280 THE SCIENTIFIC MONTHLY
As late as 1884, Paul Albrechts attempted to establish the ^'greater bestiality of woman from an anatomical point of view by showing that in no less than nine points she approached more nearly to ^^our wild ancestors/' In the tenth edition of Ploss and Bartels* "Das Weib*'* Professor Paul Bartels exposes the absurdity of this view (p. 6). Of Al- brechts's nine propositions, four are either erroneous or doubtful, one irrelevant, the remainder of no importance for the problem at issue. The entire question,*' concludes Professor Bartels, "is wrongly put; it is, in my opinion, idle to debate, which of the two sexes of a single class of mammals is of 'lower' rank; moreover, we could, if we so desired, urge the more powerful masticatory apparatus of man, or, following O. Schultze, his larger face in proof of the contrary assertion." Professor Schultze, who emphasizes the relatively childlike character of woman, is indeed careful to refrain from drawing the inference that for this reason man is anatomically superior. It is true that woman, like the new-bom infant, has a relatively long trunk, short legs and a rather large head, but, as Schultze points out, any argument for inferiority on such grounds proves a two-edged sword: for, by virtue of his longer ex- tremities and smaller head, man approaches the ape type in greater measure than does his mate.* Schultze, who is by no means an adherent of feminism, arrives at the general conclusion that man and woman are fundamentally different organisms, but of equal biological perfection. This is likewise Bartels's summing up of the situation.* The fact that these authors nevertheless contend for a differentiation of function be- cause of the anatomical differences need not concern us in this con- nection.
One point that continues to be urged with much insistency and much lack of intelligence is the inferior size of woman's brain, for in the pop- ular mind intellect and brain weight are closely associated. It is there- fore worth while to consider this subject at somewhat greater length.
It is true that the absoltUe weight of man's brain is greater than woman's in every people among whom the comparison has been made. Thus, a large series of English brains shows an average of 1325 g. for the males and of 1,183 for the females; while in a Saxon series male and female brains average 1,355 and 1,223, respectively. A correspond- ing result is obtained when the brains are compared for cubic capacity rather than for weight: a Bavarian series of 100 male, and an equal number of female, brains yielded average capacities of 1,503 and 1,335 c.c, respectively. In short, the absolute size of man's brain does ex- ceed that of woman.*
However, it is equally true that the absolute size of an elephant's or
^ Leipzig, 1913.
• "Das Weib in anthropologischer Betrachtung, " Wiirabnrg^ 1906, p. 20 f.
• Op, cit,, p. 55.
«See Bartels, op. oU., pp. 34-35.
�� �
