92 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXIV. No. 864 



animation of faces. Yet when we inquire 

 into causes and results and learn something 

 of the influences which have modiiied the 

 facial type, and especially when we consider 

 our individual bias with respect to all the 

 people we see and know, then the difficulties 

 of accurate and general conclusions become 

 evident indeed. 



The face of man is distinguished from that 

 of lower animals by the greater development 

 of the frontal region or forehead and the de- 

 velopment of folds which delimit the chin. 

 In lower races of mankind the lack of develop- 

 ment of the frontal region and bridge of the 

 nose, slight projection and great breadth of 

 the nasal region and the large heavy jaws, are 

 evident. 



Early ontogenetic conditions of the human 

 face simulate the lower animals, while later 

 stages suggest the lower races. The arching 

 of the frontal region soon destroys close re- 

 semblances to lower types but the broad, 

 bridgeless condition of the nose in the embryo 

 does not so quickly disappear and may indeed 

 persist in the adult. The chin may be reced- 

 ing or almost lacking, a condition also well 

 recognized after birth and throughout life in 

 a considerable proportion of individuals. 



In the development of the intellectual value 

 of a face, we can trace a connection between 

 the size of the frontal region of the brain and 

 the height and breadth of the forehead, al- 

 though judgment of intellectual worth by this 

 criterion can be of only the most general 

 character because of the variation in skeletal 

 structures. 



When we try to trace the evolution of the 

 face from an esthetic viewpoint we encounter 

 still greater obstacles. In the first place a defi- 

 nition of beauty is difficult and yet if we ex- 

 amine the faces of ancient Assyria, Egypt and 

 Greece, we find in general the same outlines 

 or much the same features which we now 

 usually regard as beautiful. Aside from this 

 general type, we, each one of us, hold certain 

 features or combinations of features to be es- 

 pecially beautiful because of people we have 

 known, or for some other reason. But so far 

 as the general idea of what constitutes a 



beautiful face is concerned we might, perhaps, 

 find that it must have its parts in good pro- 

 portions, no single feature should represent 

 the extreme. Each element should bear a cer- 

 tain definite relation to the rest, with the pro- 

 file lines regular and the curves of a deli- 

 cate sweep. It should express unity as well 

 as variety. 



Why the human face has developed as it 

 has may be due to our ideas of what consti- 

 tutes beauty, and if we inquire into this a 

 little more closely, the following suggests 

 itself: The earlier ideas of beauty were de- 

 termined by a comparison with the lower 

 animals, possibly with the ape in the begin- 

 ning; in part, the antithesis of such a face 

 was first recognized among primitive men as 

 beautiful. That such comparisons are con- 

 stantly being made by ourselves to the disad- 

 vantage of one who seems to resemble a lower 

 animal in appearance, and that such compari- 

 sons are also being made by lower races in the 

 savage state, no one who inquires into the 

 subject can doubt. In the case of lower and 

 higher races, those resemblances to the lower 

 are regarded even by primitive people to be 

 less admirable. Of course many primitive 

 tribes often develop one or another idea of 

 beauty which is not coordinate with that 

 found in the higher races. 



This principle of antithesis I believe can 

 not account for all the perfection of a beauti- 

 ful ideal, for with the evolution of the race, 

 education along many lines contributes a 

 component, the artistic sense becomes de- 

 veloped and fine lines with delicacy of con- 

 tour come to be appreciated. These ideals 

 work over the rather rude materials furnished 

 by selection. 



There is another most interesting and diffi- 

 cult problem which confronts us in this con- 

 nection. How may we judge character from 

 the face? What information may we gain of 

 the intelligence, moral worth and disposition 

 of an individual in this way? We are fa- 

 miliar with the often extremely absurd 

 claims of phrenologists and physiognomists, 

 but none of us doubt that an individual's 

 character shows more or less in his face. Yet 



