



FEBRUARY 17, 1923] 
even for comparatively restricted areas, they present 
a view of the normal state of the atmosphere which is 
worth remembering. With the terminology and units 
which I have employed they are easy to remember. 
If Dr. Mill will translate them into the vernacular 
which he favours he will find the statements much 
more difficult to word. 
As to terminology, can any one estimate the debt 
which meteorology owes and will continue to owe to 
‘Bjerknes for the happy inspiration of the name 
“polar front ’’? What its real meaning is we have 
not yet found out; but it is a banner under which 
knowledge is enlarged. Or can any one say how the 
fate of Scott’s Antarctic expeditions would have been 
affected if the meaning of “ katabatic’’ had been 
understood in 1900. The development of the science 
of meteorology is a strenuous task. I do not suppose 
that Dr. Mill intended his criticism to be as destruc- 
_ tive as uninitiated readers will think it to be. Some- 
how the picture which his review calls to mind is that 
of the three jovial huntsmen: ‘‘ We’en powlert up and 
down a bit and had a rattling day.’’ There are 
occasions when there are obvious discontinuities in 
‘psychology. Once upon a time, years ago, as college 
tutor in Cambridge I went down to see the boat-races. 
Being late, I found the leading boats of the first race 
already past the winning post, among them one of my 
‘own college which I had gone down to cheer. It was 
a perfect summer’s day, and I found the crew in 
lonely solitude, lolling about in the boat after their 
labours, in all the attitudes of summer idleness. I 
went up to them and by way of being cheerful 
remarked, ‘‘ You seem to be having a picnic.’’ To 
my astonishment no one spoke; and presently the 
man nearest to me grunted, “ It’s been grim earnest 
here, Sir.’’ They had been chased all over the course 
and were too exhausted to stand and too despondent 
to speak. 
_ Iam not yet come to that pass; but I feel in like 
manner that Dr. Mill in his dignified position has not 
really appreciated what the stress of meteorological 
work means. It is only too true that our craft rows 
_ its course in continual danger of being bumped by a 
‘crew that bases action upon its ignorance of the 
subject and not upon its knowledge. That is precisely 
the situation which the National Union of Scientific 
_ Workers finds so depressing, and to me, with a full 
experience of every phase of success and failure in 
eee the cheers from the bank to the boat 
_ that is pressing us are a reminder that science in this 
_ country might be encouraged rather than depressed 
_ if the members of its own household would visualise 
_ the situation a little more deftly. 
I have never supposed that new units and new 
terminology can be anything but distasteful to the 
veteran, even to myself. I am not so self-confident 
as to assume that the ultimate solution will be found 
in the way that seems to me the most direct. All I 
ask is that those who criticise should face the problem 
with a policy. I find it difficult to regard the ordinary 
British attitude as indicating a policy: it is our 
income-tax which goes to teach every child in the 
_ country the metric system, and every child who 
_ learns science is taught at our expense to use the 
metric system and to “chuck it’ as soon as he 
leaves school. If that is really an educational policy 
I can find no polite adjective in the dictionary which 
will describe it. NAPIER SHAW. 
January 30. 
— ee 

The Identity of Geber. 
I am glad to see that Mr. Holmyard (Nature, 
vol. 110, p. 573) has also been led to doubt the 
validity of much of the criticism of the authenticity 
NO. 2781, VOL. 111] 
. 
NATURE 
SS SS ee ee Se Se a re ee Ee 
219 
of the Latin works attributed to Geber. In the 
recent work of Prof. A. O. von Lippmann “ Die 
Entstehung und Ausbreitung der Alchemie,’”’ the 
destruction of the Latin authorities has passed 
all bounds of restraint. A treatise which refers to 
Geber, or gives doctrines resembling his, which could 
possibly have been written before 1300, the date 
of the earliest Geber MS., is pseudographisch, 
untergeschoben, or the work of Fdlscher. Import- 
ant treatises are dismissed in footnotes without 
discussion as spurious. Geber’s fall is bringing 
down many other authors. In some fairly early 
authorities there are references to a Geber, but 
in quoting these in other parts of his book, von 
Lippmann has left out the text containing the name 
of Geber. In other places, in his quotations, the 
omission of ‘‘ et’’ (=and) is marked by a row of 
dots, and in giving the content of the opinions of 
other writers, Lippmann’s book becomes quite un- 
trustworthy when it reackes the Latin authors. 
The discovery of the original MSS. is the final test. 
Boerhaave (‘‘ Elementa chemiz,’’ 1732, 1. p. 15) says 
that the Arabic works of Geber were translated by 
Golius, who was professor of oriental languages at 
Leyden; in Shaw’s translation of Boerhaave’s book 
(1741, i. p. 26, note 3) it is stated that Golius presented 
the MS. of Geber to the Leyden library, translated 
it into Latin, and published it in the same city, first 
in folio and afterwards in quarto, under the title 
‘Lapis Philosophorum.”’ In the catalogue of Golius’s 
library I find that there is mention of an Arabic 
MS. bearing the name of Geber and treating of 
alchemy, but the few MSS. examined by Berthelot, 
including MSS. from Leyden, were quite different 
from the works in Latin. The Leyden MS. may have 
been lost (as some of the Greek ones at Paris have 
been). 
In the Latin Geber there are long arguments 
refuting those who deny the possibility of the Great 
Work. Berthelot says that an Arabic writer of the 
previously assumed period of Geber (c. 750-800 A.D.) 
would have had no doubts as to this possibility. 
This is incorrect. Prof. Wiedemann, whose services 
in this branch of historical research have been 
extremely valuable, has published MSS. of this 
period, in which it is said that the failure of alchemists 
to carry out their work of transmutation had become 
* proverbial’? (Abu Jusuf, d. 798; Aldschaziz, d. 
869, who said there was no alchemy; Alkindi, d. 
873, who said all alchemists were liars). This 
argument, therefore, falls to the ground. 
The logical arguments are, said Berthelot, reminis- 
cent of the Schoolmen of a later period (say 1200- 
1250, in which he puts the Latin author). He does 
not say what these arguments are, but those I have 
met with are taken largely from Aristotle, whose 
works were translated into oriental languages at an 
early period. 
Geber, according to Berthelot, showed an advanced 
rationalism in contesting the influence of the planets, 
which was accepted by the Arabic Jabir, whose 
works are extant in Arabic, but are different from 
Geber’s. A belief in astrology cannot be used to 
date any historical period, and apart from this, the 
Latin Geber explicitly admits the influence of the 
stars, but says “‘The work will be duly performed 
by Nature under a due site convenient for it, without 
any previous considerations of it.” 
"The ideas and facts developed in the writings of 
the pseudo-Geber,”’ said Berthelot, “‘ are frequently 
expressed in the same terms in the authentic works 
of Roger Bacon.’”’ I do not wish to enter into a 
discussion of the authenticity of these particular 
works of Bacon; it is only necessary to remark 
that in the one to which Berthelot’s remarks seem to 

