The morning call., 1890-05-09
WoMAN's INTELLECT.
What Professor Brewer of Yale Colleg
Has Said About 1t.

What Professor Brewer of Yale College
Has Said About 1t.
Editor Wondn's Column, Morning Call:
When eminent scientists discuss the nature and
possibilities of woman 1t is well for women to
study premises and conclusions and then study
themselves and judge OF the logic. Mr.. Squire's
method of teaching pointed In the right direc-
ton; his boys went and did it.' That is the
only way that women have ever advanced But,
alas too often they are told. after going and
doing ii, that !" 1t is impossible; the Lord never
gave them the ability" as though the Lord ever
gave aspirations to creatures without accom-
panying ability, or as If people can do things
which The Lord did not give them ability to do.
Fortunately the true scientists, like Darwin
Huxley, Spencer and AgassiZ, never dogmatiZe,
aud not one who Is eminent has ever abridged
the sphere of woman. The genuine scientist re-
CARDS her as bundle of possibilities" like
her brother, with the same duty to develop them.
Professor Brewer of Yale College thus speaks of
woman's intellectual gifts aud The safety and im-
portance TO man of their development:
ut was belief as old as the Greek philoso-
pliers (and possibly oldeD that, While the two
parents each contributed to mold the character
OF the offspring, the male parent. as a rule,
mole affected one set of characters and the
female another set. This was taken up and put
into more definite shape by the gceat Linn8us,
about the middle OF the last century; then, some
nifty years ago. Sill further developed by Ortuu,
in his application TO the breeding of domestic
animals.
This theory holds that all that relates to the
size, the muscular strength, the bony frame, the
flesh and the covering OF animals is more iniiu-
eneed by the male parent; While, as a rule, I'll u
female exercises the greater influence on til Q
internal organs, The organs OF digestion, OF res
piration, OF secretion aud the nervous system.
"Nhlle this theory Is not universally accepted
II is very widely believed.
81 believe that as general rule this holds, and
L believe 1t emphatlcally holds as applied TO
mankind. intellectual gifts descend from both
parents, but (my belief is) more uniformly and
more generally from The mother.
DID you ever see or bear OF case where The
exceptionally bright man had an exception ally
dull mother? | never did and l have long been
looking for such. Sir Humphry Davy in his day
remarked on this as did his pupil, Faraday. As
teacher nave had this matter before my mind
for much more than thirty years, and wherever
| have known anything of The family history Of
brightness belonged TO families where II may
have been and probably WAS derived from The
mothers SIDE
lit may be difficult TO satisfactorily account for
sporadic cases of genius Ike that Of Shak espeare,
but The rank aud lille of society must look TO Its
must he Of good stock, and, II here be hereditary
influence Ut training, Then The more should the
mothers be educated.
That intellectual training can be carried TOO
lar for the welfare OF eiIDer herself or her off,
spring there can be no doubt, but this law ap-
training Is no noe potent cause of The evils that
MI. Grant Allen discusses than any other couIs Sc
OF nervous excess. lie Is as truly the result of
nervous OyerstIainlng brought about by social
pleasures or perverted social anAletles as by
purely Intellectual training. 1t is one reason,
ward into the Importance which lie gives It,"
GtlFOy, Nav, 1880. S, S.