CRIMINAL ANTHROPOLOGV. 631 



minating the anomalous and pathologic manifestations. In order to 

 obtain an abnormal type, it is necessary to choose for each species of 

 anomalies or alteration an individual in which this anomaly or altera- 

 tion is well characterized, and then there will be as many types as 

 there are sorts of anomalies or alterations. We therefore can not have 

 a type criminal any more than we can have a type of human monsters. 



In order to characterize criminals in general, it is necessary to ob- 

 tain the averages, which can be compared with the averages of other 

 individuals of the same race, the same sex, the same social class, etc. 

 These latter individuals must themselves be the average of their respec- 

 tive race, sex, or class, and their averages thus taken should become 

 the type or standard. 



Honest or virtuous men (a category not less vague than that of 

 criminals) will then be without doubt the metatypic. But these have 

 not yet been studied nor their type settled. Nevertheless it is these 

 metatypes that we should compare anatomically with the criminals 

 if we would make comparison between the anatomic characters of the 

 two classes. Who form this class of honest and virtuous men that 

 furnish the standard by which the criminal classes are to be judged? 

 They may be idle, vicious, evil disposed, imbecile, passionate, brutal, 

 and all that, if they have but escaped being declared by the law to be 

 criminals. In this condition of affairs is it possible that any one can 

 determine anatomically, or physiologically, or psycho sociologically 

 what physical characteristics form a criminal type of man? 



What are the results? This is a question to be resolved by anatomic 

 anthropology, of which the comparative anatomy of criminals is no 

 more than one chapter. The anatomic study of criminals in order to 

 become of value has need to be extended to a greater area and in 

 greater detail even than has been here indicated. 



There was, of course, a large discussion among the members of the 

 congress over this question. Nearly every one had a different idea 

 concerning it. 



Professor Lombroso responded to Dr. Manouvrier. He demanded 

 how he would distinguish the criminals. The criminals of occasion has 

 presented abnormal characters. It was not the occasion that made the 

 criminal, but it was the occasion which was presented to ap individual 

 predisposed to commit the crime. It has been objected that the woman 

 criminal had no anatomic characteristics, but they who made that 

 objection forgot that prostitution was the form of the feminine crimi- 

 nality. He believed somewhat in the idea emitted by Madame 

 Clemence-Royer on the relation between crime and hybridity, or mix- 

 ture of races, one being inferior. If the crime is not an anomaly, what 

 is it? Is it a virtue? He agreed with Dr. Manouvrier that the cra- 

 nial capacity is not ?^ characteristic of criminality. Bearing upon the 

 question of atavism he stated that he had found among criminals a 

 great number or proportion of hernia. This was a regressive char- 



