Like all rudimentary organs (organs, that is to say, which continue to be transmitted in the absence of any discoverable physiological function), the external ear (pinna, or auricle) exhibits all possible variations. Among these variations, two only appear to be of importance in relation to criminal anthropology—viz., the handle-shaped and projecting ear (German Henkelohr) and the Darwinian tipped ear,[[14]] which are met with comparatively often in criminals, the former being found in 328 among 1,568 criminals examined, and the latter in 189 out of 1,187; rare in comparison with these is the so-called Morel’s ear, in which the external margin of the auricle (the helix) is not folded upon itself. Morel’s ear is a sign of a congenital tendency to severe nervous troubles, and it is a remarkable fact that this character is common in prostitutes.
According to my own observations, in addition to the two abnormalities in the shape of the external ear already mentioned, we sometimes find in criminals other strongly marked malformations of the ear; and as in the case of other abnormal characters in criminals, so also in the case of those of the ear, the anomalies are met with more frequently in proportion as the crime for which the man was condemned was grave in character, and in proportion also to the intensity with which the criminal tendency has been manifested in the course of life.
The length of the auricle is also subject to great variations in criminals. In Europeans the normal length of the ear lies between 51 and 60 millimetres (2 and 2·36 inches); it is longer than this in Mongols and Indians, shorter in Malays, Papuans, and Australians; shortest in Nubians, Negroes, and Bushmen. In this respect also (i.e., in the greater range of variation) criminals resemble savage races rather than civilized. According to the measurements of Frigerio, great length of the external ear is in thieves and robbers even more characteristic than great length of fingers, which latter, however, is also something more than proverbial merely.[[15]]
If we endeavour to combine the physiognomical peculiarities of the criminal type with the data of anthropological investigation, we obtain a somewhat monotonous picture in widely different climates, notwithstanding the fact that it is not permissible to speak of a perfectly uniform type. The reason why this is impossible is one to which I have already alluded more than once—namely, the fact that the extreme cases, very great or very small values of linear dimensions, surfaces, and weights, of the human body and its parts, are encountered far more frequently among the inmates of our great prisons than they are among an equivalent number of non-criminals; for example, among several hundred factory employés, soldiers, emigrants—in a word, any other category of mankind. It must not, however, be supposed that what we find is, in one-half of the criminals we examine, that everything is too large, and in the other half, that everything is too small. What we find is: one dimension too large, and another dimension too small, side by side in the same individual. An extremely common combination is: too small a cranium, with jaws unduly large; beard too scanty; ears too large. As regards an immediate general impression, and on superficial observation, there can be no question of a “type.” The type first becomes manifest as a result of intimate study. Anthropometrically, the criminal type represents the extreme values; zoologically, it represents the primatoid characters; developmentally, cases of incomplete development, such as are found here and there in all nationalities. Such is the meaning of the doctrine of the criminal type, which, intentionally or unintentionally, has been continually misunderstood.
In respect of an immediate general impression, a well-marked example of the criminal type attracts attention less by the expression of the face than by the permanent structural peculiarities of the skull and the face, more especially the smallness of the skull as a whole or in the frontal region, the receding forehead, the large frontal sinuses, prognathism of the upper jaw, and massiveness of the lower jaw, prominent malar bones, and all kinds of anomalies in the shape of the skull. The large, pale face is often very striking, with scanty beard, thick, usually dark, hair, and large projecting ears. The nose is commonly long and straight; in some cases it is bulky, with a wide, ill-defined bridge. A well-formed, symmetrical nose is extremely rare in the criminal type. Asymmetry of the face and a crooked nose are so typical that realistic painters, from the period of the Early Renascence down to the days of modern naturalism, depict these peculiarities whenever they are painting rascals, vagabonds, executioners, condemned criminals, and the like. I may mention, more especially, Goya, Gavarni, Géricault, Canon, Wiertz, Leibl, etc. In Géricault’s drawing, “Tête d’un Supplicié” (“Head of an Executed Criminal”), the asymmetry of the nose is very clearly represented; whilst the broad, deeply-furrowed face, the thin moustache, the narrow and receding forehead with prominent superciliary ridges, the prominent cheek-bones, the heavy lower jaw, and the irregular teeth, combine to constitute the complete criminal type.
The physiognomy of the criminal is naturally dominated by the traces left on the face by the habitual modes of expression. Youthful criminals have, for the most part, a dull or a frivolous appearance. The life of crime when they are free, and the prison life when they are not free, combine to produce a permanent imprint of anger and obstinacy, cunning and hypocrisy. Obstinacy and anger are often expressed by a permanent compression of the lips, marked wrinkling of the forehead, and a wild look in the eyes. This last, quite by itself, often suffices to betray the criminal nature, especially in the faces of women.
Elderly criminals often lose the energetic expansive expression, which during prolonged periods of confinement they have endeavoured to transform into a submissive mien—often, however, with but partial success, resulting in a peculiar form of the superciliary arches, which assume the appearance of an S lying on the side. In others, the dominant brutality is marked by a one-sided grin, or by restless facial movements. Lombroso made some valuable observations regarding the peculiar look of the criminal, which he often demonstrated to me personally. The cold, wild glance of the murderer, and the restless glance of the thief, are unmistakable. The cheat and the chevalier d’industrie (sharper), attempting to play the man of integrity or the loyal soul, betray themselves by their piercing glances. Very great restlessness of the glance, to a degree verging on the pathological, is often seen in murderers, alternating with a cold, glassy, fixed stare. In the mouth may be observed all shades of cruelty and defiance; the fawning smile of the poisoner and of the homosexual prostitute is a very common appearance. In the deeply-wrinkled face of elderly criminals, Lombroso’s pupil, Ottolenghi, was the first to discover a remarkable furrow, extending across the middle of the cheek at the level of the angle of the mouth. I have rarely seen it outside the prison walls, but have found it with notable frequency in the convicts of Upper Silesia. Lombroso has named it the ride du vice.
In this chapter I have simply attempted to give a sketch of the data of criminal anthropology. In view of the extensive material already available, collected by numerous observers whose methods often differ, a scientifically adequate exposition of these data is by no means easy. It gives little satisfaction to learn from tabular statements that such and such characters occur with such and such frequency. What we want to know is, what proportion of criminals in general exhibit characters of this kind, and how many of such characters may be assembled in a single individual.
From 5,000 cases described in the literature of the subject, for the most part by Lombroso himself or by his immediate pupils, I have selected those cases in which the individual had been carefully examined, in which his life-history was thoroughly known, and in which mental disorder could be excluded: these numbered 800. I compared them with the cases studied by myself in the prisons of Upper Silesia, whose records were accessible to me; from these also I excluded several dozen as idiots or lunatics.