CHAPTER XII

THE FUTURE OF WOMEN IN SCIENCE:

SUMMARY AND EPILOGUE

Saint-Evremond, the first great master of the genteel style in French

literature, who was equally noted as a brilliant courtier, a graceful

wit, a professed Epicurean, and who exerted so marked an influence on

the writings of Voltaire and the essayists of Queen Anne's time, gives

us in one of his desultory productions an entertaining disquisition on

_La femme qui ne se trouve point et ne se trouvera jamais_--the woman

who is not and never will be found. The caption of this singular essay

admirably expresses the idea that the majority of mankind has, even

until the present day, held respecting woman in science. For them she

was non-existent. Nature, in their view, had disqualified her for

serious and, above all, for abstract science. Never, therefore, in the

opinion of these solemn wiseacres, had been found or could be found a

woman who had achieved distinction in science.

The foregoing chapters show how ill-founded is such a view regarding

woman in times past. For that half of humanity which has produced such

scientific luminaries as Aspasia, Laura Bassi, Maria Gaetana Agnesi,

Sophie Germain, Mary Somerville, Caroline Herschel, Sonya Kovalevsky,

Agnes S. Lewis, Margaret Dunlop Gibson, Eleanor Ormerod and Mme.

Curie--to mention no others--is far from exhibiting any evidence of

intellectual disqualification and still farther from warranting any one

from declaring that the successful pursuit of science is entirely

beyond the mental powers of womankind.

The preceding pages, likewise, afford an answer to those who insist on

woman's incapacity for scientific pursuits, and point to the small

number of those that have attained eminence in any of the branches of

science; who continue to assert that the women named are but exceptions

to the rule of the hopeless inferiority of their sex, and that no

conclusions can be deduced from the paucity of women who have risen

above the intellectual level of their less fortunate or less highly

dowered sisters. They further show that, until the last few decades,

woman's environment was rarely if ever favorable to her pursuit of

science. From the days of Aspasia until the latter half of the

nineteenth century she was discriminated against by law, custom and

public opinion. Save only in Italy, she was excluded from the

universities and from learned societies in which she might have had an

opportunity of developing her intellect. In other countries her social

ostracism in all that pertained to mental development was so complete

and universal that she rarely had an opportunity of making a trial of

her powers or exhibiting her innate capacity. The consequence was that

her mind remained in a condition of comparative atrophy--a condition

that gave rise to that long prevalent belief in woman's intellectual

inferiority to man and her natural incapacity for everything that is not

light or frivolous.

Practically all that women have achieved in science, until very recent

years, has been accomplished in defiance of that conventional code which

compelled them to confine their activities to the ordinary duties of the

household. The lives and achievements of the eminent mathematicians,

Sophie Germain and Mary Somerville, are good illustrations of the truth

of this assertion. It was only their persistence in the study of their

favorite branch of science, in spite of the opposition of their family

and friends, and in spite of what was considered taboo for their sex by

the usages and ordinances of society, that they were able to attain that

eminence in the most abstruse of the sciences which won for them the

plaudits of the world. Both were virtually self-made women. Deprived of

the advantages of a college or university education, and denied the

stimulus afforded by membership in learned scientific associations, they

nevertheless succeeded by their own unaided efforts in winning a place

of highest honor in the Walhalla of men of science.

M. Alphonse de Candolle, in his great work, _Histoire des Sciences et

des Savants depuis Deux Siecles_, devotes only two pages to the

consideration of woman in science. She is, to him, a negligible

quantity. And, although a professed man of science, he repeats, without

any scientific warrant whatever, all the gratuitous statements of his

predecessors regarding the superficial character of the female mind, "a

mind," he will have it, which "takes pleasure in ideas that are readily

seized by a kind of intuition;" a mind "to which the slow methods of

observation and calculation by which truth is surely arrived at are not

pleasing. Truths themselves," the Swiss savant continues, "independent

of their nature and possible consequences--especially general truths

which have no relation to a particular person--are of small moment to

most women. Add to this a feeble independence of opinion, a reasoning

faculty less intense than in man, and, finally, the horror of doubt,

that is, a state of mind in which all research in the sciences of

observation must begin and often end. These reasons are," according to

de Candolle, "more than sufficient to explain the position of women in

scientific pursuits."[256]

They certainly are more than sufficient to explain their position if we

choose to accept the author's method of determining one's attainments in

the realm of science. His chief test of one's eminence in science is

the number of learned societies to which one belongs. For De Candolle,

membership in one or more such bodies is _prima facie_ evidence of

special distinction in some branch of science. But "We," he declares,

"do not see the name of any woman on the lists of learned men connected

with the principal academies. This is not due entirely to the fact that

the customs and regulations have made no provision for their admission,

for it is easy to assure one's self that no person of the feminine sex

has ever produced an original scientific work which has made its mark in

any science and commanded the attention of specialists in science. I do

not think it has ever been considered desirable to elect a woman a

member of any of the great scientific academies with restricted

membership."[257]

When De Candolle insisted on membership in learned societies as a

necessary indication of scientific eminence, he must have known, what

everybody knew, that such exclusive societies as the French Academy of

Sciences and the Royal Society of Great Britain have always been dead

set against the admission of women members. It is difficult to imagine

that the learned author of the _History of Science and Scientists_ was

entirely ignorant of the exclusion from the French Academy of Maria

Gaetana Agnesi solely because she was a woman. And he must have been

aware that, had it not been for her sex, Sophie Germain would have been

accorded a fauteuil in the same society for her remarkable

investigations in one of the difficult departments of mathematical

physics. He must likewise have been cognizant of the attitude of such

organizations as the Royal Society toward women, no matter how

meritorious their achievements in science.

According to De Candolle's criterion, such women as Mme. Curie, Sonya

Kovalevsky, Eleanor Ormerod, Agnes S. Lewis, Margaret Dunlop Gibson have

accomplished nothing worthy of note because, forsooth, their names are

not found on the rolls of membership of the Royal Society or the French

Academy of Sciences--associations whose constitutions have been

purposely so framed as to exclude women from membership. It would,

indeed, be difficult to instance a more unfair or a more unscientific

test of woman's eminence in science, and that, too, proposed by one who

is supposed to be actuated in his judgments by rigorously scientific

methods. Had any of the women named belonged to the male sex, there

never would have been any question of their fitness to become members of

the societies in question. This is particularly true of Mme. Curie, who,

in the estimation of the world, has done more to enhance the prestige of

French science than any man of the present generation--a statement that

is sufficiently justified by the fact that she is the only one so far

who has twice, in competition with the greatest of the world's men of

science, succeeded in carrying away the great Nobel prize.[258]

Not only have men, from time immemorial, been wont to point to woman's

incapacity for science as evidenced by the small number of those who

have achieved distinction in any of its branches, but they have also

taken a special pleasure in directing attention to the fact that no

woman has ever given to the world any of the great creations of genius,

or been the prime-mover in any of the far-reaching discoveries which

have so greatly contributed to the weal, the advancement and the

happiness of our race.

No one, probably, has expressed himself on this subject in a more

positive or characteristic fashion than the noted litterateur and

philosopher, Count Joseph de Maistre. Writing from St. Petersburg to his

daughter, Constance, he says: "Voltaire, according to what you

affirm--for as to me, I know nothing, as I have not read all his works,

and have not read a line of them during the last thirty years--says that

women are capable of doing all that men do, etc. This is merely a

compliment paid to some pretty woman, or, rather, it is one of the

hundred thousand and thousand silly things which he said during his

lifetime. The very contrary is the truth. Women have produced no _chef

d'oeuvre_ of any kind whatsoever. They have been the authors neither

of the _Iliad_, nor the _Aeneid_, nor the _Jerusalem Delivered_, nor

_Phedre_, nor _Athalie_ nor _Rodogune_, nor _The Misanthrope_, nor

_Tartufe_, nor _The Joueur_, nor _The Pantheon_, nor _The Church of St.

Peter's_, nor the _Venus de' Medici_, nor the _Apollo Belvidere_, nor

the _Principia_, nor the _Discourse on Universal History_, nor

_Telemachus_. They have invented neither algebra nor the telescope, nor

achromatic glasses nor the fire engine, nor hose-machines, etc."[259]

All this is true, but what does it prove? It does not prove, as is so

frequently assumed, woman's lesser brain power or inferior

intelligence. It does not prove--as the learned Frenchman and those who

are similarly minded would have us believe--her incapacity for the

highest flights of genius in every sphere of intellectual effort. Such

assumptions are entirely negatived by woman's past achievements in all

departments of art, literature and science.

Far from making the inference that De Maistre wished his daughter to

draw from his letter, we should, from what we know of woman's ability as

disclosed in the foregoing chapters, hesitate to set a limit to her

powers, or to declare apodictically that she could not have been the

author of works of as great merit as most of those--if not all of

them--mentioned as among men's supreme achievements. The simple fact

that Mme. Curie and Sonya Kovalevsky were able, in sciences usually

considered beyond female intelligence, to wrest from their male

competitors the most coveted prizes within the gift of the Nobel Prize

Commission and the French Academy of Sciences, demonstrates completely

that woman's assumed incapacity for even the most recondite scientific

pursuits is a mere figment of the masculine imagination.

What women have done "that at least, if nothing else," as John Stuart

Mill aptly observes, "it is proved they can do. When we consider how

sedulously they are all trained away from, instead of being trained

toward, any of the occupations or objects reserved for men, it is

evident that I am taking very humble ground for them, when I rest their

case on what they have actually achieved. For, in this case, negative

evidence is worth little, while any positive evidence is conclusive. It

cannot be inferred to be impossible that a woman should be a Homer, or

an Aristotle, or a Michaelangelo, or a Beethoven, because no woman has

yet actually produced works comparable to theirs in any of those lines

of excellence. This negative fact at most leaves the question uncertain

and open to psychological discussion. But it is quite certain that a

woman can be a Queen Elizabeth or a Deborah or a Joan of Arc, since this

is not inference but a fact."[260]

In like manner it is quite certain that, in spite of all kinds of

disabilities and prejudices and adverse legislation, there have been a

large number of women who, in every department of intellectual activity,

have achieved marked distinction and won imperishable renown for their

proscribed sex. It is a fact, which admits of no question, that,

notwithstanding their being debarred from all the educational advantages

so generously lavished upon the dominant sex, women have since the days

of Sappho and Hypatia shown themselves the equals and often the

superiors of men in the highest and noblest spheres of mental

achievement.

Such being the case, what, we may ask, would have been the result had

women, from that splendid Heroic Period of which Homer sings until the

present, enjoyed all the opportunities of mental development of which

men have systematically claimed the exclusive privilege?[261] What would

now be their condition if, from the days of the Muses--who were but

learned women apotheosized--women had never been deprived of their

intellectual birthright and had been permitted to continue in the path

so auspiciously blazed by Corinna--the victor over Pindar--and Arete,

the splendor of Greece and the possessor of the mind of Socrates and the

tongue of Homer? What would not now be their intellectual

efflorescence, if Plato's dream of twenty-three centuries ago of giving

women equal rights with men in all things of the mind could have been

realized; if those ardent female disciples of his, who so lovingly

followed him through the streets of Athens--"the home of the

intellectual and the beautiful"--and hung on his lips during his

matchless discourses in the groves of the Academy and on the banks of

the Ilyssus, could have continued that race of intellect and genius

which was the admiration and the inspiration of all Hellas during the

most brilliant period of its marvelous history?

Speculating only on what the gifted daughters of Greece might have

achieved, we may easily believe that they would have kept pace with

their most highly gifted countrymen, and that, following in the

footsteps of Sappho and the other Muses of the "Terrestrial Nine," they

would have been worthy rivals of Homer, Pindar and Aeschylus, and would

have occupied a prominent place in that brilliant galaxy of genius

composed of such luminaries as Anaxagoras, Sophocles, Euclid,

Archimedes, Theophrastus, Polygnotus, Diophantus, Pausanias and

Thucydides.

To those who base their opinions on what so long has been the absurdly

anomalous condition of women and who, in formulating their theories of

human progress, completely ignore the fundamental laws of heredity, such

conjectures will seem extravagant, if not chimerical. But, when one

bears in mind the universal fact that offspring, whatever the sex,

inherits its characteristics and its powers from both parents alike;

that the soul, unlike the body, has no sex, and that, so far as

legitimate indications from the teachings of biology and psychology can

serve as a guide, there is no valid reason for asserting the mental

superiority of man over woman, one will be obliged to confess that these

surmises are far from being either fanciful or preposterous.

It is then the veriest sophism to predicate woman's incapacity for

science and for intellectual achievements of the highest order on what

she has not accomplished in the past, or on the comparatively limited

number of her contributions to the advancement of knowledge; for up till

the present she has, for the most part, been but a dwarf of the

gynaeceum,

"Cramp'd under worse than South-sea isle taboo."

Had men been compelled to labor under similar conditions, it is doubtful

if they would have accomplished any more than women have now to their

credit.

Considering woman's past achievements in science, as well as in other

departments of knowledge; considering her present opportunities for

developing her long-hampered faculties, and considering, especially, the

many new social and economic adjustments which have been made within the

last half century, in consequence of the greatly changed conditions of

modern life, it requires no prophetic vision to forecast what share the

gentler sex will have in the future advancement of science. That it will

be far greater than it has been hitherto there can be no reasonable

doubt. That the number of savantes of the type of Maria Gaetana Agnesi,

Sonya Kovalevsky and Mme. Curie will be greatly enlarged there is every

reason to believe. That among these coming votaries of science there

will be more than one woman who, even in the most abstruse sciences,

will stand

"Upon an even pedestal with man,"

seems to be assured by the achievements of many who are now so

materially adding to the sum of human knowledge.

Is it probable that the future will bring forth women whose achievements

in science will rank with those of Euler, Faraday, Liebig, Leverrier,

Champollion and Geoffry Saint-Hillaire? It would be a rash man who would

answer in the negative. We cannot, as De Maistre seems to do, reason

from what they have not done--when everything was against them--to what

they may do when conditions shall, in every way, be as favorable to them

as they always have been to the dominant sex.

Still rasher would be the man who would attempt to prove the negative of

this question. Mere _a priori_ arguments, based on preconceived bias or

on the vague and groundless impression that woman is essentially and

hopelessly the intellectual inferior of man, have no more value than

gratuitous opinions. The unprejudiced seeker after truth will insist on

a demonstration based on incontrovertible facts. He will appeal to

history to learn what the sex has already accomplished, and to science

to inquire if there be anything in the female brain to differentiate it

from that of the male, or to preclude woman from attaining the highest

rank in the activities of the intellect.

The result of such an investigation will, I think, cause even the most

biased person to suspend judgment, if it does not induce him to align

himself with those who, finding no differences in the mental endowments

of the sexes, have reached the conclusion that the day will come, and,

mayhap, in the near future, when the achievements of women will be on a

par with those of man. The facts stated in the preceding chapters seem,

not unreasonably, to point to such a conclusion, if, indeed, they do not

warrant it as a necessary inference.

A few considerations germane to this discussion will illustrate the

danger of forming hasty judgments regarding questions like the one under

discussion.

During the last hundred years no country in the world has done more for

the education of the masses than the United States. Everything that

money could purchase and ingenuity suggest has been adopted to develop

the minds and stimulate the latent talents and genius of our youth. From

the primary schools to the highest and best equipped universities, a

special premium has been put on success in study, and the highest

rewards have awaited those who should make any notable contribution

towards the advancement of knowledge. But, notwithstanding all the

educational advantages our people have enjoyed and all the encouragement

they have received to achieve something of supreme excellence, our great

country with its teeming millions attracted from the most gifted nations

of the Old World has not yet produced a single man who has attained the

highest rank in either literature or art or science. Far from having a

preeminent master of song like Homer or Dante, we have not even a poet

approaching Goethe or Tasso or Camoens. We have no Cervantes, no Milton,

no Racine, no Moliere. America has produced no Raphael or Michaelangelo;

no Mozart or Wagner or Tschaikovsky. Nor has it given us a Descartes, a

Leibnitz, a Newton or a Darwin. Would any one, from this complete

absence in America of representatives of the highest order in

literature, art and science, ever dream of concluding that we shall

never have such favorite sons of genius and such giants of intellect?

Does our comparative intellectual sterility in the past, and in a

country which seemed specially adapted to foster genius and attainments

of the highest order, justify any one in inferring that the days of

great geniuses, like the days of demigods, are gone never to return?

And yet the number of men in our broad commonwealth who, during the past

hundred years, have enjoyed such signal opportunities for attaining

distinction in every domain of intellectual effort is incomparably

greater than that of all the women so favored since the earliest days of

human history. If, from the first flowering of Greek culture to the

present day, as many millions of women had enjoyed all the transcendent

advantages of education as have been in the United States so lavishly

accorded to the same number of millions of men, who will say that very

many of them would not have attained a much higher rank in science, as

well as in art and literature, than has yet been reached by any man that

America has yet produced? Who even, on the evidence now available, would

be warranted in denying that at least some of these millions of women

might have attained the very highest rank in every department of

intellectual achievement?

Gray, in his _Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard_, muses on the

potential statesmen and the "mute, inglorious Miltons" of those

countless multitudes who, for lack of opportunity to develop their

inborn gifts, were condemned to pass their lives in obscurity and die,

"to Fortune and to Fame unknown." But how much more truthfully could his

words have been applied to that much larger number of women of rare

mental powers to whose eyes knowledge

"Her ample page

Rich with the spoils of time did ne'er unroll,"

and whose God-given genius was ruthlessly suppressed from the cradle to

the grave?

We are still in ignorance as to many of the conditions which are

essential to the development of genius and which contribute to its

loftiest flights. We have yet to learn how far the efflorescence of the

human mind is aided and modified by heredity, environment, atmosphere,

as well as by education, encouragement and other stimuli equally potent.

But we do know that Germany, in spite of its famed universities and its

feverish intellectual activity in many departments of knowledge, had to

wait many long dreary centuries before it could point to a Goethe, a

Schiller, a Humboldt, a Bach, or a Beethoven. We know that France--so

long the reputed center of culture--has so far produced no great epic

poet, no Cervantes, no Murillo. But shall we affirm that she will never

give to the world imperishable works like _Paradise Lost_, _Don Quixote_

or the _Immaculate Conception_? We know that Athens, which during the

most brilliant period of its history counted only fifty-four hundred

free-born citizens--less than the population of a small modern town--was

able to produce within a very brief epoch more men of supreme

distinction than all the rest of Europe from the Age of Pericles until

the dawn of the Renaissance. Hers is still the art of the world, the

literature of the world, the philosophy of the world, the culture of the

world. For twenty-five centuries her canons of taste and beauty have

guided poets, orators, artists; and her matchless productions have been

the inspiration, as they have been the despair, of the greatest geniuses

of our modern world.

Had the women of Greece not been put under constraint just as they were

beginning to exhibit the splendid results of their intellectual

activities; had they been encouraged to develop to the utmost their

richly-dowered minds, as were the men, a far larger number of them, no

doubt, would have been as successful in carrying off coveted prizes in

the intellectual arena as was Corinna in her contests with Pindar. And

they would, likewise, as we may easily conceive, have greatly added to

the number of masterpieces of Greek intellect in science as well as in

art and letters.

But the opportunity for women to test their powers, which was so

wantonly snatched from their sisters in the Hellenic world, seems again

to be offered to their sex. This opportunity, as has been stated, is due

chiefly to their persistence in claiming the same right as men to

intellectual development as well as to the countless proofs they have

given that their demands are founded on reason and justice. What shall

be the outcome of the new opportunity for woman to prove her capacity as

compared with man's in things of the intellect remains to be seen, but,

from indications she has during recent years given of her powers in

every branch of scientific inquiry, there can be little doubt that it

will be of such character as to place woman on a higher intellectual

plane than she has yet occupied. In physical strength and in the rougher

conflicts with the world she will doubtless always remain "the lesser

man," but, once she feels in full possession of liberty

"To burgeon out of all

Within her,"

she will duly justify her advocates who throughout the centuries have

been

"Maintaining that with equal husbandry

The woman were an equal to the man."

Not the least of the contributing factors to woman's intellectual

growth, and especially to her future achievements in science, are the

recent adjustments for women in social and economical conditions brought

about chiefly by far-reaching changes in the industrial world. Even so

late as the last half of the nineteenth century the energies of women,

when they were not engaged in the kitchen or the nursery, were spent on

the domestic loom, spinning wheel and the knitting needle. All the

various processes from carding the wool to making it into clothing for

all the members of the family were in the hands of the housewife.

Ready-made clothing was far from being as common and inexpensive as it

is now. Canned foods and cereals, which do away with so much of the

drudgery of the kitchen, were unknown. Electricity, which has proved to

be such a remarkable aid in every modern home, was little more than a

mysterious force that was utilized in the electric telegraph. Most of

the domestic labor-saving machines were still in their infancy and

possessed by but few people. Large fortunes were confined to only a

favored few in our great metropolises. The mass of the people was

preoccupied with the struggle for existence.

But science, the spirit of invention and the advent of the age of

machinery have completely changed the conditions of life which obtained

but a generation ago. They have not only opened up for women countless

occupations that were undreamed of in their mother's time, but have also

given to tens of thousands of them the necessary means and leisure to

indulge their tastes for study and research and enabled an ever

increasing number of them to realize their aspirations for achieving

distinction in the divers departments of scientific research.

As an instance of this marked change in the intellectual activity of

women, we need only consider what an important part they now take in our

present prodigious literary output, as compared with their share in

similar work but a few decades ago. As authors, as writers and readers

in the editorial rooms of our leading periodicals, as contributors to

learned journals and reviews dealing with every branch of science, even

the most abstruse, they now occupy a conspicuous place and are doing

work that is quite as creditable as that of men.

And it is no longer necessary, in deference to public sentiment, for

them to write under a pseudonym, for it is no longer considered

unfeminine, as it was in the time of the Bronte sisters, for women to

acknowledge themselves the authors of books or of articles in magazines.

If they elect to devote their lives to literary or scientific work, they

will not be deterred from so doing by what Mrs. Grundy may say, or by

the fear that some feeble imitator of Moliere may dub them as

_Precieuses Ridicules_. The value of their productions, like those of

men, is gauged solely by merit and not by any narrow-minded

considerations of the author's sex.

So also will it be in all other occupations where women choose to gain

their livelihood by devoting themselves to scientific pursuits rather

than to manual labor or to secretarial work in the counting-room. There

are positions open for them in colleges, universities and the

government service where, as professors or experts in every branch of

science, their talents have full liberty of action and where they have

the same opportunity of achieving distinction in their chosen life-work

as have their male colleagues.

In Germany there are to-day a million more women than men. It is the

same in England. In France the number of women who are widows or

unmarried or divorcees or mothers with full-grown children aggregates no

less than four and a half millions. A similar condition obtains in other

parts of Europe. A large percentage of this number is without home ties

and, as the old fields of labor are no longer open to women, they are

forced to find new ones. They naturally demand the privilege of

exercising their talents in occupations which are most congenial to

them. Many have no inclination for any of the avocations in the

industrial or commercial world, but have a very decided inclination as

well as talent for scientific pursuits. Hence the ever-increasing number

of women who seek employment in chemical and biological laboratories, in

museums and astronomical observatories, as well as aspire to

professorships of science in schools and colleges. From this large

number of votaries of science some are sure to achieve distinction in

their calling and to contribute materially to the advancement of

knowledge. In the course of time the number of those, like Mme. Curie,

Mme. Coudreau, Mary Kingsley, Sonya Kovalevsky, Eleanor Ormerod,

Caroline Herschel, Zelia Nuttall, Harriet Boyd Hawes, Donna Eersilia

Bovatillo, Sophie Pereyaslawewa--to name only a few--who will become

prominent as chemists, explorers, naturalists, mathematicians,

entomologists, astronomers, archaeologists, biologists will be vastly

increased, for women will find a greater stimulus for such work and more

numerous demands for their service in the constantly expanding sphere of

scientific research.

Many women will, doubtless, become specialists in some specific branch

of science, particularly if they have a genuine love for it, or be fired

by an ambition to achieve fame as discoverers. But it is not probable

that they will ever specialize to the same extent as men do. For men

scientific work has to a large extent become a _metier_, and success, as

in industry, depends on a division of labor. Hence it is that their

field of investigation is daily becoming more and more circumscribed.

This is observable in all the sciences, but especially in such

all-embracing sciences as chemistry, biology, and archaeology. A man now

does well if he master a single branch of any of these sciences, and is

hailed as exceptionally fortunate if he succeed in making some notable

discovery in his limited field of research. So great, indeed, has been

the activity of scientific men in every department of science during the

last half century, and so thoroughly have they explored the most hidden

recesses of nature, that it, at times, seems as if there were but little

left to discover. A prominent scientist recently well expressed the

difficulty of making any striking additions to our knowledge of nature

by asserting that all great discoveries would hereafter be made in the

sixth place of decimals. This statement is well illustrated by the

delicate experiments that were required to isolate such rare elements as

radium, polonium, helium and neon, which occur only in infinitesimal

quantities.

While men of science will be forced to continue as specialists as long

as the love of fame, to consider no other motives of research, continues

to be a potent influence in their investigations, it is probable that

women will have less love for the long and tedious processes involved in

the more difficult kinds of specialization. They will, it seems likely,

be more inclined to acquire a general knowledge of the whole circle of

the sciences--a knowledge that will enable them to take a comprehensive

survey of nature. And it will be fortunate for themselves, as well as

for the men who must perforce remain specialists, if they elect to do

so. For nothing gives falser views of nature as a whole, nothing more

unfits the mind for a proper apprehension of higher and more important

truths, nothing more incapacitates one for the enjoyment of the

masterpieces of literature or the sweeter amenities of life, than the

narrow occupation of a specialist who sees nothing in the universe but

electrons, microbes and protozoa.

But just at the critical moment, when men of science would rather

discover a process than a law, when they are so preoccupied with the

infinitely little that they lose sight of the cosmos as a whole; when

their attention is so riveted on particular phenomena that they will no

longer have aptitude for rising from effects to causes; when they cease

to have any interest in general ideas and stray away from the guidance

of the true philosophic spirit; when, like Plato's cave men, they have

so long groped in darkness that their powers of vision are impaired,

then it is that woman, "The herald of a brighter race," comes to the

rescue and holds up to their astonished gaze the picture of an ideal

world whose existence they had almost forgotten. For women, as a rule,

love science for its own sake, and, unlike the specialists in question,

they are, in its pursuit, rarely actuated by any selfish or mercenary

interests, or by the hope of financial reward. Precise and never-ending

observations with the microscope and spectroscope, which at best give

them but a superficial knowledge of certain details of science, while it

leaves them in ignorance of the greater and better part of it, do not

appeal to them. They prefer general ideas to particular facts, and love

to roam over the whole realm of science rather than confine themselves

to one of its isolated corners.

"Women," writes M. Etienne Lamy, the distinguished French Academician,

"group themselves at the center of human knowledge, whereas men disperse

themselves towards its outer boundaries. While men are always pushing

analysis to its utmost limits, women are seeking a synthesis. While men

are becoming more technical, women are becoming more intellectual. They

are better placed to observe the correlations of the different sciences,

and to subordinate them to the common and unique source of truth from

which they all descend. We seem, indeed, to be approaching a time when

women will become the conservers of general ideas."[262]

In the preceding chapter reference was made to the fact that women are

naturally inclined to adopt the deductive method in their search for

truth when men would employ only the inductive method. This disposition

of theirs to arrive at conclusions by a kind of intuition, coupled with

their more pronounced idealism, is sure to react favorably on men, and

prevent them from becoming so involved in mere facts and phenomena as to

cause them to forget that it is as important to reason well as to

observe well--that the fundamental principles of a true philosophy are

quite as necessary for the eminent man of science as they are to the

trustworthy historian or commanding statesman.

From what has been said, it is clear that man's ideal of the woman of

the future will be quite different from what it was but a little more

than a century ago, when Dr. Johnson could say that "any acquaintance

with books," among women, "was distinguished only to be censured." It

will be quite different from the ideal woman, as portrayed by poets and

novelists, for centuries past. For among the thousands of women painted

by our leading writers of fiction, poets and dramatists there are few,

if any, outside of those sketched by Tennyson in _The Princess_, who are

distinguished for their learning or for their love of intellectual

pursuits. Even Portia, Shakespeare's most learned woman, was, according

to her own confession, but

"An unlessoned girl, unschooled, unpracticed."

And the heroines of the novelist, far from being women who had a thirst

for knowledge, or were eager

"To sound the abyss

Of science and the secrets of the mind,"

were those only whose chief attractions were physical graces and charms,

affectionate natures, brilliant wit together with "sweet laughs for

bird-notes and blue eyes for a heaven."

Now, however, that women after ages of struggle are beginning to

experience a sense of intellectual freedom before unknown, and to exult

in the fact that

"Knowledge is now no more a fountain sealed";

now that they are, for the first time, beginning, in every civilized

nation, to realize their age-long aspirations for unimpeded opportunity

in all the activities of the intellect; now that they are no longer

"Dismiss'd in shame to live

No wiser than their mothers, household stuff,

Live chattels, ***

*** laughing-stocks of Time,"

we may expect soon to see a marked change in the character of the ideal

woman as depicted in literature and as desired by the intelligent

portion of mankind.

What woman's liberation from intellectual bondage and her freedom to

devote herself to scientific pursuits mean for the future of humanity it

is difficult at present adequately to forecast. That it will contribute

immensely to the betterment of social conditions and to the elevation of

the masses of humanity, there can be no doubt. Setting free the

imprisoned energies of one half of our race, means more than doubling

mankind's capacity for advancement. For the failure to utilize woman's

vast energies, pining for an outlet, acted as a drag on man's own

potentialities, and thus retarded to an untold extent the world's

advancement. In times past, as has aptly been said, "an enormous part of

the brain power of mankind has been spent or wasted in smiting the

Philistines hip and thigh, and an enormous part of the brain power of

womankind has been spent in cajoling Sampson."

It will mean that the women of the future will be more suitable

companions for the rapidly increasing number of highly educated men of

science; that having their intellects developed _pari passu_ with those

of men, they will be able to sympathize with the noblest aims of their

husbands and assist them in their most important undertakings, as did

the wives of Huber, Lavoisier, Pasteur, Huxley, Louis Agassiz and others

scarcely less renowned in the annals of science. It will mean that they

will not only share in the joys and the sorrows of their

life-companions, but that they will also have a part in their thoughts,

their studies, their labors, their achievements. For one should bear in

mind that the first essential to a perfect union of hearts is a perfect

harmony of minds. Where neither husband nor wife is educated, the

virtues may suffice for companionship, but where the man is educated and

the woman ignorant, there are sooner or later estrangements and the wife

becomes little better than an old Japanese conception of her, "a cook

without pay," or a pasha's toy for an idle hour. Chrysalde in Moliere's

_L'Ecole des Femmes_, declares:

"Qu'il est assez ennuyeux, que je crois,

D'avoir toute sa vie une bete avec soi."

A briefer and truer statement of the evils of unequal intellectual

mating was never penned.[263] Men of intelligence are no longer, like

Rousseau, satisfied with an ignorant domestic for a wife, and still less

are they disposed with Schopenhauer to regard woman as an incurable

Philistine, and as a mere intermediary between a child and a man. They

have learned by sad experience that it is contrary both to justice and

public policy to impose artificial restrictions on the acquisition of

knowledge by women, or to close to the vigorous and capable

representatives of their sex careers which are open to the weakest and

most incompetent men. History has taught them that the fall of Greece

and Rome was owing to the failure of these nations to make due provision

for the mental development of women.

And women know that it was because of the inability of the wives of the

Athenians to enter into the thoughts of their highly educated husbands

and to sympathize with their aims and appreciate their achievements that

caused the men to leave them in their solitude and seek in the

companionship of the hetaerae the intellectual atmosphere which was

wanting in their own homes. They know, too, that the lack of knowledge

in the wife and the absence of virtue in the hetaerae, which brought such

disasters on the most learned and most cultured of nations are still

evils to be guarded against, and that one of the means over and above

moral rule and revealed truth of safe-guarding their own interests and

preserving the sanctity of the home is to make themselves by knowledge

and culture the intellectual equals of their consorts.

They realize also that if they are to attain the highest measure of

success as wives and mothers, a broad and thorough education--a

knowledge of science, as well as familiarity with art and literature and

the teachings of religion--is essential to them for their children's

sake. It is said that

"The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world,"

but how much truer is it that "The domestic hearth is the first of

schools, and the best of lecture-rooms; for here the heart will

cooperate with the mind, the affections with the reasoning power." It is

only when the mothers of this, the woman's century, shall dispute with

men the primacy of erudition--when they shall prove their mastery of

those newer sciences by which our age sets such great store--when they

shall possess

"Seraphic intellect and force

To seize and throw the doubts of man";

that their grown-up sons will have the same confidence in their

intelligence as they now have in their hearts. Then only will mothers be

properly equipped for developing the character of their children; for

inspiring them with a love of the true, the beautiful and the good; for

stimulating their talents and aiding them to attain to all the

sublimities of knowledge; for assisting them in doubt and despondency

and firing them with an ambition to strive for supreme excellence in all

that makes for the nobility of manhood and the glory of womanhood; for

making them, as Beatrice made Dante after he was renewed and purified

in the waters of Eunoe, "fit to mount up to the stars."

"_Puro e disposto a salire alle stelle._"

The romantic idea of treating woman as a clinging vine, and thus

eliminating half the energies of humanity, is rapidly disappearing and

giving place to the idea that the strong are for the strong--the

intellectually strong; that the evolution of the race will be complete

only when men and women shall be associated in perfect unity of purpose,

and shall, in fullest sympathy, collaborate for the attainment of the

highest and the best. Then, indeed, will man's helpmate become to him

and to his children

"More rich than pearls of Ind or gold of Ophir,

And in her sex more wonderful and rare."

Then will men and women for the first time fully supplement each other

in their aspirations and endeavors and realize somewhat of that oneness

of heart and mind which was so beautifully adumbrated in Plato's

androgyn. Then will the world witness the return of another Golden

Age--the Golden Age of Science--the Golden Age of cultured, noble,

perfect womanhood. Then to all who really think and love will be

manifest the clearness and power of vision of England's great poet

laureate when in matchless numbers he sings:

"The woman's cause is man's; they rise or sink

Together, dwarfed or godlike, bond or free.

...*...*...*...*

For woman is not undevelopt man

But diverse: could we make her as the man,

Sweet Love were slain; his dearest bond is this,

Not like to like, but like in difference.

Yet in the long years liker must they grow;

The man be more of woman, she of man;

He gain in sweetness and in moral height,

Nor lose the wrestling thews that throw the world;

She mental breadth, nor fail in childward care,

Nor lose the childlike in the larger mind;

Till at the last she set herself to man,

Like perfect music unto noble words;

And as these twain, upon the skirts of Time,

Sit side by side, full-summ'd in all their powers,

Dispensing harvest, sowing the To-be,

Self-rev'rent each, and reverencing each,

Distinct in individualities,

But like each other ev'n as those who love,

Then comes the statelier Eden back to men;

Then reign the world's great bridals chaste and calm;

Then springs the crowning race of human-kind.

May these things be!"

FOOTNOTES:

[256] _Histoire des Sciences et des Savants_, p. 271, Geneve-Bale, 1885.

[257] Ibid., p. 270.

[258] A writer in the English magazine, _Nature_, under date of January

12, 1911, when the European press was discussing Mme. Curie's claims to

membership in the French Academy of Sciences, makes the following sane

observations on the admission of women to the various academies of the

French Institute:

"There may be room for difference of opinion as to the

wisdom or expediency of permitting women to embark on the

troubled sea of politics, or of allowing them a determinate

voice in the settlement of questions which may affect the

existence or the destiny of a nation; but surely there ought

to be no question that in the peaceful walks of art,

literature and science, there should be the freest possible

scope extended to them, and that, as human beings, every

avenue to distinction and success should unreservedly be

open to them.

"All academies tend to be conservative and to move slowly;

they are the homes of privilege and of vested interest. Some

of them incline to be reactionary. They were created by men

for men and for the most part at a time when women played

little or no part in those occupations which such societies

were intended to foster and develop. But the times have

changed. Women have gradually won for themselves their

rightful position as human beings. We have now to recognize

that academies as seats of learning were made for humanity

and that, as members of the human race, women have the right

to look upon their heritage and property no less than men.

This consummation may not at once be reached, but, as it is

based upon reason and justice, it is certain to be attained

eventually."

A fortnight later the same magazine contained a second article, in which

the matter is treated in an equally manly fashion.

"As scientific work," the writer pertinently observes, "must ultimately

be judged by its merits, and not by the nationality or sex of its

author, we believe that the opposition to the election of women into

scientific societies will soon be seen to be unjust and detrimental to

the progress of natural knowledge. By no pedantic reasoning can the

rejection of a candidate for membership of a scientific society be

justified, if the work done places the candidate in the leading position

among other competitors. Science knows no nationality and should

recognize no distinction of sex, color or creed among those who are

contributing to its advancement. Believing that this is the conclusion

to which consideration of the question must inevitably lead, we have

confidence that the doors of all scientific societies will eventually be

open to women on equal terms with men."

[259] _Lettres et Opuscules Inedits du Comte Joseph de Maistre_, Tom. I,

p. 194, Paris, 1851.

It was this same brusque and original writer who asserted that "science

was a most dangerous thing for women; that no woman should study science

under penalty of becoming ridiculous and unhappy; that a coquette can

more readily get married than a savante." And he it was who declared

that women who attempted to emulate men in the pursuit of science are

monkeys and _donne barbute_--bearded women--and who designated Mme. de

Stael as "_la science en jupons, une impertinente femelette_"--science

in petticoats, a silly, impertinent female.

He, however, met an opponent worthy of his steel in the person of the

eloquent bishop of Orleans, Mgr. Dupanloup. In a lengthy and brilliant

critique of De Maistre's views he shows them to be untenable, if not

ridiculous. "I by no means," he writes, "agree with M. de Maistre that

'_la science en jupons_,' as he calls it, or talents of any kind

whatsoever, militates in the slightest against a woman being a good wife

or a good mother. Quite the contrary." And considering woman as the

companion and aid of man--_socia et adjutorium_--he expresses a view

which is quite the opposite of that championed by his distinguished

adversary for, in words precise and pregnant, he asserts that the

education of women cannot be too consistent, too serious, and too

solid--"_L'education des femmes ne saurait etre trop suivie, trop

serieuse et trop forte._" _La Femme Studieuse_, p. 160, Paris, 1895.

[260] _The Subjection of Women_, p. 81, London, 1909.

[261] The late Mr. Gladstone asserts that "It would be hard to discover

any period of history or country of the world, not being Christian, in

which they"--women--"stood so high as with the Greeks of the Heroic

Age"--when the position of the Greek woman was so remarkable and "so

elevated, both absolutely and in comparison with what it became in the

Historic Ages of Greece and Rome amidst their elaborate civilization."

_Studies on Homer and the Homeric Age_, Vol. II, p. 479 et seq., Oxford,

1858. Cf. also the same author's _Juventus Mundi_, p. 405 et seq.,

London, 1869.

[262] _La Femme de Demain_, pp. 45, 46, Paris, 1912.

[263] Dr. Johnson expressed the same sentiment when he declared that a

man of sense should meet a suitable companion in a wife. "It was a

miserable thing," he asserted in characteristic fashion, "when the

conversation could only be such as whether the mutton should be boiled

or roasted, and a probable dispute about that."

Sidney Smith, in a forceful and trenchant essay _On the Education of

Women_, written for the _Edinburgh Review_ a century ago, gives it as

his deliberate opinion that "The instruction of women improves the stock

of natural talents, and employs more minds for the instruction and

amusement of the world; it increases the pleasures of society by

multiplying the topics upon which the two sexes take a common interest;

and makes marriage an intercourse of understanding as well as of

affection by giving dignity and importance to the female character. The

education of women favors public morals; it provides for every season of

life as well as for the brightest and the best; and leaves a woman when

she is stricken by the hand of time, not as she now is, destitute of

everything and neglected by all, but with the full power and the

splendid attractions of knowledge,--diffusing the elegant pleasures of

polite literature, and receiving the just homage of learned and

accomplished men."

As to the oft repeated commonplace of noodledom that higher education

puts an end to domestic economy and deteriorates the noblest qualities

of womanhood, the same clear-headed writer asks: "Can anything ... be

more perfectly absurd than to suppose that the care and perpetual

solicitude which a mother feels for her children, depends upon her

ignorance of Greek or mathematics; and that she would desert an infant

for a quadratic equation--that Cimmerian ignorance can aid parental

affection, or the circle of the arts and sciences produce its

destruction--that the moment you suffer women to eat of the tree of

knowledge the rest of the family will very soon be reduced to the same

kind of aerial and unsatisfactory diet?"

Still more insistent on the necessity of the broadest and deepest

education for woman--education in science as well as in art and

literature--is the Most Rev. Archbishop, J. L. Spalding, who by his

writing and lectures has done so much for the cause of the higher

education of both men and women. In an eloquent and pregnant discourse,

pronounced in the Church of the Gesu in Rome, in March, 1900, he told

his vast audience--composed of the elite of the Eternal City--that:

"If we are to have a race of enlightened, noble, and brave men, we must

give to woman the best education it is possible for her to receive. She

has the same right as man to become all that she may be, to know

whatever may be known, to do whatever is fair and just and good. In

souls there is no sex. If we leave half the race in ignorance, how shall

we hope to lift the other half into the light of truth and love? Let

woman's mental power increase, let her influence grow, and more and more

she will stand by the side of man as a helper in all his struggles to

make the will of God prevail. From the time the Virgin Mother held the

Infant Saviour in her arms, to this hour, woman has been the great lover

of Christ and the unweary helper of His little ones; and the more we

strengthen and illumine her, the more we add to her sublime faith and

devotion the power of knowledge and culture, the more efficaciously

shall she work to purify life, to make justice, temperance, chastity,

and love prevail. She is more unselfish, more capable of enthusiasm for

spiritual ends, she has more sympathy with what is beautiful, noble, and

godlike than man; and the more her knowledge increases, the more shall

she become a heavenly force to help spread God's kingdom on earth."

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PARTIAL LIST OF THE WORKS QUOTED OR REFERRED TO IN THE TEXT

AGASSIZ, MRS. L. Louis Agassiz, His Life and Correspondence. Boston,

1893.

AGNESI, MARIA GAETANA. Instituzioni Analitiche. Milan, 1748.

----. Propositiones Philosophicae. Milan, 1738.

ANZOLETTI, LUISA. Maria Gaetana Agnesi. Milan, 1900.

ARRIGHI, G. L. Storia del Feminismo. Florence, 1911.

ASSE, EUGENE. Lettres de la Marquise du Chatelet. Paris, 1882.

ATHENAEUS. The Deipnosophists; or the Banquet of the Learned, Bohn

Edition. London, 1907.

BECQ DE FOUQUIERES, L. Aspasie de Milet. Paris, 1872.

BEDE, VENERABLE. Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum. London, 1848.

BIEVRE, LE COMTE DE. Histoire des Deux Aspasies. Paris, 1736.

BIGONI, D. GUIDO. Ipazia, Alessandrina. Venice, 1887.

BIRCH, UNA. Anna van Schurman. London, 1909.

BLACKWELL, ELIZABETH. Pioneer Work in Opening the Medical Profession to

Women. London, 1895.

BONNET, J. Vie d'Olympie Morata. Paris, 1850.

BREMMER, C. S. Education of Girls and Women. London, 1897.

BRIAND, E. M. Histoire de Sainte Radegonde, Reine de France. Paris,

1898.

BROCA, PAUL. Memoires d'Anthropologie. Paris, 1871-1888.

BURCKHARDT, J. Die Cultur der Renaissance in Italien. Leipsic, 1899.

CANDOLLE, ALPHONSE DE. Histoire des Sciences et des Savants depuis Deux

Siecles. Geneve, 1885.

CASTIGLIONE, BALDASSARE. Libro del Cortigiano. Milan, 1890.

CHABAUD, L. Mesdames de Maintenon, de Genlis et Campan. Leur Role dans

l'Education Chretienne de la Femme. Paris, 1901.

CHATELET, MARQUISE DU. Principes Mathematiques de la Philosophie

Naturelle. Paris, 1759.

CHIAPPELLI, A. Saggi e Note Critche. Bologna, 1895.

COUDREAU, MME. H. Voyage au Maycuru. Paris, 1903.

----. Voyage au Rio Curua. Paris, 1903.

CURIE, PIERRE, MME. Traite de Radio-activite. Paris, 1910.

DELAMBRE, J. B. Histoire de l'Astronomie. Paris, 1817.

DENIFLE, H. Die Entstehung der Universitaeten des Mittelalters. Berlin,

1885.

DENIFLE ET CHATELAIN. Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis. Paris,

1889-1891.

DIOGENES LAERTIUS. Lives and Opinions of the Ancient Philosophers, Bohn

Edition. London.

DIEULAFOY, MME. At Susa the Ancient Capital of the Kings of Persia,

Narrative of Travel through Western Persia and Excavations made on the

Site of the Lost City of the Lilies, 1884-1886. Philadelphia, 1890.

----. La Perse, la Chaldee et la Susane. Paris, 1887.

D'ISTRIA, DORA. Des Femmes par une Femme. Paris, 1865.

DONALDSON, JAMES. Woman: Her Position in Ancient Greece and Rome among

the Early Christians. London, 1907.

DRANE, AUGUSTA T. Christian Schools and Scholars. London, 1881.

DRUON, H. Oeuvres de Synesius, Eveque de Ptolemais, Traduites

entierement pour la premiere Fois en Francais et Precedees d'une Etude

Biographique et Litteraire. Paris, 1878.

DUPANLOUP, MGR. La Femme Studieuse. Paris, 1895.

ECKSTEIN, LENA. Women Under Monasticism. Cambridge, 1896.

ELLIS, HAVELOCK. Man and Woman. London, 1898.

FANTUZZI, GIOVANNI. Notizie degli Scrittori Bolognesi. Bologna, 1781.

FAVARO, ANTONIO. Galileo Galilei e Suor Celeste. Florence, 1891.

FENELON, FRANCOIS DE SALIGNAC DE LA MOTHE. de L'education Des Filles.

Paris, 1881.

FINOT, J. Problems of the Sexes. New York, 1913.

FIORELLI, JOS. Pompeinarum Antiquitatum Historia. Naples, 1860-1864.

FRANKLAND, MR. AND MRS. PERCY. Pasteur. London, 1898.

GASQUET, AIDAN. Henry VIII and the English Monasteries. London, 1895.

GIBSON, MARGARET DUNLOP. How the Codex was Found. Cambridge, 1893.

GICOSA, PIERO. Magistri Salernitani Nondum Editi. Turin, 1891.

GIRARD, PAUL. L'Education Athenienne an Ve et IVe Siecle avant Jesus

Christ. Paris, 1889.

GLADSTONE, W. E. Studies on Homer and the Homeric Age. Oxford, 1858.

GRIMAUX, E. Lavoisier, 1743-1794, d'apres sa Correspondence, Ses

Manuscrits, Ses Papiers de Famille et d'Autres Documents Inedits. Paris,

1896.

HALL, G. STANLEY. Adolescence. New York, 1904.

HAMEL, F. An Eighteenth Century Marquise. A Study of Emilie du Chatelet

and Her Times. New York, 1911.

HARLESS, C. F. Die Verdienste der Frauen um Naturwissenschaft and

Heilkunde. Goettingen, 1830.

HARRISON, JANE E. Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion. Cambridge,

1903.

HAWES, HARRIET BOYD. Gournia, Vasilike and Other Prehistoric Sites on

the Isthmus of Hierapetra, Crete. Philadelphia, 1908.

HENSCHEL, G. E. T. Daremberg, C., e Renzi de, S. Collectio Salernitana,

Ossia Documenti Inediti e Trattati di Medicina Appertenti alla la

Scuola Medica Salernitana. Naples, 1852-1859.

HERRADE DE LANSBERG. Hortus Deliciarum. Strasburg, 1901.

HERSCHEL, MRS. JOHN. Memoirs and Correspondence of Caroline Herschel.

London, 1879.

HERTZEN ET ROSSI. Inscriptiones Urbis Romae Latinae. Berlin, 1882.

HILDEGARDIS, S. Causae et Curae. Leipsic, 1903.

----. Opera Omnia, Edition Migne. Paris, 1882.

----. Nova S. Hildegardis Opera. Ed. J. B. Card. Pitra. Paris, 1882.

HILL, GEORGIANA. Women in English Life. London, 1896.

HUNT, CAROLINE L. The Life of Helen H. Richards. Boston, 1912.

HUXLEY, L. H. Life and Letters of Thomas H. Huxley. New York, 1900.

JEROME, ST. Epistolae, Edition Vallarsi. Verona, 1734-42.

JEX-BLAKE, SOPHIA. Medical Women. Edinburgh, 1886.

JOURDAIN, CHARLES. Excursions Historiques et Philosophiques a travers le

Moyen Age. Paris, 1888.

KENDALL, PHEBE M. Maria Mitchell, Life, Letters and Journals. Boston,

1896.

KINGSLEY, MARY H. Travels in West Africa. London, 1897.

----. West African Studies. London, 1899.

KIRCHHOFF, A. Die Akademische Frau. Berlin, 1897.

LABE, LOUIZE. Oeuvres de. Paris, 1871.

LAGRANGE, F. Histoire de Sainte Paule. Paris, 1870.

LAIGLE, MATHILDE. Le Livre de Trois Vertus de Christine de Pisan et son

Milieu Historique et Literaire. Paris, 1912.

LALANDE, JEROME. Bibliographie Astronomique. Paris, 1803.

LAMY, E. La Femme de Demain. Paris, 1912.

LANGE, HELENE. Higher Education of Women in Europe. New York, 1890.

LAURIE, S. C. Historical Survey of Pre-Christian Education. London,

1900.

LECKY, W. E. History of European Morals. New York, 1905.

LEFEVRE, M. La Femme a travers l'Histoire. Paris, 1902.

LEFFLER, ANNA CARLOTTA. Sonya Kovalevsky, Her Recollections of

Childhood, with a Biography. New York, 1895.

LEPINSKA, MELANIE, MLLE. Histoire des Femmes Medecins. Paris, 1900.

LEWIS, AGNES SMITH. In the Shadow of Sinai. Cambridge, 1898.

LIGIER, HERMANN. De Hypatia Philosopha et Eclectismi Fine. Dijon, 1879.

LOURBET, J. La Femme devant la Science. Paris, 1896.

LUNGO, ISODORO DEL. Women of Florence. London, 1907.

MACPHERSON, GERALDINE. Memoirs of the Life of Anna Jameson. London,

1878.

MAISTRE, COMTE JOSEPH DE. Lettres Et Opuscules Inedits. Paris, 1851.

MARINI, GAETANO. Archiatri Pontifici. Rome, 1784.

MASON, O. T. Woman's Share in Primitive Culture. London, 1895.

----. Origin of Inventions. London, 1895.

MAULDE LA CLAVIERE, R. DE. The Women of the Renaissance. New York, 1901.

MAZZUCHELLI, GIAMMARIA. Gli Scrittori d'Italia. Brescia, 1758.

MEDICI, MICHELE. Compendio Storico della Scuola Anatomica di Bologna.

Bologna, 1857.

MENAGIUS, AEGIDIUS. Historia Mulierum Philosopharum. Amsterdam, 1692.

MEYER, H. F. Geschichte der Botanik. Koenigsburg, 1856.

MICHAELIS, A. A Century of Archaeological Discoveries. New York, 1908.

MILL, JOHN STUART. The Subjection of Women. London, 1909.

MOEBIUS, P. J. Ueber die Anlage zur Mathematik. Leipsic, 1907.

MONTAGU, LADY MARY WORTLEY. Letters and Works of, Bohn Edition. London,

1887.

MONTALAMBERT, COMTE DE. Monks of the West. London, 1896.

MYERS, ANNIE N. Woman's Work in America. New York, 1891.

NUTTALL, ZELIA. The Fundamental Principles of Old and New World

Civilizations. Cambridge, Mass., 1901.

NOLHAC, PIERRE DE. Petrarque et l'Humanisme. Paris, 1892.

OELSNER, ELISE. Die Leistungen der deutschen Frau in den letzen

vierhundert Jahren auf wissenschaftlichem Gebiete. Guhrau, 1894.

OZANAM, A. F. Documents Inedits pour servir a l'Histoire Litteraire de

l'Italie. Paris, 1850.

PLATO'S DIALOGUES, Jowett's Translation. London, 1892.

POESTION, J. C., Griechische Dicterinnen. Wien, 1876.

----. Griechische Philosophinnen. Norden, 1885.

RASHDALL, H. The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages. Oxford,

1895.

REBIERE, A. Les Femmes dans la Science. Paris, 1897.

REICH, EMIL. Woman through the Ages. London, 1908.

RENAUD, A. Histoire Nouvelle des Arts et des Sciences. Paris, 1878.

RENZI DE, SALVATORE. Storia Documentata della Scuola Medica di Salerno.

Naples, 1857.

RODOCANACHI, E. La Femme Italienne a l'Epoque de la Renaissance. Paris,

1907.

ROUSSELOT, PAUL. Histoire de l'Education des Femmes en France. Paris,

1883.

SABBADINI, REMIGIO. Vita di Guarino Veronese. Genoa, 1891.

SAINTE-BEUVE, CHARLES-AUGUSTIN DE. Nouvelle Galerie de Femmes Celebres.

Paris, 1872.

SARTI, MAURI, ET FATTORINI, MAURI. De Claris Archigymnasii Bononiensis

Professoribus a Saeculo XI usque ad Saeculum XIV. Bologna, 1888-1896.

SCHLIEMANN, H. Ilios, the City and Country of the Trojans. New York,

1881.

SCHMIDT, A. Sur l'Age de Pericles. 1877-79.

SERTILLANGES, A. D. Feminisme et Christianisme. Paris, 1908.

SIMON, JULES. La Femme du Vingtieme Siecle. Paris, 1892.

SOCRATES, SCHOLASTICUS. Ecclesiastical History. London, 1848.

SOMERVILLE, MARY. Personal Recollections from Early Life to Old Age.

Boston, 1874.

STANTON, THEODORE. The Woman Question in Europe. New York, 1884.

STUPUY, H. Oeuvres Philosophiques de Sophie Germain. Paris, 1896.

SYMONDS, J. A. A Short History of the Renaissance in Italy. London,

1893.

THIERRY, A. Saint Jerome, La Societe Chretienne a Rome et l'Emigration

Romaine en Terre Sainte. Paris, 1867.

TIRABOSCHI, G. Storia della Letteratura Italiana. Milan, 1822.

VEITCH, J. Memoir of Sir William Hamilton. Edinburgh, 1869.

VIVES, JOANNES LUDOVICUS. De Tradendis Disciplinis. Colon, Agr., 1536.

WALLACE, R. Eleanor Ormerod, Economic Entomologist, Autobiography and

Correspondence. London, 1904.

WHARTON, H. T. Sappho. London, 1898.

WOLF, J. C. Mulierum Graecarum Quae Oratione Prosa Usae Sunt Fragmenta et

Elogia Graece et Latine. London, 1739.

----. Poetriarum Octo, Erinnae, Myrus, Myrtidis, Corinnae, Telesillae,

Praxillae, Nossidis, Anytae, Fragmenta et Elogia. Hamburg, 1734.

----. Sapphus, Poetriae Lesbiae, Fragmenta et Elogia. Hamburg, 1733.

WOODWARD, W. H. Vittorino da Feltre and Other Humanist Educators.

Cambridge, England, 1905.

WRIGHT, T. Womankind in Western Europe. London, 1869.

ZUCCANTE, GIUSSEPPE. Fra il Pensiero Antico e il Moderno. Milan, 1905.

Women Inventors to whom Patents have been granted by the United States

Government, Compiled under the Direction of the Commissioner of Patents.

Washington, D. C., 1888.

Histoire Letteraire de la France, Commencee par des Religieux

Benedictins de S. Maur et Continuee par des Membres de l'Institut.

Paris, 1793-1906.

INDEX

Abelard, 141, 142.

Abella, physician, 286.

_Abrege de Navigation_, Lalande's, 182.

Academy of ancient Athens, admission of women to, 10.

Academy of the Lincei, Donna Caetani-Bovatelli, dean of, 326.

Academy of Science, French. _See_ French Academy of Science.

_Acta Mythologica Apostolorum in Arabic_, translated by Agnes Lewis, 331

_footnote_.

Adams, (Mrs.) Abigail, quoted, 100.

Adams, Charles Francis, quoted, 100.

Adams, Elizabeth, 344.

Addison, 98.

Adelheid, 52.

Aegidius, quoted, 282 _footnote_.

Aeschines, 13.

Africa, Mary Kingsley's explorations in, 257, 258.

Agamede, physician, 267, 268.

Aganice, daughter of Sesostris, 167.

Agassiz, (Mrs.) Elizabeth Cary, 255, 377.

Agassiz, Jean Louis, 255, 378.

Aglaonice, the first woman astronomer, 167.

Agnesi, Maria Gaetana, 78, 79, 105, 228, 230;

knowledge of languages of, 143, 144;

achievements of, in mathematics, 144-150;

charitable works of, 148-151;

exclusion of, from French Academy, 393.

Agnodice, physician, 268, 269, 290.

Agricola, Rudolph, 62.

Agriculture, English Board of, 250.

Agriculturists, women as, 335, 338.

Agrippina, 24, 25; prose writings of, 28.

Albategni, 169.

Albert the Great, 233.

Alcaeus, in praise of Sappho, 6.

Alcala, University of, 68.

Alciphoron, 11.

Alexandria, Hypatia's work in, 138, 199, 200.

Algae, Dr. Snow's work on, 254.

Algarotti, Francisco, 152.

Algebra, taught by Hypatia, 139.

Alpine flora, Amalie Dietrich's collection of, 243.

Amazonia, explorations of Madame Coudreau in, 259-261.

Ambrosius, Franciscus, 142.

American Chemical Society, 228.

American Philosophical Society, 228.

Amoretti, Maria Pellegrina, 77.

Ampere, in praise of Emilie du Chatelet, 151.

_Analyse des Infiniment Petits_, by Marquis l'Hopital, 376.

Anatomical models, perfected by Anna Manzolini, 236;

perfected by Mlle. Biheron, 238.

Anatomy, the study of, by women, 236-238.

Anaxagoras, 12.

_Ancren Riwle_, 40.

Andrea, Novella d', 53, 79.

Andromeda, 6.

Anguisciola sisters of Cremona, 61.

Annals of Tacitus, 28.

Antelmy, Agnesi's _Analytical Institutions_ translated into

French by, 146.

Antiochis, physician, 270.

Antipater, epigram of, 6 _footnote_.

Anytae, 17.

Apelles, 11.

_Apocrypha Arabica_, edited by Margaret Gibson, 330 _footnote_.

_Apocrypha Sinaitica_, 330 _footnote_.

_Apocrypha Syriaca Sinaitica_, edited by Agnes Lewis,

331 _footnote_.

Apollonius, _Conic Sections_ of, Hypatia's commentary on, 168.

Apollonius of Perga, 139, 140.

Aquinas, Thomas, quoted, 297 _footnote_.

_Arabic Version of the Acta Apocrypha Apostolorum_ edited by Agnes Lewis,

331 _footnote_.

_Arabic Version of the Acts of the Apostles and the Seven Catholic

Epistles_, edited by Margaret Gibson, 330 _footnote_.

_Arabic Version of St. Paul's Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians,

Galatians and part of Ephesians_, by Margaret Gibson, 330

_footnote_.

Arago, 202.

Archaeology, museums of, 309, 310;

women in, 309-333;

American women in, 321-324.

Archagatos, 271.

Archimedes, 197.

Archlanassa, 10.

Ardinghelli, Maria Angela, 77, 142.

Arditi, Michele, 311.

Areometer, invention of, by Hypatia, 200.

Arete of Cyrene, teacher of philosophy, 197-199.

Arezzo, Leonardo d', course of study for women planned by, 84 _footnote_.

Ariosto, quoted, 6 _footnote_, 57;

in praise of Vittoria Colonna, 61, 63, 66.

Aristippus, 10, 197.

Aristotelian theory of difference between intellectual capacity of men and

women, 110.

Aristotle, in praise of Sappho, 5, 10, 197.

_Arithmetica_ of Diophantus, Hypatia's commentary on, 139, 168.

Arrighi, G. L., 364 _footnote_.

Art, achievements of women in, in Italy during the Renaissance, 60, 61.

Ascham, Roger, 69 _footnote_.

Asclepiades, 271.

Ashley, Mary, 196.

Aske, Robert, quoted, 41.

Aspasia, of Miletus, 12-14, 16, 17, 26.

Aspasia, physician, 199, 270.

Assisi, St. Francis, 358.

Astrolabe, invention of, by Hypatia, 140, 200.

_Astronomical Canon_, Hypatia's, 140, 168.

Astronomical Society of France, Dorothea Klumpke first woman member of,

194.

_Astronomie des Dames_, Lalande's, 178, 181.

Astronomy, achievements of Hypatia in, 139, 200-201;

women in, 167-196.

_At Susa_ by Mme. Dieulafoy, 320 _footnote_.

Athenaeus, 137.

Athens, position of women in, 3-5, 16, 18, 19, 199, 414, 415;

culture of, 404.

Attica, 198.

_Aucassin et Nicolette_, 275.

Augustus, Emperor, 19, 24.

Aurelia, mother of Julius Caesar, 22.

Austen, Jane, 98.

Auzoux, Dr., 236.

Ayrton, Mrs. W. E., achievements of, in electricity, 212, 230.

Baker, Lady, wife of Sir Samuel Baker, 374.

Balzac, 88.

Barbapiccola, Eleonora, of Salerno, 76.

Bascom, Florence, 254.

Bassani, Signora, lace-maker, 337.

Bassi, Laura, 78, 79, 147, 148, 203-209, 210, 211, 212, 298;

birth of, at Bologna, 203;

Doctorate of Physics bestowed upon, 204;

letters of Voltaire to, 207.

Bazzani, Doctor, 204.

Beatrice, 357, 361.

Beausoleil, Baroness de, 238-240.

Becquerel, M. H., 223, 227, 228.

Beethoven, 359.

Bellini, 66.

Bembo, Cardinal, 61, 63;

in praise of Elizabetta Gonzaga, 67.

Benedict XIV, 78, 147, 148, 203, 204, 228.

Berlin Academy of Sciences, 371.

Bern, University of, 304.

Bernouilli, Jean, 152.

Bernstein, Dr. Julius, on intellectual capacity of women, 133.

Berthollet, 216.

Besant, Sir Walter, quoted, 102-105.

Bianchetti, Giovanna, 298.

Bianchetti, Maddalena, 298.

Biheron, Mlle., 238.

Biology, 245, 254;

as a basis for woman's equality with man, 399.

Biot, 154, 216;

in praise of Sophie Germain, 156.

Bishop, Isabella Bird, 256.

Blackwell, Miss Elizabeth, physician, 300-304, 305, 307.

Bobinski, Countess, 196.

Boccaccio, 197.

Bocchi, Dorotea, 298.

Boileau's satire on Mme. de la Sabliere, 172.

_Boke of the Cyte of Ladyes_, quoted from, 106, 107, 108.

Boleyn, Anne, 69.

Bollandists, on work of St. Hildegard, 47.

Bologna, Academy of Sciences of, 207.

Bologna, University of, 203-210, 236, 296-299;

in Middle Ages, 53;

women lecturers and professors in, 57, 78, 79;

Dorotea Bucca of, 62;

degrees conferred upon Maddalena Canedi-Noe and Maria Vittoria Dosi

by, 77; chair of higher mathematics in, given to Maria Gaetana Agnesi,

78, 148.

Bonaparte, Caroline, archaeological excavations of, 311, 312, 317.

Bonaparte, Joseph, 311.

Borghini, Maria Selvaggia of Pisa, 76.

Borromeo, Clelia Grillo, of Genoa, 77, 142.

Bos, J. Ritzema, 253 _footnote_.

Bossuet, Abbe, 88, 146.

Boston, public schools of, 99.

Botany, 256;

Frau Kablick's studies in, 242, 243;

Amalie Dietrich's studies in, 243-244;

cryptoganic, 254.

Bouchet, Jean, quoted, 74 _footnote_.

Bovin, Mme. Marie, physician, 293-295.

Bowles, Ada C., quoted, 346, 347.

Boyd, Ella F., 254.

Boyd, Harriet, 317;

archaeological investigations of, 321, 322.

Boyd, Mary E., of Smith, 195.

Brahe, Sophia, 170.

Brahe, Tycho, 170.

Brain, convolutions of, as an index to intelligence, 122, 123;

frontal lobe of, in man and in woman, 122;

gray matter of, and its relation to intelligence, 123.

Brain weight, relation of, to mental power, 118-122, 124-126.

Brenzoni, Laura, 58, 59.

Brescia, University of, 62.

British Museum, 256, 258.

Britton, Elizabeth G., 254.

Broca, 116, 126.

Bronte sisters, 98, 114, 115, 264.

Brosses, M. Charles de, quoted, 144.

Brougham, Lord, 159.

Brown, Alice, 196.

Browning, Elizabeth Barrett, 114.

Bruce, Miss C., 196.

Brush, Mary, 344.

Brussels, 229.

Brutus, 23.

Bryn Mawr, College of, 166.

Bucca, Dorotea, 62, 79.

Buechner, 246.

Buckland, Mrs. William, 374, 375.

Buckle, 384, 385, 386.

Burckhardt, 210.

Burney, Fanny, 98.

Burnmeister, 248.

Bush, Katherine J., 254.

Butter, Josephine E., 291 _footnote_.

Caedmon, influence of St. Hilda on, 37, 38.

Caesar, Aurelia, mother of, 22.

Caetani-Bovatelli, Donna Ersilia, archaeologist, 324-327.

Caetani-Sermonetta, Duke of, 324, 325.

Caius Musonius Rufus, on education of women, 30, 31.

Calendrini, Bettina, 298.

Calendrini, Novella, 298.

California, University of, 323.

Calphurnia, letters of, 29.

Calpurnia, 356, 361.

Cambridge, University of, funds from suppressed convents devoted to,

41, 42; exclusion of women from, 80, 100, 230, 330-333.

Camoens, 57.

Candolle, Alphonse de, 392, 393.

Canedi-Noe, Maddalena, 77.

Cannon, Annie J., 195.

Canova, in praise of Suor Plantilla Nelli, 60 _footnote_.

_Canticle of the Sun, The_, by St. Francis Assisi, quoted, 359.

_Cape Observations_, Herschel's, 186, 189.

Carlyle, quoted, 79 _footnote_.

Cassius, wife of, 23.

Castiglione, 66, 67;

in praise of women, 359.

_Catalogue of Eight Hundred and Sixty Stars Observed by Flamsteed but Not

Included in the British Catalogue_, by Caroline Herschel, 186.

Catani, Giuseppina, professor of pathology at Bologna, 296.

Caterzani, 299.

Catherine of Aragon, 68, 69.

Cato, quoted, 27.

Catullus, 5.

Celeste, Sister Maria, daughter of Galileo, 363-369.

Celleor, Mrs., quoted, 268.

Celsus, 174.

Ceretta, Laura, 62.

Cervantes, 57.

Chantry, bust of Mary Somerville by, 159.

Charity, Sisters of, 308.

Charlemagne, 39.

Chateaubriand, 256.

Chatelain, 289 _footnote_.

Chatelet, Emilie du, 87; 151-153;

achievements of, in astronomy, 175-177;

as mathematical physicist, 201, 202.

Chaucer, quoted, 40 _footnote_.

Chemistry, women in, 214-232;

sanitary, 218.

Chesterfield, Lord, quoted, 97.

Chiavello, Livia, of Fabriano, 59.

Chinchon, Countess of, 299 _footnote_.

Chinchona bark, introduction of, into Europe, 299 _footnote_.

Chopin, 359.

_Christian Inscriptions in the Irish Language_ by Miss Stotes, 316.

Christine of Sweden, 82, 94, 370.

Church of the Household, 31-34.

Cibo, Catarina, of Genoa, 59, 60.

Cicero, 8;

tribute of, to Laelia, 23;

Tulia's letters to, 29.

Cirey, 201.

_Cite des Dames_, 106, 107, 108, 109, 134.

Clairaut, 152;

work of, with Mme. Lepaute, 179, 180.

Clapp, Cornelia M., 254.

Clarke, Cora H., 254.

Claviere, in praise of women, 360.

Claypole, Agnes M., 254.

Claypole, Edith J., 254.

Cleopatra, physician, 270.

Clerke, Agnes M. and Ellen M., 196.

_Codex Ludovicus_, discovery of, 328, 333.

_Codex Nuttall_, 324.

_Codex Sinaiticus_, 328.

Coeducational institutions, comparative standing of men and

women in, 128,129.

Colonna, Vittoria, 61, 62, 65, 359.

Colton, Rev. John, Agnesi's _Analytical Institutions_ translated into

French by, 146, 147.

Columbus, 56, 380.

Comstock, Anna Botsford, 254.

Comte, 245.

Conde, 88.

Condorcet, 334 _footnote_.

_Conic Sections_, of Apollonius, Hypatia's commentary on, 139, 140, 168.

_Connection of the Physical Sciences_ by Mary Somerville, 160, 211.

_Considerations Generales sur l'Etat des Sciences et des Lettres aux

Differentes Epoques de Leur Culture_ by Sophie Germain, 156.

Convent of Arles, 36;

of Poitiers, 36;

of St. Hilda, 36;

of Bishopsheim, 39;

of St. Rupert at Bingen, 46;

of Helfta, 49.

Convent schools, 36, 41.

Convents, as centers of learning in Middle Ages, 35-53;

suppression of, in England, 41, 42;

advantages of, 51;

influence of, 51-53.

_Conventus Matronarum_, 27.

_Conversations on Chemistry_, by Mrs. Marcet, 372.

Copernicus, 56, 189.

Corinna, 6, 17.

Corneille, 88.

Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi, 22, 25, 26.

Cornelia, wife of Pompey, 22.

Cotton gin, invention of, 351, 352.

Coudreau, Henri, 258.

Coudreau, Mme. Octavie, 256, 258-264;

books by, 263 _footnote_.

_Courtier_, Castiglione's, 66, 67.

Cramoisy, Marie, 82.

Cranial capacity, relation of, to mental energy, 115-117.

_Crete, the Forerunner of Greece_, by Mrs. Hawes, 322.

Crevaux, 262.

Crisculo, Maria Angela, 61.

Cumming, Constance Gordon, 256.

Cummings, Clara E., 254

Cunitz, Maria, 170, 171.

Cunningham, Susan, of Swarthmore, 195.

Curie, Mme. Marie Klodowska, 326, 333, 362, 394, 397, 221-232;

birth and early life of, 221-222;

marriage of, to Pierre Curie, 222;

scientific investigations and discoveries of, 223-226;

honors of, 227-232.

Curie, Pierre, 222, 224.

Cushman, Florence, 195.

Cuvier, weight of brain of, 119, 215, 216.

Cyrene, school of philosophy at, 197.

Dacier, Mme., 82, 83 _footnote_.

Damien, Father, 274.

Danophila, 7.

Dante, 117, 324, 325, 357.

Darboux, M., in praise of Dorothea Klumpke, 193, 194.

Daremberg, Dr. Charles, 234, 270, 287 and 288 _footnote_.

Darmstadt, Medical College of, 292.

Darwin, on man, 3, 113;

quoted, 124.

Darwin's _Origin of Species_, the French translation of, by Clemence

Royer, 245.

Davy gold medal of the Royal Society awarded to the Curies, 227.

Davidson, Ada B., 254.

Da Vinci, Leonardo, 66.

Dawes, 191.

_Decameron_, The, 197.

_De Compositione Medicamentorum_, by Trotula, 285.

Deffand, Mme. du, 11, 89, 92;

Marquise du Chatelet ridiculed by, 177 and _footnote_, 178

_footnote_.

_Deipnosophistoe_, of Athenaeus, 137.

Delambre, 216.

De Lamennais, on woman's intellectual inferiority, 136.

_De Morbis Mulierum et Eorum Cura_, by Trotula, 284 _footnote_.

Demosthenes, quoted, 3 _footnote_; 10.

Denifle, 79, 289 _footnote_.

Denver School of Mines, woman principal of, 254.

_De Orbium Celestium Revolutionibus_, 189.

_De Problemate quodam Hydrometrico_ by Laura Bassi, 209 _footnote_.

_De Problemate quodam Mechanico_ by Laura Bassi, 208 _footnote_.

De Prony, in praise of Sophie Germaine, 154.

Descartes, 88, 94, 202;

doctrines of, 175, 176;

female pupils of, 369, 370.

Destouches, 86, 87.

Diaz, Porfirio, 324.

_Didascalia Apostolorum in Syriac, The_, edited by Margaret

Gibson, 331 _footnote_.

Diderot, attitude of, toward women, 93.

Dietrich, Amalie, botanist, 243-244.

Dieulafoy, Mme., archaeologist, 317, 362;

archaeological expeditions of, 318-321.

Dieulafoy, Marcel, 318.

Diocletian, 272.

Diogenes, 10.

Diophantus, _Arithmetica_ of, Hypatia's commentary on, 139, 168.

Diotima of Mantinea, Socrates' tribute to, 11.

_Divina Commedia_ by Dante, 357.

Dock, Lavinia L., 280 _footnote_.

Doni Gasquet on dissolution of convents, 41.

Donne, Maria dalle, 79;

as professor of obstetrics, 209;

as surgeon, 299-300.

Dorat, Jean, quoted, 71 _footnote_.

Dosi, Maria Vittoria, 77, 298.

Dramas of Hroswitha, 43, 44.

Draper, Mrs. Henry, endowment of the Henry Draper Memorial at Harvard

by, 196.

Dryden, 98.

Dumee, Jeanne, 171.

Dunraven's _Notes on Irish Architecture_, edited by Miss Stotes, 316.

Dupanloup, Mgr., quoted, 396 _footnote_.

Dupre, Marie, 82.

Dupuytren, 294.

_Early Christian Art in Ireland_, by Miss Stotes, 316.

Eastman, Alice, 254.

_Ecclesia Domestica_, 31-34.

Eckenstein, Lina, quoted, 50 _footnote_;

on influence of convents, 52, 53.

Ecole de Medecine of Paris, admittance of women to, 290.

Ecole de Physique et de Chimie in Paris, 223.

_Ecole des Femmes_, 412.

Edinburgh, University of, 228, 305;

opposition of, to women, 80;

Miss Ormerod receives degree of Doctor of Laws at, 252.

Education, during the Renaissance, 71-75;

in England, in the Middle Ages, 36-42;

in France, in the post-Renaissance period, 83-85.

Education of women in ancient Greece, 1-18;

in ancient Rome, 18-34;

in Greece and Rome compared, 26, 27;

in the Middle Ages, 34-54;

during the Renaissance, 54-75;

in Germany, in post-Renaissance period, 93, 94;

in England, in post-Renaissance period, 96-98;

in the United States, in the post-Renaissance period 99, 100;

changes in, in last three-quarters of a century, 102-105;

in Italy, 210.

Edwards, Amelia B., 256.

Eigenman, Rose S., 254.

Electricity, work of Mrs. Ayrton in, 212.

Eliot, George, 98, 264.

Elizabeth of Bohemia, 94, 369, 370, 371.

Elizabeth, Queen, 69, 70;

failure of, to provide for education of women, 42.

Elizabeth of Sweden, 82.

Elizabeth, wife of Hevilius, 175.

Ellis, Havelock, 117, 343 _footnote_.

_Elogie Historique_, Voltaire's, 152, 153.

Emerson, quoted, 105.

Encyclopedists, attitude of, toward women, 93.

Engineering, on trans-Siberian railroad in charge of a woman, 102.

England, education in, in the Middle Ages, 36-42;

prestige of abbesses in, 52;

position of woman in, during the Renaissance, 57, 69;

position of women in, during post-Renaissance period, 95-99;

women physicians in, 304-307;

feminine population of, 407.

Entomology, 256;

achievements of Missouri woman in, 254.

Entomology, economic, Eleanor Ormerod's work in, 247-252;

her publications on, 249-250.