Pedagogical Anthropology

In all the widely varied series of pathological and degenerate individuals who are included under the generic names of "deficients" and "criminals," there is a notable percentage of crania that are abnormal both in volume and in form; the percentage of crania with normal dimensions is less than that of the crania which exceed or fall below such dimensions, and among these there is a preponderance of submicrocephalic crania: a morphological characteristic associated with a partial arrest of cerebral development, due to internal causes and manifested from the earliest period of infant life.

The accompanying chart (Fig. 82) demonstrates precisely this fact. It represents the growth of the cranium in normal and in abnormal children. The abnormal are at one time superior and at another inferior to the normal children; but their general average shows a definite inferiority to the normal. Lombroso established the fact that among adult criminals there is an inferiority of cranial development, frequently accompanied by a stature that is normal, or even in excess of normality.

Quite recently, Binet has called attention to a form of submicrocephaly acquired through external causes, which is of great interest from the pedagogic point of view. Blind children and those who are deaf-mutes have, up to the seventh or eighth year, a cranium of normal dimensions, but by the fourteenth or fifteenth year the volume is notably below the normal, and this stigma of inferiority remains permanently in the adults. This fact, which is of very general occurrence, is attributed by Binet to a deficiency of sensations, and consequently a deficiency of certain specific cerebral exercises.

This whole question has a fundamental interest for us as educators, because it affords an indirect proof that cerebral exercise develops the brain, or in other words, that education has a physical and morphological influence as well as a psychic one.

This question, coupled with that of the influence of alimentation upon the development of the head, leads to the conclusion that a two-fold nutriment is necessary for the normal development of man: material nutriment and nutriment of the spirit.

It follows that education must be considered from two different points of view: that of the progress of civilisation, and that of the perfectionment of the species.

In regard to variations of cranial volume, just as in the case of variations of stature, there are a number of different factors which may be summed up in such a way as to afford us certain determining characteristics of social caste. Delicate questions these, which we may sum up in a single question equally delicate, that lends itself to a vast amount of discussion; namely, what is the relation between the volume of the brain and the development of the intellect?

Individual Variations of Cerebral (and Cranial) Volume. Relation between the Development of the Cerebral Volume and the Development of the Intelligence.—The series of arguments in reference to the cerebral volume ought to be considered independently of the biological and biopathological factors which we have up to this point been considering; namely, race, sex, age, degeneration and disease.

That is to say, in normal individuals, other conditions being equal, volumetric differences of the brain may be met with, analogous to those other infinite individual variations, in which nature expresses her creative power, even while preserving unchanged the general morphology of the species.

It is due to this fact that the innumerable individuals of a race, while all bearing a certain resemblance to one another, are never any two of them identically alike.

Variations of this sort, which might be called biological individualisations, are in any case subject to the most diverse influences of environment, which concur in producing individual varieties.

This is in accordance with general laws which are applicable to any biological question whatever, but that in our case assume a special interest. There are certain men who have larger or smaller brains; and there are men of greater or of less intelligence. Is there a quantitative relation between these two manifestations, the morphological and the psychic?

Everyone knows that this is one of those complicated, much discussed questions that spread outside of the purely scientific circles and become one of the stock themes of debate among classes incompetent to judge; consequently it has been colored by popular prejudice, rather than by the light of science. It is well that persons of education should acquire accurate ideas upon the subject.

If the volume of the brain should be in proportion to the intellectual development, argues the general public, what sort of a head must Dante Alighieri have had? He would have had to be the most monstrous macrocephalic ever seen upon earth. And on the basis of this superficial observation, they wish to deny any quantitative relation whatever between brain and intelligence. And yet it is this same general public that keeps insisting: Woman has less intelligence than man, because she has a smaller brain.

A single glance up and down the zoological scale suffices to show that throughout the whole animal series a greater development of brain is accompanied by a correspondingly greater development of psychic activity; and that there is a conspicuous difference between the human brain and that of the higher animals (anthropoid apes), corresponding to the difference between the level of man's psychic development and that of the higher mammals; and this justifies the assertion that, as a general rule, there is a quantitative relation between the brain and the intellect.

This suggests the thought that the perfect development of this delicate instrument, the brain, demands a variety of harmonious material conditions, among others the volume, in order to render possible the conditions of psychic perfection.

From this premise, we may pass on to a more particularised study of the material conditions essential to the superior type of brain. The volume is the quantitative index; but the quality may be considered from various points of view, which may be grouped as follows:

I. The General Morphology of the Brain in reference to:

(a) The harmonious, relative volumetric proportions between the lobes of the brain (namely, the proportion between the frontal, parietal, temporal and occipital lobes). It was formerly believed that a superior brain ought to show a prevalence of the frontal lobes, since a lofty forehead is a sign of intellect; but it was afterward established that there is no direct relation between the development of the forehead and the development of the frontal lobes; a higher forehead results from a greater volume of the entire cranial contents; the superior brain, on the contrary, is that in which no one lobe prevails over another, but all of them preserve a reciprocal and perfect harmony of dimensions.

(b) The form, number and disposition of the cerebral convolutions, and of the folds of the internal passage (Sergio Sergi).

(c) The form, number and disposition of the cells in the cortical strata of the brain, and the proportion between the gray matter and the white, that is to say, between the cells and fibres; in short, the histological structure of the brain.

II. The Chemistry of the brain:

(a) The chemical composition of the substances constituting the brain, which may be more or less complicated. (Recent studies of the chemical evolution of living organisms have demonstrated that the atomic composition is far more complex in the higher organisms.)

(b) The intimate interchange of matter in the cerebral tissues, in connection with their nutrition.

(c) The chemical stimuli coming from the so-called glands of internal secretion (thyroid, etc.).

All these conditions concur in determining the quality of the cerebral tissues. In its ontogenetic evolution, for example, the brain does not merely increase in volume, and its development is not limited to attaining a definite morphology; but its intimate structure and its chemical composition as well must pass through various stages of transition before attaining their final state. We know, for example, that the myelination of the nerve fibres takes place upward from the spinal marrow toward the brain, and that the pyramidal tracts (voluntary motor tracts) are the last to myelinate, and hence the last to perform their functions in the child.

The consistence of the cerebral mass and its specific gravity also differ in childhood from that of the adult state. The evolution of the brain is therefore a very complex process; and this process may not be fully completed (for instance, it may be completed in volume, but not in form or chemical composition, etc.).

Consequently, just as in the case of volume, there may be various qualitative conditions, such as would produce organic inferiority.

But supposing that qualitatively the evolution has been accomplished normally, where there is greater cerebral volume, is there a correspondingly greater intellect?

At this point it is necessary to take into consideration another series of questions regarding the brain considered as a material organ, and having reference to the relation between the volume of the brain and that of the stature.

The brain must govern the nerves in all the active parts of the body, especially the striped muscles, which perform all voluntary movement. Consequently the cerebral volume must be in proportion, not only to the intellectuality, but also to the physical activity.

Evidently, a greater mass of body demands a greater nervous system to give it motive power.

The biological law is of a general nature: if the brain of a rat weighs 40 centigrams, that of an ox weighs 734 grams, and that of an elephant 4,896 grams.

"The absolute volume of the brain increases with the total volume of the body."

But this correspondence is not proportional. There are two facts that alter the proportions. One of these is that the mass of the body increases faster than the brain, throughout the biological series of species, so that the smaller the body the greater the proportional quantity of brain. Just the opposite from what was found to hold true for the absolute weight.

It may be affirmed as a biological law that "the relative volume of the brain increases as the size of the body diminishes." For instance, the tiny brain of a rat is a 43d part of the total volume of its body; the brain of an ox, on the contrary, is a 750th part. Consequently we may say that the little rat has relatively a far larger brain than the huge ox.

And the same thing holds true among men; those of small build have a proportionately larger brain than those of large build.

A second fact which alters the absolute proportion between the volume of brain and the volume of body has reference to the "functional capacity" of the active parts. The muscles which are capable of the best activity and the greatest agility are the ones more abundantly stimulated through their nerves than those which are capable only of slow and sluggish action. The same may be said of the organs of sensation; the more highly the sensibility is developed, the larger are the corresponding nerves, and consequently the greater is the corresponding quantity of cerebral cells. Accordingly the animal which is nimblest in its movements, and most capable of sensations has in proportion to this greater functional activity a greater cerebral volume. In this same way we may explain the enormous difference in relative brain volume between the extremely active, sensitive and intelligent little beast which we call the rat, and the sluggish and stupid animal which we call the ox. Consequently this functional activity has a correspondingly greater volume of brain, without a correspondingly greater volume of the various highly sensitized organs. In such a case it may be stated as a general law that "the relative volume of the brain is in direct proportion to the intelligence (or, more broadly, to the functional activity), while the absolute volume is in direct relation to the total mass of the body."

Man has a cerebral volume of 1,500 cubic centimetres, a volume equal to a fortieth part of the whole body. Consequently he has a brain twice the actual size of that of the ox, while considered in its relation to bodily bulk, he has more brain than the smallest rat (man = 1/40; rat = 1/43). A volume so far exceeding the proportions found in animals, is beyond doubt directly related to human intelligence.

Relation between Cerebral and Intellectual Development in Man.—This ends our examination of the generic question of the relation between cerebral volume and intellect.

Granting these biological principles, and wishing to apply them to normal man, let us go back to our first question: "Do persons of greater intelligence have a greater cerebral volume, and consequently a larger head?"

There is an extensive literature upon this question, the tendency of which is to decide it affirmatively.

Parchappe has made a comparative study between writers of recognized ability and simple manual workers, and has found that the former have a development of the head notably in excess of the latter.

Broca took measurements, in various hospitals, of the heads of physicians and male nurses, and found a greater development of head in the case of the physicians.

Lebon made a study of cranial measurements in men of letters, tradesmen, the nobility and domestic servants, and found the maximum development among the men of letters and the minimum among the servants. The tradesmen, who at all events are performing a work of social utility, stand next to the men of letters; while the aristocrats show some advantage over the domestics. Bajenoff took his measurements from famous persons on the one hand and from convicted assassins on the other, and found a greater head development among the former.

Enrico Ferri has made similar researches among soldiers who have had a high-school education and those who are uneducated, and has found a more developed cranium among the educated soldiers.

I also have made my own modest contribution to this important question, by seeking to determine the difference in cranial volume between the school-children who stand respectively at the head and foot of their class, and have found among children of the age of ten a mean cranial circumference of 527 millimetres for the more intelligent and of only 518 millimetres for the less intelligent.

Similar results were obtained by Binet in his researches among the elementary schools of Paris. He found among children of the age of twelve that the brightest had a mean cranial circumference of 540 millimetres and those at the foot of their class a mean of only 530 millimetres. The following table gives a parallel between these various cranial measurements:

CRANIAL MEASUREMENTS (in Millimetres)[39]

Binet Children in the elementary schools of Paris, from 11 to 13 years of age
Montessori Children in the elementary schools of Rome, from 9 to 11 years of age

By calculating the cranial capacities according to Broca'a method, I obtained:

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

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] 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:

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?

Social superiority, like moral superiority, is the product of evolution. In primitive times when men, in order to live, were limited like animals to gathering the spontaneous fruit of the earth, according to the poetry of the biblical legend, and according to what sociology repeats to-day, the superior man was the one of largest stature, the giant. People paid him homage because he was the most imposing, without troubling themselves to ask whether, or not, he might be insane. In this way Saul was the first king. When the time came that men were no longer content to live on the spontaneous fruit of the earth, but were forced to till the soil, then a new victory was inaugurated, the victory of the more active and intelligent man. David killed Goliath. This great Bible story marks the moment when the superiority of man came to be considered under a more advanced and spiritual aspect. When the men who cultivated the earth began to feel the need of other neighbouring lands and became conquerors, then the soldier was evolved, until in the middle ages there resulted such a triumph of militarism that the nobles alone were conquerors in war; and the persons who to-day would be called superior, the men of intellect, the poets, were considered as feeble folk, despicable and effeminate. In our own times, now that the great conquests of the earth have been made and the victorious people consequently brought into harmony, the moment has come for conquering the environment itself, in order to wring from it new bread and new wealth. And this is the proud work of human intelligence which creates by aiding all the forces of nature and by triumphing over its environment; thus to-day it is the man of intelligence who is superior. But it seems as though a new epoch were in preparation, a truly human epoch, and as though the end had almost come of those evolutionary periods which sum up the history of the heroic struggles of humanity; an epoch in which an assured peace will promote the brotherhood of man, while morality and love will take their place as the highest form of human superiority. In such an epoch there will really be superior human beings, there will really be men strong in morality and in sentiment. Perhaps in this way the reign of woman is approaching, when the enigma of her anthropological superiority will be deciphered. Woman was always the custodian of human sentiment, morality and honour, and in these respects man always has yielded woman the palm.

Face and Visage

The Limits of the Face.—The face is that part of the head which remains when the cranial cavity is not considered. To attempt to separate accurately, in the skeleton, the facial from the cerebral portion would involve a lengthy anatomical description; for our purpose it is enough to grasp the general idea that the face is the portion situated beneath the forehead, bounded in front by the curves of the eyebrows, and in profile by a line passing in projection through the auricular foramen and the external orbital apophysis (Fig. 39, page (188)).

It is customary during life to consider the entire anterior portion of the head as constituting one single whole, bounded above by the line formed by the roots of the hair, and below by the chin. This portion includes actually not only the face but a portion of the cerebral cranium as well, namely, the forehead; it bears the name of the visage and is considered under this aspect only during life.

Human Characteristics of the Face.—One characteristic of the human cranium, as we have already seen (Fig. 40), as compared with animals, is the decrease in size of the face, and especially of the jaw-bones in inverse proportion to the increase of the cranial volume.

"Man," says Cuvier, "is of all living animals the one that has the largest cranium and the smallest face; and animals are stupider and more ferocious as they depart further from the human proportions."

In man, the cranium, assuming that graceful development which is characteristic of this superior species, surmounts the face, which recedes below the extreme frontal limit of the brain.

The different races of mankind, however, do not all of them attain so perfect a form; in some of them the face protrudes somewhat in advance of the extreme frontal limit, and in such cases we say that it is prognathous.

Thus the relations in the reciprocal development between cranium and face are different in animals and in man; as they also are in the various human races. Cuvier gives some idea of these proportions by comparing the European man with animals, by means of the following formulas which he has obtained by calculating approximately the square surface of a middle section of the head:

Cranium:face =

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)) 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.