DANIEL COIT OILMAN, LL.D. Ixix 



of a remarkably alert and inquisitive mind. Probably few equalled 

 him in the ability to grasp the essentials of a scientific or social 

 movement or of appreciating its deeper significance from the stand- 

 point of human progress. He deemed it to be his duty as well as 

 pleasure to understand with something more than a merely super- 

 ficial comprehension the recent advances in all branches of human 

 activity. He was not merely a wide reader, but he was also a keen 

 and sagacious inquirer, seeking knowledge for its own sake, and 

 using it to meet the demands which the world made upon him. 

 Whether he were addressing a geographical society, a graduating 

 class at the Naval Academy, or a Chamber of Commerce, he drew 

 from his stores of information facts pertinent to the occasion and 

 conclusions suggestive even to those who saw more deeply into their 

 specialties but not more widely the bearing of these specialties on 

 the world at large. He made no pretensions to specialized knowl- 

 edge, though in some subjects, chiefly those of an historical and a 

 biographical character, he was deeply versed, and the writings that 

 bear his name, either as author or editor, number at least half a 

 dozen volumes. 



He was no lover of controversy. He saw in it only a grievous 

 intellectual waste. His kindly and sympathetic nature was opposed 

 to warfare of any kind and his faith in the value of cooperation led 

 him to regret the expenditure of time and energy in acrimonious 

 debate. He took no part in the conflict between science and religion, 

 believing that the influence of research on the whole was favorable 

 to the growth of spiritual life and that faith with all its fluctuations 

 was as permanently operative in human thought as was knowledge. 

 Regarding the comparative claims of literature and science, he 

 would avoid the issue by employing both these forces in alliance for 

 the promotion of intellectual and moral culture. His attitude 

 toward all subjects was synthetic; he would build up and not de- 

 stroy, and he saw in the world of intellect and applied knowledge, 

 as in the world of university and hospital, one common purpose to 

 which all efforts were contributing and should contribute. The 

 common good was ever present to his mind, and as he wished the 

 University to receive the hearty and enthusiastic support of a faculty 

 of many interests and many minds, so he wished the higher end 



