EDITOR'S TABLE. 



109 



cord, as we are now compelled to do, that 

 this time the impression was not a very 

 favorable one. In one word, the president's 

 discourse was much too technical for the 

 occasion and the audience. It would be un- 

 generous to cast any personal responsibility 

 for this result on the eminent specialist who 

 was chosen for the office. The gift of inter- 

 preting the results of highly-special re- 

 searches for the benefit of those who are not 

 prepared beforehand by special knowledge 

 is by no means a common one in fact, it is 

 itself a specialty which very few have mas- 

 tered ; for which reason people who are 

 anxious to parade themselves as amateurs 

 in science are much in the habit of cheapen- 

 ing it. The notion that Prof. Huxley and 

 Prof. Tyndall are mere popularizers be- 

 cause, forsooth, they can expound as well as 

 discover has almost attained the rank of a 

 vulgar error. Some remarks to that effect 

 were heard at this very meeting in the 

 Guildhall of Plymouth. Those who imag- 

 ine that such remarks give them a scientif- 

 ic air may be assured that there is no more 

 certain stamp of a narrow and superficial 

 habit of mind. However, we cannot all go 

 to Corinth ; a specialist, however eminent, 

 has not necessarily the gift of large and lu- 

 cid exposition, and if he has not, the temp- 

 tation to take refuge in the technical details 

 of his own province is almost irresistible." 



The pettiness and jealousy here rep- 

 robated is by no means confined to 

 England ; it has become a sort of cant 

 among many reputable scientific men 

 in the United States. The contemptu- 

 ous remarks often made of the efforts 

 of such men as Huxley and Tyndall to 

 make science acceptable to the public 

 are not always inspired by envy ; they 

 betray a very low estimate, often tinged 

 with scorn, of all efforts to reduce sci- 

 ence to a form acceptable to common 

 people. We have had occasion repeat- 

 edly to call attention to the paradox 

 that, in this country, eminent for its 

 popular institutions and its popular 

 education, scientific men are in less 

 hearty sympathy with the work of 

 popularizing scientific education than 

 they are in England. The American 

 Scientific Association has persistently 

 declined to take any interest in the 

 question, while the British Association, 



upon which it was modeled, has done 

 much to encourage and promote this 

 kind of effort. Although our teachers 

 and boards of education have often and 

 urgently called for assistance in organ- 

 izing courses of study in which science 

 should receive increasing attention, and 

 be more methodically and efficiently 

 cultivated, we are not aware that any 

 authoritative body of American scien- 

 tists has ever troubled itself to offer ad- 

 vice or respond to such appeals. 



There is, of course, a certain validity 

 in the reply that scientific bodies are 

 organized for other purposes, and that, 

 as Agassiz used to put it, "it is their 

 office to create science, and not to dis- 

 tribute it the latter function being the 

 office of our educational system." But 

 if our system fail of its duty in this par- 

 ticular, it is certainly incumbent on 

 those influential bodies, who have the 

 interests of science in charge, to exert 

 such an influence upon the schools as 

 shall tend to secure the object, and, fail- 

 ing to do this, they are chargeable with 

 a culpable indifference toward the work 

 of making science common and popular. 

 The plea that scientific men are absorbed 

 in investigations, and have little time 

 to give to these outside considerations, 

 is quite sufficient to excuse a simple 

 non-participation in such work ; but 

 there is abundant reason to think that 

 the plea is often an uncandid pretext, 

 and that the disinclination to act is due 

 to narrow and petty prejudices upon 

 the subject. 



The indifference of many scientific 

 men to the work of popularizing science, 

 and their ill-concealed disdain of those 

 who succeed in it, are no doubt largely 

 due to their incapacity to share in it. 

 We have, unfortunately, but few scien- 

 tific men with sufficient literary train- 

 ing to write with elegance or lecture 

 with eloquence upon topics which they 

 may nevertheless thoroughly under- 

 stand, and the number of scientific pro- 

 fessors who fail in exposition before 

 the public, and even before their col- 



