366 
NATURE 
would seem have been circumvented in some unexpected 
manner by the machinations of that arch-rebel Wash- 
ington. Mr. Cavendish is scarcely interested, and he 
moves aside to catch something concerning, it may be, 
some fresh eccentricity of poor Lord George Gordon, or 
perhaps some account of the troubles of the unhappy 
Mr. Watt, the engineer, who, it is said, is fighting tooth 
and nail to defend his just rights from a set of unprincipled 
rogues who pirate his inventions. None of these matters 
is sufficiently moving to detain him. But his manner 
quickly alters when he overhears the mention of the name 
of Mr. Herschel. Mr, Herschel is a musician at Bath, 
who employs his leisure in constructing big telescopes, 
with one of which he has just discovered a new planet. 
Mr. Cavendish is greatly interested ; he listens with 
marked attention ; he is even about to put a question, 
and begins in a nervous, hesitating manner, and in a thin, 
shrill voice, when his eye catches that of a stranger ; he 
is instantly silent, and retires in great haste, for he has a 
horror of a strange face. The portly gentleman with the 
large frill espies him, and comes up with a foreign gentle- 
man, whois formally introduced to Mr. Cavendish. Mr. 
Cavendish is assured by the portly gentleman that his 
foreign friend is particularly anxious to make the ac- 
quaintance of a philosopher so profound and so univer- 
sally celebrated—all of which is confirmed by the foreign 
gentleman, who adds that it was, indeed, his chief reason 
for coming to London, that he might see and converse 
with one of the most illustrious philosophers of that or 
any other age. Mr. Cavendish is speechless ; he is over- 
whelmed with confusion, until seeing an opening in the 
crowd, he darts through it with all possible speed, and 
reaching his carriage, is driven home.” 
This it must be acknowledged is a most graphic piece 
of descriptive narration ; it conveys the man and the age 
like a living picture. The author would have made a 
thrilling novel-writer, at all events on the descriptive 
side. 
The sketch of Lavoisier, although giving a fair account 
of his life and works, possibly treats at too great a length 
of his tragic death ; but this error (if it be one) is partly 
atoned for in the next essay, in which the rights (and 
wrongs) of the dispute regarding the share of Priestley, 
Cavendish and Lavoisier in the discovery of the nature 
of combustion and of the composition of water are fully 
discussed. No English chemist will dispute that while 
Priestley and Cavendish, personally, and through Blagden, 
furnished Lavoisier with the facts relating to the pre- 
paration of oxygen and the composition of water, it was 
Lavoisier who interpreted them correctly. It is strange 
that Priestley (in a passage quoted on p. 153) and Caven- 
dish, in his paper in the PAi/. Trans. for 1784, p. 150, 
both consider the advantages and disadvantages of using 
the conceptions given to the world by Lavoisier ; and 
both, after stating arguments on both sides, prefer the 
method of statement in terms of phlogiston. It is a pity 
that such international disputes should arise; would 
that scientific men of all nations would take to heart the 
words of Pasteur :— 
“T find myself deeply impressed by two propositions : 
first, that science is of no nationality ; and secondly, in 
apparent but only apparent contradiction, that science is 
the highest personification of nationality. Science has 
no nationality, because knowledge is the patrimony of 
humanity, the torch which gives light to the world. 
Science should be the highest personification of nation- 
ality, because, of all nations, that one will be the 
foremost which shall be the first to progress by exerting 
NO. I711, VOL. 66] 
fAuGUST 14. 1902 
thought and intelligence. Let us strive, for strife is 
effort, strife is life, when progress is the goal.” 
The strife should consist in trying to raise one’s own 
nation to the highest pinnacle of intellectual and indus- 
trial greatness, and not in disputes as to priority of dis- 
covery and invention. 
A full analysis is given of Graham’s work, and his 
biography is pleasant reading. The genial, kindly nature 
of the man is well brought out. The remaining essays, 
on Wohler and Liebig, founded on Hoffmann’s charming 
biography ; of Kopp and of Victor Meyer, both old 
friends ; and of Mendeléeff and Cannizzaro, enter more 
into the details of their chemical work, and may there- 
fore prove of less interest to the general reader ; but 
they are fairly exhaustive, and produce the effect which 
they were intended to produce—a high estimate of the 
genius and hard work of the subjects of biography. 
The progress of chemistry in this country during the 
nineteenth century was the subject of Dr. Thorpe’s presi- 
dential address to the Chemical Society in 1900; it is 
conceived in his best style, and presents a life-like 
picture of the progress of the science in the early part 
of the century. A continuation of this sketch is pro- 
mised, but up to now has not appeared. But it is 
acknowledged to be easier to paint a distant landscape 
than a near one; the numberless details, which produce 
somewhat of confusion when close, merge into broad 
masses of colour when sufficiently far away. 
One conclusion, among many, stands out conspicuous 
from Dr. Thorpe’s pages. It is the enormous influence 
of the teacher on the taught ; how potent is the effect of 
personal contact with the experienced investigator on the 
future career of the young student ! Scheele with Retzius 
and Bergmann, Watt with Black, Lavoisier with Rouelle, 
Faraday with Davy, Graham with Thomson, Wohler 
with Gmelin and Berzelius, Liebig with Gay-Lussac, 
Dumas with De Saussure and De Candolle, Kopp with 
Gmelin, Victor Meyer with Bunsen. It is rare that a 
young man has, like Boyle and Cavendish, sufficient 
initiative and perseverance to forge a way for himself. 
As Prof. von Baeyer once remarked to the writer of this 
notice :—“ I care not what a young man knows ; if he can 
only ¢hink, after he has left my laboratory, I feel that I 
have done my duty by him.” When will this elementary 
view of education influence the action of those who 
legislate on the training of our youth ? W. R. 
AN ASSISTANT MASTER, AND HIS WORK. 
The Schoolmaster: a Commentary upon the Aims and 
Methods of an Assistant Master in a Public School. 
By Arthur Christopher Benson, of Eton College. 
Pp. vi+ 173. (London: John Murray, 1902.) Price 
5s. net. 
HIS book is not, and does not profess to be, a 
manual of pedagogy. The reader in search of help 
in regard to school organisation, to the allocation of 
time and subjects, to the methods of teaching generally, 
the bearing of Herbartian or other philosophical 
theories on practical problems, or educational politics 
in any sense, will probably find the book disappointing. 
The author has little or nothing to say on the relation of 
