Woman in Science Part 10

Failing to show any necessary connection between superior physique and intellectual capacity, between health of body and mental activity, between the amount of food consumed and the degree of intelligence, the cla.s.s of thinkers whose theories are now under consideration found themselves forced to abandon the argument based on robust health and physical strength and seek elsewhere for support of their views. This, they soon announced, was found in the greater cranial capacity and greater brain weight of the male as compared with that of the female.

Following up this fancied clew, anthropologists the world over began measuring skulls and weighing brains in order to determine the supposed ratio of s.e.x-difference.

The results of these investigations were far from corroborating the preconceived notions of those who had fancied a necessary correlation between mental capacity and size of cranium, between the weight of encephalon and degree of intelligence. For it was soon discovered that cranial capacity depended on many causes--many of them unknown--and that people having the largest skulls were often far from being the ones dowered with the greatest intellectual power. It was found, for instance, that climate was a determining factor--that the inhabitants of northern regions have larger heads than those who live farther south.

Thus the Lapps, in proportion to their stature, have the largest heads in Europe. After these come in order the Scandinavians, the Germans, the French, the Italians, the Arabs.

It was found also that the least cranial capacity of the ancient Egyptians coincides with the most brilliant period of their civilization--that of the eighteenth dynasty. Measurements of skulls unearthed at Pompeii showed that the heads of the Romans who lived two thousand years ago were larger than the heads of the Romans of to-day.

Similarly, the skulls of the lake-dwellers of Switzerland were larger than those of the Swiss people of the present time, while the average circ.u.mference of the skulls measured in the catacombs of Paris is more than an inch greater than that of the Parisians who have died during the last half century. The circ.u.mference of the skulls of a large number of mound-builders, excavated some years ago near Carrollton, Illinois, exceeded that of the average head of white men in New York of our day by nearly three inches. This shows that the culture of the white race during long centuries has not developed its cranial capacity to equal that of the uncultured Indians who flourished in the Mississippi valley untold generations ago.

The skulls of Quaternary men were likewise very voluminous, although they belonged to a race whose mental manifestations were infantile in the extreme. Even the celebrated Engis skull, one of the most ancient in existence, has been described by the late Professor Huxley as well formed and considerably larger than the average of the European skulls of to-day, not only in the width and height of the forehead, but also in the cubic capacity of the whole. Furthermore, the eminent craniologist, Broca, has proved that the illiterate peasants of Auvergne have a much greater cranial capacity than that of the learned and cultured denizens of Paris. And, as if to show conclusively that there is no necessary connection between intellectual capacity and size of cranium, authentic measurements disclose the fact that some of the most gifted men the world has known had small heads. Among these were Dante and Voltaire.

The skull of the latter is one of the smallest which has thus far been observed.

What has been said regarding the relation of cranial volume to intellectual capacity, as revealed by the measurements of the skulls of ancient and modern, savage and civilized peoples may likewise be predicated of the differences in the sizes of the crania of men and women. No argument as to the greater or less intelligence of either s.e.x can be based on mere craniometric determinations. "At the best, cranial capacity is but a rough indication of brain size; and to measure brain size by the external size of the skull furnishes still rougher and more fallacious approximations, since the male skull is more ma.s.sive than the female."

Even the slight morphological differences between male and female skulls--some anthropologists deny that there are any at all--afford no more ground for conclusions in favor of the superiority of one or the other s.e.x than the relative differences in size. Such trifling differences as do exist exhibit, as Virchow has pointed out, an approximation of men to the savage, simian and senile type, and an approach of women to the infantile type. Havelock Ellis, commenting on this difference, pertinently remarks, "It is open to a man in a Pharisaic mood to thank G.o.d that his cranial type is far removed from the infantile. It is equally open to woman in such a mood to be thankful that her cranial type does not approach the senile."[95]

But much stress as has been laid on physical power, health and cranial capacity, as determining factors of intellectual capacity and s.e.xual differences, far greater stress has been laid on conclusions deducible from the relative brain weights of different cla.s.ses of people as well as of different s.e.xes. It was a.s.sumed that by a critical study of the brain, by careful weighings of many brains of both s.e.xes and of many races, it would be easy to secure conclusive evidence that the size and weight of the brain increase with the amount of intelligence of the individual. It was also a.s.sumed that function not only makes the organ, but also develops it. Brain became synonymous with mind. A large brain implied vigor of thought; a small brain was evidence of mental inferiority.

Physiology had demonstrated unquestionably that the muscles of the body are enlarged by exercise. It was a.s.sumed by those who are wont to measure mind in terms of matter that the brain, being the organ of thought, was also developed by exercise. It was also a.s.sumed that the development of the brain was in a direct ratio to its activity. The greater its activity the greater its ma.s.s, and the greater the ma.s.s the greater the degree of intelligence. In other words, it was a.s.sumed that there was an exact and invariable proportion between weight of brain and amount of brain power.

None of the theories which have already been adverted to have been so full of a.s.sumptions and prejudices or vitiated by so many fallacies and over-hasty generalizations as this. No subject has possessed a greater fascination for anthropologists, and no subject has been prolific in more diverse and conflicting conclusions. Many men of science who, in other matters, were noted for their care in weighing evidence, before formulating theories, completely lost the scientific spirit when they began to weigh brains and to draw conclusions respecting the relations of brain weight and mental power, and to establish ratios between the character of the convolutions of the organ of thought and the degree of intelligence of its possessor.

Contrary to what is generally believed, a large brain is not always an indication of superior capacity or intelligence. There have been, it is true, a number of men of genius who were the possessors of large brains, but there have also been others whose brains were of but medium weight.

The largest known brains of intellectual workers were those of Cuvier, the noted zoologist, and Turgenieff, the distinguished novelist. The brain of the Frenchman weighed 1830 grams, while that of the Russian totaled 2012 grams. Among other large brains--even larger than Cuvier's--were those of a bricklayer, which weighed 1900 grams, and of an ordinary laborer, which reached 1924 grams. The largest brains on record were that of an ignorant laborer named Rustan, which weighed 2222 grams; that of a weak-minded London newsboy, which weighed 2268 grams, and that of a twenty-one-year-old epileptic idiot, which had the unheard of weight of 2850 grams.[96]

The seven largest recorded female brains were three weighing 1580 grams each, one of which belonged to a medical student of marked ability, while the other two belonged to quite undistinguished women. There were two others weighing 1587 each, one of which belonged to an insane woman.

Still heavier than these by far were the brains of an insane woman who died of consumption, and of a dwarfed Indian squaw. The brain of the first weighed 1742 grams; while that of the second was no less than 2084 grams.

From the foregoing examples it is evident that a large brain is far from being a certain index of mental capacity or of superior intelligence. It is frequently the very reverse. If, for instance, it fail to receive the necessary supply of blood, it will be inert or disordered and will prove to be a dangerous possession rather than a precious endowment.

Epileptics usually have brains that are large relatively to the size of the body. And, while it is probably true that the great thinkers and men of action of the world have, in most instances, had comparatively large brains, it is also true that the brain weights of but few of them exceeded 1500 grams, while those of many fall below 1200 grams.

Thus the brain of Gambetta, "the foremost Frenchman of his time,"

weighed only 1159 grams, while the weight of the brain of Napoleon I was 1502 grams--barely equal to that of a negro described by the anthropologist Broca, and but little superior to that of a Hottentot mentioned by Dr. Jeffries Wyman.[97]

The late Dr. Joseph Simms found the average brain weight of sixty persons who were either imbeciles, idiots, criminals or men of ordinary mind to be 1792 grams, while that of sixty famous men was 1454 grams, a difference in favor of men not noted for intellectual greatness of 338 grams. These figures are far from showing that large brains are a necessary concomitant of mental capacity.

In view of these and many similar facts, we are not surprised that the eminent German anatomist and anthropologist, Rudolph Wagner, should declare that "very intelligent men do not differ strikingly in brain weight from less gifted men," and that the noted French physician, Esquirol, should a.s.sert that "no size or form of head or brain is incident to idiocy or superior talent."

So far as civilized races are concerned, there can be no doubt that the absolute weight of the male is greater than that of the female brain.

According to the investigations of seven of the most notable anthropologists, who have given special attention to the subject under consideration, and who, collectively, have carefully weighed many thousands of brains, the average brain weight of men in Europe is 1381 grams, while that of women is 1237 grams. This shows a difference between the average weight of the brain in man and woman of 144 grams.

But, if it must be conceded that the absolute weight of man's brain is greater than woman's, is it likewise true that the relative weight is greater? This is a question which demands an answer, as it is impossible to come to any just conclusion respecting the intellectual capacity of woman expressed in terms of brain weight, unless we can affirm with certainty that men's brains are relatively, as well as absolutely, larger than those of women.

Speaking of the relative weight of brain in man implies a term of comparison. Several methods of estimating the s.e.xual proportions of brain ma.s.s have been suggested, but only two of them have met with any favor. These are determining the ratio of brain weight to body weight or body height.

According to the investigations of anthropologists of acknowledged authority, the average brain weight of woman is to that of man in England and France as 90 is to 100. The average stature of men and women in the same countries is as 93 to 100. This gives man an excess of brain weight over that of woman of something more than an ounce. But this slight difference in weight has been considered sufficient to const.i.tute it "a fundamental s.e.xual distinction." When, however, it is considered that men are not only taller but also larger than women, this apparent advantage of an ounce in favor of the male entirely disappears, and the result is that the relative amount of brain ma.s.s in the two s.e.xes is practically equal.

Because of the manifest inaccuracy of the stature criterion, many eminent anthropologists have prepared to estimate s.e.xual differences in brain weight by adopting the method based on the ratio of brain ma.s.s to body weight. According to this method, women are found to possess brains which are equal to or even somewhat larger than those of men. If the comparative excess of non-vital tissue in the form of fat in woman be eliminated and estimates be based only on the active organic ma.s.s of her body, as compared with the same ma.s.s in man, the excess of brain weight in woman over that in man will be still more marked.

A careful study, then, of the brain as a whole, far from proving woman's inferiority to man, rather proves her superiority. The same may be said regarding s.e.xual distinctions based on certain parts of the brain.

Some years ago it was positively a.s.serted that the development of the frontal lobe exhibited a p.r.o.nounced difference in the two s.e.xes. It was said to be much greater in man than in woman and was regarded as a distinguis.h.i.+ng characteristic of the male s.e.x. This was in keeping with the generally accepted a.s.sumption that this portion of the brain is the seat of the higher intellectual processes. Further investigation, however, showed that there was practically no s.e.xual difference in the frontal lobe of the brain, or, if there was a difference, it was probably in favor of woman.

It has also become recognized that there is no valid reason for considering the anterior portion of the brain as the seat of the higher mental functions. It is possible, but in the present state of science it can neither be affirmed nor denied. So far as our present knowledge goes, it seems more likely that the whole of the brain, especially the sensori-motor regions of its middle part, have a part in mental operations. At all events, it can certainly be affirmed that Huschke's distinction of man and woman into _h.o.m.o frontalis et h.o.m.o parietalis_ is utterly devoid of foundation in fact.

Many anthropologists have fancied that a certain index of the degree of intelligence is to be found in the convolutions of the brain. The tortuous foldings of the female brain, it is a.s.serted, are less ample, less p.r.o.nounced and less beautiful. "Behold," they exclaim, "a most positive evidence of inferiority." These men overlook the fact that certain animals, notably the elephant and divers species of cetaceans, have cerebral convolutions that are more complex than those of man. If, then, brain convolutions were, as claimed, a certain index of the degree of intelligence, the whale or the elephant, and not man--_pace_ Shakespeare--would be "the paragon of animals."

But men of science are by no means at one on this alleged s.e.xual difference in brain convolutions. On the contrary, there are many eminent physiologists and anatomists who contend that the superficies of brain convolutions in women is relatively greater than in men. For those who believe--and they are probably the majority at present--that the seat of mental activity is in the gray matter of the brain, this greater brain surface, due to its convolutions, would be a decided compensation for woman's relatively smaller brain volume.[98]

In whatever way, then, we consider the brains of men and women, whether we compare the ratio of brain weight to height of body or to weight of body, or compare the relative amounts of gray matter in the two s.e.xes, the advantage, in spite of her smaller body, is distinctly in favor of woman.

From the preceding considerations it seems clear that there is no ground from the point of view of brain anatomy for considering one s.e.x as superior to the other. They evince, too, that quality as well as quant.i.ty of brain tissue must be considered in all our discussions on the relations between the volume of brain and the intelligence of its possessor. Whales and elephants have much larger brains than men, but they nevertheless stand far below him in intelligence.

It must be remembered, also, that the brain is not only an organ of mental function. It is likewise the center of the entire nervous system, and its volume, therefore, must correspond with the size and number of nerve trunks under its control. In man, as in animals, the brain elements are to a great extent but sensori-motor delegates whose function is the regulation and government of every part of the body. The superior size of the whale's brain, as compared with that of man, can readily be understood when we reflect on the much greater amount of territory which these sensori-motor delegates represent. When this fact is borne in mind it will be found that the whale's brain, relatively to that of man, is extremely small. For while the ratio of man's brain weight to that of his body is as 1 to 36, the ratio of the whale's brain weight to its immense body is but 1 to 3,000.

As an evidence that quality often counts for more than quant.i.ty, brain anatomists would do well to reflect on the marvelous intelligence displayed by ants and termites, those mites of animated nature which so excited the admiration of the naturalist Pliny and caused Darwin to declare, "The brain of an ant is one of the most marvelous atoms of matter in the world, perhaps more so than the brain of man."[99]

Moreover, when discussing the relative brain weights of the two s.e.xes, we must not lose sight of the fact that we have, with the solitary exception of the eminent Russian mathematician, Sonya Kovalevsky,[100]

no record of the brain weights of any eminently intellectual woman. The brains of scores of men of genius and exceptional mentality have been weighed, but we are utterly ignorant of the weight of brain of such women as Maria Gaetana Agnesi, Madame de Stael, Maria Theresa, Sophie Germain, George Sand, Harriet Martineau, George Eliot, Eleanor Ormerod, Mary Somerville, and others of the same caliber. The only data so far available, regarding the average brain weight of women, are such as have been obtained from the inmates of hospitals, prisons and pauper inst.i.tutions. And yet we are asked to accept the average based on such data as a fair term of comparison with the average male brain weight as increased by the superior weight of brain of such men as Cuvier and Turgenieff. And this is called science![101]

The attempt, then, to prove by weighing and measuring and studying brains that man is the intellectual superior of woman has been an ignominious failure. The old belief that woman is by nature and cerebral organization less intelligent than man is not borne out by the investigations of those best qualified to p.r.o.nounce an opinion on the subject. To a.s.sert, as so many do, that woman was created man's intellectual inferior is begging the question. Science can adduce no proof of such a gratuitous statement. Broca, the most eminent of French anthropologists, regarded as an absurdity the attempt to establish a necessary relation between the development of intelligence and the volume and weight of the encephalon. With the ripe knowledge of his mature years he was inclined to believe that the apparent difference in intelligence in the two s.e.xes was owing, not to a difference of brain organization, but rather to a difference of education, physical as well as mental, and that, with equal opportunities for intellectual and physical development, the present s.e.xual differences that we have been considering--differences which are due not to nature but to the long ages of restraint and subjection under which women have lived--would gradually be lessened, and that men and women would eventually approach that equality which characterizes them in the state of nature.[102]

Realizing the impossibility of arriving, by the study of brain sizes and structure, at any satisfactory conclusion respecting the relative intellectual capacities of men and women, seekers after truth cast about for other methods that were free from the errors and fallacies of those which had proved so unreliable. The attempt to base the alleged mental inferiority of woman upon the facial angle of Camper, the metafacial angle of Serres, the craniofacial angle of Huxley, the sphenoidal angle of Welcker, or the nasobasal angle of Virchow had issued in utter failure, and had proved for the thousandth time that it is easier to formulate theories than to establish their validity. It was evident, notwithstanding the a.s.sertions of certain materialistic theorists, that the brain did not secrete thought as the liver secretes bile; it was evident, too, that intelligence could not be estimated in terms of any kind of mechanical units. Psycho-physiologists had no sort of dynamometer for measuring brain power as they would measure muscular energy. By means of the plethysmograph they might determine the amount of blood sent to the brain in a given time, but they had no psychometer of any description which would enable them to estimate the quant.i.ty, much less the quality, of psychic force such a blood supply was competent to produce.

Many, of course, still remained adherents of the old view that woman must ever remain the mental inferior of man because she is by nature physically weaker. These persons, however, seemed to lose sight of the fact that women who lead a rational life--who are not the slaves of fas.h.i.+on or the victims of luxury--have little to complain of on the score of physical weakness. This is evidenced by the life and habits of the women of the people, as well as by the tasks performed by women among savage tribes, who in health and strength are little, if at all, inferior to their male companions.

The late Professor Huxley, in referring to this subject, exhibited his usual ac.u.men and sanity in such matters when he indited the following paragraph:

"We have heard a great deal lately about the physical disabilities of women. Some of these alleged impediments, no doubt, are really inherent in their organization, but nine-tenths of them are artificial--the products of their mode of life. I believe that nothing would tend so effectually to get rid of these creations of idleness, weariness and that 'over-stimulation of the emotions' which in plainer spoken days used to be called wantonness, than a fair share of healthy work, directed toward a definite object, combined with an equally fair share of healthy play, during the years of adolescence; and those who are best acquainted with the acquirements of an average medical pract.i.tioner will find it hardest to believe that the attempt to reach that standard is like to prove exhausting to an ordinarily intelligent and well-educated woman."[103]

Substantially the same views are held by Mrs. Henry Fawcett and Dr. Mary Putnam Jacobi, whose rare experience and knowledge give their opinions on the subject under consideration special weight and value.

After men of science had tried the various theories above enumerated and found them wanting, they finally bethought themselves of investigating the relative intellectual standing of male and female students in coeducational inst.i.tutions, and inquiring into their comparative capacity for different branches of knowledge, as made known by their professors and by the results of oral and written examinations.

Considering the simplicity of this method and the fact that it is the more rational way to reach reliable conclusions, the wonder is that it was not thought of sooner. It excludes the bias of prepossessions and preconceived theories and lends itself to the discussion of results based on incontestable facts.

The first coeducational inst.i.tution in which the intellectual capacity of women, in compet.i.tion with men, was fairly tested was, strange to say, in the Royal College of Science for Ireland. This was somewhat more than half a century ago. When the time of examinations came, both the men and women students were handed the same examination papers. At the public distribution of prizes, at the close of the session, "the ladies," in the words of a Dublin paper, "vindicated the genius of their s.e.x by carrying off the highest prizes." In zoology, botany, physics, chemistry and mathematics they proved themselves the peers, and frequently the superiors, of their male compet.i.tors.

"The success of the female students disturbed, of course, very much the preconceived notions of some people, who had always taken for granted that the female intellect was inferior to the male; and, not being able to combat the stubborn facts that appeared from time to time in the newspapers, when the results of the examinations were published, they tried to account for them."[104]

These cavillers, however, soon discovered that there was no way of accounting for the disconcerting fact which confronted them, except by confessing that their theory regarding the mental inferiority of women was not substantiated by fact. This unexpected demand for the unconditional surrender of their long-cherished theory of male superiority was a crus.h.i.+ng and humiliating blow to their pride of intellect, but there was no remedy for it, nor was it accompanied by any balm of consolation that they, at the time, felt disposed to regard as adequate compensation for their lost prestige--a prestige which their overweening s.e.x had claimed from time immemorial.

Similar experiments under even more trying conditions were subsequently made in the United States and in other parts of the world, and everywhere with the same results. In the universities of Switzerland, France, England, Germany and Russia women, when given a fair opportunity, were able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of all unprejudiced judges that the long-vaunted superiority of the male intellect was a myth; that intelligence, like genius, has no s.e.x.

One of the most interesting and comprehensive investigations ever undertaken regarding this long-debated question was made some years ago by Arthur Kirchhoff, an enterprising German journalist.[105] It consisted in collecting and collaborating the opinions of more than a hundred of the most distinguished professors of the Fatherland, besides the opinions of a number of eminent writers and teachers in girls' high schools. These const.i.tute a volume of nearly four hundred pages, and embody the views on the capacity of woman for science of professors of theology, jurisprudence, anatomy, physiology, surgery, psychology, history, gynecology, psychiatry, philology, philosophy, art, mathematics, physics, astronomy, chemistry, zoology, botany, geology, paleontology and technology. The investigation, indeed, covered every branch of knowledge and evoked the deliberate views of those who were looked upon as the leading representatives of German thought and culture.

This book possesses a special value from the fact that, of all peoples in Europe, the Germans have been the most refractory to the claims of women to be received at the universities on the same footing as men. The German professors, naturally, share the conservatism of their countrymen, and, like them, are wedded to routine when there is question of introducing innovations into their social, political or educational systems. One would antic.i.p.ate, then, that, when called upon to give their honest opinions respecting the intellectual capacity of women, as compared with that of men, their answer would be decidedly in favor of the sterner s.e.x. "For," they will ask, "have not all the achievements in science which have given the Fatherland such prestige in the eyes of the world been due entirely to men? Have the women of Germany ever undertaken the solution of any great scientific problem, or have they ever made any notable contribution to scientific advancement? They have not."

Yet, notwithstanding all these facts, notwithstanding all traditions and prejudices and social bias, the unexpected has happened, even in conservative, old-fas.h.i.+oned Germany. The German professor may be tenacious of preconceived views; he may be a stickler for ancient customs and usages; nevertheless, when he is called upon to give a question a categorical answer which can be arrived at by observation or experiment, he may generally, in spite of his likes or dislikes, be counted on to give a decision in accord with the principles of legitimate induction. He may have his prejudices--and who has not?--but, when one appeals to him in the name of science and justice, he will rarely be found wanting. Regardless of all personal consideration, he will feel that loyalty to science, of which he is the avowed devotee, requires him to consider a question proposed to him as he would a scientific problem--something to be decided solely by such evidence as may be available.