Febeuaey 11, 



■] 



SCIENCE. 



185 



sonian Institution upon the development 

 of libraries, the organization and work of 

 societies and the publication of scientific 

 literature in the United States,' by John 

 Shaw Billings ; ' Relation between the 

 Smithsonian Institution and the Library of 

 •Congress,' by Ainsworth Eand Spofford. 

 The mere enumeration of these descriptive 

 titles explains the scope of the articles, and 

 shows how fully the editor, Dr. Gr. Brown 

 Goode, covered the entire field of the work 

 within the Institution and its contact with- 

 out during the first half century of its ex- 

 istence. In an appendix William Jones 

 Ehees chronicles in order the principal 

 •events in the history of the Smithsonian. 

 A full index closes the volume. 



Twenty-four engravings and process-pic- 

 tures of superior excellence are scattered 

 through the book ; they embrace views of the 

 Smithsonian Institution and of the Hodg- 

 kins medal, with portraits of Smithson and 

 of many of the Regents. As respects the 

 typography, press-work, paper and bind- 

 ing no pains have been spared to make the 

 book worthy of its subject. .A small num- 

 ber of copies were bound in white vellum. 

 For bibliographers the exact title is ap- 

 pended: The Smithsonian Institution, 1846- 

 1896. The History of its First Half Century, 

 Edited by George Brown Goode. City of 

 Washington, 1897. Pp. x+856. Royal 8vo. 

 Illustrated. 



H. Caerington Bolton. 



THE DIGNITY OF ANALYTICAL WORK* 

 It will doubtless be conceded by all that 

 in the choice of the field to which one pro- 

 poses to devote his life-work a number of 

 things should be consulted. Among these 

 may be mentioned not only mental capacity 

 and the opportunities for training by 

 courses of study which may be available to 



* Presidential address delivered at the Washington 

 meeting of the American Chemical Society, December 

 29, 1897. 



him, but also what may be termed natui'al 

 inclination or love for the work. Just how 

 much work should be given to each of these 

 elements is a query not easily answered, 

 but few will deny that genuine interest in 

 or real love for the field of work chosen 

 should be allowed as great sway as possible. 

 Those of us who have gotten far enough 

 along in our life-work to be able to look 

 back somewhat, and to see and to differ- 

 entiate the causes that have shaped our 

 line of eiiort, know full well that circum- 

 stances beyond our control, rather than our 

 inclinations and desires, have in many cases 

 determined our course, but the fact neverthe- 

 less remains that for the best results, for the 

 attainment of even moderate success, one's 

 efforts must be in an agreeable field and 

 his heart must be in his work. Fortu- 

 nate is the man for whom cii-cumstances so 

 shape themselves that he is able to pass his 

 years in the field of his choice and spend 

 and be spent in work that is congenial to 

 him. 



Assuming now that, for most of us, cir- 

 ciimstances and conditions have been such 

 that we are spending our lives in the field 

 of our choice, let us consider, for a moment, 

 a tendency that seems to be a concomitant 

 of those thus fortunately situated. Do we 

 not occasionally find in ourselves a disposi- 

 tion to magnify the importance of the field 

 in which we happen to be engaged ? Are 

 we not somewhat inclined, quite naturally 

 perhaps, to think that our field of work is 

 more important than that in which others 

 are occupied? Does not the theoretical 

 chemist, whose inclinations lead him to 

 spend his time in writing reactions and 

 building structural formulae of wondrous 

 architecture, often feel within himself that 

 his work is on a higher and nobler plane 

 than that of the patient analyst who has 

 furnished the data which he uses? Does 

 not the organic chemist who delights in the 

 study of the carbon compounds, who can 



