------------------------
8 years |Cranial circumf. {M. = 542 |(S. = 1207, 1292).
_____ | {m. = 496 |(S. = 1158).
|Stature {M. = 1375 |(Cc. = 537).
| {m. = 1099 |(Cc. = 497).
-----------+-------------------------------------+------------------------
9 years |Cranial circumf. {M. = 548 |(S. = 1333).
_____ | {m. = 507 |(S. = 1250).
|Stature {M. = 1383 |(Cc. = 546).
| {m. = 1185 |(Cc. = 522).
-----------+-------------------------------------+------------------------
10 years |Cranial circumf. {M. = 553 |(S. = 1303).
______ | {m. = 497 |(S. = 1270).
|Stature {M. = 1372 |(Cc. = 538).
| {m. = 1218 |(Cc. = 534).
-----------+-------------------------------------+------------------------
11 years |Cranial circumf. {M. = 543 |(S. = 1350).
_____ | {m. = 505 |(S. = 1307).
|Stature {M. = 1466 |(Cc. = 542).
| {m. = 1300 |(Cc. = 513).
Note. ----- indicates that the number of subjects is abundant.
_____ indicates that the number of subjects is sufficient.
..... indicates that the number of subjects is scarce.
FEMALES FROM BIRTH TO THE AGE OF ELEVEN YEARS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Measurements |Maximum (M.) |Measurements | Observations
| S.--Stature |and |occurring in |
Age | Cc.--Cranial |minimum (m.)in|combination with |
| circumference |millimetres |the M. or m. |
| | |measurements |
--------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+------------------
At birth.|Cranial circumf.{M. = 372 |(S. = 500). |(The most frequent
_________| {m. = 324 |(S. = 480). |S. was 500 mm.
|Stature {M. = 565 |(Cc. = 355). |combined with CC.
| {m. = 475 |(Cc. = 333, 325).| = 357, 337.)
---------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+------------------
1 year |Cranial circumf.{M. = 486 |(S. = ) |
...... | {m. = 450 |(S. = 750, 740). |
|Stature {M. = 810 |(Cc. = 486). |
| {m. = 705 |(Cc. = 455). |
---------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+------------------
2 years |Cranial circumf.{M. = 495 |(S. = 850). |
______ | {m. = 448 |(S. = 810). |
|Stature {M. = 910 |(Cc. = 491). |
| {m. = 720 |(Cc. = 464). |
---------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+------------------
3 years |Cranial circumf.{M. = 501 |(S. = 865). |
_______ | {m. = 457 |(S. = 870). |
|Stature {M. = 1015 |(Cc. = 473). |
| {m. = 810 |(Cc. = 476). |
---------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+------------------
4 years |Cranial circumf.{M. = 510 |(S. = 1050). |
_______ | {m. = 455 |(S. = 920, 870). |
|Stature {M. = 1060 |(Cc. = 507). |
| {m. = 860 |(Cc. = 461). |
---------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+------------------
5 years |Cranial circumf.{M. = 515 |(S. = 1035). |
------- | {m. = 462 |(S. = 905). |
|Stature {M. = 1140 |(Cc. = 492). |
| {m. = 875 |(Cc. = 481). |
---------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+------------------
6 years |Cranial circumf.{M. = 522 |(S. = 1020). |(The maximum S.
| {m. = 460 |(S. = 965). | was found in a
|Stature {M. = 1221 |(Cc. = 516). | child of 6 years
| {m. = 920 |(Cc. = 489). | and 11 months;
| | | the next highest
| | | stature was 1177
| | | mm., Cc. 512;
| | | another little
| | | girl of 6 years
| | | and 11 months had
| | | S. = 1099; Cc. =
| | | 507).
---------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+------------------
7 years. |Cranial circumf.{M. = 524 |(S. = 1215). |
________ | {m. = 479 |(S. = 1185). |
|Stature {M. = 1270 |(Cc. = 513). |
| {m. = 1058 |(Cc. = 499). |
---------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+------------------
8 years..|Cranial circumf.{M. = 542 |(S. = ). |
_____ | {m. = 484 |(S. = ). |
|Stature {M. = 1328 |(Cc. = 542). |
| {m. = 1082 |(Cc. = 484). |
---------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+------------------
9 years..|Cranial circumf.{M. = 526 |(S. = 1272). |
_____ | {m. = 493 |(S. = 1306). |
|Stature {M. = 1325 |(Cc. = 520). |
| {m. = 1173 |(Cc. = 499). |
---------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+------------------
10 years.|Cranial circumf.{M. = 533 |(S. = 1291). |
_____ | {m. = 476 |(S. = 1204). |
|Stature {M. = 1403 |(Cc. = 530). |
| {m. = 1153 |(Cc. = 506). |
---------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+------------------
11 years.|Cranial circumf.{M. = 537 |(S. = 1420). |
_____ | {m. = 478 |(S. = 1284). |(The next higher
|Stature {M. = 1464 |(Cc. = 512). | S. was 1495, with
| {m. = 1255 |(Cc. = 497). | a Cc. of 529).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXTREMES BETWEEN THE AGES OF 13 AND 22 YEARS
(The figures here given are less exact, because of the great scarcity
of subjects)
--------------------------------------------------------------
| Measurements |Maximum (M). |Measurements that
|S. = Stature |and |occur in conjunction
Age. |Cr. = Cranial |minimum (m.) |with M. and m.
|circumference |in millimetres| measurements
---------+----------------+--------------+--------------------
13 years |Cranial circumf.{M. = 554 | (S. = ).
..... | {m. = 492 | (S. = ).
|Stature {M. = 1715 | (Cc. = 554).
| {m. = 1345 | (Cc. = 492).
---------+----------------+--------------+--------------------
14 years |Cranial circumf.{M. = 564 | (S. = 1560).
_____ | {m. = 515 | (S. = 1555).
|Stature {M. = 1630 | (Cc. = 537).
| {M. = 1405 | (Cc. = 526).
---------+----------------+--------------+--------------------
15 years |Cranial circumf.{M. = 567 | (S. = 1575).
_____ | {m. = 526 | (S. = 1570).
|Stature {M. = 1795 | (Cc. = 566).
| {m. = 1450 | (Cc. = 534).
---------+----------------+--------------+--------------------
16 years |Cranial circumf.{M. = 566 | (S. = 1675).
| {m. = 519 | (S. = 1460).
|Stature {M. = 1807 | (Cc. = 561).
| {m. = 1330 | (Cc. = 532).
---------+----------------+--------------+--------------------
17 years |Cranial circumf.{M. = 582 | (S. = 1757).
| {m. = 507 | (S. = 1610).
|Stature {M. = 1759 | (Cc. = 560).
| {m. = 1561 | (Cc. = 555).
---------+----------------+--------------+--------------------
18 years |Cranial circumf.{M. = 565 | (S. = 1785).
| {m. = 522 | (S. = 1702).
|Stature {M. = 1930 | (Cc. = 557).
| {m. = 1604 | (Cc. = 536).
---------+----------------+--------------+--------------------
19 years |Cranial circumf.{M. = 578 | (S. = 1707).
| {m. = 541 | (S. = 1693).
|Stature {M. = 1823 | (Cc. = 545).
| {m. = 1637 | (Cc. = 549).
---------+----------------+--------------+--------------------
20 years |Cranial circumf.{M. = 594 | (S. = 1671).
| {m. = 551 | (S. = 1780).
|Stature {M. = 1832 | (Cc. = 560).
| {m. = 1629 | (Cc. = 552).
---------+----------------+--------------+--------------------
21 years |Cranial circumf.{M. = 590 | (S. = 1700).
| {m. = 512 | (S. = 1590).
|Stature {M. = 1790 | (Cc. = 581).
| {m. = 1570 | (Cc. = 571).
---------+----------------+--------------+--------------------
22 years |Cranial circumf.{M. = 595 | (S. = 1730).
| {m. = 510 | (S. = 1650).
|Stature {M. = 1790 | (Cc. = 576).
| {m. = 1570 | (Cc. = 548).
--------------------------------------------------------------
_Nomenclature Relating to Cranial Volume. Anomalies._--(In regard to
the method of directly measuring or calculating the cranial capacity,
and of taking and estimating the measurements of the skull, see the
section on _Technique_.)
_Limits._--The cranial capacity, according to Deniker, has normally
such a wide range of oscillation that the minimum is fully doubled
by the maximum, the limits being respectively 1,100 and 2,200 cubic
centimetres--these figures, however, including men of genius.
Furthermore, the mean average capacity oscillates between limits that
change according to race--not only because the cerebral volume may
of itself constitute an ethnic characteristic (superior and inferior
races) with which the _form of the forehead_ is usually associated,
but also because the cranial volume bears a certain relation to the
_stature_, which is another factor that varies with the race.
Deniker gives the following mean averages of oscillations:
Europeans from 1,500 to 1,600 cu. cm.
Negroes from 1,400 to 1,500 cu. cm.
Australians, Bushmen from 1,250 to 1,350 cu. cm.
The average difference of cranial capacity is 150 cubic centimetres
less in woman than in man.
The following nomenclature for oscillations in cranial capacity was
established by Topinard, based upon the figures and methods of Broca:
Macrocephalic crania from 1,950 cu. cm. upward
Large crania from 1,950 to 1,650 cu. cm.
Medium or ordinary crania from 1,650 to 1,450 cu. cm.
Small crania from 1,450 to 1,150 cu. cm.
Microcephalic crania from 1,150 cu. cm. downward
To-day, however, the terms _macrocephalic_ and _microcephalic_ have
come to be reserved for _pathological_ cases. Virchow has introduced
the term _nanocephalic_ to designate normal crania of very small
dimensions; while Sergi has adopted a binomial nomenclature, calling
them _eumetopic_ microcephalics, which signifies _possessed of a fine
forehead_: since, as we have seen, it is precisely the shape of the
forehead which determines normality. And in place of _macrocephalic_,
we have for very large normal crania the new term _megalocephalic_.
Pathological terminology includes the following nomenclature:
macrocephaly, sub-macrocephaly, submicrocephaly, microcephaly.
Microcephaly may fall as low as 800 cubic centimetres; macrocephaly
may rise as high as 3,000 cubic centimetres, and at these extremes the
volume alone is sufficient to denote the anomaly. But in many cases the
volume may fall within the limits of normality; in such cases it is the
_pathological form_ and an examination of the patient which lead to the
use of the term submicrocephalic in preference to that of nanocephalic,
etc.
The volume, taken by itself, if it is not at one of the extreme limits,
is not sufficient to justify a verdict of abnormality.
The terms macro- and microcephalic are, in any case, quite generic,
and simply indicate a morphological anomaly, which may include many
widely different cases, such, for example, as rickets, hydrocephaly,
pachycephaly, etc., all of which have in common the morphological
characteristic of _macrocephaly_.
In rickets, for instance, macrocephaly may occur in conjunction with
a normal or even supernormal intelligence (Leopardi). Microcephaly,
on the contrary, could never occur combined with normal intelligence,
since it is a sign indicative of _atrophy of the_ _cerebro-spinal_
axis and diminution or, as Brugia phrases it, dehumanization of the
individuality.
[Illustration: FIG. 82.--Growth of Cranial Circumference.]
In all the widely varied series of pathological and degenerate
individuals who are included under the generic names of "deficients"
and "criminals," there is a notable percentage of crania that are
abnormal both in volume and in form; the percentage of crania with
normal dimensions is less than that of the crania which exceed or fall
below such dimensions, and among these there is a preponderance of
_submicrocephalic_ crania: a morphological characteristic associated
with a partial arrest of cerebral development, due to _internal_
_causes_ and manifested from the earliest period of infant life.
The accompanying chart (Fig. 82) demonstrates precisely this fact.
It represents the growth of the cranium in normal and in abnormal
children. The abnormal are at one time superior and at another inferior
to the normal children; but their general average shows a definite
inferiority to the normal. Lombroso established the fact that among
adult criminals there is an _inferiority_ of cranial development,
frequently accompanied by a stature that is normal, or even in excess
of normality.
Quite recently, Binet has called attention to a form of
_submicrocephaly_ acquired through external causes, which is of great
interest from the pedagogic point of view. Blind children and those
who are deaf-mutes have, up to the seventh or eighth year, a cranium
of normal dimensions, but by the fourteenth or fifteenth year the
volume is notably below the normal, and this stigma of inferiority
remains permanently in the adults. This fact, which is of very general
occurrence, is attributed by Binet to a deficiency of sensations, and
consequently a deficiency of certain specific cerebral exercises.
This whole question has a fundamental interest for us as educators,
because it affords an indirect proof that _cerebral exercise_
_develops_ the brain, or in other words, that education has a physical
and morphological influence as well as a psychic one.
This question, coupled with that of the influence of _alimentation_
upon the development of the head, leads to the conclusion that a
two-fold nutriment is necessary for the normal development of man:
_material_ nutriment and nutriment of the _spirit_.
It follows that education must be considered from two different
points of view: that of the progress of civilisation, and that of the
perfectionment of the species.
In regard to variations of cranial volume, just as in the case of
variations of stature, there are a number of different factors which
may be summed up in such a way as to afford us certain determining
characteristics of _social caste_. Delicate questions these, which we
may sum up in a single question equally delicate, that lends itself to
a vast amount of discussion; namely, what is the relation between the
_volume_ of the brain and the development of the intellect?
_Individual Variations of Cerebral (and Cranial) Volume. Relation_
_between the Development of the Cerebral Volume and the Development_
_of the Intelligence._--The series of arguments in reference to
the _cerebral volume_ ought to be considered independently of the
biological and biopathological factors which we have up to this point
been considering; namely, race, sex, age, degeneration and disease.
That is to say, in normal individuals, other conditions being equal,
volumetric differences of the brain may be met with, analogous to those
other infinite individual variations, in which nature expresses her
creative power, even while preserving unchanged the general morphology
of the species.
It is due to this fact that the innumerable individuals of a race,
while all bearing a certain resemblance to one another, are never any
two of them identically alike.
Variations of this sort, which might be called biological
individualisations, are in any case subject to the most diverse
influences of environment, which concur in producing individual
varieties.
This is in accordance with general laws which are applicable to
any biological question whatever, but that in our case assume a
special interest. There are certain men who have larger or smaller
brains; and there are men of greater or of less intelligence. Is
there a quantitative relation between these two manifestations, the
morphological and the psychic?
Everyone knows that this is one of those complicated, much discussed
questions that spread outside of the purely scientific circles and
become one of the stock themes of debate among classes incompetent to
judge; consequently it has been colored by popular prejudice, rather
than by the light of science. It is well that persons of education
should acquire accurate ideas upon the subject.
If the volume of the brain should be in proportion to the intellectual
development, argues the general public, what sort of a head must
Dante Alighieri have had? He would have had to be the most monstrous
macrocephalic ever seen upon earth. And on the basis of this
superficial observation, they wish to deny any quantitative relation
whatever between brain and intelligence. And yet it is this same
general public that keeps insisting: Woman has less intelligence than
man, _because_ she has a smaller brain.
A single glance up and down the _zoological scale_ suffices to show
that throughout the whole animal series a greater development of
brain is accompanied by a correspondingly greater development of
psychic activity; and that there is a _conspicuous_ difference between
the human brain and that of the higher animals (anthropoid apes),
corresponding to the difference between the level of man's psychic
development and that of the higher mammals; and this justifies the
assertion that, _as a general rule_, there is a quantitative relation
between the brain and the intellect.
This suggests the thought that the perfect development of this delicate
_instrument_, the brain, demands a variety of harmonious material
conditions, among others the _volume_, in order to render possible the
conditions of psychic perfection.
From this premise, we may pass on to a more particularised study of
the _material conditions_ essential to the superior type of brain. The
volume is the quantitative index; but the _quality_ may be considered
from various points of view, which may be grouped as follows:
I. _The General Morphology of the Brain_ in reference to:
(_a_) The harmonious, relative volumetric proportions between the lobes
of the brain (namely, the proportion between the frontal, parietal,
temporal and occipital lobes). It was formerly believed that a superior
brain ought to show a prevalence of the frontal lobes, since a lofty
forehead is a sign of intellect; but it was afterward established that
there is no direct relation between the development of the forehead and
the development of the frontal lobes; a higher forehead results from a
greater volume of the entire cranial contents; the superior brain, on
the contrary, is that in which no one lobe prevails over another, but
all of them preserve a reciprocal and perfect harmony of dimensions.
(_b_) The form, number and disposition of the cerebral convolutions,
and of the folds of the internal passage (Sergio Sergi).
(_c_) The form, number and disposition of the cells in the cortical
strata of the brain, and the proportion between the gray matter and
the white, that is to say, between the cells and fibres; in short, the
histological structure of the brain.
II. The _Chemistry_ of the brain:
(_a_) The chemical composition of the substances constituting the
brain, which may be more or less complicated. (Recent studies of the
chemical evolution of living organisms have demonstrated that the
atomic composition is far more complex in the higher organisms.)
(_b_) The intimate interchange of matter in the cerebral tissues, in
connection with their nutrition.
(_c_) The chemical stimuli coming from the so-called glands of internal
secretion (thyroid, etc.).
All these conditions concur in determining the _quality_ of the
cerebral tissues. In its ontogenetic evolution, for example, the brain
does not merely increase in volume, and its development is not limited
to attaining a definite morphology; but its intimate structure and
its chemical composition as well must pass through various stages of
transition before attaining their final state. We know, for example,
that the myelination of the nerve fibres takes place upward from
the spinal marrow toward the brain, and that the pyramidal tracts
(voluntary motor tracts) are the last to myelinate, and hence the last
to perform their functions in the child.
The consistence of the cerebral mass and its specific gravity also
differ in childhood from that of the adult state. The evolution of the
brain is therefore a very complex process; and this process may not be
fully completed (for instance, it may be completed in volume, but not
in form or chemical composition, etc.).
Consequently, just as in the case of volume, there may be various
qualitative conditions, such as would produce organic inferiority.
But supposing that qualitatively the evolution has been accomplished
normally, where there is greater cerebral volume, is there a
correspondingly greater intellect?
At this point it is necessary to take into consideration another series
of questions regarding the brain considered as a _material_ _organ_,
and having reference to the relation between the volume of the _brain_
and that of the _stature_.
The brain must govern the nerves in all the _active parts_ of the body,
especially the striped muscles, which perform all voluntary movement.
Consequently the cerebral volume must be in proportion, not only to the
intellectuality, but also to the _physical_ _activity_.
Evidently, a greater mass of body demands a greater nervous system to
give it motive power.
The biological law is of a general nature: if the brain of a rat weighs
40 centigrams, that of an ox weighs 734 grams, and that of an elephant
4,896 grams.
_"The absolute volume of the brain increases with the total volume_ _of
the body."_
But this correspondence is not proportional. There are two facts that
alter the proportions. One of these is that the mass of the body
increases faster than the brain, throughout the biological series of
species, so that the smaller the body the greater the proportional
quantity of brain. Just the opposite from what was found to hold true
for the absolute weight.
It may be affirmed as a biological law that "_the relative volume_ _of
the brain increases as the size of the body diminishes_." For instance,
the tiny brain of a rat is a 43d part of the total volume of its body;
the brain of an ox, on the contrary, is a 750th part. Consequently we
may say that the little rat has relatively a far larger brain than the
huge ox.
And the same thing holds true among men; those of small build have a
proportionately larger brain than those of large build.
A second fact which alters the absolute proportion between the volume
of brain and the volume of body has reference to the "_functional
capacity_" of the active parts. The muscles which are capable of the
best activity and the greatest agility are the ones more abundantly
stimulated through their nerves than those which are capable only
of slow and sluggish action. The same may be said of the organs of
sensation; the more highly the sensibility is developed, the larger
are the corresponding nerves, and consequently the greater is the
corresponding quantity of cerebral cells. Accordingly the animal which
is nimblest in its movements, and most capable of sensations has in
proportion to this greater _functional activity_ a greater cerebral
volume. In this same way we may explain the enormous difference in
relative brain volume between the extremely active, sensitive and
intelligent little beast which we call the rat, and the sluggish and
stupid animal which we call the ox. Consequently this _functional
activity_ has a correspondingly greater volume of brain, without a
correspondingly greater volume of the various highly sensitized organs.
In such a case it may be stated as a general law that "_the relative
volume_ _of the brain is in direct proportion to the intelligence (or,
more broadly,_ _to the functional activity), while the absolute volume
is in direct relation_ _to the total mass of the body_."
Man has a cerebral volume of 1,500 cubic centimetres, a volume equal to
a fortieth part of the whole body. Consequently he has a brain twice
the actual size of that of the ox, while considered in its relation to
bodily bulk, he has more brain than the smallest rat (man = 1/40; rat =
1/43). A volume so far exceeding the proportions found in animals, is
beyond doubt directly related to _human_ _intelligence_.
_Relation between Cerebral and Intellectual Development in Man._--This
ends our examination of the generic question of the relation between
cerebral volume and intellect.
Granting these biological principles, and wishing to apply them to
normal man, let us go back to our first question: "Do persons of
greater intelligence have a greater cerebral volume, and consequently a
larger head?"
There is an extensive literature upon this question, the tendency of
which is to decide it affirmatively.
Parchappe has made a comparative study between writers of recognized
ability and simple manual workers, and has found that the former have a
development of the head notably in excess of the latter.
Broca took measurements, in various hospitals, of the heads of
physicians and male nurses, and found a greater development of head in
the case of the physicians.
Lebon made a study of cranial measurements in men of letters,
tradesmen, the nobility and domestic servants, and found the maximum
development among the men of letters and the minimum among the
servants. The tradesmen, who at all events are performing a work of
social utility, stand next to the men of letters; while the aristocrats
show some advantage over the domestics. Bajenoff took his measurements
from famous persons on the one hand and from convicted assassins on the
other, and found a greater head development among the former.
Enrico Ferri has made similar researches among soldiers who have had
a high-school education and those who are uneducated, and has found a
more developed cranium among the educated soldiers.
I also have made my own modest contribution to this important question,
by seeking to determine the difference in cranial volume between the
school-children who stand respectively at the head and foot of their
class, and have found among children of the age of ten a mean cranial
circumference of 527 millimetres for the more intelligent and of only
518 millimetres for the less intelligent.
Similar results were obtained by Binet in his researches among the
elementary schools of Paris. He found among children of the age of
twelve that the brightest had a mean cranial circumference of 540
millimetres and those at the foot of their class a mean of only 530
millimetres. The following table gives a parallel between these various
cranial measurements:
CRANIAL MEASUREMENTS (in Millimetres)[39]
Binet Children in the elementary schools of Paris, from 11 to 13
years of age
Montessori Children in the elementary schools of Rome, from 9 to 11
years of age
------------+----------------------------+----------------------------
| Binet's figures | Montessori's figures
+-----------+--------+-------+-----------+--------+-------
Measurements|Pupils |Pupils |Differ-|Pupils |Pupils |Differ-
|chosen |chosen | ence |chosen |chosen | ence
|for intel- |as | |for intel- |as |
| ligence |backward| | ligence |backward|
------------+-----------+--------+-------+-----------+--------+-------
Maximum cir-| | | | | |
cumference | | | | | |
of cranium.| 540 | 530 | +10 | 527 | 518 | +9
Length of | | | | | |
cranium | 181 | 177 | +4 | 180 | 177 | +3
Breadth of | | | | | |
cranium | 150.4 | 146.2 | +4.2 | 143 | 140 | +3
Height of | | | | | |
cranium | 123.3 | 124 | -0.7 | 130 | 127 | +3
Minimum | | | | | |
frontal | | | | | |
diameter. | 104 | 102 | +2 | 99 | 98 | +1
Height of | | | | | |
forehead | 46 | 45.5 | +0.5 | 57 | 56 | +1
------------+-----------+--------+-------+-----------+--------+-------
By calculating the cranial capacities according to Broca'a method, I
obtained:
{ in the best pupils chosen 1557 cu. cm.
Cranial capacity { the worst pupils chosen 1488 cu. cm.
From all these manifold researches above cited, we can reach no other
conclusion than that individuals of greater intelligence have a larger
quantity of brain; or else that individuals with a greater quantity of
brain are more intelligent.
There is a subtle distortion of this principle, which many sociological
anthropologists have taken as their starting-point, especially in
Germany, in their attempt to establish a biological basis for the
Schopenhauerian theories of Friedrich Nietzsche.
According to these, the persons who have acquired high social positions
are biologically superior (possessing a greater cerebral mass), and the
same may be said of conquering races as compared with the conquered.
Differences in caste are to be explained in the same way, and on this
ground nature sanctions the social inferiority of woman.
This is a question of the greatest importance, which merits a vast
amount of discussion.
_What Sort of Man is the Most Intelligent?_--Straightway, a first
serious objection suggests itself: What sort of persons are the most
intelligent? Are they really those who have attained the higher
academic degrees and the most eminent social positions? Consequently,
is the Prime Minister more intelligent than the Assistant Secretary of
State, and the latter more intelligent than the Head of a Department,
and he again than the door-keeper?
Are literary productions and the acquisition of laurels reliable tests
of intelligence? Is this man a doctor because he is more intelligent,
and that man a hospital attendant because he is less intelligent?
It is evident that there exist in the social world certain privileges
of caste, which may raise to the pinnacle of literary glory or to a
clamorous notoriety certain persons who owe their rise to favoritism
and trickery; or at least, so-called "literary fame" must be dependent
upon the possibility of getting writings published, which another man
perhaps would have had no way of bringing before the public so as to
make them known and appreciated; just as, on the other hand, there
are men of genius who are destined to feel their inborn intelligence
suffocating under the cruel tyranny of existing economic conditions,
which punish pauperism with obscurity and hold protection and favours
at a distance.
A thousand various conditions of our social environment hinder powerful
innate activities from finding expression and attaining elevated social
positions. Now, when we start to measure these different categories of
persons, shall we measure the more or the less fortunate individuals,
those more or those less favoured by economic conditions of birth and
environment, or shall we measure those persons who are actually the
more and the less intelligent?
And even in school can we be sure that the child whom we judge the most
intelligent is actually so? Studies in experimental psychology made in
quite recent times of men whose works justify their being placed in
the ranks of geniuses, have shown that these men of genius were never,
in their school-days, either at the head of their class, or winners of
any competitions. Consequently, we have not yet learned the means of
_judging intelligence_.
If we stop to think of the way in which the intelligence of pupils was
judged up to only a few years ago, according to pedagogic methods that
were a remnant of the pietistic schools, this will help us to form
some idea. The more intelligent ones were those best able to recite
dogmatic truths from memory. And even to-day we have not advanced very
far above that level.
As a general rule that pupil is considered the most intelligent
who best succeeds in echoing his teacher and in modeling his own
personality as closely as possible upon that of his preceptor.
This fact is so well known that it has come to be utilised as one
of the clever tricks for obtaining higher marks even in university
examinations, and for winning competitions; it is known that the prize
is reserved for the student who can repeat most faithfully and proclaim
most eloquently the master's own ideas.
Here is precisely one of the most fundamental problems offered by
scientific pedagogy: how to diagnose the human intelligence, and
distinguish the person who is intelligent from the person who is not. A
difficult task, or rather a difficult problem.
_The Influence of Economic Conditions upon the Development of_ _the
Brain._--Certain factors, due to environment, exert an influence upon
the development of the cerebral volume; this fact opens up another
whole series of interesting questions.
Among the factors due to environment, the leading place is held by
_nutrition_, dependent upon economic conditions.
Niceforo contends that among the various social classes, those who can
obtain the best nourishment have the greatest development of brain, and
consequently of head. He offers in evidence the figures summarised in
the following table:
CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE HEADS OF
-------------------+---------+---------------+---------
| | Sons of small |
Boys of the age of | Rich | tradesmen and | Poor
| | clerks |
-------------------+---------+---------------+---------
11 years | 534.9 | 529.7 | 524.8
12 years | 537.1 | 530.3 | 524.9
13 years | 537.8 | 532.4 | 528.6
14 years | 545.4 | 533.3 | 528.4
-------------------+---------+---------------+---------
In short, there is a gradation of cranial volume corresponding to the
economic status in society. This is a condition easy to understand:
we simply find repeated in this particular the same thing that we
have already seen happen to the body as a whole; the organism in its
entirety and consequently each separate part of it--if it is to
develop in accordance with its special biological potentiality and so
attain the limits of finality set for it--must receive nourishment.
It is only natural that children who, during their period of growth,
are deprived of sufficient and suitable nutrition should remain
inferior in development to those who had the advantage of an abundance
of the proper kind of food. The influence of the economic factor is
indisputable. Consequently, reverting once more to the studies above
cited, may we not conclude that the man of letters, the physician,
the person of distinction have a greater development of head than the
manual labourer, the hospital attendant, the illiterate, simply because
it was their good fortune to obtain better nutriment, through belonging
to the wealthy social classes?
_The Influence of Exercise upon Cerebral Development._--The second
interesting question is in reference to the influence which _exercise_
may have upon the development of the brain. As early as 1861 Broca
investigated this question in a classic work: _De l'influence_ _de
l'education sur le volume et la forme de la tete_ ("The influence of
education on the volume and form of the head"), in which he arrived
at the following conclusion: that a suitable exercise (intellectual
culture, education, hygiene) does have an influence on the development
of the brain, in the same way as with any other organ, as, for example,
the striped muscles, which gain in volume and strength and beauty
of form through gymnastic exercise. "Consequently," exclaims Broca
enthusiastically, "education not only has the power of rendering
mankind _better_; it has also the marvellous power of rendering man
superior to himself, of enlarging his brain and perfecting his form!"
_"Popular education means the betterment of the race."_
Accordingly we might say, relying on the above-mentioned studies, that
the man of letters, the physician, the person of distinction have
a more highly developed head than the manual workman, the hospital
attendant and the illiterate, because they exercised their brain to
a greater extent, and not because they were more intelligent. This,
however, is a question which differs profoundly from that which we were
previously considering, nutrition, because in this case exercise, in
addition to developing the organ, gives its own actual and personal
contribution to the intelligence.
Therefore, we are able to be creators of intelligence and of brain
tissue, which in turn becomes the creative force of our civilisation.
A system of instruction which, in place of over-straining the brain,
should aid it to develop and perfect itself, stimulating it to a sort
of auto-creation, would truly be, as Broca says, "capable of rendering
man superior to himself." This is what is being sought by scientific
pedagogy, which has already laid the foundation of "cerebral hygiene."
We are still very far to-day from realising this highest human
ambition! We do not yet know the basic laws of the economy of forces
that would lead to a stimulation of the human activities to the point
of creation; on the contrary, we are still at a primitive period, in
which many of the environing conditions interfere, to the point of
preventing the human germ to attain its natural biological finality. In
short, we know how to obtain artificially an arrest of development; but
we have not yet learned the art of aiding and enriching nature!
_The Influence of the Biological Factor upon Cerebral
Development._--What conclusion ought we to reach from what has been
said up to this point? Upon what does the cerebral volume depend, in
all its individual variations, resting on the common biological bases
of race, normality and sex? Is individual variation due solely to
causes of environment, such as nutrition and exercise? And does it
follow that it is not dependent upon _biological potentialities_ more
or less pronounced in separate individuals--in short, upon different
degrees of intelligence?
In the presence of such a multiplicity of questions we must proceed,
not to a selection but to a sum. Every biological phenomenon is the
result of a number of factors. The development of the brain depends
in precisely the same way as the development of the whole body
or of a single muscle, upon the combined influence of biological
factors determining the _individual variability_, and of factors of
environment, principal among which are nutrition and exercise. A
suitable diet aids growth, and so also does a rational exercise; but
underlying all the rest, as a _potential_ cause, is the biological
factor which mysteriously assigns a certain _predestination_ to
each individual. The environment may combat, alter, and impede what
nature "had written upon the fertilised ovum;" but we cannot forget
that this _scheme_, pre-established by the natural order of life, is
the principal factor among them all, the one which determines the
"_character of the individual_."
Now, on the basis of this influence of the biological factor upon
the cerebral development, we may affirm that: to greater intelligence
there corresponds a brain more developed in volume. What gives us proof
of this is the brain of the exceptional man--of men of genius, who
frequently have heads of extraordinary volume.
Persons of high celebrity, and not those, for example, who have
become known through some recent discovery in the field of positive
science--since a piece of good fortune may coincide with a normal
cranial volume--but the true creative geniuses who have left the deep
imprint of themselves upon their immortal works, have generally had a
cerebral volume that was truly gigantic: the poetic brain of the great
Schiller weighed 1,785 grams, that of Cuvier, the naturalist, 1,829
grams, that of the great statesman, Cromwell, 2,231 grams, and lastly,
that of Byron, 2,238 grams. The brain of the normal man weighs about
1,400 grams.
Consequently, these are extraordinary volumetric figures that could not
be acquired, either by much eating, or by being educated according to
the scientific means of the most advanced pedagogy; they are due to the
extraordinary biological potentiality of the man of genius.
In these extraordinary heads the exceptional volume is combined with a
characteristic form: they always have a more than normal development
of the forehead. Even in the course of biological evolution, as we
have already seen, in the higher species a greater cerebral volume
has a correspondingly broader and more erect forehead. If we examine
portraits of men of genius, what strikes us chiefly in them is the
high and spacious brow, as though men of genius, in comparison with
the rest of us, were representatives of a superior race. But if the
portrait shows the face taken in profile, it will be easily observed
that the _direction_ of the forehead is not vertical, but even slightly
recessive; that is, it preserves the characteristic male form, with
the vault slightly inclined backward and the orbital arches slightly
pronounced.
_The Pretended Cerebral Inferiority of Woman._--One final argument,
which is of interest to us, is the great question of the relation
between cerebral volume and intelligence in woman. Because, as you
know, there is a very widespread belief of long standing that is
confirmed in the name of science: that woman is biologically, in other
words totally, inferior, that the volume of her brain is condemned by
nature to an inferiority against which nothing can prevail. Just as
our perfected pedagogy, excellent alimentation and improved hygienic
conditions could never endow a normal man with the brain of a genius,
in the same way, so it is said, it is impossible ever to augment the
size of the brain of woman, who is necessarily condemned to resign
herself to remain in that state of social inferiority to which she is
now reduced and from which she would in vain attempt to emancipate
herself.
Names as famous as that of Lombroso[40] which are associated with the
progress of positive science, lend the weight of their authority to
this form of condemnation! And it is not easy to do away with this
sort of prejudice, which has slowly been disseminated among the people
under the guise of a scientific theory. But to-day there are scientists
who have been impelled to make certain extremely minute, impartial
and objective studies, without any preconception on the subject--such
men as Messedaglia, Dubois, Lapique, Zanolli, and Manouvrier--who,
by calculating the cerebral mass, at one time in comparison with
the whole body, at another with the surface of the body, and still
again with the various active or skeletal parts of the organism--have
arrived at an opposite conclusion: namely, that they can demonstrate
a greater development of brain in woman. Among these scientists it
gives me pleasure to name before all others Manouvrier--one of the most
gifted anthropologists of our day--who has devoted twenty years to an
exceedingly minute study of this problem. Here in brief outline are
his method of procedure and his conclusions. That the cerebral volume
should be considered in its relation to the stature is a familiar
principle; but a comparison between man and woman based solely upon
such a proportion, continues to maintain the cerebral inferiority of
woman. Have we, however, the right to compare a volumetric measure (the
cerebral mass) with a linear measure (the stature)? Such a comparison
is a mathematical error, as we have already technically proved.
Accordingly we find that Manouvrier compares the brain with the mass
of the whole body, its entire bulk; and he analyzes this entire bulk,
considering separately its active parts, without troubling himself
about their functional potentiality. He deduces from them certain
figures and proportions; more than that, he forms a sort of index,
which might be called the "index of sexual mass," between woman (minor
mass) and man, reduced to a scale of 100--which may be summed up in an
equation: man:100 = woman:the following percentual analyses:
Stature and weight of body 88.5
Weight of brain 90.0
Weight of skeleton (femur) 62.5
CO2 exhaled in twenty-four hours 64.5
Vital capacity (at age of eighteen) 72.6
Strength of hands 57.1
Strength of vertical traction 52.6
Hence it is evident, that, in comparison with her actual organic mass,
woman differs from man far more than is indicated by the differences in
stature and in bodily weight.
Instead of taking all these various separate mean measurements, let
us take one single comprehensive mean resulting from them: woman:man
= 80:100; there we have the proportion. Now, Manouvrier proceeds
to reduce all the separate measurements of man from 100 to 80, and
calculates how much brain man would lose if he were reduced to a mass
having feminine limits; he finds that the loss would be 172 grams.
Woman on the contrary has only 150 grams of brain less than man.
Consequently the cerebral volume of woman is superior to that of man!
This is an anthropological superiority which is further revealed in the
more perfected form of the cranium, insomuch as woman has an absolutely
erect forehead and has no remaining traces of the supraorbital arches
(characteristics of superiority in the species).
Thus, we have a contradiction between existing anthropological and
social conditions: woman, whom anthropology regards as a being having
the cranium of an almost superior race, continues to be relegated to an
unquestioned social inferiority, from which it is not easy to raise her.
_Who is Socially Superior?_--But here again we may ask, as we did
regarding the question of intelligence: What constitutes social
superiority? And in our social environment who is superior and who is
inferior?
[Illustration: FIG. 83.--Leptoprosopic face.]
[Illustration: FIG. 84.--Chameprosopic face.]
[Illustration: FIG. 85.--Lina Cavalieri.]
[Illustration: FIG. 86.--Maria Mancini.]
Social superiority, like moral superiority, is the product of
evolution. In primitive times when men, in order to live, were limited
like animals to gathering the spontaneous fruit of the earth, according
to the poetry of the biblical legend, and according to what sociology
repeats to-day, the superior man was the one of largest stature, the
giant. People paid him homage because he was the most imposing, without
troubling themselves to ask whether, or not, he might be insane. In
this way Saul was the first king. When the time came that men were
no longer content to live on the spontaneous fruit of the earth, but
were forced to till the soil, then a new victory was inaugurated,
the victory of the more active and intelligent man. David killed
Goliath. This great Bible story marks the moment when the superiority
of man came to be considered under a more advanced and spiritual
aspect. When the men who cultivated the earth began to feel the need
of other neighbouring lands and became conquerors, then the soldier
was evolved, until in the middle ages there resulted such a triumph
of militarism that the nobles alone were conquerors in war; and the
persons who to-day would be called superior, the men of intellect,
the poets, were considered as feeble folk, despicable and effeminate.
In our own times, now that the great conquests of the earth have been
made and the victorious people consequently brought into harmony, the
moment has come for conquering the environment itself, in order to
wring from it new bread and new wealth. And this is the proud work of
human intelligence which creates by aiding all the forces of nature
and by triumphing over its environment; thus to-day it is the man of
intelligence who is superior. But it seems as though a new epoch were
in preparation, a truly human epoch, and as though the end had almost
come of those evolutionary periods which sum up the history of the
heroic struggles of humanity; an epoch in which an assured peace will
promote the brotherhood of man, while morality and love will take their
place as the highest form of human superiority. In such an epoch there
will really be superior human beings, there will really be men strong
in morality and in sentiment. Perhaps in this way the reign of woman is
approaching, when the enigma of her anthropological superiority will be
deciphered. Woman was always the custodian of human sentiment, morality
and honour, and in these respects man always has yielded woman the palm.
FACE AND VISAGE
_The Limits of the Face._--The face is that part of the head which
remains when the cranial cavity is not considered. To attempt to
separate accurately, in the skeleton, the facial from the cerebral
portion would involve a lengthy anatomical description; for our purpose
it is enough to grasp the general idea that the face is the portion
_situated beneath_ the forehead, bounded in front by the curves of the
eyebrows, and in profile by a line passing in projection through the
auricular foramen and the external orbital apophysis (Fig. 39, page
188).
It is customary during life to consider the entire anterior portion of
the head as constituting one single whole, bounded above by the line
formed by the roots of the hair, and below by the chin. This portion
includes actually not only the face but a _portion of the_ _cerebral
cranium as well_, namely, the forehead; it bears the name of the visage
and is considered under this aspect only during life.
_Human Characteristics of the Face._--One characteristic of the human
cranium, as we have already seen (Fig. 40), as compared with animals,
is the decrease in size of the face, and especially of the jaw-bones in
inverse proportion to the increase of the cranial volume.
"Man," says Cuvier, "is of all living animals the one that has the
largest cranium and the smallest face; and animals are stupider and
more ferocious as they depart further from the human proportions."
In man, the cranium, assuming that graceful development which is
characteristic of this superior species, surmounts the face, which
recedes below the extreme frontal limit of the brain.
The different races of mankind, however, do not all of them attain so
perfect a form; in some of them the face protrudes somewhat in advance
of the extreme frontal limit, and in such cases we say that it is
prognathous.
Thus the relations in the reciprocal development between cranium and
face are different in animals and in man; as they also are in the
various human races. Cuvier gives some idea of these proportions by
comparing the European man with animals, by means of the following
formulas which he has obtained by calculating approximately the square
surface of a middle section of the head:
_Cranium:face_ =
European man 4:1
(cranium four times the size of the face)
Orang-utan and chimpanzee 3:1
Lower monkeys 2:1
Carnivora 1:1
Ruminants 1:2
Hippopotamus 1:3
Horse 1:4
(the reverse of man)
Whale 1:20
[Illustration: FIG. 87.--Portrait of the _Fornarina_ (Raphael Sanzio)
Rome: Barbarini gallery.]
[Illustration: FIG. 88.--Triangular face.]
[Illustration: FIG. 89.--Ellipsoidal face.]
[Illustration: FIG. 90.--Long ovoid face.]
But no general law, no systematic connection can be deduced from such
relative proportions. They serve only to demonstrate a characteristic.
Upon this characteristic depends preeminently the _beauty_ of the human
visage. If we are considering the _visage_ from its aesthetic aspect
and wish to compare it with the muzzle of animals, we may say that in
regard to its proportions it is as though the muzzle had been forced
backward from its apex, while the cranium had swelled, through the
increase of its vertical diameter. The muzzle is formed of the two jaws
alone, on the upper of which the nose is located horizontally; there
is neither forehead nor chin along the vertical line of the visage.
As the jaws recede and the cranium augments, the forehead rises, the
nose becomes vertical, and when the mandible has retreated beyond
the frontal limit, the wide yawning mouth has been reduced in size,
while a new formation has appeared below it--the chin. By this, I am
trying merely to draw a comparison which I trust will be of service
by suggesting a didactic method of illustrating the reduction of an
animal's muzzle to human proportions. Whatever forms a part of the
_visage_ bears the morphological stamp of humanity: the forehead, the
erect nose and the entire region of the mandible, which contains the
principal beauty of the human face.
The narrow opening of the lips, mobile because so richly endowed with
the muscles that unite in forming it, is quite truly the charming
and gracious doorway of the organs of speech, which by shaping the
internal thought into words are able to give it utterance; while the
winning _smile_ allures, captivates and consoles, thereby accomplishing
an eminently _social_ function; and sociability is inseparable from
humanity.
The animal mouth, on the contrary, is the organ for seizing food, the
organ of mastication, and, in felines, a weapon of offence and a means
of destruction.
Tarde says: "The mandibles seem to shape themselves in accordance
to the degree of intelligence; they become more finely modeled in
proportion as the two social functions of speaking and smiling acquire
a greater importance than the two individual functions of biting and
masticating."
And Mantegazza says: "Cruelty has localised its imprint around the
mouth, perhaps because killing and eating are two successive moments of
the same event."
THE NORMAL VISAGE
The visage is that part of the body which is preeminently human; being
richly endowed with muscles, it represents the "mirror of the soul,"
through the expressions that it assumes according to the successive
sentiments, passions and transitions of thought. The visage is a true
mine of individual characteristics, by which different persons may be
most easily and clearly distinguished from one another; while at the
same time it bears the stamp of the most general characteristics of
race, such as the form, the expression, the tone of complexion, etc.,
in consequence of which the face has hitherto held the first place in
the classifications of the human races.
Even the peoples of ancient times, such as the Egyptians, made a
physiognomical study of individual characteristics, founding a sort
of empirical science that sought to read from the physiognomy the
sentiments of the soul, the tendencies of character and the destiny of
man. The visage also contains the greatest degree of attraction and
charm, constituting that physical and spiritual beauty by which one
person arouses in others feelings of sympathy and love. Oriental women
cover their faces with thick veils through modesty, because the face
reveals the entire feminine individuality, while the rest of the body
reveals only the female of the human species, a quality common to all
women.
The visage includes many important parts, which, by developing
differently alter the physiognomy; the forehead, index of cerebral
development, surmounts the face like a crown, revealing each
individual's capacity for thought; furthermore, the visage contains
all the organs of specific sense: sight, hearing, smell and taste, and
hence all the "gateways of intelligence."
The organs of mastication, whose skeleton consists of the maxillaries
and the zygomata which reinforce and anchor the upper maxillary, are
the parts that constitute by far the greater portion of the facial
mass. In fact, their limits (breadth between the two zygomata; breadth
between the external angles of the mandible, chin) are the determining
factors of the contour and general form of the face, which is completed
by the soft tissues.
_Forms of Face._--The first distinction in facial forms is that
which is made between _long_ or _leptoprosopic_ faces and _short_ or
_chameprosopic_ faces. Figs. 83 and 84 (facing page 258) represent
two faces having the same identical breadth between the zygomata or
cheek-bones; the profound difference between them is due to their
different height or length of visage.
[Illustration: FIG. 91.--Tetragonal face (parallelepipedoidal).]
[Illustration: FIG. 92.--Pentagonal leptoprosopic face.]
[Illustration: FIG. 93.--Pentagonal mesoprosopic face.]
[Illustration: FIG. 94.--Face of inferior type prominence of the
maxillary bones (prognathism).]
The precise relation between height and breadth constitutes the _index
of visage_, which is analogous to the index that we have already
observed for the cranium.
Normally there is a correspondence in form between the cranium and the
face; dolichocephalics are also leptoprosopic; and brachycephalics
are chameprosopics; normally, also, mesaticephaly is found in
conjunction with mesoprosopy; but owing to the phenomena of hybridism
or pathological causes (rickets), it may also happen that such
correspondence is wanting; and that we have instead, for instance, a
leptoprosopic face with a brachycephalic cranium or _vice versa_.
Accordingly, _long_ and _short_ faces are characteristics of race
almost as important as the cephalic index. But leptoprosopy and
chamaeprosopy are not in themselves sufficient to determine the _form_
of the face. On the contrary, in the case of living persons it is
necessary also to take into consideration the _contour of the visage_,
which contains characteristics relating to race, age and sex. The races
which are held to be inferior have _facial contours_ that are more or
less angular; those that are held to be superior have, on the contrary,
a rotundity of contour; men have a more angular facial contour, in
comparison with that of women; while children have a contour of face
that is distinctly rotund.
The angularities of the face are due to certain skeletal prominences,
owing either to an excessive development of the zygomata (cheek-bones),
or to a development of the maxillaries, which sometimes produce
a salience of the lower corners of the mandible, and at others a
prominence of the maxillary arch (prognathism).
Accordingly, the facial contours may be either rounded or angular, and
that, too, independently of the facial type; because in either case the
visage may be either _long_ or _short_.
Depending upon the rounded facial contours, the visage may be
distinguished as ellipsoidal or oval; we may meet with faces that are
_long_, _short_ or _medium ellipsoids_ (leptoprosopic, chameprosopic,
mesoprosopic faces), even to a point where the contour is almost
circular: the _orbicular face_. Similarly, the oval faces may be
classified as _long_, _short_ and _medium ovals_. The so-called typical
_Roman visage_ is mesoprosopic, with an ellipsoidal contour. The faces
of Cavalieri and of the _Fornarina_ (Figs. 85, 87), celebrated for
their beauty, are mesoprosopic ovals--and the exceptionally beautiful
face of Maria Mancini is a mesoprosopic ellipse (Fig. 86).
Countenances with rounded and mesoprosopic contours belong to the
Mediterranean race, and the more closely they come to the _mean
average_ of that type and to a _fusion_ of contours, the more
_beautiful_ they are.
Faces with angular contours may be: _triangular_ (due to prominence of
the cheek-bones, or zygomata, and of the chin); _tetragonal_, further
subdivided into _quadrangular_ (chameprosopic) and parallelepipedoidal
(leptoprosopic, due to prominence of zygomata and corners of mandible);
and polygonal, which may be either _pentagonal_, formed by the
protrusion of the zygomata, the angles of the mandible, and the chin;
or hexagonal, formed by protrusion of the frontal nodules, the zygomata
and the angles of the mandible.
There may occur, in certain types of face, a very notable prevalence of
one part over another, so much so as to produce sharply differentiated
and characteristic physiognomies. Thus, for example, a prevalence of
forehead characterises the higher and superior type of the _man of
genius_ (compare the portrait of Bellini or of Darwin). On the other
hand, a prevalence either of the cheek-bones, or the lower jaw, or
the angles of the mandible, together with an accompanying powerful
development of the masticatory muscles, produce three different types,
all of them chameprosopic, which represent, in respect to the face,
inferior racial types, differing from one another, but which are
frequently met with (at least to a noticeable extent) even among our
own people, as types of the lower-class face, precisely because of the
preponderance of the coarser features.
Combined with the general type of face, there are certain specified
particulars of form of the separate parts; as, for example, in the
case of the ellipsoid or ovoid types of mesoprosopic face, which
seem to have attained the most harmonic _fusion_ of characteristics,
and consequently the highest standard of beauty, the eyes are very
large and almond-shaped (the _Fornarina_, Maria Mancini, Cavalieri);
angular faces are characterised by a narrow, slanting eye, through
all the degrees down to that of the Mongolian; faces of low type have
an eye characterised less by its form than by its smallness. The nose
also shows differences; it is long and narrow (leptorrhine) in the
more leptoprosopic faces, and short, broad and fleshy (platyrrhine,
flat-nosed) in chameprosopic faces, especially in the _lower types_; in
mesoprosopic faces it assumes its proper proportions, and occurs as the
last detail or crowning touch of harmony in the perfect faces of the
above-mentioned women.
[Illustration: FIG. 95.--Hexagonal face.]
[Illustration: FIG. 96.--Tetragonal face (square).]
[Illustration: FIG. 97.--Faces of inferior type (cheek bones
prominent).]
[Illustration: FIG. 98.]
When one starts to make the first draft of an ornamental design, it
often happens that the proportional relations are based upon certain
_geometric figures_ that might be called the skeleton of the ornamental
design that is being constructed from them. Accordingly, when an artist
wishes to judge of the harmony of proportions in a drawing, a painting,
or a statue, he often reconstructs with his eye a geometrical design
that no longer exists in the finished work, but that must have served
in its construction. In short, there exist certain secret guiding lines
and points which the eye of the observer must learn to recognise, to
trace and to judge.
This is the way that we should proceed in studying the facial profile.
Let us take or assume a person with the head _orientated_ (_i.e._, with
the occipital point resting against a vertical wall, and the glance
level). The line uniting the point of the tragus (the little triangular
cartilage projecting from the auricular foramen), with the juncture
between the nasal septum and the upper lip, ought, in the case of an
aesthetically regular face, to be _horizontal_. We may call this line
the line of _orientation_. If it proves not to be horizontal, but
oblique, slanting either forward (long nose) or backward (short nose),
this in itself denotes an irregularity which is plainly perceptible,
even to the casual observer. But it is only in exceptional cases that
this line is not horizontal; its horizontality constitutes the _norm_,
in our hybrid races.
Naturally, it is horizontal only when the head is _orientated_ in
the manner above stated. Hence in normal cases its horizontality is
an _index_ of the orientation of the head. The orientated head is
perfectly upright; and the line in question marks its _level_.
Everyone knows that this position of the head is known as that of
"attention" and constitutes the position which formerly only soldiers,
but now school children as well, must assume as a sign of salutation
and respect toward their superiors. It is also the anthropologically
normal attitude (as we may see in statuary). And it is a known fact
that it is a position exceedingly difficult to assume intentionally
with absolute accuracy.
In fact, it corresponds to an attitude which has to be called forth by
some inward stimulus of emotion, and for this reason I would call it
the "fundamental psychological line." The man who is conscious of his
own dignity, or who hopes for his own redemption; the man who is free
and independent involuntarily holds his head orientated.
It is not the vain man, or the proud man, or the dreamer, or the
bureaucratic official, whose head assumes this _involuntary_
_horizontal level_ that is characteristic of the most profound
sentiments known to humanity; persons of such types hold their heads
slightly raised and the line shows a slight backward slant.
The man who is depressed and discouraged, the man who has never
had occasion to feel the deep, intimate and sacred thrill of human
_dignity_, has on the contrary, a more or less forward slant in the
psychological line of orientation.
Look at Fig. 99, which shows a very attractive group of _Ciociari_ or
Neapolitan peasants.
The man, or rather the beardless youth who is just beginning to feel
himself a man, and therefore hopes for independence, holds his head
proudly level; but the very pretty woman seated beside him holds her
head gracefully inclined forward. For that matter, this is woman's
characteristically _graceful_ attitude. She never naturally assumes,
nor does the artist ever attribute to her the proud and lofty attitude
of the level head. But this graceful pose is in reality nothing else
than the pose of slavery. The woman who is beginning to struggle, the
woman who begins to perceive the mysterious and potent voice of human
conflict, and enters upon the infinite world of modern progress, raises
up her head--and she is not for that reason any the less beautiful.
Because beauty is enhanced, rather than taken away, by this attitude
which to-day has begun to be assumed by all humanity: by the laborer,
since the socialistic propaganda, and by woman in her feministic
aspirations for liberty.
Similarly in the school, if we wish to induce little children to hold
their heads in the position of orientation, all that is necessary is to
instil into them a sense of liberty, of gladness and of hope. Whoever,
upon entering a children's class-room, should see their heads assume
the level pose as if from some internal stimulus of renewed life,
could ask for no greater homage. This, and nothing else, is certainly
what will form the great desire of the teacher of the future, who will
rightly despise the trite and antiquated show of formal respect, but
will seek to touch the souls of his pupils.
[Illustration: FIG. 99.--A group of Roman peasants.]
To return to our lines, it follows that the level orientation is the
true human position for the head; it ought never to be abased nor
carried loftily, because man ought never to make himself either slave
or master; it is the _normal line_, because it should be that of the
accustomed attitudes; because man cannot normally be perpetually
meditating, with his gaze upon the ground, as if forgetful of himself
and of his social ties; nor can he forever gaze at the heavens, as
though drawn upward by some supernal inspiration. The normal attitude
is that of the thinking man, who cannot lean either in the one
direction or the other, because he is so keenly conscious of being
in close connection with all surrounding humanity; and he looks with
horizontal gaze toward infinity, as though studying the path of common
progress.
Now, if from the _metopic_ point of the forehead, we drop an imaginary
perpendicular to the line of orientation, it ought to form, in
projection, a tangent to the point of attachment of the nostrils.
Observe the two lines traced on the profile of Pauline Borghese.
This line, if prolonged, passes slightly within the extreme angle of
the labial aperture, and forms the limit of the chin (see the portrait
of Cavalieri, Fig. 101). In this case the profile is eurygnathous.
When the line does not pass in the aforesaid manner, but the facial
profile protrudes beyond it, we have a case of _prognathism_, which may
be total, when the whole face projects; maxillary when the mandibles
project, nasal when it is only the nose that projects, and mental (or
_progeneism_) when it is only the chin that protrudes.
Figures 98, 100 and 103 represent forms of normal prognathism (related
to race, Figs. 98, 100), and of pathological prognathism (Fig. 103,
form associated with microcephaly). These two microcephalic profiles
call to mind the muzzle of an animal; there is no erect forehead, the
orbital arch forming the upward continuance; the nose is very long and
almost horizontal to the protruding jaw; the fleshy lips constitute in
themselves the anterior apex of the visage; while the chin recedes far
back beneath them.
But leaving aside these exceptional profiles, which serve by their
very exaggeration to fix our conception of _prognathism_, let us
examine the series of profiles in Fig. 100, which include some forms
more or less peculiar, and others that are more or less customary, of
prognathism; forms that serve to characterise the physiognomy.
[Illustration: FIG. 100.--(1) Orthognathous face; (2) prognathism
limited to the nasal region; (3) prognathism limited to the subnasal
region; (4) total prognathism, including the three regions,
supra-nasal, nasal and subnasal; (5) exaggerated total prognathism,
accompanied by mandibular prognathism; (6) the same in a child; (7)
very marked prognathism, but due entirely to the prominence of the
supra-nasal section, resulting in an apparent orthognathism (male
of tall stature); (8) opposite type to the preceding: pronounced
prognathism not extending to the supra-nasal region (feminine type);
(9) misunderstood Greek profile (incorrect) resulting in a notable
prognathism; (10) correct Greek profile, i.e., conforming to that of
Greek statues, and incompatible with prognathism.[41]]
Manouvrier, analysing the forms of prognathism from the point of
view of physiognomy and cerebral development, notes that varieties 4
and 5 seem to him to correspond to a more or less serious cerebral
development; variety 2, very frequent in France and more particularly,
according to the author, among the Jews, is not incompatible with a
high cerebral inferiority. Variety 3, more frequent in the feminine
sex, is found in conjunction, sometimes with a weakly skeletal system,
and frequently with rickets and cretinism; nevertheless, Beethoven
showed an approach to this profile.
Variety 4 indicates on the contrary an extremely vigorous development
of the skeleton, with the qualities and defects commonly associated
with great physical strength; variety 7 is regularly associated with
tall stature; in fact, in this case the prognathism is determined by
excessive development of the frontal bone-sockets.
It is this development, prevalent in the male sex, that renders
subnasal prognathism much rarer in man. As a matter of fact, the
feminine type of prognathism shown in No. 8 is not greater in degree
than the male type, No. 7. Variety 9 shows us a form of _prognathism
in art_, due to a false interpretation of the Greek profile; it is
commonly believed that in the Greek profile the frontal line is a
continuation of that along the bridge of the nose, and hence we
frequently meet with commemorative medals, etc., bearing the monstrous
profile shown in No. 9, with pronounced prognathism and receding
forehead. The true _Greek_ profile is shown in No. 10, but we can
better analyse it by studying the profile of the Discobolus (Fig. 105)
and of Antinoous (Fig. 106).
[Illustration: FIG. 101.]
[Illustration: FIG. 102.--Head of Pauline Bonaparte Borghese (Rome,
Borghese Museum).]
[Illustration: FIG. 103.--Profiles of microcephalics.]
The lines of the facial angle have been traced upon the profile of the
Discobolus, but the profile of Antinoous has been left untouched, in
order that we may trace the same lines upon it in imagination, and thus
judge of its perfect beauty (facing page 270).
Let us first examine these two Greek profiles, without stopping to
analyse their separate characteristics, but considering them from the
more general point of view of the facial profile in general. Reverting,
instead, for our analytical study to the schematic figure shown in Fig.
104, we see that it also shows the line of the facial profile, that
of orientation and the vertical, and that these lines form certain
right-angled triangles; the right angle _MPA_ is not the facial angle,
any more than the corresponding angle shown in the Discobolus is the
facial angle. It is said that Greek art considered the right angle as
the perfect facial angle; but that is not true. In order to obtain
the facial angle it is necessary to draw a third line (_MS_) which
extends from the metopic point to the point of attachment of the nasal
septum to the upper lip; this is the line of the facial profile, and
the angle _MSA_ is the facial angle. It is never a right angle (see
the Discobolus), but it approaches very closely to a right angle. Let
us examine the triangle _MPS_, bounded by the vertical, the line of
profile and the line of orientation; it is right-angled at _P_. Hence,
the sum of its other two angles must be equal to one right angle; but
the upper angle, corresponding to the nasal aperture, is of only 15 deg.,
and consequently the facial angle is 75 deg.. The facial angle of the
Discobolus also, like that of Antinoous, like that of the _normal human
visage_, is 75 deg..
[Illustration: FIG. 104.]
Examine further this Fig. 104; in it the line of the facial profile,
extending from the metopion to the septo-labial point also passes
through the point corresponding to the attachment of the base of the
nose (nasion).
The figure is schematic; but anyone who will trace it in imagination
upon the profile of Cavalieri, or on that of the seated woman in the
group of Neopolitan peasants, or on any of the classic profiles known
in art as the Roman profile, will find that the nasal line, connecting
the supra- and subnasal points, coincides with the line drawn from the
subnasal point to the metopion. But if we observe the Greek profile
of the Discobolus, we shall find that the line of profile does not
coincide with the base of the nose, but passes behind it.
This is the real characteristic difference between the _Roman_ and
the _Greek_ profile: in the Greek profile, the root of the nose is
attached further in front of the metopico-subnasal line, and this is
due to the special form of the Greek forehead, which, instead of being
slightly flattened at the glabella, as in the equally beautiful Roman
forehead, is rounded to such a degree that the transverse section
of the forehead follows a circular line. Hence, it results that the
metopic region of the forehead is more prominent and the nose straight,
and hence also the line of the forehead is a perceptible continuation
of that of the nose (compare the Antinoous). This unique and essential
difference between the Greek and the Roman profile has not hitherto
been pointed out, so far as I am aware; it is indicated by just one of
the facial lines, the one which forms an angle of 75 deg. with the line
of orientation. I had an opportunity to observe these differences in
my study of the women of Latium, which I pursued side by side with a
study of the statues in the museums of Rome, under the guidance of
distinguished art specialists; nevertheless, they had none of them
ever defined by mathematical lines the sole difference between the two
classic types.
The habit of tracing these imaginary lines renders us far more keen
in recognising any and every degree of prognathism, even the least
perceptible, and any other imperfection of the profile, than the most
complicated system of goniometry would make us. For instance, examine
the profile of Pauline Borghese; it is certainly not prognathous, since
the vertical line reveals a most impeccable orthognathism. But let
us trace the nasal line: it meets the vertical line before reaching
the metopic point; in order to meet it at this point, the nose would
have had to be narrower from front to back; in that case the profile
of Pauline Borghese would have been a perfect Roman profile; but the
imperial stigma of the Napoleonic house deprived the beautiful princess
of the privilege of perfect classic beauty.
In my studies of the women of Latium, in addition to the Greek
and Roman forms of profile which are very frequent (the former
distinguished by the morphological peculiarity of having no definite
naso-frontal angle nor metopic flattening of the forehead) I found
a third profile, less frequent yet quite characteristic, among the
representatives of the Mediterranean (Eurafrican) race. It is worthy of
note (Figs. 107, 108).
First of all, the forehead has a slight transverse depression along
its middle line, and the mandible is slightly elongated; but if we
draw our imaginary vertical line from the extreme forward point of the
brow, we find that none of the forms of prognathism is involved, and
that the auriculo-subnasal line is horizontal. This is the type that
has been described by Sergi as Egyptian; and the young woman, shown
in profile, really does suggest a reincarnation of the proud beauty
of the daughters of Pharaoh; the somewhat fleshy lips and the form of
the eyes, not almond-like, but very wide and horizontal, complete the
characteristics of the type immortalised in Egyptian art.
In the normal profile two forms can be distinguished which are
associated with the two general forms of leptoprosopic and
chameprosopic face, and hence also with the dolichocephalic and
brachycephalic forms of cranium. In the one case, the features are
more elongated and seem to be more depressed laterally, with the
result that the profile is more refined, the visage narrower, along
the longitudinal line; in this case the profile is _proopic_ (as, for
example, in the aforesaid Egyptian profile and in the elongated ovoidal
English face, Fig. 90); aristocratic faces of the finer type are
proopic. On the other hand, broad faces are anteriorly flattened to
such an extent that the flatness shows even in the profile: _platyopic_
_profile_.
[Illustration: FIG. 105.--The Discobolus by Miron (Rome, Vatican
Museum).]
[Illustration: FIG. 106.--Head of statue known as the _Capitoline
Antinoous_ (Rome, Capitoline Museum).]
[Illustration: FIG. 107.]
[Illustration: FIG. 108.]
These general forms are associated with certain special forms of the
separate organs.
Thus, for example, in proopic faces the palate is narrow, long and
high; in platyopic faces, on the contrary, it is broad, low and flat;
and the teeth corresponding to them may present a widely different
appearance (long, narrow teeth; broad teeth).
_Low Types and Abnormal Forms._--Low types, as we have already noted,
depend upon the development of the face in its least noble parts
(those of mastication); prominence of the cheek-bones and maxillary
angles, great development of the upper and lower jaw (prognathism).
These conditions are frequently accompanied by a low, narrow, or
receding forehead, indicating a scanty cerebral development. Lombroso
found a great prevalence of similar forms among criminals; but
recent studies have disclosed the fact that such forms of facial
development are in some way related to the environment in which the
individual has developed, so much so that, on the basis of these
morphological characteristics, we might almost succeed in delineating
the physiognomies distinguishing the different _social castes_. In
fact, while the aristocratic face is ellipsoidal and proopic, that
of the peasant is characterised by a pronounced wideness between the
cheek-bones, and that of the city labourer by a peculiar development in
the height of the mandible. Thus the peasant has a broad face, and the
city workman a somewhat elongated face, with very pronounced maxillary
angles.
A real and important abnormality which indicates a deviation from
every type of race or caste is _facial asymmetry_ or _plagioprosopy_,
analogous to plagiocephaly, and frequently associated with it.
It is necessary, however, in the case of the face, to distinguish
instances of _functional asymmetry_, due to unequal innervation of
the muscles in the two sides of the face; either from some cerebral
cause, or from some local cause affecting the facial nerves. In such
cases, the trophic state of the muscles and their contractibility being
unequal, there is a resultant asymmetry, especially evident in the play
of facial expression.
This form of asymmetry must necessarily be limited to the soft
tissues and be due to a pathological cause; consequently it should
not be confounded with the asymmetry due to a different skeletal
development of the two sides of the face, an abnormality analogous
to plagiocephaly, which is met with among degenerates as a stigma of
congenital malformation. We owe to Brugia a most admirable method for
demonstrating the high degrees of facial asymmetry which sometimes
reach such an extreme point as to give the two halves the appearance
of having formed parts of two different faces. This is precisely
what Brugia shows by the aid of photography, uniting each half with
a reversed print of itself, making the two prints coincide along the
median line. The result is that every asymmetric face gives two other
faces formed respectively from one of the two inequal halves, and
presenting profoundly different aspects.
Other abnormalities are revealed by the _facial profile_. They are
due either to total or partial prognathism (already analysed), or to
orthognathism, where the facial angle equals or exceeds a right angle;
such a profile occurs in cases of _hydrocephaly_ or of _macrocephaly_
in general, usually resulting from infantile arrest of development.
_The Evolution of the Face._--The human countenance, that is so
marvellously beautiful in our superior hybrid races, passes, during its
embryonal life, through many forms that are very far removed from such
perfection.
Figures 110, 111, and 112 represent the evolution of the face in
animals and in man: and the complete evolution of a woman's face from
the embryo during the first weeks of its formation to the attainment of
old age.
The embryonal face, as may be seen even better in animals than in
man, is surmounted by the brain divided and differentiated into its
superimposed primitive vesicles; furthermore, it consists of one
single, widespread cavity, at the sides of which may be discerned two
diminutive vesicles or bulbs, which are offshoots of the brain and
constitute the first rudiments of the eyes. In studying a more advanced
stage of development, we may note in what constitutes the upper lip of
this wide facial cavity, two _nasal ducts_ or furrows, which are the
first indications of the nose.
The principal differentiation which takes place in the face consists of
the development from its two lateral walls on left and right, of two
thin plates or laminae that advance across the cavity itself, in its
anterior portion, and proceed to unite in a median ridge, the _raphe
palati_; this constitutes the formation of the palatine vault, which is
destined permanently to divide the single cavity into two cavities--an
upper or nasal, and a lower or buccal cavity. If this process of
formation is not completed, the result is a grave abnormality, the
cleft palate, popularly known in Italy as a "wolf's throat," and
consisting in the fact that the nasal and buccal cavities to a greater
or less extent open into each other; this abnormality, due to an arrest
of embryonic development, is almost always accompanied by a hare-lip.
Simultaneously with the formation of the palatine vault, another and
vertical septum is formed, which divides the upper cavity into two
halves, right and left. This division, however, is limited to the
anterior portion; the three cavities thus formed have no such division
in the rear, but all three open into the gullet or oesophagus, which
represents the only relic of the single original cavity.
The maxillary bones are formed in a manner analogous to that of the
nasal and palatal septa, through extroversions destined to become
ossified.
It is not until later that the _external nose_ is formed (middle of the
second month of embryonal life).
After this, the evolution of the embryo becomes evidently a
_perfectionment_ and a _growth_, rather than a transformation.
In the _new-born child_ the face is extremely small in comparison with
the cerebral cranium.
If we compare the head of an adult with that of an infant, and draw
the well-known line of separation between the facial and the cerebral
cranium, the difference in the reciprocal proportions between the two
parts at once becomes apparent. The infant's face seems like a mere
_appendix_ to its cranium; and the mandible is especially small; in
fact, very young children remain much of the time with their mouth open
and the under lip drawn back behind the upper.
[Illustration: FIG. 109.--Face of inferior type. Prominence of angles
of jaw (Gonia).]
[Illustration: FIG. 110.]
[Illustration: FIG. 111. FIG. 112.
_a_, eye; _v_, anterior brain; _m_, middle brain; _s_, frontal process;
_h_, nasal septum; _o_, _u_, _h_, _d_, _r_, primitive embryonal
formations, explained as being _branchial_ (_i.e._, gill) arches; _z_,
tongue; _g_, auditory fissure. Note the analogy between the different
parts of the head in animals and in man; every species, however, has
special embryonal characteristics.]
Consequently, the growth of the face obeys laws and rhythms differing
from those of the cranium, in comparison to which the face is destined
to assume very different proportions by the time that the adult age is
reached. The face grows _much more_ than the cranium.
In its characteristic infantile form, the face is quite round (short
and broad), and, when the child is plump, it often happens that at
birth the face is broader than it is long. Seen in profile it is
_orthognathous_, and this orthognathism endures throughout early
infancy, because the profile still remains in retreat behind the
plane of the protruding forehead; i.e., the facial angle exceeds a
right angle, and the mandibular region is further back than the nasal
(compare profile of infant).
In the course of growth it may be said in a general way that the facial
index diminishes; that is, the numerical proportion between width and
height becomes lowered as the face lengthens; while the facial angle
changes from somewhat more than a right angle to a right angle, and
finally to an acute angle of 75 deg..
In order to obtain an exact idea of the transformations of the face,
children should have their pictures taken, full face and profile, on
every birthday, as is already customary in England for the purposes of
the _carnet maternel_, the "mother's note-book."
In the illustrations facing this page we have portraits of the same
person taken at successive ages (Figs. 113, 114, 115, 116), _i.e._, at
the age of six months, one year and a half, seven, and lastly twelve
years; it will be seen that the face has steadily lengthened.
In this case the individual happens to be noticeably leptoprosopic; but
observe the rotundity of the infantile face at the age of six months.
An analogous observation may be made in the case of the girl
represented in Figs. 118 and 119, at the age of ten months and thirteen
years respectively.
Even in the case of abnormal children the same law holds good; an
examination of the three pictures of an incurable idiot boy, taken at
the ages of six, eleven, and sixteen years (Figs. 121, 122, 123 facing
page 276), shows that the face, from being originally rotund has become
elongated.[42]
We owe to Binet the most exact and complete studies that exist in
anthropologic literature on the subject of the growth of the face. He
has made a great number of facial measurements, both of children and
young persons of the male sex, from four to eighteen years of age,
taking the measurements at intervals of two years. The measurements
chosen by Binet are all the possible distances that will serve to
give the various widths of the face, the distance of the ear from the
various points of the profile, and the heights of the various segments;
namely (for an exact understanding of these measurements, see section
on _Technique_), auriculo-mental diameter, auriculo-nasal diameter,
auriculo-subnasal diameter, auriculo-ophryac diameter, auriculo-metopic
diameter, frontal diameter, biauricular diameter, bizygomatic diameter,
length of nose, length of chin, subnase-mental distance, height of
forehead.[43]
Binet's conclusions are as follows: the growth of the whole head may
be divided into three rhythms: that of the cerebral cranium, that of
the face apart from the nose, and that of the nose.
If the total development of the cerebral cranium from the fourth to
the eighteenth year shows a proportion of 12 per cent., the facial
development shows an increase of 24 per cent. and that of the nose 39
per cent. Consequently the face increases twice as much as the cranium,
and the nose three times as much. In the growth of the face, however,
the transverse dimensions must be distinguished from the longitudinal
dimensions, because the _facial index_ varies greatly according to the
age. The width of the face follows very nearly the same rhythm as the
cranium, never exceeding the latter's proportional increase; the length
of the face, on the contrary, follows the special rhythm of the growth
of the face, which lengthens far more than it broadens.
If we consider the distances of the various points in the profile from
the auricular foramen, we find that these distances show a greater
increase in proportion as the points in question are further from the
forehead and nearer to the chin.
The central section (the nose) and the mandible are the portions which
contribute most largely to the increase in length of the face.
While in the case of the cranium there is a _very slight_, and
often imperceptible puberal acceleration of growth, the puberal
transformations of the head are, on the contrary, most notable in
respect to the face.
The entire region of the upper and lower jaws, but more especially the
lower, undergoes a _maximum increase during the period_ _of puberty_.
In regard to the nose, its rapid growth begins at the time immediately
preceding puberty; that is, it undergoes a _prepuberal_ _maximum
increase_. When a boy is about to complete his sexual development, the
nose begins to gain in size.
The puberal growth of the mandible has long been a familiar fact, and
bears a relation to the development of the sexual glands.
A special characteristic noted by Binet and by myself is that the
height of the lower jaw in boys who have reached the prepuberal stage
is greater in the boys who are least intelligent; just as in the
case of these boys the nose is less leptorrhine and the face less
broad. This means that at the period of puberty the most intelligent
boys not only have a greater development of head, but also certain
distinctive facial characteristics. They should have, for instance,
a more ample forehead, a broader face, especially in the bizygomatic
diameter (between the cheek-bones), and a leptorrhine nose (infantile
leptorrhine type). The backward boys, on the contrary, have a longer
face, accompanied by a higher mandible and a flat or "snub" nose. Here
are the comparative figures:
[Illustration: FIG. 113.--A child at six months.]
[Illustration: FIG. 114.--The same child at a year and a half.]
[Illustration: FIG. 115.--A seven-year-old boy.]
[Illustration: FIG. 116.--The same boy at the age of twelve.]
FACIAL MEASUREMENTS
Binet Children from the elementary schools of Paris from 11 to 13
years of age
Montessori Children from the elementary schools of Rome from 9 to
11 years of age
--------------+--------------------------+--------------------------
| Binet's figures | Montessori's figures
+---------+--------+-------+---------+--------+-------
Measurements |Brightest|Backward|Differ-|Brightest|Backward|Differ-
| pupils | pupils | ence | pupils | pupils | ence
--------------+---------+--------+-------+---------+--------+-------
Minimum | | | | | |
frontal | | | | | |
diameter | 104 | 102 | 2 | 99 | 98 | 1
Height of | | | | | |
forehead | 46 | 45.5 | 0.5 | 57 | 56 | 1
Mento-subnasal| | | | | |
distance | 62 | 64.6 | 2.4 | 54 | 56 | 2
Bizygomatic | | | | | |
diameter | 124.8 | 122.9 | 1.9 | 109 | 107 | 2
Bigoniac | | | | | |
diameter | 93.5 | 92.1 | 1.4 | 87 | 86 | 1
--------------+---------+--------+-------+---------+--------+-------
COMPARATIVE FACIAL MEASUREMENTS OBTAINED FROM THE
BRIGHTEST AND THE MOST BACKWARD PUPILS IN THE
SCHOOLS OF ROME (MONTESSORI)
------------------------+-----------+----------+-----------
Measurements and indices| Brightest | Backward | Difference
in millimetres | pupils | pupils |
------------------------+-----------+----------+-----------
Height of mandible | 34 mm. | 36 mm. | 2 mm.
Length of nose | 47 mm. | 45 mm. | 2 mm.
Width of nose | 28 mm. | 29 mm. | 1 mm.
Nasal index | 59 mm. | 64 mm. | 5 mm.
------------------------+-----------+----------+-----------
These results would seem to prove that there are high and low
_infantile_ types of face, analogous, let us say, to types of social
caste; and in school life they correspond to the castes of the
_intelligent_ and the _backward_ pupils.
Intelligent children tend to preserve the infantile form of face more
intact (broad and short) or rather, if we extend our researches to
pupils who have reached the prepuberal age, we may conclude that
intelligent pupils develop according to the normal laws--the growth is
confined to the nose; backward children invert the order of growth--the
lower jaw is already enlarged before the nose has even begun the
acceleration of puberal growth. This difference remains permanent in
the adult, and we have in consequence _low_ types of face characterised
by a flat nose and heavy lower jaw.
=Facial Expression.=--The study of the human face cannot be limited to
a consideration of the form alone; because what gives character to it
is the _expression_. Internal thought, sensory impressions and all the
various emotions produce responsive movements of the facial muscles,
whose contractions determine those _visible phenomena_ corresponding to
the inner state of mind.
The teacher ought to understand facial expression, just as a physician
must train himself to recognise the _facies_ corresponding to various
diseases and states of suffering. The study of expression ought to
form a part of the study of psychology, but it also comes within the
province of anthropology, because the habitual, life-long expressions
of the face determine the wrinkles of old age, which are distinctly an
anthropological characteristic.
The facial muscles may be divided into two zones: one of which
comprises the frontal and ocular region, and the other the buccal
region; corresponding to which are the two upper and lower branches of
the frontal nerve.
Accordingly we may speak of a frontal or higher zone of expression and
of an oral or lower zone.
The expressions of pure thought (attention, reflection) group
themselves around the forehead; those of emotion, on the contrary, call
forth a combined action of both zones, and frequently irradiate over
the entire body. But as a general rule the man of higher intelligence
has a greater intensity of frontal expression, and the man of low
intelligence (uneducated men, peasants, and to a much greater degree,
imbeciles, idiots, etc.) have a predominance of oral expression.
In children the frontal zone has slight mobility, and the oral zone
has a preponderance of expression; infantile expression, however,
is diffuse and exaggerated and is characterised by _grimaces_.
Undoubtedly there are certain restraining powers, which develop in the
course of time and serve to limit and definitely determine the facial
expressions.
[Illustration: FIG. 117.--Profile of a child.]
[Illustration: FIG.--118. A child of ten months.]
[Illustration: FIG. 119.--The same, 13 years old.]
As for the mechanics of expression, they consist of the facial
nerve, and the surface muscles stimulated by it, which are: the
_frontal muscle_, which covers the entire forehead and merges
above into the epicranial aponeurosis; the _superciliary_ _muscle_
extending transversely along the superciliary arch and concealed
by the _orbicular muscle of the eyelids_ (_m. orbicularis
palpebrarum_), which surrounds the eye-socket like a ring; the
_pyramidal_ muscle (_m. pyramidalis nasi_), which is connected with
the point of origin of the frontal muscle at the inner angle of the
eyebrow, and separates below into four symmetrical fasciae, two of
which are attached to the _ala_ or wing of the nose, and the other
two to the upper lip.
[Illustration: FIG. 120.--The Muscles of the Head and Face.]
A group of very delicate muscles controlling the sensitive
movements of the wings and septum of the nose (_m. compressor
narium_, _m. depressor aloe nasi_, _m._ _levator aloe nasi_,
_anterior_ and _posterior_, and _m. depressor septi_) have their
points of attachment around the nasal _aloe_ (just above the upper
incisor and canine teeth). There is a great wealth of muscles
surrounding the mouth; no animal, not even the anthropoid ape, is
equipped with so many muscles; it is due to them that the human
mouth is able to assume such a great variety of positions. The
greater number of these muscles are arranged like radii around the
mouth; and there is one which, unlike the rest, surrounds the oral
aperture like a ring.
The radiating muscles, descending from the sides of the nose down
along the chin are: the levator muscle of the upper lip (_m.
levator labii superioris_, starting from the bony margin below
the infraorbital foramen); the levator muscle of the angle of the
mouth (_m. levator anguli oris_, starting from the fossa of the
upper maxilla); the large and small zygomatic muscles (starting
from the anterior surface of the malar bones); the risorial
muscle (_m. risorius_), the smallest of all the facial muscles,
which has its origin in the soft surface tissues (aponeurosis
parotido-masseterica); the depressor muscle of the mouth angle (_m.
depressor anguli_ _oris_, or _m. triangularis_) originating on the
lower margin of the maxilla; the depressor muscle of the lower lip
or quadratus muscle of the chin (_m. quadratus labii_ _inferioris_
or _quadratus menti_, also originating on the lower maxilla); the
levator muscle of the chin (_m. levator menti_) between the two
_musculi quadrati_, also has its origin in the lower maxilla; the
buccinator muscle, hidden beneath the preceding, has its origin
behind the molar teeth in the alveolar process of the two maxillae,
and extends horizontally, terminating in the two lips, in such a
manner that its two fasciae; partly cross, so that the upper fasciae
of the muscle starting from the mandible extend to the upper lip,
and the lower fasciae of the muscle starting from the maxilla extend
to the lower lip. Consequently the contraction of this muscle
stretches the angles of the mouth in a horizontal direction only;
it is the most voluntary of all the muscles, and plays a greater
part than the others in forced laughter; in consequence it robs
this movement of its characteristic charm.
Lastly we must note the _orbicular_ muscle of the lips (_m.
orbicularis oris_ or _sphincter oris_), which constitutes the
fleshy part of the lips and surrounds the oral aperture like a ring.
The contraction of these muscles produces antagonistic motorial
action; for instance, the orbicular muscle tends to close the mouth
into a circular orifice; the various muscles which radiate from
the corners of the mouth (especially the buccinator) tend, on the
contrary, to enlarge and stretch it in a transverse direction;
certain muscles tend to raise the mouth, and others to lower
it. Accordingly, there results a _play_ between the muscles of
expression and upon their continual antagonism depend the changing
expressions of the human countenance.
Here are a few of the principal facial expressions, described in a
masterly manner, and for the first time, by Charles Darwin:[44]
_Expression of Sorrow._--The muscles that are principally brought into
play are the superciliary, the frontal and the triangular or depressor
muscles of the lips; the eyebrows are furrowed, being drawn upward
by the action of the frontal muscle; this, however, cannot contract
completely because drawn downward laterally by the superciliary
muscles, and hence the forehead wrinkles only at its middle point and
together with the slanting eyebrows assumes a shape that suggests three
sides of a quadrilateral.
[Illustration: FIG. 121.--A six-year-old boy.]
[Illustration: FIG. 122.--The same, eleven years old.]
[Illustration: FIG. 123.--The same, sixteen years old.]
Simultaneously there is a drooping of the corners of the mouth, which,
when exaggerated in infancy, forms the characteristic and charming
_grimace_ of a child who is on the point of crying. Accordingly, sorrow
draws the frontal zone upward, and the labial zone downward; in other
words, it _lengthens_ the face.
_Expression of Pleasure._--On the contrary, _laughter_ and _happiness_
shorten the face; all the muscles are brought into play that stretch
the corners of the mouth, as well as those which raise the upper lip,
in consequence of which the upper teeth are disclosed.
The frontal zone remains in repose; excepting that there is a
contraction of the orbicular muscle of the eyelids, especially in its
lower portion; the lower lid is drawn upward and the skin is puckered
at the external angle of the eye; the lachrymal gland is compressed,
the circulation of blood stimulated, as always results from every
expression of joy, the secretion of the gland is increased, and
consequently a few tears are readily shed. The eye, grown smaller and
half hidden, shines brilliantly, because moistened from without and
irrigated from within by an abundant flow of blood.
_Expression of Various Emotions_: _Anger._--During _anger_ the
superciliary muscles prevail in exceedingly energetic action, drawing
the forehead strongly downward, wrinkling it vertically, and also
producing transverse wrinkles on the nose. In the labial zone the
orbicular muscle is intensely active, and the lips contract. When anger
endures for a long time, the condition above described diminishes in
intensity, leaving only a slight frown, while the closed lips protrude
in tubular form. An expression usually described by the terms, to
_sulk_ or _pout_.
This is the way in which little children express their displeasure; and
the pouting lips sometimes rise clear to the tip of the little nose, in
sign of proud defiance. This form of grimace is common to the children
of every race: it has been observed in the children of Hottentots and
Chinese, as a sign of prolonged anger and ill humor.
Hence the contraction of the mouth is a characteristic sign of anger;
and when the emotion is very strong, even the masticatory muscles may
enter into play, causing a _grinding of the teeth_.
_Surprise._--In _surprise_, on the contrary, the entire labial zone is
in repose, and there is complete and free contraction of one muscle
alone, the frontal; consequently it produces longitudinal lines across
the entire forehead, uplifting the eyebrows, which passively follow the
elevation produced by the frontal muscle, forming two arches around
which the wrinkles of the forehead form themselves in parallel lines.
The eyes in consequence are stretched to their widest. The oral zone is
so far relaxed that the lower jaw droops in obedience to gravity and
the mouth gapes open: _bouche beanie_. Sometimes a less intense degree
of surprise fails to do away with the contraction of the orbicular
muscle of the lips, which, without being actively contracted, but
simply because relieved from the interference of antagonistic muscles,
closes the mouth in a rounded or tubular aperture.
This same facial expression, which is a very striking one, exists in
all races.
When children are still too young to contract the frontal muscle
completely, they show surprise by a gaping mouth, and a puckering of
the entire forehead, in place of the transverse furrows.
_Expression of Thought._--In addition to the expressions of the
emotions, the authorities describe those due to thought, and give
special consideration to the expression of _external_ or sensory
_attention_, and _internal attention_ (reflection, meditation). The
young child is capable of intense sensorial attention, which is
manifested especially in visual attention.
I have been able to make many observations in the "Children's Houses,"
where children two or three years old take part in games that demand
attention, comparison, and the exercise of reason, without tiring their
minds or encountering any great difficulty. These children wrinkle
their foreheads and hold their mouths slightly open.
This is the expression also noted by Darwin, and the one which
notoriously produces those vertical lines in the middle of the
forehead, known as the _lines of thought_.
When these children are obliged to make an effort of thought or when
they are for any reason troubled and anxious, slight contractions pass
across their foreheads, like a continuous succession of broken shadows
(Darwin).[45]
It should be noted that in any case a contraction of the eyebrows
during intellectual work denotes _effort_, a _difficulty_ to be
overcome. Pure thought, by itself alone, produces no such contractions.
The contemplative man, absorbed in profound meditation, shows a face
overspread with serenity, due to muscular repose; the gaze is fixed
upon the void, and the head, as though no longer sustained by the
relaxed muscles, is inclined forward.
If his eyes retain steadfastly the same original direction, even after
the body has dropped forward, they give the impression of being turned
on high. Such is the expression of the man sunk in profound thought, so
long as his thought follows an uninterrupted course.
But when a difficulty arises, see how he begins to knit his brow. It is
the difficulty which has arisen, and not the course of his thoughts,
that has produced this muscular reaction.
The movement is similar to what occurs in the case of any difficulty to
overcome, as, for instance, the threading of a needle.
Consequently the wrinkles of thought are the wrinkles of the _fatigue
of thought_.
The mystics, who are purely contemplative thinkers, and not solvers
of difficulties, have a forehead without lines. Similarly in art,
the faces of the Madonna or of the Saints have an intense expression
of thought in their gaze, but the serene countenance shows neither
contractions nor lines.
De Sanctis[46] has made some interesting observations regarding the
facial expression of the mentally deficient. They have a singular
difficulty in contracting the frontal muscle even at the age of
eleven or twelve years; even when urged by example and command,
they frequently do not succeed in contracting the forehead. Labial
expression, on the other hand, is much more developed, and frequently
attention is indicated by a contraction of the orbicular muscle of the
lips into a circle; and surprise is shown in the same way.
In general, however, what characterises the face of the imbecile, the
idiot, the epileptic, is its _immobility_: hypomimia or amimia.
There are, however, frequent cases of cerebrophlegia (a progressive
malady of the brain occurring during the early years of childhood),
in which exaggerated contractions of the face occur as the result of
the least mental effort. The French give the name of _grimaciers_
to children who show such symptoms; from pathological causes they
exhibit a hypermimia that transforms their facial expressions into
grimaces. Furthermore, there are certain degenerate children in whom
the muscular reactions do not correspond to the normal expression
of their feelings; for example, they exhibit sorrow when they mean
to show attention, etc. In such cases the play of the opposite and
contradictory facial muscles has become perverted: _dismimia_.
One of the most frequent occurrences among the abnormal is asymmetry of
the facial expressions; the muscles contract more on one side of the
face than on the other. This symptom, however, in a mild degree, is met
with also in normal persons.
From what has been said, it is evident that for the examination of
the face we must depend, if not exclusively, at least far more upon
anthroposcopy than upon anthropometry; and since the minute description
required is too difficult and too lengthy a task, especially as
regards the _facial expressions_ (which are so characteristic of the
individual) it is necessary in pedagogic anthropology to resort to
photography.
The instantaneous photograph, in all progressive countries, is already
within the reach of mothers. It ought also to form part of the
equipment of our schools.
THE NECK
The neck is a part which is anatomically of much importance, but not
of equal importance from the anthropological side. The skeleton of the
neck is formed of the seven cervical vertebrae. Notwithstanding that in
all the higher vertebrates the neck is constituted of the same number
of vertebrae, it can assume the most varied dimensions, all the way from
the giraffe to the whale. Similarly, at the different ages of man it is
at one time barely indicated and almost wanting altogether, as in the
new-born child, and again long and flexible, as in the lovely women of
some of the higher races.
Godin has observed that the maximum increase of the neck takes place
between the fourteenth and sixteenth year, _i.e._, at the epoch of
puberty; but at the fourteenth year it undergoes such a rapid increase
that it surpasses proportionally the puberal increase of the total
stature.
This is shown in the following table:
PROPORTION OF LENGTH OF NECK TO THE STATURE REDUCED TO 100
Age in years: 13-1/2 14 14-1/2 15 15-1/2 16 16-1/2 17 17-1/2
Proportions: 10 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Consequently the proportion between neck and stature is a datum that
tends strongly to remain a _fixed_ quantity. The result, however, is
different if we study the proportion between the neck and the vertebral
column as a whole.
PROPORTION OF LENGTH OF NECK TO THE TRUNK REDUCED TO 100
Age in years: 13-1/2 14 14-1/2 15 15-1/2 16 16-1/2 17 17-1/2
Proportions: 34 35 34 35 35 35 35 35 34
Accordingly it is about one-third of the trunk.
The circumference of the neck is also taken, for it shows whether the
neck is _slender_ or _thick_; and this often bears a relation to the
degree of development of the thyroid gland.
In my work upon the women of Latium I have shown that the small, dark
women have a longer and more flexible neck than those who are fair
and of tall stature. Therefore this is a racial difference, similar
to the difference we have already noted for _types of stature_. The
macrosceles have a long and slender neck, and the opposite is found
in the case of the brachysceles; consequently, a very long neck is an
indication of a weak constitution.
FOOTNOTES:
[36] See the application to pathological surgery of this
anatomo-physiological condition of the cranium, as given by Tillaux,
_Anatomia topografica_.
[37] Broca gives, not as mean averages, but as extreme limits, 70.0 for
dolichocephalics (Tasmanians) and 90 for brachycephalics (natives of
the Sandwich Islands).
[38] BONNIFAY, _On the development of the Head from the point of view
of cephalometrical_ _measurements taken after birth_. Thesis, Lyons,
1897.
[39] MONTESSORI, _Sui caratteri antropometrici in relazione alle
gerarchie dei fanciulli nelle_ _scuole_, p. 51. ("Anthropometric
characteristics in relation to the grading of children in schools").
[40] LOMBROSO (who died while this book was in press) defended the
principle of the innate inferiority of woman and regarded her, in
comparison with man, as a case of infantile arrest of development.
[41] The above elucidation and illustrations of the face are taken from
MANOUVRIER, _Cephalometrie Anthropologique_.
[42] From THULIE, _Le Dressage des jeunes degeneres_, page 633.
[43] BINET, _Le croissance du crane et de la face chez les normaux
entre 4 et 18 ans_.
[44] CHARLES DARWIN, _The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals_.
[45] CHARLES DARWIN, _Op. cit._
[46] SANTE DE SANCTIS, _La Mimica del Pensiero_ (The Expression of
Thought).