Nov. 18, 1881.] 



KNOWLEDGE 



47 



tlier abstract, which brutes never acquire; but the boy 

 (7/ as his intelligence develops." 



Certainly the next case cited in tlie coJTespondence 

 ~iii,'gests practical rather tlian abst'-act reasoning. " In 

 Ciiitral Park, one very hot day, my attention," writes 

 Mr. James J. Fumiss, of New York, " was drawn to the 

 ■ I'uduct of an elephant wliich liad been placed in an 

 iiK-losure in the open air. On the gi-ound was a large 

 ' ap of newly-mown gi-ass, wliicli the sagacious animal 

 s taking up t>y tlie trunkfull, and laying carefully 

 in liis sun-heated back. He continued the operation 

 til his back was completeh/ tliatclted, when he remained 

 itt, apparently enjoying the result of his ingenuity. It 

 ms to me that instinct should have prompted the 

 [ihant to eat the grass, and tliat it was rea.-;on wliieh 

 ised him to use it for the purpose of diminishing the 

 ■ct of the sun's rays." Undoubtedly, had hunger been 

 • prevailing sensation at the time, instinct would have 

 :iii.sed the elephant to eat the gi-ass. But, as he was pro- 

 la lily much troubled by the heat, it was not more won- 

 il'iful that he should throw gra.ss on to his back, than it 

 uld have been if, had there been any shadow, he should 

 -\Q withdrawn under it. Doubtless, however, the true 

 I'lanation is that the elephant reasoned in a practical 

 \". The effect of the grass as a protection from the heat 

 i-i obvious to his senses, so he continued to add more and 

 iiHire grass to his covering until he felt comfortable. If 

 till- use of the grass for food occurred to him at all, it 

 \vi add have appeared obvious enough that even if all the 

 L.'r.ij;s were used for shelter, it would be none tlie less suit- 

 .ible for food \\hen luinger began to be troublesome. 



ARE WOMEN INFERIOR TO MEN? 



MDELAUNAY next proceeds to compare the brain 

 • capacity of men and women. Huschke estimates 

 the mean capacity of the cranium for Europeans to bo 

 1,446 cubic centimetres (about 88| cubic inches) for men, 

 and 1,226 (about 74^ cubic inches) for women, or the 

 masculine brain exceeds tlie feminine, on the average, nearly 

 18 per cent, in capacity. However, before we too hastily 

 assume that this implies inferiority, we may as well 

 consider the relative dimensions of men and women in 

 other respects. We have to take into account rather the 

 relative than the actual dimensions of the brain. Now, 

 tlie average height of men in European countries exceeds 

 that of women by about one-se\enteenth part, that is, men 

 are taller than women in about the ratio of 1 8 to 1 7. Men, 

 therefore, exceed women in bulk in about the ratio of 18 

 times 18 times 18 to 17 times 17 times 17 (for the volumes 

 of bodies vary, not as their linear dimensions, but as the 

 cubes of these dimensions), or rather more than the ratio of 

 118 to 100. Hence, so far as Hu.schke's estimate can be 

 trusted, the cerebral capacity of women is relatively greater 

 than that of men. 



We learn from Broca, though one would like to be 

 assured that the statistical evidence is trustworthy, that 

 the brain of man is heavier than that of women as 1 1 1 

 to 100. This, like Huschke's evidence, but in even greater 

 degree, would be unfavourable to M. Delaunay's position. 

 But Broca also notes that the female cranium is longer and 

 less high than the male. The broader-headed among men 

 will probably regard this as evidence of inferiority, while the 

 dolichocephalic, or long-headed, wiU regard it as proof 

 positive that at any rate women have equal, or probably 

 superior, brain fitness, so far as shape js concerned. 



"The graphic curves of feminine brains of various races," 



says M. le Bon, " shows that even in the most ictelligent 

 societies, as the Parisians of to-day, there is a notable pro- 

 portion of the female population whose brains approach 

 more to the volume of those of certain gorillas than the 

 least-developed crania of the masculine sex." This soumls 

 unflattering, but in reality it means very littli!. For the 

 worst-de-veloped crania which are here compared include, 

 both among male and female specimens, abnormal cases, 

 from which it is not easy to infer the true relations of 

 brains of that class. Moreover, the men of worst-deve- 

 loped brains are more apt to get eliminated from society, 

 so that the very worst specimens of masculine crania being 

 removed, the comparison between the Ijad male and the bad 

 female heads is atlected unfavourably for the latter. 



The frontal lobes, "the seat of the highest intellectual 

 faculties, are less developed in woman than in man, while, 

 on the other hand, the occipital lobes, which especially 

 preside over the life of sentiment, are more voluminous 

 in the woman than in the man." In its totality, according 

 to Professor Wagner, "the brain of the woman is always in 

 a state more or less embryonic." This must, of necessity, 

 relate to averages, not to individual brains. If the brains 

 of those women who have been distinguished for genius 

 were compared with the brains of ordinary men, there 

 would not be found any evidence of a state more or less 

 embryonic. This, of course, would by no means dispose 

 of the argument, but it indicates a circumstance to which 

 in all statistical inquiries attention should be carefully 

 drawn, the edict namely of selection, conscious or uncon- 

 scious, inafKecting the result. Is it certain that the female 

 ci-ania which ha%e been at the disjiosal of anatomists for 

 examination hav(^ come from the same classes (or in the 

 same degree from those classes) as the male crania ? Are 

 there not reasons for thinking that, on the whole (and in 

 considering averages this would be a sufficient objection), 

 the women whose crania have Ijeen examined belonged to 

 lower classes than the men ? 



We note these points, not that we would confidently 

 deny the asserted superiority of male crania, on the whole, 

 in capacity and shape. Such superiority may exist, but 

 may indicate no original difterence of capacity. Broun 

 Sequard has shown how the brain grows with use ; and it 

 is certain that existent systems of education give, on the 

 whole, far less exercise to feminine than to masculine 

 brains. In America, where women are more faiily treated, 

 the customary tests of capacity show by no means that 

 degree of masculine superiority which might bo inferred 

 from M. Delaunay's reasoning. On the contrary, the 

 feminine brain holds its own so well against the masculine 

 as to suggest the thought that had equal chances been 

 given for as many centuries as years, the superiority might 

 be quite the other way. Nor has this been the case only 

 during the earlier stages of c<lucation ; but often up to 

 the final examinations. 



In passing, we may note that at present it can liardly be 

 said that the frontal lobes of the brain have been proved 

 to preside definitely over the intellectual, while the 

 occipital lobes preside over the life of sentiment. The 

 animals whose brains have been experimented on do not 

 exhibit so clearly the respective action of intellectual and 

 sentimental ideas, tliat the ditlerent functions of parts of 

 the brain can be thus localised. Post-mortem examinations 

 are confessedly unsatisfactory. The relation assumed by 

 M. Delaunay without any doubt or scruple most probably 

 exists, but it has not yet been demonstrated. 



To the objection that the intellectual inferiority of 

 women, assuming it to exist, is doe to the fact that for 

 centuries she has not received the same education as man, 

 M. Delaunay replies that it Ls unsound. " In past centuries 



