300 
Charles B. Gormfi, 1870—1919 
APPRECIATIONS OF CHARLES GORING. 
To the readers uf Bioiaet7'ika the following sympathetic accounts of the personality 
of Charles Goring will appeal as they do to the Editor, who deeply values the 
privilege of being allowed to publish these very intimate characterisations. The 
first is by Mr E. \. Lucas, a college fiiend of Goring's ; they both belonged to one 
of those periods of keen intellectual activity which ai"ise occasionally in college life 
owing partly to the action of waves of external thought, but inore often to the 
presence internally of one or two original minds. Outwardly the period in question 
was marked by the foundation of the Students' Union and the meteoric brilliancy 
of The Privateer — a college jcnirnal that one did not grudge purchasing. It was 
for Goring the moulding time, — the golden days, when thei'e was leisure to think, 
interpolated between an uncongenial office experience and the wider but none the 
less toilsome experience of a medical officer on a hospital ship during the South 
African War. 
The second appreciation is the oration bravely spoken over his grave by his 
widow. I have not ventured to leave out a sentence of it. Round the grave were 
gathered the friends of his creative period, the friends of his youth, the friends of 
his prison calling, from prison commissioner to warder, and a scattering of humbler 
friends unknown to most of us, but none the less there out of love to one of 
the finer spirits of this life. That brilliant June day, with its unique ritual, 
when we paid the last respects to Charles Goring, will remain in the memory of 
those present as unique as the nature of the man, who in leaving us reduces still 
further that little school of trained biometricians, who value humanism as well as 
science. 
I. Charles B. Goring a.s a Student. 
I have been asked to write a few words about Charles Goring, and I have 
tried, because I respect the asker; but they will be incomplete because I have 
seen Goring of late so little and hardly knew him in maturity at all : as a husband, 
and a father, and an intellectual force with all liis powers at their richest. But of 
the Charles whom, in the eighteen nineties, we knew, the Charles whom we loved, 
my impressions are fresh and will always be. His personality provided for that. 
I say " whom we loved," but I think we did more than love. I think that if it 
were possible, if it were conceivable, that any harm should be coming to him, 
there is nothing we would not have done to interpose our own inferior bodies 
between him and it. For he inspired not only affection but protectiveness. We 
felt that we were his guardians : his— in a very peculiar sense — owners. Not that 
he lacked any qualities of self-defence. Far from it. His mind was crystal clear, 
his attitude to life and its problems was fearless; but he had an unworldliness, 
a childlike radiance, that seemed to demand from his friends a contribution of 
cotton wool. Let me say again that he did not need this, but we all wanted to 
