548 



NATURE 



[July 



IQ20 



The dialectical methods of the Middle Ages, admir- 

 ably adapted to the sharpening of wits and the enter- 

 tainment of audiences, have long been regarded by 

 men of science as an inferior means of arriving at 

 truth. 1 have no wish to enter into controversy with 

 my friend Prof. Walsh as to the general merits of 

 Aristotle. Yet 1 will venture to sum up in a sentence 

 what 1 believe to be the conclusions of the over- 

 whelming majority of modern Aristotelian scholars 

 and of scientific men who have investigated the works 

 of the master : Aristotle's physical science is almost 

 worthless from the modern point of view; it has 

 scarcely any serious basis of observation and none of 

 experiment; his biological works, on the other hand, 

 show him to have been an admirable and careful 

 observer of animal life. He was thus an excellent 

 naturalist but a very poor physicist. I will further 

 endeavour to epitomise the verdict of most scientific 

 students of the Middle Ages on his position in 

 medieval science. It was chiefly Aristotle's physical 

 works that earned for him his scientific reputation in 

 the Middle Ages; his biological works exerted little 

 influence until the sixteenth century. Those who 

 assent to these propositions will not agree that "we 

 have come to appreciate better medieval regard for 

 him." 



As regards Hugh of Lucca, I am aware of the 

 existence of the " Chirurgia " of Theodoric, and that 

 he was perhaps the son of Hugh, though, to my mind. 

 Prof. Walsh has greatly exaggerated the scientific 

 value of his work. But Theodoric 's treatise, though 

 certainly very interesting to us, was not greatly prized 

 by the Middle Ages. Hence copies of it are very rare, 

 and among the fifteen thousand or so medical MSS. 

 that have survived in this country only one (Ashmole 

 1427, fourteenth century) contains it. A treatise 

 possibly founded on it has survived in one English 

 codex of somewhat later date (Magd. Coll. Cambridge, 

 Pepys, 1661). • Theodoric 's treatise was not printed 

 until 1498. I see nothing in it, or in what Prof. 

 Walsh now says of it, to justify a modification of my 

 criticism. The English reader who cares to learn 

 more of Theodoric will find a sympathetic account of 

 him in Sir Clifford AUbutt's "Historical Relations of 

 Medicine and Surgery," and a very full analysis of 

 his "Chirurgia" in E. Gurlt's " Geschichte der 

 Chirurgie." . . 



The judgment of the Renaissance prmters m their 

 selection of medical works is a matter of opinion. 

 The sixteenth century had run a quarter of its course 

 ere they made Hippocrates accessible (earliest Latin 

 edition, Jlome, 1525; earliest Greek edition, Venice, 

 1526). By that time the ponderous " Kanun " of 

 Avicenna had already passed through at least twenty- 

 two editions (Editio princeps, Strassburg, 1472). 

 Those who rate Hippocrates higher than Avicenna — 

 or than Theodoric— will rate the judgment of the 

 Renaissance printers— and readers— accordingly. 



Against Prof. Walsh's suggestion that I am opposed 

 to any good being said of the Middle Ages I am 

 sufficiently protected by my published works. How- 

 ever these be estimated, they will yet, I hope, guard 

 me against the accusation of having neglected that 

 period. Under such protection as they may afford I 

 would add my regret to that of many of Prof. Walsh's 

 other admirers that he does not use. his great learii- 

 ing and literary gifts to portray medieval life as it 

 was instead of as that of a Civitas Dei, which it was 

 not. Whatever the scientific aspirations of the age, 

 the scientific achievement was very small. The ex- 

 planations of this failure are various, but in denying 

 the fact Prof. Walsh belongs to an exceedingly small 

 band of scholars whose conclusions seem also, to 

 some of us, to be shaped by certain preconceived 

 NO. 2644, VOL. 105] 



ideas. But we shall not, on that account, value the 



less any contribution to knowledge that he may make. 



Oxford, June 12. Charles Singer. 



Commercial Parasitism in the Cotton Industry. 



The opinion of Sir George Watt in Nature of 

 February 23 that the report to the Board of Trade 

 of the Empire Cotton Growing Committee is "in- 

 geniously elaborated," but leaves a "confused im- 

 pression," may justify a brief consideration of an 

 allied phase of the subject. Why "the whole history 

 of cotton improvement is most disheartening " may 

 be explained if an essential feature has been omitted. 

 The argument for research is ably presented in the 

 pamphlet issued at Manchester by the Provisional 

 Committee on Research and Education for the Cotton 

 Industry, but with no reflection of the actual state of 

 production. 



Not only should planters have industrial informa- 

 tion, as recognised in Sir George Watt's proposal of 

 a central research institution at Manchester, but on 

 the part of manufacturers, financiers, economists, and 

 commercial leaders there is acute need of agricultural 

 information. Industrial interest in cotton improve- 

 ment must be made effective through the commercial 

 channels that lead back to the farmer. Problems of 

 agricultural application must be solved, in addition 

 to developing superior varieties, devising better cul- 

 tural methods, and controllin.^ diseases or insert para- 

 sites. The elaboration of the cotton research pro- 

 gramme mav be entirely logical, but without an 

 effective tie-back to the farmer there can be no 

 prospect of a general application of the results of 

 technical investigation, either industrial or biological, 

 to purposes of production. 



The central cotton institution at Manchester should 

 be equipped for anv elaboration of research that may 

 be necessary to determine and demonstrate to manu- 

 facturers the relation of the svstem of buying to the 

 improvement of production. The parasitic tendencies 

 of the present commercial system are not limited to 

 the speculative features that are being restricted bv 

 law or to the taking of undue profits, but lead to 

 enormous agricultural and industrial waste through 

 the production and manufacture of inferior fibre, 

 passed on to the consumer in weaker and more perish- 

 able fabrics. 



To expect manufacturers to be interested in the 

 cotton plant or in the details of farm operations in 

 the growing of cotton might be unreasonable, but at 

 least the financial aspects of cotton production would 

 receive attention if manufacturers knew how their 

 interests are prejudiced by the present commercial 

 system. Instead of serving as a conductor of interest 

 in improved production from the spinner to the farmer, 

 the commercial system has the manufacturers and the 

 growers fenced apart and misinformed regarding the 

 general needs of the industry. 



Manufacturers are accustomed to pay more for good 

 cotton, and naturally suppose that the farmers who 

 raise better fibre receive higher prices for their crops, 

 but investigation will show that most of the profit is 

 absorbed by the buyers. The commercial idea of 

 improving cotton is by "classing" the present mis- 

 cellaneous crop into the so-called "even-running lots." 

 Buyers like to get long-staple bales at short-staple 

 prices, but do not forgo present profits in order to_ 

 encourage the improvement of future crops that some-" 

 body else may buy. The commercial system provides 

 no incentive for improved production. 



The farmer is at liberty, of course, to raise better 

 cotton if he chooses, but extra care and expense must 

 be given, with no assurance of being able to sell at a 

 higher price. Instead of gaining an advantage or of 

 being encouraged to continue the planting ot a betiei 



