In phrenology, the size of the head (usually measured by circumference) was the most straightforward thing to assess and much was made of it. They suggest object- ivity and measurability, although in practice the charts were not -with the exception of head circumference -filled with actual measurements but with a more subjective indica- tion of size, which was then expressed quantitatively.
to the layout of the charts, numbers were a central aspect. Two extra columns, 'cultivate' and 'restrain', were checked if the client needed to work on a particu- lar characteristic, and each square had a number that referred to a page in the same booklet where more information could be. It included a list of the organs and columns for the score, from 'small' on the right to 'very large' on the left (see Figure 2). 41 The table that the Fowlers started to use in their phrenology booklets from 1850 onward was the most widely published, and often used or copied by other phrenologists. This table was apparently so difficult to read that it was never repeated. 40 Enos Stevens's chart, published in 1839, included the most elaborate table, with columns listing average scores ('general medioc- rity'), under-average and over-average scores, for men and for women, and several columns with blanks for the score of the client. Interestingly, some of the earliest charts with this format are from the UK, suggesting that it was not the influential Fowlers only who were at the basis of chart design.
39 From the 1840s onwards, lists with blanks for the scores become more popular (instead of scores in the margins). At the other extreme, large broadsheets were also published at this time. chart of 1840 is the simplest version I have come across, a slip of paper with only the list of organs and the score.
0 kommentar(er)
