KKCRKATIONS WITH THE MICROSCOPE 



343 



to consider as outside the pale of mi- 

 croscopist charity those people who 

 say, on looking at a slide, "How love- 

 ly! What is it!" 



Microscopy, thus regarded, possesses 

 three sharply marked divisions. It can 

 serve i) as a handmaiden to the 

 sciences by yielding additional mater- 

 ial from realms below the range of 

 normal vision ; 2) as a provocative of 

 intellectual interest and a spur to edu- 

 cation, whether self-education or oth- 

 erwise, and 3) as an emotional stimu- 

 lus, satisfying the senses with beauty. 

 The first is a process or research, and 

 not a thing in itself ; the second is a 

 process of education and not a thing in 

 itself; the third is pure art and is a 

 thing of itself. Since the first presup- 

 poses a line of scientific research that 

 is being followed, it cannot be called 

 "popular" ; since the second presup- 

 poses a desire to secure general infor- 

 mation, it cannot be called popular ; 

 since the third inherently satisfies the 

 beholder, it can and should be called 

 "popular." This art, then contains the 

 nexus of popular microscopy. 



Let me give a few sharply contrast- 

 ed examples. The flea of a rat is a 

 creature most deserving of study as a 

 part of scientific research because of 

 its possible relation to bubonic plague ; 

 the cheese mite is a matter of intelli- 

 gent curiosity ; the moths of the leaf- 

 mining caterpillars are lovelier than 

 any of the butterflies we can see with 

 the naked eye. The average unin- 

 formed person will say "How queer !" 

 to the first, "How horrid !" to the sec- 

 ond and "How lovely!" to the third. 

 It is my contention that Popular Mi- 

 croscopy should lay more stress on 

 those things which are lovely. 



Let us take an illustration from the 

 vegetable world. The fungus of a 

 plant-disease is of importance to the 

 plant pathologist ; the cross section of 

 a pine needle is of value to the botani- 

 cal beginner; the pollen grain of the 

 hollyhock is a marvel of beauty in it- 

 self. It is my contention that Popular 

 Microscopy should exclude the two 

 former types from its domain and 

 amplify in the latter. 



Let us take a popular lecture with 

 lantern slides. There are three classes 

 of lantern slides, just as there are three 

 classes of microscope slides; those 

 which are technical, those which are 



interesting and those which are beauti- 

 ful. Permit me to assure you, from a 

 long experience, that popular interest 

 depends in no small measure upon the 

 inclusion of a large proportion of 

 slides which may or may not be direct- 

 ly applicable to the subject of the lec- 

 ture, but which attract popular atten- 

 tion because of their sheer beauty of 

 color. 



The sense appeal is always stronger 

 than the brain appeal. Popular Micros- 

 copy has been barking up the wrong 

 tree, it has tried to appeal to the pub- 

 lic by the brain route. 



In order to awaken a wide popular 

 appeal and love for microscopy, it is 

 my first conviction that the public 

 should be taught to regard the micro- 

 scope as a medium for opening a new 

 world of beauty, not a new world of 

 instruction. To regard the microscope 

 only as an aid to scientific research is 

 equivalent to a declaration that draw- 

 ing and painting should be confined 

 only to the delineation of anatomical 

 dissections. 



Why is there such an outcry against 

 the destruction of Rheims Cathedral? 

 Is it because the public realizes the 

 amazing architectural skill evinced in 

 the balancing of the thrust ? Is it be- 

 cause it is a religious edifice? No. It 

 is because it is a thing of beauty. Is 

 the huge membership and work of the 

 Audubon Society dependent on a pub- 

 lic knowledge of microscopy? Not a 

 whit. It is because people love birds 

 for the charm of their melody and the 

 beauty of their Presence in the woods 

 and fields. 



In order that I might assure myself 

 that I am in the right in saying that 

 microscopy has always been on the 

 wrong track in its efforts to interest the 

 public, I visited one of our largest 

 libraries in the United States and got 

 down from the shelves every book to 

 be found there published on micro- 

 scopy during the past fifty years. I as- 

 sure you, less than ten per cent, of any 

 of these volumes dealt with objects 

 that were beautiful in themselves. The 

 sole book which had a slight purview 

 of this need was an amplification of a 

 slide-maker's catalogue. He had found 

 out, through the character of his pur- 

 chases, the slides which were most in 

 demand. And these demands, be it re- 

 membered, came from microscopists of 



