The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-11-23
THE. SIZE OF HEADS.

| We republish an article from the London
| Leader for the benefit Of such of our readers as
feel either exalted by very large heads, or be-
Titled by very small ones. 1t will be seen that
there is something to be said on both sides-the
inside as well as the outside:
With regard to the large-head and sniallhead
controversy, we might say, We have never been
able to come to any tangible conclusion
Cuvier's head must have been large for his
brain weighed sixty-6ve ounces. This is gen
orally accounted the heaviest known healthy
brain; but we we're recently told of working
man who died in University College Hospital,
London and whose head was so large that the
students had the brain weighed, out of curl
osity, when they found it weighed sixty-seven
ounces, though perfectly healthy On inquiry,
all that they could learn about the man was that
he was said by his neighbors to have Fad a re-
markedly good memory.
The brain of DIR. Abercrombie of Edinburp
weighed sixty-three ounces. DIR. Chalmers had
a very large head indeed, (Joseph Hume and he
were said to have the largest heads in he king
dom,) and yet his brain weighed but ffty-three
ounces-almost under the average On the
other hand, Byron had a small head, at least
Mr.. Leigh Hunt informs us that his hat, which
is not very large one, used to go quite over
weighed nearly four pounds.
Keats and Shelley had very small beads, Mr..
Leigh Hunts hat going over them, too. Rafella
had small head Sir Walter Scott had a small
head; so had Neander, the church historian; so
also, if we recOllect arightwhat Bernal Diaz saws
had Cortez, the conqueror of Mexico. Yelling
tons head is said to have been under the aver
age size. The brain of Mrs. Manning, the muir
deress, was pound lighter than her husbands.
The skull of Rush was very large, measuring,
we think, upward Of twenty!four inches round
Pericles, as we know, had large head so had
Mahomet; so had Mirabeau so had O'Connell
Lamartine describes Napoleon's as a small head
which had bulged out. The skull of the poet
Burns was carefully measured when it was dis
inferred on the burial of his wife it measured
twenty-five and a quarter inches round, which,
allowing half an inch for the integuments would
make the circumference of the living head
twenty-one and three-quarters inches a--largish
head, but not extraordinary. Goethe's head, we
believe, was not remarkable for size. About
Shakspeares head our only information must
be from the Stratford bust, which Chantrey pro-
nounced from certain signs, to be almost GER
tainly modelled from an original cast taken
after death. 1t is curious example Of a fore
gone conclusion, that Mr.. Hugh Miller, speak
ing Of this bust, in his admirable work, entitled
First Impressions of England and its People,"
describes the head, from personal inspection, as
a very large one. The skull, he says, must have
been of capacityto contain all of DR.. Chalmerss
brains. This, as Dr. Chalmers was then alive.
was tantamount to saying it was of the largest
known dimensions. Now, with this description
In our memory, we have ourselves exarSined the
Stratford bust with the utmost close qess and
care, and we unhesitatingly declare, that the
head in that bust is, if not a smallsI one, at
laac ILL., ,A L
easily fit. We 6eliere it is a smallish lead. In
short, from all the statistics we have at tommand
respecting large and small heads, inclt ding our
own private observations among our tycquaint-
ances, we have never been able to oil ain any
presentable conclusion on the point.
The opinion of David Scott, the pail ter, was
that large heads were generally founE. in sue
cessful men of the world, such as ST ttesmen,
bankers, and the like, and that the ffSness of
nervous tissue requisite for the purely Intellect
ual lives of artists, thinkers, and literary men
generally, connoted small or average size of
head. Even this opinion, however, VII break
down, if applied in practice. We know very
energetic, prudential, and weighty men, with
smallish heads, and we know men With very
large heads who seem at home only In The most
exquisite and ornamental kinds of mental activ-
ity. More sure than any conclusion that can be
come to on this point of size seems to be no
| ton we have heard advanced with respect to
the form of heads. Length of head from front
to back we heard an eminent and very observ-
ing man declare TO be, according to his expert
ence, the most constant physiognomic 'igns of
ability Only in one eminent head, th5t of Sir
Walter Scott, had he found this sign anting;
and in this case, if properly considered, the
want was significant. Next to length ce depth,
his idea was, that height over the ears, as in
SCOTS head, was the best sign, although he had
not found this nearly so essential.
To us it appears, that if to the two dimensions
of length or depth and height, as alus ex-
pounded, we add the third dimension ofs9readth,
and if we attach to these three terms ti,eir cor
responding popular meanings when snsed in
speaking ofmental character-regardifS deep
head or head long from front to back, or from
the forehead to the ears as significant Of depth
or astuteneSs high head, or heed rising
high over the ears, as significant of mo>sl eleva-
ton; and a broad head, as measured across and
behind the temples, as significant of Swhat is
called width or generality of view-we shall have
as tolerable system of practical craniqlogy as
the facts will warrant not very Different either,
from that propounded by the ordinary I'hrenol-
ogists, though they would carry US much iurther.
Here, however, let us not be too certain in our
judgement. We have seen foreheadsy villain
Gus low" on very noble fellows, and grand
domes of heads on mere blocks andsignora-
muses..
PHYSIOLOGICAL CABINET