INTELLECT AND INCHES.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume II, Issue 288, 9 November 1912, Page 1 (Supplement)

INTELLECT AND INCHES.

UiIUXS ANT) THE TAPEMEASURE.

44 TS there any relation between .1. brains and the tape-measure? ” is the interesting question the writer set himself to answer for the purpose's of this article, and with this object fie selected, more or less at random, a hundred names from the roster of the intellectually famous, and sought to discover from contemporary citfsc-rip-t.on- what the physical equipment of each was, with special reference to stature.

The result is both interesting and instructive. for of my century of men and women of intellect 1 find that 36 were decidedly tall, 31 were short, and 30 of medium height, thus proving, as far as the chosen hundred are concerned, that the man of genius differs little, it at all, physically from the average person who is nut dowered with brains of a high order. Unfortunately few men and women of distinction have been considerate enough to describe their physique for the benefit of posterity like Elizabeth Inehbald. the famous actress, dramatist. and novelist of the 18th Century, who, in her Memoirs, gives an ingenious catalogue of her charms, arranged under ten headings, from Height to Shape and Skin —thus, “ Height— Above the middle-size and rather tall, I-'igure—Handsome and striking in its general air. but a little too stiff and creel; Face —Beautiful in effect and beautiful in every feature." But, on the other hand, few of them have •e-:ip d description by those who knew them in life. GOOD RYE GROWS HIGH.’ Thus wo learn of Burke that “he was about five feet ten inches high, wellmade and muscular"; that Cobbettwas “ tall and athletic, not less than six feit two, while his breadth was proportionately groat " ; and that Henry Feilding was “ strongly built, robust, and in height rather exceeding six feet.” Captain Marryat “was upright, broad-shouldered, of immensely powerful build and massive chest, and five feet ten inches in height” ; Sir Walter Scott, in his prime, was “ tall, much above tho usual standard (he was, in fact, six feet high), and cast in the very mould of a young Hercules”; and Thackeray, who was three inches taller, had a “ well-proportioned and really commanding figure.” Charles Reade was “ over six feet high, with a massive chest and herculean limbs"; Carlvle was " tall (about five feet eleven), thin, but, at the same time, upright'' ; and Anthony Trollope " was five feet ten, stout, broad-shoul-dered, and large of limb.” John Wilson was an inch taller than Trollope, “ with a large frame full of vitality. His tread seemed almost to shako the streets”; while Hogg, the “ Ettrick Shepherd ” is thus pictured by his biographei—“ In height he was five feet ten inches and a half; his broad chest and shoulders indicated strength and health; while a well-rounded leg and small ankle and foot showed the active shepherd who could out-strip the runaway sheep.” INTELLECTUAL GIANT’S. Such are a few of the intellectual giants of the past who were also giants m physique, and the number might be very considerably swelled, from Tennyson, Darwin, and Millais, each of whom stood a good six feet “ in his socks ” ; to Burns and Bunyan, Smollett, Sterne and Swift, who were all well above the average height of man, and such men as Borrow, Fawcett, and Irving, who counted their inches up to seventy-fivo. Among men -of brains, whose stature ■vns roughly that of the average man, are such giants as Byron, Macaulay, Rossetti, Swift, and Tooke, whose height is given as five feet eight inches. Byron, a biographer tells us, was “ remarkably well built with the exception of his feet " ; Macaulay was “sturdy in body as in mind.” As Lady Lyndhurst told him, “ 1 thought you were dark and thin, but you are fair, and, really, Mr. Macaulay, you are fat!” and Rossetti, according to Mr. Hall Caine, was .of full middle height and inclining to corpulence.” Charles Dickens. Coleridge, and Wordsworth are credited with five feet nine inches; although, of Coleridge, de Quincey says, " He was in reality about an inch and a half taller, but his figure, broad and corpulent, was of an order which drowns the height.” Bacon was ■ ot a middle stature and well-propor-tioned ; his limbs well-formed, though not robust”; and Disraeli, Mr. S. C. Hall describes as " not above the middle height." Tom Hood was "of middle height, slender and sickly-looking, of sallow complexion and pale features"; and Byran Procter describes Ixvgh Hunt as “ a little above the mid-dle-size. thin and lithe." diaries Lamb was, according to Froude. “ the leantst <>f mankind " a light frame so fragile that it seem-<-d as if a breath would overthrow it"; Shi-il<-v s figure was " a little above the middle height, slender and of delicate construction " : and Richard Brinsley Sheridan is pictured to us as " above the middle size, robust and well-propor-tioned.”

GOOD STUFF” IN “LITTLE

ROOM.”

It cannot be denied, however, that many of the world's greatest men lur.e also Ih'cn among its " smallest, ' as tested l»y the tape-measure. It is notorious' that many famous soldiers

and sailors have been men of few in-v’-.e-'. from the earliest times down to the days oi a Nelson and a Roberts; and in every other field of human achievement'we find leading places fill- < i bv nuu yand women) whose inches alwe five feet were few.

William Blake ami Tom Moore haretv touche I five fc-t ; and Hartley U >'erdiro but an im-h taller. Of the lit;, r n <->nn-mni>rary says, "To a -i ordv a’’.d ample frame v ere' ppemlcd legs and arms of a most disproportioned shortness, anil in his. whole asner-t •!.■ re ■■■■as something ;r. - rih.ihly elfish • ■•• i grotesque." John Keats a si strxxf only an in: h over ',■.•■ f.vt. ” His -I-.oiihlers were very broad for his size, .and his lower limbs were small in comparison with the upper.” Oliver Goldsmith was “ under the

middle height, hus body strongly built, i and liis limbs more stnrdv than e!< - i gnnt”: and Douglas Jerrold was “ a 1 verv short man, but with breadth | enough and a Lack excessively bent — 1 bowed almost to deformity.” As for I Pope, “ his stature was so low that to

bring him on a level with common table* it was necessary to raise his eeat.'’ " The figure of the man," says * The Guardian,” ”is odd enough. He » a lively little creature, with long arms and legs; a spider is no ill emblem of him.” SMALL “GREAT” MEN. Jeremy Bentham was a small man, who stoops very much and shuffles in his gait”; Gibbon had “ a thin, little figure, with a large head.” “ Manyyears ago, ' .says Lord Sheffield, "he became very fat and corpulent, but lie had uncommonly email bones and was very slightly made.” Lord Jeffrey was '■ a short, stout little gentleman, with •» very red face, black hair, black eyes" ; and de Quineey was " a very diminutive man, with a head of wonderful size, which served to make more apparent the inferior dimensions of his body.” Such nro a few of the men whose massive brains have been shrined in puny, insignificant bodies, and who count among their numbers such intellectual giants as Milton (“ a puny piece of man. a homunculus, a dwarf deprived of the human figure") ; Spencer (" a little man. who wore short hair, little band and little cuffs") and Dryden, who was of “ short stature, stout and ruddy in face.”

Among the dozen women who figure in my list I find that the honours are similarly divided, so equally, in fact, that four appear in each class. But short or tall or of medium height, it is impossible to say, at least from an examination which has occupied the writer several days, that there is any noees.ctry relation lieiwccn intellect anil iiiclsc-s. or that men of genius differ physically in any way from their fellows who are loss eftdowed with brains.