How to Become Rich, William Windsor [readera ebook reader txt] 📗
- Author: William Windsor
- Performer: -
Book online «How to Become Rich, William Windsor [readera ebook reader txt] 📗». Author William Windsor
“These qualities were re-inforced by remarkable firmness, as shown by the measurement over the top of the head, where the development is a half-inch in excess of that of Daniel Webster, and a quarter inch above that of Napoleon Bonaparte. This characteristic is also shown in the projection forward of the lower lip, caused by habitual compression in the exercise of this faculty.
“In this connection, it is interesting to note a comparison of Mr. Grady’s head with the measurement of other noted personages. Here is a table which I have compiled, and which you will find entertaining,” continued the phrenologist, as he unfolded a paper with the figures herewith reproduced:
NAME. Size aroundthe head at
base of brain. Size from ear
to ear over top
of head at organ
of firmness. Henry W. Grady 24 in. 15½ in. Henry Clay 23¼ " 14¾ " Daniel Webster 25 " 15 " John Quincy Adams 22½ " 15 " Thomas H. Benton 23 " 15 " Napoleon Bonaparte 23½ " 15¼ " Average 23½ in. 15 in. Average of human race 21 in. 14 in.
“From these figures,” continued Professor Windsor, “we may draw a melancholy conclusion of the power Mr. Grady might have exhibited had he lived to ripen into perfect development. It will be seen at once that only one of these distinguished characters had the advantage of him in size of brain at the base, and that is Daniel Webster, whose character was more remarkable for ponderous greatness than brilliancy, and Mr. Grady’s head rises a half inch higher than his in the moral region. Between the two measurements there is a comparative difference of one and a half inches, in the heads of Webster and Grady. That inch and a half marks the difference between the debauched sensuality of the ‘Lion of the North’ and the moral graces of the ‘Apostle of the New South.’
“The extra inch in the basilar circumference of the head of Daniel Webster was due to an enormous development of social propensities which in his case carried him beyond a correct balance and resulted in notorious licentiousness, because there was not enough of the moral sentiments in the crown of the head to control them. Mr. Grady’s head, on the other hand, was not remarkable in the development of these propensities. He had enough of amativeness to give him a proper appreciation of women and the delights of sociability, but his love manifested itself more through the intellect than the passions, and his social nature was of that diffusive character which manifests itself in the formation of popular attachment rather than exclusive friendships. There are many men undoubtedly to-day who pride themselves on being among the intimate friends of the deceased who would be surprised to know how many others have reason to entertain the same feeling. When the social propensities are larger than Mr. Grady’s, the possessor is likely to form such exclusive attachments that the energies are expended in promoting the interests of individuals rather than those of the masses.”
“From your view of the nature of the man, Professor, what would you consider Mr. Grady’s chief fault?”
“The lack of self-esteem. That organ is one of the smallest in the whole line of development, and was, unquestionably, his weakness, as it is unfortunately of too many of our best men. He did not comprehend his own importance, nor realize the value of his own personality. This defect is directly chargeable with his illness and death. Had he possessed a larger development of this organ, he would have been more cautious concerning his health and personal exposure. There is a kind of unselfish extravagance in this direction which leads to deplorable results. A more selfish nature will husband its strength and escape calamity. Had he realized his own value sufficiently, he would not have gone to Boston on that fatal trip, and overtaxed his vitality. He did not comprehend the dignity of his character on any occasion. His friends say that he was as genial and approachable as a school boy, and that is what I should expect to find in a head like his. We might have contented ourselves, however, with a more distant manner and a more haughty nature, for the sake of his self-preservation.
“There is profit in the study of human nature. We may contemplate the characters of the great to arouse emulation, of the moderately endowed to suggest improvement, and of the weak to guard against their failures. Phrenology enables us to form correct estimates in each case, to praise without flattery and to criticise without injustice. There is value in the perpetuation of the physical forms of the illustrious dead upon ‘storied urn and animated bust,’ as well as in polished granite and enduring marble. For while these monuments cannot
‘Back to its mansion call the fleeting breath,’
still the inspired features and lines of development bear eloquent testimony to the practicability of human improvement, just as
We can make our lives sublime;
And, departing, leave behind us,
Footprints in the sands of time.’”
WAS HAWES INSANE?
A Scientist’s Theory of a Most Atrocious Crime—What Professor Windsor Says of Hawes’ Mental Peculiarities—Insanity Which the Courts Will Soon Recognize.
[From the Birmingham (Ala.) Age-Herald.]
Prof. William Windsor, LL. B., the noted specialist in phrenology and medical jurisprudence, was seen by an Age-Herald reporter at the Caldwell hotel last night, and in answer to interrogatories, made a number of interesting statements concerning the Hawes tragedy.
Professor Windsor has had many years of experience as an expert in the study of insanity in its various phases, and particularly in reference to crimes and their origin. He enjoys a national reputation in his special lines of study, and his conclusions have the weight of scientific authority.
In regard to the subject of discussion, he said: “I have been greatly interested in the case of Dick Hawes ever since the publication of the tragedy, and have made an exhaustive study, both of the man and the circumstances of the case. Of course, in the mass of conflicting statements contained in the evidence, it is impossible to know with definite certainty just how the crime was committed; but the confessions of Hawes and the testimony all agree that the man deliberately planned and executed the murder of his family. Whether he had the bloody work done or accomplished it with his own hands does not concern us so much as the fact that motives and impulses existed in the mind of a husband and father for the destruction of the lives of those he was bound to protect, and that those impulses were sufficiently strong to accomplish the execution of the crime.
“The study of the origin of these motives and impulses are highly interesting, in view of the fact that they point to conditions of society that are potent for the breeding of similar crimes.
“To my mind the key-note to the whole case is found in one of the remarks made by Hawes while standing on the gallows, to-wit: ‘I want all you boys to let liquor and vile women alone; see what it has done for me.’
“A careful phrenological estimate of Dick Hawes discloses the fact that he was above an average in appearance, physique and mentality. His brain is massive and of good quality, though uncultivated. It is not lacking in the organs of benevolence, sympathy and agreeableness; in reason, perception or reflection. He had sufficient caution and conscientiousness to understand right and wrong, and the consequences of both. There was enough of the affections and social qualities to make him very attractive to women and children, as his history fully shows, all of which is fully shown by the fact that he discharged the duties of a responsible position for years, and commanded a reasonable degree of respect. Such men do not commit crime while in a normal condition. It is as physically impossible as it is for water to run up hill.
“When the domestic relations of such men are blasted by association with prostitutes or by the unchastity of their own wives, a species of insanity results, which completely reverses the ego or personality of the man. I have observed hundreds of such cases, and have never seen an exception to the rule. In scientific parlance his condition is known as ‘reversed amativeness,’ or a revolution of character, brought about by an inflamed or abnormal condition of amativeness, the organ of sexual love. As in a normal state this organ electrifies and strengthens every natural affection, making every faculty more exquisitely perfect, so in its inflamed or reversed state it leads to the entire obliteration of every rational sentiment.
“The particular direction in which this obliteration may manifest itself depends largely on the temperament of the individual and the circumstances of the case. In some men it results in paralysis of the energies, changing the character into shiftlessness. In other cases it results in destroying the moral sense, but does not amount to positive viciousness, while on the other hand it may result as it unquestionably did in this case, in absolutely perverting the affections so as to render the man incapable of the natural feelings of a husband and father, and supplying motives which seem to be of the most inhuman character. They are inhuman and unnatural, but in such cases it is not correct to hold the man as responsible for the deplorable results unless it is clearly proved that the mental unbalance was brought about by his own acts, performed in a state of conscious free will. The law clearly recognizes that the drunken man is insane, and holds him responsible for his acts committed while drunk, if he became drunk through his own volition. If the liquor is proved to have been forced down his throat or he has been drugged by some one else and his mental balance dethroned thereby, he is not responsible.
“It is a very nice question to decide in this Hawes case whether the depraved condition alluded to was the result of his own acts or of his domestic troubles. There is no doubt in my mind but that the species of insanity referred to, existed in the mind of Hawes at the time of the tragedy.
“It is a principle in medical jurisprudence that the more atrocious the crime the stronger is the presumption of insanity in the perpetrator. It is a fact wholly creditable to human nature that horrible crimes are rarely, if ever, committed by persons in a normal state of existence. The popular mind is not prepared to receive evidence of insanity in such cases because of the revengeful feeling which naturally animates the minds of men under such circumstances. And there is another difficulty in the way of justice in the fact that this form of insanity is rarely accompanied by such evidences of mania as the uninstructed would demand as necessary to constitute insanity. The perverted state of the affections and the judgment are not necessarily accompanied by the wild ravings and glassy eyes of the
Comments (0)