May, 1915. 



KNOWLEDGE. 



143 



favour of Germany ; yet a superposition of a 

 number of triangles sufficiently large to get rid 

 of conspicuous inequalities would yield a not very 

 irregular figure. This, at least, is one of the con- 

 clusions arrived at in the detailed essay we have 

 cited. Let us take a few examples, the British 

 representatives being alphabetically arranged. 



Another impression produced by a detailed survey 

 is that there are distinctive features in the scientific 

 output of the different nationalities. There are a 

 few French-like Englishmen and a larger number 

 who are German-like, and so forth, but on the whole 

 there are definable characteristics. British work 

 seems, not unnaturally, to be marked by its sanity, 

 its true perspective, its self-criticism, and its 

 evidence of having been done for its own sake. 

 French science is distinguished by clearness both of 

 style and vision, by individuality, originality, and 

 defiance of traditions. German investigators are 

 characterised by thoroughness, learning, orderliness, 

 careful technique, and a convinced belief in the 

 value of science as a whole, and of their own 

 contributions in particular. The persistence with 

 which one investigator will give almost the whole 

 of his life to the study of the dogfish head, or another 

 to the nerve cell, or a third to centipedes, with 

 occasional holidays among millepedes, is colossal. 

 There have been changes within recent years, 

 but many German investigators have held firmly 

 to the old tradition of devotedness to the task 

 undertaken, of plain living and high thinking, and 

 of industrious productivity. But besides the 



tradition there is the temperament, accentuated 

 by habit, of strenuous persistence. They have in 

 high development that quality to which Darwin 

 referred in himself when he said, " It's dogged that 

 does it." No doubt the German investigators, 

 like others, have the defects of their qualities. 

 The demand for output has often led to hasty and 

 purely quantitative work, or the extreme specialism 

 to a loss of perspective, or the standard of thorough- 

 ness to tedious prolixity. In other nationalities 

 there is a wholesome prejudice against longwinded- 

 ness in science, against pushing detailed description 

 beyond the limit of probable utility ; but it is 

 characteristic of descriptive science in Germany to 

 recognise no limit but that of the available analytic 

 methods of the day. There is, to be sure, something 

 fine in this, and if it be sometimes a rather ridiculous 

 little mouse that the mountain brings forth, it is 

 usually an irrefutable mouse that has come to 

 stay. 



It has been repeatedly asserted during recent 

 months that German science is largely derivative, 

 and that German investigators get hold of the ideas 

 of others, and work them out. This is probably true 

 in regard to certain lines of investigation, just as 

 for others it is true of Britain, Russia, America, 

 and the rest. It is least true of France ; but the fact 

 is, that there has been continual cross-fertilisation in 

 the evolution of science. Even if it be admitted that 

 Germany has seen the birth of fewer big scientific 

 ideas than France or Britain — which is doubtful — 

 credit is due to investigators who have detected the 

 promise of dormant seeds, and have brought 

 them to development. To those who remind us 

 that Hertz, for instance, stood on the shoulders 

 of Fitzgerald, it may be answered that Bateson 

 stands on the shoulders of Mendel ; and both state- 

 ments would be ridiculously farjji off adequate 

 accuracy. If it be maintained that the foundation- 

 stones of the theory of electricity have been 

 mainly laid in Britain, is it not equally legitimate 

 and futile to point to Germany as the cradle and 

 home of cellular biology ? And if we are asked how 

 we can for a moment venture to compare German 

 geologists with those of England and Scotland. 

 we wait till the triumphant questioner discovers 

 that, although Suess was born in London, and spent 

 most of his life in Austria, he claimed Saxony as his 

 fatherland. This sort of historical retort might 

 be repeated twenty times over without being far- 

 fetched. When we think of men like Suess. or Helm- 

 holtz, or Goethe, or Johannes Miiller (to take a few 

 outstanding names), we see the inaccuracy and 

 arrogance of maintaining that the supreme title of 

 genius is inapplicable to German investigators. 

 What appears to be the truth is this, that each of 

 the leading civilised nations has its fair share of 

 scientific discoveries of first-rate importance, but 

 that there is no sufficient evidence for correlating 

 special fertility in scientific discovery with any 

 nationality. Speaking now, not of men of 



