EDITOR'S TABLE. 



497 



scatterer of his own stores of knowl- 

 edge. He had a profound interest in 

 popular education, but the soul of that 

 interest was for improvement in its 

 methods. In the matter of public in- 

 struction he was a revolutionist and a 

 propagandist. He warred with current 

 ideas and consecrated practices. He 

 condemned in the most emphatic way 

 the wretched lesson-learning routine 

 that prevails in the schools. He de- 

 nounced our wordy and bookish edu- 

 cation as baseless and unreal, and de- 

 manded such a change in our systems 

 of instruction as shall bring the pupils 

 face to face with Nature herself, and 

 call out the mind by direct exercise 

 upon phenomena — the facts, laws, rela- 

 tions, and realities of the world of ex- 

 perience. He was at times inclined to 

 take discouraging views of the educa- 

 tional future, from this enslavement of 

 the schools to vicious methods of study, 

 but he never wearied in the endeavor 

 to propagate more rational opinions, 

 and we cannot doubt that the seed thus 

 sown will yet ripen into most valuable 

 fruit. It is questionable, indeed, if his 

 earnest exertions in this direction will 

 not tell in the final promotion of sci- 

 ence even more powerfully than all his 

 attempts to attain immediate results. 



Another feature of Prof. Agassiz's 

 scientific character remains to be no- 

 ticed. Science was to him not merely 

 the knowledge of animals, rocks, and 

 glaciers, but it was a method of thought, 

 rising into the proportions of a philos- 

 ophy, and embracing the interests of 

 humanity. By the vulgar-minded he 

 was looked upon as a very wonderful 

 man, whose genius spent itself upon 

 crabs and their kindred, and who would 

 give the world for a new fish. This 

 was regarded as an amiable and an ad- 

 mirable eccentricity, and everybody 

 was pleased when he had got a new 

 donation to buy more curious things for 

 his museum. And it was freely said, 

 " If men of science would only imitate 

 Agassiz, and be content with their dis- 



VOL. IV— 32 



sections and collections, and keep in 

 their sphere, and not encroach upon 

 departments of thought which belong 

 to politicians, theologians, historians, 

 and philanthropists, the world might 

 get on in peace." But this is a very 

 mistaken conception of Agassiz's views 

 of science. He saw in it not only 

 a disclosure of the laws of physical 

 nature, and an interpretation of the 

 principles of life, but a revelation of 

 correlated truths of all orders indis- 

 pensable to the progress of man. This 

 he ever maintained, and this he affirmed 

 in the last essay perhaps that he ever 

 wrote, and which was published in the 

 Atlantic Monthly but a few days after 

 his death. In that article there occurs 

 the following passage, which our read- 

 ers will attest might have been a fit mot- 

 to for The Populae Science Month- 

 ly: 



" It cannot be too soon understood that 

 science is one, and that whether we investi- 

 gate philosophy, theology, histoiy, or phys- 

 ics, we are dealing with the same problem, 

 culminating in the knowledge of ourselves. 

 Speech is known only in connection with 

 the organs of man, thought in connection 

 with his brain, religion as the expression of 

 his aspirations, history as the record of his 

 deeds, and physical sciences as the laws un- 

 der which he lives. Philosophers and theo- 

 logians have yet to learn that a physical fact 

 is as sacred as a moral principle. Our own 

 nature demands from us this double alle- 

 giance."^ 



"We had intended to say nothing at 

 the present time about Agassiz and 

 Evolution, thinking it most suitable to 

 forget all differences in the heart-felt 

 acknowledgment of what we owe to 

 his noble and disinterested life. But 

 the occasion of his death has been so 

 widely used in the interest of prejudice 

 and error that a few words upon this 

 subject become unavoidable. ■ 



Prof. Agassiz was an opponent of 

 Darwinism, but his opposition gave no 

 excuse for the amount of stupid rant 

 upon the question which has been late- 



