218. IX. THAT IN ITSELF THE INTELLIGENCE OF WOMEN IS MODEST, ELEGANT, PACIFIC, YIELDING, GENTLE, TENDER; AND THE INTELLIGENCE OF MEN IN ITSELF IS GRAVE, HARSH, HARD, SPIRITED, FOND OF LICENSE. That such is the nature of women and such the nature of men, is very manifest from the body, face, voice, speech, bearing, and manners of each. From their BODY, in that with men the skin and flesh are hard, but with women soft. From their FACE, in that with men it is harder, more resolute, rougher, darker, also bearded, thus less beautiful, and with women, softer, more yielding and tender, fairer and hence more beautiful.* From their VOICE, in that with men it is hard but with women soft. From their SPEECH, in that with men it is fond of license and bold but with women modest and pacific. From their BEARING, in that with men it is more vigorous and firmer and with women less vigorous and weaker. From their MANNERS, in that with men they are more unrestrained, with women more elegant.
 How greatly, from their very birth, the genius of men differs from that of women was made clearly manifest to me from seeing gatherings of boys and girls. In a great city, looking through my window, I have several times seen them in the street where more than twenty were gathered together every day. There the boys, following their connate disposition, played together by making a great noise, shouting, fighting, striking blows, and throwing stones at each other; while the girls sat quietly at the doors of the houses, some playing with infants, some dressing dolls, some embroidering pieces of linen, some kissing each other and, what astonished me, they yet watched the boys just as they were, with pleased looks. From this I could clearly see that man is born understanding and woman love. I could also see the nature of understanding and love in their beginnings; and thus, what the understanding of man would be in its progression without conjunction with feminine and later with conjugial love.
* The text has et inde pulchritudines, but the et inde shows that this is an error for pulchriore (as in the translation), in apposition to the preceding impulchriore.