554 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



MEN'S AND WOMEN'S BRAINS. 



AN answer to Miss Helen H. Gardener 

 and the " Twenty of the Leading Brain- 

 Anatomists, Microscopists, and Physicians 

 of New York." 



Editor Popular Science Monthly : 



Dear Sir : In the June number of the 

 " Monthly " I find a communication entitled 

 "Sex and Brain- Weight," signed Helen H. 

 Gardener, and indorsed, as she says, by 

 "twenty of the leading brain-anatomists, 

 microscopists, and physicians of New York," 

 which assumes to be in some measure a 

 reply to my paper, in the April number, on 

 " Brain-Forcing in Childhood." The tone 

 of the letter is so bad, and it is written in 

 so unscientific a spirit, that I have hesitated 

 whether or not to notice it with an answer. 

 But, lest silence should be held by some to 

 imply that the assertions of the writer of 

 the letter in question are entitled to weight, 

 I have thought it better to ask the indul- 

 gence of a little space in your columns. I 

 will premise by saying that I have no dis- 

 position to enter into a controversy on a 

 subject that is at present, so far as I am 

 concerned, of altogether secondary impor- 

 tance to the one to which my paper on 

 "Brain-Forcing in Childhood" mainly re- 

 lates, and that I shall not again in the 

 present connection ask any similar favor at 

 your hands. 



With Miss Gardener's opinions of my 

 antagonism to the female sex I shall not 

 stop to argue. I have only to say that no 

 oue is more in favor than myself of woman's 

 intellectual advancement, and that in all 

 that I have said or done in recent years in 

 relation to this subject I have recognized 

 the natural equality of woman's brain with 

 that of a man so far as mentality as a whole 

 is concerned. I have only contended that 

 her brain is different from that of man, and 

 that a fortiori her mind must also be differ- 

 ent. I am in favor of " girls and women " 

 using all the means of development of which 

 they can avail themselves, and which are of 

 such a character as to fit them for the duties 

 of their sex. I am very sure that in many 

 respects as, for instance, in the study of 

 music, of painting, sculpture, literature, and 

 many of the sciences their opportunities 

 are as great as those of men, and I regret 

 that they have not made better use of them. 

 I am opposed to their study of military sci- 

 ence, or of such branches of knowledge as 

 they are not likely to use in their lives, as 

 a mere system of routine, just as I am op- 

 posed to similar procedures in boys. 



Quotin-j from my paper, I repeat, "The 

 skull of the male of the human species is 

 of greater capacity than that of the female, 

 and it is a singular fact that the difference 

 in favor of the male increases with civiliza- 

 tion." 



Now let me bring forward some of the 

 authorities for this statement in order that 

 Miss Gardener may submit them to the 

 "twenty of the leading brain-anatomists, 

 microscopists, and physicians of New York," 

 whoever they may be, who appear to have 

 as little knowledge of the subject as she baa 

 herself. 



I may say that there i3 no authority 

 known to anthropologists that denies that 

 the capacity of the average male skull is 

 greater than that of the female. Miss 

 Gardener and the " twenty leading brain- 

 anatomists," etc., have only to refer to the 

 "Revue d'Anthropologie," tome ii, series 

 18*73, No. 3, page 481, for citations on 

 this point in regard to twenty six different 

 nationalities, and in every one of them the 

 difference is marked. Relative to the sec- 

 ond assertion, that the difference is greater 

 in the civilized than in the uncivilized na- 

 tions, I find in that table that Buschke de- 

 termined that in twenty-one Geiman men 

 the average capacity of the cranium was 

 1,538*76 cubic centimetres, while the average 

 in eighteen German women was but 1,265*23 

 cubic centimetres, showing a difference of 

 273*53 cubic centimetres in favor of the 

 male skull. In twenty-one male English 

 skulls, Barnard Davis found the average 

 capacity to be 1,595*33 cubic centimetres, 

 while in eighteen female English skulls it 

 was only 1,37254 cubic centimetres, a dif- 

 ference in favor of the male skull of 272*79 

 cubic centimetres. 



Looking now at the lower races, we see 

 that Barnard Davis, in twelve male Aus- 

 tralian skulls, found the average capacity 

 to be 1,316*85 cubic centimetres, while in 

 the skulls of three Australian women the 

 average was 1,273.08 cubic centimetres, a 

 difference of only 43'77 cubic centimetres. 

 In nine male negroes of Dahomey, he found 

 the average skull capacity to be 1,493*88 

 cubic centimetres, and of three female ne- 

 groes 1,412*33 cubic centimetres, a differ- 

 ence of 81*55 cubic centimetres. I could 

 easily quote other figures to a like effect, 

 but the foregoing are sufficient to establish 

 the correctness of my assertion. If Miss 

 Gardener and the " twenty leading brain- 

 anatomists," etc., desire further information 

 on this point, I would refer them to the 

 " Dei Carateri Scssuali del Cranio Umano," 



