1 I am grateful to Marina Bell for putting me on to Dinesen’s short story.
2 Lorenz Oken advanced the hypothesis of recapitulation in an early work. See Oken
(1805, 164–167). I discuss the hypothesis in Richards (2002, 493–494).
3 Tiedemann (1808–1814, I, 64–65): “Just as each individual begins with the simplest formation and during its metamorphosis becomes more evolved [entwickelt] and devel- oped, so the entire animal organism [i.e., animal kingdom] seems to have begun its evolution [Entwicklung] with the simplest animal forms that is with the animals of the lowest classes.” While studying in Paris with Cuvier, Tiedemann would have become quite familiar with Lamarck’s version of evolution. See also Tiedemann (1830, I, 102– 104). I have discussed Tiedemann’s theory of recapitulation and that of many others,including Darwin, in Richards (1992).
4 Stephen Jay Gould wrote an admiring essay on Tiedemann (Gould 1999). Gould said
that Tiedemann “offered no summary statistics for groups ‒ no ranges, no averages”; this gave Gould something to do ‒ he provided the averages. Gould, however, relied on the English version of Tiedemann’s study; in the German version, as in Figure 9.3, Tiedemann certainly did give summary statistics and ranges, if not averages. Gould thus missed the last set of summary tabulations showing the greater proportion of large skulls for the Caucasian and Malay races. By depending only on the English version Gould was led to speculate: “Did Tiedemann calculate these means and not publish them because he sensed the confusion that would then be generated ‒ a procedure that I would have to label as indefensible, however understandable? Or did he never calcu- late them because he got what he wanted from the more obvious data on ranges and then never proceeded further ‒ the more usual situation of failure to recognize potential inter- pretations as a consequence of unconscious bias? I rather suspect the second scenario” (Gould 1999, 69). Gould simply missed Tiedemann’s obvious worry about his numbers.
5 CharlesMeigs,along-timefriendandcolleagueofMorton,includedHumboldt’sletter as an appendix to Meigs (1851). See also Kelly (1912, II, 192–197) and Stanton (1960, 24–44). Fabian (2010) gives a detailed account of Morton’s efforts to collect skulls from friends, traders, travelers, and grave-robbers.
6 Morton’s Crania Americana was simultaneously published in London. The price of $20 was prohibitively expensive and Morton had to use an inheritance to cover his costs in production and printing. As a result of lack of sales, he sent complimentary copies to many individuals and learned societies in America and Europe (Fabian 2010, 87–91).
7 The unity of mankind was not only a theological issue; it also engaged naturalists on either side of the divide between monogenists and polygenists. James Cowl Prichard led the partisans of human unity and Louis Agassiz represented those who believed humans to consist of several distinct species. Agassiz strongly supported Morton in the fray (Lurie 1954).
8 In his Catalogue of Skulls (1849), Morton provided the averages of the families within the five races. So the Negro race, in his tables, comprised four families: Native African, American-born Negros, Hottentot, and Australian. The first two had the highest cra- nial capacities of 83 and 82 respectively. The Caucasian race had eight families, with the Teutonic family having an average of 92. Jason Lewis and colleagues at Stanford remeasured a sampling of Morton’s skulls and found his final measures using lead shot o be decently accurate. They rejected Gould’s claims about the Morton’s analyses of group means and subgroup means. See Lewis et al. (2011) for the particulars. Weisberg and Paul (2016) have entered the fray, and support Gould’s conclusions. They point out that Gould did not dispute the accuracy of Morton’s shot calculations; they focus on the fact that Morton’s errors in the seed measurement were pronounced in regard to the African skulls. They contend if Morton’s errors were not due to unconscious bias, the errors should have been systematically the same. Since they were not systemati- cally the same, “Gould’s claim that this is prima facia evidence of unconscious bias in Crania Americana remains intact” (Weisberg and Paul 2016, 3). This does not follow at all. Morton’s racial attitudes are clear from his anthropological discussions. But if he were unconsciously manipulating the seed calculations to meet those prejudices, why did he fire his assistant and redo all the calculations with more reliable lead shot? After all, his prejudices would have been satisfied with the original seed calculations. There are many other possible reasons for the non-systematic errors in the seed calculations than unconscious prejudice. First, it was Morton’s assistant, not Morton, who did the actual measurements. Second, if the assistant were making careless errors, there is no reason to assume he would be carelessly systematic.
9 Carus (1841, 8 fn 1): “At the first disposition [Anlage] of the brain, the first, second, and third brain areas and the first, second, and third skull plates completely correspond, so that with the progressive formation of the brain, that is, the greater development of the forebrain area, [. . .] the original relationship of the skull plates in relation to the three brain areas remains the same.”
10 Carus published several essays showing not only differences in morphology between man and gorilla but also differences in spirit, such that “man is raised to something qualitatively other than the animal” (Carus 1863a, 30). See also Carus (1863b; 1865).
Anonymous. 1840. “Vergleichende Betrachtung der Schädel der verschiedenen ureinge- bornen Nationen von Nord- und Südamerica.” Neue Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde 15 (13‒15): 193‒202, 211‒216, 227‒232.
Blumenbach, Johann Friedrich. 1775. De generis humani varietate nativa. Göttingen: Rosenbuschius.
———. 1779‒1780. Handbuch der Naturgeschichte. 2 vols. Göttingen: Johann Dieterich. ———. 1780. “Über den Bildungstrieb (Nisus formativus) und seinen Einfluß auf die Gen- eration und Reproduktion.” Göttingisches Magazin der Wissenschaften und Litteratur 1
———. 1781a. Über den Bildungstrieb und das Zeugungsgeschäfte. Göttingen: Dieterich. ———. 1781b. De generis humani varietate nativa, 2nd edn. Göttingen: Vandenhoek et
———. 1787. “Einige naturhistorische Bemerkungen bey Gelegenheit einer Schweizer-
reise, von den Negern.” Magazin für das Neueste aus der Physik und Naturgeschichte
4 (3): 1‒12.
———. 1795. De generis humani varietate nativa, 3rd edn. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck. ———. 1796. Abbildungen naturhistorischer Gegenstände. Heft 1. Göttingen: Johann
———. 1802. Abbildungen naturhistorischer Gegenstände. Heft 6. Göttingen: Heinrich
Carus, Carl Gustav. 1834. Lehrbuch der vergleichenden Zootomie. 2 vols., 2nd edn. Leip-
zig: Gerhard Fleischer.
———. 1835. Briefe über Goethe’s Faust. Leipzig: Gerhard Fleischer.
———. 1838‒1840. System der Physiologie. 3 vols. Leipzig: Gerhard Fleischer.
———. 1841. Grundzüge einer neuen und wissenschaftlich begründeten Cranioscopie.
Stuttgart: Balz’sche Buchhandlung.
———. 1843. Atlas der Cranioscopie. Heft 1. Leipzig: August Weichardt.
———. 1844. Vom gegenwärtigen Stande der wissenschaftlich begründeten Cranioscopie.
Nürnberg: Theodor Cramer.
———. 1845. Atlas der Cranioscopie. Heft 2. Leipzig: August Weichardt.
———. 1849. Denkschrift zum hundertjährigen Geburtsfeste Goethe’s. Leipzig: Brockhaus. ———. 1863a. “Die Gorilla-Hand.” Leopoldina 4: 28‒30.
———. 1863b. “Weiteres über den Gorilla und gegen die Hypothese Darwin’s.” Leopol-
dina 4: 59‒61.
———. 1865. “Ueber Begriff und Vorgang des Entstehens.” Leopoldina 5: 139–152. ———. 1865–1866. Lebenserinnerungen und Denkwürdigkeiten. 4 vols. Leipzig:
Combe, George. 1833. George Combe’s System der Phrenologie. Trans. Stephan Eduard
Hirschfeld. Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn.
———. 1839–1840. [Review of Crania Americana by Samuel George Morton]. The Amer-
ican Journal of Science and Arts 38: 341–375.
Darwin, Charles. 1871. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. 2 vols. Lon-
David, Joseph, and John Thurman. 1867. Crania Britannica: Delineations and Descriptions of the Skulls of the Aboriginal and Early Inhabitants of the British Islands. London:
Taylor and Francis.
De Vries, Jan, and A. van der Woude. 1997. The First Modern Economy: Success, Failure,and Perseverance of the Dutch Economy, 1500–1815. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dinesen, Isak.  1991. “The Old Chevalier.” In Seven Gothic Tales, edited by Isak Dinesen, 81–108. New York: Vintage International.
Dougherty, Frank William Peter, and Norbert Klatt, eds. 2006‒2015. The Correspondence of Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. 6 vols. Göttingen: Klatt.
Engel, Joseph. 1851. Untersuchungen über Schädelformen. Prag: Calve’schen Buchandlung. Fabian, Ann. 2010. The Skull Collectors. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Gillispie, Charles Coulston. 1960. The Edge of Objectivity: An Essay in the History of Scientific Ideas. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gombrich, Ernst Hans. 1984. Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation, 2nd edn. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1981. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: Norton.
———. 1996. The Mismeasure of Man, 2nd edn. New York: Norton.
———. 1999. “The Great Physiologist of Heidelberg.” Natural History 108 (July/August):
Hamilton, William. 1850. “Remarks on Dr. Morton’s Tables on the Size of the Brain.”
Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal 48: 330–333.
Huschke, Emil. 1854. Schädel, Hirn and Seele des Menschen und der Thiere. Jena: Mauke. Jones, Jeannette. 2013. “ ‘On the Brain of the Negro’: Race, Abolitionism, and Friedrich Tiedemann’s Scientific Discourse on the African Diaspora.” In Germany and the Black Diaspora: Points of Contact, 1250–1914, edited by Mischa Honeck, Anne Kuhlmann-Smirnov, and Martin Klimke, 134–152. New York: Berghahn Books.
Kant, Immanuel. 1956. “Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft.” In Imma- nuel Kant: Werke in Sechs Bänden, edited by W. Weischedel. Wiesbaden: Insel.
Kelly, Howard. 1912. A Cyclopedia of American Medical Biographies. 2 vols. Philadel- phia: Saunders.
Klatt, Norbert. 2008. “Klytia und die ‘schöne Georgianerin’ ‒ Eine Anmerkung zu Blu- menbachs Rassentypologie.” In Kleine Beiträge zur Blumenbach-Forschung, edited by Norbert Klatt. Vol. 1, 70–101. Göttingen: Norbert Klatt Verlag.
Lewis, Jason, et al. 2011. “The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould Versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias.” PLOS Biology 9 (6) (June): 1–6.
Linnaeus, Carolus. 1740. Systema Naturae, sive Regna Tria Naturae (Latin and German), edited by Johann Langen. Halle: n.p.
———. 1758–1759. Systema Naturae, per Regna Tria Naturae, 10th edn. 2 vols. Stock- holm: Laurentius Salvius.
Lovejoy, Paul. 1982. “The Volume of the Atlantic Slave Trade: A Synthesis.” Journal of African History 23: 473–501.
Lurie, Edward. 1954. “Louis Agassiz and the Races of Man.” Isis 45: 227–242.
Meigs, Charles. 1851. A Memoir of Samuel George Morton, M.D. Philadelphia: T.K. and
Meigs, J. Aitken. 1857. “The Cranial Characteristics of the Races of Men.” In Indigenous
Races of the Earth, edited by Alfred Maury et al., 203–352. Philadelphia: Lippincott. Morton, Samuel George. 1839. Crania Americana or: A Comparative View of the Skulls of
Various Aboriginal Nations of North and South America. Philadelphia: Dobson. ———. 1844. Crania Aegyptiaca; or, Observations on Egyptian Ethnography, Derived from Anatomy, History and the Monuments. Philadelphia: Penington.
———. 1847. “Hybridity in Animals, Considered in Reference to the Question of the
Unity of the Human Species.” Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal 43: 262–288. ———. 1849. Catalogue of Skulls of Man and the Inferior Animals, 3rd edn. Philadelphia:
Merrihew & Thompson.
———. 1851. “On the Infrequency of Mixed Offspring Between European and Australian
Races.” Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 5: 173–175. Oken, Lorenz. 1805. Die Zeugung. Bamberg: Goebhardt.
Richards, Robert J. 1992. The Meaning of Evolution: The Morphological Construction and Ideological Reconstruction of Darwin’s Theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ———. 2002. The Romantic Conception of Life: Science and Philosophy in the Age of
Goethe. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Schöne, Albrecht. 2002. Schillers Schädel. Munich: C. H. Beck.
Schott, Johann Adam Christoph. 1836. Die Controverse über die Nerven des Nabelstrangs.
Frankfurt am Main: Wilmans.
Smee, Jess. 2008. “DNA Tests End Debate Over Schiller Skulls: Neither Is His.” The Guardian, 5 May. URL: www.theguardian.com/stage/2008/may/05/theatre.germany. Sömmerring, Samuel Thomas. 1785. Ueber die körperliche Verschiedenheit des Negers vom Europäer. Frankfurt am Main: Varrentrapp Sohn.
Stanton, William. 1960. The Leopard’s Spots: Scientific Attitudes toward Race in American 1815–1859. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tiedemann, Friedrich. 1808–1814. Zoologie. Zu seinen Vorlesungen entworfen. 3 vols.
———. 1816. Anatomie und Bildungsgeschichte des Gehirns im Foetus des Menschennebst einer vergleichenden Darstellung des Hirnbaues in den Thieren. Nürnberg: Steinischen Buchhandlung.
———. 1830. Physiologie des Menschen. 3 vols. (projected, one produced). Darmstadt: Leske.
———. 1836. “On the Brain of the Negro, Compared with That of the European and the Orang-Outang.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 126: 497–527.
———. 1837. Das Hirn des Negers mit dem des Europäers und Orang-Outangs vergli- chen. Heidelberg: Winter.
Weisberg, Michael, and Diane Paul. 2016. “Morton, Gould, and Bias: A Comment on “The Mismeasure of Science.” PLoS Biology 14 (4): e1002444. URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pbio.1002444.
Wood, George Bacon. 1853. A Biographical Memoir of Samuel George Morton, M.D. Philadelphia: T. K and P. G. Collins.
Zeune, August. 1846. Über Schädelbildung zur festern Begründung der Menschenrassen. Berlin: Vereins-Buchhandlung.