Gall is apt to be judged, very unjustly, only by his errors; for he was, in truth, the originator of the principle of the localization of the functions of the brain, and gave the first impulse to the scientific study of criminals, though he did not himself make any definite discoveries in this field. His pupil, Lauvergne, prison surgeon at Toulon during a long period of years, examined thousands of criminals, and left interesting plaster-casts of skulls; certain types were admirably described by him. Despine made a thorough study of the psychology of the criminal, and showed that the principal characteristics of the habitual criminal are idleness, irresolution, and lessened sensibility, both mental and physical. Supplementary to Despine’s investigations was the great work of Lucas upon heredity, in which he demonstrated the hereditary transmissibility of the disposition to theft, murder, rape, and arson, and furnished extensive materials regarding the congenital nature of the tendency to crime.
Morel’s work lacked thorough analysis, and was also destitute of a firm biological foundation; but it was based upon extensive materials, and was animated by a certain instinct for what was important. His “Traité des Dégénérescences” was published in 1859. Thus originated the catchword “degeneration,” which remains current to-day, without having even yet acquired any definite signification. Now it is used to denote the neuropathic constitution; now, again, to denote the hereditary predisposition to psychoses. According to some this predisposition is latent, and manifests itself only by physical stigmata of degeneration; others regard the degenerate as being mentally as well as physically abnormal, and as suffering, either before the onset of actual insanity or in the entire absence of the latter from mutability of mood and temper, obsessive ideas, moral defects, and one-sided intellectual endowment; yet others use the term “degeneration” to denote a vague diathesis—a mingling of tendencies to disturbances of metabolism and to neuropathies.
More recent French investigators distinguish between “higher” and “lower” degenerates, and include in these categories almost the entire province of mental disturbances, severe neuroses, and criminality. German investigators go so far as to explain that most human beings are degenerates, and Moebius held that the repulsiveness of the majority of his fellow-creatures spoke in favour of this view.
Morel, through the vagueness of his definition of degeneration (“déviation maladive du type humain”), was himself partly to blame for the unsatisfactory development of the whole doctrine. He had correctly observed that unfavourable conditions of life—for example, the lack of legislative enactments for the protection of factory workers during the middle of the last century—transformed the entire outward appearance of those exposed to such conditions; but he failed to distinguish between inherited and acquired characteristics, nor did he ask himself if and how acquired characteristics are inherited; and he omitted to determine at the outset of his inquiry what were the precise characteristics of the type, deviations from which he was recording. With the exception of Lombroso, those who, after Morel, dealt with the problem of degeneration ignored the fact that these problems transcend the narrow limits of pathology to trespass on the wider province of biology, and failed to see that the problems in question are those of human variability, of the laws of inheritance, and other anthropological questions. Prichard, the distinguished ethnologist, widely regarded (in company with the English prison surgeons Thomson and Nicolson) as a predecessor of Lombroso, was the first to detect what is typical in the outward appearance of old “gaol-birds,” and to put forward, in explanation of confirmed criminality, the conception of moral insanity. This moral monstrosity was to be regarded as correlated with the abnormal physical characteristics.
Lombroso found it necessary again and again to elaborate the doctrine of moral insanity; and in the long-continued campaign against the misunderstandings to which his theory of the homo delinquens was exposed, that doctrine played a much more important part than Morel’s theory of degeneration.
It is incorrect to speak of Prichard and Morel as predecessors of Lombroso, in a sense implying that the latter was influenced by either of the two former in the inception or development of his teachings. Just as little is it true of Gall, whose work was justly estimated by Lombroso as early as the year 1853, as we learn from his brief work on the correlation between sexual and cerebral development—“Di un fenomeno fisiologico commune ad alcuni nevrotteri.”[[8]]
CHAPTER II
CRIMINAL ANTHROPOLOGY
Lombroso was led to formulate his doctrine of the criminal, not through the influence of the earlier workers in the same field, whose names were mentioned at the end of the last chapter, but as a natural consequence of the idea which dominated his whole mental development. This leading idea—a part of the teaching of anthropological materialism—is, on the one hand, that a man’s mode of feeling, and therewith the actual conduct of his life, are determined by his physical constitution; and, on the other hand, that this constitution must find expression in his bodily structure. He was led to the more definite formulation of this idea by chance anatomical discoveries (vide Arch. ital. delle malattie nervose, and also R.C. dell’ Istituto Lombardo, 1871, v., fasc. 18)[[9]] in the corpses of criminals, one of which, the so-called “median occipital fossa,” had not been noticed by previous observers; this is found in most of the lower mammals, as well as in many monkeys. This first discovery of the kind has since been supplemented by a large number of others: in part such as were in the first instance most carefully observed by Lombroso and his pupils; in part those described by other anthropologists as “theromorphs”; in part those enumerated by Darwinian naturalists as “atavisms”—that is, characters regarded and described as vestiges inherited from the prehuman ancestors of our species. If we compare the writings of those zoologists and anatomists who treat of these questions, with those of Lombroso and his followers, we cannot fail to notice the complete independence of the Italians, and at the same time their more comprehensive grasp, and their better knowledge of prehistoric data. The anthropologists of the Italian school usually went to work in the following way. If in examining the body of a criminal they came across a theromorph in any organ, or observed any other unusual structure, they propounded certain questions regarding the peculiarity, viz.:
1. Is this peculiarity present in any of the authentic remains of prehistoric man, and, if so, how often is it met with in these, as compared with the frequency of its presence in the bodies of criminals?
2. Is it met with in the lower races of man, and, if so, how often? (The answer to this question is obtained by examining the skulls, etc., of these lower races, to be found in European museums.)