\m.  Jour.  Pliarm. ) 
Feb.,  1881.  J 
Varieties. 
87 
stoniacli  and  cause  it  to  discharge  the  iiigesta  as  rapidly  as  possible,  as  it 
would  hasteii  to  rid  itself  of  tartarized  antimony  or  any  other  poison  ;  but 
tliis  very  precipitation  of  the  gastric  functions  prevents  the  forniatioii  of 
liealthy  chyle.  There  is  an  important  difference  between  rapid  and  tho- 
rough digestion.  In  a  similar  way,  a  high  temi)erature  of  our  food  facili- 
tates deglutition,  but,  by  dispensing  with  insalivation  and  the  proper  use 
of  our  teeth,  we  make  the  stomach  perform  the  work  of  our  jaws  and  sali- 
vary glands;  in  other  words,  we  make  our  food  less  digestible.  By  bolting 
our  flour  and  extracting  the  nutritive  principle  of  various  liquids,  we  fall 
into  the  opposite  error :  we  try  to  assist  our  digestive  organs  by  performing 
mechanically  a  i)art  of  their  proper  and  legitimate  functions.  The  health 
of  the  human  system  cannot  be  maintained  on  concentrated  nutriment ; 
even  the  air  we  inhale  contains  azotic  gases  which  must  be  separated  from 
the  life-sustaining  principle  by  the  action  of  our  respiratory  organs — not 
by  an  inorganic  process.  We  cannot  breathe  pure  oxygen.  For  analogous 
reasons  bran-flour  makes  better  bread  than  bolted  flour;  meat  and 
saccharine  fruits  are  healthier  than  meat-extracts  and  i)ure  glucose.  In 
short,  artificial  extracts  and  compounds  are,  on  the  whole,  less  wholesome 
than  the  palatable  products  of  Nature.  In  the  case  of  bran-flour  and  cer- 
tain fruits  with  a  large  percentage  of  wholly  innulritious  matter,  chemistry 
fails  to  account  for  this  fact,  but  biology  suggests  the  mediate  cause :  the 
normal  ty^DC  of  our  physical  constitution  dates  from  a  period  when  the 
digestive  organs  of  our  (frugivorous)  ancestors  adapted  themselves  to  such 
food— a  period  compared  with  whose  duration  the  age  of  gristmills  and 
made  dishes  is  but  of  yesterday.— i^rom  Physical  Education^  by  Dr.  Felix 
L.  Osivald^  in  Popular  Science  Monthly  for  Jan  nary. 
Science  in  Education.— From  the  time  that  the  first  suggestion  to 
introduce  ph3\sical  science  into  ordinary  education  was  timidly  whispered, 
until  now,  the  advocates  of  scientific  education  have  met  with  opposition 
of  two  kinds.  On  the  one  hand  they  have  been  pooh-poohed  by  the  men 
of  business  who  pride  themselves  on  being  the  representatives  of  practi- 
cality, while  on  the  other  hand  they  have  l)een  excommunicated  by  the 
classical  scholars,  in  their  capacity  of  licvites  in  charge  of  the  ark  of 
culture  and  monopolists  of  liberal  education.  The  practical  men  believed 
that  the  idol  whom  they  worship — rule  of  thumb — has  been  the  source  of 
the  past  prosi)erity,  and  will  suffice  for  the  future  welfare  of  the  arts  and 
manufactures.  They  were  of  opinion  that  science  is  speculative  rubbish ; 
that  theory  and  practice  have  nothing  to  do  with  one  another;  and  that 
the  scientific  habit  of  mind  is  an  impediment  rather  than  an  aid  in  the 
conduct  of  ordinary  affairs. 
I  have  used  the  past  tense  in  speaking  of  the  practical  men — for,  although 
they  were  very  formidable  thirty  years  ago,  I  am  not  sure  that  the  pure 
species  has  not  been  extiriDated.  In  fact,  so  far  as  mere  argument  goes,  they 
have  been  subjected  to  such  a  feu  d^enfer  that  it  is  a  miracle  if  they  have 
(\scaped.  But  I  have  remarked  that  your  typical  practical  man  has  an  un- 
(ixpected  resemblance  to  one  of  Milton's  angels.  His  spiritual  wounds, 
such  as  are  inflicted  by  logical  weapons,  may  be  as  deep  as  a  well  and  as 
