October io, 1912J 



NATURE 



177 



course. Let me give an example in illustration of our 

 methods. It is found that a student in his second or 

 third year knows no German, and we advise him to 

 learn it. But in what a way, with our tacit approval, 

 does he set about the task ! So that he may tear 

 ihe meaning from a scientific text as John Ridd 

 clutched the arm of Carver Doone and tore the muscle 

 out of it as the string comes out of an orange ! 



This barbarism we permit, because we know that 

 it is no barbarism but expediency for a trained work- 

 man to take up an}' tool he needs and to use it as 

 he wills. In the elegant language of modern litera- 

 ture, "'and what he thought he'd most require he went 

 and took the same as we." 



Yet, unless we hold that mental training is a 

 scholastic fiction, and that the teacher's sole business 

 is to supply carefully selected and copious provender 

 for the stuffing of students like Surrey fowls, it must 

 be our care to encourage general as well as special 

 culture in our students. 



A further criticism which I have to make upon our 

 university methods will seem to some far-fetched. We 

 are prone to forget that the twin gifts of youth are 

 enthusiasm and idleness. The former we encourage, 

 but the latter, falling within the category of morals, 

 we visit with our displeasure. There is, however, an 

 idleness which is not laziness, but a resting period of 

 the organism tired w'ith the trouble of growing up. 

 I could wish that our English universities understood 

 intellectual liberty as well as German vmiversities 

 understand it. We are apt to mind our sheep too 

 much, and to overrate the virtue of docility. 



I would plead for more breadth and less special 

 knowledge, for more licensed freedom, a lesser 

 uniformity, a wider search for gifts, and a slighter 

 regard for specialist attainments. It is never too late 

 for a well-trained mind to master a new subject, but 

 he who neglects the substance of education for the 

 shadow of mere knowledge robs himself of half the 

 pleasure of his work and of every chance of greatness. 



In attempting thus to diagnose a complaint which 

 some may think is non-existent, I have laid myself 

 open to attack at every point ; yet I have a flickering 

 hope that I may be dealt with after the manner prayed 

 for by an examinee whose paper, which I read, 

 contained the appeal : " Mr. Examiner, please temper 

 justice with mercy, for I am so young in mind." 

 This hope I base upon the facts that modern science 

 has at least taught tolerance, and that I have ever 

 found my botanist colleagues conspicuous for this virtue. 

 They understand that even the most minor among 

 prophets prefers the stake to silence, and their good 

 Iiumour acquiesces in the interchange of roles wherebv 

 the martyrdom which should be his is borne by them 

 in listening to his wrathful words. 



Anticipation of toleration so undeserved leads me to 

 regret almost that I ever introduced that ghost at all. 

 For now that it has served my purpose I am free to 

 admit that I might have laid it long ago bv other and 

 tu-quoque arts. 



I, too, might have pointed to those shelves, and at 

 the sight of Mendel's work it would have vanished 

 with a blush. For with all their gracious gifts the 

 A"ictorians whose just praises I have sung failed to 

 discover that Mendel was alive among them, and 

 showing a way to solve the problems over which the>' 

 themselves were puzzling. 



The merit of the discovery of the greatness of 

 Mendel's work belongs to our generation, and those 

 of us who liad no share in it have at least the right 

 to applaud the discoverers and to score the discoverv 

 to our side. 



So I may conclude the contrast of Victorian with 

 modern naturalists with the reflection : theirs, the 



NO. 2241, VOL. 90] 



higher meed of culture ; ours, perhaps, the greater 

 perspicacity. 



If, as I am prepared to maintain, the greatest gift 

 which an experimental science may receive is that of 

 a new, serviceable, general method, then to no man 

 are biologists more indebted than to Mendel, for such 

 a method he gave to our science. If, further, this 

 claim can be established, I am absolved from the task 



I of answering the critics of Mendelian doctrine. 



j Who does not recollect the answer which John 

 Hunter gave to someone — Jenner, perhaps — who wrote 



I to that great experimenter expressing doubt of the 



I validity of an hypothesis? "Don't think — try," was 

 Hunter's fine response. 



If it were my purpose to discourse on Mendelian 

 doctrine, it would be my duty to can-}' on that work 

 — like the early builders of that doctrine — with sword 

 in one hand and trowel in the other, and to try in 

 emulation of the pioneers to take an equal joy in usingf 

 either implement. But my work concerns the method 

 and facts accomplished by its use, and, as I under- 

 stand philosophy, the writ of criticism does not run 

 in the domain of accomplished fact. A homely illus- 

 tration will serve to define my attitude. Here is a 

 new knife, and there an old loaf, the crust of which 

 has turned the edge of other implements. If with 

 this knife I cut that loaf, it is idle to tell me that my 

 knife is blunt. One form of criticism, and one only, 

 is valid in such circumstances, and that is the con- 

 structive criticism of offering a better instrument. If 

 I want bread, and Mendel's knife can give it to me, 

 I shall go on cutting, indifferent to the stones of 

 destructive criticism. 



Mv business, therefore, is to meet criticism, not by 

 dialectics, but by confronting it with the facts accom- 

 plished by this method and by showing that its use 

 opens new pathways on the borders of the unknown. 

 Now, if we scrutinise the method of Mendelian 

 research, w-e mav see that there can be no criticism 

 of it. 



Give a chemist a complex mixture of many com- 

 pounds to describe : how does he proceed ? The 

 chemist sorts out the ingredients, and submits them 

 severallv to analysis. Such, also, is the method of 

 the Mendelian analyst. Give him that complex mi.x- 

 ture which is called an individual, and he sorts out 

 the ingredients and submits them to analysis, .^sk 

 him how two complex mixtures behave when they 

 are bred together, and he re-defines the question in 

 such terms that it ceases to be enigmatical, and be- 

 comes susceptible of solution by experiment. 



I am not concerned to claim for the Mendelian 

 method the exclusive possession of these virtues. .All 

 I claim is that for the work of making a physiological 

 analysis of individuals, and of thereby establishing 

 a phvsiological classification of plants and animals, 

 the Mendelian method has proved its value. It effects 

 the service bv a simultaneous analysis of germ and 

 soma. 



Let it be conceded at the outset that this analysis 

 is made, not by direct but by indirect methods. For 

 so long as the physical nature of living substance 

 remains unknown we can scarcely hope to resolve 

 an individual into its physical components. All that 

 can be done is to make comparative analyses of indi- 

 viduals and to discover how their several components 

 differ from one another. 



For our present purpose we may represent the 

 individual bv an equation: — Individual = .\' + f ; where 

 c represents the sum of a long series of characters of 

 the individual and x an imaginary or real ground- 

 work left after all the Mendelian characters— 

 the sum of which is c — have been removed by analysis 

 from the individual. The Mendelian method is con- 



