Woods: What Is There in Physiognomy? 



309 



they are out of sixty-four instead of 

 thirteen out of thirty. 



I do not print the names of those 

 less well-known. There are seventeen 

 in the group "large or long," and 51 

 in the central group. It is quite pos- 

 sible, indeed probable that some of 

 those omitted from the famous list 

 should be included; but I am sure that 

 there are not more than seven such in 

 the middle group who would if included 

 raise the number to twenty instead of 

 thirteen. But even with these in- 

 cluded, the large-long nosed fraternity 

 would beat the averaged nosed people 

 in point of fame. There are further- 

 more, on the more liberal basis of what 

 constitures fame, at least three from 

 the "large-long" group who must be 

 added. There is in the group of ten 

 small nosed men but one single instance 

 of a very famous man. This exception 

 is Lord Lister. Some might call his 

 nose average, but he is placed among 

 the small nosed group, and the benefit 

 of the doubt may be given to an 

 opponent of the present theory. 



Another way of testing this problem 

 is to make a list of the very greatest 

 men in all history, in point of fame, 

 and then examine the portraits of as 

 many of them as possible. Here is a 

 partial list. All these are among the 

 most eminent men who have ever 

 lived. There can be no doubt about 

 their fame. Whether they be "great" 

 or not is another matter. For instance 

 people might dispute as to whether 

 Napoleon should or should not be called 

 "great," but no one can dispute the 

 fact that he is eminent in the sense of 

 attracting a tremendous amount of 

 interest, occupying great space in the 

 shelves of libraries, and time in the 

 thoughts of men. These names are 

 part of a list of preeminent men (no 

 longer living) which I am preparing 

 by the objective methods of historiom- 

 etry. There is no bias in it one way 

 or another towards this test, so it 

 does not matter just how the list is 

 being made. 



LARGE NOSES OR LONG NOSES: 



Descartes, Luther, LaFontaine (Fig. 

 4), Fenelon, Paschal (Fig. 4), Cuvier 

 (Fig. 4), Renan, Ampere, Tasso, Mey- 

 erbeer, Newton, Van Dyck, Coperni- 

 cus, de Musset, Goethe, Liszt, Heine, 

 Pasteur, Colbert, John Fox, Calvin, 

 Titian, Tintoreto, Aritino, Lamartine, 

 Gerson, Helmholtz, Kepler, Kant, J. 

 Herschal, F. Bacon, Cromwell, Pitt 

 the Elder, Burke, C. J. Fox, Peel, 

 Disraeli, Gladstone, Gambetta, Alex- 

 ander Hamilton, Washington, Webster, 

 Thomas Jefferson, Lincoln, Pasteur, 

 L'Hospital (Fig. 4), Hayden. 



AVERAGES NOSES: 



W. Herschel, La Place, Pitt the 

 younger, Macaulay, Bonaparte (or 

 long), Kossuth. Bismark, Hugo, Bran- 

 tome, Mozart, Wolsey, Lafayette, 

 Voltaire^ (Fig. 4), Dumas, Moliere, 

 Beethoven, Turenne, Racine, Byron, 

 Robespierre, Cavour, Franklin, Thiers, 

 Fulton, James Cook (Fig. 4), Gluck, 

 Corneille, Arago (Fig. 4). 



SMALL OR SHORT NOSES : 



Murillo, Danton, Lister, Boileau 

 (Fig. 4), Beranger, Talleyrand (Fig. 4). 



This list is merely a fragmentary one, 

 but the great preponderance of the 

 first group over the sum of the other two 

 makes it highly confirmatory of all 

 the previous tests. 



Still another test was made from 

 some entirely different data where 

 classifications according to intellect 

 had already been made for an entirely 

 different purpose. My publication 

 "Heredity in Royalty" 19()6 contains 

 sixty portraits of adult males suitable 

 for inclusion in the present research. 

 These were graded for intellect in a 

 scale of ten, ten being the highest 

 and one the lowest. Those from seven 

 to ten are, in the combined opinions of 

 historians, superior to those in five 

 and six, which in turn may be called 

 the average types of royalty, and are 

 superior to those in grades one to four. 

 A test made by classifying these por- 



^ Some portraits make Voltaire's nose long, see illustration. 



