Pedagogical Anthropology - English Restoration ## Chapter 02 - Craniology Having finished the study of general biological questions and of the body considered in its *entirety*, we may now pass on to analyse its separate parts, treating in connection with each of such parts the social and pedagogic questions which may pertain to it. The *parts* of the body which we shall take under consideration are: the *head*, the *thorax*, the *pelvis* and the *limbs*. *The Head.*—When we pass from the body as a whole to a more particularised study of the separate parts, it is proper to begin with the head because it is the most important part of the whole body. The older anthropology, and biological and criminal anthropology as well were very largely built up from a study of the head; a study so vast and important that it has come to constitute a separate branch of science: *craniology*. The fact is that the characteristics manifested by the cranium are chiefly in the nature of *mutations* rather than *variations*, and consequently the anthropological data relating to the cranium correspond more directly to the characteristics of the species, or in the case of man, to the characteristics of race. Hence they are of special interest to the general study of anthropology. But when these imitative characteristics, which are naturally constant and have a purely biological origin, undergo *alterations*, they are to be explained, not as variations, but as *pathological deviations*; and for this reason criminal anthropology has drawn a very large part of its means of diagnosis of *anomalies* and of *degeneration* from malformations of the cranium. Furthermore, the cranium together with the vertebral column represents not only the characteristics of species, but also those of the *genus*; in fact, it corresponds to the cerebro-spinal axis, which is the *least variable* part of the body throughout the whole series of vertebrates; just as, on the contrary, the *limbs* represent the *most variable* part. Indeed, if we study separately the cranio-vertebral system and the limbs, through the whole series of vertebrates, we shall discover *gradual* alterations in the former, and sudden wide alterations in the latter. The cerebro-spinal axis (and hence the cranio-vertebral system) shows from species to species certain progressive differences that suggest the idea of a gradual sequence of modifications (from the amphioxus to man) to which we could apply the principle, *Natura non facit saltus*: while the limbs on the contrary, even though they preserve certain obvious analogies to the fundamental anatomic formation of the skeleton, undergo profound modifications—being reduced in certain reptiles to mere rudimentary organs, developing into the wing of the bird, the flying membrane of the bat, and the hand of man. Since it is not only a characteristic of species and race, but of *genus* as well, the cranium constitutes one of the most *constant* anatomical features. For the same reason it is less subject to *variations due to environment*, and from this point of view offers slight interest to pedagogic anthropology. But since the cranium contains the organ on which the psychic manifestations depend, we have a deep interest in knowing its human characteristics, its *phases of development*, and its normal limits. ### Head and Cranium The term *Head* is applied to the living man; the *Cranium*, from which this branch of science takes its name, is the *skeleton of the* *head*. The cranium is composed of two parts, which may be virtually separated, in the lateral projection, by a straight line passing through the external orbital apophysis and extending to the auricular foramen, thus separating the facial from the cerebral portion of the cranium. Hence the *cranium* is the skeleton of the head in its entirety, and is divisible into the *cerebral cranium* and the *facial cranium*. *The Cranium.*—The cranium is a complex union of a number of flat, curved bones united together by means of certain very complicated arborescent sutures, and forming a hollow osseous cavity of rounded form. I will briefly indicate the bones which form its external contour. On the anterior part is the *frontal* bone, terminated by the suture which unites it to the two parietal bones: the *coronal suture*; while the two parietal bones are joined together by the *median* or *sagittal suture*, which forms a sort of *T* with the other suture. On the posterior side is the *occipital bone*, which is also joined to the two parietal bones, by means of the occipital or *lambdoidal* suture. Below the two parietal bones, in a lateral direction, are the *two temporal bones*; and between the temporal and parietal bones are situated the *great wings of the sphenoid*. The main body of the sphenoid is at the base of the cranium. Besides these there is another, internal bone, the *ethmoid*. *The Face.*—The skeleton of the face is composed of fourteen bones; some of these are external and lend themselves to measurement; others which are internal and hidden contribute to the completion of the delicate scaffolding of this most important portion of the skeleton. The principal bones of the face are: the two *zygomatic* *bones* (articulating with the temporal, frontal and maxillary bones); the two nasal bones (articulating with the frontal and with the ascending branch of the maxillary, and uniting above to form the bridge of the nose; this is a bone of great importance in anthropology, because it determines the naso-frontal angle and the formation of the nose); the two upper maxillary bones, or upper jaw (articulating together in front to form the subnasal region; laterally with the zygomatic bones; above with the nasal bones; internally with each other, to form the palate, and posteriorly with the palatine bones); the *mandible* or lower jaw (a single bone, and the only movable bone in the cranium), articulating with the temporal bones by means of a condyle, and the separate parts of which are distinguished as the *body of the mandible* and the *ascendant branches*, which are united to the cranium.  Fig. 39.—Note the line of division between the cerebral and facial cranium; in addition to this the sutures are shown which divide the frontal, parietal, occipital and temporal bones. PD. Coronal Suture; DL. Sagittal Suture; AL. Lambdoidal Suture. The bones of lesser importance, which are interior and hidden are: the two *lacrymal* bones (situated at the inner angle of the orbitary cavity), the *vomer* or osseous septum of the nose; the two bones in the nose which lie on each side of the vomer and are known as the *turbinated bones* (*concha nasalis*); and the two palate bones (which form the backward continuation of the palatine vault constituted by the maxillary bones). *Human Cranium and Animal Cranium.*—The dividing line between the cerebral and facial cranium is of great importance in anthropology, because the relative proportions between these two parts of the cranium form a human characteristic, contrasting widely with the animal characteristics; and they offer a simple criterion for determining the higher or lower type of the human cranium. (Compare in this connection Fig. 40, skulls of the higher mammals and of man.)  Fig. 40. The illustration represents a number of different animal skulls; and at the top are two human skulls, the one of an Australian and the other of a European. It will be seen that the proportions between the facial and cerebral portions are very different; in the animals, even in the higher orders such as the *primates* (orang-utan, gorilla, etc.), the *facial* and *masticatory* parts predominate over the cerebral. One might even say that the skeleton gives us at a glance the characteristic psychological difference; the animal *eats*, man *thinks*; that is, the animal is destined only to vegetate, to feed itself; man is an entirely different species; he has a very different task before him; he is the *creative being*, who, through thought and labour, is destined to subjugate and transform the world. There are still other characteristic differences between the animal and the human skull. The cerebral cranium of the ape is not only smaller but it is furnished with strong bony ridges, to serve as points of attachment for powerful muscles intended to protect the cranial cavity. The human skull is completely devoid of such ridges; it is perfectly smooth, with delicate contours; it might be described as "frail and naked"; for the word nakedness precisely expresses the *absence* of those defences with which the cranium of the anthropoid ape is so abundantly provided. Accordingly, the human cranium is *undefended* by soft tissues; and even the bony walls themselves are far from thick. If we take a transverse section of the bones of the cranium, we find that they are formed of two very thin layers of bone united by a porous, osseous substance; the external layer is in direct contact with the muscles of the scalp, and the internal layer with the brain. These two layers differ widely in their degree of elasticity: the external layer is so elastic that if it receives a bruising blow (provided this is not so heavy as to surpass its limits of elasticity) it will yield even to the point of touching the inner layer and then spring back to its original position without leaving any perceptible trace of the blow received (this is especially true in the case of infants),[\[36\]](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46643/46643-h/46643-h.htm#Footnote_36_36) while the inner layer is so unelastic as to appear almost as brittle as *glass*: so much so, for example, that the indirect shock of the same contusion may cause it to splinter into fragments, which may either penetrate the substance of the brain, or produce hemorrhages, or inflammatory reactions in the meninges—and sometimes may constitute the sole cause of epilepsy, and various forms of inflammation of the brain (even resulting in idiocy), and sometimes of meningitis and death. Contusions on the heads of children, and in general blows resulting from falls or other causes, must be taken into serious consideration, in the history of the individual, even though they have left no profound traces *externally*. This human characteristic of nakedness, of the *absence* of powerful bodily defences, is not limited to the head alone, but is diffused over the entire morphological organism. Man, considered as an animal, is weak; he is born naked and he remains naked, and destitute of those natural defences which explain the endurance and the survival of other species; neither the fur nor the plumage of mammals and of birds nor the bony shields of reptiles and scales of fishes serve as defences for this vertebrate, who has raised himself to the highest eminence in the zoological scale; neither the muscular strength and powerful teeth of the felines, nor the talons of the birds of prey have been his arms of conquest. Nevertheless, man who has conquered the earth and overcome all his powerful biological enemies, owes his survival, equally with all other living creatures, to his victory over other animals and over his environment. Wherein lies the special strength of this little, feeble being, who has become the lord of the earth? It lies in his brain. The arms of this conqueror are wholly psychic. It is his intelligence which has prevailed over the might of other animals and enabled him to acquire the means of adapting himself to his environment, or else of adapting his environment to himself. His intelligence, which sufficed him as a weapon with which to achieve victory in the struggle for existence, is also the means which still permits him to continue on the road toward self-perfectionment. The morphological importance attached by anthropologists to the cerebral cranium depends precisely upon this: that it is the envelope of the *brain*. If we examine the interior of the human cerebral cranium, we find that it has adapted its bony contours so faithfully to those of the soft tissues that it bears the imprint of the various parts of the brain (cerebrum, cerebellum), the convolutions, and even the blood-vessels of the meninges. Accordingly, a study of the cerebral cranium amounts to an indirect study of the brain itself. *Characteristics of the Human Cranium.*—The characteristics of the human cranium are all associated with the great development of the volume of the brain. Let us assume that we have an elastic vessel, representing in form an animal cranium, open at the base through an orifice corresponding to the occipital foramen. If we inflate this vessel, it will not only begin to enlarge at the expense Of its folds (ridges), and to stretch and distend its walls (thinness and fragility of the cranial bones); but furthermore it will undergo a change in form, acquiring a more pronounced rotundity and *pushing upward* in its anterior part above the face. This part, rising erect above the face, and determined by the volume of the brain, is the *forehead*. Animals do not have an erect forehead; their orbits continue backward in an almost horizontal line, giving them an extremely receding brow. Corresponding to this preponderance of the cerebral portion, the facial portion *retires* below the brow, the mandibles do not extend beyond the anterior axis of the brain, and are so far diminished in volume that they assume, as compared with animals, a new function; in short, the mouth is no longer merely the organ of mastication, but also the organ of speech; its animal part has been spiritualised. *The Evolution of the Forehead.—Inferior Skull Caps; the Skull* *of the Pithecanthropus; the Skull of the Neanderthal Man.* The forehead is so distinctly a human characteristic that mankind has not needed the help of anthropology in order to realise its importance—and as a sign of superiority, nobility or sovereignty, has placed upon the forehead the crown of laurel, or the crown of nobility or kingship. Has the forehead always been a human characteristic, or have we acquired it little by little? Such a problem is associated with the evolution of the brain. There are in existence certain remains of the skeletons of primitive men, which show them to have possessed a cerebral cranium inferior in volume to that now attained by the human species; and in these remains the forehead is also profoundly different from that of to-day, in that it is much lower and slants backward, while the supraorbital arches are very prominent. Such is the evidence of the "cranial caps," discovered in the early geological strata. In the tertiary strata of the island of Java, which in that remote epoch of the earth's history must, together with Sumatra, have formed part of the continent of Asia, which is considered as the "laboratory of races," a skull was found by Dubois which raised the problem whether it should be classed as that of an ape superior to those now existing, or of a primitive man. Prior to this discovery, it had been maintained that man did not make his appearance until the quaternary period. This supposed primitive man was called by his discoverer the Pithecanthropus, *pithecanthropus* *erectus*. Remains that are unquestionably human occur in the quaternary period, in which however skeletons are very rare, as compared with relics of human labour or social life, relics which are found scattered everywhere throughout Asia and Europe as well (chipped flints). The various remains of skeletons show us skulls much inferior to those of modern man, but superior to that of the pithecanthropus. In treatises of general anthropology reproductions are given of human crania known as the Spy or Neanderthal type, belonging to the epoch when the gigantic mammoth still roamed the earth. The forehead is very low and receding and the orbital arches are enormously developed; while the cerebral capacity calculated from the cranial dimensions is inferior to that of modern man. Consequently, as the brain increases in volume in the course of the revolution of the race, the cranium not only shows a corresponding volumetric increase, but at the same time *alters its form*, thus producing the *forehead* which little by little rises from a receding to an erect position, and becomes high where it was formerly low, while at the same time the prominent orbital arches disappear. Accordingly, we may consider the forehead as the *skeletal* *index* of the cerebral volume, and hence of the relative anthropological and intellectual superiority. In addition to its above-mentioned value, it also furnishes us with a biological principle of much importance: the relation *between* *the volume and form* of the cranium. While the volume has a significance that is *relative* to the mass of the body, the significance of the form is *absolute*. Let us examine these two skulls: normal human skulls of our own epoch; one of the Celtic race (Fig. 46) and the other Sardinian (Fig. 43); that of the Celtic race is much larger and rounder; that of the Sardinian is very much smaller and more elongated. If we were considering only the *volume*, we might say that it was simply a case of a *microcephalic* and a *macrocephalic*: two terms (microcephaly and macrocephaly) that fall within the province of pathology. On the contrary, these two skulls are normal, but they belonged to individuals characterized by differences of race; the one (small skull) having a low stature; the other (large skull) having a tall stature. The volume of the head therefore bears a relation to that of the body; the volume has a *relative* significance. But the form in both of them reveals a state of normality; the two skulls have a high and erect forehead, and exhibit in their whole contour a fine and regular development. Therefore the *form* has an *absolute* significance. It even proves to us the *normality* of the volume, a fact which could not be determined by the volume alone. Another mechanical correspondence between volume and form is disclosed when we compare the skull of a new-born child with that of an adult. The skull of the new-born child is much smaller in volume; but the form shows the relatively enormous volumetric development of the brain; in fact the skull is protuberant and the forehead bulges forward above the face (*front bombé*), while corresponding to this index of cerebral development is the enormous preponderance of the cerebral cranium over the facial cranium, which is so small as to be almost reduced to a simple rudiment. Hence the form by itself alone reveals the infantile character of the cerebral volume, which, in relation to the bulk of the body is of far greater dimensions than in the adult. In fact, if a child simply increased in volume and its growth was not the sum total of a morphological evolution, the adult man would become a monster; his macrocephaly would be so exaggerated that his neck could not sustain the weight of the head (If the relations between the proportions in infancy were maintained through life the adult man would have a head with a perimeter of 130 centimetres, = 4 ft. 3 in.). Aside from its mechanical relations to the volume, the *form* has characteristics dependent upon biological factors, such as the *sex* and the *race*. The female cranium in fact has a straighter forehead than the male and the orbital arches are absolutely wanting, while the entire surface of the cranium is smoother and more rounded. Similarly, the different races exhibit *forms* determined by biological factors and not by mechanical causes—for instance, the degree of dolichocephaly (elongated cranium) and of brachycephaly (short cranium). Hence the form is life's manifestation not only of the characteristics proper to the species, but also of the mechanical adaptations demanded by the material composing the body. It may be said that the *volume* and the *form* of the cranium are dependent upon two different biological potentialities: the volume is mainly determined by the cerebral mass; the form, on the contrary, is mainly determined by the bony structure—no matter how completely form and volume coincide in their reciprocal mechanical relations. That is, the attainment of a given volume of head depends upon the development of the brain; the bone follows this development passively, is the index of it, the skeletal representation of it, but never the determining factor. At one time it was thought, on the contrary, that a precocious ossification of the cranial cavity would arrest the development of the brain; *microcephaly* was believed to be caused by a precocious closing of the sutures of the cranial bones; and there was a certain period when the surgical treatment of microcephaly consisted in the removal of a portion of the cranial bone, in order to allow the brain to develop freely.  Fig. 41. Fig. 42. Dividing line in human skull, as compared with that of gorilla.  Fig. 43.—Rounded ellipsoidal cranium.  Fig. 44.—Brachycephalic cranium (vertical norm)  Fig. 45.—Remains of spy cranium.  Fig. 46.—Brachycephalic cranium.  Fig. 47.—Egyptian cranium, 21st dynasty, ovoid type.  Fig. 48.—Dolichocephalic cranium, from lateral norm. But the failure of such attempts afforded additional proof of the fact that the volumetric development of the cranium depends upon the brain alone. If a precocious or abnormal suture occurs in the cranial bones, there does not follow an arrest of development, but simply a *malformation*; which is precisely in proportion to the potentiality of the brain, which grows less where the suture has been formed, and in compensation grows more than normally where the conditions of the bones permit of cerebral expansion; and a deformity results. Microcephaly on the contrary shows inferiority of form (smallness, receding forehead, etc.), but not *malformation*. *Anomaly of form*, therefore, results only from anomaly of skeletal development, and is frequently found in conjunction with a *normal development of the brain*. Consequently *malformations* of the cranium do not have the grave significance of biological inferiority or of degeneration that they were at one time believed to have; but frequently they must be considered in connection with pathological conditions resulting for the most part in delayed development in the embryo or in early infancy, producing a thickening of the bone, or a partial suturation of the points, or parts, or of the entire suture (punctiform synostosis, partial or total); sometimes the sutures remain unaltered, and the deformation must be attributed to various disturbances connected with the nutrition of the skeleton in the course of intrauterine evolution (hereditary syphilis, denutrition of the mother during pregnancy, etc.). In short, a cranium that is abnormal in form is an indication of pathological occurrences or of physiological errors that have resulted in altering the normal growth of the individual. There are many anomalies in the form of the cranium, but here we will cite only the two principal ones, because they are the most frequent and most likely to be encountered in individuals whose growth has been retarded (from lack of nutrition) and consequently constitute signs of physiological inferiority often associated with social caste. These two forms are: scaphocephaly and plagiocephaly. The scaphocephalic cranium (Figs. 51, 52), is characterised by being very narrow and flattened laterally; while the forehead and the occiput project in front and behind, the two parietal bones meet above almost in an angle, so that, if it were turned upside down, the vault of the cranium would have the appearance of the hull of a ship. The *plagiocephalic* cranium is a cranium which is unsymmetrical in respect to its longitudinal axis; that is, it is not equally developed on the right and on the left. As a matter of fact, our bilateral symmetry is an ideal standard rather than an absolutely attainable reality; we are all of us a little larger on one side and a little smaller on the other, but to so slight a degree as to escape superficial observation, so that in general we have *apparently* a bilateral symmetry—that is, we appear to be symmetrical according to the testimony of our senses; but a more delicate examination proves that this is not true. Plagiocephaly therefore represents an exaggerated case of a normal fact. Plagiocephaly may be simple or compound; it is simple when the asymmetry is partial; namely, when it is confined to the anterior or posterior portion; it is compound when it is total; and in such case we find a complete diagonal correspondence: for instance, if the right nodule in the frontal region is more prominent, the left nodule is more prominent in the left occipital region, or *vice versa*. In general it may be said that the various forms of *plagiocephaly* are produced by asymmetry of the *nodules* or of the *flattened* surfaces of the cranium. Even in the case of *microcephaly* and of *macrocephaly*, which are substantially anomalies of *volume*, we find corresponding characteristic abnormalities of form. The microcephalic cranium is of inferior type, suggesting that of the ape—in other words, it is a cranium which has mechanically adapted itself to a brain of inferior volume: the macrocephalic cranium, especially if the abnormality is due to *rickets* or to *hydrocephaly*, calls to mind the infantile type of cranium; it has the characteristic bulging forehead, while mechanical adaptation frequently renders it very round (pathological brachycephaly). We will take up this question again when we come to speak in particular of *malformations* and to describe the technical methods of cranioscopy. What more particularly concerns us now is a consideration of the *normal* form of the cranium and its morphological evolution.  Fig. 49.—Cranium of new-born child (lateral norm).  Fig. 50.—Cranium of new-born child (vertical norm).  Fig. 51. Fig. 52. **Scaphocephalic cranium.**  Fig. 53.—Cranium of new-born child seen from above, showing polyhedric contour due to nodules of ossification; fontanelle of the bregma; and suture dividing the two frontal bones.  Fig. 54.—Ellipsoides (classified by Sergi). **The Morphological Evolution of the Cranium through the** **Different Periods of Life.** *Embryogeny. Order of Appearance of* *the Points of Ossification and of Synostosis of the Sutures.*—In its successive transitions through the different periods of life, the cranium not only acquires successively greater volume, but it assumes forms corresponding to the different grades of morphological evolution. We may group its transformation under five different periods: 1. from conception until birth (embryonic evolution); 2. from birth until the end of the third year (infantile evolution); 3. from three years old until twenty (youthful evolution); 4. from twenty to forty (adult age); 5. from forty to the end of life (involution). *First Period.*—In the earliest stages of intrauterine life the cranium consists of a membranous skin, enclosing the primitive cells of nerve tissue constituting the brain; it has a cartilaginous basal part, destined later to form the *base* of the skull (basioccipital and basisphenoid bones). But all the rest (the vault or cap of the cranium) remains in a membranous state, so that at this period the head of the embryo has not yet acquired a definite form.  Fig. 55.—Cranium of new-born child. Showing nodules and fontanelles. In the second month of intrauterine life the phenomena of ossification have already begun to take place; that is, a fine network has formed, spreading over almost the entire surface, which proceeds to fill up its interstices with calcareous salts. This process, however, is more rapid and more intense at certain points (points of ossification), from which it cannot properly be said that the ossification *radiates*, but rather that at these points the general process is intensified and concentrated. There are five principal points of ossification: two frontal, two parietal and one occipital, which appear clearly defined and projecting like nodules, imparting to the cranium, when seen from above, a pentagonal form, which is the normal form of the infant cranium. *Second Period.*—At birth the cranium has not yet completed the process of ossification, nor are the normal number of bones that will eventually compose the adult cranium, as yet definitely determined. Therefore the cranium of the new-born child has three distinct characteristics: 1. It is not yet uniformly rounded, but polyhedral because of the noticeable prominence of the five primitive nodules or centres of ossification (2 frontal, 2 parietal, 1 occipital, Figs. 53, 55). 2. Since the process of ossification of the bones is not yet completed, certain membranous portions or *cranial fontanelles* still remain, which are especially wide at the points where several bones meet. The principal fontanelle is that of the bregma (at the juncture of the two frontal with the two parietal bones, quadrangular). Next comes that of the lambda, which is much smaller (juncture of the two parietal bones with the occipital, triangular), and lastly the fontanelles of the asterion and the pterion, on opposite sides of the temporal bones, the former being situated behind and the latter in front. 3. Since the process of ossification is incomplete, the fusion of bony portions into entire bones, such as they are destined to be when complete development is reached, has not yet been accomplished; that is to say, certain bones of the cranium are still divided into several portions. For example, the frontal bone in the new-born child is composed of two bones, separated by a longitudinal suture that is destined to disappear, and the occipital bone is composed of four parts, namely, the base, the squama and the two condyles (basioccipital, exoccipital and superoccipital bones). During the first period of three years, while the brain is increasing notably and rapidly in volume, the cranium undergoes various and interesting transformations. The pentagonal form of the cranium tends steadily to become rounder, because the primitive nodules are diminishing, or even disappear, although in this regard many individual varieties result; and the processes of ossification reach their completion. This is the most important period of growth, during which the individual development of the perfect cranial form may be attained, provided the rhythm of growth between the brain and its envelope remains harmonious; or again, certain deformations may be definitely established, owing to the intervention of some pathological condition or a disturbance of nutrition, altering either the internal volume or the normal process of ossification of the bony covering. The first closing of the fontanelles takes place, in our race, in those of the asterion (posterior to the temporal bones), and next in those of the pterion; and it sometimes happens, as an anomaly of growth that leaves no external trace in the living man, that a little bone is formed, duplicating the shape of the fontanelle itself; such little bones, very common in abnormal crania, are called *Wormian* *bones*. They may occur in connection with any of the fontanelles, but especially with that of the bregma.  Fig. 56.—Cranium of adult with abnormal medio-frontal suture. The fontanelle of the lambda generally closes during the first year; and the last of all the fontanelles to close is the largest, which is situated toward the front of the head, at the *bregma*, and is well known, even by the common people, and can easily be felt upon a child's head; it generally closes toward the end of the second year; and its characteristics may furnish valuable indications of abnormality or insufficiency of the child's development. For example, if it diminishes and disappears ahead of time, this may constitute the first symptom of *microcephaly*, or at all events, of submicrocephaly (*i.e.*, a case of microcephaly that is not very pronounced). On the contrary, when this fontanelle remains dilated and delays its normal closing, this is a sign of organic weakness and debilitating disease (cachexia, rickets, myxedema). Furthermore, the fontanelle in question may alter its characteristic appearance in certain forms of sickness. In the case of hydrocephaly it becomes distended, while in enteritis, on the contrary, in which the organism parts with a large proportion of liquid, it becomes depressed. The *sutures* also undergo notable changes during this period of life. The first to become effaced is the metopic or medio-frontal suture, which is destined to close and form a single bone; by the end of the first year it is obliterated throughout the middle third of its length, and thereafter the process of suturation spreads upward and downward until it is completed at the end of the second year (Welcker, Haeckel, Humphry). Sometimes, however, this suture is not obliterated until very late, and there are anomalous cases where it has remained throughout life, giving the forehead a characteristic form (pronounced frontal nodules and a slight palpable furrow along the medial line of the forehead). During this same time a fusion has also taken place between the occipital squama and the two lateral or condyloid portions; but the resultant whole still remains separated from the *corpus* or *base* of the occipital bone, which will not become welded into one solid piece with the rest before the age of seven years. At the age of three, the ossification of the cranial vault has been completed. In place of being depressed and protuberant, as it was at birth, the cranium has grown upward and forward in the frontal region, assuming an almost definitive form; the volume of the cranium has at the same time undergone an exceedingly rapid growth, attaining proportions very near to those of an adult. From the age of three onward the head grows slowly, and its transformations are much slighter and fewer. The cranial capacity which at birth is 415 cubic centimetres, becomes at the age of three, 1,200, at the age of fifteen, 1,393, and in the adult, 1,400 cu. cm. respectively. Accordingly we might say that at the age of three a sort of repose has been established in the growth both of the the brain and of the cranium; this is the age at which an awakening begins in the child of that intelligence which is to put him in touch with the external world, and it is also the age at which he may begin his education in school. *Third Period.*—There follows a slow and parallel growth of both brain and cranium. The ossification of the cranium itself reaches completion. At the age of seven the occipital is definitely solidified into a single bone and between the years of fifteen and twenty the body of the sphenoid also becomes welded to the occiput. This process of synostosis begins from the interior of the cranium, and only subsequently manifests itself externally. Consequently, the basilar suture closes at the time when the last large molars, the so-called "wisdom teeth," appear. After this period, the base of the cranium can no longer undergo any sort of growth, and in the case of uneducated persons the complete development of the cranium is definitely accomplished. *Fourth Period.*—But in the case of cultured persons, those who form the class of brain-workers, the brain continues to grow, although extremely slowly, up to the age of thirty-five or even forty, thanks to the sutures which still remain completely intact and which still make an expansion of the bony envelope possible. After this comes the beginning of the *Fifth Period.*—The period of involution, during which the synostosis (closing) of all the cranial sutures will successively occur, until in advanced old age the cranium becomes composed of a single bone, just as in the embryo it was formed of a single membrane. The synostoses which occurred in the early periods had an evolutive significance and were associated with the growth of the body and the intelligence. These later synostoses, on the contrary, have an involutive significance and are associated with the physiological decay of the organism and at the same time with that of the psychic activities. The first point at which synostosis takes place is in the region of the obelion, that is, near the middle of the suture which, unites the two parietal bones; shortly afterward, the fronto-parietal sutures begin to unite along the pterion. At the age of forty-five, the obeliac synostosis has progressed as far as the lambda, and that of the fronto-parietal suture to the bregma; and at fifty the ossification is very nearly accomplished, at least on the right-hand side (according to Broca's series of crania). At seventy the squama of the temporal bone unites with the parietal, and at eighty the entire cranium has become a single bone. These processes are subject to no small number of individual variations; there have been cases of persons who, although very old, still preserved many of their cranial sutures intact and their psychic activities remained correspondingly alert (men of genius). Conversely, the closing of the sutures sometimes begins as early as the thirty-fifth year. A diagnosis of age, as determined by the skeleton, is consequently only approximate. During the periods of growth the cranium may exhibit transitory anomalies; it is very common to encounter in the heads of children of the lower social classes, who are consequently subject to denutrition, *malformations* which represent various degrees and forms of *plagiocephaly*, and which subsequently disappear completely, as the development of the cranium advances. Anomalies of form must therefore be judged differently in the case of the child than in that of the adult. It may even happen that the five primitive nodules persist for a long time and even remain as a definitive form of the adult cranium constituting, according to Sergi, a distinct variety, the *pentagonal* cranium. But this is quite rare. From the frequency with which this form is to be observed in schools attended by children of the poorer classes, it is better to regard it as due to a delay in morphological evolution, which will probably disappear later on. ### Normal Forms of the Cranium We are indebted to Sergi for an exact knowledge of the *normal* *forms* of the cranium. Such forms are racial characteristics and are *invariable*, as Sergi has succeeded in proving by a comparison of the most ancient forms of the cranium with recent forms. Accordingly this authority takes the cranial formation as the basis for his classification of races. We have no direct interest, so far as concerns the special scope of our own science, in the value of this theory of classification—a theory, by the way, already divined, although very imperfectly and under a different form, by French and German anthropologists. Sergi's studies of cranial forms interest us solely as a diagnostic test of *normality* as compared with *abnormality*. For it is due to these researches that certain forms that used to be considered pathological, have come to be recognised as normal. The *normal forms* of the cranium may be grouped, according to Sergi, under nine primary varieties, each of which includes *sub-varieties*. These nine varieties are named as follows: I. Ellipsoid; II. Ovoid; III. Pentagonoid; IV. Rhomboid; V. Beloid; VI. Cuboid; VII. Sphenoid; VIII. Spheroid; IX. Platycephalic.  Fig. 57.—*Ellipsoides depressus* cranium. I. *Ellipsoid* (Fig. 58).—This form is recognised by inspecting the cranium according to the vertical norm (see in the chapter on *Technique* the method of cranioscopy). The cranial contour recalls an ellipse in which no trace of the nodules remains, and in which the occiput is not in the least flattened; while the anterior half of the cranium closely corresponds to the posterior half. The sub-varieties are differentiated by their greater breadth and length, by the form and protrusion of the occiput, and also by the height of the cranium measured vertically.  Fig. 58.—Ellipsoid cranium.  Fig. 59.—Ovoid cranium. Accordingly, the sub-varieties have a binominal nomenclature indicating, in addition to the fundamental characteristic (variety) the qualitative characteristic of the sub-variety (*e.g., ellipsoids* *depressus*; compare Fig. 57, showing a cranium seen laterally). II. *Ovoid.*—This form of cranium, seen from above, is that of an ovoid, with the broader portion corresponding to the parietal bones, at the point where the characteristic embryonal nodules are situated. The protrusions of the parietal bones are apparent (swellings) but not angular (nodules). The occiput protrudes and is broad (Fig. 59).  Fig. 60.—Pentagonoid cranium.  Fig. 61.—Rhomboid cranium. III. *Pentagonoid.*—In this form, persistent traces of the five primitive embryonal nodules are still plainly visible, giving the contour of the cranium, when seen vertically, the appearance of a pentagon. The protuberances, however, are quite smooth and not pointed, as in the embryonal cranium.  Fig. 62.—Beloid cranium. IV. *Rhomboid.*—This form is similar to the pentagonoid, excepting that the parietal breadth is much more notable in proportion to the forehead, which is much narrowed and has lost its nodules.  Fig. 63.—Ovoids (classified by Sergi).  Fig. 64.—Pentagonoides acutus (Sergi's collection).  Fig. 65.—Beloides lybicus (classified by Sergi).  Fig. 66.—Platycephalus orbicularis (classified by Sergi).  Fig. 67.—Platycephalus ovoidalis (classified by Sergi).  Fig. 68.—Spheroidal cranium, vertical norm (Sergi's collection). V. *Beloid.*—The beloid, or arrow-head cranium is like the ovoid with the occiput more flattened, so that the widest portion is further back than in the ovoid; toward the front it becomes narrower, constituting altogether an admirably shaped type of head.  Fig. 69.—Cuboid cranium. VI. *Cuboid.*—This form is most clearly perceived when the cranium is seen either sidewise or from the rear. Not only the face, but the lateral and occipital walls as well are flattened; so also is the forehead, which in general is quite vertical. VII. *Sphenoid* (cuneiform).—The broadening between the two parietal bones is usually far back and very evident, while the cranium narrows toward the front. The occiput is flattened.  Fig. 70.—Sphenoid cranium. VIII. *Spheroid.*—Seen vertically, it presents the appearance of a very broad ellipse; all the curves tend to become spherical. The forehead, however, is not notably vertical. IX. *Platycephalic.*—The fundamental characteristic of this type of cranium is that it is flattened on top, or rather, since such flattening cannot be absolute, the arch of its vault is a segment of a circle of very large diameter (Sergi), with the result that this cranium has the appearance of being very low vertically and very broad laterally. When seen vertically it may present a wide variety of contours, ellipsoid, ovoid, pentagonoid, etc., but its distinguishing characteristic remains that of the flattened vault.  Fig. 71.—Spheroid cranium. **Sub-varieties.**—*Sphenoids* *trapezoids*, or *trapezoid cranium*. Observed from the vertical norm, this form appears as a variety of the *sphenoid*; and when seen laterally it is characterised by the lines of its contour forming a *trapezium*. Starting from the vertex of the cranium one line slants toward the forehead and another toward the occiput, which is very massive. In the figure given below, the quadrangle drawn in solid lines serves to indicate the correct position of the cranium, while the trapezium formed of dotted lines gives us its characteristic form.  Fig. 72.—Trapezoid cranium. Among the forms described by Sergi, are several which were formerly held to be abnormal, such, for instance, as the *platycephalic* *cranium* and the *pentagonoid*. Similarly, when the surfaces of the cranium showed a tendency toward flatness, or when there were cranial protuberances, even though these were destined to disappear, they were regarded as malformations. Before this high authority offered us his guidance, there were certain forms, frequently encountered, that it was difficult to define, for example, the trapezoid cranium, which often presents a notable vertico-occipital flattening, with the vertex notably higher than the forehead. There are also certain forms of cranium having the frontal region more restricted than the parietal region, or slanting down from a much elevated vertex, which have been proved to be *normal forms*; while still another error previously made was that of trying to judge the *forehead* on the criterion of a single model, deviations from which were much too readily relegated to the category of abnormalities. The most regular and beautiful forms, and the ones that are commonest in our racial stocks are the ellipsoid, ovoid and sphenoid. In my work on the women of Latium, precisely one of the points that I noted was the frequent occurrence of certain sub-varieties of the *ellipsoid* and the *sphenoid*. In order to recognise the *forms of the cranium*, a certain training is necessary which each one must acquire for himself. Observations of the cranium will make it easier to judge of the form in relation to the *head*, at least, when the latter is not too much hidden by the hair, as often happens in the case of young children. A knowledge of the *normal* forms of the cranium will also guide us in our judgment of many abnormal forms, which very often present the appearance of *exaggerations* of normal types. Thus, for example, the *acrocephalic* cranium (much raised in the parieto-lambdoideal region and sloping forward toward the brow, while the occipito-lambdoideal region is flattened) recalls the *trapezoid*; and the clinocephalic cranium (in which the coronal suture forms a slight girdle-like indenture and divides the contour of the cranium, when observed along the vertical norm, in two curves, a lesser anterior and a greater posterior curve, resembling a figure of 8) recalls certain varieties of ovoid cranium described by Sergi. This brings us to a principle that is very interesting to establish, namely, that frequently *anomalies* represent *exaggerations* of the racial or family type. ### The Cephalic Index Retzius was the first to take the *cranium* under consideration as a basis for a classification of the human races; and he attempted to determine a concept of its *form* by means of a numerical formula expressing the relation between the length and width of the cranium (cephalic index). Thus he distinguished the races into *brachycephalics*, or those having a short head; and *dolichocephalics*, or those having a long head. Following Retzius, who may be regarded as the founder of craniology, Broca adopted, completed and expanded this method, deriving from the cranium, or rather from the particular character given by the cephalic index, a *key*, as it were, suited to unlocking the intricate mysteries of hybridism among the human races. Consequently the cephalic index was not confined, as regards its importance, within the same limits as all the other indexes, but was raised by the French school, warmly seconded by Italian anthropologists, to the dignity of a fundamental determinant of the *ethnic type*, as definitely as, for example, the vertebral column serves as basis for a classification including all species of vertebrates. The Germans refused to accept the cephalic index as determining the classification of races; but while seeking to prove themselves independent of it, they continued to regard the *form of the cranium* as a basis of classification (Rütimeyer, von Höller, and to-day Virchow), but without ever having identified, as Sergi has now done, existing *forms* as normal types of race. The *cephalic index* is obtained by the well-known formula expressing the relation between the *maximum transverse diameter* of the skull (see "Technique") and the *maximum longitudinal diameter* reduced to 100, and is expressed as follows: Ci = 100×d/D (the cephalic index is equal to a hundred times the lesser diameter divided by the greater; in the present case the lesser diameter is the transverse). This *proportion between linear measurements* cannot properly sum up the *form* of the cranium. We can, for example, conceive of a microcephalic cranium having a normal *cephalic index*, since the relation between the two maximum diameters necessary for deducing the index, does not tell us, for example, either the dimension of the cranium or the form of the forehead. If, for instance, we should imagine a photograph of a cranium enlarged a hundred diameters, the reciprocal relations between the length and the width would still remain unchanged. In order to demonstrate that the cephalic index does not determine the form of the cranium, Sergi makes use of a number of different geometric figures, such as a triangle, an ellipse, a trapezoid inscribed within equal rectangles, and which consequently have an equal base and equal altitude, that is, the same proportion between length and width. It follows that skulls corresponding more or less closely in shape, trapezoidal, trigonocephalic, ellipsoidal, plagiocephalic, and hence both normal and abnormal, can be expressed by a cephalic index having the same identical figures. But, although the cephalic index is far from being *descriptive* in regard to the form of the cranium, it constitutes an anthropological datum that has two advantages: 1. It depends upon measurements and is therefore accessible to those who, not being anthropologists, lack the trained eye that can distinguish with careful accuracy the true *forms* of the cranium in their manifold variety. Furthermore, since the measurement of maximum diameters is sure and easy and may be obtained with exactness, regardless of the thickness of the hair, it may be applied in anthropological research to all subjects. 2. The cephalic index, even if it does not give us the form, does give us a fact which has a bearing upon the form, namely, whether the cranium is long or short; in other words, it substantially represents the most real and evident difference between the different types of cranium. And since the cranium has a visibly spheroid form, that is, with smooth and rounding surfaces, and constantly adheres to this generic delineation, the fact of being longer or shorter introduces a definite differentiation into the general and accepted form, and gives a very simple and concise indication of it, that conveys the idea more clearly than a description would. Granting the *practicality* of this line of research, the cephalic index may also be accepted as an index of form, so long as there is no intention of going deeply into minute differentiations for systematic purposes. Professor Sergi himself, author of the system that forms the basis of the study of cranial forms, urged me to exclude from a practical course in pedagogic anthropology the classification of forms, limiting the concept of form to that included in the cephalic index. The cephalic index has the additional advantage of having been extensively studied and consequently of having an abundance of mean averages for comparison that are of great practical use. Furthermore, the idea it gives regarding the cranium by means of one simple figure serves to convey certain fundamental principles with great clearness. In dealing with figures that determine an anthropological datum of such high importance, it is necessary to define its limits and its nomenclature. Various authors have introduced their own personal classification of the cephalic index, and no small confusion in nomenclature has resulted; so much so that a need was felt of establishing a uniformity of numerical limits and of the relative terminology, in other words, of simplifying the scientific language. Accordingly, a congress was held at Frankfort in 1885, at which the following nomenclature was established by international agreement: * CEPHALIC INDEX.—*Nomenclature established at Frankfort* * Dolichocephalia = 75 and below * Mesaticephalia = from 75.1 to 79.9 * Brachycephalia = from 80 to 85 * Hyperbrachycephalia = 85.1 and above. Previous to this, the most widely varied classifications were in use, and the leading authorities had all introduced into the literature of the subject their own personal classifications. Here are some of the more important: | Broca: | Dolichocephalics = 75 and below | | ------ | ------------------------------- | | Subdolichocephalics = from 75 to 80 | | Subbrachycephalics = from 80 to 83.3 | | Brachycephalics = 83.3 and above. | | Ranke: | Dolichocephalics = 74.9 | | Mesaticephalics = from 75 to 79.9 | | Brachycephalics = 80 and above. | | Kollman: | Dolichocephalics = 73.9 and below | | Mesaticephalics = from 74 to 79.9 | | Brachycephalics = from 80 to 86.9 | | Hyperbrachycephalics = 87 and above. | | Retzius and Davis: | Dolichocephalia = 79 and below | | Brachycephalia = 80 and above. | | Topinard: | Dolichocephalics | 64 | and below = Ultradolichocephalics. | | 65 | True dolichocephalics. | | 66 | | 67 | | 68 | | 69 | | 70 | Subdolichocephalics. | | 71 | | 72 | | 73 | | 74 | | Mesaticephalics | 75 | True mestaicephalics | | 76 | | 77 | (*Mean average.*) | | 78 | Submesaticephalics | | 79 | | Brachycephalics | 80 | Subbrachycephalics. | | 81 | | 82 | | 83 | | 84 | | 85 | True brachycephalics. | | 86 | | 87 | | 88 | | 89 | | 90 | and above = Ultrabrachycephalics. | It remains to determine the extreme *limits of oscillation* of the index, both in relation to the normal mean and in relation to the fluctuations of this important ethnic datum in a given population. Topinard, as we have seen, gives as his mean figures for the extreme normal limits among the human races 64 and 90. Deniker gives, as his mean averages for the human races, the following figures: For dolichocephaly, 69.4 (natives of the Caroline Islands; Australia); For brachycephaly, 88.7 (the Ayssori of the Transcaucasus; Asia).[\[37\]](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46643/46643-h/46643-h.htm#Footnote_37_37) But we know that a mean is obtained from figures either greater or smaller than the mean itself, so that the limits of *individual variation* must exceed that of the given figures. Accordingly the oscillation of the normal cephalic indices may be given as ranging from 70 to 90. In regard to abnormalities (extreme human limits of the cephalic index) the authorities give 58 for dolichocephaly (scaphocephaly) and 100 for brachycephaly (in which case the cranium is round and known as *trochocephalic*; it is met with among the insane). Between oscillations of such extremely wide range in the normal cephalic index, the number chosen as a medial figure to serve the purpose of dividing the dolichocephalics from the brachycephalics is that of 80, which is included within the division of brachycephaly. In spite of the nomenclature established at Frankfort, there is a distinct scholastic advantage, because of the greater simplicity of memorising and fixing the idea, in reverting to the nomenclature of Retzius, who classes as brachycephalics all crania from 80 upward, and as dolichocephalics all those below 80. It is certainly strange to class all crania from 80 to 90 without distinction as brachycephalics, and then to alter the name and call a cranium with an index of 79.9 a dolichocephalic. It has been found that there is always a slight difference between the index taken from measurements of the cranium and that obtained from measurements of the *head*. According to Broca, it is necessary to subtract *two units* from the cephalic index taken from a living person, in order to obtain that of the cranium; thus, for example, if the cephalic index (taken from life) is 80, the cranial index (taken from the skeleton) would be 78. Such differences are due to the disposition of the soft tissues. Consequently, even according to the simple subdivision of Retzius, a person who was brachycephalic during life, would become dolichocephalic after he was dead. But this is what always happens in biology, whenever we try to establish *definite* limits. Life undergoes an insensible transition through successive limits and forms, and this fact constitutes the grave difficulties and the apparent confusion of biological systems. In determining degrees of difference, it is necessary to have recourse constantly to *special methods*, which teach us to recognise general properties and to use them as a basis in dividing living creatures into separate groups (see in the section on *Method*, "Mean measurements and formation of series in relation to individual variations"). Hence, for mnemonic purposes, we need remember only the single number, 80. But if we wish to adopt the nomenclature of Frankfort, it is necessary to keep in mind two figures denoting limits, 75 (inclusive) for dolichocephaly, and 80 (inclusive) for brachycephaly. | 75 | dolichocephalics | | -- | ---------------- | | mesaticephalics | | 80 | brachycephalics | | | 85 | ultra | These constitute, as it were, two centres, beyond which, on this side and on that, we may picture to ourselves the *individual variations* drawn up in martial line. In this case, the space between 75 and 80, in other words, the limits of mesaticephaly, may be interpreted as due to oscillations between dolicho- and brachycephaly according to the laws of variability, which is analogous to what takes place in the case of oscillations in the opposite direction (70-75 dolichocephaly; 80-85 brachycephaly). From this point of view, these two numbers, 75 and 80, constitute *median centres* of two different types. But according to Broca and his school—and this view is accepted by many anthropologists—mesaticephaly should be regarded as constituting a *fusion* of the two other types, the brachy- and dolichocephalic, whence it follows that mesaticephalics would be *hybrids*. Other authorities, on the contrary, exaggerating the conception of the fixity of the cephalic index in a given race, admit the existence of mesaticephalic races.  Fig. 73. Map of the Cephalic Index in Italy. But it has been observed that the greater number of mesaticephalics are to be found in regions where dolichocephaly prevails; in certain districts of Africa, as for example, in Somaliland, not a single brachycephalic exists, yet none the less the mesaticephalics are numerous. Accordingly, mesaticephaly may be classed with *dolichocephaly* and regarded as one of its variations, while it seems to be independent of brachycephaly. Therefore the nomenclature of Retzius may for many good reasons be chosen and adopted in our schools. In conclusion, we shall regard the brachycephalics and dolichocephalics as the two fundamental types; and shall adopt the figure 80, included among the brachycephalics, as the limit of separation. The different grades of dolicho- or brachycephaly are to be determined by *mean averages*, and the oscillations due to individual variations, by *series*. Hence it is important to determine the *mean average* and the oscillation of the cephalic index for the different races; and this is of interest to us as educators, in order to establish the limits of *normality*. The practical method of studying the cephalic index is according to geographical distribution. Here are a few general data of the cephalic index relative to its distribution: The most dolichocephalic of all peoples are found in Melanesia, Australia, India and Africa. In the Fiji Islands the mean cephalic index is 67; in the Caroline Archipelago it is 69; in various regions of India, 71; that of the Hottentots, 74; of the Bantus, 73. Belonging to the dolichocephalics or mesaticephalics are the populations of the extreme south of Europe (Mediterranean race) and at the extreme north (English, Scotch). On the contrary, the races of western Europe and of central Asia are brachycephalic (Celts, Mongols). The most brachycephalic of all these peoples are met with in the Transcaucasus; their mean average is 88.7. There also exists a notable brachycephalic type in France (Savoyards, 86.9; inhabitants of the upper Loire, 87.4); also in Dalmatia, 80, while the Lapps of Scandinavia are also ultrabrachycephalic, 87.4. On very general lines, it may be said that the dolichocephalics are the Eurafrican races (including the Mediterranean race, with which the first civilisations are associated: Egyptian, Greek and Roman) who migrated from the Mediterranean basin into Europe; and the brachycephalics are the Eurasian races, who on the contrary migrated from continental Asia across western Europe (the Aryans). As far as regards Italy, its population is by no means evenly constituted. The median index given by Livi for Italy, deduced from observation of more than 29,000 subjects is 80; in regard to regional distribution, the results are shown in the following table: | Piedmont | 85.9 | | -------- | ---- | | Emilia | 85.2 | | Venctia | 85.0 | | Lombardy | 84.4 | | Umbria | 84.1 | | Marches | 84.0 | | Liguria | 82.3 | | Tuscany | 82.3 | | Campania | 82.1 | | Abruzzo and Molise | 81.9 | | Latium | 81.0 | | Basilicata | 80.8 | | Apulia | 79.8 | | Sicily | 79.6 | | Calabria | 78.4 | | Sardinia | 77.5 | Let us remember that if the cephalic index were measured directly from the cranium, the result would be one or two units less, hence the mean average of the cranial index would be about 78. The accompanying map represents still more clearly the geographical distribution. The results show that in Piedmont, in Emilia, and in Northern Italy in general the inhabitants are more brachycephalic; while in the south and more especially in the island possessions we find the more dolichocephalic part of the population. The highest degree of dolichocephaly is found in Sardinia. But if, instead of the cartographic summary herewith reproduced, we could examine the exhaustive one with which Livi has illustrated his great work on Anthropometry, we should discover that the distribution does not follow the great *regional lines*; but that as a matter of fact certain *human groups* exist, isolated like little islands, which have a cephalic index in marked contrast to that of the remaining population of the same region. Thus, for example, at Lucca, in the midst of a brachycephalic population, there is a pronouncedly dolichocephalic group; and in the midst of the dolichocephalic population of Abruzzo and the neighbouring provinces, there exists at Chieti a strongly brachycephalic group. Besides these and similar groups contrasting with the regional type, there exist a multiplicity of differences, from one successive boundary line to another, so that the *limits* *of the cephalic index* may be determined with great minuteness in the various regions. Livi's large charts lend themselves with great clearness to this sort of analytical study, which would be found to be very profitable to teachers. It is also quite instructive to compare the different charts representing various anthropological data of ethnical importance; such, for example, as that of the distribution of stature and that of the distribution of pigmentation. These data are regarded by anthropologists as attributes of race. Well, in these three charts it is evident at the first glance that there is a notable resemblance in distribution, so much so than an eye untrained to observation would be likely to confuse them. The cephalic index, the stature, the colour of the skin are consequently of almost uniform distribution. Corresponding to the most pronounced brachycephaly, we have the tallest stature and the fairest complexion; corresponding to the most pronounced dolichocephaly, we find instead the lowest stature and the most brunette types. Such an accumulative coincidence, in certain communities, of characteristics, in contrast to those that are found combined in certain other communities, reveal the existence in Italy of *two different races*. One of these races seems to have descended from over the Alps; the other, to have landed on the shores of the Mediterranean. The first belong to the Eurasians; the second to the Eurafricans. In my work upon the population of Latium, the mean cephalic index obtained by me is 78. The distribution according to the localities studied affords the mean averages noted in the following table, in which I have also recorded the maximums and minimums, and the percentage of brachycephalic and dolichocephalic individuals who contributed to the given means: CEPHALIC INDEX AMONG THE PEOPLE OF LATIUM\ (According To Montessori) | Provinces | Mean cephalic index | Minimum | Maximum | Dolichocephalics, per cent. | Brachycephalics, per cent. | | --------- | ------------------- | ------- | ------- | --------------------------- | -------------------------- | | Rome | 78 | 73 | 89 | 63 | 37 | | *Castelli Romani* | 76 | 70 | 79 | 100 | — | | Tivoli | 80 | 76 | 87 | 59 | 41 | | Velletri | 79.5 | 75 | 86 | 50 | 50 | | Frosinone | 80.7 | 75 | 87 | 43 | 57 | | Civitavecchia | 78.5 | 78 | 80 | 65 | 35 | | Bracciano | 77 | 75 | 80 | 65 | 35 | | *Orte* | 83.6 | 75 | 90 | 11 | 89 | | Acquapendente | 79.4 | 76 | 81 | 60 | 40 | The results show a preponderance of brachycephalics or of dolichocephalics in the places where the mean cephalic index is respectively highest for brachycephaly (Orte) or for dolichocephaly (Castelli Romani). Furthermore, the extreme maximum and minimum figures are found to be included in these groups (90 at Orte and 70 at Castelli). It should be noted that at Castelli Romani the mean average is mesaticephalic (76), notwithstanding the absence of brachycephalics; this average is based on figures showing an extremely pronounced dolichocephaly (ranging to 70!). The groups at Castelli and at Orte also showed characteristics in respect to stature (see page ([111](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46643/46643-h/46643-h.htm#Page_111))); at Orte the mean stature is 1.61 m., with a maximum of 1.70 m. (very tall statures for women), and at Castelli the mean stature is 1.47 m., with a minimum of 1.42 m. (low statures). Similarly, in regard to pigmentation, I found at Orte a prevalence of blonds, and at Castelli of brunettes. Hence the conclusion may be drawn that at Castelli and at Orte there exist groups of human beings who are of almost pure race, in the midst of a population in which racial types have become attenuated or hidden; but in centres like these we still find persistent testimony as to the ethnic factors that combined to form the people of Latium: the one, a blond, tall, brachycephalic race; the other, dark, small, and dolichocephalic. *The Cephalic Index at Different Ages of Life.*—Another quality that renders the cephalic index of great importance is that it remains constant in the course of growth, since the two maximum diameters, the antero-posterior and the transverse, increase at very nearly the same rate, excepting during the earliest years, at which time the length of the cranium increases slightly more than the width. According to some authorities it is in the second year, according to others it is in the fourth or seventh, that the cephalic index becomes constant (Binet, Deniker, Pearson, Fawcette, Ammon, Johannson, and Westermarck). The following table is one that I have drawn up on the basis of Quétélet's figures: CEPHALIC INDEX | Age | Males | Females | Age | Males | Females | | --- | ----- | ------- | --- | ----- | ------- | | At birth | 83 | 83 | 11 years | 80 | 79 | | 1 year | 80 | 80 | 12 years | 80 | 79 | | 2 years | 80 | 80 | 13 years | 80 | 79 | | 3 years | 80 | 80 | 14 years | 80 | 79 | | 4 years | 79 | 79 | 15 years | 80 | 79 | | 5 years | 79 | 79 | 16 years | 80 | 79 | | 6 years | 79 | 79 | 17 years | 80 | 79 | | 7 years | 79 | 79 | 18 years | 80 | 79 | | 8 years | 79 | 79 | 19 years | 80 | 79 | | 9 years | 80 | 79 | 20 years | 80 | 79 | | 10 years | 80 | 79 | —- | — | — | Since it has been observed that the cranium in the course of its growth may assume forms, amounting even to apparent malformations (due chiefly to "bumps," either symmetrical or asymmetrical), which disappear during the evolution of the individual, the *cephalic index*, for *the very reason* that it does not represent a faithful description of the form, gives us precious aid in judging the cranium of the child, because it *accurately determines the proportions* *between length and breadth* which are destined to persist even in the adult, and hence serve to give, even in infancy, a sure indication of the ethnic type to which the child belongs.  Per cent. * Negro Children * Children born in Syria * Children born in Russia * Children born in Germany * Children born in Ireland * White Children born in America * Children born in Italy **Fig. 74.** We owe to Dr. Ales Hrdlicka the extremely important graphic chart, which I will proceed to summarise, of the cephalic indices of children of various races: the central dotted line corresponds to the index 80: consequently the brachycephalics are indicated on the right, and the dolichocephalics on the left (Fig. 74). In the case of Italy, the graphic line extends between the two extreme figures of 70 and 90, which are precisely the extreme limits that we have already noted for individual adults, in the case of the women of Latium: moreover, the curve is perceptibly symmetrical, although the brachycephalics are in the majority; a fact already established by Livi's mean averages. One might say that this curve was a graphic representation of Livi's two-colour method in his map of the cephalic index: one-half of Italy is brachycephalic and the other half is dolichocephalic; but since brachycephaly prevails in the northern half, a wider extent of territory is occupied by brachycephalics. In America, where emigration brings every variety of humanity, the curve is even more symmetrical, and rests on a broader basis, representing widely separated extremes. Ireland also shows a very perceptible symmetry, the population being a mixture of Celts (brachycephalics) and of Scotch (northern blond dolichocephalics). In Germany there is a prevalence of brachycephalics; we are here approaching the eastern regions from which the Eurasian race came through emigration. Here the Slavs and Celts (brachycephalics who immigrated into Europe at various epochs) are intermingled with a notable percentage of dolichocephalics (Teutons). But in Russia, a region still further east, and similarly in Syria, we find an almost pure race: the curves lie wholly within the field of brachycephaly. On the contrary, the dark-skinned children given in the last chart, and belonging to African races and tribes of American Indians, are all of them *dolichocephalic*. According to Binet and other writers, the *cephalic index* and the *cranial volume* are the two anthropological data on which the criterion of *normality* of children's heads must be based. When we observe a child's head which is apparently malformed, we cannot call it *abnormal*; it is not abnormal unless it has a volume notably too small (submicrocephaly, microcephaly) or too large (rickets, hydrocephaly); and a cephalic index exceeding the normal limits, in other words, *exaggerated* (scaphocephaly, trochocephaly, pathological brachycephaly occurring in hydrocephalics). ### The Volume of the Cranium The volume of the cranium owes its importance, as we have already seen, to the fact that the cranium represents the *envelope* of the brain, and is consequently normally determined, as regards its dimensions, by the cerebral volume. Accordingly, in normal cases, when we speak of the cranial volume, we are speaking by implication of the *cerebral volume*; and all anthropological questions regarding the volumetric development of the cranium in reality have reference to the brain. In abnormal cases, on the contrary, it may happen that the bony covering is not a skeletal index of the brain; in fact, pathological cases may occur analogous to those we have already observed in discussing the etiology of cranial malformations, in which the flat bones of the cranial vault undergo a notable thickening, so that as a result the greater volume of the cranium is due to the increased quantity of bony substance, and not of brain tissue, and is very heavy, so that it readily droops over upon the shoulder: *pachycephalic* cranium. Another cause for lack of correspondence between the cerebral and the cranial volume may be the abnormal production of cerebro-spinal fluid within the brain: *hydrocephalic* cranium. **The Development of the Brain.**—In the earliest period of embryonal life, the brain consists of a single vesicle, the continuation of which forms the spinal marrow: later on, this vesicle divides into three superimposed vesicles which represent respectively the embryonal beginnings of the anterior, middle and posterior brain; continuing their development, the anterior and posterior brains each divide in turn into two other vesicles, so that there result in all five primitive vesicles of the brain, superimposed one upon another (see Fig. 75); the anterior vesicle which is destined to grow enormously, dividing into two parts, right and left, with a longitudinal division, will constitute the cerebral hemispheres; the second vesicle will constitute the optic thalami; the third vesicle, the corpora quadrigemina; the fourth vesicle, the cerebellum, and the fifth vesicle, the medulla oblongata. When complete development is attained, the cerebral hemispheres completely cover the other parts of the brain, besides which they themselves are covered over with a multiplicity of folds constituting the *convolutions*. If we take a cross-section of the hemispheres, we find that they consist of an outer layer of *gray* matter formed of nerve cells, and of a central mass of *white* matter, formed of fibres.  Fig. 75. Brain of a Human Embryo after the Fourth Week. The study of the convolutions is quite important from the anthropological standpoint, because their number is not identical in the different branches of the human race, and also because they differ both in number and in arrangement from the convolutions in the brain of the anthropoid apes. But however interesting they may be, considered as differentiating characteristics, we cannot linger over a study of this kind, which has a purely theoretic importance, and for the present cannot be applied in any practical and direct way to our problems of pedagogic anthropology. It will be sufficient to note rapidly that at the present time the study of the *convolutions* has received a new impulse through the labours of certain distinguished investigators, among whom we must once more include Dr. Sergio Sergi. Instead of studying the surface convolutions, Dr. Sergi studies the internal folds which are disclosed by separating the lips of the cerebral fissures; and from these he draws deductions which to a large extent correct those made by previous scientists, in regard to the eventual ancestry of the different species, the marks of biological superiority or inferiority, the differences in the brain due to sex, etc. The surface fissures which divide the cerebral hemispheres into convolutions are shown in the two accompanying figures (Figs. 76 and 77), the first of which shows the outer side of the hemispheres, and the second the inner side. Of chief importance to us is the arrangement of convolutions and furrows on the outer surface of the hemispheres. The points to be noted are the following: the two great fissures, Rolando's, running longitudinally, and Silvius's running transversely, which, together with the perpendicular fissure, divide the hemisphere into four lobes: the *frontal* lobe and the *parietal* lobe, situated respectively in front and behind Rolando's fissure; the *temporal* lobe, situated below Silvius's fissure, and lastly, the *occipital* lobe at the posterior apex of the hemisphere.  Fig. 76.—Cerebral hemisphere; external face. In the third frontal convolution are situated Broca's centres, which are believed to be the seat of articulate speech; while along Rolando's fissure, in the ascendant convolutions, is the locality designated by physiologists as the motor centres. The occipital lobe is the location of the zone of sight; and the temporal lobe, that of hearing. It is important for us to observe the volume of the brain, and therefore that of the head, in relation to the rest of the body; it is enormous in the embryo; and even at birth and during childhood the head is quite voluminous as compared with the body, as appears from the diagram in Fig. 16, in which a new-born child and an adult man are reduced to the same scale, each retaining his relative bodily proportions. In Fig. 22 a new-born child is shown in two positions: from the front and from behind; the head is very large and the cranial nodules are plainly visible. Figs. 80 and 81 represent the same child at the age of six months and a year and a half; in the first picture the head is still very large as compared with the body, and the forehead protrudes (infantile forehead); in the second, the proportion between head and body has already altered. A knowledge of the laws governing the growth of the brain is of particular importance in relation to pedagogic anthropology.  Fig. 77.—Cerebral hemisphere, internal face. Within the last few years anthropologists have established certain principles that are well worthy of notice: 1. The child's head is normal when its *volume* and *cephalic index* come within the limits of normality (even if the shape appears abnormal: Simon, Binet, etc.). 2. When the volume of the head is too small it frequently indicates psychic deficiency; when it is too large, even up to the age of twenty years, it indicates a predisposition to precocious mortality (see below). Very frequently when the size of the head is larger than normal and is not due to pathological causes (rickets, hydrocephaly, etc.), it is associated with an excessive development of the brain, and also with an intellectual precocity. A high percentage of this type die before reaching the age of twenty years; and this fact confirms the popular belief that children who are too intelligent or too good cannot live long. This indication alone ought to be sufficient to prove the pedagogic importance of the cerebral volume. The researches made by various authors in regard to the growth of the brain are not rigorously in accord as to the *limits of volume*: but they do agree as to the *rhythm of growth*. Welcker gives the following figures: WEIGHT OF THE BRAIN IN GRAMS\ (According to Welcker) | Age | Males | Females | | --- | ----- | ------- | | At birth | 400 | 360 | | Two months | 540 | 510 | | One year | 900 | 850 | | Three years | 1,080 | 1,010 | | Ten years | 1,360 | 1,250 | Accordingly, the weight of the brain is doubled before the end of the first year; according to Massini it is very nearly doubled at the end of the first six months: MASSINI'S FIGURES AS TO THE WEIGHT OF THE BRAIN | Age | Total weight | Increase | | --- | ------------ | -------- | | At birth | 352 | 68 | 279 | | First month | 420 | 211 | | From first to third month | 631 | | | From third to sixth month | 675 | 44 | 63 | | From sixth month to 1 year | 694 | 19 |  Fig. 78.—Spheroidal cranium lateral norm (Sergi's collection).  Fig. 79.—Spheroids typicus (from Sergi's collection).  Fig. 80.—A child six months old.  Fig. 81.—The same child a year and a half old. It follows from these figures that by the end of the sixth month the weight of the brain is already very nearly doubled; but the maximum growth takes place between the ages of one month and three, after which it shows a notable diminution of rate. But while the weight of the whole body is increased threefold by the end of the first year, that of the brain is very far from being tripled, since the rate of growth is still further diminished during the second six months; in fact even according to Welcker the weight at the end of the first year has little more than doubled. Accordingly the rhythm of cerebral growth is not identical with that of the increase in weight of the body taken as a whole. According to Massini, the relation between the cerebral weight and the weight of the body, at the various successive ages, is as follows: RELATION BETWEEN WEIGHT OF BRAIN AND TOTAL WEIGHT\ (According to Massini) | Age | Brain | Body | Age | Brain | Body | | --- | ----- | ---- | --- | ----- | ---- | | At birth | 1 | 8 | 2 years | 1 | 15 | | First month | 1 | 9 | 3 years | 1 | 14 | | From first to third month | 1 | 9 | | | | to sixth month | 1 | 10 | | | | one year | 1 | 12 | 25 years | 1 | 40 | In other words, the body grows more rapidly than the brain, and consequently, than the head: a fact which results in the different proportions already noted between head and body. The rhythm of brain growth considered by itself has been set forth in a most noteworthy and accurate fashion by Boyd, based on the study of about two thousand cases; from the figures given by Boyd, I have calculated the amount of increase from period to period, as well as from year to year, the whole result being set forth in the following table: RHYTHM OF GROWTH OF BRAIN\ (*Males*: According to Boyd) | Age | Weight in grams | Difference for each period | Difference for each year | Relative epoch | Proportion to maximum reduced to 100 | | --- | --------------- | -------------------------- | ------------------------ | -------------- | ------------------------------------ | | At birth | 331 | — | — | — | 24.2 | | From birth to 3 months | 493 | +162 | — | — | 36.0 | | From 3 to 6 months | 603 | +110 | — | — | 44.1 | | From 6 months to 1 year | 777 | +174 | +446 | 1st year | 56.8 | | From 1 to 2 years | 942 | +165 | +165 | 2d year | 69.0 | | From 2 to 4 years | 1,097 | +155 | +77 | 2d- 4th | 80.4 | | From 4 to 7 years | 1,140 | +43 | +14 | 4th- 7th | 83.4 | | From 7 to 14 years | 1,302 | +162 | +23 | 7th-14th | 95.3 | | From 14 to 20 years | 1,374 | +72 | +12 | 14th-20th | 100.5 | | From 20 to 30 years | 1,357 | — | — | — | 99.3 | | From 30 to 40 years | 1,366 | +9 | +0.9 | 30th-40th | 99.3 | | From 40 to 50 years | 1,352 | -14 | -1.4 | 40th-50th | 98.9 | | From 50 to 60 years | 1,343 | -9 | -0.9 | 50th-60th | 98.3 | | From 60 to 70 years | 1,315 | -28 | -2.8 | 60th-70th | 96.9 | | From 70 to 80 years | 1,289 | -26 | -2.6 | 70th-80th | 95.3 | | From 80 to 90 years | 1,284 | -5 | -0.5 | 80th-90th | 94.2 | In the above table, the first column of figures gives the *mean* *average weight* of the brain, obtained by direct observation of individual subjects; while from all the others the rhythm of cerebral growth and involution throughout the successive periods of life may be computed. We see that the maximum growth takes place in the first years of life, the intensity is greater in the first year than in the second, and greater in the first three months than in those that follow. Already at the end of the first year the brain has surpassed one-half of the maximum weight which the individual is destined to attain in adult life (last column: proportions computed on scale of 100). A notable rate of increase continues up to the age of four, after which it moderates, but receives a new impulse at about the fourteenth year (period of puberty); hence it appears that at this important epoch of life the *brain* not only shares the general rapid growth of the body, but that by the end of the fourteenth year the brain has *already practically completed its development*; in fact, assuming that 100 represents its complete development, the weight of the brain is already 95.3; and at thirty it will be only 99.3. By studying the above table we can obtain a clear analysis of these phenomena. For women, Boyd gives the following figures: THE GROWTH OF THE BRAIN IN WOMEN\ (Figures Given by Boyd) | Age | Weight | Proportion to the maximum reduced to 100 | | --- | ------ | ---------------------------------------- | | At birth | 283 | 22.8 | | Three months | 452 | 36.5 | | From 3 to 6 months | 560 | 45.2 | | From 6 months to 1 year | 728 | 58.8 | | From 1 to 2 years | 844 | 68.1 | | From 2 to 4 years | 991 | 80.8 | | From 4 to 7 years | 1,136 | 91.7 | | From 7 to 14 years | 1,155 | 93.3 | | From 14 to 20 years | 1,244 | 100.4 | | From 20 to 30 years | 1,238 | 100.0 | | From 30 to 40 years | 1,218 | 98.3 | | From 40 to 50 years | 1,213 | 97.9 | | From 50 to 60 years | 1,221 | 98.2 | | From 60 to 70 years | 1,207 | 97.4 | | From 70 to 80 years | 1,167 | 94.2 | | From 80 to 90 years | 1,125 | 90.8 | The rhythm of growth of the female brain is analogous to that of the male, except for the more precocious attainment of the maximum weight, which corresponds to the more precocious evolution of the female organism. It should be noted that in the tables above cited the maximum is actually given as occurring at the age of twenty; and that after this period the weight diminishes again, subsequently increasing up to an age that varies according to the sex. But this maximum at the age of twenty must be considered as one of the false results of mean averages; and it must be explained on the ground that after the twentieth year the death rate has eliminated a series of individuals whose heads were abnormally large, and that a majority of the survivors were those whose heads had developed within normal limits. This fact is further confirmed by Wagner's figures, cited by Broca: MEAN WEIGHT OF THE BRAIN\ (According TO Wagner) | Age | Men | Women | | --- | --- | ----- | | Under 10 years | 985 | 1,033 | | From 11 to 20 years | 1,465 | 1,285 | | From 21 to 30 years | 1,341 | 1,249 | | From 31 to 40 years | 1,410 | 1,262 | | From 41 to 50 years | 1,391 | 1,261 | | From 51 to 60 years | 1,341 | 1,236 | | Above 60 years | 1,326 | 1,203 | Here again we have a false maximum at twenty, which nature subsequently corrects through mortality. From such knowledge we obtain certain important rules of hygiene. The normal brain which exceeds the common limits of volume is not, in an absolute sense, *incompatible* with life. We need only to call to mind certain men of genius who had the brains of a giant. Accordingly a brain which exceeds the limits *demands of the* *individual who possesses it* that he shall live according to certain special rules of hygiene. Children and young people who are *too intelligent*, *too good*, in other words, children of the elite class demand a special treatment, just as much as any other class of beings that pass beyond the bounds of average normality. Parents and teachers ought to be enlightened in regard to these scientific principles; the growth of individuals who are exceptional in regard to their intelligence and their emotions, should be supervised as though it were something precious and fragile. Such individuals are destined to be more subject than others to *infective* *maladies*, which frequently prove fatal, developing symptoms of meningitis and cerebral affections. Consequently a hygienic life, *psychic repose*, an avoidance of emotional excitement, moderate physical exercise in farm or garden, a prolonged stay in the open country, might be the salvation of children of this type, who often are over-praised and over-stimulated by friends and relatives, and consequently subjected to continual excitement and *surménage* to a degree destructive to their health. **Extreme Individual Variations of the Volume of the Brain.**—In regard to individual variations, the authorities give various figures, from which the following have been selected as most noteworthy for their accuracy of research: NORMAL EXTREMES OF INDIVIDUAL VARIATIONS IN THE VOLUME OF THE BRAIN | Authors | Age: from 20 to 60 years | From 60 to 90 | | ------- | ------------------------ | ------------- | | Maximum | Minimum | Maximum | Minimum | | Calori | 1,542 | 1,024 | 1,485 | 1,080 | | Bischoff | 1,678 | 1,069 | 1,665 | 1,080 | | | *Without distinction of age*: | | Broca | Maximum<br>1,830 | Minimum<br>1,049 | These figures refer to individuals belonging to European races. *Comparison with the Brains of Apes.*—The brain of the great anthropoid apes (Chimpanzee, Orang-utan, Gorilla), whose total weight of body is comparable to that of man, weighs on an average 360 grams, and the greatest weight which it can attain is 420 gr. *Specific Gravity of the Human Brain.*—In normal individuals, the average specific gravity is 1.03; in insane persons it is slightly higher: 1.04. *The Relation between the Weight of the Brain and the Cranial* *Capacity: Figures given by Lebon*: | Weight of the brain in grams | Cranial capacity in cubic centimetres | | ---------------------------- | ------------------------------------- | | 1,450 | 1,650 | | 1,350 | 1,550 | | 1,250 | 1,450 | | 1,150 | 1,350 | *Figures given by Manouvrier*: | Weight of the brain in grams | Cranial capacity in cubic centimetres | | ---------------------------- | ------------------------------------- | | 1,700 | 1,949 | | 1,450 | 1,663 | | 1,250 | 1,432 | | 1,000 | 1,147 | **Increase in the Volume of the Brain.**—Studies regarding the growth of the head, although not yet complete, have gone sufficiently far to give us some useful ideas. In regard to the volume in a general sense, the *cranium in its growth obeys the cerebral* *rhythm*. We shall speak in the section on *Technique* of the methods of measuring the head: at present it will suffice to point out that the measurements may be made directly upon the cranium, and the *cranial capacity* calculated directly from the head: and that the *maximum linear measurements* are sufficient to indicate the volume—such measurements being the three maximum diameters, *longitudinal*, *transverse*, and *vertical*, and the *maximum circumference*. Even the forehead, as an index of the general volume of the brain, is of interest in researches relating to the volumetric growth of the head. Regarding the growth of the several cranial dimensions, the most accurate and complete knowledge is furnished by Binet's researches among the school-children of Paris (1902). This author has made special investigations into the *rhythm* of growth of the cranium and of the face, with special reference to the period of *puberty*. The following are the mean averages obtained by him, relative to the three diameters corresponding to the three maximum dimensions of the head: MEAN AVERAGES OF CEPHALIC MEASUREMENTS TAKEN UPON CHILDREN OF DIFFERENT AGES\ (Binet: *From the schools of Paris*) | Measurement | Kindergartens | Lower primary schools | Upper primary schools | Normal schools | | ----------- | ------------- | --------------------- | --------------------- | -------------- | | 4 years | 5 years | 8 years | 10 years | 12 years | 14 years | 14 years | 16 years | 18 years | | Antero-post. diameter | 169.5 | 173.9 | 174.7 | 177.1 | 181.5 | 181.5 | 185.3 | 188.3 | 190.4 | | Transverse diameter | 140.6 | 141.7 | 145 | 145.7 | 147.9 | 150.1 | 155.5 | 152.3 | 156.7 | | Vertical diameter | 118.8 | 121.6 | 122 | 122.8 | 127.6 | 129.7 | 128.1 | 131.4 | 130.8 | It is evident that these figures contain inaccuracies, especially in regard to the vertical diameter (where the subsequent two-year period gives a smaller measurement than the preceding) due to the fact that the averages were obtained from an insufficient number of subjects or from subjects differing too widely in intelligence (from schools of different grades). For this reason Binet summarises the differences in growth, that is, the increase in relation to the diameters, under broad groups (six year groups, from four to ten years, and from ten to sixteen), in order to determine whether puberty exerts a sensible influence upon the cranial growth. The result is contained in the following table: INCREASE OF THE THREE MAXIMUM DIAMETERS OF THE HEAD IN MILLIMETRES FROM FOUR TO EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE | Age in years: from — to — | 4-6; 6-8; 8-10 | 10-12; 12-14; 14-16 | 16-18 | | ------------------------- | -------------- | ------------------- | ----- | | Antero-posterior diameter | 5.6; 0.8; 2.4 | 4.4; 1.8; 5 | 2.1 | | 8.8 | 11.2 | | Transverse diameter | 1.1; 3.3; 0.7 | 2.2; 3.9; 0.5 | 4.4 | | 5.1 | 6.6 | | Vertical diameter | 2.8; 0.4; 0.8 | 4.8; 2.3; 2.5 | 0.6 | | 4.0 | 9.6 | From which it appears that there exists, in regard to the head, a puberal acceleration of growth. These conclusions of Binet are indirectly confirmed by the researches of Vitale Vitali regarding the development of the forehead in school-children; since it is well known that the forehead represents the index of the general growth of the cerebral cranium. Vitale Vitali based his observations upon school-children and students between the ages of ten and twenty. He not only measured the width of the forehead (*frontal diameter*; see *Technique*), but also measured its height, obtaining the percentage of its relation to the width (frontal index). These are his figures: FRONTAL INDEX AND DIAMETER ACCORDING TO AGE (Vitale Vitali: Researches Among Scholars and Students From 10 To 20 Years Old) | Age | Frontal index | Frontal diameter | Amount of increase | | --- | ------------- | ---------------- | ------------------ | | 11 years | 73.05 | 107.5 | — | | 12 years | 74.11 | 112.0 | 4.5 | | 13 years | 74.14 | 112.5 | 0.5 | | 14 years | 74.80 | 114.4 | 1.9 | | 15 years | 75.67 | 116.8 | 2.4 | | 16 years | 77.24 | 120.1 | 3.3 | | 17 years | 77.02 | 120.6 | 0.5 | | 18 years | 77.36 | 121.5 | 0.9 | | 19 years | 77.60 | 122.8 | 1.3 | | 20 years | 77.15 | 122.1 | 0.7 | Accordingly, between the years of fourteen and sixteen there is a puberal acceleration of growth, accompanied by an elevation of the forehead (high frontal index). Vitali gives, as extreme limits of the frontal index, 68 and 83. But in order to give a better illustration of the author's figures, his own words may be quoted: "It appears from our observations that the forehead begins to develop in notable proportions during the fourteenth year, and that the development of the frontal region as compared with the parietal region continues to augment up to the sixteenth year; after this it still increases, but only by a few millimetres, until the end of the sixteenth year. The cephalic development is completed between the sixteenth and eighteenth years. This observed fact is of great importance in relation to the development of the intellect." The most complete figures at the present time on the growth of the brain, are those of Quétélet, which follow its development from birth until the fortieth year. They are summarised in the following table: INCREASE IN THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE BRAIN AND IN ITS THREE MAXIMUM DIAMETERS\ (According to Quétélet) | Age | Circumference in millimetres | Maximum diameters | | --- | ---------------------------- | ----------------- | | Antero-post. | Transverse | Vertical | | | Men | Women | Men | Women | Men | Women | Men | Women | | At birth | 335 | 335 | 120 | 120 | 100 | 100 | 80 | 80 | | 1 year | 440 | 439 | 158 | 157 | 127 | 126 | 105 | 105 | | 2 years | 471 | 469 | 168 | 167 | 135 | 134 | 113 | 113 | | 3 years | 486 | 483 | 171 | 170 | 137 | 136 | 117 | 115 | | 4 years | 496 | 493 | 174 | 173 | 138 | 137 | 119 | 116 | | 5 years | 503 | 500 | 176 | 175 | 139 | 138 | 120 | 117 | | 6 years | 508 | 505 | 178 | 177 | 140 | 139 | 121 | 117 | | 7 years | 513 | 509 | 179 | 178 | 142 | 140 | 122 | 118 | | 8 years | 519 | 512 | 180 | 179 | 143 | 141 | 123 | 118 | | 9 years | 523 | 515 | 181 | 180 | 144 | 141 | 124 | 119 | | 10 years | 527 | 517 | 182 | 180 | 145 | 142 | 125 | 119 | | 11 years | 531 | 518 | 183 | 181 | 146 | 142 | 126 | 120 | | 12 years | 535 | 519 | 184 | 181 | 147 | 143 | 127 | 121 | | 13 years | 539 | 520 | 185 | 182 | 147 | 143 | 128 | 122 | | 14 years | 543 | 521 | 186 | 182 | 148 | 144 | 129 | 123 | | 15 years | 547 | 523 | 186 | 183 | 149 | 144 | 130 | 124 | | 16 years | 551 | 525 | 187 | 183 | 150 | 145 | 130 | 125 | | 17 years | 555 | 528 | 188 | 184 | 151 | 145 | 130 | 125 | | 18 years | 561 | 531 | 189 | 184 | 152 | 146 | 131 | 126 | | 19 years | 563 | 533 | 190 | 185 | 153 | 146 | 131 | 126 | | 20 years | 564 | 535 | 191 | 185 | 153 | 147 | 131 | 126 | | 25 years | 564 | 537 | 191 | 186 | 153 | 147 | 131 | 127 | | 30 years | 564 | 538 | 191 | 186 | 153 | 147 | 131 | 127 | | 40 years | 564 | 538 | 191 | 186 | 153 | 147 | 131 | 127 | It appears from the foregoing table that after the twenty-fifth year the growth of the cranium practically ceases in all directions. In regard to the rhythm of growth, the problem is rendered clearer by the following table, which gives the annual increase: ANNUAL INCREASE IN THE MAXIMUM CRANIAL MEASUREMENTS IN MALES\ (From Figures Given by Quétélet) | Age | Circumference | Antero-post. diameter | Transverse diameter | Vertical diameter | | --- | ------------- | --------------------- | ------------------- | ----------------- | | 1 | 105 | 38 | 27 | 25 | | 2 | 31 | 10 | 8 | 8 | | 3 | 15 | 3 | 2 | 4 | | 4 | 10 | 3 | 1 | 2 | | 5 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 1 | | 6 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | | 7 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 8 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 9 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 10 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 11 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 12 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 13 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 14 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 15 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 16 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 17 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 18 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 19 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 20 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | It appears from the above table that the total growth of the cranium takes place to a notable extent during the early years of life; as regards the diameters, the longitudinal diameter grows faster during the first few months than the transverse; but after the first year, the two maximum diameters which determine the cephalic index increase in very nearly the same proportion (constancy of the cephalic index throughout life). The vertical diameter on the contrary undergoes a relatively much greater increase than the two others, since, although much shorter than the transverse, it nevertheless overtakes and surpasses it in its absolute annual increase. This corresponds to the fact that the first two diameters are indexes of growth relative to the base of the cranium, while the vertical diameter is the index of expansion of the cranial vault, which more directly follows the growth of the brain and elevates the forehead as it pushes upward. Quétélet's figures, however, fail to show in the rhythm of growth that puberal acceleration which has been observed to take place in the growth of the brain. This contradicts the researches of Vitali and also those of Binet. Similar studies have been made a number of times during the last few years, especially in America, but with English tables of measurement, and with little uniformity in the results obtained by the different investigators. Among the most recent and most complete figures should be cited those of Bonnifay[\[38\]](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46643/46643-h/46643-h.htm#Footnote_38_38) in which however the measurement of the vertical diameter is lacking, or in other words the third element needed, in conjunction with the dimensions of length and breadth, to give the volumetric factors. CRANIAL MEASUREMENTS AT DIFFERENT AGES\ (According to Bonnifay) | Age from — to — | Absolute figures | Amount of Increase | | --------------- | ---------------- | ------------------ | | Circumference | Antero-posterior diameter | Transverse diameter | Circumference | Antero-posterior diameter | Transverse diameter | | Birth to 15 days | 343.9 | 116.3 | 93.4 | — | — | — | | 15 days to 2 months | 368.7 | 126.3 | 99.1 | 24.8 | 10.0 | 5.7 | | 3 months to 4 months | 388.8 | 132.7 | 106.0 | 20.1 | 6.4 | 6.9 | | 6 months to 1 year | 429.8 | 145.4 | 118.2 | 41.0 | 12.7 | 12.2 | | 1 year to 2 years | 459.7 | 154.3 | 129.3 | 29.9 | 8.9 | 11.1 | | 2 years to 3 years | 473.5 | 161.9 | 133.3 | 13.8 | 7.6 | 4.0 | | 3 years to 4 years | 487.4 | 166.2 | 136.3 | 13.9 | 4.3 | 3.0 | | 4 years to 5 years | 495.7 | 169.9 | 138.3 | 8.3 | 3.7 | 2.0 | | 5 years to 6 years | 497.8 | 171.9 | 140.4 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 2.1 | | 6 years to 7 years | 504.4 | 172.8 | 141.1 | 6.6 | 0.9 | 0.7 | | 7 years to 8 years | 511.6 | 175.2 | 143.7 | 7.2 | 2.4 | 2.6 | | 8 years to 9 years | 514.1 | 176.1 | 144.3 | 2.5 | 0.9 | 0.6 | | 9 years to 10 years | 514.7 | 176.4 | 144.2 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.9 | | 10 years to 11 years | 519.8 | 177.1 | 146.6 | 5.1 | 0.7 | 2.3 | | 11 years to 12 years | 521.1 | 177.5 | 145.7 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 0.1 | | 12 years to 13 years | 529.7 | 180.1 | 147.8 | 8.6 | 2.6 | 1.2 | | 13 years to 14 years | 533.1 | 178.1 | 148.5 | 3.4 | — | 0.7 | | 14 years to 17 years | 548.8 | 182.4 | 152.2 | 15.7 | 2.3 | 3.7 | | 22 years to 27 years | 549.1 | 186.6 | 153.2 | 0.3 | 4.2 | 1.0 | Among the linear measurements of the cranium, the one which serves to give the most exact index of volume is the *maximum* *circumference*. This index, nevertheless, is not a perfect one, in the same sense that the *stature*, for instance, is a perfect index in respect to the body, because in the case of the cranium another element enters in: the form. The cranial circumference of an extremely brachycephalic cranium (almost circular) may contain a larger surface (and consequently include a larger volume), than a maximum circumference of the same identical measure, which belongs to an extremely dolichocephalic cranium (approaching the shape of an elongated ellipse). This may be easily understood if we imagine a loop of thread laid out in the form of a circle: if we pull it from two opposite sides, the enclosed area diminishes until it finally disappears as the two halves of the thread close together, while the length of the thread itself remains unaltered. Nevertheless, the maximum circumference still remains the linear index best adapted to represent the *volume*; indeed, the authorities take its proportional relation to the stature as representing the reciprocal degree of development between head and body at the different successive ages. Here are the figures which Daffner gives in this connection: DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATURE AND OF THE CEPHALIC PERIMETER FROM BIRTH TO THE AGE OF ELEVEN YEARS | Males | Females | | ----- | ------- | | Number of subjects | Age | Stature in centimetres | Cranial perimeter, centimetres | Number of subjects | Age | Stature in centimetres | Cranial perimeter, centimetres | | 65 | At birth | 51.17 | 34.58 | 65 | At birth | 50.27 | 34.23 | | 11 | 1.55 | 74.18 | 46.74 | 10 | 1.39 | 77.20 | 46.45 | | 30 | 2.43 | 85.32 | 48.03 | 30 | 2.45 | 83.48 | 47.23 | | 53 | 3.34 | 91.88 | 49.20 | 49 | 3.43 | 89.97 | 47.73 | | 112 | 4.43 | 96.64 | 49.55 | 81 | 4.50 | 96.07 | 48.37 | | 244 | 5.42 | 103.21 | 50.21 | 208 | 5.40 | 100.61 | 48.76 | | 234 | 6.41 | 106.49 | 50.73 | 179 | 6.37 | 104.92 | 49.87 | | 30 | 7.30 | 114.47 | 51.66 | 25 | 7.36 | 117.36 | 50.38 | | 28 | 8.38 | 112.10 | 51.97 | 24 | 8.41 | 121.58 | 50.72 | | 27 | 9.40 | 128.41 | 52.38 | 30 | 9.40 | 126.76 | 51.10 | | 21 | 10.34 | 129.12 | 52.24 | 28 | 10.40 | 130.00 | 51.08 | | 20 | 11.42 | 135.84 | 52.50 | 31 | 11.46 | 137.04 | 51.42 | DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATURE AND OF THE CEPHALIC PERIMETER BETWEEN THE YEARS OF 13 AND 22 | Number of subjects | Age | Stature in centimetres | Cranial perimeter, centimetres | | ------------------ | --- | ---------------------- | ------------------------------ | | 13 | 13.39 | 147.92 | 52.83 | | 24 | 14.50 | 149.21 | 53.53 | | 20 | 15.38 | 163.55 | 54.34 | | 41 | 16.43 | 162.53 | 53.34 | | 35 | 17.36 | 167.93 | 55.89 | | 26 | 18.35 | 171.65 | 54.91 | | 15 | 19.40 | 172.97 | 55.48 | | 6 | 20.05 | 173.97 | 56.50 | | 342 | 21.02 | 168.08 | 55.37 | | 171 | 22.22 | 168.08 | 55.62 | One very important research made by Daffner is in reference to the maximums and minimums that are normal for each successive age. This is extremely useful for the purpose of diagnosing the *morphological normality in relation to the age*. He naturally bases his figures upon subjects studied by him personally, who altogether form an aggregate number of 2,230, and are not always sufficiently numerous when distributed according to their ages. Nevertheless, in the great majority of groups, especially those including the younger children, the number of subjects is sufficient and even superabundant. At all events, Daffner's researches may serve as a valuable guide in the researches that lay the foundation for diagnosis; and every future investigator will find it an easier task, under such guidance, to make his own contribution to it and to correct those inaccuracies which (for certain epochs) are to be attributed to an insufficient number of subjects. Daffner distinguishes, for each year, a *maximum* and a *minimum* both for the stature and for the cephalic perimeter; but since the person having the maximum stature does not always have the maximum cephalic perimeter, and *vice versa*, the author indicates, in connection with the maximum and minimum figures, the other of the two measurements which, as a matter of fact, corresponds to them in each given case. INDIVIDUAL VARIATIONS MAXIMUMS AND MINIMUMS OF STATURE AND OF CRANIAL CIRCUMFERENCE | Age | Measurements<br>S.—Stature<br>Cc.—Cranial circumference | Maximum (M.) and minimum (m.) in millimetres | Measurements occurring in combination with the M. or m. 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 | Age | Measurements<br>S.—Stature<br>Cc.—Cranial circumference | Maximum (M.) and minimum (m.) in millimetres | Measurements occurring in combination with the M. or m. measurements | Observations | | --- | ----------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------ | | At birth. | Cranial circumf. | M. = 372 | (S. = 500). | (The most frequent S. was 500 mm. combined with CC. = 357, 337.) | | m. = 324 | (S. = 480). | | Stature | M. = 565 | (Cc. = 355). | | m. = 475 | (Cc. = 333, 325). | | 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. was found in a child of 6 years 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). | | m. = 460 | (S. = 965). | | Stature | M. = 1221 | (Cc. = 516). | | m. = 920 | (Cc. = 489). | | 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). | (The next higher S. was 1495, with a Cc. of 529). | | m. = 478 | (S. = 1284). | | Stature | M. = 1464 | (Cc. = 512). | | m. = 1255 | (Cc. = 497). | EXTREMES BETWEEN THE AGES OF 13 AND 22 YEARS\ (The figures here given are less exact, because of the great scarcity of subjects) | Age | Measurements<br>S.—Stature<br>Cc.—Cranial circumference | Maximum (M.) and minimum (m.) in millimetres | Measurements occurring in combination with the M. or m. 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. **Normal Children\ Abnormal   "**  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)[\[39\]](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46643/46643-h/46643-h.htm#Footnote_39_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 | Measurements | Binet's figures | Montessori's figures | | ------------ | --------------- | -------------------- | | Pupils chosen for intelligence | Pupils chosen as backward | Difference | Pupils chosen for intelligence | Pupils chosen as backward | Difference | | Maximum circumference 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: | Cranial capacity | in the best pupils chosen | 1557 cu. cm. | | ---------------- | ------------------------- | ------------ | | 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 | Boys of the age of | Rich | Sons of small tradesmen and clerks | Poor | | ------------------ | ---- | ---------------------------------- | ---- | | 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'éducation sur le volume et la forme de la tête* ("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[\[40\]](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46643/46643-h/46643-h.htm#Footnote_40_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?  Fig. 83.—Leptoprosopic face.  Fig. 84.—Chameprosopic face.  Fig. 85.—Lina Cavalieri.  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](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46643/46643-h/46643-h.htm#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 |  Fig. 87.—Portrait of the *Fornarina* (Raphael Sanzio) Rome: Barbarini gallery.  Fig. 88.—Triangular face.  Fig. 89.—Ellipsoidal face.  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 æsthetic 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](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46643/46643-h/46643-h.htm#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.  Fig. 91.—Tetragonal face (parallelepipedoidal).  Fig. 92.—Pentagonal leptoprosopic face.  Fig. 93.—Pentagonal mesoprosopic face.  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.  Fig. 95.—Hexagonal face.  Fig. 96.—Tetragonal face (square).  Fig. 97.—Faces of inferior type (cheek bones prominent).  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 æsthetically 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.  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.  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.[\[41\]](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46643/46643-h/46643-h.htm#Footnote_41_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).  Fig. 101.  Fig. 102.—Head of Pauline Bonaparte Borghese (Rome, Borghese Museum).  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](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46643/46643-h/46643-h.htm#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°, and consequently the facial angle is 75°. The facial angle of the Discobolus also, like that of Antinoous, like that of the *normal human visage*, is 75°.  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° 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*.  Fig. 105.—The Discobolus by Miron (Rome, Vatican Museum).  Fig. 106.—Head of statue known as the *Capitoline Antinoous* (Rome, Capitoline Museum).  Fig. 107.  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 laminæ 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 œsophagus, 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.  Fig. 109.—Face of inferior type. Prominence of angles of jaw (Gonia).  Fig. 110.  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°. 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](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46643/46643-h/46643-h.htm#Page_276))), shows that the face, from being originally rotund has become elongated.[\[42\]](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46643/46643-h/46643-h.htm#Footnote_42_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.[\[43\]](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46643/46643-h/46643-h.htm#Footnote_43_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:  Fig. 113.—A child at six months.  Fig. 114.—The same child at a year and a half.  Fig. 115.—A seven-year-old boy.  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 | Measurements | Binet's figures | Montessori's figures | | ------------ | --------------- | -------------------- | | Brightest pupils | Backward pupils | Difference | Brightest pupils | Backward pupils | Difference | | 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 in millimetres | Brightest pupils | Backward pupils | Difference | | --------------------------------------- | ---------------- | --------------- | ---------- | | 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.  Fig. 117.—Profile of a child.  Fig.—118. A child of ten months.  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 fasciæ, two of which are attached to the *ala* or wing of the nose, and the other two to the upper lip.  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 alœ nasi*, *m.* *levator alœ nasi*, *anterior* and *posterior*, and *m. depressor septi*) have their points of attachment around the nasal *alœ* (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 maxillæ, and extends horizontally, terminating in the two lips, in such a manner that its two fasciæ; partly cross, so that the upper fasciæ of the muscle starting from the mandible extend to the upper lip, and the lower fasciæ 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:[\[44\]](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46643/46643-h/46643-h.htm#Footnote_44_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.  Fig. 121.—A six-year-old boy.  Fig. 122.—The same, eleven years old.  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 béanie*. 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).[\[45\]](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46643/46643-h/46643-h.htm#Footnote_45_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[\[46\]](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46643/46643-h/46643-h.htm#Footnote_46_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 vertebræ. Notwithstanding that in all the higher vertebrates the neck is constituted of the same number of vertebræ, 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: | 13½ | 14 | 14½ | 15 | 15½ | 16 | 16½ | 17 | 17½ | | ------------- | --- | -- | --- | -- | --- | -- | --- | -- | --- | | 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: | 13½ | 14 | 14½ | 15 | 15½ | 16 | 16½ | 17 | 17½ | | ------------- | --- | -- | --- | -- | --- | -- | --- | -- | --- | | 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: [\[36\]](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46643/46643-h/46643-h.htm#FNanchor_36_36)See the application to pathological surgery of this anatomo-physiological condition of the cranium, as given by Tillaux, *Anatomia topografica*. [\[37\]](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46643/46643-h/46643-h.htm#FNanchor_37_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). [\[38\]](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46643/46643-h/46643-h.htm#FNanchor_38_38)Bonnifay, *On the development of the Head from the point of view of cephalometrical* *measurements taken after birth*. Thesis, Lyons, 1897. [\[39\]](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46643/46643-h/46643-h.htm#FNanchor_39_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"). [\[40\]](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46643/46643-h/46643-h.htm#FNanchor_40_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. [\[41\]](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46643/46643-h/46643-h.htm#FNanchor_41_41)The above elucidation and illustrations of the face are taken from Manouvrier, *Cephalométrie Anthropologique*. [\[42\]](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46643/46643-h/46643-h.htm#FNanchor_42_42)From Thulié, *Le Dressage des jeunes dégénérés*, page 633. [\[43\]](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46643/46643-h/46643-h.htm#FNanchor_43_43)Binet, *Le croissance du crâne et de la face chez les normaux entre 4 et 18 ans*. [\[44\]](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46643/46643-h/46643-h.htm#FNanchor_44_44)Charles Darwin, *The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals*. [\[45\]](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46643/46643-h/46643-h.htm#FNanchor_45_45)Charles Darwin, *Op. cit.* [\[46\]](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46643/46643-h/46643-h.htm#FNanchor_46_46)Sante de Sanctis, *La Mimica del Pensiero* (The Expression of Thought). ---