circles of life where women have been educated; and this difference of brain-weight is largely a matter of education and intellectual development.

Though we were to concede all that is claimed for difference in size of brain between the sexes, still in the home no one discovers any natural inferiority of girls to boys. As a rule, the girls in any community are quite as intelligent as the boys. If we pass from childhood to youth, we still fail to discover any mental inferiority of young women to young men. When the two sexes are educated together, the female performs her task with the same apparent ease as the male. Young women acquire languages as readily, comprehend abstruse problems as quickly, and are quite as likely to take prizes in mathematics and other studies, as male students.

In adult age we find the same intellectual equality of the sexes. And yet here we may find an excuse for any deficiency on the part of woman, by remembering that she has not had the same opportunity for mental development that man has enjoyed. The greatest variation of brain-weight is among civilized peoples, where woman has never enjoyed equal advantages with men for mental culture; while among the lowest races there is but little if any variation in size of brain between the sexes, showing that education has had much to do in the intellectual development of man. Says Maudsley, who is authority on this subject: “Among Europeans the average weight of the brain is greater in educated than in uneducated persons."* Now woman has never had equal opportunities with man for intellectual development. The universities and all the best educational institutions of the world have been closed to her, and all the weight of custom and prejudice has been brought to bear upon her, to make her repress all intellectual aspirations as foreign to her sphere of activity, which is popularly interpreted to mean domesticity.

If we should classify brains, thousands of women would be found equal to men on scientific grounds. If we call the average weight of the male brain 50 ounces, then all men below this weight are as hopelessly inferior as are women, and they can never expect to rise to an intellectual equality with the men

* "Body and Mind,” p. 55.

of larger weight of brain; and not only that, but they are hopelessly inferior to all women whose weight of brain is largely above theirs. So while the average woman, as is claimed, is below the average man, thousands of women are above millions of men, because they excel them in brain-weight. If there is force in the argument as against women, it is equally good as against men; and the male brain of 45 ounces can never be equal to the male brain of 50 ounces, and can never do as much good thinking; hence, one class of men with a certain weight of brain must always be superior to another class of men with less brain-weight. According to this argument, Daniel Webster, whose brain weighed eleven ounces less than Cuvier's, could never have done as good intellectual work as the French naturalist.

Alexander Bain, LL. D., professor in the University of Aberdeen, in his volume on "Mind and Body," p. 21, says that "tall men, as a rule, have larger brains than small men;" a statement that "small men" who write about woman's inferiority will do well to consider. If this eminent author is correct, then "small men" are as hopelessly inferior to "tall men" in mental ability as women are to men. If the argument is good against women, it applies with equal force against "small men," who, as a class, cannot do as good intellectual work as tall men. The case is more hopeless for short men than for tall women.

If the size of brain is to decide the amount of intellectual work to be done, it follows, other things being equal, that all brains, male or female, weighing 45 or 50 ounces, should do the same amount of good thinking. Where women are equally endowed in brain-weight with men they are not intellectually inferior to men, and where they have greater brain-weight than men they are superior to men. Individuals of the same weight of brain, 40, 45, or 50 ounces, would, quite irrespective of sex, think equally well and be able to do the same amount of intellectual work.

Some time ago an interesting article on this subject, from the pen of Dr. Hammond, appeared in the "Popular Science Monthly," showing that it is not the mere size of the brain that determines the intellectual power of an individual, but the gray nerve-tissues at the base of the brain, which constitute the seat of the mind and which give intellectual vigor. This writer says:

"It is the absolute rather than the relative amount of gray matter that is to be considered in determining the brain power."

Again he says:

"But when we look in another, and possibly a more correct, light, the advantage is rather the other way, for, relatively to the weight of the body in the two sexes, the difference, what there is, is in favor of woman.”

He thinks the mind must be different in the two sexes:

"Not necessarily that one is superior to the other, but that they are different. In some respects that of man excels, in other respects that of woman predominates."

This leads up to another line of thought, concerning the superior "quality" of the female brain, which scientific and medical writers recognize in treating this subject. There is a difference in the "quality" of thought among intellectual men, as there is of poetic ability, or genius, which scholars recognize, but are hardly able to define. It is a power, plus intellect, and does not depend upon brain-weight. Dr. Brown-Séquard speaks thus of this mental force:

"I will simply say here, although I cannot as yet give proofs, that there are powers of the intellect besides the ordinary mental powers. There are those who have the gift of genius, which is superior to the ordinary mental powers. Discoveries are made, not by the ordinary mental powers, but by something above and beyond them." *

Prof. Alexander Winchell says:

"No fact is better established than the general relation of intellect to weight of brain. Walker has shown that the brains of 26 men of high intellectual rank surpassed the average rank by 14 per cent. Of course, quality of brain is an equally important factor; and hence not a few men with brain even below the average have distinguished themselves for scholarship or executive ability."+

Brain "quality" becomes, therefore, an important factor in the discussion of this subject, as all scholars admit. The author of the article on "The Brain," in the "American Cyclopædia," after speaking of the size of the brain, says:

* Quoted by M. S. Holbrook, M. D., "Hygiene of the Brain," p. 137. +"Preadamites," p. 246.

"The quality of the brain, however, is quite as important as the quantity, so that a large brain does not, of necessity, constitute a great man. According to Tiedemann, the female brain, though absolutely smaller than that of the male, is larger, when compared with the size of the body."

According to Darwin,* the relative size of the male and female brain is still undecided. He says:

"His [man's] brain is absolutely larger, but whether relatively to the larger size of his body, in comparison with that of woman, has not, I believe, been fully ascertained."

In Dr. Geo. M. Beard's great medical work, "Our Home Physician," we find the following, on p. 90:

"Women have, on the average, five ounces less brain than men. This difference in quantity is to a certain extent made up by the superior quality of the feminine brain. Women are usually more finely organized than men. High organization is generally accompanied by a correspondingly fine quality of brain. A moderately sized brain of a fine quality is oftentimes far superior, particularly in special aptitudes, to a larger brain of coarse quality. Therefore woman, though more or less subject to man, is oftentimes his equal, and in some particulars incomparably his superior."

There is another point which must be taken into consideration in connection with brain quantity and quality. A writer (Miss Hardaker) in the "Popular Science Monthly," a few years ago, attempted to show woman's inferiority to man by brainweight, but signally failed in the effort. Among other things she stated that "the male brain cannot fall below 37 ounces without involving idiocy, while the female brain may fall to 32 ounces without that result," and how much lower we are not informed.

If "quality" of brain has no bearing on this question, as Prof. Romanes maintains, why then should a 37-ounce brain in man involve idiocy, and the same result not follow in woman with a 37-ounce brain? If the brain of both sexes is the same in all respects, why should not idiocy follow in each with the same weight of brain? If the man becomes idiotic with 37 ounces of brain, as we are told, and the woman is in no danger of idiocy with that weight of brain, it is evident enough which has the inferior brain. If the 32-ounce female brain can do better intel*"Descent of Man," Vol. II., p. 301.

lectual work than the 37-ounce male brain (the point of idiocy), then the argument from the relative weight of brain falls, or proves the superiority of the female brain. If the 37-ounce male brain goes to wreck and ruin, while the 37-ounce female brain is sound and clear and capable of good mental work, it legitimately follows that the constituent properties of the two brains are in some respects different, or that the female brain is of superior quality, as many scientific writers teach. If both had precisely the same "quality" of brain, both would become idiotic with the same "quantity," viz., 37 ounces.

It is because of this higher quality of the female brain that little girls have an excess of refined moral sense over boys, more natural refinement, sweeter natures, and diviner instincts. Of course there are exceptions to all rules, but, generally speaking, the finer qualities of the female nature are apparent in early girlhood, so that the instincts and perceptions in girls are of a higher order than in boys. Girls are more refined in their manners and habits of life and thought, and this indicates a higher degree of moral and spiritual sensibility. Words and actions show the quality of the soul, for out of the heart the mouth speaketh, and the speech betrays the quality of the heart. Woman, as a rule, has a better quality of thought and life than man. The Rev. Dr. Bushnell, in his work against woman suffrage, admits the superiority of woman's moral and spiritual nature where he says:

"Their moral nature is more delicately perceptive. Their religious inspirations, or inspirabilities, put them closer to God, as having a more celestiai property and affinities more superlative. It may be that men have larger quantity in the scale of talent, while yet they are enough coarser in the grain of their quality to more than balance the score. Quality of brain, whatever we may say of size, cannot be less than a matter of chief significance, and the fiber of a woman's brain is likely to be as much finer as the fiber of her skin; capable, also, for that reason, of a more delicately feeling and bright insight, a more dramatic fancy-play, and a facility and grace of movement far more closely related to beauty.” *

That eminent philosopher, John Stuart Mill, wrote as follows on this subject:

"It is said there is anatomical evidence of the superior mental capacity of men compared with women; they have a larger brain. I reply, that in the *"Woman Suffrage, the Reform against Nature,” p. 57.