Notes & Asides - dolichocephaly - Brief Article

National Review, Feb 5, 2001 by William F. Buckley, Jr.

Dear Mr. Buckley: Much as I dislike beating dead horses, may I respectfully submit that when it comes to the word dolichocephaly, you still don't get it.

In your Dec. 4 response to my letter, you quoted your Heritage dictionary as follows: ". . . dolichocephalous . . . having a relatively long head with a cephalic index below 76." Both Dr. Springer's (Dec. 18) and my point was that long does not refer to the vertical length of the head (I trust that we can all agree on the meaning of vertical), as you maintain, but to the front-to-back length, or, to be technical, the antero-posterior diameter.

Perhaps we could settle this by agreeing to accept Humpty Dumpty's dictum: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less." Or, maybe more to the point, "The question is, which is to be master-that's all."

Pedantically yours, Russell McFadden West Columbia, Tex.

Dear Mr. Buckley: My Random House says that dolichocephaly has to do with the ratio of the breadth of the head to the length of the head-from front to back. It appears that you were correct and your dictionary at fault in not describing the basis of the word length used in the definition. This is noted most respectfully, as I do not mean to be nitpicking, but am honored to clear this up for our greatest literate American. Boola-Boola from a City College of New York graduate of 1953.

Cordially, Alfred Pramaggiore Dayton, Ohio

Dear Mr. Buckley: Good manners prevented me from writing before this, but now that you have spurned the advice of two well-intentioned correspondents, I must risk churlishness and state the obvious: You have misinterpreted the definition of dolichocephalic. Who at Heritage said that long means vertically long? As evidence to the dogmatic, I offer the fact that if the cephalic index did indeed include a vertical measurement of the skull, the index would have no clinical significance, since it would necessarily be a postmortem discovery. This is because the mandible is variable on its own terms (i.e., largely independent of the skull), so it cannot be used as a gauge of skull dimension, and the base of the skull (the clear ground zero of verticality) is buried in the neck. Heritage, I'm afraid, never intended to authorize your usage.

Respectfully, David Milano Wellsboro, Pa.

Dear Mr. Milano: Well now, you have convinced me. I had always sort of assumed that the chin designated the lowest part of the skull. But you say no so apodictically, I'll take your word for it. Cordially, WFB

Dear Mr. Buckley: In the December 31, 2000, issue of NR you quote Harry Jaffa as having written that Plato wrote his Nicomachean Ethics exactly 45 years before his Laws.

Plato did not write the Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle wrote it, naming it after his son, Nicomachus.

Sincerely, Nelson W. Brown Jr. Houston, Tex.

Dear Mr. Brown: I'm so glad you agree with me on the point. For years I have tried to correct Professor Jaffa on the matter, but he is apparently incorrigible. Cordially, WFB

Dear Mr. Buckley: I've long sought a word meaning to make obsolete. I have finally settled on my own formulation, to anachronize, as in "the typewriter has been anachronized by the word processor." Do you approve? Brian W. Maher Cranford, N.J.

Dear Mr. Maher: No, I don't. Because anachronism means merely out of sequence, not obsolete. You couldn't, e.g., anachronize Plato, if what you meant was to make Plato out of date. You could, on the other hand, anachronize him by listing him as a chronological successor of Aristotle.

Cordially, -WFB