sensorial functions are observed also in the intellectual faculties — the brain functions. The intellect of man, served by firmer and more developed organs, embraces a wider horizon, and yields fruit of a higher order. While the personal intelligence of woman has less extent and power, it is more subtile and acute. Her vivacity, and the multiplicity of her sensations — probably also the conformation of the anterior lobes of her brain — do not allow her to appreciate exactly the relations of things, their causes and effects. This accounts for her inferiority in the metaphysical sciences already alluded to. She has difficulty in fixing her attention upon a single object. She is little given to abstraction and generalities, but she seizes marvelously sensible qualities and facts of detail, and in everything which simply requires tact, finesse, and taste she is incontestably the superior of man.
We owe to woman none of the grand, immortal master-pieces, either in literature or art,*[1] yet women are artistes from temperament. Their very nature would seem to entitle them to the first rank in art. In painting and sculpture not an immortal picture or statue claims a woman for its author. In music not a symphony, not an opera, not even a sonata — we speak of master-pieces — ^has been given us by women. In dramatic art, no tragedy, not so much as a comedy, jiistly celebrated, has come from the hand of a woman. Woman has enriched humanity with none of the great discoveries which have changed the face of the world. Scarcely a patent has ever been issued to a woman. These facts are marvelous; they must result from
- ↑ *If certain modern examples would seem to constitute exceptions, it must be remembered that the question of immortality is in abeyance.
