[260]. In rare cases the pipe sticks out from the side of what is clearly the primitive full face. Schoolcraft gives an example of this, too, in Indian drawing, op. cit., pt. ii., pl. 41.
[261]. Ricci’s remarks seem to me to come to this, op. cit., p. 25.
[262]. From The Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1880-1, p. 406.
[263]. Ricci says that seventy per cent. insert two eyes in their first profile drawings (op. cit., p. 17). But this seems a rather loose statement.
[264]. I assume that these are intended for two eyes; but the scheme is not easy to interpret.
[265]. According to Ricci the second arm is supposed to be seen through the body.
[266]. Annual Report of Bureau of Ethnology, 1882-3, p. 160.
[267]. Professor Petrie has pointed out to me that the Egyptian of to-day with his more supple body easily throws himself into this position.
[268]. These results do not seem to agree with those of M. Passy or of Professor Barnes. M. Passy distinguishes in children’s drawings a front and a side view, both of which may be used by the same child at the same time. The former consists of nose and mouth of profile and eyes and ears of full face, the latter, of nose and mouth of profile with one eye and one ear; that is to say the two differ only in the number of eyes and ears (Revue Philosophique, 1891, p. 614 ff.). It would be interesting to know on how large an examination this generalisation is based. As suggested above, the occasional omission of the second eye and ear where both are commonly used can be explained without supposing the child to distinguish between profile and full face. Professor Barnes goes so far as to state with numerical exactness the relative frequency of profile and full face by children at different stages. He makes, however, no serious attempt to explain the criterion by which he would distinguish the two modes of representation (see his article, Pedagogical Seminary, ii., p. 455 ff.).
[269]. Taken from Schoolcraft, vol. i., pl. 48.