Графични страници
PDF файл


ples of Phrenology, and her organization confirms, on the other hand, the truth of these to a degree which cannot be stronger or more evident. She was an infanticide ; she confessed to have murdered five of her children; but probably she had killed a sixth too.

She was born at Roeskilde, a small town, 18 miles from Copenhagen, and was in her 17th year married to Hans T'enfew, a peasant. In the early part of her marriage she lived with her pårents; but, as her husband bought a small farm-house at Fredrikborg, a village 22 miles distant from Copenhagen, she became a servant, and was, in the year 1817, separated from her husband. During her marriage she had six children, of which only one was alive at her execution; one of them died three weeks after its birth in 1799, and another died in 1808. What became of the others we shall immediately see.

In the month of May, 1818, she left the farm-house Dalsborg, where she lived, and took a natural child, that had been born in the spring of the same year, along with her. As she returned after some days without the child, and could not explain where she had left it, she was arrested ; and now begins the communication of her crimes. She gave, with respect to the child that was missing, with great candour, the following explanation :—" Seeing the impossibility to maintain her. “ self and the child, she resolved to kill it ; she went, there- ; “ fore, one day into the neighbourhood of Copenhagen, tied

handkerchief tight round the neck of the child, and threw “ it into a lake near the town."

From a question of the Judge, whether she had more to confess, she, without farther hesitation, said, that, from the year 1813 to 1817, she had murdered four others of her children ; two of which were born in marriage, the other two were illegitimate. She had murdered them all in a very violent manner, by suffocating them, or killing them with a hatchet. The one was three years old ; the others only half a year, or several months old. Besides these infanticides, she

Vol. IV.- No XIV.



is greatly suspected to have killed a daughter, Mana, seven years old, who lived with her, and died very suddenly; but this positively she denied. She was found guilty, and beheaded in her 37th year,

. Here we have her skull before us, and let us now examine whether the remainders of her organization, as tokens of her faculties, correspond with what we have heard of her.

Her head is of moderate size ; the hind part of it is very large ; the forehead immediately retreating; the lower propensities, which we have in common with animals, did then predominate ; and the intellectual faculties were extremely deficient. The diameters of her cranium are,

Inches, From spina occipitalis to Lower Individuality....... ........64 ...... meatus auditorius externus to Philoprogenitiveness....21 do.

do. to Lower Individuality do.

to Firmness .... Destructiveness to Destructiveness............... Secretiveness to Secretiveness.......

,5$ Cautiousness to Cautiousness.................

.5 Ideality to Ideality..............

38 Constructiveness to Constructiveness




Very inconsiderable is then, everywhere, the breadth of the forehead, in every instance, from Ideality to Ideality, from Constructiveness to Constructiveness; and, on the contrary, the breadth of the hind part of the head, from Cautiousness to Cautiousness, is very large; but largest of all are the diameters between the hind lateral parts, from Secretiveness to Secretiveness, and particularly so from Destructiveness to Destructiveness.

1. Amativeness, large.
2. Philoprogenitiveness, full.
3. Concentrativeness, moderate.
4. Adhesiveness, small.
5. Combativeness, large.
6. Destructiveness, very large.
7. Constructiveness, moderate.
8. Acquisitiveness, moderate.
9. Secretiveness, very large.
10. Self-esteem, moderate.
11. Love of Approbation, moderate.

12. Cautiousness, moderate.
13. Benevolence, small.
14, Veneration, moderate.
15. Hope, moderate.
16. Ideality, small.
17. Conscientiousness, extremely small.
18. Firmness, small.
19. Lower Individuality, large.
19. Upper ditto,

20. Form, large.
21. Size, moderate.

22. Weight, small.
23. Colouring, large.
24. Locality, small.
26. Order, small.
26. Time, small.
27. Number, small.

28. Tune, small.
29. Language, moderate.
30. Comparison, small.
31. Causality, small.
32. Wit, small.
Wonder, small.

If we now compare this organization with her misdeeds, the correspondence cannot but strike every one.

The first condition to crime and vice exists, as we instantly see; the understanding was too weak to be able to control the lower propensities, and from the same reason the records tell, “that she was extremely stupid.” The second condition to vice and moral depravation, want of the higher sentiments, (Benevolence, Veneration, Conscientiousness), expresses itself evidently in the form of the skull, and “ the greatest weakness of all moral feelings" (the records) was indeed necessary to the achievement of such crimes as she committed. But which feature was now the most predominating in the character of this criminal? Which lower propensity did show itself in such a blind activity, that every body endowed with better feelings cannot but shrink back at it? A wild uncon. querable Destructiveness! And if we look upon her cranium we find exactly this propensity developed to a degree which is almost matchless, and such as we have never before seen, Its organ is suddenly and strongly prominent, and the lateral parts of the cranium thence extremely large. If we compare this diameter from Destructiveness to Destructiveness on the skulls of the criminals mentioned in the Phrenological Transactions, and in the Phrenological Journal, with that of Ane Nielsdatter, we find it in those 54, 55, 5%, &c. ; but in hers 51, (except Mary M‘Innes, whose diameter in that respect is 6; but her head is in general larger.)

How then did this strong Destructiveness seek its gratification? The natural timidity of women (the result of a smaller Combativeness and a larger Cautiousness than in men) did not allow her to gratify this strong propensity in that manner in which man endeavours to satisfy it; it must manifest itself where no resistance was to be expected, where gratification was an easy path. But was it possible that it could show itself against those to whom nature most of all connects woman, against her own defenceless children ? Yes! this shocking crime was possible to her, and the most striking confirmation of hitherto collected observations, the most evident conviction of the principles of Phrenology, is found, when we, with respect to this, examine her cranium, .whose form is an indication of that of the brain. By casual circumstances, she became such a criminal, that she, after cool deliberation, and after a considerate design, could murder five of her children. We cannot explain this her crime by supposing desperation, or a deep feeling of shame and infamy; for two of the children she killed were born in lawful marriage, and the murder was not committed immediately after their birth, but later ; nor was it any emotion of shame that tempted her to kill those children which were illegitimate; for she had already long endured this shame, and it was not until the expiration of some months that she murdered them. That she would not, however, have become an infanticide, if she had not been endowed with a very large Destructiveness, is a conclusion to which we are well entitled. This lamentable combination acted blindly; for if we examine the motives she alleged, we will find them very poor and weak. She said she killed the first child (in 1813) “ because she was not able to maintain it;" the other, “ because she could not provide for it;" the third, “ because she did not know where to get it educated;" the fourth and fifth from the same reasons;

but tainly these were neither sufficiently strong motives, nor excuses for her crimes. As to the first reason, the three children were already provided for in the house of others; we do not find it mentioned that those people with whom they were would not keep them longer ; it was properly the husband, who, at any rate, should provide for them, and it was herself who took the children along with her, after having resolved to kill them. As to the second, we ask, what




other mother would, from poverty, take the resolution to kill her progeny, the dearest treasure which a mother

possesses ? Kill them in such a cruel manner as Ane Nielsdatter ? No: it was the lamentable combination of deficient moral organs, with large uncontrolled Destructiveness, that prompted her to murder.

. We need not advert more to the truth, how every fact in human life contributes to confirm the now settled principles of Phrenology




The common phrenological division of the faculties of mind and their respective organs into intellectual and affective, I hold not to be absolutely and thoroughly admissible. It is like the division of natural history into the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms. This is unquestionably just ; but, however, we are not able to determine exactly where ends the one and begins the other. They pass by degrees into each other. Just in the same way, when the intellectual faculties are considered jointly, they are quite naturally separated from the affective; but I doubt, indeed, if ever it will be possible to fix the line of demarcation with accuracy, even when the fundamental powers shall be better analyzed and determined. The manifestations of several organs of the affective class, foremost situated towards the front, approach so much to Intellectuality, that, after repeated changes in the classification, it is still quite uncertain under what head they are to be recorded with most correctness.

The object to which I now wish to turn your attention is the external senses. They are reckoned unanimously under the head of the intellectual faculties; but considering, at least

« ПредишнаНапред »