156  Change  from  Old  to  New  Botany.  {AmA^i9itm' 
new  are  in  a  better  position  to  appreciate  the  underlying  causes. 
There  are,  however,  few  such  persons  still  living  and  the  small  num- 
ber is  not  wholly  due  to  the  normal  death  rate.  The  relative 
number  of  botanists  was  smaller  then  than  now  and  it  will  not  do 
to  assume  that  this  was  owing  solely  to  the  lack  of  attractions  in 
the  botany  of  the  day.  The  main  reason  was  that  one  could 
hardly  expect  to  earn  a  living  as  a  botanist.  When  I  graduated 
from  college  in  1866  and  wished  to  become  a  botanist,  Professor 
Gray  told  me  that  I  ought  to  study  medicine  first  because  the 
possibility  of  gaining  a  living  by  botany  was  so  small  that  one  should 
always  have  a  regular  profession  to  fall  back  upon.  In  fact,  at 
that  time  medicine  was  practically  the  gate  through  which  it  was 
necessary  to  pass  in  order  to  enter  the  field  of  botany.  Some 
years  later  De  Bary  told  me  that,  when  he  was  a  young  man,  there 
was  a  similar  state  of  things  in  Germany  and,  although  desiring 
to  devote  himself  to  botany,  he  had  to  study  medicine,  taking  his 
degree  in  1853.  In  1872,  however,  things  had  changed  in  Europe 
and  when  I  went  to  Strassburg  to  study  I  was  the  only  student 
in  De  Bary's  laboratory  who  had  studied  medicine.  The1  others  had 
begun  the  special  study  of  botany  on  entering  the  university  and 
were,  although  no  older  than  I  was,  much  better  trained  in  botany. 
In  1866,  there  were  very  few  botanical  professorships  in  this 
country,  the  salaries  were  very  small  and  the  equipment  very 
shabby.  Gray  was  professor  at  Harvard,  D.  C.  Eaton  at  Yale 
and  Porter  at  Lafayette.  Torrey,  in  spite  of  his  distinction  as 
a  botanist,  really  depended  on  his  position  as  a  chemist  for  his 
living.  The  comparatively  few  positions  in  government  and  state 
stations  offered  few  attractions  and  changes  were  frequent.  To 
a  young  man  the  prospect  was  not  assuring. 
If  we  look  further  and  ask  what  was  the  attitude  of  the  public 
towards  natural  science,  we  find  a  state  of  things  very  difficult  to 
appreciate  at  the  present  time.  This  can  be  illustrated  by  my  own 
experience  as  a  school  boy.  When  I  was  in  the  high  school  one  of 
the  books  we  had  to  study  in  the  upper  classes  was  Paley's  "Natural 
Theology."  You  may  perhaps  infer  from  this  that  the  object  was 
to  give  us  religious  instruction.  Not  at  all.  The  real  object  was  to 
smuggle  a  little  human  anatomy  into  the  schools.  This  was  the 
way  it  was  done.  Very  few  of  you  probably  ever  heard  of  Paley's 
"  Natural  Theology,"  in  its  way  a  remarkable  book.  In  the  open- 
ing chapter  Paley  supposes  that  a  man  walking  in  the  fields  finds 
