← catalogue

The Criminal

by Havelock Ellis · English · Gutenberg #44500 · 608,278 chars · public domain (US)

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Criminal
    
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The Criminal

Author: Havelock Ellis


        
Release date: December 24, 2013 [eBook #44500]
                Most recently updated: October 23, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44500

Credits: Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
        http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
        generously made available by The Internet Archive.)


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE CRIMINAL ***

_THE CONTEMPORARY SCIENCE SERIES._

EDITED BY HAVELOCK ELLIS.

THE CRIMINAL.




_By the same Author._

THE NEW SPIRIT.

LONDON: G. BELL & SONS.




[Illustration: _Frontispiece._]




  THE CRIMINAL.

  BY HAVELOCK ELLIS.

  _ILLUSTRATED._

  SCRIBNER & WELFORD,
  743 & 745 BROADWAY,
  NEW YORK.
  1890.




CONTENTS.


  CHAPTER I.                                               PAGE
    INTRODUCTION                                              1

  CHAPTER II.
    THE STUDY OF THE CRIMINAL                                26

  CHAPTER III.
    CRIMINAL ANTHROPOLOGY (PHYSICAL)--
      § 1. CRANIAL AND CEREBRAL CHARACTERISTICS              49
      § 2. THE FACE                                          63
      § 3. ANOMALIES OF THE HAIR                             72
      § 4. CRIMINAL PHYSIOGNOMY                              78
      § 5. THE BODY AND VISCERA                              88
      § 6. HEREDITY                                          90
      § 7. TATTOOING                                        102
      § 8. MOTOR ACTIVITY                                   108
      § 9. PHYSICAL SENSIBILITY                             112

  CHAPTER IV.
    CRIMINAL ANTHROPOLOGY (PSYCHICAL)--
      § 1. MORAL INSENSIBILITY                              124
      § 2. INTELLIGENCE                                     133
      § 3. VANITY                                           139
      § 4. EMOTIONAL INSTABILITY                            142
      § 5. SENTIMENT                                        152
      § 6. RELIGION                                         156
      § 7. THIEVES’ SLANG                                   161
      § 8. PRISON INSCRIPTIONS                              169
      § 9. CRIMINAL LITERATURE AND ART                      176
      § 10. CRIMINAL PHILOSOPHY                             193

  CHAPTER V.
    THE RESULTS OF CRIMINAL ANTHROPOLOGY                    202

  CHAPTER VI.
    THE TREATMENT OF THE CRIMINAL                           233

  CHAPTER VII.
    CONCLUSIONS                                             283

  APPENDIX--
    A. EXPLANATION OF PLATES                                303
    B. THE CONGRESS OF CRIMINAL ANTHROPOLOGY AT PARIS       307
    C. THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PENAL LAW           316
    D. SOME CASES OF CRIMINALITY                            318
    E. ELMIRA                                               329

  INDEX                                                     335




PREFACE.


This little book is an attempt to present to the English reader a critical
summary of the results of the science now commonly called criminal
anthropology. In other words, it deals briefly with the problems connected
with the criminal as he is in himself and as he becomes in contact with
society; it also tries to indicate some of the practical social bearings
of such studies.

During the last fifteen years these studies have been carried on with
great activity. It seemed, therefore, that the time had come for a short
and comprehensive review of their present condition. Such a review of a
young and rapidly growing science cannot be expected to reveal any final
conclusions; yet by bringing together very various material from many
lands, it serves to show us how we stand, to indicate the progress already
made, and the nature of the path ahead. In these matters we in England
have of recent years fallen far behind; no book, scarcely a solitary
magazine article, dealing with this matter has appeared among us. It
seemed worth while to arouse interest in problems which are of personal
concern to every citizen, problems which are indeed the concern of every
person who cares about the reasonable organisation of social life.

I would willingly have given the task to abler hands. But I found no one
in England who was acquainted with the present aspects of these questions,
and was compelled, therefore, after considerable hesitation, to undertake
a task which had long appealed to me from various sides, medical,
anthropological, and social.

There is, I believe, nothing original in this book. It simply represents a
very large body of intelligent opinion in many countries. I have to
acknowledge with gratitude the assistance, always ungrudgingly rendered,
which I have received from very many directions. I would specially mention
those medical officers of prisons in Great Britain who answered my
Questions issued at the beginning of 1889, Dr. Hamilton Wey of the Elmira
Reformatory, Dr. Vans Clark, formerly Governor of Woking Prison, Professor
Lombroso of Turin, Dr. Antonio Marro, the Rev. J. W. Horsley, Dr. Langdon
Down, Dr. Hack Tuke, Dr. Francis Warner, etc. It would, however, be
impossible to enumerate all those to whom I am indebted. In such a task as
this the writer himself has the smallest part; the chief shares belong to
an innumerable company of workers, known and unknown.

H. E.




THE CRIMINAL.




CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTION.


Of criminals, actual or nominal, there are many kinds. It is necessary,
first of all, to enumerate the chief varieties.

There is the _political criminal_. By this term is meant the victim of an
attempt by a more or less despotic Government to preserve its own
stability. The word “criminal” in this expression is usually a euphemism
to express the suppression of a small minority by the majority. The aims
of the “political criminal” may be anti-social, and in that case he is
simply an ordinary criminal, but he is not necessarily guilty of any
anti-social offence; he simply tries to overturn a certain political order
which may itself be anti-social. Consequently the “political criminal” of
our time or place may be the hero, martyr, saint, of another land or age.
The political criminal is, as Lombroso calls him, “the true precursor of
the progressive movement of humanity;” or, as Benedikt calls him, the
_homo nobilis_ of whom the highest type is Christ. From any scientific
point of view the use of the word crime, to express a difference of
national feeling or of political opinion, is an abuse of language. Such a
conception may be necessary to ensure the supremacy of a Government, just
as the conception of heresy is necessary to ensure the supremacy of a
Church; the prison for political dissentients corresponds to the stake for
religious dissentients. A criminality which is regulated partly by
chronology, partly by longitude, does not easily admit of scientific
discussion.

We have, again, the _criminal by passion_. He is usually a man of
wholesome birth and of honest life, possessed of keen, even exaggerated
sensibilities, who, under the stress of some great, unmerited wrong, has
wrought justice for himself. Stung to sudden madness by some gross insult
to his wife or wrong to his daughter, he makes an attempt on the life of
the offender. The criminal by passion never becomes a recidivist; it is
the social, not the anti-social, instincts that are strong within him; his
crime is a solitary event in his life. Therefore he cannot figure as a
serious danger to society; in some respects he serves even to quicken the
social conscience and to check anti-social instincts. At the same time it
is not to the advantage of society that a private individual should in a
moment of passion even wreak justice; and the criminal by passion cannot
complain that he in his turn becomes the victim of a social reaction.

We have also the _insane criminal_; that is to say, the person who, being
already in a condition of recognisable mental alienation, performs some
flagrantly anti-social act. A very large number of crimes are committed by
persons who are impelled by delusions, or who have, before the commission
of the crime, been in a condition of mental alienation. Nearly a hundred
persons every year in this country are sent to prison to be found insane
on admission. The hanging of persons who are afterwards generally regarded
as insane has always, and is still, frequently carried on. In Germany Dr.
Richter has shown that out of 144 lunatics who were, as was afterwards
shown, at the date of their crimes in the highest degree insane, only 38
were recognised as insane before the judge--_i.e._, 106 madmen were, on
account of their madness, condemned to severe punishment. Out of 100
insane persons brought to the bar of justice only 26 to 28 are recognised
as insane.[1] The insane criminal is clearly in a category of his own. He
is only a criminal in the same sense as an infant or an animal who
performs some noxious act. The lunatic may be influenced by the same
motives that influence the sane person, but he is at the same time
impelled by other motives peculiar to himself, and to which we may have no
means of access. To bring all the solemn formalities of law to bear
against a madman, and to condemn him to severe punishment, is in a
civilised country unreasonable.

The political criminal may usually be recognised without difficulty when
we lay aside political prejudice; the criminal by passion can be
recognised at once when we know his history. There is not usually much
difficulty in ascertaining the insanity of the criminal who is insane in
the strict and perhaps the only legitimate sense of the word--_i.e._,
intellectually insane. But at this point we are no longer able to proceed
with quite the same clearness and certainty. We are approaching the
criminal in the proper sense, the criminal with whom we shall be chiefly
concerned.

The uncertainty on this borderland may be illustrated by the following
case. W. T. is a boy of fifteen, a very small ugly-looking lad, with a
small head, low in the forehead, larger in the back, high narrow palate,
heavy sullen aspect, and slight external squint of left eye. His father
and mother are healthy and sober people; one of the father’s uncles died
in an asylum, and one of his aunts committed suicide. The boy had
convulsions at the age of eighteen months, and was very backward in
walking and speaking; at the age of twelve he could not dress himself. At
school he was very dull, apt to strike his companions if roused, solitary,
fond of reading, but not remembering what he had read. His schoolmaster,
an experienced teacher, had never known so peculiar a boy. But he was not
a bad or untruthful lad, and had no vices. When he left school his father
tried to teach him his own trade of shoemaking; but, though he had no
special distaste for the work, he could not learn even the most elementary
part of the trade. Other boys made fun of him, and he complained of his
little sister, ten years of age, doing the same. One day, when he had been
left quietly sitting alone with this sister, he took up his father’s
hammer, which was at his feet, and struck her, smashing in her skull. Then
he locked the back door, as he always did on leaving home, and went out,
closing the front door after him. He returned in an hour, wet from the
rain which had begun to fall. He was taken to prison, and from the first
displayed no emotion; he ate and slept well, and was a good, docile boy.
The judge who tried him (Lord Coleridge) was evidently in favour of a
verdict of manslaughter. The jury fell in with this suggestion, although
the authority of Dr. Savage was in favour of insanity, and the boy was
condemned to ten years’ penal servitude.[2] Such a case shows very well
the inaccuracy of our hard and fast lines of demarcation. Here was a
person clearly of abnormal or degenerate character, and liable to sudden
violent impulses; he would nowhere be popularly recognised as insane, and
possibly it is not desirable that he should be so recognised. On the other
hand, he cannot correctly be termed an instinctive criminal; he is on the
borderland between the two groups, and a touch may send him in either
direction.

Let us take another illustration. Miss B., nineteen years of age, the
daughter of a captain in the army, is described as a tall robust-looking
girl of lively temperament. When a few months old she had an attack of
meningitis. As a child she was always wilful and troublesome. When she was
eighteen years old she developed new instincts of mischief. She would
sometimes take off her clothes, stuff them up the chimney, and set fire to
them. When the servants rushed in she would be sitting on the hearth
clapping her hands: “What a fine blaze!” She had frequently destroyed
furniture, clothing, and books; she liked to cut carefully the strings
binding a book, so that it would fall to pieces in the hands of the
unsuspecting person who took it up. She drenched a baby, and frequently
her own room, with water, without any reason. She once attempted to
throttle the attendant in whose care she was put. She was backward for her
age, though her education had not been neglected; she could not keep
accounts, and was fond of reading children’s books. There was a history of
bad sexual habits, and she had a propensity to fall in love with every man
she saw. She was perfectly coherent and rational, and accused others of
doing the mischievous acts attributed to her. After being sent to a
clergyman’s house for some months she eventually recovered.[3] Here there
was, strictly speaking, no insanity; there were vicious and criminal
instincts which would no doubt have developed had the girl been sent to
prison instead of to a comfortable home, and there was (as there very
frequently is among instinctive criminals) a history of brain mischief.
How shall we classify her?

Let us take another example--this time from France--in which the
pathological element does not clearly appear. A gentleman named X., the
French paper informs us, has been passing the summer at his country house
with his daughter, aged twenty-two, and his son, aged twenty. From the
moment of his arrival devastations occurred everywhere on his property.
The shrubs were cut; garden plants and large branches of the birch trees
removed; the doors and walls of the house were soiled. The grounds and
dwellings of other persons in the neighbourhood were similarly treated.
Windows were broken; the emblems of religion were outrageously insulted;
the walls and doors of the church, the priest’s house, and even the altar,
were soiled with ordure. A drawing of the priest administering the
sacrament to a cow was found on the walls, and obscene letters,
containing also menaces of death and incendiarism, were received by M. X.,
the priest, and others. Terror overspread the parish, and no one dared to
go out by night. At last M. X.’s son and daughter were discovered in the
act. Alexis, the least guilty, having been drawn on by his sister,
confessed his part in what had been done; he was the accomplice and
confidant of his sister. She denied everything, even that she had aided
her brother. There was no motive for these acts, save the pleasure of
spreading terror through the country; they had had no intention of
accomplishing their threats. The girl carried her impudence and imprudence
so far as to send an insulting letter to the magistrate who was
investigating her misdeeds, and to break windows, unperceived, in his
presence.[4] This is an example of moral perversity, showing itself in
malevolent and unsocial acts. Possibly, if we possessed a scientific
history of the case, we might find a pathological element in it, but as it
stands it is but an extravagant example of anti-social instincts, on the
borderland of crime, which in a minor degree are far from uncommon.

I will now give, in some detail, the history of a more decisive and
significant example of this same moral insensibility. It is in a child,
and I take it from German records. Marie Schneider, a school-girl, twelve
years of age, was brought before the Berlin Criminal Court in 1886. She
was well developed for her age, of ordinary facial expression, not pretty,
nor yet ugly. Her head was round, the forehead receding slightly, the nose
rather small, the eyes brown and lively, the smooth, rather fair hair
combed back. With an intellectual clearness and precision very remarkable
for her age, she answered all the searching questions put by the President
of the Court without hesitation or shrinking. There was not the slightest
trace of any inner emotion or deep excitement. She spoke in the same quiet
equable tone in which a school-girl speaks to her teacher or repeats her
lesson. And when the questions put to her became of so serious a character
that the judge himself involuntarily altered his voice and tone, the
little girl still remained self-possessed, lucid, childlike. She was by no
means bold, but she knew that she had to answer as when her teacher spoke
to her, and what she said bore the impress of perfect truth, and agreed at
every point with the evidence already placed before the court. Her
statement was substantially as follows:--“My name is Marie Schneider. I
was born on the 1st of May 1874, in Berlin. My father died long ago, I do
not know when; I never knew him. My mother is still living; she is a
machinist. I also have a younger brother. I lost a sister a year ago. I
did not much like her, because she was better than I, and my mother
treated her better. My mother has several times whipped me for
naughtiness, and it is right that I should take away the stick with which
she beat me, and to beat her. I have gone to school since I was six years
old. I have been in the third class for two years. I stayed there from
idleness. I have been taught reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, and
history, and also religion. I know the ten commandments. I know the sixth:
it is, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ I have some playfellows at school and in the
neighbourhood, and I am often with a young lady [believed to be of immoral
life] who is twenty years old and lives in the same house. She has told
me about her childhood, and that she was just as naughty as I am, and that
she struck the teacher who was going to punish her. Some time ago, in
playing in the yard, I came behind a child, held his eyes, and asked him
who I was. I pressed my thumbs deep in his eyes, so that he cried out and
had inflamed eyes. I knew that I hurt him, and, in spite of his crying, I
did not let go until I was made to. It did not give me special pleasure,
but I have not felt sorry. When I was a little child I have stuck forks in
the eyes of rabbits, and afterwards slit open the belly. At least so my
mother has often said; I do not remember it. I know that Conrad murdered
his wife and children, and that his head was cut off. I have heard my aunt
read the newspapers. I am very fond of sweets, and have several times
tried to get money to buy myself sweets. I told people the money was for
some one else who had no small change. I know that that was deceit. I know
too what theft is. Any one who kills is a murderer, and I am a murderess.
Murder is punished with death; the murderer is executed; his head is cut
off. My head will not be cut off, because I am still too young. On the 7th
of July my mother sent me on an errand. Then I met little Margarete
Dietrich, who was three and a half years old, and whom I had known since
March. I said to her that she must come with me, and I took her hand. I
wanted to take away her ear-rings. They were little gold ear-rings with a
coloured stone. I did not want the ear-rings for myself, but to sell at a
second-hand shop in the neighbourhood, to get money to buy some cakes.
When I reached the yard I wanted to go somewhere, and I called to my
mother to throw me down the key. She did so, and threw me down some money
too, for the errand that I was to go on. I left little Margarete on the
stairs, and there I found her again. From the yard I saw that the
second-floor window was half open. I went with her up the stairs to the
second floor to take away the ear-rings, and then to throw her out of the
window. I wanted to kill her, because I was afraid that she would betray
me. She could not talk very well, but she could point to me; and if it
came out, my mother would have beaten me. I went with her to the window,
opened it wide, and set her on the ledge. Then I heard some one coming
down. I quickly put the child on the ground and shut the window. The man
went by without noticing us. Then I opened the window and put the child on
the ledge, with her feet hanging out, and her face turned away from me. I
did that because I did not want to look in her face, and because I could
push her easier. I pulled the ear-rings out. Grete began to cry because I
hurt her. When I threatened to throw her out of the window she became
quiet. I took the ear-rings and put them in my pocket. Then I gave the
child a shove, and heard her strike the lamp and then the pavement. Then I
quickly ran downstairs to go on the errand my mother had sent me. I knew
that I should kill the child. I did not reflect that little Grete’s
parents would be sorry. It did not hurt me; I was not sorry; I was not
sorry all the time I was in prison; I am not sorry now. The next day a
policeman came to us and asked if I had thrown the child out of the
window. I said no, I knew nothing about it. Then I threw away the
ear-rings that I had kept hid; I was afraid they would search my pockets
and find them. Then there came another policeman, and I told him the
truth, because he said he would box my ears if I did not tell the truth.
Then I was taken away, and had to tell people how it happened. I was taken
in a cab to the mortuary. I ate a piece of bread they gave me with a good
appetite. I saw little Grete’s body, undressed, on a bed. I did not feel
any pain and was not sorry. They put me with four women, and I told them
the story. I laughed while I was telling it because they asked me such
curious questions. I wrote to my mother from prison, and asked her to send
me some money to buy some dripping, for we had dry bread.” That was what
little Marie Schneider told the judge, without either hesitation or
impudence, in a completely childlike manner, like a school-girl at
examination; and she seemed to find a certain satisfaction in being able
to answer long questions so nicely. Only once her eyes gleamed, and that
was when she told how in the prison they had given her dry bread to eat.
The medical officer of the prison, who had watched her carefully, declared
that he could find nothing intellectually wrong in her. She was
intelligent beyond her years, but had no sense of what she had done, and
was morally an idiot. And this was the opinion of the other medical men
who were called to examine her. The Court, bearing in mind that she was
perfectly able to understand the nature of the action she had committed,
condemned Marie Schneider to imprisonment for eight years. The question of
heredity was not raised. Nothing is known of the father except that he is
dead.[5]

Marie Schneider differs from the previous cases, not merely by her
apparent freedom from pathological elements, but by her rational motives
and her intelligence. The young French woman intended nothing very serious
by her brutal and unfeeling practical jokes. Marie Schneider was as
thorough and as relentless in the satisfaction of her personal desires as
the Marquise de Brinvilliers. But she was a child, and she would very
generally be described as an example of “moral insanity.” It is still
necessary to take a further step, although a very slight one, to reach
what every one would be willing to accept as an instinctive criminal. The
example I will select is an Englishman, Thomas Wainewright, well known in
his time as an essayist, much better known as a forger and a murderer. R.
Griffiths, L.L.D., Wainewright’s maternal grandfather--to take his history
as far back as possible--was an energetic literary man and journalist,
whose daughter, Ann, born of a young second wife when he was well past
middle life, “is supposed to have understood the writings of Mr. Locke as
well as perhaps any person of either sex now living” (said the
_Gentleman’s Magazine_) and who married one Thomas Wainewright, and died
in child-bed at the age of twenty-one, the last survivor, even at that
age, of the second family. Thomas Wainewright, the father, himself died
very soon afterwards. Of him nothing is known, though there is some reason
to think that Dr. Griffiths regarded him with dislike or suspicion.

The child seems then to have been born of a failing and degenerating
stock. He was clever, possessed of some means, and grew up in a literary
and artistic circle; but he was vain and unstable, “ever to be wiled
away,” as he says himself, “by new and flashy gauds.” When still a lad, he
went into the army for a time. Then, after a while, being idle in town,
“my blessed Art touched her renegade; by her pure and high influences the
noisome mists were purged,” and he wept tears of happiness and gratitude
over Wordsworth’s poems. “But this serene state was broken,” he wrote,
several years before his career of crime had commenced, “like a vessel of
clay, by acute disease, succeeded by a relaxation of the muscles and
nerves, which depressed me

                  --‘low
  As through the abysses of a joyless heart
  The heaviest plummet of despair could go,’--

hypochondriasis! ever shuddering on the horrible abyss of mere insanity!
But two excellent secondary agents--a kind and skilful physician, and a
most delicately affectionate and unwearied (though young and fragile)
nurse--brought me at length out of those dead black waters, nearly
exhausted with so sore a struggle. Steady pursuit was debarred me, and
varied amusement deemed essential to my complete revivification.” Then he
began to write his essays and criticisms, dealing chiefly with the later
Italian and the French artists, under the name of Janus Weathercock. He
was a man of many sentimentalities and super-refinements; he hated all
vulgarity and “sordid instincts.” His tastes were sensual in every
respect. Notwithstanding his means, they were not sufficient to satisfy
his desires for luxurious foods and drinks, for fine perfumes, for large
jewels to wear. He could not live without luxuries, just as little Marie
Schneider could not live without sweets. At about the date that his chief
literary activities ceased, and when he was about thirty years of age, he
forged a power of attorney with the names of his trustees, assigning to
himself the principal of £5000, of which he was enjoying the interest.
This was then a capital offence; it remained undetected for twelve years.
He is described at this time as “a smart, lively, clever, heartless,
voluptuous coxcomb.” He was tall, stooping slightly, of dark hair and
complexion, deeply set eyes, stealthy but fascinating, a large and massive
head. He married a young lady who was poor, but a gay and brilliant
person, and she had a widowed mother and two half-sisters. The young
couple lived improvidently, and an uncle, Mr. G. E. Griffiths, who was
well off, offered them a home in his own house. This welcome offer was
accepted. A year after, Mr. G. E. Griffiths, after a short illness, died
very unexpectedly, leaving his mansion and property to his nephew and
niece. This money, however, also went rather fast; and now too there were
no longer any expectations from relatives. The stepmother and her
daughters, the Abercrombies, were poor, and their schemes to make a living
were not successful. The Abercrombies were obliged to come and live with
the Wainewrights in the large mansion they had inherited, and a very few
months after this Mrs. Abercrombie died, like old Mr. Griffiths, very
suddenly, in a fit of convulsions. No benefits, however, followed this
death; affairs continued to grow worse, and soon the bailiffs were in the
house, and there was a bill of sale on the furniture. The Wainewrights and
Abercrombies migrated to handsome lodgings in Conduit Street, near Regent
Street. They frequently went to the play, and one night, very soon after
their arrival, Helen Abercrombie, who wore the thin shoes that women then
always wore, got her feet wet, became ill, and was assiduously attended by
Wainewright and his wife, who held frequent consultations as to her
treatment by means of certain powders; in a few days she was dead, with
the same symptoms as her mother, the same symptoms as Mr.
Griffiths--“brain mischief,” the doctor called it. She died on the very
day on which the bill of sale became due, and after her death it was found
that her life had, during the same year, been insured, in various offices,
for £18,000. Helen Abercrombie was a beautiful and very healthy girl, and
her death led to suspicions, and gave rise to law-suits, which on the
slighter but definite ground of misrepresentation were in favour of the
companies. In the meanwhile Wainewright found it convenient to leave
England (he had separated from his wife after the death of Helen
Abercrombie), and took refuge with a rather impecunious gentleman who
lived with his daughter at Boulogne. He persuaded this gentleman to obtain
money to effect a loan by insuring his life. One night, after the policy
had been effected, this gentleman suddenly died. We next hear of
Wainewright travelling in France, doubtless for excellent reasons, under
an assumed name. He fell into the hands of the police, and not being able
to give a good account of himself, was imprisoned for six months. The
French police found that he carried about with him a certain powder, at
that time little known, called strychnine; this was put down to English
eccentricity. At this time there was a warrant out against Wainewright for
forgery; he was lured over to England by a detective, with the aid of a
woman, and arrested. He was tried for forgery, and condemned to
transportation for life. At the same time the suspicions of the doctor
who attended Helen Abercrombie were roused, and Wainewright himself, after
his condemnation, admitted to visitors, with extraordinary vanity and
audacity, his achievements in poisoning, and elucidated his methods. It is
also said that he kept a diary in which he recorded his operations with
much complacency. The one thing that hurt little Marie Schneider was the
dry bread; the one thing that moved Wainewright was being placed in irons
in the hold of the ship. “They think me a desperado! Me! the companion of
poets, philosophers, artists, and musicians, a desperado! You will smile
at this--no, I think you will feel for the man, educated and reared as a
gentleman; now the mate of vulgar ruffians and country bumpkins.” At
Hobart Town on two occasions he endeavoured to remove by poison persons
who had excited his animosity. He is described at this time by one who
knew him well as “a man with a massive head, in which the animal
propensities were largely developed. His eyes were deeply set in his head;
he had a square solid jaw; he wore his hair long, stooped somewhat, and
had a snake-like expression which was at once repulsive and fascinating.
He rarely looked you in the face. His conversation and manner were winning
in the extreme; he was never intemperate, but nevertheless of grossly
sensual habits, and an opium-eater. As to moral character, he was a man of
the very lowest stamp. He seemed to be possessed by an ingrained malignity
of disposition which kept him constantly on the very confines of murder,
and he took a perverse pleasure in traducing persons who had befriended
him. He was a marked man in Hobart Town--dreaded, disliked, and shunned
by everybody. His sole living companion was a cat, for which he evinced an
extraordinary affection.” He died of apoplexy in 1852, at the age of
fifty-eight.[6] Wainewright presents to us a perfect picture of the
instinctive criminal in his most highly developed shape, fortunately a
rare phenomenon. It is this instinctive propensity to crime which is
sometimes called “moral insanity.” This is, however, by no means a happy
phrase, since it leads to much fruitless disputation. It is wiser at
present to apply to such an individual the more simple term, _instinctive
criminal_.[7] There is, however, distinct interest in noting that at one
period of his life Wainewright was on the verge of insanity, if not, as is
more likely, actually insane; it is extremely probable that he never
recovered from the effects of that illness. It may well be that if we
possessed a full knowledge of every instinctive criminal we should always
be able to put our hands on some definite organically morbid spot.

The instinctive criminal, in his fully developed form, is a moral monster.
In him the absence of guiding or inhibiting social instincts is
accompanied by unusual development of the sensual and self-seeking
impulses. The _occasional criminal_, as he is usually called, is a much
commoner and more normally constituted person. In him the sensual
instincts need not be stronger than usual, and the social elements, though
weaker than usual, need not be absent. Weakness is the chief
characteristic of the occasional criminal; when circumstances are not
quite favourable he succumbs to temptation. Occasional crime is one of the
commonest forms of crime; it is also that for whose existence and
development society is most directly responsible; very often it might
equally well be called social crime. Here is an example. Two lads of
honest life, the sons of agricultural labourers, being unable to obtain a
scanty subsistence at home, start one day in a fit of desperation for a
distant town in search of work. Without food or shelter, sleeping under a
hedge, they reach a farm-house. Looking through a window they see a
plum-pudding; they open the window, seize the pudding, and go a few yards
off to devour it. In a few hours they are on the way to the lock-up, to
receive, later on, a sentence of six months’ imprisonment. “At the close
of it they were provided with an outfit and an introduction to an employer
of labour in Canada; and when we last heard of them they were doing
extremely well, with excellent prospects before them.”[8] This sequel
(which would have been better had it come before the seizure of the
plum-pudding) proves that we are not dealing with instinctive criminals.
Take another case mentioned by the same writer. A woman with a drunken
husband who spends his last penny in the public-house, is driven by actual
starvation to commit her first crime. She steals a small piece of meat to
feed her hungry children. She is sent to prison. “We heard of her
afterwards leading a most consistent and almost saintly life.” These
persons, it is clear, were not the criminals but the victims; society was
the criminal. Now and then, as in the cases just cited, it happens that
the occasional criminal who is thus recklessly flung into prison is
assisted to live a human life. In the great majority of cases he is ruined
for life, familiarised with the prison, introduced to bad company. We
have, as well as we are able, manufactured him into what is called the
_habitual criminal_.

The steps by which the occasional criminal, aided on the one hand by
neglect, on the other by the hot-bed of the prison, develops into the
habitual criminal are slow and subtle; that is one of the tragedies of
life. M. Joly has recorded the experiences of the police concerning the
thefts that take place at the great Parisian shops, the Louvre, and the
Bon-Marché. “This is the beginning. From a gallery one sees a woman--rich
or well-to-do-who buys a certain number of objects and pays for them; but
without asking permission she takes some little, almost insignificant
object--a little ribbon to fasten a parcel, a more commodious paper-bag.
No one will say that she is stealing; no one will think of speaking to her
or disturbing her. But she is observed and even watched, for one expects
to see her again some time after taking, as she walks along, say, a flower
worth twenty-five centimes. A little later she will appropriate an article
of greater value, and henceforth she will take for the pleasure of taking.
The inclination, which at the beginning had in it nothing instinctive or
fatal, will grow as all habits grow. Another time a woman who had no
intention of stealing, but whose conscience is probably elastic, grows
impatient at the delay in attending to her wants. It is, let us suppose, a
purse worth ninety-five centimes, and the shopman is busy with purchasers
of more expensive objects. Suddenly the woman nervously yields to a swift
temptation; she does not wish to wait longer, but instead of replacing the
purse on the counter she slips it into her pocket and turns on her heels
without paying. ‘From that moment,’ said the inspector, ‘_she is lost_;
she will come back to steal, but she will steal intentionally and
deliberately.’”[9]

The world and the criminal’s friends are startled some day by a great
crime, but that crime is linked on to a chain of slight, occasional,
sporadic vices and offences. Sometimes we can trace out these links. Barré
and Lebiez were two young French criminals who attracted attention some
years ago. They were both of good family, both very intelligent, the
former about to enter on a commercial life, the latter on the eve of
becoming a doctor of medicine. At this point they murdered an old woman to
rob her, and cut up the body to dispose of it. The crime was deliberate
and carefully prepared; there was nothing romantic or obviously morbid
about it, and a few days after the crime Lebiez delivered an able and
eloquent lecture on Darwinism and the Church. In each of these young men
there were, M. Joly observes, nine stages in the path of crime. Let us
first note those of Barré:--1. His employer is obliged to dismiss him on
account of misconduct with a servant girl. 2. He writes untruthful letters
to his family, describing habits of work which do not exist. 3. He
acquires an extravagant taste for speculation on the Stock Exchange. So
far his course, though not exemplary, was one that has often enough been
traversed by persons who have never reached the scaffold. 4. He
speculates with the savings which two girls had entrusted to him for
investment. 5. To obtain money from his father, to whom he talks of
establishing himself, he forges letters. 6. He embezzles various sums of
money by an aggravated form of the same process. 7. He steals a watch from
a prostitute’s rooms. 8. He steals eight francs from the same. 9. He
decides on the murder of the old milk-woman with whom he has had business
relations, and whose savings, as he knows, are considerable. Lebiez went
through the following stages:--1. His violent language to his mother is
remarked. 2. He is, notwithstanding very small means, known to be living
with a mistress, and he procures obscene photographs. 3. On account of
irregularity he is sent away from an institution where he gave lessons. 4.
He speculates on the Stock Exchange, which, being poor, he could only do
by accepting profit and refusing to meet loss. 5. He steals books from his
friends and sells them. 6. He several times leaves his lodgings
clandestinely, without paying the rent. 7. He participates in the theft of
the watch by Barré. 8. He shares the profits of the second theft. 9. They
decide on the murder together. Such are the slow steps by which the
occasional criminal becomes the _habitual criminal_ or the _professional
criminal_. It must be remembered that the lines which separate these from
each other, and both from the instinctive criminal, are often faint or
imperceptible. “Natural groups,” as Mr. Galton remarks, “have nuclei but
no outlines.” In the habitual criminal, who is usually unintelligent, the
conservative forces of habit predominate; the professional criminal, who
is usually intelligent, is guided by rational motives, and voluntarily
takes the chances of his mode of life; while in the instinctive criminal
the impulses usually appear so strong, and the moral element so
conspicuously absent, that we feel we are in the presence of a natural
monster. It is not, however, always possible to make these distinctions.

The professional criminal, though not of modern development, adapts
himself to modern conditions. In intelligence, and in anthropological rank
generally, he represents the criminal aristocracy. He has deliberately
chosen a certain method of earning his living. It is a profession which
requires great skill, and in which, though the risks are great, the prizes
are equally great.[10]

Lacenaire, a famous criminal of the beginning of the century, has
sometimes been regarded as the type of the professional criminal, and to
complete this classificatory outline it may be well to sketch his career.
He was born at Lyons about the beginning of the century, received a good
average education, and was very intelligent, though not distinguishing
himself at college. He was ambitious and, at the same time, incapable of
sustained work. He came to Paris to study law; but his father’s resources
were inadequate, and he became a clerk, frequently changing his situation,
growing tired of work at length, and engaging as a soldier. So far no
offence is recorded. When he returned to France his father, become
bankrupt, had fled. Some friends came to the young man’s help, and gave
him 500 francs. He hastened to Paris and spent it in enjoyment. Then he
entered the literary Bohemia, and wrote verses and political articles,
fighting a duel with a nephew of Benjamin Constant and killing him. He
said, later on, that the sight of his victim’s agony had caused him no
emotion. Soon his love of enjoyment outran his means of getting money,
though these might have been considerable had he cared to work steadily,
and he obtained money by theft and swindling. Condemned to prison, he soon
formed connections with professional criminals, and associated them in his
schemes and joined them in their orgies. He adopted false names,
multiplied forgeries and disguises, and preyed actively on society. After
an orgy at this time he committed a murder, and he attempted to murder a
man who had won a large sum from him in gambling. The crime and the
attempt both remained unpunished. Gifted with intelligence, and still more
with vanity and audacity, Lacenaire continued his career of systematic
crime until finally he met the guillotine. He was a professional criminal,
but also, it will be seen, he was something of an habitual, something of
an instinctive criminal.[11]

We have glanced briefly at the circles of crime--circles that extend from
heaven to very murky depths of hell, and that yet are not far from any one
of us. It is still necessary to touch on the various ways in which the
causes and nature of this vast field of crime may be approached.

There are, first, the _cosmic_ causes of crime; that is to say, all the
influences of the external inorganic world, the influence of temperature
on crime, the increase of crimes of violence in hot weather, the
periodicity of other kinds of crime, the influence of climate, the
influence of diet.

Then there is the _biological_ factor. Under this head we include the
consideration of all the personal peculiarities of the individual,
anatomical, physiological, psychological. These peculiarities may be
atavistic, atypic, or morbid.

Lastly, there is the _social_ factor in crime. Criminal sociology deals
with the production of crime by social influences, and by economic
perturbations. Infanticide is nearly always related to the social factor;
and the study of the various social influences which promote or hinder
infanticide is extremely instructive. The relations between crimes against
the person and the price of alcohol, and between crimes against property
and the price of wheat, also belong to this department of the study of
crime. Society prepares crimes, as Quetelet said; the criminal is the
instrument that executes them. “The social environment,” Lacassagne has
well said, “is the cultivation medium of criminality; the criminal is the
microbe, an element which only becomes important when it finds the medium
which causes it to ferment: _every society has the criminals that it
deserves_.”

It is impossible to over-estimate the importance of the social factor in
crime. To some extent it even embraces the others, and can be made to
regulate and neutralise them. But we cannot deal wisely with the social
factor of crime, nor estimate the vast importance of social influences in
the production or prevention of crime, unless we know something of the
biology of crime, of the criminal’s anatomical, physiological, and
psychological nature. This book is concerned with the study of the
criminal man.




CHAPTER II.

THE STUDY OF THE CRIMINAL.


When Homer described Thersites as ugly and deformed, with harsh or scanty
hair, and a pointed head, like a pot that had collapsed to a peak in the
baking--

        ἄισχιστος δὲ ἀνὴρ ὑπὸ Ἴλιον ἦλθεν.
  φολκὸς ἔην, χωλὸς δ’ ἕτερον πόδα. τὼ δέ οἱ ὤμω
  κυρτώ, ἐπὶ στῆθος συνοχωκότε. αὐτὰρ ὕπερθεν
  φοζὸς ἔην κεφαλὴν, ψεδνὴ δ’ ἐπενήνοθε λάχνη

--he furnished evidence as to the existence of a criminal type of man.
These physical characters of Thersites are among those which in these last
days have been submitted to scientific observation, and to statistics, and
have been largely justified. The epigrammatic utterances in which
primitive peoples crystallise and pass on their philosophy and science,
include many sayings which prove the remote period at which men began to
perceive the organic peculiarities which separate the criminal man from
the average man. There are some proverbs of this character, such as those
indicating the widespread dislike of the red-haired, for which no solid
justification has yet been found; but among various races, and in many
countries, numerous proverbs are in harmony with the results of modern
research: _A vultu vitium_, the old Roman saying; _Au vis_ [_visage_] _le
vice_, the old French saying; “Salute from afar the beardless man and the
bearded woman;” “Distrust the woman with a man’s voice;” “A pale face is
worse than the itch.” Such are a few that might be easily increased.

At a very early period such popular generalisations as these were embodied
in that empirical science of physiognomy, which found many professors
among the Greeks and Romans. According to the well-known story, a Greek
physiognomist who examined Socrates’ face judged that the philosopher was
brutal, sensuous, and inclined to drunkenness; and Socrates declared to
his disciples that such, although he had overcome it, was his natural
disposition. He was himself a physiognomist; he disliked a certain man who
was of pale and dark complexion, such signs, he said, indicating envy and
murder; the peculiar dark and pallid complexion of the instinctive
criminal has of late years been frequently noted.

Aristotle, that great master of all the sciences, clearly recognised not
merely the physiognomic signs of habits, vices, and crimes, including many
signs that are in accordance with modern scientific observation, but he
also observed a connection between the shape of the head and the mental
disposition, and he recognised the hereditary character of vicious and
criminal instincts. Galen, who inaugurated the experimental study of the
brain, adopted the views of Aristotle, and pointed out the influence of
the abuse of alcohol in the production of crime; he was of opinion, also,
anticipating a modern doctrine, that when the criminal is a criminal by
nature he ought to be destroyed, not in revenge, but for the same reason
that scorpions and vipers are destroyed.[12]

Although these feeble beginnings of criminal anthropology received the
sanction of the highest scientific authorities, as well as of the people,
and later on a mediæval law declared that if two persons fell under
suspicion of crime the uglier or more deformed was to be regarded as more
probably guilty, they were not universally admitted, and some, like Pliny,
regarded it as absurd that the outward form could indicate the inward
disposition. Whatever art or science there was in the matter was left,
then and long after, to the physiognomists, of whom Polemon may be taken
as a distinguished example, and these were ready to supply the most
elaborate physical signs to correspond to any vicious or criminal
disposition. Polemon wrote of the criminal that he was of pallid
complexion, with long hair, large ears, and small eyes, and he proceeded
to give the characteristics of various classes of criminals, his
observations often showing keen insight. This pseudo-science was passed on
from physiognomist to physiognomist, usually with added absurdities, until
in the sixteenth century we reach the Neapolitan Dalla Porta, at once the
greatest (and except Lavater the last) of the physiognomists of the old
school and the first of the new. He treated judicial astrology with
contempt, and at the same time wrote a treatise of celestial physiognomy;
he gathered up all that his predecessors had done, and at the same time
laid the foundations of a more scientific treatment.

Passing by Lavater, with his fine intuition and genial humanity, which
formed, however, no epoch in the scientific study of criminal
anthropology, at the beginning of the present century we reach Gall, a
very great figure in the history of science, and the representative of the
most important moment in the development of our knowledge of the brain.

Before speaking of Gall, however, it is necessary to give a word, in
passing, to Grohmann, who slightly preceded him, and who anticipated many
of the conclusions relative to facial and cranial characteristics reached
by modern criminal anthropologists. Thus, in 1820, he wrote:--“I have
often been impressed in criminals, and especially in those of defective
development, by the prominent ears, the shape of the cranium, the
projecting cheek-bones, the large lower jaws, the deeply-placed eyes, the
shifty, animal-like gaze.”

Gall thrust aside for ever the credulous fancies of the physiognomists;
and he has been described, not altogether without reason, as the founder
of the modern science of criminal anthropology. He was certainly its most
brilliant pioneer. Lavater believed in the homogeneity of the human
organism, but he was not a man of science, and he had been content to
study the surface of the body; Gall, with true scientific instinct, tried
to get to the root of the matter; following the great English anatomist,
Willis, who had made some attempt at cerebral localisation, he studied
the brain, sought to differentiate the functions of its various parts, and
the effects of its varying development on the skull.

For Gall the varying development of the brain was the cause of the
divergent mental and moral qualities of the individual; he was firmly
convinced that all the facts of psychical life are rooted in the physical
organisation; he wished to write the natural history of every primitive
moral and intellectual force, in health as well as in disease. To the best
of his ability he carried out this programme in detail, by an unceasing
study of all the varieties of the brain and of the living head that he
could find; he pursued his studies throughout Europe, in lunatic asylums
and in prisons, as well as among the ordinary population, and he foresaw
the extent of the applications of the science he was opening up to
medicine and to law, to morality and to education. While his work extended
far beyond the borders of what we should now call criminal
anthropology,[13] he devoted much attention to the problems of the
criminal organisation, and even to its varieties, many of his observations
according well with the results of recent investigation. More than this,
following Galen and Diderot (who had written, fifty years earlier, “The
evil-doer is one whom we must destroy, not punish”), he clearly advocated
a method of dealing with the criminal which is now widely regarded as the
only right and reasonable method. “There can be no question,” he said, “of
culpability or of justice in the severe sense; the question is of the
necessity of society preventing crime. The measure of culpability and the
measure of punishment cannot be determined by a study of the illegal act,
but only by a study of the individual committing it.” In his great work,
_Les Fonctions du Cerveau_ (1822), Gall has summed up his conclusions.

It has been the misfortune of this great and truly scientific investigator
to give origin to an empiric art of phrenology which took the place of the
old art of physiognomy he had done so much to destroy. He has
consequently, until recent years, been popularly known chiefly by his
mistakes, especially perhaps by his localisation of the sexual instinct in
the cerebellum--a localisation, however, which he supported by a large
body of evidence. The influence of dubious phrenological doctrines
hardened into a system somewhat impairs the value of Lauvergne’s _Les
Forçats_ (1841), which seems to have been the first book of any importance
devoted entirely to the study of convict nature, physical, moral, and
intellectual. Lauvergne, who was the chief medical officer to the hospital
for convicts at Toulon, appears to have been a man of humanitarian
instincts, whose wit and _bonhomie_ enabled him to maintain friendly
relations with the criminals he was studying; he had little capacity for
scientific analysis, but he wrote fully of what he had seen and known, and
his book contains many keen observations which have been since verified.
He fully recognises also the importance of the social factor in the
production of criminals.

Lauvergne had observed how many of his subjects were insane or diseased;
the students of the criminal who followed him all insisted on the
pathological element. Dally maintained that the criminal and the lunatic
are identical, and both equally irresponsible. Prosper Lucas, in his
valuable _Traité philosophique de l’hérédite_ (1847), showed how deeply
rooted in the organism are the morbid tendencies of crime. Lélut compared
the length and breadth of head in criminals. Voisin noted their defects in
cerebral organisation. It was, however, Morel who, in his _Des
Dégénérescences_ (1857), chiefly developed this aspect of criminality, and
his influence is still strong among French students of the criminal. Morel
regarded crime as one of the forms taken on by degeneration in the
individual or the family; and degeneration he defined as “a morbid
deviation from the normal type of humanity.” The causes of degeneration
which he recognised were intoxications, famines, social environment,
industries, unhealthy occupations, poverty, heredity, pathological
transformations, moral causes. “My principal aim,” he says, “has been the
study of these causes, and of the influences which they exercise, firstly
on the constitution of individuals, and afterwards on that of their
descendants.” Among these causes he gives a chief place to the manifold
effects on the children of alcoholism in the parents. In his pamphlet _De
la Formation du Type dans les variétés dégénérés_ (1864), Morel proposed
to give the name of morbid anthropology to “that part of the natural
science of man, the aim of which is to study the characters due to certain
special diseased influences, as well as to hereditary transmissions of
bad nature.”

Despine, by his great work, _Psychologie Naturelle_ (1868), made a new and
important step in criminology. Leaving aside the study of the criminal’s
physical nature, he sought to make an exhaustive study of his mental
nature. No one has done more than Despine to prove that what we should now
call the instinctive criminal is, on the psychological side, a natural
anomaly, a mental monstrosity. He brought into clear relief the
unforeseeing imprudence, the entire lack of moral sensibility and of
remorse, which characterise the instinctive criminal. He recognised that
the criminal is not necessarily an insane or diseased person, and he
showed that his abnormality is not of the kind that intellectual education
can remedy. “No physiologist,” he said, “has yet occupied himself with the
insanity of the sane;” he considered the criminal as “morally mad,” and
therefore irresponsible. Maudsley, from an opposite philosophic
standpoint, came to very similar conclusions. Without bringing any fresh
contribution of importance, he re-affirmed emphatically the conclusions
already reached. Speaking in his _Responsibility in Mental Disease_ (1872)
of instinctive criminals, he remarks, “It is a matter of observation that
this criminal class constitutes a degenerate or morbid variety of mankind,
marked by peculiarly low physical and mental characteristics.” Like
Despine, he drew from this the conclusion, since widely accepted, that the
criminal, being morally insane and usually incurable, should be treated in
the same way as the intellectually insane person. “If the matter be
considered deeply, it may appear that it would, perhaps, in the end make
little difference whether the offender were sentenced in anger and sent
to the seclusion of prison, or were sentenced more in sorrow than in
anger, and consigned to the same sort of seclusion under the name of an
asylum. The change would probably not lead to an increase or to a decrease
in the number of crimes committed in a year.” An artist as much as a man
of science, master of a sombre and weighty style, illumined by vivid
flashes of imagination, Maudsley by his numerous works popularised the new
ideas, and is justly regarded abroad as a pioneer of criminal
anthropology.

Broca, who, by initiating the Anthropological Society of Paris in 1859,
has been regarded as the founder of the modern science of anthropology,
gave attention also to the special science of criminal anthropology by
noting the peculiarities of the skulls and brains of criminals. At the
Exeter meeting of the British Association in 1869, Dr. G. Wilson read a
paper on “The Moral Imbecility of Habitual Criminals as exemplified by
cranial measurements.” He had measured 464 heads of criminals, and found
that habitual thieves presented well-marked signs of insufficient cranial
development, specially anteriorly. “The cranial deficiency,” he observed,
“is associated with real physical deterioration. Forty per cent. of all
the convicts are invalids, more or less; and that percentage is largely
increased in the professional thief class.” He argued that a prisoner must
be treated on reforming principles, and not allowed unrestricted liberty
until there was reasonable evidence to show that he would not prove
dangerous to society. About the same time, also (in 1870), J. Bruce
Thomson, Resident-Surgeon to the General Prison for Scotland at Perth,
published in the _Journal of Mental Science_ a summary of his observations
on over 5000 prisoners. From the decisiveness of his utterances and the
large number of prisoners of whom he was able to speak, this summary gave
a stimulus to the study of the criminal throughout Europe. Thomson
enumerated some of the physical characteristics of the instinctive
criminal now generally recognised, pointed out the semi-imbecility
prevalent among the juvenile criminals under his observation, the
frequency of accumulated morbid appearances at _post-mortem_ examinations,
and the large proportion of cases at Perth needing treatment for mental
diseases soon after admission, “apparently from congenital causes.”
Thomson’s facts and opinions were too curtly, and, probably, too
emphatically stated. Dr. Nicolson, writing also in the same journal from
1873 to 1875, dealt with the morbid psychology of the criminal, the
unstable, emotional element in him, his proneness to delusions, his
insensibility, and his weak-mindedness. Dr. Nicolson’s papers, all written
before the latest and most fruitful era of criminal anthropology began,
were, so far as I have been able to trace, the latest original
contributions from the scientific side made in England to the study of the
criminal. Such knowledge as has been furnished since has come from writers
who have, almost of necessity, dealt with what may be called the mental
and social symptomatology of criminals. Among the books which supply more
or less valuable or interesting information of this kind may be mentioned
the Rev. J. W. Horsley’s _Jottings from Jail_, Michael Davitt’s _Leaves
from a Prison Diary_, and the _Scenes from a Silent World_, by a Prison
Visitor, which appeared in _Blackwood’s Magazine_ during 1889. An earlier
book of this class, Mayhew’s _London Labour and the London Poor_ (vol.
iv.), is perhaps still the most valuable.

Italy is to-day the home of criminal anthropology, and not of criminal
anthropology only, but of all the sciences that are connected with crime
and the criminal; the Zanardelli criminal code, which has recently become
law, while by no means entirely satisfactory from the scientific point of
view, shows the influence of the new movement. In this respect Italy
remains true to traditions that are two thousand years old; in the
sixteenth century Italy was still the centre of studies in penal law, and,
to keep to modern times, it is enough to mention the great names of
Beccaria, and, still more recently, Romagnosi. It was under the auspices
of Beltrani-Scalia, well known in connection with prison reform, that the
earlier Italian studies in criminal anthropology were published, from 1870
onwards, in the _Rivista delle discipline carcerarie_, a journal which
continues to publish valuable monographs. In this journal Lombroso
published, in 1872, the results of some investigations which he had made
on prisoners at Padua.

Professor Cesare Lombroso, of Turin, occupies a position of such
importance in the development of criminal anthropology that it is
necessary to have a clear idea of his aims and methods and the nature of
his achievement. Born in 1836, of Venetian parentage, the various and
restless activities of Lombroso’s career are characteristic of the man who
has been all his life opening up new paths of investigation and enlarging
the horizon of human knowledge. At the age of eleven he composed
romances, poems, and tragedies in the manner of Alfieri; at twelve he
developed a passion for classical antiquity, and published two small works
on Roman archæology. At thirteen he was attracted to the study of
sociology from a linguistic point of view (chiefly, we are told, with
relation to Greek, Hebrew, Chinese, and Coptic); at the same time he was
drawn to natural science, being interested especially in the formation of
crystals, and before entering the University he had published two books of
a somewhat evolutionary character. While a student he was led, by the
combined study of ancient religions and of medicine, to the subject of
mental diseases. He began with studies on cretinism in Lombardy and
Liguria, his conclusions being afterwards adopted by Virchow and others.
In the eventful year of 1859 he became first a soldier, and afterwards a
military surgeon. In 1862 he was in charge of the department of mental
diseases at Pavia University, and he initiated there an institution for
the insane, a psychiatric museum, and a series of researches in the
application of exact methods to the study of insanity. This last attempt
was at the time received with general derision; it was said that he was
studying madness with a yard measure; but his methods gradually made
progress, and slowly met with general adoption. After this he made some
important investigations into the causes of pellagra. Called to direct the
asylum at Pesaro, he reformed it, and established a journal, written and
managed by the insane. He then returned to Pavia, where he continued his
psychiatric work, investigated the influence of atmospheric conditions on
the mind, invented an instrument to measure pain, and engaged in a great
number of studies, marked by extraordinary ingenuity, patience, and
insight. Even as a youth Lombroso possessed the art of divining fruitful
ideas, which at the time appeared absurd to scientific men as well as to
the public. Every line of investigation he took up was at the time
apparently opposed to the tendency of thought, and only received general
attention at a later date. This was true, to some extent, even of the
great achievement of his life.

In the year 1859--perhaps the most memorable of the century--Broca, who
had a decided influence on Lombroso, had inaugurated the naturalist method
of treating man with the Anthropological Society of Paris. The
illuminating genius of Virchow, and his prodigious energy, which has done
so much for anthropology and the methods of anthropology, also had its
influence on the Italian, in some respects a kindred spirit. And Darwin’s
_Origin of Species_, published in 1859, supplied, for the first time, an
indispensable biological basis, and furnished that atavistic key of which
Lombroso was tempted to make at first so much use, sometimes, it must be
added, so much abuse. These circumstances combined to render possible, for
the first time, the complete scientific treatment of the criminal man as a
human variety, while Lombroso’s own manifold studies and various faculties
had given him the best preparation for approaching this great task. It was
in 1859 that he first conceived this task; _L’Uomo Delinquente_ was not,
however, finally published until 1876, while the second volume only
appeared in 1889.

The influence of _L’Uomo Delinquente_ in Italy, France, and Germany seems
to have been as immediate and as decisive as that of _The Origin of
Species_. Despine’s _Psychologie Naturelle_, the greatest work on the
criminal that had appeared before Lombroso, was partial; the criminal was
therein regarded purely as a psychological anomaly. Lombroso first
perceived the criminal as, anatomically and physiologically, an organic
anomaly. He set about weighing him and measuring him, according to the
methods of anthropology. Even on the psychological side he gained new and
more exact results. He went back to the origins of crime among plants and
animals, among savages and children. He endeavoured to ascertain the place
of the criminal in nature, his causes, and his treatment. Lombroso’s work
is by no means free from faults. His style is abrupt; he is too impetuous,
arriving too rapidly at conclusions, lacking in critical faculty and in
balance. Thus he was led at the beginning to over-estimate the atavistic
element in the criminal, and at a later date he has pressed too strongly
the epileptic affinities of crime. His weaknesses have never been spared
rough handling from friendly or unfriendly hands. Thus Mantegazza, while
recognising his _ingegno potentemente apostolico e geniale_, denies that
Lombroso possesses any of the qualities of a scientific investigator, and
Dr. Napoleone Colajanni, who, from the socialistic left of the movement,
has, in his _Sociologia Criminale_ (1889-90) and elsewhere, bestowed much
elaborate and often valuable criticism on the centre, compares Lombroso’s
indiscriminate collection of facts to Charles IX.’s famous order on St.
Bartholomew’s eve: “Kill them all; God will know His own.” But his work
has been so rich, so laborious, so various; it has opened up so many new
lines of investigation, and has suggested so many more, that it has
everywhere been received as marking a new epoch. He was, as he has himself
expressed it, the pollen-conveying insect, and the new science which he
fecundated has grown with extraordinary rapidity. A continuous stream of
studies--from books of the most comprehensive character down to
investigations into minute points of criminal anatomy or physiology--is
constantly pouring forth. It is still impossible to gather up this mass of
investigation, often necessarily discordant, into more than a tentative
whole, but its existence is sufficient to prove the vitality of the new
science. It has of course met with fierce antagonism, and Lombroso himself
has declared that perhaps not one stone will remain upon another, but that
if this is to be the fate of his work, a better edifice will arise in its
place.

Two other Italians must be mentioned with Lombroso. Enrico Ferri,
Professor of Penal Law at Rome and a Deputy in the Italian Parliament,
while doing valuable work as a criminal anthropologist, has at the same
time studied the social bearings of criminality in his best-known book,
_Nuovi Orizzonti del Diritto_. He has occupied himself less with the
instinctive than with the occasional criminal, and his clear and
philosophic spirit has placed him at the head of criminal sociologists.
Garofalo, a Neapolitan lawyer, accepting generally the conclusions reached
by Lombroso and Ferri, has become the most distinguished jurist of the
movement, the pioneer in that reform of law through the methods of natural
science which must eventually become so fruitful. His _Criminologie_ (the
new and enlarged edition is written in French) is marked by luminous yet
careful generalisation, and it contains many suggestions of wise reform.
Garofalo has brought into clear relief the inadequacy of legal maxims
founded on antiquated and unscientific conceptions, and he has shown that
not the nature of the crime, but the dangerousness (_temibilità_) of the
criminal constitutes the only reasonable legal criterion to guide the
inevitable social reaction against the criminal. This position is now
generally accepted as the legitimate outcome of the scientific study of
the criminal.

Among Italian workers in the department of criminal anthropology proper, a
very high place belongs to Dr. Antonio Marro, formerly surgeon to the
prison at Turin. _I Caratteri dei Delinquenti_ (1887) contains the results
of a carefully-detailed and methodic examination of more than five hundred
prisoners, men and women, and of over one hundred normal persons together
with an investigation into their ancestry and habits. All the data are
presented in tabular form, and his excellent methods and judicious
moderation in drawing conclusions impart great value to his work. His
exactness and impartiality have been admired even by those whose instincts
and training have led them to dread the invasions of this department of
science. Dr. Marro has made interesting contributions to the
differentiation of various criminal types, and he has brought out very
clearly the disastrous tendency to degeneration among the children of
parents who have passed middle age. Other Italian studies, among many that
might be mentioned, are Virgilio’s, dating from 1874, Dr. P. Penta’s
elaborate studies, the various works of Zuccarelli, the energetic
Neapolitan professor and editor of _L’Anomalo_, V. Rossi’s work, _Studio
sopra una Centuria di Criminali_, Salsotto’s on women delinquents, and
Ottolenghi’s investigations into the senses of criminals. The _Archivio di
Psichiatria_, a rich storehouse of elaborate observations, founded in
1880, directed by Lombroso, Ferri, Garofalo, and Morselli, edited by Rossi
and Ottolenghi, remains at the head of journals of criminal anthropology.

The first suggestion of an international congress of criminal anthropology
arose in Italy, and dates from the year 1882, when Salvatore Tommasi
published an important article in the _Rassegna Critica_. The first
congress, that of Rome, was not, however, actually held until 1885. It was
attended by all the most distinguished criminal anthropologists, criminal
sociologists, and jurists of the “positive” school, chiefly Italian,
French, and German, and its _Actes_ are of great interest. The second
international congress was held in August 1889, in Paris. It was of a more
cosmopolitan character than the first, and of even greater interest.[14]

France has always been a laboratory for the popularisation of great ideas,
and Tarde’s _La Criminalité Comparée_ is among the best of such attempts.
M. Tarde is a _juge d’instruction_, not an alienist or an anthropologist;
he touches on all the various problems of crime with ever-ready
intelligence and acuteness, and a rare charm of literary style,
illuminating with suggestive criticism everything that he touches. This
easily accessible little volume of the Libraire de Philosophie
Contemporaine is the most comprehensive introduction for those who would
go down to the _città dolente_ by a rose-strewn path. Lacassagne, the
eminent medico-legal expert of Lyons, and editor of the valuable
_Archives de l’Anthropologie Criminelle_, stands perhaps at the head of
French criminal anthropologists, although beyond his monograph, _Les
Tatouages_, he has published little. The judicial qualities of his mind,
and his power of expressing just and large conceptions in felicitous and
memorable phrases, impart value to all that he writes, and his forthcoming
work on the criminal man will, it is probable, for all practical purposes,
supersede other works. _De la Criminalité chez les Arabes_, by A. Kocher,
a pupil of Lacassagne’s, is a book of great interest, and the names of
Manouvrier, Bournet, Corre, Laurent, etc., are well known in connection
with criminal anthropology in France, while Féré ably represents the
French school which explains criminality by degeneration alone.

In Germany the serious study of the criminal may be said to have begun
with Krafft-Ebing, the distinguished professor of psychiatry, now at
Vienna, who, by laying down clearly in his _Grundzuge der Kriminal
Psychologie_ (1872), and other works, the doctrine of a criminal
psychosis, and pointing out its practical results, deserves, as Krauss
remarks, to be regarded as an important precursor of Lombroso. Knecht
studied over 1200 prisoners anthropologically. Dr. A. Krauss, who began
with investigations into criminal psychology, has since done much solid
work in criminal anthropology. Flesch made important observations on the
morbid pathology of criminals; Benedikt, known in connection with various
interesting investigations in criminal anthropology, began in 1879 with a
remarkable study of the criminal brain, in which he observed frequent
confluence of the fissures, as among some lower races, and also an
additional convolution in the frontal lobe, which he assimilated to that
of the carnivora. His conclusions in this difficult field of research
were, however, considerably shaken by Professor Giacomini, of Turin, and
others, who showed that similar anomalies are found, although not so
frequently, in normal persons. The brilliant Viennese professor has in his
recently-published _Kraniometrie und Kephalometrie_ shown himself the most
original and suggestive of living students of the architecture of the
skull.

In Holland, Professor Van Hamel, of Amsterdam, represents the new spirit
of approaching the problems of criminality.

In Belgium, where Quetelet’s great work, _Physique Sociale_, inaugurated
criminal sociology, and where prison reform, which has always attracted
much attention, is now ably represented by Professor Adolphe Prins, the
results of criminal anthropology have been received and discussed with
interest and sympathy, and various researches have been carried on.
Professor Héger and Dr. Semal of Mons should also be named here. In 1884
the Anthropological Society of Belgium nominated a commission for the
investigation of criminal anthropology. This led to various interesting
researches, none of them, however, of great importance.

In Spain and Portugal criminal anthropology is being prosecuted with much
zeal. Among its chief representatives may be named especially Vera and
Rafael Salillas (whose interesting book, _La Vida Penal en España_, gives
a very vivid picture of life in the Spanish prisons), and at Lisbon
Bernardo Lucas. D’Azevedo Castello Branco, sub-director of Lisbon prison,
should also be mentioned. In 1889, at a congress held in Lisbon, the
relation of criminal anthropology to penality, legal reform, and allied
problems was fully discussed.

In the rapidly-developing Spanish countries of South America, especially
in the Argentine Republic, criminal anthropology seems to be making great
progress. It is officially taught at the University of Buenos Ayres. Luis
del Drago, a judge in the Argentine Republic, with his _Los hombres de
Presa_ (1888), an able study of criminality, which has rapidly reached a
second edition, thus showing the interest generally felt in these studies,
and some other workers, witness to the progress made in this country. On
the initiative of Dr. del Drago, with influential coadjutors, a society
for the promotion of criminal anthropology was founded in Buenos Ayres in
1888, “to study the person of the criminal, to establish the degree of his
dangerousness and of his responsibility, and to effect the gradual and
progressive reform of penal law in accordance with the principles of the
new school.” In Brazil Professor Viejra de Aranjo of Pernambuco is the
chief representative of the science.

In Russia and Poland, although the study of criminal anthropology dates
from very recent years, it is making considerable progress. Bielakoff, in
the _Archives of Psichiatry_ of Kharkoff, studied 100 homicides. Professor
Troizki, of Warsaw, published a careful study of 350 prisoners. Dr.
Prascovia Tarnowskaia examined 100 female thieves, whom she compared with
150 prostitutes and 100 peasant women. On the legal side, Dimitri Drill is
engaged on a great work, of which one volume only is published at present,
in which he deals thoroughly with the organic factors of crime, and with
the social applications of criminal anthropology. The Russians seem to be
characteristically audacious in their applications of the new science, and
there is in Russia a feeling, not merely against imprisoning criminals,
but even against secluding them. In 1885 a young girl assassinated a
Jewish child to obtain possession for her lover of the money of the
child’s father, a rich usurer. Professor Babinski declared that she was
not mad, but entirely devoid of moral notions, that she was incurable, and
that it would be quite useless (useless, that is, from a medical point of
view) to put her in an asylum. She was acquitted.

In Great Britain alone during the last fifteen years there is no
scientific work in criminal anthropology to be recorded. When Dr. Coutagne
inaugurated, in 1888, a “Chronique Anglaise” in the _Archives de
l’Anthropologie Criminelle_, he could not conceal his embarrassment. While
the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Russian summaries are founded on a
large series of works in criminal anthropology, in England there is
absolutely no centre for the scientific study of criminality. “Legal
medicine,” he remarks, “has there inspired no special publication, nor any
learned society. At the International Medical Congress of London, in 1881,
although so remarkably organised, it was less well treated than
laryngology or dentistry, and formed the object of no section, state
medicine being almost synonymous with hygiene. If we consult the
scientific journals of England dealing with allied subjects, our baggage
will receive very few additions.” In 1889 the International Association of
Criminal Law was founded by Professor G. A. Van Hamel of Amsterdam,
Professor Fr. von Liszt of Marburg, and Professor Adolphe Prins of
Brussels. This association, which has a great future before it,
represents, from the scientific and practical standpoint, the movement of
reform in matters that relate to the criminal. It maintains that
criminality and the repression of crime must be regarded as much from the
social as from the legal point of view. It endeavours to establish this
principle and its consequences in the science of criminal law as well as
in penal legislation. The association already numbers between three and
four hundred members, and includes well-known representatives from
twenty-one different countries in Europe and America. England is among the
least well represented of all; the English members rank in number with the
Portuguese, Servian, and Argentine members. Germany is more than twenty
times better represented.[15] No interest was felt in England in the
International Congress of Criminal Anthropology recently held in Paris. At
this Congress official delegates came from all parts of the civilised
world, from Russia to Hawaii, but although there were two from the United
States, there was not one from Great Britain. When some twelve months
since I issued a series of Questions, dealing with some of the main points
in the investigation of the criminal, to the medical officers of the
larger prisons in Great Britain and Ireland, the answers that I received,
while sometimes of much interest--and I am indebted to my correspondents
for their anxiety to answer to the best of their ability--were amply
sufficient to show that criminal anthropology as an exact science is yet
unknown in England. Some of my correspondents, I fear, had not so much as
heard whether there be a criminal anthropology.[16] England has, however,
in the past been a home of studies connected with the condition of the
criminal. The centenary of John Howard, which we have lately celebrated,
is a brilliant witness to this fact. Fifty years ago Englishmen sought to
distinguish themselves by the invention of patent improved tread-mills and
similar now antiquated devices to benefit the criminal. We began zealously
with the therapeutics of crime; it is now time to study the criminal’s
symptomatology, his diagnosis, his pathology, and it is scarcely possible
to imagine that in these studies England will long continue to lag so far
behind the rest of the civilised world.




CHAPTER III.

CRIMINAL ANTHROPOLOGY (PHYSICAL).


§ 1. _Cranial and Cerebral Characteristics._

Considerably greater importance was formerly attributed to the shape and
measurements of the head than we can now accord to them, although the
subject still retains much interest. A vast quantity of data has
accumulated concerning the heads of criminals; some of the results are
contradictory, but certain definite conclusions clearly emerge.

The _average_ size of criminals’ heads is probably about the same as that
of ordinary people’s heads; but both small and large heads are found in
greater proportion, the medium-sized heads being deficient. The same is
true, as Tigges and others have shown, of the insane, though among these
the larger preponderate to a greater extent. Thieves more frequently have
small heads; the large heads are usually found among murderers.

Nothing very definite can be said of the cephalic indices save that they
are frequently an exaggeration of those of the race to which the criminal
belongs; those of long-headed race being sometimes very long, and those of
broad-headed race sometimes very broad; the Corsican criminal being often
very dolichocephalic, and the Breton criminal often very brachycephalic.

There is a generally recognised tendency to the pointed (oxycephalic) or
sugar-loaf form of head. Though this form is probably, as Benedikt points
out, an effort at compensation, it is an effort that testifies to
defective organisation. The opposite defect of low or flat-roofed skull is
also found among criminals, and is characteristic of degeneration.
Lauvergne, in his old book on criminals, has a vivid and picturesque
sketch of a variety of this kind of head, which he called the satanic
type, and which he found among many of the worst criminals: “Such are the
heads which painters throw into their pictures, and call ‘heads of the
other world.’ I have recognised them in mediæval pictures, and in all the
museums in which the products of early art are preserved. You will see
them on old cathedrals, in which devils play a part, or wherever the
artist has received some diabolical inspiration, as in the Campo Santo at
Pisa. One cannot, indeed, better represent the genius of evil, Satan, the
fallen angel, than by giving him such a head.... Behind the frontal bones
the head seems to have been tied with a band to compress it around and to
force the swelling of the hemispheres upwards and backwards. It is the
head vulgarly called sugar-loaf. When it is complete, that is to say, when
it presents a prominent base supporting an inclined pyramid, more or less
truncated, this head announces the monstrous alliance of the most eminent
faculty of man, genius, with the most pronounced impulses to rape, murder,
and theft.” Benedikt regards the bilateral elevation of the sagittal
suture as, though rare, “significant of profound perversity of brain
function.” He also regards disproportionate development of the occipital
part of the skull as a characteristic mark of degeneration.[17] It
appears that the posterior half of the skull varies much more in different
individuals than the anterior half.

The orbital capacity has been noted by Lombroso and others to be
frequently larger than normal (as among birds of prey and some savages),
especially among thieves. There is marked exaggeration of the orbital
arches and frontal sinuses which may be related, at all events in the
cases of individuals living in the country, with energy of the respiratory
system.

Receding foreheads, very commonly observed among criminals, have always
been regarded as evidence of low mental and moral organisation, not
without reason, though it must be remembered, as Ten-Kate and Benedikt
point out, that the breadth, vaulting, and general size of the head must
be taken into consideration. Many men of marked intellectual power have
had receding foreheads.

Tenchini has pointed out (and the observation has since been confirmed)
that the frontal crest is often stronger and more prominent in criminals.
In normal skulls he found it 3-4 millimetres in length; in criminals
frequently 5-6 mm. It is also larger in the insane and lower races, and
relatively larger in orang-outangs. It may signify precocious union of the
two parts of the frontal bone with consequent arrest of brain development.

The presence of a median occipital fossa has been specially noted by
Lombroso, sometimes in connection with hypertrophy of the vermis of the
cerebellum, as among the lower apes, in the human fœtus between the third
and fourth months, and in some lower races.

Lack of cranial symmetry is one of the most marked features of the
criminal skull, although it has not often at present been subjected to
exact measurement.[18] It must be remembered that every skull, criminal or
non-criminal, is deficient in strict symmetry (and, indeed, every part of
the body likewise), and that statistics therefore are here of little
value; it is simply a question of the amount of asymmetry; and two
observers going over the same series of skulls would almost certainly come
to different conclusions. They would probably, however, both find the
proportion of asymmetrical heads greater in the criminal than in the
ordinary series.

All these cranial abnormalities are found occasionally in ordinary
persons; very rarely are they found combined in normal persons to the
extent that they are found among instinctive criminals. Thus Lombroso,
when he examined the skull of Gasparone, a famous brigand of the beginning
of the century, whose name still lives in legends and poems, found
microcephaly of the frontal region, a wormian bone, eurigmatism, increase
in the orbital capacity, oxycephaly, and extreme dolichocephaly.
Mingazzini found that out of thirty criminals eight presented brains and
skulls of a weight and capacity only found in submicrocephalic subjects;
that several of these showed, either in brain or skull, or both, the union
of several anomalies; and that in the skulls of other six the abnormal
appearances were so manifold as to present an aspect which might be
called “completely teratologic.”[19] Most of these anomalies are found
much more frequently in the male than in the female skull. If, however,
the criminal woman is compared with the normal woman, she is found to
approach more closely to the normal man than the latter does; while the
corresponding character (feminility) is not found so often in the criminal
as in the normal man, except among pæderasts and some thieves. It may also
be mentioned that nearly all these anomalies are much more rarely found in
the insane.

In Plates I.-VI. will be found a series of convicts’ heads--concerning
which information may be found in Appendix A--illustrating in a very
remarkable manner many of the peculiarities noted in this and subsequent
sections. They are reproduced from sketches made by Dr. Vans Clarke,
formerly governor of Woking Prison. The thirty-six here reproduced I have
selected from 111 of a similar character in Dr. Clarke’s note-books. They
are, as Dr. Clarke remarks, exceptional rather than typical heads; but as
he discontinued making the sketches after he had seen about a thousand
men, the specimens given are evidently by no means very exceptional. They
represent at the least 10 per cent. of the criminals examined. “My
sketches,” he writes, “were taken at the ‘model prison’ of Pentonville,
where the duty of filling up the medical history-sheet of every convict on
his arrival devolved upon me, and I was prompted to use my sketch-book
during the physical examination, on the observation of remarkable
peculiarities in many of the heads and faces of the criminals. The
portraits were necessarily taken in haste, but they were true, and were
considered to be successful as likenesses. I may say that I was compelled
to make a selection rather from want of time than the lack of material. In
a less marked degree the instances of misshapen heads and repulsive facial
characters were very common.” Some of the cranial and facial
characteristics noted by criminal anthropologists are brought out in these
sketches in so well-marked a form that it may be as well to say that they
were taken some years ago, before the publication of Lombroso’s work, and
it was therefore impossible for Dr. Clarke to have been unconsciously
influenced by any preconceived notions on the subject.

As far back as 1836 Lélut weighed ten brains of criminals, and his results
show, according to Topinard, a result below that of the normal. Bischoff,
in 1880, published the results of an important series of observations he
had made on the weight of the brain in criminals. He weighed the brains of
137 criminals and 422 normal persons. He found that small-sized and
medium-sized brains were about equally common in criminals and in normal
subjects; while among the heavier brains, weighing from 1400 to 1500
grammes, the criminals were in the proportion of 24 per cent., the normal
persons of 20 per cent. Topinard, putting together the results of several
series of observations on the weight of the brain in criminals, and
comparing them with those of Broca for ordinary individuals of the same
age, finds that in criminals there is an inferiority of some 30 grammes.
There is some reason to suppose that the weight of the cerebellum in
criminals is often decidedly superior to the normal savage. It is clear,
on the whole, that little importance attaches to the weight of the brain
in criminals, a conclusion which harmonises with such a fact as that
Gambetta’s brain resembled in weight that of a microcephalic idiot.

[Illustration: PLATE I.]

[Illustration: PLATE II.]

[Illustration: PLATE III.]

[Illustration: PLATE IV.]

[Illustration: PLATE V.]

[Illustration: PLATE VI.]

There is more evidence in favour of attaching some importance to the shape
of the brain, to its relative development, to the condition and relations
of its convolutions. Broca, Topinard, and many other eminent
anthropologists and anatomists have attributed great value to these
relations. Gall was perhaps the first to suspect their significance.
Benedikt, in 1879, published some interesting generalisations on the
brains of criminals which he had examined. He found special frequency of
confluent fissures; that is to say, according to his own description, if
we imagine the fissures of the brain to be channels of water, a swimmer
might with ease pass through all these channels. Benedikt also found in
the brains of his criminals that the frontal lobe frequently presented
four convolutions, a peculiarity which he considered as a reversion to the
carnivorous type; the investigations of Hanot and Bouchard confirmed these
results. But Benedikt neglected to make an adequate comparison with the
normal brain, and Giacomini, Corre, Fallot, and Féré have shown that these
peculiarities are not very rare in ordinary subjects. The question of
confluent fissures had before this time attracted the attention of Broca,
and his conclusions may probably still be accepted:--“One or more of these
communications,” he said, “do not prevent a brain from being at once very
intelligent and very well balanced, but when they are numerous, and when
they affect important parts, they indicate defective development. They are
often seen in the small brains of the weak-minded and idiots, very
frequently also in the brains of murderers, with this difference, that in
the first case they are related to the smallness of the convolutions and
of the brain generally; while in the second case they coincide with
convolutions for the most part ample in size, and bear witness to
irregularity in cerebral development.” Flesch studied the brains of fifty
criminals, and found that every one presented some anomaly, sometimes of a
remarkable character, as incomplete covering of cerebellum by cerebrum. He
found two kinds of deviations common, one characterised by less richness
of convolution than is found usually in ordinary brains, the other
characterised by much greater richness of convolution than he had ever
observed in normal brains. On the whole we may agree with Hervé, that
“what the brains of criminals present, not characteristically but in
common with those of other individuals badly endowed though by no means
criminals, is a frequent totality of defective conditions from the point
of view of their regular functions, and which renders them inferior.”[20]

Although a very considerable mass of evidence is now accumulating, we know
considerably less of the brains of criminals than of their skulls. This is
in large measure due to the fact that there is at present insufficient
evidence regarding the condition of the normal and healthy brain, and
unless controlled by careful series of observations on normal persons,
observations on criminal brains cannot be interpreted.

The important matter of the vascular supply of the brain in criminals has
yet received little attention, but a variety of pathological features have
been found in the cerebral substance and membranes--pigmentation,
degenerating capillaries, cysts, thickened and adherent membranes, the
vestiges of old hyperæmia and hæmorrhages. Some of these conditions are
found with great frequency, much oftener than in the insane; meningitis,
for instance, being found, according to Lombroso’s experience, in 50 per
cent. of the cases examined; while Flesch has obtained very similar
results. The frequency of meningitis was noticed in some of the answers to
my Questions, especially by one prison surgeon who wrote of
“well-organised adhesions between the dura mater and vault of cranium,
localised but more extensive than one would expect to find.”
Unfortunately, he was unable to supply exact figures as to the frequency
of such signs. It must be added, as a point of considerable importance,
that in very few cases have these pathological lesions produced any
traceable symptoms during life.


§ 2. _The Face._

Prognathism has frequently been noted as a prominent characteristic of the
criminal face, both in men and women. This is, however, a point that
requires further study; giving due weight to racial characteristics, to
the proportion of prognathous individuals among the general population,
and to method and uniformity in measurement.

There is little doubt that the lower jaw is often remarkably well
developed in those guilty of crimes of violence. The squareness and
prominence of the jaw are obvious to the eye, and this is verified by
weighing after death, as has been shown by Manouvrier. The average weight
of the Parisian criminal skull is, if anything, below that of the ordinary
Parisian, but while the average weight of the lower jaw in the latter is
about 80 grammes, it is about 94 grammes among murderers. In this respect
the criminal resembles the savage and the prehistoric man; among the
insane the jaw weighs rather less than the normal average. A type of
receding chin is also found frequently among petty criminals, the
occasional or habitual, who are criminals by weakness; such heads
Lauvergne called _têtes moutonnes_.

Prominence of the zigoma or cheek-bone has been noted by many observers,
especially in sexual offenders, among whom Marro found it in 30 per cent.
as against 22 per cent. in normal persons. This recalls a remark made many
years ago by Charles Kingsley: “I have generally seen with strong animal
passion a tendency to high cheek-bone;” but he confines this
generalisation to women, and to those who are dark-complexioned. Virchow
believes that the large development of the jaws and the cheek-bones (to
which powerful muscles are attached) is favoured by coarse and hard food
through many generations.

A few isolated observations have been made on the teeth of criminals by
Lombroso, Zuccarelli, and others, who have observed certain anomalies,
such as exaggerated or deficient development of the canines; and Dr.
Prascovia Tarnowskaia, in her one hundred women thieves, found defects of
the bony palate and undeveloped teeth among the most frequent anomalies.
So far as I know, however, no extensive and careful series of observations
has yet been made on the teeth of criminals. It is desirable that this
should be done. The course of dental evolution among the higher mammals is
now fairly well known. Atavism in dental anomalies is well recognised
among the races of man; a fourth molar, for instance, found generally
among the platyrhine apes, is occasionally found in man: in what
proportion is it found among criminals? What, again, is the relative
condition of the canine teeth? The wisdom-teeth are dying out; they are
only absent among lower races in 19 per cent. cases, while in the higher
races they are absent in 42 per cent. of the observed cases (Mantegazza).
How do criminals stand in this respect? The development of the teeth is
very closely related to the development of the nerves and brain. The
extraordinary frequency of dental and palatal anomalies in idiots was
pointed out in England in 1860 by Ballard and Langdon Down, and they have
been carefully studied of recent years by Dr. Talbot, of Chicago, and by
Dr. Alice Sollier at the Bicêtre in Paris. It is worth noting, in
reference to the undeveloped teeth so frequently found by Dr. Tarnowskaia
among women thieves, that Dr. Sollier found abnormally small teeth in 13
per cent. of her idiots. Among the insane dental anomalies are
comparatively rare.

[Illustration: 1. Darwinian tubercle and absence of helix. 2. Absence of
lobule and antitragus. (Féré and Séglas.)]

Even non-scientific observers have noted the frequency among criminals of
projecting or of long and voluminous ears. In the answers to my Questions
issued to medical officers of prisons I found that the prominent ears of
criminals were more generally recognised than any other abnormality. Thus
Dr. V. Clarke says--“The largely developed external ear is a common
feature;” others speak of “ears often large and outstanding,” etc.
Lombroso finds the ear _ad ansa_, as he calls it--the handle-shaped
ear--in 28 per cent. of his criminals; Knecht in 22 per cent.; Marro not
more frequently than among ordinary people. Ottolenghi, who has recently
examined the ears of nearly 600 criminals and of 200 normal persons, finds
that while among the latter it is found in 20 per cent., among the former
it is found in 39 per cent., the percentage varying from 35 among thieves
to 42 among those convicted of assault and wounding. This observation is
indeed by no means of recent date. In reading lately that curious treatise
of mediæval physiology, Michael Scott’s _De Secretis Naturæ_, I found that
a very bad character is given to those persons whose ears are uncommonly
long, or ample transversely; they are bold, vain, foolish, incapable of
work. To come down to comparatively recent times, Grohmann in 1820 noted
the prominent ear as a marked characteristic of the criminal. Morel
studied the abnormalities of the ear, especially in relation to heredity;
Foville, as Dr. Barnes informs me, was accustomed to point out their
significance in the insane; and in England Laycock fully appreciated their
value as indications of degeneration.[21] Dr. Langdon Down, working on the
same lines as Laycock, points out in _Mental Diseases of Childhood_ the
frequency of congenital ear deformities in idiots and the feeble-minded,
associated often with webbed toes and fingers; also an implantation of the
ears farther back than is normal, giving an exaggerated facial
development. In France, Italy, and Germany there has within the last two
or three years sprung up a considerable literature on the subject, of
which Frigerio’s little book, _L’Oreille Externe: Étude d’Anthropologie
Criminelle_ (Paris, 1888), is perhaps the most valuable. Dr. Frigerio, who
has devoted special attention to this feature both among criminals and the
insane, finds certain peculiarities very common, and also notes various
anomalies of movement in the pinna and its partial hyperæmia, especially
in neurotic subjects. From the examination of several hundred subjects, he
concludes that the auriculo-temporal angle (measured by a special otometer
from the edge of the pinna to the mastoid) undergoes a gradual progression
from below 90° in the normal person, above 90° among criminals and the
insane, up to above 100° among apes. He found the large angle very marked
in homicides; less so in thieves. The longest ear Frigerio has ever seen
in man or woman was in a woman convicted of complicity in the murder of
her husband; the left ear was 78 mm., the right 81 mm. (the normal being
50-60 mm.) in length. Her father, her two sisters, and three cousins all
possessed excessively large ears, and were all convicts. The degenerative
variations to which he attributes most importance are the Darwinian
tubercle--_i.e._, a pointed projection in the outer margin of the
ear--frequent among the insane and criminals, the doubling of the
posterior branch of the fork of the antihelix, and a conical tragus (very
frequent in childhood and among apes) often found among the insane and
criminals. Féré and Séglas,[22] who examined over 1200 subjects--healthy,
insane, idiot, and epileptic--found anomalies frequent among epileptics,
and especially so among idiots; but not notably more frequent among the
insane than among the sane. They especially noted the number of
abnormalities frequently found in the same subject; and also a connection
between defects in the ear and sexual abnormalities. The committee
appointed by the British Medical Association to investigate the
development and condition of brain function among the children in primary
schools, found that ear-defects were especially frequent in connection
with nerve-defects and mental weakness.[23]

[Illustration: 1. Darwinian tubercle. 2. Root of the helix dividing the
concha into two distinct cavities. 3. Adherent lobule. (Féré and Séglas.)]

The most common (so-called) atavistic abnormalities of the ear--_i.e._,
those most frequently and prominently seen among the anthropoid and other
apes--are the Darwinian tubercle,[24] absence of one of the branches of
the fork, absence of helix, effacement of antihelix, exaggerated
development of root of helix, absence of lobule. Adherent lobule may
frequently be observed in well-developed individuals; it is not found
among apes, and appears to have no special significance.

The projecting ear has usually been considered as an atavistic character,
and with considerable reason, as it is found in many apes, in some of the
lower races, and it corresponds to the usual disposition of the ear in the
fœtus. Marro prefers to regard it as a morbid character because it is so
frequently united with true degenerative abnormalities, and because it is
not always found in the lowest human races; Hartmann, for instance, having
found it frequently among the European peasants, and in Africa more
frequently among Turks, Greeks, and Maltese than among the indigenous
fellaheen, Berbers, and negroes of the Soudan. Among so low a race as the
Australians the ear is often, I have noticed, very well shaped. At the
same time the projecting ear frequently accompanies deaf-mutism, Dr.
Albertotti having found it in sixteen out of thirty-three deaf-mutes.

[Illustration: 1. Forking of the root of the helix. (Féré and Sêglas.)]

The ear, it is well known, is very sensitive to vasomotor changes, slight
changes serving to affect the circulation visibly; so that in pale,
nervous people a trifling emotion will cause the ears to blush. Galton
tells us of a schoolmistress who judges of the fatigue of her pupils by
the condition of their ears. If the ears are white, flabby, and pendent,
she concludes that the children are very fatigued; if they are relaxed
but red, that they are suffering, not from overwork, but from a struggle
with their nervous systems, rarely under control at the age of fourteen or
fifteen. If this kind of sensitiveness is not common among criminals, a
few of neurotic temperament, as well as some lunatics, possess the power,
rare among normal persons, of moving the ear. Frigerio notes movements of
the superior and posterior muscles, especially when touched; in apes the
transverse muscle also acts. Frigerio connects this power of movement with
perpetual fear, always on the look-out; many of the criminals with this
peculiarity were recidivists, and three of the lunatics had delusions of
persecution.

The interest of these investigations, now so actively carried on, into the
malformations of the pinna among criminals is obvious. A few ingenious
persons have sought to explain some of them by the influence of the
headgear, pulling of the ears, etc.; but on the whole it is generally
recognised that they are congenital. The study of them, therefore, is of
distinct value in enabling us to fix the natural relationships of the
criminal man. There is still need for careful series of observations on
criminals, the insane, epileptics, and idiots, and every such series
should be controlled by a similar series of observations, by the same
observer, on ordinary subjects.

The criminal nose has been measured and studied with great care and
enthusiasm by Ottolenghi.[25] He finds that the criminal nose in general
is rectilinear, more rarely undulating, with horizontal base, of medium
length, rather large and frequently deviating to one side, and he
describes several varieties. Thus the typical thief’s nose is rectilinear,
often incurved, short, large, and often twisted, with lifted base. The
sexual offender presents the most rectilinear nose, though he shows the
undulating profile of nose more frequently than any other group of
criminals, of medium length and rather large. Ottolenghi believes that his
observations help to show, both in the skeleton and in life, an anatomical
relationship between criminals against the person and epileptics and
monomaniacs; also a relationship between thieves and sexual offenders and
cretins. His observations are full and interesting, but the matter needs
further investigation; the anthropological importance of the nose has
scarcely yet been fully realised.

Most writers on criminals speak of the pallor of the skin; this has been
noted at a very remote period by Polemon, l’Ingegneri, and other early
physiognomists. Marro has found it in 14 per cent. of his criminals, as
against 3 per cent. among the ordinary population. He considers that it is
related to habitual cerebral congestion. Pallor is also caused (as
Colajanni points out, and testifies to from personal experience) by
prolonged imprisonment, even under favourable circumstances. It is
probable that the influence of this cause has not yet been eliminated with
sufficient care.

Ottolenghi has investigated the wrinkles on the faces of 200 criminals as
compared with 200 normal persons. He finds that they are much more
frequent and much more marked in the criminal than in the non-criminal
person, and this must have struck many persons who have seen a large
number of criminals or photographs of criminals. The relative frequency is
especially marked in zygomatic and genio-mental wrinkles, while the
foreheads, even of youthful criminals, and when the face is in a state of
repose, sometimes present a curiously marked and scored appearance. The
precocity of these wrinkles is worthy of note. “We found young criminals
of fourteen,” Ottolenghi remarks, “with wrinkles more evident and marked
than are met with in many normal men above thirty. It is these precocious
wrinkles which give to young criminals that aspect of premature virility
which Lombroso and Marro have already noticed.” “It is worthy of note,” he
remarks also, “that the part of the face which, by the prevalence of
wrinkles, shows more active expression in criminals as in other
degenerated persons, is that corresponding to the region of the nose and
mouth--that is to say, the less contemplative, more material, part of the
face; and, in fact, we see that, with the exception of some murderers, who
have a surly look and corrugated forehead, the typical delinquent presents
habitually in the more rational and contemplative part of his face the
least degree of active expression, this corresponding to his limited
psychical sensibility.”


§ 3. _Anomalies of the Hair._

The beard in criminals is usually scanty. As against 1.5 per cent. cases
of absence of beard in normal persons, Marro found 13.9 per cent. in
criminals, and a very large proportion having scanty beard. The largest
proportion of full beards among criminals was found by Marro in sexual
offenders.

On the head the hair is usually, on the contrary, abundant. Marro has
observed a notable proportion of woolly-haired persons, a character very
rarely found in normal individuals. The same character has been noted
among idiots. In contrast with what is found among the insane, baldness is
very rare. Among criminal women remarkable abundance of hair is frequently
noted, and it has sometimes formed their most characteristic physical
feature, accompanied by an unusual development of fine hair on the face
and body. Salsotto, who has given special attention to criminal women,
finds a considerable distribution of hair between the pubes and the
umbilicus (as in men) in 10 per cent. of the forty women he examined as to
this character; such distribution among normal women only occurring
(according to Schulze) in 5 per cent. cases. Salsotto also found abundant
hair in seven out of the forty around the anus, a part in normal women
rarely supplied with hair. The excess of down on the face is found with
special frequency in women guilty of infanticide. It is worth while
pointing out that (as Dr. Langdon Down notes) there are frequent anomalies
in the development of hair among idiots. Some are hirsute over the entire
body; 11 per cent. have continuous eye-brows.

This abundance of hair seems to be correlated with the animal vigour which
is often so noticeable among criminals. It may at the same time be to some
extent explained by arrest of development or atavism leading to the
deficiency of beard which in its fully developed form marks, with few
exceptions, only the highest human races. Strong sexual instincts are but
the effervescence of this animal vigour; hence, perhaps, the connection
between the presence of an unusual amount of hair and infanticide. In the
case selected by Bucknill and Tuke as a typical example of insanity in
women due to repressed sexual instinct, the chief physical characteristic
noted was the amount of hair on the body; and in a case recorded by Dr. H.
Sutherland (_West Riding Asylum Reports_, vol. vi.) of a girl whose
illness and subsequent death were in his opinion due to “unsatisfied
sexual desire,” the long fair hair, which she delighted in letting flow
down to her knees, was specially noted. It was observed of the French
writer, Restif de la Bretonne, of whose extraordinary and abnormal sexual
proclivities, even at an early age, he has himself left ample evidence in
his autobiographical book, _Monsieur Nicolas_, that his body was
remarkably hairy.

In regard to colours, the proportion of dark-haired persons is considered
greater among criminals than among the ordinary population in England,
Italy, and Germany. An exception to this general rule in the case of
sexual offenders (rape and pæderasty) appears to be well marked in Italy;
though, so far as I have been able to ascertain, it has not been
frequently observed in England. Marro associates the fair hair of sexual
offenders with the precocious puberty of fair-haired women, as shown by
the investigations of Professor Pagliani. The researches of Marro and
Ottolenghi over a very considerable field give the following results for
North Italy:--

                           Chestnut Hair.      Fair.       Black.

  Normal persons (900)    90.78 per cent.     9.22 per cent.
  Criminals (1620)        93.83     "         6.17   "
  Sexual offenders (100)  81.85     "        16.67   "     1.48 per cent.

Ottolenghi notes that the prevailing fair colour is reddish.[26]

Grey hair was found by Ottolenghi to be vastly more frequent at an early
age among ordinary working men and peasants than among the 200 male
criminals he examined: thus, between the ages of 30 to 33 it was 60 per
cent. for the former, only 12 per cent. for the latter. This does not hold
true for criminal women, who become grey more quickly than ordinary women.
The male criminal in this respect resembles the epileptic, and especially
the cretin, in whom grey hair is seldom seen. Baldness, Ottolenghi shows,
is very rare, comparatively, in the criminal, in relation not only to the
normal man but even to the epileptic and the cretin. In this respect the
criminal differs greatly from the ordinary professional man, in whom
baldness is frequently found.[27]

To the existing statistics of the colour of hair among criminals, taken as
a whole, it is not possible at present to attach much value. There is no
uniform system of description and nomenclature; it is difficult to make
full allowance for ethnic divergence, and there rarely exists an adequate
standard of comparison for the normal persons of corresponding race. Of
129 persons “wanted” at Scotland Yard, I find that 45 have “dark brown”
hair, and of these 17 (_i.e._, 37.7 per cent.) are described as
“dangerous,” “desperate,” “expert,” or “notorious”; 46 have “brown” hair,
and of these 14 (_i.e._, 30 per cent.) are “dangerous,” etc.; 11 are
“dark” (9) or “black” (2), and of these 3 (_i.e._, 27.2 per cent.) are
“dangerous”; 27 are described as “light brown,” “light,” “sandy,” “fair,”
“auburn” (one, a woman), “red” (one, a man, who is “dangerous”), and of
these 9 (_i.e._, 33.3 per cent.) are “dangerous,” etc. This gives a
proportion of red-haired persons about the same, according to my
observations, as is found among middle-class men in the city, but
considerably lower than is found, according to Dr. Beddoe, the chief
authority on this subject (in his _Races of Britain_), among the lower
classes in London--_i.e._, about 4 per cent. This is the class from which
the criminals in question were chiefly drawn, but they do not exclusively
belong to London; many come from the northern towns, and in many of these,
Leeds, for instance,[28] according to my observations, the proportion of
red-haired persons is decidedly larger than in London, and certainly not
smaller.

It is interesting to compare these statistics of the hair of London
criminals with a body of statistics concerning the colour of the hair of
1220 insane persons (omitting the grey-haired) in the New Brunswick
Asylum; although as the racial mixture is certainly not quite identical,
and the nomenclature probably varies, no strict comparison is possible. Of
these 1220 insane persons the hair of 1050 is described as “dark,” “dark
brown,” “brown,” while 170 have “light,” “auburn,” or “red” hair. One
person in seven among the insane persons has fair hair, one in five among
criminals; one person in fifty among the insane has red hair, one in 129
among the criminals; one in forty among the insane has auburn hair, one in
129 among the criminals. So that while the proportion of fair-haired is
distinctly smaller among the insane, the proportion of red-haired and
auburn-haired is very decidedly larger than among the criminals.

So far as exact evidence on the colour of the hair goes, it points chiefly
to a relative deficiency of red-haired persons among criminals. This may
perhaps be accounted for. There seems to be a lessened power of resistance
to disease among persons of brilliant pigmentation. The extensive
anthropological statistics of the American War showed a very marked
inferiority on the part of fair persons. These statistics have been
criticised by De Candolle, who believes, however, that even with
deductions they may probably still be accepted. Our evidence as to the
proportion of bright-haired people in lunatic asylums seems to point in
this direction. These red-haired people, with their “sanguine” temperament
of body, are peculiarly susceptible to zymotic disease; they take scarlet
fever, for instance, very easily, and suffer from it severely. Among the
manifold risks of a criminal life the brightly pigmented person, with his
sensitive vascular system, seems to be soon eliminated.


§ 4. _Criminal Physiognomy._

The science of physiognomy is still in a vague and rudimentary condition,
although the art has long been practised with more or less success. There
are, for instance, a large number of proverbs in which some of the most
recent results reached by the criminal anthropologists of to-day were long
ages back crystallised by the popular intelligence. Such are the Roman
saying, “Little beard and little colour; there is nothing worse under
heaven;” the French, “God preserve me from the beardless man;” the Tuscan,
“Salute from afar the beardless man and the bearded woman;” the Venetian,
“Trust not the woman with a man’s voice.”

Many of the old physiognomists, especially the two greatest, Dalla Porta
and Lavater, tell us how they immediately recognised criminals, although
they sometimes ludicrously failed; and Lavater once mistook the portrait
of an executed assassin for Herder’s. A criminal anthropologist of to-day,
Professor Enrico Ferri, declares that out of several hundred soldiers whom
he examined, he found one, and one only, whom his face declared to be a
murderer; he was told that this man had, in fact, been found guilty of
murder. Garofalo, the Neapolitan jurist, observes that he is scarcely
deceived twice out of ten times. Nor is this acuteness of perception by
any means confined to skilled observers. It is very commonly found among
women. Many persons, on first meeting an individual, are conscious of an
unfavourable impression which they succeed in out-living, but which is
subsequently justified. Sometimes the revealing glance is found, perhaps
with a shock of horror, in a face already familiar. It is a mistake to
attempt to stifle such instinctive impressions as irrational. They are
part of the organised experiences of the race, and, subject to
intellectual control, they are legitimate guides to conduct.

Professor Lombroso tells us that his mother, who had always lived far from
the world, was twice able to discover the criminal character of young
people whom as yet no one had suspected. A more curious example, he goes
on to remark, occurred in connection with the murderer Francesconi. There
was nothing remarkable about him, nothing to indicate ferocity or a temper
unlike that of other people; his beard was abundant and forehead high; one
just perceived a slight degree of prognathism and some prominence of the
frontal eminences. Yet years before his crime, a young girl of sixteen
(afterwards the Countess della Rocca), who had never quitted the paternal
home, and had no experience of life, refused to speak to him when every
one welcomed him on account of his wit. When asked why she treated him as
though he were a scoundrel, she replied: “If he is not a murderer he will
become one.” When Lombroso afterwards asked her by what sign she was
guided to this too speedily verified prophecy, she replied: “By his eyes.”
Lombroso once asked an intelligent schoolmistress to submit to thirty-two
young girls twenty portraits of thieves and twenty of great men. Eighty
per cent. of these children recognised the first as bad people, the second
as good. On another occasion he showed two hundred photographs of youths
to three medical men, and they all selected one as of the criminal type; a
little girl of twelve also selected the same. This youth had never
appeared in a court of justice, but he had cruelly betrayed those who had
assisted him to obtain a good position in life. He was not legally a
criminal, but, as Lombroso remarks, he was so anthropologically.

Beautiful faces, it is well known, are rarely found among criminals. The
prejudice against the ugly and also against the deformed is not without
sound foundation. What Hepworth Dixon wrote in 1850 on this point is still
of general application in all civilised countries:--“The population of
Millbank is always numerous and always changing; but its character remains
substantially the same. Year after year the visitor might drop in and see
no difference. There is a certain monotony and family likeness in the
criminal countenance which is at once repulsive and interesting. No person
can be long in the habit of seeing masses of criminals together without
being struck with the sameness of their appearance. A handsome face is a
thing rarely seen in a prison; and never in a person who has been a
law-breaker from childhood. Well-formed heads, round and massive, denoting
intellectual power, may be seen occasionally, but a pleasing, well-formed
face, never.”

In looking through the large number of photographs in Lombroso’s great
work, _L’Uomo Delinquente_, very few pleasant faces can be found. The two
or three attractive ones are those of women in whom the glow of youth,
plumpness, and abundant hair serve as a disguise to features that will
scarcely bear examination. The proportion of good-looking faces among the
excellent photographs in Inspector Byrnes’ _Professional Criminals of
America_, is much larger. As the able chief of the Detective Department of
New York, who, however, distinctly recognises a criminal type of face,
remarked to a visitor: “Look through the pictures in the Rogues’ Gallery
and see how many rascals you find there who resemble the best people in
the country. Why, you can find some of them, I daresay, sufficiently like
personal acquaintances to admit of mistaking the one for the other.”
Those, however, belong to the aristocracy of crime; they are criminals by
calculation; they have achieved a certain amount of success, and a
passable face is part of their stock-in-trade. Yet even among these the
proportion of faces that will bear examination is by no means large.

Émile Gautier, who was with Prince Krapotkine in the Lyons prison, remarks
that he is not acquainted with the anatomical peculiarities of criminals,
but that he knows that prisoners are not like the rest of the world.
“Their cringing and timid ways, the mobility and cunning of their looks, a
something feline about them, something cowardly, humble, suppliant, and
crushed, makes them a class apart. One would say, dogs who had been
whipped; hardly, here and there, a few energetic and brutal heads of
rebels.”

A curious fixed look of the eye has often been considered a characteristic
mark of, more especially, the instinctive criminal, a mark which cannot be
disguised. “I do not need to see the whole of a criminal’s face,” said
Vidocq, “to recognise him as such; it is enough for me to catch his eye.”
Lombroso finds that the eyes of assassins resemble those of the feline
animals at the moment of ambush or struggle; he has often observed it
when the man has been making a muscular effort, as in compressing a
dynamometer. Sometimes this feline and ferocious glance alternates with a
gentle, almost feminine gaze; this combination giving them a strange power
of fascination which has often been exercised on women.

Insistence on the feline aspect is very frequent among those who describe
criminals. Thus, for instance, Professor Sergi:--“I have had occasion
lately to observe a homicide, aged fifteen, who three months before
committing this murder had attempted another, and at another time showed
his ferocious nature by attacking a cow with a bill-hook and wounding it
in several places. He has been condemned to eleven years’ imprisonment, is
well developed for his age, and apparently has no morphological
abnormalities, but he is prognathous, his nose is depressed, and all the
lower part of the face, from the upper jaw down, has a savage cast. What
most distinguishes him is his look; his eye is cruel and feline in the
true sense of the word. Reserved, taciturn, even when he was free, now
that he is in prison he has the appearance of a wild beast, the glance of
a tiger.”

An interesting point in connection with the criminal physiognomy is that
it is to a large extent independent of nationality. The German criminal is
not very unlike the Italian, nor is the French unlike the English
criminal. M. Joly remarks, “I should say that in M. A. Bertillon’s office
I was shown nearly sixty photographs of Irish, English, and American
thieves. It would have been difficult in many cases to discern the
Anglo-Saxon rather than any other physiognomy.”

There is, in the opinion of many of the Italian criminal anthropologists,
a special physiognomy for different crimes, though this statement is
qualified by the well-known fact that quite different crimes may be
committed by the same person. Dr. Marro, in his _Caratteri dei
Delinquenti_, describes no fewer than eleven different classes of
criminals, though the distinctions are not all physiognomical. Professor
Lombroso’s descriptions are however the most vigorous and picturesque,
though it is scarcely possible to receive them without qualification.
Thieves he describes as frequently remarkable for the mobility of their
features and of their hands; the eyes are small and very restless; the
eyebrows thick and close; the nose often crooked or incurved; the beard
thin; the forehead nearly always narrow and receding; the complexion pale
or yellowish, and incapable of blushing. In those guilty of sexual
offences Lombroso finds the eyes nearly always bright; the voice either
rough or cracked; the face generally delicate, except in the development
of the jaws, and the lips and eyelids swollen; occasionally they are
humpbacked or otherwise deformed. Sometimes in incendiaries Lombroso has
noted a peculiar delicacy of the skin, an infantile aspect, and abundance
of hair, occasionally resembling a woman’s. The eye of the habitual
homicide is glassy, cold, and fixed; his nose is often aquiline, beaked,
reminding one of a bird of prey, always voluminous; the jaws are strong;
the ears long; the cheek-bones large; the hair dark, curling, abundant;
the beard often thin; the canine teeth much developed; the lips thin;
nystagmus frequent; also spasmodic contractions on one side of the face,
by which the canine teeth are exposed. The forger and sharper, on the
other hand, has frequently a singular air of _bonhomie_, a kind of
clerical appearance, which is indeed necessary in his business, because it
inspires confidence. Some have angelic faces; others are small, pale, and
haggard. The poisoner also frequently has a peculiarly benevolent aspect.
“In general,” Lombroso concludes, “born criminals have projecting ears,
thick hair, a thin beard, projecting frontal eminences, enormous jaws, a
square and projecting chin, large cheek-bones, and frequent gesticulation.
It is, in short, a type resembling the Mongolian, or sometimes the
Negroid.”

It is very interesting to compare this concluding remark with some
observations made by Dr. Langdon Down, who has carefully studied and
endeavoured to classify the facial characteristics of idiots. Dr. Down
finds a resemblance between feeble-minded children and the various ethnic
types of the human family; he specially refers both to a Mongolian and a
Negroid type. Just as Professor Lombroso finds the Mongolian type most
common among his criminals, so Dr. Down finds it most common among his
idiots: “more than 10 per cent. of congenital feeble-minded children are
typical Mongols. Their resemblance is infinitely greater to one another
than to the members of their own families.” Their characteristics are very
marked: the hair is brownish (not black, as in the Mongol), straight, and
sparse, the face flat and broad, the cheeks rounded and widened laterally,
the eyes obliquely placed, and the fissure between the eyelids very
narrow, the forehead wrinkled transversely, the lips large and thick, the
nose small, the skin tawny. In Dr. Down’s Negroid type of idiot there are
characteristic cheek-bones, prominent eyes, puffy lips, retreating chins,
woolly but not black hair, and no pigmentation of skin. These points of
resemblance are of considerable interest if we are of opinion that the
instinctive criminal is best defined as a moral idiot.

As to the causes and indelibility of the criminal expression there is much
divergence of opinion. Certain writers have spoken too incautiously on
this point. Thus Professor Sergi, in the description of the homicidal lad,
already quoted in part, goes on to remark: “In him nothing is acquired,
everything is congenital.” And Maudsley, in a sombre and powerful
description of the criminal physiognomy which has often been quoted,
speaks of it as branded by the hand of nature. “Everything is congenital,”
says Professor Sergi; yet we rarely hear of a baby who looks round from
its mother’s breast with fierce and feline air. We have to distinguish
between the anatomical physiognomy and the expression or _mimique_. To the
ordinary observer the latter is far more striking; he notices at once if a
countenance is sad or merry, angry or good-tempered, cowed or elate; he
does not so readily observe the shape of the jaws, or the cut of the ears,
or the lines of the forehead, yet such marks as these are alone strictly
organic and can safely be called congenital.

M. Joly cites some interesting examples of discrepancy in the descriptions
of the same criminal under varying conditions, even when the descriptions
are the work of good observers. Some years ago a youth of nineteen, named
Menesclou, was executed for having violated and killed a little girl, whom
he afterwards cut up and burnt. A journalist on the staff of the _Figaro_,
whose reports are considered very exact, thus described him at the trial:
“Imagine a sort of abortion, bent and wrinkled, with earthy complexion,
stealthy eyes, a face gnawed by scrofula, of cunning, dissipated, and
cruel aspect. The forehead is low, the beard sparse and slovenly; the
hair, black and thrown backwards, reaches to the shoulders; it is a head
absolutely repulsive.” On the other hand, the chaplain of the prison, the
Abbé Crozes, thus wrote:--“Menesclou by no means resembles the portraits
which the journalists have drawn of him. Far from being repulsive,
hideous, repugnant, he had a sympathetic and prepossessing physiognomy,
the air of a young man who has been well brought up, a gentle, honest,
_naïve_ face; he looked, to me, like a page in a good house.”

In another example the varying descriptions have the advantage of being
written by the same person, the Abbé Moreau, successor to the Abbé Crozes
as chaplain to the Roquette Prison, and author of the valuable and
interesting book, _Le Monde des Prisons_. “At the trial of Campi,” he
wrote, “I had only perceived a coarse demoniac, brutal, cynical, making
violent repartees. His repellant head was photographed on my memory; a
slovenly beard framing a yellow, bilious face, the muscles of a beast of
prey, and, lighting up the livid features with sinister gleam, two small
piercing mobile eyes, of a ferocity which I could scarcely bear to see.
Campi left on me the most melancholy impression; his head had appeared to
me enormous; his shoulders of extraordinary breadth.” Here is another
portrait by the same hand of Campi as he appeared in prison:--“I had now
before me a young man of ordinary size, slim rather than broad, with a
calm face lighted by a good-natured smile; the eyes had lost their
ferocity. He approached me with a certain timidity, holding his cap in his
hand; and waited respectfully until I spoke to him.”

It is clear that several factors go to make up our impressions of
physiognomy. It is well known that it is difficult to estimate the
dimensions of an individual seen alone at a distance, whether a criminal
at the bar or an actor on the stage. An actor off the stage is as
commonplace as a criminal in the streets. Add to this the horror of the
spectator, to whose mental vision the crime is present, and the probable
perturbation of the criminal whose fate is being argued. Would the
conscientious reporter of the _Figaro_ have written such a description had
he simply met Menesclou as a stranger in the streets? And would the worthy
Abbé’s impression of Campi have changed so greatly if the latter had not,
when in complete command of himself, chosen to appear in an attitude of
respectful humility?

In the Middle Ages there was a law by which, when two persons were
suspected of a crime, the ugliest was to be selected for punishment. At
the present day judges are, consciously or unconsciously, influenced by
physiognomy, and ordinary human beings, who also in a humble way sit in
judgment on their fellows, are influenced in the same manner. The modern
criminal anthropologists, with all their minute and patient
investigations, have not yet, however, succeeded in making criminal
physiognomy a very exact science, and the more criminal amongst us may
still find consolation in the reflection that there are no unfailing
criteria by which our crimes may be read upon our faces.


§ 5. _The Body and Viscera._

Notwithstanding their agility and spasmodic activity, the muscular system
of criminals is generally feeble. Such few observations as have yet been
made show that muscular anomalies are found with remarkable frequency.
Thus the investigations of Guerra on the bodies of 12 normal persons and
18 criminals, showed 11 anomalous muscular conditions in the latter as
against 5 in the former.

Lacassagne some years ago pointed out the remarkable length of the
extended arms (_la grande envergure_). Although many observers refer to
this peculiarity, and in many isolated cases it is marked and doubtless
connected with the agility of criminals, as among some lower races and the
apes, I am not acquainted with any extended series of observations in
which criminals and normal persons are fairly compared in this respect.
Marro’s series, although the normal persons are in too small number, as he
himself points out, is as reliable as any, and does not in the average
show any preponderance of long-armed individuals among criminals. There
is, however, reason to believe that individuals with exceptionally long
arms are more often met with among criminals.

“Among the inmates of the Elmira Reformatory,” remarks Dr. H. Wey, “the
greatest physical deficiency and least resistive power is found in the
respiratory apparatus. Pigeon-breasts, imperfectly developed chests, and
stooping shoulders abound. During a period of eight years, with 26 deaths,
13, or 50 per cent., were from diseases of the chest, not including
affections of the heart.”

In his answers to my Questions a prison surgeon remarks, “Many men have
large nipples and large well-marked areolæ. This is often very
remarkable.” I am not aware that this has been noticed by any other
observer, and the point deserves further examination.

Heart disease is common among criminals. Out of 54 examined by Flesch, 20
per cent. died of heart disease, 50 per cent. showed affections of the
heart. Valvular insufficiency and cardiac atrophy seem to be remarkably
prevalent. Penta found endarteritis and atheroma in 82 of his 184
instinctive criminals, _i.e._ 44 per cent., although many of them were
young. The condition, he says, was diffused and pronounced; 20 of these 82
showed aortic insufficiency. It may be noted that arterial anomalies are
extremely frequent. Thus Guerra found 14 arterial anomalies in his 18
criminals as against 4 in his 12 normal persons. Heart disease is also
common among the insane. Its tendency to produce mental alterations has
often been noted; pride, egotism, and an inclination to violence are
found, especially (according to Witkowski) among those affected with
ventricular hypertrophy; with aortic disease, neurotic and hysterical
states; with mitral disease, melancholy and attacks of violence. This is
not surprising when we remember the intimate connection that subsists
normally between the heart and the brain, the vascular system forming, as
it were, the basis of the brain.

The sexual organs in women criminals very frequently reveal pathological
conditions. Undescended testis has been frequently found by one of the
medical officers who answered my Questions. Unusual size of penis by
another. It is interesting to note in this connection that Drs.
Bourneville and Sollier found exaggerated development of the glans penis
extremely common among the idiots at the Bicêtre, and that among 728
individuals examined they found no fewer than 262 presenting anomalies of
the sexual organs, an enormous proportion when compared with the ordinary
population.[29] Ottolenghi believes that “on the whole anomalies of the
genital organs have in sexual offenders no small diagnostic importance,
especially when united to other characters which distinguish them from the
honest and from criminals in general--as the greater frequency of fair
hair, of malformed ears, of bichromatism of the iris, of blue eyes, of
twisted noses, of facial asymmetry, of voluminous lower jaws, and of
various neuroses, especially epilepsy.”[30]

It may be noted here that Marro and Ottolenghi have recently studied
metabolism in criminals. The chief point that comes out is an augmented
elimination of phosphoric acid in the urine. The same has been observed in
chronic alcoholism. These researches will, no doubt, be continued.[31]


§ 6. _Heredity._

The detailed study of criminal heredity and of criminal habit, or
recidivism, scarcely forms part of criminal anthropology. It is an
important branch of criminal sociology. But the facts of heredity form
part of the evidence in favour of the reality of the criminal
anthropologist’s conclusions, and it is not possible to ignore them here
entirely. Moreover, the attitude of society towards the individual
criminal and his peculiarities must be to some extent determined by our
knowledge of criminal heredity.

The hereditary character of crime, and the organic penalties of natural
law, were recognised even in remote antiquity. They were involved in the
old Hebrew conception, which seems to have played a vital part in Hebrew
life, of a God who visited the sins of the parents upon the children unto
the third and fourth generation. We know also the story in Aristotle of
the man who, when his son dragged him by his hair to the door,
exclaimed--“Enough, enough, my son; I did not drag my father beyond this.”
And Plutarch puts the doctrine of heredity in a shape that is both ancient
and modern--“That which is engendered is made of the very substance of the
generating being, so that he bears in him something which is very justly
punished or recompensed for him, for this something is he.” Or
again--“There is between the generating being and the generated a sort of
hidden identity, capable of justly committing the second to all the
consequences of an action committed by the first.”

There are two factors, it must be remembered, in criminal heredity, as we
commonly use the expression. There is the element of innate disposition,
and there is the element of contagion from social environment. Both these
factors clearly had their part in Sbro ... who is regarded by Lombroso as
the classical type of “moral insanity.” His grandfather had committed
murder from jealousy; his father, condemned for rape, had killed a woman
to test a gun. He in his turn killed his father and his brother.
Practically, it is not always possible to disentangle these two factors; a
bad home will usually mean something bad in the heredity in the strict
sense. Frequently the one element alone, whether the heredity or the
contagion, is not sufficient to determine the child in the direction of
crime. A case given by Prosper Lucas seems to show this: “In November 1845
the Assize Court of the Seine condemned three members out of five of a
family of thieves, the Robert family. This case presented a circumstance
worthy of remark. The father had not found among all his children the
disposition that he would have desired; he had to use force with his wife
and the two younger children, who up to the last were rebellious to his
infamous orders. The eldest daughter, on the other hand, followed, as if
by instinct, her father’s example, and was as ardent and violent as he in
attempting to bend the family to his odious tastes. But in one part of the
family the instinct was lacking; they inherited from their mother.”

The influence of heredity, even in the strict sense of the word, in the
production of criminals, does not always lie in the passing on of
developed proclivities. Sometimes a generation of criminals is merely one
stage in the progressive degeneration of a family. Sometimes crime seems
to be the method by which the degenerating organism seeks to escape from
an insane taint in the parents. Of the inmates of the Elmira Reformatory,
499, or 13.7 per cent., have been of insane or epileptic heredity. Of 233
prisoners at Auburn, New York, 23.03 per cent. were clearly of neurotic
(insane, epileptic, etc.) origin; in reality many more. Virgilio found
that 195 out of 266 criminals were affected by diseases that are usually
hereditary. Rossi found 5 insane parents to 71 criminals, 6 insane
brothers and sisters, and 14 cases of insanity among more distant
relatives. Kock found morbid inheritance in 46 per cent. of criminals.
Marro, who has examined the matter very carefully, found the proportion 77
per cent., and by taking into consideration a large range of abnormal
characters in the parents, the proportion of criminals with bad heredity
rose to 90 per cent. He found that an unusually large proportion of the
parents had died from cerebro-spinal diseases, and from phthisis. Sichard,
examining nearly 4000 German criminals in the prison of which he is
Director, found an insane, epileptic, suicidal, and alcoholic heredity in
36.8 per cent. incendiaries, 32.2 per cent. thieves, 28.7 per cent. sexual
offenders, 23.6 per cent. sharpers. Penta found among the parents of 184
criminals only 4 to 5 per cent. who were quite healthy.

Even when well-marked disease is absent in the parents, exhausting and
debilitating influences, age at time of conception and overwork, may play
a disastrous part. Dr. Langdon Down (_Mental Diseases of Childhood_) has
shown how the same influences play a part in the production of idiocy;
how, for instance, a man may during periods of strain and overwork
conceive idiot children, and at other periods healthy children. Marro has
made some interesting investigations into the ages of the father at the
period of conception of criminals, as compared with ordinary persons and
with the insane. He divided the fathers into three groups, according to
age at conception: the first included those in the period of immaturity,
which he reckoned as below 25 years of age; the second was the period of
maturity from 26 to 40; the third from 41 onwards, the period of
decadence. Plate VII. represents in a graphic form the percentage of
fathers belonging to each period in various groups; the first column in
each group representing the proportion of fathers belonging to the period
of immaturity, the second those belonging to the period of maturity, the
third those belonging to the period of decadence. It will be seen that the
largest proportion of immature parents is among the class of thieves,
although among the insane the proportion is still larger. More remarkable
is the abnormally large proportion of criminals with parents belonging to
the period of decadence. It is most marked among the murderers, 52.9 per
cent. of whose fathers had passed the period of maturity; but it is very
large also, exceeding the insane among those convicted of assault and
wounding (not represented in the Plate), and among sharpers. Sexual
offenders have the largest proportion of mature fathers, the smallest of
youthful fathers. Suspecting that among idiots a very large proportion of
elderly fathers would be found, I applied to Dr. Langdon Down, who has
kindly gone through the notes of one thousand cases, and confirmed this
suspicion. He finds that in 23 per cent. cases there has been a disparity
of age of more than ten years at the birth of the idiot child, the father
in nearly every case being the elder, and that in many cases this
disparity has reached more than 25 years. It appears, then, Dr. Down adds,
that the disparity of age is a factor in the production of idiocy. It may
be added that the elderly parent, by dying and leaving his children
young and unprotected, has also a social influence in the creation of
criminals.

[Illustration: PLATE VII.

RELATION OF AGE OF PARENTS IN NORMAL PERSONS, THE INSANE AND CRIMINAL.]

It is interesting to compare these results with those of Korosi, Director
of the Hungarian Statistical Bureau, on the ordinary population. He has
investigated 24,000 cases, and found that the children of fathers below 20
are of feeble constitution; that fathers aged from 25 to 40 produce the
strongest children, and that above 40 fathers tend to beget weak children.
The most healthy children have a mother below the age of 35; the children
born between 35 and 40 are 8 per cent. weaker; after 40, 10 per cent.
weaker. The children born of old fathers and young mothers, it should,
however, be added, are generally of strong constitution. If the parents
are of the same age the children are less robust.

Such hereditary influences as these seem to have played a part in the
production of that typical criminal by instinct, T. G. Wainewright, who
appears to have had no criminals or lunatics among his ancestry. The
often-quoted case of the criminal family, first mentioned by Despine in
his _Psychologie Naturelle_, is interesting in this connection. Three
brothers, the sons of one Jean Chrétien, had children and grandchildren as
under--

              {Jean-François, thief.
              {Bénoît.
              {Claire, thief.
  Jean Joseph {Marie-Renée, thief.
              {Marie-Rose, thief.
              {Victor, thief.
              {Victorine. ---- Victor, murderer.

              {François, murderer.
       Thomas {Martin, murderer ---- (son, thief).

      Pierre--Jean-François, thief and murderer.

Nothing is told us of the man and his three sons who produced this awful
brood, save that they were not themselves condemned criminals; but
whatever the influence was, it existed in all three of the brothers, who
each begat murderers and thieves. It is by subtle hereditary influences,
as well as by the instinctive habits of a lifetime, that we must explain
the influence of criminal contagion on men of honest life and clean
record. M. Émile Gautier, a political prisoner with Prince Krapotkine and
a number of French working-men in the great prison of Clairvaux, has
recorded an experience which is of interest in this connection. “Out of
fifty political prisoners,” he writes in his interesting and thoughtful
impressions published in the _Archives de l’Anthropologie Criminelle_ in
1888, “belonging to the average, or even the _élite_, of the working-class
population of a large town like Lyons, a good half-dozen will be found who
feel themselves at home in prison, and go immediately towards the
criminal-law prisoners, assuming at once, in virtue of I do not know what
equivocal predestination, their language, their appearance, their habits,
their mental dispositions, even the same negative morality, savagery,
treachery, artfulness, rapacity, and unnatural vice.”

Alcoholism in either of the parents is one of the most fruitful causes of
crime in the child. To the drunkenness of Jupiter when Vulcan was
conceived the Romans attributed the deformity of that god; in the words of
the old Latin poet:--

  “Quis nescit crudo distentum nectare quondam
   Indulsisse Jovem Junoni; atque inde creatum
   Vulcanum turpem, coelique ex arce ruendum?”

There is to-day no doubt whatever that chronic alcoholism as well as
temporary intoxication at the time of conception modifies profoundly the
brain and nervous system of both parent and offspring. Some of the most
characteristic cases of instinctive criminality are solely or chiefly due
to alcoholism in one of the parents. When insanity and alcoholism are
combined in the parents, a rich and awful legacy of degeneration is left
to the offspring. Thus, one among many instances, Morel quotes a case in
which the father was alcoholic, the mother insane, and of the five
children one committed suicide, two became convicts, one daughter was mad,
and another semi-imbecile. Carefully-drawn statistics of the 4000
criminals who have passed through Elmira, New York, show drunkenness
clearly existing in the parents in 38.7 per cent., and probably in 11.1
per cent. more. Out of seventy-one criminals whose ancestry Rossi was able
to trace, in twenty the father was a drunkard, in eleven the mother. Marro
found that on an average 41 per cent. of the criminals he examined had a
drunken parent, as against 16 per cent. for normal persons.

Nor is it necessary that the alcoholism should be carried so far as to
produce great obvious injury to the parent. The action of the poison may
be slow and carried on from generation to generation. The fathers eat sour
grapes; the children’s teeth are set on edge.

The relation of alcoholism to criminality is by no means so simple as is
sometimes thought; alcoholism is an effect as well as a cause. It is part
of a vicious circle. For a well-conditioned person of wholesome heredity
to become an inebriate is not altogether an easy matter. It is facilitated
by a predisposition, and alcoholism becomes thus a symptom as well as a
cause of degeneration. The conclusions of Dr. Crothers, who has devoted
considerable study to this subject, are worthy of attention. He believes
that we do not sufficiently study the origin of inebriety. His conclusions
are--(1) that inebriety is itself evidence of more or less unsoundness;
(2) in a large proportion of cases it is only a sign of slow and insidious
brain disease; (3) when crime is committed by inebriates, the probability
of mental disease is very strong; (4) using spirits to procure
intoxication for the purpose of committing crime is evidence of the most
dangerous form of reasoning mania. The crime and the inebriety are only
symptoms of disease and degeneration, “whose footprints can be traced back
from stage to stage.”[32] It may be added that the danger of alcoholism,
from the present point of view, lies not in any mysterious prompting to
crime which it gives, but in the manner in which the poison lets loose the
individual’s natural or morbid impulses, whatever these may be.

If we set aside these slow and subtle causes and symptoms of
degeneration--causes which, while they may have long been recognised, are
only now beginning to be understood--there is no doubt whatever that the
criminal parent tends to produce a criminal child. There are, as Vidocq
said, families in which crime is transmitted from generation to
generation, and which seem to exist merely in order to prove the truth of
the old proverb: _bon chien chasse de race_. The investigations at Elmira
showed that in 51.8 per cent. the home was “positively bad,” and only
“good” in 8.3 per cent. A large number of the criminals investigated by
Rossi (_Studio sopra una Centuria di Criminali_) belonged to criminal
families. Two typical examples may be given:--N. N., condemned for fraud
and violence; father, alcoholic, convicted of fraud; mother, healthy; six
brothers, died young; one brother, a monster; another brother, born with
webbed fingers; another brother, highway-robber; another brother,
convicted of wounding; two sisters, one insane, the other a prostitute. R.
S., a thief, camorrista, convicted of wounding, etc; father, convicted of
wounding; paternal uncle, a thief; mother, a drunkard, convicted for fraud
and wounding; maternal grandfather, insane; maternal uncles, camorrista;
one brother, pickpocket, who five times feigned madness; another brother,
camorrista, convicted of fraud; another, thief; another, receiver;
another, camorrista and thief; a sister, honest and healthy.

Sometimes the criminal tradition is carried on through many generations
and with great skill, a kind of professional caste being formed. The
Johnson family of counterfeiters in America is an example of this. The
grandfather was a famous counterfeiter in his day; the next generation
were well known to the police; in the third generation criminal audacity
and skill appear to have reached a very high degree in seven brothers and
sisters, one of them, especially, being considered one of the most expert
counterfeiters of the day; he has spent a large part of his life in
various prisons.

The so-called “Jukes” family of America is the largest criminal family
known, and its history, which has been carefully studied, is full of
instruction.[33] The ancestral breeding-place of this family was in a
rocky inaccessible spot in the state of New York. Here they lived in log
or stone houses, sleeping indiscriminately round the hearth in winter,
like so many radii, with their feet to the fire. The ancestor of the
family, a descendant of early Dutch settlers, was born here between 1720
and 1740. He is described as living the life of a backwoodsman, “a hunter
and fisher, a hard drinker, jolly and companionable, averse to steady
toil,” working by fits and starts. This intermittent work is
characteristic of that primitive mode of life led among savages by the men
always, if not by the women, and it is the mode of life which the
instinctive criminal naturally adopts. This man lived to old age, when he
became blind, and he left a numerous, more or less illegitimate, progeny.
Two of his sons married two out of five more or less illegitimate sisters;
these sisters were the “Jukes.” The descendants of these five sisters have
been traced with varying completeness through five subsequent generations.
The number of individuals thus traced reaches 709; the real aggregate is
probably 1200. This vast family, while it has included a certain
proportion of honest workers, has been on the whole a family of criminals
and prostitutes, of vagabonds and paupers. Of all the men not twenty were
skilled workmen, and ten of these learnt their trade in prison; 180
received out-door relief to the extent of an aggregate of 800 years; or,
making allowances for the omissions in the record, 2300 years.[34] Of the
709 there were 76 criminals, committing 115 offences. The average of
prostitution among the marriageable women down to the sixth generation was
52.40 per cent.; the normal average has been estimated at 1.66 per cent.
There is no more instructive study in criminal heredity than that of the
Jukes family.


§ 7. _Tattooing._

The practice of tattooing is very common among criminals, and is
frequently carried to an extraordinary extent, twenty or thirty designs
being occasionally found on the same subject. Lombroso was the first to
point out the full biological and psychical significance of this practice.

[Illustration: Arms of criminal whose whole body was more or less
tattooed. (Lombroso.)]

Alborghetti found 15 per cent. of the inmates of the prison at Bergamo
tattooed. Lombroso examined 100 children at the reformatory at Turin, and
found 40 of them tattooed. Among 235 other youthful criminals he found 32
per cent. tattooed. Among the ordinary population tattooed children are
very rarely seen. Rossi found 23 tattooed among the 100 criminals whom he
has so carefully studied. Lacassagne among 800 convicted French soldiers
found 40 per cent. tattooed.[35]

The designs vary in character, but certain emblems are frequently
repeated. Tardieu out of 160 designs found 20 relating to love, 20 to war,
8 to religion, 8 to occupation, 6 to obscene practices.

[Illustration: A French glazier, thief, deserter from army; had been in
Africa. The chief figure on breast is St. George. (Lombroso.)]

Dr. Greaves, the medical officer of Derby Prison, has kindly noted details
of the tattoo marks observed on the prisoners received there during three
months. Out of 555 persons admitted, 41 (40 men and one woman) were
tattooed; _i.e._, 7.3 per cent. The tattooed individuals were chiefly
soldiers, with a few miners and sailors. The favourite devices were
flags, ships, anchors, female figures, bracelets, and initials. There were
two inscriptions, “Love” and “Jesus wept”; and among the less common
devices were a crucifix, Maltese crosses, a ballet girl, a mermaid, and
Chinese flower-pots. The most numerous and complex figures were all found
on soldiers.

The designs most frequently found by Rossi among his 23 tattooed criminals
were--portrait of mistress or nude woman (8); initials, either of self,
mistress, or friend (9); a transfixed heart, an emblem sometimes of love,
sometimes of vengeance (5); flowers, comets, swords, serpents, etc.

Tattooed inscriptions, as noted by Lacassagne, who has given special
attention to this matter, are frequently characteristic of the criminal’s
mental attitude; here are a few of the commonest: “Son of misfortune,” “No
luck,” “Death to unfaithful women,” “Vengeance,” “Son of disgrace,” “Born
under an unlucky star,” “Child of joy,” “The past has deceived me.”

The favourite position for tattooing, among the ordinary population, is
the front of the forearm; to a less degree the shoulders, the chest
(especially sailors), or the fingers. All who are tattooed on the back or
the sexual organs (according to Lombroso) have without exception either
been among the Pacific islands or sojourned in a prison. The greater
number of tattooed criminals are naturally found among recidivists and
instinctive criminals, especially those who have committed crimes against
the person. The fewest are found among swindlers and forgers, the most
intelligent class of criminals. There is evidence that criminals
frequently refrain from tattooing themselves because they know these
marks form an easy method of recognition in the hands of the police. It
appears that, in Italy at all events, the connection between tattoo marks
and crime has been of late recognised by the common soldiers. In 1848 the
soldiers of the Piedmontese army considered tattooing a mark of virility.
Recently, when Lombroso asked a soldier why he was not tattooed, he
replied: “Because those are the things that lead to the galleys;” and an
army doctor assured Lombroso that tattooed men were considered _a priori_
as bad soldiers.

[Illustration: PLATE VIII.

Right arm of G., French thief, etc., expelled from France, and wandered in
Africa and Australia. (Lombroso.)

M. J., French sailor and deserter; the nature of his crime is unknown.
(Lombroso.)]

The causes that produce tattooing are doubtless of a complex kind.
Religion, formerly and still among some races a chief cause of the
practice, was up to 1688 practised at Bethlehem by the Christian pilgrims,
and still survives at Loretto. Of 102 tattooed criminals, 31 bore
religious emblems. Vengeance frequently leads to it among criminals, and
among the feebler ones the spirit of imitation. Idleness often explains it
among prisoners, shepherds, and sailors.[36] Vanity is almost as powerful
a cause among criminals as among savages. “The more one is tattooed,” said
a Neapolitan soldier to Rossi, “the more one is esteemed and feared by
one’s companions, because it shows greater progress in the path of
crime.” Higher emotions always play a considerable part; and recollections
of childhood and the memory of loved friends are thus recorded. Lacassagne
attributes considerable importance to tattooing as a species of heraldry
used by uneducated people, analogous to the banners and seals of
corporations. Erotic passion is a very frequent--probably the most
frequent--cause of tattooing. All sorts of symbols of love, from the
initials of the loved one to the grossest emblems of unnatural passion,
are very common. The tattoo designs among prostitutes are usually of this
character; and such emblems are common among pæderasts and tribades. Among
savages nudity is of course one of the predisposing causes, and the same
cause acts among sailors and prostitutes. Lombroso attaches prime
importance to atavism. In the strict sense of the word, however, I doubt
very much whether we can legitimately accept the atavistic explanation.
The criminal is exposed to many of the influences which lead the savage to
adopt the practice, the chief of which have been already enumerated; this
is a sufficient explanation of the similarity of habit, and it seems
scarcely accurate to describe it as atavism. It is better described as a
survival. “I regard it,” Lacassagne well says in his instructive work,
_Les Tatouages_, “as the uninterrupted and successive transformation of an
instinct. The construction and material expression of metaphor and
emblematic language were first adopted by the most elevated classes, who
had no other means of communicating or materialising their thoughts.
Little by little this method took refuge with those lower classes who
have as yet no better means of expressing what they feel and experience.
It is in these classes also that vanity, or the need of approbation,
predominates, and this has a marked influence in maintaining the custom.”

Tattooing is exceedingly rare among women. Out of 300 women criminals at
Turin, Gamba found only five tattooed. Soresina, who examined 1000
prostitutes at Milan, did not find one tattooed. Lombroso, out of 200
criminal women, found only one tattooed; she came from Chioggia, was an
adultress who had killed her lover from jealousy, and she had associated
much with sailors.[37]

Among the insane tattooing does not seem always to be uncommon. In the
lunatic asylum at Ancona, we learn from Dr. Riva,[38] out of 184 men and
147 women no fewer than 16.30 per cent. of the former, and 6.80 of the
latter, were tattooed. It is worthy of note that it was chiefly among the
more severe and incurable cases of mental degeneration (dementia,
alcoholism, epilepsy, congenital mental weakness) that these signs were
found. In character and position they differed from those usually found
among criminals, by being exclusively worked on the arms and hands, and
consisting only of religious symbols, especially the Madonna of Loretto.


§ 8. _Motor Activity._

Extraordinary and ape-like agility has frequently been noted among
criminals. Every one is familiar with the daring feats of agility by which
prisoners frequently escape scatheless from the hands of their guardians.
This characteristic appears to be sometimes favoured by unusual length of
arm. A thief, incendiary, violator, and murderer, examined by Marandon de
Monthyel, showed little abnormal or criminal in his physical character,
except an extraordinary agility.

Left-handedness has, by instinct or from accurate observation, been
regarded with disfavour in the proverbial sayings of many nations. It is
decidedly common among criminals. Examining 81 normal persons, Marro found
70 right-handed, 7 left-handed, and 4 ambidextrous. Examining 190
working-men, he only found 6 left-handed. Altogether the proportion of
normal left-handed and ambidextrous persons was 6.2 per cent. Among
criminals, on the other hand, with the single exception of highwaymen, the
proportion of left-handed and ambidextrous persons was in every case
higher. Among 40 assassins in 17.5 per cent.; among 7 incendiaries in 28.5
per cent.; among 44 burglars in 18.1 percent. This corresponds with a
greater sensory obtuseness, which has also been observed on the right
side among criminals. It is also interesting to note the ambidextrous
tendency among children, savages, and idiots.

With the dynamometer, also, there appears to be a slightly greater
prevalence of excess of the left hand over the right, judging from Marro’s
experiences. It may be of interest to note here that among normal persons
the proportion in which the left hand is stronger than the right is by no
means small. Thus at the International Exhibition in London in 1884
observations made under Mr. Galton’s superintendence on 400 male
adults--artisans, clerks, professional men, etc.--between the ages of
twenty-three and twenty-six, showed that in 253 cases the right hand was
stronger than the left in squeezing power; in 147 the left was stronger;
in 28 both hands were equal. If we divide the individuals thus examined
according to occupation the results vary curiously. Of 18 chemists, in 12
the right hand was stronger, in 5 the left, in 1 both were equal. Of 9
carpenters and joiners, in 4 the right hand was stronger, in 3 the left,
in 2 both were equal. Of 87 clerks, in 52 the right hand was stronger, in
29 the left, in 6 both were equal. Of 9 medical men, in 5 the right hand
was stronger, in 4 the left. Of 7 clergymen and ministers, in 3 the right
hand was stronger, in 3 the left, in 1 both were equal. The high
proportion of right-handed squeezers among the chemists is no doubt due to
the effects of occupation, to the constant practice of gripping heavy
bottles with the right hand. Occupation also, no doubt, among the
carpenters and joiners, favours squeezing power in the left hand. The
factor of occupation is less obvious among clerks, but would no doubt
favour the right hand, and among these the proportion keeps very close to
the average among the 400. The doctors are almost as left-handed in this
respect as the carpenters, though the result can scarcely be influenced by
occupation; while the clergymen, who are certainly most free from the
influence of occupation in this respect, are the most left-handed of all,
although here the figures are too small to allow of any very reliable
results.

It seems that sufficient care has not yet been taken to determine what
constitutes left-handedness. The relative strength of the two hands is not
enough to decide this, for mancinism, or left-sidedness, is a matter of
relative skill as well as of relative strength. It is quite possible for a
person to be left-handed in some respects, right-handed in others; thus
(as happens to be the case with the present writer) he may be right-handed
in regard to all those actions which are exercised habitually and
socially, or which are the result of training, and left-handed in all
other respects. In such a case there appears to be a natural tendency to
left-sidedness, which is controlled and concealed by training, but which
takes every opportunity to assert itself in more unguarded directions. It
appears to me that the act of throwing a stone, an act requiring delicate
nervous adjustment as well as muscular force, and which is not subjected
to the influence of artificial training, is for practical purposes the
most convenient and accurate test for determining left-handedness. This
was the test adopted by Clapham and Clarke; they found that 6 per cent. of
the 500 criminals examined were left-handed.[39]

Ottolenghi has recently investigated the anatomical mancinism of
criminals. At the suggestion of Lombroso, he has measured with Bertillon’s
instruments, which give the maximum of precision, the length of the hands,
the middle fingers, and the feet in 100 criminals and 50 normal persons.
Differences of less than a millimetre he disregarded. He found that while
the right hand was longer in 14 per cent. of the normal persons, it was so
in only 5 per cent. of the criminals generally, and in none of the thieves
and pickpockets. In 35 per cent. of the pickpockets the left hand was
longer as against 11 per cent. in the normal persons. Very similar results
came out in regard to the fingers. In 38 per cent. of the normal persons
the right foot was longer, in only 27 per cent. of the criminals; in this
respect, however, the pickpockets (35 per cent.) most nearly approach the
normal, while those convicted of wounding, who in regard to the hand are
nearest to the normal, are in this respect farthest from the normal. In 15
per cent. of the normal persons the left foot was longer, in 35 per cent.
of the criminals, including 55 per cent. of the cases for wounding, and in
56 per cent. of the sexual offenders. It should be added that this
anatomical mancinism is not necessarily related with motor mancinism.[40]

Anomalies of the tendon reflex of the knee are very common among
criminals; they are either exaggerated or, very frequently, absent.
Lombroso found feeble tendon reflexes especially common among thieves, and
a very large proportion of exaggerated tendon reflexes among sexual
offenders. Marro also found the highest proportion of exaggerated
reflexes (the enormous proportion of 40 per cent.) among sexual offenders.
There was an alcoholic or insane parentage among 79 per cent. of those
with exaggerated reflexes.


§ 9. _Physical Sensibility._

The extent to which tattooing is carried out among criminals, sometimes
not sparing parts so sensitive as the sexual organs, which are rarely
touched even in extensive tattooing among barbarous races, serves to show
the deficient sensibility of criminals to pain.[41] The physical
insensibility of the criminal has indeed been observed by every one who is
familiar with prisons. In this respect the instinctive criminal resembles
the idiot to whom, as Galton remarks, pain is “a welcome surprise.” He may
even be compared with many lower races, such as those Maoris who did not
hesitate to chop off a toe or two, in order to be able to wear European
boots. Dr. Felkin found the maximum distance at which two points of a
compass could be distinguished at the tip of the tongue was in an average
European 1.1 mm., in a Soudanese 2.6 mm., in a negro 3 mm.

Lauvergne mentions a convict, imprisoned for life, who smiled with
pleasure when, moxas having been applied to him, he saw his skin burning
and heard it crack. Sbro ... (who killed his brother and his father),
Lombroso’s favourite typical case of “moral insanity,” was found by
Tamburini and Seppilli to be without perception of pain when tested with
a needle. Other criminals have been found very deficient in sensibility to
the electric current. Dr. Nicolson remarked: “They are comparatively free
from that agitation and tremulousness which are so apt to arise under
circumstances involving suspense and painful foreboding. The prisoner with
the knowledge of a probable flogging on the morrow, instead of giving way
to restlessness and anxiety, maintains a calm and stolid behaviour.” It is
not uncommon to read in the newspapers of criminals who hold out their
hands to be handcuffed without the slightest trembling, and who eat
heartily on the eve of execution, or even while the jury above are still
deliberating on their fate.

One of Rossi’s hundred criminals received when a child his father’s blows
“as caresses,” and he was able to walk with a dislocated foot from Genoa
to Novi (some thirty miles); another wounded himself severely and declared
that it gave him no pain. Dr. Penta, in the course of his elaborate
researches, found that the majority of his 184 instinctive criminals at
Santo Stefano were insensible to the pain of punctures, burns, cuts, and
even grave surgical operations. “I have extirpated tumours,” he remarks,
“of considerable size, in the back and the neck, without the necessity of
producing anæsthesia, and without causing pain; in a case of feigned
epilepsy ammonia to the nose caused no reflex phenomenon, and deep
puncture and burning of the skin produced no painful contraction.”

This insensibility shows itself also in disvulnerability, or rapid
recovery from wounds, first pointed out by Benedikt, which appears to be a
frequently observed phenomenon among criminals; thus it had been noticed
by several of the medical officers of prisons who answered my
Questions.[42] In this respect the instinctive criminal resembles the
lower animals as well as the lower races of man; among the Egyptians,
Chinese, and Annamites, and other races, wounds heal much more rapidly
than in Europe. Thus Mr. Tregear remarks:--“I have seen a Maori speared
with a big rafting-spear (an iron-shod pole thicker than the wrist), the
point driven through the breast, just under the collar-bone, and coming
out at the back. In a week’s time he walked fifteen miles, crossing a
mountain range, the wound being healed.”[43] Benedikt speaks of a brigand
who, in a revolt of prisoners, had several vertebræ broken; all his wounds
healed, and the giant of former days became a dwarf, but he could work at
the forge with a heavy hammer with all his old vigour. Lombroso knew a
thief whose frontal bone was cloven laterally with a hatchet; in fifteen
days he was cured without any relapse. He speaks also of a murderer who,
when working as a mason, was reproved for some fault; he threw himself
from the third storey into the court; every one supposed he was killed,
but he got up, smiling, and asked to be allowed to continue work. A
pregnant woman performed on herself Cæsarean section with a kitchen knife,
subsequently killing the child; she recovered without dressings and
without fever. We hear also of a criminal with a fractured rib and
pleurisy who could hew wood and travel in a cart over rough mountain
roads. “Individuals who possess this quality,” Lombroso remarks, “consider
themselves privileged, and treat with contempt those who appear delicate
and sensitive. It is a pleasure to such men to torment others whom they
regard as inferior beings.”

Though loud in their complaints of trivial ailments, they are often
unconscious of severe illness. At Chatham, in 1888, a prisoner dropped
down dead on returning from labour; both lungs were found in an early
stage of pneumonia, and death was probably due to syncope; he had made no
complaints to any one. Prisoners will inflict severe injuries on
themselves in order to gain some very trifling object. At Chatham, in
1871-72, 841 voluntary wounds or contusions are recorded; 27 prisoners
voluntarily fractured a limb, and 17 of them had to submit to amputation;
62 tried to mutilate themselves, and 101 produced wounds by means of
corrosive substances. Lombroso found the general sensibility decreased in
38 out of 66. Working with Du-Bois Reymond’s electrical apparatus, in
conjunction with Marro, he found the sensibility of the criminals much
inferior to that of the normal persons examined. Swindlers possessed much
greater sensibility than murderers and thieves. Marro found sensibility,
measured by an esthesiometer, most obtuse in murderers and incendiaries.
Similar results were obtained by Ramlot, in reference to tactile
sensibility; he examined 103 criminals and 27 normal persons, and found
obtusity in 44 per cent. of the former, and in only 29 per cent. of the
latter.[44] It should be noted that cases of excessive sensibility, due
either to extreme pusillanimity, or to some morbid condition of the skin
or brain, are also found among criminals.

The eyesight of criminals was found by Bono to be superior to the normal.
He examined 190 youthful delinquents, and compared them with over 100
youths of similar age in an agricultural institute, the examination in all
cases being made under the same conditions. The visual acuity of 49 per
cent. of the criminals was superior to 1.5 Snellen; only 31 per cent. of
the honest youths possessed an equal acuteness.

Ottolenghi obtained similar results.[45] He examined 100 criminals with
Snellen’s types in the open air, using various precautions to ensure
uniformity and accuracy. The results were--

  Visus (average) for 82 thieves   = 1.8
    "       "         18 homicides = 2.2
    "       "        100 criminals = 2.0

In one of the homicides sight was exceedingly keen (V = 3). He examined 15
warders, between the ages of 27 and 45, under the same conditions, and
found vision = 1.5. Further observations on this point are needed, as
previous observers (Bielakoff, for instance) have found the sight of
criminals inferior to the normal. If Ottolenghi’s results are confirmed by
extended observation, there is an interesting analogy on this point
between criminals and many lower races. Thus examinations by Seggel in
1881 yielded the following results--

  Terra del Fuegians       V = 5
  Nubians                  V = 3
  Georgians                V = 1¾

while among German and Russian soldiers the average varied between 1⅖ and
0.95.

Ottolenghi also found colour-blindness very rare; he met with one case
(green-blindness) among 460 criminals tested with Holmgren’s wools. This
result also corresponds with examinations of lower races, such as
Samoyeds, Lapps, Esquimaux, Nubians, etc. It should be added that this
result also needs confirmation, as it does not correspond with other
observations. Thus Holmgren found that colour-blindness existed in 5.60
per cent. of 321 criminals, while among 32,000 of the ordinary population
the proportion was scarcely 3.25 per cent. Dyschromatopsia has been found
common, a fact of great significance, since this disorder is so frequently
connected with grave disturbance of the nervous system.

The healthiness of eye in criminals, if confirmed, may be compared with a
similar condition in imbeciles. In a study of twenty young adult male
imbeciles of a minor degree than idiocy, Dr. Oliver found vision normal
and colour perception apparently normal, and the eyes singularly free from
the slight morbid changes so common in the eye. This condition, “which is
shown by a proper balance of muscular action, a persistence of congenital
hypermetropia, and an abnormally healthy appearance of the eye-ground
(presenting a picture that is almost identical to the one seen during
infantile existence), may be considered as significant of a type of
unused, healthy, adult human eye.”[46]

The hearing of criminals is relatively obtuse, and they are prone to
disease of the ear. Thus Dr. Gradenigo, at the request of Lombroso,
undertook a series of researches into the matter,[47] in 110 instinctive
and occasional criminals. Of the 82 criminal men he examined, 55 (67.3 per
cent.) proved to be inferior to the normal. Of these 82, there were 40 who
were instinctive criminals, and of these 29 (72.5 per cent.) had defective
hearing. Of the 28 women, 15 (53.5 per cent.) possessed hearing inferior
to the normal. Four of the women, however, possessed hearing much superior
to the normal average.[48] Gradenigo found that the defective hearing was
due in the great majority of cases to inflammatory affections of the
middle and internal ear. He found no constant relation between defective
hearing and obtusity of touch, taste, and smell, frequently found among
criminals.

Ottolenghi has examined the olfactory acuteness of 80 instinctive
criminals (50 men and 30 women) and 50 normal persons of the middle and
lower classes. He constructed a kind of osmometer consisting of twelve
acqueous solutions of essence of cloves, contained in similar bottles in
similar quantities. The solutions were graduated from 1/50000 to
1/100.[49] Beginning with the weakest solution he noted when olfactory
sensation commenced; and he also used the method of Nichols and Bailey,
inviting the subject to arrange the bottles in order of intensity. The
result, unlike what he had expected, was to show distinctly that the
olfactory sense is less developed in the criminal than in the normal
person, and slightly less in the criminal women than in the criminal men.
Among normal persons (as Nichols and Bailey had previously found) the
olfactory sense of women is less keen than that of men. Among the 80
criminals, 8 (6 men and 2 women) possessed no olfactory sensibility; in 2
of these there was entire absence of perception, in 6 absence of specific
sensation.

Ottolenghi has also investigated the sense of taste in criminals.[50] He
examined 60 instinctive criminals, 20 occasional criminals, 20 normal
persons of the lower class, 50 students and professional men, 20 criminal
women and 20 normal women, all healthy and robust, and for the most part
between the ages of twenty and fifty. The three test substances used were
sulphate of strychnia, saccharine, and common salt; various precautions
(attention to uniformity of amount of solution used, temperature of
solution, cleanliness of mouth, etc.) were adopted in order to make a
series of experiments, full of practical difficulties, as reliable as
possible. From these experiments, it appeared that the sense of taste is
more developed in the normal man than in the criminal, and more developed
in the occasional criminal than in the instinctive criminal. He found
gustatory obtuseness in 38.3 per cent. of the instinctive criminals, in 25
per cent. of the lower class men examined, and in 14 per cent. of the
professional men. The criminal women also showed a larger proportion of
gustatory obtuseness than the normal women. He noted, however, that the
women who passed as normal, but who were given to vice and prostitution,
showed an even larger percentage of gustatory obtuseness than criminal
women. The defect in gustatory acuteness seemed to him generally to be
rather of a qualitative than quantitative character. The generic
excitation was produced in a large number of cases as soon as in the
normal person, but the specific sensation was very retarded. The subject
was conscious of a taste, but could not tell of what kind it was; that is
to say, the defect was situated centrally, in the cerebral cortex, rather
than in the sensorial apparatus.

It is worthy of note that criminals begin to use tobacco at an early age.
Thus among a population which normally begins to smoke before the age of
thirty only in the proportion of 14 per cent. (and the insane 7.2 per
cent.), 22 per cent. of criminals smoke before the age of thirty, and
nearly all (279 out of 300 males and 32 out of 32 women) before entering
prison. Venturi[51] found tobacco used by 14.3 per cent. of normal men,
1.5 of normal women; 45.8 of criminal men, 15.9 of criminal women.
Marambat[52] concluded that the love of tobacco was the first passion that
rooted itself in the youthful criminal. Out of 603 juvenile delinquents,
between the ages of eight and fifteen, 51 per cent. had acquired the
custom of using tobacco before their detention.

Lombroso notes that the sensibility of criminals to the weather appears to
be greater than that of the ordinary population. He found it in 29 out of
112. There were 9 who became quarrelsome shortly before storms, and one
of these remarked that his companions always foretold bad weather when he
sought to quarrel. Dostoieffsky observed that quarrels and disturbances
were particularly common among the convicts in the spring. What is true of
the Russian prisoners in Siberia seems also to be true of American
prisoners at New York. From some tables given by Dr. Wey of Elmira it
appears that marks for bad conduct are specially numerous in the spring,
and also, to some extent, in the autumn.

_Vaso-motor Sensibility._--Inability to blush has always been considered
the accompaniment of crime and shamelessness. Blushing is also very rare
among idiots and savages; the Spaniards used to say of the South American
Indians: “How can one trust men who do not know how to blush?” From the
investigations of Amadei, Tonnini, and Bergesio, it appears that if we
compare lunatics and criminals, twice as many of the latter are incapable
of blushing. Pasini, in his examinations of women, noted blushing in 21
per cent. of murderers, 20 per cent. of poisoners, 18 per cent. of
infanticides, and only 10 per cent. of thieves. It was not at the mention
of their offences that they blushed, but when questioned concerning their
menstrual functions. Out of 130 criminal women examined by Salsotto, 50
blushed when spoken to concerning their offences. Dr. Andronico of Messina
communicated to Lombroso some interesting, though too general,
observations concerning the prostitutes and young female criminals in
prison under his charge. “Among the inscribed prostitutes,” he remarks,
“none blushed when questioned concerning their occupation. I have seen
some of them blush when reproached for unnatural practices. I have noted
that female homicides narrate their deeds ingenuously and without
blushing; those who have poisoned their husbands blush, but partially.
Among female prisoners condemned for theft, blushing shows itself first on
the ears, then on the face; those who are condemned for excitation to
prostitution do not blush.”

In order to test the vaso-motor reactions of the criminal to various
thoughts and emotions, Lombroso made a series of very interesting
experiments, during the course of a year, with the sphygmograph and with
Mosso’s ingenious and valuable instrument, the plethysmograph. With the
sphygmograph (or, rather, the hydrosphygmograph) he observed the degree of
excitement produced on various individuals by the sight of wine, cigars,
food, money, and photographs of nude women. The plethysmograph is a
delicate instrument for measuring mental excitement, depending on the fact
that the slightest emotion causes an alteration in the amount of blood
present in any part of the body.[53] With the plethysmograph Lombroso
found that the strongest impressions (superior to the normal) were
produced by cowardice, fear of the judge, some favourite mode of
excitement (wine or women), but above all, by vanity. It is not, however,
easy to generalise from his observations; it is necessary for such
observations to be carried on during a long period on a great number of
persons, normal as well as criminal, and to be carefully controlled. They
are of very great interest, for they enable us to penetrate into the most
secret recesses of the mind, and to measure the force of the motives that
move it. It is to be hoped that they will be conducted on a much larger
scale than they have hitherto been.

All these researches into the physical sensibilities of the criminal are
of the first importance, and it is necessary that they should be greatly
extended and carefully checked. So far they nearly all converge to show
that the criminal is markedly deficient in physical sensibility. On this
physical insensibility rests that moral insensibility, or psychical
analgesia, as it has been called, which is, as we shall see, the
criminal’s most fundamental mental characteristic.




CHAPTER IV.

CRIMINAL ANTHROPOLOGY (PSYCHICAL).


§ 1. _Moral Insensibility._

The moral insensibility of the instinctive and habitual criminal, his lack
of forethought, his absence of remorse, his cheerfulness, had been noted
long before they were exhaustively studied by Despine. In the _argot_ of
French criminals, conscience is _la muette_, and to induce any one to lead
a dishonest life is _l’affranchir_. This moral insensibility is, indeed, a
commonplace of observation with all who have come in close contact with
criminals. Gall remarked: “If criminals have remorse, it is that they have
not committed more crimes, or that they have let themselves be caught.”
Dostoieffsky, speaking from his intimate and sympathetic acquaintance with
convicts in Siberia, said: “During so many years I ought to have been able
to seize some indication, however fugitive, of regret, of moral suffering.
I have perceived positively nothing. Seclusion and excessive work only
develop among those people a profound hatred, the thirst of forbidden
pleasures, and a terrible indifference.” He goes on to tell of a parricide
who remarked carelessly, in the course of conversation: “Take my father,
for example; he was never ill up to the day of his death.” “Scenes of
heartrending despair are hardly ever witnessed among prisoners,” observes
Dr. Wey of Elmira; “their sleep is disturbed by no uneasy dreams, but is
easy and sound; their appetites, also, are excellent.”[54] “It is a most
singular thing,” remarks Mr. Davitt, “that I have met very few individuals
in prison who gave evidence in appearance or talk of being _truly_
miserable, no matter what the length of their sentence, amount of extra
punishment, or contrast between their previous and their convict life may
have been.”[55] Mr. Davitt seems inclined to attribute this sinister
contentment to a sort of heroic fortitude providentially implanted in the
criminal breast. He refers, however, to one man who never smiled during
the time he was in Dartmoor. “His existence seemed to be one perpetual
sorrow, and he formed altogether the most striking exception to the rule
of non-despairing prisoners which came under my notice during my long
intercourse with Dartmoor’s criminal population.” Now this man was a
Swansea stone-mason who had come home one Saturday evening “a little
fresh,” but not drunk, to find his wife in tears, and on learning that she
had been insulted by a man who lived on the other side of the street, he
rushed out, chisel in hand, to the man’s house and left him desperately
wounded. It is clear that this man, who was sentenced to seven years’
penal servitude, was not an instinctive criminal, or an habitual criminal
at all; it was the strength of his social, and not of his anti-social,
instincts which had caused his crime. He was merely a criminal by passion,
and his case forms, therefore, no exception to the general rule.

On the whole we may conclude that the practice of the instinctive and
habitual criminal corresponds very closely with the faith of that
religious sect who in Commonwealth days held “that heaven and all
happiness consists in the acting of those things which are sin and
wickedness,” and “that such men and women are most perfect and like to God
or eternity which do commit the greatest sins with least remorse.”

Despine, in his _Psychologie Naturelle_ (1868), studied this question on
the largest scale in order to obtain exact results. “I addressed myself
for this purpose,” he tells us, “to the collection of the _Gazette des
Tribunaux_, going back to 1825, and I soon acquired certainty that this
psychical peculiarity is an invariable rule among these criminals.... I
acquired the certainty that those who premeditate and commit crime in cold
blood never experience moral remorse. I found also that those who manifest
acute sorrow and real remorse after a criminal act, have committed that
act either under the influence of a violent passion which has momentarily
stifled the moral sense, or by accident, without intention.” He concludes
that the two great psychical conditions for crime are moral insensibility
and perversity, with two accessory moral anomalies, imprudence and lack of
foresight.

“You premeditated your crime?” said the judge. “Yes, for eighteen months.”
“But that is monstrous.” “I know; I ought to have done it in April, but
having no money, I arranged it for January.” A murderer, after receiving
sentence, was led out in the midst of a crowd who hurled imprecations at
him. He saw a comrade and shouted to him, almost laughing--“Hallo! I’ve
just been condemned to death.” An Albanian, after having killed a
traveller to rob him, lamented that the expense of the shot amounted to
five paras; he had only found four paras on the victim; that was his one
regret. An assassin after his crime passed two days eating and drinking
with a comrade; “he was as gay as a lark,” said the latter. “But,” said
the judge to the accused, “one fact indicates remorse on your part: you
were about to cut your throat when arrested.” “That was that I might not
be taken to prison.”

Wainewright unblushingly avowed his atrocities. How could he kill such an
innocent and trustful creature as Helen Abercrombie, he was asked once.
After a moment’s reflection he replied, “Upon my soul I don’t know, unless
it was because she had such thick legs.”

It would be easy to give many similar stories exhibiting the moral
insensibility of the instinctive criminal, frequently manifested in brutal
bravado. They are, however, easily accessible and of sufficient notoriety.
It is enough to give one more. A corporal at Paris killed an old woman,
the landlady of an inn, in order to rob her. He was condemned to death
without any hope that his penalty would be commuted. He knew this, but was
not disturbed, and was proud of his calmness and _sangfroid_; he talked to
his warders on the most various subjects, without reference, however, to
his crime; read books from the prison library, and finally devoted himself
to what he called the literary labours of his last hours. He had a taste
for verse, and wrote a drama concerning his crime. “Death!” he often said
to those around him; “I cannot fear it either as a soldier or as a
philosopher. Yet it is overtaking me in my youth and strength. It is a
terrible thing, but I am prepared, and I shall go to my execution
courageously and with head erect.” The acts of this Socratic criminal
agreed with his words. He slept peacefully, rose and dressed himself with
a smile on his lips, glad, as he said, to find himself still in this
world, where it is, after all, so pleasant to live. His appetite was
always good, and he joked with the warder who attended him about the small
amount of food supplied to him. “Patience!” he exclaimed, “_à la guerre
comme à la guerre_.”

An executioner told Lombroso that all the highwaymen and murderers went to
their deaths joking. It would, however, be a mistake to trace moral
insensibility in the tranquil avocations and _bon-mots_ of men who,
whatever their crimes, are about to pay the extreme forfeit for them. One
criminal occupied his last hours with arranging his unpublished literary
works; another gave lessons in hygiene to the warders; a third remarked to
those who sought to hurry him to the place of execution, “Do not be
disturbed; they will not begin without me.” Such stories have, however,
been recorded of the most eminent political offenders in all countries.

[Illustration: PLATE IX.]

Dr. Corre, in his interesting work, _Les Criminels_, has investigated the
historic and judicial documents relative to the last moments of 88
criminals condemned to death, of whom 64 were men and 24 women. Of the men
25 died in a cowardly manner, already half-dead with fear, or else after a
despairing struggle with the executioner. These were more than two-fifths
of the whole number, and included many of the chief criminal celebrities,
some of them educated men, doctors and priests. Four accepted their fate
in a state of extreme nervous excitement, accompanied by loquacity. Twelve
maintained to the end a cynical and theatrical attitude; these were
vain individuals, often with some pretensions to literary ability;
Lacenaire is the type of them. Five died with indifference, an impassivity
which recalls the insensibility of the brute or the unconsciousness of the
madman. Eighteen went out of the world with a calm and resigned courage,
often repentant, and prepared by the exhortations of the priest. They
belonged to various social classes. Those of the lower classes were
generally more sincere, and publicly avowed their guilt, holding
themselves up as warnings to others; those belonging to the middle
classes, anxious to leave behind a doubt as to their guilt, declared
themselves innocent; others were silent. Of the 24 women, only 5 (about
one-fifth) showed cowardice. Only one, a poisoner, showed “revolting
cynicism.” The rest, 18 in number, were self-possessed and resigned,
frequently repentant, and generally consoled by religious administrations.
In this category is included the Marquise de Brinvilliers, who for a long
quarter of an hour was exposed to an immense crowd nearly naked--“mirodée,
rasée, dressée et redressée par le bourreau,” wrote Mme. de Sevigné--with
unshaken firmness. Three-fourths of the women, little more than one-fourth
of the men, are among those who died with resigned self-possession. The
cynicism, cowardice, and brutal passivity of the others alike testify to
moral insensibility.

Out of more than 400 murderers Bruce Thomson had known, only three
expressed remorse. Of the 4000 criminals who have passed through Elmira,
36.2 per cent. showed on admission positively no susceptibility to moral
impressions; only 23.4 per cent. were “ordinarily susceptible.” Dr.
Salsotto, in his recent study of 130 women condemned for premeditated
assassination or complicity in such assassination,[56] was only able to
recognise genuine penitence in six. He is careful to point out that
precise statistics on this point are of no great value, unless they are
associated with a very intimate knowledge of individual criminals; the
assumed penitence is seldom real, and the real penitence is not obtrusive.
Dostoieffsky, the most profound student of the human heart who has ever
studied criminals intimately, has noted this fact--“In one prison there
were men whom I had known for several years, whom I believed to be savage
beasts, and for whom, as such, I felt contempt; yet at the most unexpected
moment their souls would involuntarily expand at the surface with such a
wealth of sentiment and cordiality, with such a vivid sense of their own
and others’ suffering, that scales seemed to fall from one’s eyes; for an
instant the stupefaction was so great that one hesitated to believe what
one had seen and heard.”

The moral insensibility of the instinctive criminal is the cause of his
cruelty, a cruelty which he frequently displays from his childhood. Rossi
found in ten of his 100 criminals an exaggerated and precocious cruelty;
one of them, as a child, used to take young birds, pull out their
feathers, and roast them alive; another revenged himself on birds for the
punishments imposed on him by his parents. A certain amount of cruelty is,
however, almost normal in healthy children. The instinctive criminal is
more di

Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/44500