June 7, 1906] 



NA TURE 



thnt there should be a good deal to criticise. Part i., 

 which deals with preliminary questions, is too long. 

 Tin- chapter on the philosophic temper is quite un- 

 necessary. Dr. Saleeby's overpowering admiration 

 for Herbert Spencer occasionally leads him astray. 

 Herbert Spencer attributed organic evolution mainly 

 to the inheritance of acquired characters, tracing even 

 the stag's antlers to this principle. Though a large 

 majority of biologists think otherwise, our author 

 maintains that time has vindicated Spencer. 'ITie 

 evidence he himself produces is worth little or nothing. 

 Pathogenic bacteria, he says, quoting Haeckel, when 

 they " arc passed through the body of a highly sus- 

 ceptible animal become possessed of a much greater 

 degree of virulence than formerly." "The progeny 

 of such bacteria, often after tens and hundreds of 

 generations, are possessed of a character which was 

 acquired by their ancestors during their passage 

 ihrough the body of the susceptible animal." Grant 

 that this is so, still the unicellular organisms are in 

 quite a different category from the higher animals. 



Dr. Saleeby's optimism sometimes affects his judg- 

 ment. Natural selection, he maintains, is still 

 making for the improvement of the human breed. 

 Is this really so among civilised races? And, if so, 

 what need of Mr. Galton's eugenics, which he highly 

 commends? Again, Dr. Saleeby denies the freedom 

 of the will. Like nearly all modern psychologists, 

 he is a determinist. Like a true optimist, he finds a 

 satisfaction in the fact that we cannot act without 

 motive — in other words, that we are automata. He 

 tells us that we have will, but this turns out only to 

 mean that the brain can inhibit the working of the 

 lower nerve-ganglia. If a slave is allowed to keep 

 a slave, he does not thereby cease to be a slave himself. 

 .\ftcr all, what we want is a working belief in free 

 will, and this is the inalienable property of every 

 healthy man. When it comes to action a healthy 

 determinist throws aside his theories and his philo- 

 sophic temper, and has as strong a sense of freedom 

 as any barbarian. In conclusion, we must congratu- 

 late Dr. Saleeby on having produced so readable and 

 so able a book. F. W. H. 



THE UNIVERSITY IDEA. 

 The Launching of a University, and Other Papers. 

 A Sheaf of Remembrances. Bv Dr. J. D. C. 

 Oilman. Pp. 386. (New York : Dodd, Mead and 

 Co., iqo6.) Price 2.50 dollars net. 



THE launching of the Johns Hopkins L'niversity 

 could not be more fitly or more intimatelv de- 

 scribed than by one who has " the advantage of 

 knowing more than anyone else of an unwritten 

 chapter of histon-. " Such a record could hardly fail 

 to throw interesting sidelights on the growth of the 

 idea of the L'niversity in its modern conception. It is 

 interesting to notice that the launchers of the Johns 

 Hopkiiis University were largelv influenced, not only 

 by the evidence of University Commissions in Great 

 Britain, but also by the writings of Newman and 

 Matthew Arnold, of Pattison and .^ppleton. The 

 actual founder was as liboVal in his ideas as he was 

 in his gifts, and the administrators of his gift made 

 NO. I 9 10, VOL. 74.] 



the fullest use of their discretion. President (iilman 

 himself had a roving commission to pick the brains 

 of the older Universities in England, France, and 

 Germany. 'I"he main problem was to disengage the 

 University from the college idea, and to give to the 

 University point of view all the distinctness of which 

 it was capable. The selection of the original faculty 

 was sufiicient to secure this result. It included such 

 men as Sylvester, .Martin, Rowland, .Morris (from 

 Oriel College), Gildersleeve, and Remsen, who suc- 

 ceeded Dr. Gilman as president in 1902. V\C are 

 given interesting glimpses of these and other note- 

 worthy teachers, as also of other famous English 

 and .American savants who were at different time> and 

 in different degrees associated with the Johns Hop- 

 kins University — such as Freeman and Hu.xley, Cayley 

 and Kelvin — and of such celebrities as Dean Stanley, 

 Lowell, Child, and Lanier, the poet. The interest of 

 these chapters is, in fact, largely personal and local, 

 interspersed with general reflections on the advance- 

 ment of science, the conflict of studies, and the idea 

 of research. Brief notices are also given of what are 

 perhaps the two most distinguished features of the 

 Johns Hopkins University — its publications and its 

 medical school. 



The " addresses on various occasions, historical 

 and educational," are of somewhat unequal interest. 

 E"or the most part they are too occasional, as well 

 as too topical in character, to be of very general 

 interest. Some of them are fitly characterised as " a 

 sheaf of remembrances "; some touch, without going 

 very deeply into. University problems; while others, 

 again, are of the nature of social and ethical homilies. 

 Here, as elsewhere, the author dwells on the progress 

 which has been made towards the recognition of " the 

 true significance of University work, as distinguished 

 from collegiate discipline," and at the same time in- 

 dicates that the development of graduate study has 

 not been without its influence upon the organisation 

 of collegiate work. " Two gains are doubtless per- 

 manent " — elective courses or an option between 

 " groups " of undergraduate studies, and the 

 " rapidly increasing " recognition of the value of 

 " liberal education " — not only as the preliminary an- 

 tecedent to higher and special studies, but also as a 

 preparation for business and politics. We are not 

 sure, however, how far Dr. Oilman's estimate of the 

 value of the " elective " system is representative of 

 opinion among home or foreign observers. In another 

 place he describes the system as " a triumph of the 

 last thirty years." With regard to liberal culture, Dr. 

 Gilman observes that " a liberal education is not now 

 complete unless it includes a knowledge of French 

 and German." Both these points deserve the con- 

 sideration of University reformers in other places. 



Perhaps the most striking note of Dr. Oilman's 

 addresses on University subjects is his strenuous plea 

 for "research." To the term itself he takes not 

 unreasonable e.xception ; for the thing he has nothing 

 but enthusiasm ; and in this connection what he has 

 to say about the magnificent promise of the Carnegie 

 Institution, with which he has been prominently asso- 

 ciated, will be read with interest, .Among the ci-- 



