is to be compared are of a comparable class (that is, comparable
with regard to the attainment of years which they assume), then the
longevity of different groups of celebrities may be compared with one
another. Thus it is possible to compare the longevity of musicians
with that of scientists (of about equal eminence), and according to
Mr. Thayer’s lists the scientists lived ten years longer than the
musicians. The same conclusion appears in my own study, in which the
scientists appear amongst the longest-lived, and the musicians amongst
the shortest-lived men of genius. This conclusion must not be pressed
too far, but in a general way it certainly is a bit of evidence
worthy of consideration as proving that distinguished scientists
live longer than distinguished musicians. It would be wrong to draw
rigid conclusions from comparisons of small groups, and therefore it
is better to contrast the average age at death of the various men
studied in as large and as general classes as possible; e. g., as men
of thought, men of feeling and men of action. All of the studies with
which I am acquainted point to the conclusion that men of thought live
longer than those who achieve distinction through unusual qualities of
their emotional natures.
We may now approach the question, whether or not it is possible to
prove that the men of distinction of the nineteenth century are
longer-lived or shorter-lived than their every-day contemporaries. It
would be possible to do this had we statistics of the age at death
of the various professions; and again, had we these deaths classed
according to the distinction which the individuals attained. In
addition to this it would be necessary to ascertain (with some rough
approximation, as I have attempted to do with regard to the greatest
men of all times) the age at which they had accomplished sufficient
work to entitle them to be enrolled in their special class. To take
concrete instances, let us suppose that we wish to investigate the
longevity of American lawyers. Now to be a lawyer in name only requires
the candidate to have lived twenty-one years, and the average number
of years which the average person of twenty-one years of age will
continue to live is about forty; so that the mere fact that a man is
a lawyer would bring his average age at death up to sixty-one years.
I find in Mulhall’s Dictionary of Statistics the statement made that
the lawyers of Frankfurt die at the average age of fifty-four years,
while merchants live to be fifty-seven years old. I know nothing about
the authority of these figures, and am using them for illustration
only. Assuming all the data to be correct (and twenty-one seems not
too high an age for this purpose), this would seem to suggest that the
ordinary lawyer of Frankfurt is not favored with abundance of years.
In passing, it is interesting to note that these Frankfurt statistics
of lawyers and merchants and other classes show a uniformly lower
age at death than those of the more eminent representatives of their
professions. This is just what we should expect; for to be included
in the one group one must have lived only long enough to prepare and
establish one’s self as a lawyer or as a merchant; while for the
other group one must in addition have had opportunity to cultivate
one’s ability to a riper fruitage, and in a keen, and often long
competition gain public recognition. It thus follows that the average
longevity of the most distinguished lawyers will be greater than that
of ordinary lawyers, because it takes longer to enter the more select
class. But this argument, like many others, should not be pressed too
far; innate ability may accomplish in a brief period what for more
moderate powers is the work of many years. Nonetheless, in the study of
comparative longevity it is the average that is significant; and it is
the fluctuation of the average that we aim to discover. Thus, in the
investigation of the longevity of an unwholesome occupation, such as
would be accepted by a life insurance company only at special rates, we
should expect to find the age at death of such individuals less than
that of other classes involving an equal period of apprenticeship;
but, of course, not less than that of the ‘population as a whole.’
And, to continue with the main argument, if we wish to investigate the
longevity of shoemakers we should again have to decide upon some age
at which on the average a person has probably already acquired the
dexterity requisite to be a shoemaker. Even if we fix this so low as
ten years, at which time the expectation of life is forty-eight years,
it would bring the average age at death of shoemakers to fifty-eight
years. It has thus become extremely obvious that if we compared these
ages at death with the average life-period it would be just as easy
to prove that lawyers and shoemakers and merchants enjoy exceptional
longevity, as to prove that great men do. The average longevity is
low because of the very large infant mortality, which enters into the
composition of this average. When once the first ten years of life are
passed the further expectation of life increases quite slowly. Roughly
speaking, for every ten years between ten and fifty years the added
expectation of life is but three years for each decade. We therefore
see that in the very nature of things no one class of adults can
possibly live as much as thirty years longer than ‘the population as a
whole.’ The differences with which we are dealing are differences of a
finer order, of a small number of years, and being slight differences,
must be substantiated by a relatively large number of cases; the
cases, moreover, must be collected in a wholly unobjectionable manner;
that is, in a manner in which the principle of selection bears no
influence upon the longevity. To my knowledge adequate statistics which
exhibit the relative longevity of different classes do not exist, and
they certainly do not exist with regard to great men. We may therefore
conclude that the facts which have thus far been collected are not
opposed to the conclusion that great men enjoy favorable longevity, but
they certainly have not established or contributed to the establishment
of this fact. While it is not impossible to collect material which
may serve as corroborative evidence of the longevity of great men, it
seems probable that we must be content with evidence of a far inferior
character.
Although I regard Mr. Thayer’s argument concerning longevity as
entirely fallacious, I find myself in sympathy with his main
contention. It seems to me that much of the evidence which has
been brought forward to assimilate greatness with degeneracy is of
questionable value and that the logical force of such evidence has
been very much overrated. That genius and insanity are related is
probably capable not of demonstration, but of a moderate degree of
substantiation; but this evidence must be both judiciously collected
and judiciously interpreted. It cannot be presented in a popular
form without subjecting it to the danger of serious and harmful
misrepresentation. In the same way the question of degeneracy and
its bearing upon modern life has been frequently misstated, so that
statements of protests such as Mr. Thayer offers are both opportune and
likely to have a wholesome effect. But the present concern is only with
the relation of longevity to greatness as an indication of the absence
of degeneracy. That long life is inconsistent with a general degeneracy
may be admitted; but that great men exhibit this quality to any unusual
degree has certainly not been proven.
JOSEPH JASTROW.
_University of Wisconsin._
_SCHOOL REFORM._
School teachers and educational reformers undoubtedly take themselves
and their ideas too seriously. Accordingly one rejoices to see an
eminent man put his own affairs aside for a moment and discuss
educational theories in a humorous vein. Even ridicule should be
welcomed if it can relieve the sombre earnestness of the educational
platform and press. Professor Münsterberg, in the _Atlantic Monthly_
for May, has done pedagogy this service by subjecting the elective
system and professional training for high-school teachers to
considerable good-natured ridicule. His article is so readable that one
is led to suppose that it was written to be read, not to be believed.
Moreover, Professor Münsterberg’s eminence as a psychologist should
not be taken as a sign that he thinks he knows aught of education. He
has himself warned us against the illusion that psychology can derive
truth about teaching, or that the psychologist can inform the teacher
or anything of value. It may be that the wholesome matters of fact, as
well as the brilliant imaginative criticism of this article are only
play. The very strenuousness of the teacher’s nature, however, will
probably lead him to try to extract some new gospel of reform from
Professor Münsterberg’s lightest pleasantry; consequently it seems wise
to consider the article as a serious argument and provide a possible
antidote for it.
Professor Münsterberg contends that it is unwise to give high-school
teachers special professional education apart from knowledge of the
subjects which they are to teach; that it is folly to replace a
prescribed course of study by an elective system; that the salvation
of our schools depends upon the scholarship of the teachers and the
attitude of parents. As the reformers agree heartily with this last
claim (unless it is made an exclusive aim), and as its meaning is so
vague that almost anything can be urged as a corrolary to it, it may
be dismissed. The first two contentions are about concrete matters of
educational practice which need to be thought over. If professional
preparation is a waste of time, there is every reason why we should
omit it; if a prescribed course of study is better for the boys
and girls, we can conscientiously lessen the expense and labor of
administration in many schools.
The argument on the first point is, briefly, that Professor
Münsterberg’s teachers were good teachers and that they had no notion
of even the vocabulary of educational theories. But obviously that
may not have been the secret of their success. A majority of the
high-school teachers in New England have had no professional training,
yet no one has observed that they are superior to those of their class
who have. The argument is really a bare assertion of an unverified
guess. It is the hap-hazard opinion of an eminent psychologist who
perchance is trying to furnish evidence of his previous theory that
psychology does not give one knowledge about teaching. It is worth
while to note here a certain interesting aspect of human nature.
Training in one sphere of intellectual activity need not bring
ability in other spheres. The habit and power of observation or
reasoning acquired in connection with chemistry need not make a man
a good observer or reasoner in politics or philology. So we should
not be surprised that a man eminent for his scientific habits as a
psychologist should, on a question in another field, offer imaginative
hypotheses without an attempt to verify them, or to collect pertinent
evidence or to eliminate factors outside those he discusses. We may be
allowed to feel sorry. If a scientist wishes to really clear up the
question of the value of professional training, why does he not find
representatives of the classes, ‘teachers with professional training’
and ‘teachers their equals in other respects, who have replaced the
effort after professional training by equal effort after further
scholarship,’ and compare the work of the two classes? If other factors
enter to disturb such an investigation, why not carefully look at
the facts to ascertain their influence? Until he does so his dicta
will stand as mere opinions. It would be a blessing if scientific men
would use the weight of their reputations, not to bolster up their
after-dinner opinions about things in general, but to teach the public
scientific methods of studying them.
Apart from the danger of offering pedagogy an unproved opinion as a
fact, it seems poor economy to leave a question in such shape that only
the opinion of another eminent man on the opposite side is required
to destroy the result you have attained. Precisely this has occurred
in the case of Professor Münsterberg’s contributions to educational
discussion two years ago. Another eminent man, Professor Dewey, has
recently squarely denied what Professor Münsterberg affirmed. It only
remains for some equally eminent German professor to rise and declare
that his teachers were bad and that they had no professional training,
or that his teachers were good and had it, and Professor Münsterberg’s
effect is neutralized.
Professor Münsterberg’s argument against the elective system is more
complex. He regards the elective system as partly a concession to the
obvious need of fitting young people earlier for their occupations in
life and partly an attempt to use the likes and dislikes of children
as a guide to what is good for them. This is a very narrow view. The
elective system has been in part the result of the progress of science
and the consequent conviction that the scientific study of things and
human affairs should be a part of one’s education. The elective system
furnished a compromise by which such studies found a place in the
college and school curricula. If the student is left to choose among
them, instead of having a new prescribed course made out on the basis
of modern views of life’s needs, it is partly because they are more
easily introduced and retained as electives and partly because there is
no agreement as to which studies will be the best to prescribe.
The idea that reformers desire to have a course containing studies
good for children and studies not good for them and to trust the
scholars’ likes and dislikes to guide them to the former, is absurd.
Whether they are right in assuming that what is best for one boy may
not be best for another, that his teachers and parents can help him to
pick out a course of study better for him than any inflexible course
prescribed for all can be, is a question of importance, but one which
Professor Münsterberg does not try to answer. Instead, he tells us
about his gratitude to his parents and teachers for never letting him
neglect his steady toil at prescribed Greek for the pursuits which
he himself elected out of school, such as electrical engineering,
botany, novel-writing, reading Arabic, writing books on the prehistoric
anthropology of West Prussia, etc., etc. Now, this confession about
his early life absolves us from paying any further attention to his
experience as a lesson to our high-school youths. The youth Münsterberg
and the average high-school student do not belong in the same class.
For he was evidently an eminent boy as he is an eminent man. We must
admit, however, that the rigorous discipline afforded by the prescribed
Latin and Greek is evidenced in the present stern moral sense of the
professor, who is willing to abandon his chosen and favorite pursuit,
laboratory experimentation, and at the call of duty give himself to
the hated but necessary tasks of writing philosophical disquisitions,
political discussions and articles on school reform.
X.
SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE.
_CHEMISTRY._
The general interest which has been aroused the last few years in
physical chemistry is reflected in the number of books which have
appeared in this department. Some of these dwell more upon the older
physical chemistry, devoting but relatively little space to the later
developments, while others are chiefly concerned with the newer phases
of the subject. Perhaps the most satisfactory book which has appeared
along this line is Walker’s ‘Introduction to Physical Chemistry’
(Macmillan). No attempt is made to exhaust the field but the subject
is well covered. Especially commendable is the clearness of the
book, which will render it useful to students. The non-mathematical
treatment of the subject will also commend it to many who use it as
an introduction to physical chemistry. A book of narrower scope is
Dr. H. C. Jones’s ‘Theory of Electrolytic Dissociation and Some of
Its Applications,’ from the press of the same publishers. The author
gives first a short review of the development of physical chemistry
up to the days of van’t Hoff, and then surveys the origin of the
theory of electrolytic dissociation, its proofs and some of its
applications. While making no pretense to cover the whole field of
physical chemistry, the author furnishes a very readable account of the
most important of the later generalizations. It is a book which should
be read especially by those chemists and physicists who are working
in other fields, that they may gain a fair view of the electrolytic
dissociation theory written by one thoroughly competent for his task.
Biologists, too, will find the latter part of the book, treating of
the applications of the theory to animal and plant life, of especial
interest. Dr. Jones, with S. H. King, has also translated Biltz on
‘Practical Methods of Determining Molecular Weights.’ This is a
successful attempt to gather together the best of the different methods
of real value, and it is very satisfactorily carried out, presenting a
good guide book for students.
* * * * *
In the production of text-books of general chemistry, there seems to
be a little lull, very few books having appeared in recent months. The
first part of what promises to be a somewhat original work on inorganic
chemistry, by Dr. Sperber, has appeared. After the introduction on
general chemical laws, the elements of the seventh group (chlorine,
etc.), are first considered, and then their hydrogen compounds; the
sixth group (oxygen, etc.) and its hydrogen compounds; fifth group
(nitrogen, etc.), etc. The method used is purely inductive, each
subject being introduced by experiments from which the underlying
principles are developed.
* * * * *
A third edition of Elliott and Ferguson’s ‘Qualitative Analysis’
has appeared which is a considerable improvement upon the previous
editions. The principal merit of this book, is in the opinion of many
its greatest drawback. In clearness and minuteness of directions it is
hardly equalled by any manual of qualitative analysis, and thus it is
a particularly easy book for the instructor to use, especially with
a large class. But this, on the other hand, cannot fail to encourage
mere mechanical work on the part of the student and to discourage
independence. With large classes, however, it is a difficult problem
how best to cultivate individuality of work.
* * * * *
A little manual of ‘Analysis of White Paints,’ by G. H. Ellis, will
prove of value to chemists to whom now and then paint samples are
brought for analysis. It is a collection of notes by a chemist who has
had much experience along this line.
* * * * *
In the field of applied chemistry quite a number of books have come out
lately, the most useful of which is probably the seventh volume of ‘The
Mineral Industry.’ The field of mineral resources and industries of the
world is very thoroughly surveyed, and the volume is brought as closely
down to date as possible. In this respect it has a great advantage over
the corresponding publication of the United States Government. Among
the subjects which are treated very thoroughly in the present volume
are calcium carbid, fire brick and paving brick, coal mining methods
and their economic bearing, progress in the metallurgy of copper and of
gold, notes on the progress of iron and steel metallurgy (by Henry M.
Howe), sulfuric acid, progress in ore dressing (by Robert H. Richards).
It is a book necessary to the teacher, of great value to the economist
and of much interest to the general reader. The second edition of
McMillan’s ‘Electro-metallurgy’ is a considerable improvement on
the former edition, and is brought well down to date. The greater
part of the book is devoted to the electro-deposition of metals, and
is thorough and satisfactory. It is, however, unfortunate that the
treatment of electro-metallurgical ore-extraction should be very
inadequate, this whole subject, together with electro-refining, being
confined to a single chapter of thirty pages.
* * * * *
Lange’s ‘Chemische-technische Untersuchungsmethoden’ is passing through
its fourth edition, of which the second volume is just out. This
treats of metals and metallic salts, fertilizers, fodders, explosives,
matches, gas manufacture, ammonia and coal tar and inorganic colors.
The book aims at exhaustive treatment, and while some subjects are in
parts weak, as is naturally the case where there are many different
authors, it is as a whole the best work in its field.
* * * * *
A book in a new line is H. and H. Ingle’s Chemistry of Fire and
Fire Prevention’ (Spon and Chamberlain). The book takes its origin
from lectures delivered to an audience of insurance men. After
three chapters on the history and theory of combustion, various
industries more or less connected with fire are taken up; coal gas,
dust explosions, fuel, illuminants, explosives, oils, volatile
solvents, paints and varnish making, textile manufactures, spontaneous
combustion, are some of the subjects treated. The last chapter is a
quite useful one on fire prevention and extinction. The book contains
much useful information and should prove of very considerable value
outside of the rather limited audience to which it is addressed.
_ZOOLOGY._
The past few months have witnessed the publication of many important
works on zoölogical subjects, and among these it may not be amiss to
note first Kingsley’s ‘Text-Book of Vertebrate Zoölogy,’ since it
adopts a new method, that of showing the bearing of embryology upon
the morphology of vertebrates, and in turn, of morphology upon their
classification. Its object is stated to be to “supplement both lectures
and laboratory work, and to place in concise form the more important
facts and generalizations concerning the vertebrates,” and the author
has succeeded in crowding a large amount of information into the 439
pages of the work. The illustrations are numerous, and for the most
part very good, comprising some figures that have appeared in other
text-books and some that are the outcome of Dr. Kingsley’s own work.
It is to be noted that in place of many of the standard European forms
that have done morphological duty for years, we have such American
types as Acanthias, Necturus, Amblystoma and Sceloporus, a change for
which we are duly grateful.
* * * * *
Parker and Haswell’s admirable ‘Manual of Zoölogy’ has been revised
and adapted for the use of American schools and colleges. It aims to
give an outline of the structure and morphology of certain typical
members of the various classes of animals and also briefly discusses
such zoölogical questions as evolution, descent and distribution. An
‘Elementary Course of Practical Zoölogy,’ by T. J. Parker and W. N.
Parker, has been issued somewhat on the lines of Huxley and Martin’s
‘Biology,’ aiming to give a rather detailed account of the structure of
a few types instead of glancing at the animal kingdom as a whole.
* * * * *