The Cincinnati daily star. [volume] ([Cincinnati, Ohio]) 1875-1880, 1880-04-20


draw out the buekram. This is new and
very pretty.
skulls, brains and SouIs.
Thomas Dwight in International Review fol
Msy.l
The weight of the brain has often been
held to be the criterion of the mind,
though, apart from the want of confrma-
tion obtained by investigation, there are
serious theoretical difficulties. The brain,
whatever other functions it may have,
is undoubtedly a source of power sup
piled to the muscles and we are ignorant
to what extent the activity of the mus
cular system OF the size of the body may
influence that Of the brain. We know
that q muscle grows by judieious exer-
else; why, then, should not the brain,
supplying it with the nerve force Heees-
sary for its increased duties, enlarge pari
passuf 1t may be doubtful whether we
can prove that this is so, It is, l think,
certain that we can not prove that it is
not 80. ....
DIR. LeBon, in work to which I shall
refer again, has decided that the height
of person has an effect, though a very
slight one, on the size of the brain. He
found that the influence of the weight
of the body is greater, but by no means
sufficient to account for the variations Of
the brain. Another disturbing element
is age. It has been estimated that after
a rather uncertain date, say forty-flve
years, the brain gradually dwindles.
Again, may not some wasting diseases
preceding death cause shrinking of the
organ; and May not other pathological
changes increase its density? All these
sources of error must make us skeptical
as to Individual results, though, at the
same time, we can not free ourselves
from some share in the general belief
that the weight Of the brain is an index
of the mind.
The weight Of the. brains Of numbers
of known men, distinguished and other
wise, has been cited for and against this
theory Cuvier is usually found head
ing the list, with q brain weight Of g. 33
ounces (The average for the male is
between 40 and SOY One is struck with
the apparent propriety that this vast in
tellect should have worked through a
heavy brain. Within the last ten years,
however, laborer has died in England,
whose brain weighed rs ounces. OF his
history and habits little is known.
Though intelligent for his rank in life,
he apparently gave no signs of fitness
for a higher one. His most intellectual
trait, if I remember rightly, was his
fondness for reading newspapers, proba-
bly, the only literature he could easily
obtain. "Chill psnury" may have "re-
pressed his noble rage" if he had any.
lie may have been a. ''mnta, inglorious
Milton" .. u
But who, knows whether the sublime
imaginatians of the poet betoken re-
markable cerebral Developments? The
late James Fiske, T., had a brain weigh-
ing 5S ounces, surprising Daniel Web
ster, Chauncey Wright, Dubaytren, and
a mathematician of the first rank. In
deed, all these, except Fiske, come after
a man who from his second year was
reckoned an idiot. A celebrated philol-
ogist is below the average, and a dis
tinguished mineralogist much below it.
In spite Of many exceptions, however,
we find distinguished men most numer.
Gus near the top of the list, and laborers
criminals and idiots at the other enc
of it. .......... .a.. .......
Before leaving the literature Of til.
subject, must mention paper by DR.
j. S. WIGHT, of Brooklyn. The basis il
series of measurements, which show
clearly enough the outline and capacit,
of the head, taken on forty-two men ant
many women,l one-half Of each set beint
educated and the other half ignorant
The numbers, no doubt, are far too small
to give a satisfactory man, and other OBJ
jections-as, for instance, the minglinl
of those of different races in the sam
category-might be raised; but tn
work is ingenious and not fruitless. Tht
author shows that the forepart Of tn
head is more developed in educated mel
than In educated women, and also in ig
norant men than in ignorant women
He finds, moreover, that the brain of tn
uneducated male somewhat resembles il
size and form that of the educated fe
male. ...
Anatomists give very discordant diret
. tions for determining the sex Of skulls
In a great many cases it can not be dt
termined. The female skull, as rul
is smaller than the male, and, moreover
the Jaws and prominences for muscle
are less developed; consequently til
brain case. though smaller than in mai
is larger in proportion to the face. d
LeBon gives some very curious statistic
concerning the capacities OF femal
skulls. There is NO question that tn
differences in skull and brain betwee
the sexes increase with the degree
civilization; bat it is astonishing tina
, while the sktlls Of male Parisiaris al
among the largest, those Of the wome
are remarkably small; they are eve
smaller than those of the women OF Pol.
nesia, and but little above those OF I'll
women Of New Caledonia. This ID fa'
not easy III account for.