GERMAN SCIENCE. 



By Prof. J. ARTHUR THOMSON. M.A., LL.D. 



A comparative survey oi the scientific pro- 

 ductivity of different nationalities, such as we have 

 attempted in some detail in a contribution to the 

 symposium entitled " German Culture " (Jacks, 

 1015), is obviously beset with great difficulties. 

 One of these is involved in tin- fa< I that a nationality 

 i> made up oi various racial strains, differing widely 

 in their scientific and other qualities. To take 

 a familiar illustration, how is the historian of 

 biological science to be sure how many oi the 

 famous physiologists and pathologists of Germany 

 must be ranked racially a- Jews ? There have also 

 been potent immigrations, well represented by 

 such men as the physiologist Haller, the botanist 

 Nageli, the zoologist Kolliker, the mathematician 

 Euler, who were identified with Germany in their 

 life and labours, but belonged by birth to Switzer- 

 land. Another difficulty in comparison is that, 

 after we have taken account of the few giants 

 whom all the world acknowledges, we encounter 

 extraordinary differences of opinion as to the merits 

 of even famous investigators. Thus in the history 

 of science some will attach considerable importance — 

 rightly, we think — to Goethe, and others none at all. 

 Some will compare Haeckel with Huxley, while 

 others regard him as quite second class. Some 

 will compare Ehrlich and Almroth Wright, Koch 

 and Pasteur, while others regard the collocations 

 as far from felicitous. Some will compare Helm- 

 holtz and Kelvin. Kirchhoff and J. J. Thomson, 

 Hertz and Fitzgerald, while others regard this as 

 betraying a loss of perspective. The reasons for 

 this divergence of opinion are several. " Every 

 man for his own country " is one ; another is that 

 there are several distinct species of scientific dis- 

 coverer ; and a third is that while one valuator 

 is thinking of the investigator's mental ability. 

 another is considering the influence that his teaching 

 or his published work has had on the development 

 of science. There is a further difficulty in a com- 

 parative valuation, conducted in public, that not a 

 few of the very greatest names are quite unfamiliar 

 even to the omniscient general reader. Thus, 

 to take a diagrammatic illustration from the 

 essay already mentioned, we believe it to be true 

 that the names of Green (1793-1841), Galois 

 (1811-1830), and Gauss (1777-1855) stand for 

 mathematical achievements of the very highest 

 order, but how few outside of the ranks of mathe- 

 maticians know anything about these three geniuses, 

 or any one of them ! We doubt if Green has even 

 the honour of an article in the " Encyclopaedia 

 Britannica " ! Marconi is much better known than 

 Galvani, and Edison than Willard Gibbs ; and it 

 is quite natural that it should be so. The work 

 of those who lay foundations is rarely known to 



spectators ; it is not rightly appreciated save by 

 the greater builders. 



One of the impressions that we get from a geo- 

 graphical survey of scientific productivity is 

 that of the widespread distribution of discoverers. 

 Wherever two or three are gathered together in 

 the name of Pallas, there the revealing spirit is at 

 work. Nor is the solitary devotee left unrewarded. 

 To think of Italy is to remember Galileo and 

 Galvani, Volta and Veronese, Avogadro and 

 Borelli, Cannizzaro and Spallanzani, to take the 

 names as they tumble out. Russia recalls von 

 Baer, one of the few very great minds who have 

 given their life to Biology ; Kowalevsky, who 

 discovered the affinities of Ascidians ; Metschnikoff, 

 with his far-reaching theory of phagocytes and 

 inflammation ; Mendeleeff, with his Periodic Law ; 

 the mathematical genius Lobachevski ; the physio- 

 logist Pavloff, and many other investigators of 

 extraordinary brilliance. We cannot pass to 

 Poland without thinking of the scientific chain 

 linking Madame Curie (Marie Sklodowska) to Coper- 

 nicus, or of the wonderful family of the Bolyai. 

 Austria makes one think of Mendel, whose work has 

 changed all our thinking in regard to heredity, 

 and of the Viennese school of medicine which 

 began with Rokitansky. Sweden was the home 

 of Linnaeus and of a succession of great chemists 

 from Berzelius to Arrhemus. Speaking of chemists 

 reminds us of the great part Holland has recently 7 

 played through Van 't Hoff and Van der Waals, 

 and Belgium through Le Bel. The Dutch con- 

 tributions to physical science have been of high 

 importance from Huygens — more or less con- 

 temporary with Newton — to Lorentz of to-day. 

 One other reference must suffice, and that not to 

 Britain, France, or Germany 7 , which have each 

 their galaxy of great investigators, but to the small 

 country of Switzerland, with Haller as physiologist, 

 Louis Agassiz as palaeontologist, Kolliker as 

 zoologist, Euler and the Bernoullis as mathe- 

 maticians, Nageli as botanist, and so on. In fact, 

 every civilised country has its scientific roll of 

 honour, though in some cases it is no longer than 

 it should be. 



A second impression that we get from an im- 

 partial comparative study is that Britain, France, 

 and Germany run neck and neck. If we take a 

 series of more or less analogous names, without 

 attaching too much importance to this rough-and- 

 ready method, we see that the balance dips now 

 to one side and now to another. If we could, as we 

 cannot, represent the merits of three counterparts — 

 British, French, and German — by the three sides 

 of a triangle, the lengths would now be in favour 

 of Britain, again in favour of France, and again in 



142 



