CORBESP ONDENCE. 



555 



by Paolo Mantegazza, published in the " Ar- 

 chivio per l'Anthropologia," vol. ii, 1S72, 

 or to the elaborate critical review thereof 

 by M. A. Dureau, in the journal which I 

 have already mentioned. 



Miss Gardener appears to have looked 

 into a copy of Topinard's "Anthropology," 

 and perhaps the " twenty leading brain- 

 anatomists," etc., have done likewise, though 

 that is doubtful. In any event, let her and 

 them turn to page 145 of the English edi- 

 tion, and they will find the following words : 



" The head of the woman is smaller and 

 lighter, its contours more delicate, the sur- 

 faces smoother, the ridges and processes 

 not so marked. The superciliary arches are 

 but little prominent; the external half of 

 the superior orbital border is thin and sharp 

 (Broca). The forehead is vertical below, 

 projecting above. The occipital condyles 

 are small, as also the mastoid and styloid 

 processes. The zygomatic arches are slen- 

 der. The cranium in its ensemble is less 

 high and longer," etc. 



Some of these differences are absolutely 

 inseparable from corresponding differences 

 in the form of the brain. 



Then, if they will refer to Carl Vogt's 

 " Lectures on Man," page 90, they will find 

 the differences between the male and female 

 crania, due to civilization and barbarism, 

 stated to the same effect as I have given 

 them that is, that they are more marked 

 between the sexes in the civilized than in 

 the uncivilized nations. 



Now, in regard to the cause of this con- 

 dition, Miss Gardener says that I " hold it 

 to be a natural and unalterable difference 

 in the brain-mass itself!" How she came 

 to venture upon this assertion is a mystery 

 to me, and I can only attribute it to that 

 defective logical power which appears, for 

 the present at least, to be a characteristic 

 of most female minds. So far from saying 

 anything of the kind, I offered two entirely 

 different explanations of its cause: one to 

 the effect that civilized women had not 

 availed themselves of the advantages offered 

 them, and hence had not developed their 

 brains pari passu with those of men ; or 

 else that the work of barbarous men being 

 very similar to that of their women, there 

 had not existed the same necessity for an 

 increased development of their brains. 



Then Miss Gardener, without any notice 

 to the reader that she has changed her 

 source of information relative to my views, 

 proceeds to quote from a paper of mine 

 written several years ago, on the subject of 

 " Women in Politics." To be sure, she 

 mentions previously that she intends to 

 quote from two of my papers ; but no one 

 reading her letter could believe otherwise 

 than that she was citing extracts from the 

 paper on " Brain-Forcing in Childhood," 

 published in " The Popular Science Month- 



ly " of April last. I have no copy of the 

 other paper before me, it having been pub- 

 lished in the "North American Review" 

 several years ago; but doubtless she gives 

 the words correctly, and I state them here 

 with her comments as I find them in her 

 letter : 



" Dr. Hammond asserts, again, ' It is only 

 necessary to compare an average male with 

 an average female brain to perceive at once 

 how numerous and striking are the differ- 

 ences existing between them ' (the italics are 

 mine). He submits a formidable list of 

 striking differences, which include these: 

 4 The male brain is larger, its vertical and 

 transverse diameters are greater proportion- 

 ally, its shape is quite different, the convolu- 

 tions are more intricate, the sulci deeper, 

 the secondary fissures more numerous, the 

 gray matter of the corresponding parts of 

 the brain decidedly thicker ' ; of this latter 

 part the doctor modestly says that ' the evi- 

 dence is not so full as might be desired.' 

 But, as if all these were not quite enough 

 to enable the merest novice to distinguish a 

 male from a female brain, he offers these 

 re-enforcements : ' It is quite certain, as the 

 observations of the writer show, that the 

 specific gravity of both the white and gray 

 substances of the human brain is greater in 

 man than in woman.' " 



From this last remark she proceeds to 

 draw the inference (in which doubtless she 

 is sustained by the " twenty leading brain- 

 anatomists," etc.) that the greater preva- 

 lence of insanity among men than women is 

 the result of the greater specific gravity of 

 the brain, forgetting that the life of man 

 is so much more active than that of woman, 

 his liability to injuries so much greater, his 

 addiction to the excessive use of alcohol so 

 much more common, and his habits gener- 

 ally so much worse, as to constitute the real 

 reasons why he is more liable than woman 

 to become insane. 



Moreover, she appears to be entirely 

 ignorant of the facts, as are likewise doubt- 

 less the "twenty leading brain-anatomists," 

 etc., that the specific gravity of the brain 

 is increased in insane women as well as in 

 insane men, and that, instead of being a 

 cause, it is probably a consequence of the 

 morbid processes to which the brain of the 

 insane is subjected. 



But, in regard to the description which 

 I have given of the average female brain, I 

 stand ready to prove its correctness, not. 

 however, in the rough-and-tumble fashion 

 proposed by Miss Gardener, but by a process 

 by which all such determinations are made 

 by those who know what they are about. 



Suppose, for instance, I am describing a 

 woman's thumb, and pointing out its differ- 

 ences from that of a man. I should say 

 that it was shorter, smaller in circumfer- 

 ence, that its articulations were not so 



