Smithsonian Institution. In 1836 the government came into the
possession, by bequest, of the whole property of the Englishman
Smithson, as a principal with which an institution should be founded
bearing his name, and serving the advance and dissemination of science.
It was never known just why this Oxonian and mineralogist left his large
property to the city of Washington, which then numbered only 5,000
inhabitants. Although he had never visited America, he wrote to a
friend: “The best blood of England flows in my veins; my father’s family
is from Northumberland, my mother’s is related to kings. But I desire to
have my name remembered when the titles of the Northumberlands and the
Percys shall have been forgotten.” His instinct guided him aright, and
the Smithsonian Institution is to-day an intellectual centre in
Washington—that city which is the political centre of the New World. It
should be mentioned, in passing, that Congress accepted the bequest only
after lively opposition; it was objected that to receive the gift of a
foreigner was beneath the dignity of the government. As a fact, however,
the success of the institution is not due so much to this foreign
endowment as to the able labours of its three presidents: the physicist
Henry, who served from 1846 to 1878, the zoölogist Baird from 1878 to
1887, and the physicist Langley, who has been at the head since 1887.
All three have been successful in finding ways by which the institute
could serve the growth and dissemination of science.
It was agreed from the outset not to found a university which would
compete with others already existing, but an institute to complement all
existing institutions, and to be a sort of centre among them. The great
institution was divided into the following divisions: first, the
National Museum, in which the visible results of all the national
expeditions and excavations are gathered and arranged. The American idea
is that a scientific museum should not be a series of articles with
their labels, but rather a series of instructive labels, illustrated by
typical specimens. Only in this way, it is thought, does a museum really
help to educate the masses. The collection, which is visited every year
by more than 300,000 persons, includes 750,000 ethnological and
anthropological objects; almost 2,000,000 zoölogical, 400,000 botanical,
and almost 300,000 palæontological specimens. Then there is the National
Zoölogical Park, which contains animal species that are dying out; the
Astrophysical Observatory, in which Langley carries on his famous
experiments on the invisible portion of the solar spectrum; the
Ethnological Bureau, which specially studies the Indian; and much else.
The department of exchanges of this institute is a unique affair; it
negotiates exchanges between scientists, libraries, and other American
institutions, and also between these and European institutions. As
external as this service may seem, it has become indispensable to the
work of American science. Moreover, the library of the institution is
among the most important in the country; and its zoölogical,
ethnological, physical, and geological publications, which are
distributed free to 4,000 libraries, already fill hundreds of volumes.
Any one examining the many-sided and happily circumstanced scientific
work of these twenty-eight institutes at Washington will come to feel
that the equipment could be used to better advantage if actual teaching
were to be undertaken, and that the organization of the institutes into
a national university attracting students from all parts of the country
would tend to stimulate their achievements. In fact, the thought of a
national university as the crowning point of the educational system of
the country has always been entertained in Washington; and those who
favour this idea are able to point to George Washington as the one who
first conceived such a plan. In spite of vigorous agitation, this plan
is still not realized, chiefly because the traditions of the country
make education the concern of the separate states, and reserve it for
such institutions as are independent of politics.
It is a different question, whether the time will not come when the
nation will desire an institution of a higher sort—one which will not
rival the other large universities of the country, but will stand above
them all and assume new duties. A purely scientific institution might
exist, admitting students only after they have passed their doctorial
examination, and of which the professors should be elected by the vote
of their colleagues through the country. There is much need of such a
university; but the time may not be ripe for it now, and it may be a
matter of the far future. And yet at the present rate at which science
is developing in the country, the far future means only ten or fifteen
years hence. When the time is ripe, the needed hundreds of millions of
dollars will be forthcoming.
For the present, a sort of half-way station to a national university at
Washington has been reached. This is the Carnegie Institute, whose
efficiency can so far not be wholly estimated. With a provisional
capital of $10,000,000 given by Andrew Carnegie, it is proposed to aid
scientific investigations throughout the country, and on the
recommendation of competent men to advance to young scientists the
necessary means for productive investigations. There is, unfortunately,
a danger here that in this way the other universities and foundations of
the country may feel relieved of their responsibility, and so relax
their efforts. It may be that people will look to the centre for that
which formerly came from the periphery, and that in this way the general
industry will become less intense. Most of all, the Carnegie Institute
has, up to this point, lacked broad fruitful ideas and a real programme
of what it proposes to do. If the institute cannot do better than it has
so far done, it is to be feared that its arbitrary and unsystematic aid
will do, in the long run, more harm than good to the scientific life of
the country.
The same general conditions, on a smaller scale and with many
variations, are found outside of Washington in a hundred different
scientific museums and collections—biological, hygienic, medical,
historical, economic, and experimental institutions; zoölogical and
botanical gardens; astronomical observatories; biological stations,
which are found sometimes under state or city administration, sometimes
under private or corporate management. Thus the Marine Laboratory at
Woods Hole is a meeting-place every summer for the best biologists.
Sometimes important collections can be found in the most unlikely
places—as, for instance, in the historic museum of the city of Salem,
which, although it has gone to sleep to-day, is still proud of its
history. The large cities, however, like New York, Philadelphia, Boston,
Chicago, and Baltimore, have established admirable institutions, on
which scientific work everywhere depends. Then there are the political
capitals, such as Albany, with their institutions. That German who is
most thoroughly acquainted with conditions of scientific collections,
Professor Meyer, the director of the scientific museums at Dresden, has
given his opinion in his admirable work on the museums of the Eastern
United States as follows: “I have received a profound impression of
American capabilities in this direction, and can even say that the
museums of natural history of that country are generally on a higher
plane than those of Europe. We have, so far as buildings and
administrative machinery go, very few good and many moderate or
downright poor museums, while the Americans have many more good and many
fewer bad ones; and those which are poor are improving at the rapid
American pace, while with us improvement is hopelessly slow.”
There is still another important factor in the scientific societies,
whose membership, to be sure, is chiefly composed of the personnel of
the higher educational institutions, but which nevertheless exert an
independent influence on scientific life. The National Academy of
Science is officially at the head. It was founded in 1863, having a
hundred members and electing five new members each year. While its
annual meetings in Washington observe only the ordinary scientific
programme, the society has as a special function the advising of
Congress and the government on scientific matters. Thus, this academy
drew up the plans for organizing the Geological Survey and for
replanting the national forests. The political atmosphere of Washington,
however, has not been too favourable to the success of the Academy, and
it has never attained the national significance of the Paris and London
academies.
The American Historical Association has a similar character; and its
transactions are published at the expense of the government. The popular
associations, of course, reach much larger circles; thus, for instance,
the American Society for the Advancement of Science, which has existed
for fifty years, has about the same functions as the German
Naturforscherversammlung. It brings together at its annual meetings,
which are always held in different places, a thousand or so scientists,
and holds in different sections a great many lectures. Still more
popular are the meetings of the similarly organized National Educational
Association, which brings together more than ten thousand members at its
summer meetings, which are often held in pleasant and retired spots. In
these and similar sessions, scientific work is popularized, while in the
specialized societies it is stimulated toward greater profundity. In
fact, there is no medical, natural-historical, legal, theological,
historical, economic, philological, or philosophical specialty which has
not its special national societies with annual congresses. It is
increasingly the custom to hold these popular sessions during the summer
holidays, but the strictly scientific congresses during the first week
in January. The physicians, by exception, meet at Easter. In order that
the business-like separation of subjects may not exclude a certain
contact of scientific neighbours, it is increasingly the plan to
organize groups of congresses; thus, the seven societies of anatomy,
physiology, morphology, plant physiology, psychology, anthropology, and
folk-lore always meet at the same time in the same city.
Besides these wandering meetings, finally, there are the local
societies. Of these, the veteran is the Academy in Philadelphia. It was
founded by Franklin in 1743, and so far as its membership goes, may
claim to have a national character. In a similar way the American
Academy, founded in 1780, has its home in Boston. Then there are the New
York Academy, the Washington Academy, which has recently enlarged so as
to include members from the whole country, and which ultimately will
probably merge into the National Academy; the academies of Baltimore,
Chicago, New Haven, and a hundred smaller associations, which for the
most part are not merely interested in spreading scientific information,
but in helping on the results of science.
We cannot hope to call the complete roll here of scientific production.
Our purpose was merely to relate some of the favourable and unfavourable
influences under which the American has to make his contribution to the
science of the day. Merely for a first orientation, we may give some
more detailed accounts in a few departments. At first sight, one might
be tempted to give a sketch of present-day production by directly
depicting the production with reference to the special higher
institutions. Much more than in Germany, the results of scientific
research are brought before the public eye with the official seal of
some university. Every large educational institution publishes its own
contributions to many different sciences; thus, the University of
Chicago, which perhaps goes furthest in this respect, publishes journals
of sociology, pedagogy, biblical studies, geology, astronomy, botany,
etc.; and, besides these, regular series of studies in science,
government, classical philology, Germanic and Romance languages, English
philology, anthropology, and physiology. Johns Hopkins University
publishes mathematical, chemical, and biological magazines; a journal
for experimental medicine, one for psychiatry, for modern philology, for
history, and Assyriology. Among the periodical publications of Harvard
University, the astronomical, zoölogical, cryptogamic, ethnological,
Oriental, classical philological, modern philological, historical, and
economic journals are the best known. Columbia, Pennsylvania, and
several other universities publish equally many journals. There are also
a great many books published under the auspices of institutions of
learning, which relate to expeditions or other special matters. Thus,
for instance, Yale University, on the occasion of its two-hundredth
anniversary in 1901, published commemorative scientific papers by its
professors in twenty-five large volumes; the papers themselves ranging
from such subjects as the Hindu epic and Greek metre to thermo-dynamics
and physiological chemistry.
The various universities have always been known to have their scientific
specialties. That of Johns Hopkins is natural science; of Columbia, the
science of government; of Harvard, literature and philosophy. But the
universities are, of course, not confined to their specialties; for
instance, Johns Hopkins has done very much in philology, Columbia in
biology, and while Harvard has been famous for its literary men, like
Longfellow, Holmes, Norton and Child, it has also had such distinguished
men on its faculty as the zoölogist Agassiz, the botanist Gray, and the
astronomer Pickering.
It may be more natural to classify scientific production according to
the separate sciences. The list is too long to be given entire. The
venerable subject of philosophy is generally placed first in the
university catalogues of lectures. This subject shows at once how much
and how little is being done. A German, to be sure, is apt to have false
standards in this matter; for if he thinks of German philosophy, he
recalls the names of Kant, Schopenhauer, Fichte, and Hegel; and he asks
what America has produced to compare with these. But we have seen that
the work of productive science was commenced in the New World only a few
decades ago, and for this reason we must compare the present day in
America with the present day in Germany; and to be just, we should
compare the American scholar only with the younger and middle-aged
Germans who have developed under the scientific conditions of the last
thirty years—that is, with men not over sixty years old. Young geniuses
are not plentiful, even in Germany to-day; and not only are men like
Kant and Hegel lacking in philosophy, but also in other departments of
science; men like Ranke and Helmholtz seem not to belong to our day of
specialization. A new wave of idealistic and broadly generalizing
thought is advancing. The time of great thinkers will come again; but a
young country is not to be blamed for the spirit of the times, nor ought
its present accomplishment to be measured after the standards of happier
days. If we make a perfectly fair comparison, we shall find that
American philosophy is at present up to that of any other country.
Externally, in the first place, America makes a massive showing, even if
we leave out of account philosophical literature of the more popular
sort. While, for example, England has only two really important
philosophical magazines, America has at least five which are as good as
the English; and if philosophy is taken in the customary wider sense,
sociological and pedagogical journals must be included, which are
nowhere surpassed. The emphasis is laid differently in America and
Germany; and this difference, which may be seen in almost all sciences,
generally, though not always, has deeper grounds than merely personal
ones, and is in every case apt to distort the judgment of a foreigner.
America, for instance, is astonishingly unproductive in the history of
philosophy. Every need seems to be satisfied by translations from the
German or by very perfunctory text-book compilations. On the other hand,
the theory of knowledge, ethics, and above all psychology, are very
prosperous. Disputes in epistemology have always been carried on in
America, and the Calvinistic theology, more especially, arrived at
important conclusions. At the beginning of the eighteenth century lived
Jonathan Edwards, who was perhaps the greatest metaphysical mind in the
history of America. The transcendental way of thought, which is
profoundly planted in the American soul, was nurtured by German
idealism, and found expression through the genius of Emerson. Then, in
more systematic and academic ways, there have been philosophers like
Porter and McCosh, who stood under Scotch influence and fought against
positivism; others, like Harris and Everett, who have represented German
tendencies; while Draper, Fiske, Cope, Leconte, and others have preached
the philosophy of science. In the front ranks to-day of philosophers are
Ladd, Dewey, Fullerton, Bowne, Ormond, Howison, Santayana, Palmer,
Strong, Hibben, Creighton, Lloyd, and most influential of all, Royce,
whose latest work, “The World and the Individual,” is perhaps the most
significant epistemological system of our day.
Psychology is the most favoured of all the philosophical disciplines in
America at the present time. This is shown outwardly in the growth of
laboratories for experimental psychology, which in size and equipment
far exceed those of Europe. America has more than forty laboratories.
Foremost in this psychological movement is William James, who is, next
to Wundt, the most distinguished psychologist living, and whose
remarkable analysis of conscious phenomena has been set down with a
freshness and liveliness, an energy and discrimination, which are highly
characteristic of American intellect. Then there are other well-known
investigators like Stanley Hall, Cattell, Baldwin, Ladd, Sanford,
Titchener, Angell, Miss Calkins, Scripture, and many others. In
pedagogy, which is now disporting itself in a great display of paper and
ink, the names of Harris, Eliot, Butler, Hall, Da Garmo, and Hanus are
the most respected.
Just as theological and metaphysical speculations, ever since the early
Colonial days, have preceded present-day scientific philosophy, so in
the science of history systematic investigators were preceded in early
days by the Colonial historians, beginning with Bradford and Winthrop. A
people which are so restless to make history, so proud of their doings,
so grateful to their heroes, and which more than any other people base
their law and public policy avowedly on precedent, will necessarily have
enjoyed the recounting of their own past. America has had a systematic
history, however, only since the thirties, and two periods of work are
generally distinguished; an earlier one, in which historians undertook
to cover the whole subject of American history, or at least very large
portions of it, and a later period embracing the last decade, in which
historical interest has been devoted to minuter studies. Bancroft and
Parkman stand for the first movement. George Bancroft began to write his
history in 1830, and worked patiently thereon for half a century. By
1883 the development of the country, from its discovery up to the
adoption of the American Constitution, had been completed in a
thorough-going fashion. Parkman was the greater genius, and one who
opened an entirely new perspective in American history by his
investigations and fascinating descriptions of the wars between the
English and the French colonists. The great works of Hildreth and Tucker
should also be mentioned here.
The period of specialized work, of course, covers less ground. The large
monographs of Henry Adams, John Fiske, Rhodes, Schouler, McMaster,
Eggleston, Roosevelt, and of Von Holst, if an adoptive son of America
may be included, are accounted the best pieces of work. They have
described American history partly by geographical regions and partly by
periods; and they show great diversity of style, as may be seen by
comparing the martial tone of Holst and the majestic calmness of Rhodes.
To these must be added the biographies, of which the best known form the
series of “American Statesmen.” Americans are particularly fond of
studying a portion of national history from the life of some especially
active personality. Then too, for twenty years, there has been a
considerable and indispensable fabrication of historical research. Large
general works and reference books, like those of Winsor, Hart, and
others; the biographies, archive studies, correspondences, local
histories, often published by learned societies; series of monographs,
journals, the chief of which is the _American Historical Review_—in
short, everything necessary to the modern cultivation of historical
science are to be found abundantly. The Revolution, the beginnings of
the Federation, the Civil War, and Congress are specially favoured
topics. It is almost a matter of course that the independent
investigation into European history is very little attempted; although
very good things have been done, such as Prescott’s work on Spanish
history, Motley’s Rise of the Dutch Republic; and in recent times, for
instance, Taylor has made important studies in English history, Perkins
in French, Henderson in German, Thayer in Italian, Lea and Emerton in
ecclesiastical history, Mahan in the history of naval warfare, and
similarly others.
This lively interest in philosophy and history is itself enough to
disprove the old fable that American science is directed only toward
material ends. Perhaps, to be sure, some one might say that philosophy
is practiced to better mankind and history to teach politicians some
practical lessons, while both statements are in point of fact false. No
such charge, however, can be made against classical philology; and yet
no one can read the transactions, which constitute many volumes, of the
five hundred members of the Philological Association, or read the
numbers of the _American journal of Philology_, or the classical studies
published by Harvard, Cornell, and Chicago, without feeling distinctly
that here is scientific work of the strictest sort, and that the methods
of investigations are steadily improving. The movement is younger in
this department than in the others. To be sure, the classical authors
have been well known in America for two centuries; but in no province
has the dilettanteism of the English gentleman so thoroughly prevailed.
It was not until the young philologians commenced to visit German
universities, and especially Göttingen, that a thorough-going philology
was introduced. And such a work as the forty-four students of the great
classicist, Gildersleeve, published on the occasion of his seventieth
birthday, would have been impossible twenty years ago. The greatest
interest is devoted to syntactical investigation, in which the
best-known works are those of Goodwin, Gildersleeve, and Hale; while
there are some works on lexicography and comparative languages, and
fewer still on textual criticism. Every classical philologian knows the
names of Hadley, Beck, Allen, Lane, Warren, Smyth, White, Wheeler,
Shorey, Dressier, and many others.