cede such rights when the request has come with authority.

From this point the transition is easy to the consideration of what influence the scientific method may exert in a general way upon society as a whole. There is not space in the compass of a review article to discuss adequately a matter of so many complications, but it is possible to offer a syllabus for reflection. It must first of all be kept in mind that world-wideness is in the fabric of all sceince. Since induction is objective, the scientific method is cosmopolitan. The humble describer of a new species of butterfly must have passed, in orderly fashion, all the butterflies of the earth before his mind ere he ventures to set his own over against the rest as new. question of the German University laboratory-'Was haben Sie neues gefunden?'presupposes a knowledge of what the world has done before. This characteristic of the scientific method cannot be too strongly emphasized. What then must be the natural reflex of the method upon social institutions?

The

Science has bound the world together by its spirit no less than by its discoveries. Interest in others would make communication easy even if the telegraph did not exist. Sympathy is a stronger cable than those that lie along the bottom of the Atlantic. Hence in every region of human intellectual activity one traces the broadening influence of the scientific method. In politics, democracy; in warfare, humanity; in commerce, freedom; in art and in literature, realism; in all the social relations of life, kindliness and charity; in religion, tolerance and dynamic helpfulness-these are the children of this scientific method. Perhaps nowhere better than in the field of religion has the change to the new order made itself felt. Religion is to-day recognized as social rather than as individual. Faith is blended in works, and in place of a pitiful

solicitude for the welfare of one's own immortal soul there has been developed a missionary spirit, boundless in its self-sacrifice, a magnificient phenomenon of altruism. It is very remarkable when comparing theological literature of say the Oxford Tractarian movement with that of the present decade, such as the discourses of Washington Gladden or the Unitarian writings of Martineau, to note that the essential difference between the two groups is that in the former everything is discrete and individualistic in tone, while in the latter everything is concrete and social. Under the stress of the scientific method, sanctity has seemed second to helpfulness, just as individual culture has seemed a less noble end than social progress.

On the whole the influence of the scientific method upon society is two-fold. Statically it has added organizability to the social character, and by virtue of this it has dynamically contributed to the advance in social progress. The influence mentioned

upon character could scarcely strike more profoundly, for the capacity to take part in organization is possibly the most important trait of all in social character. Precisely as organization becomes most perfect will progress be most rapid. And here one perceives that a veritable intellectual sanction

for progress is to be sought. The au

thor of Social Evolution has denied that such sanction exists, but apparently without taking into account the very method by which he arrived at this conclusion. There is quite as strong an instinctive quality in science as in religion. Each takes progress for granted, each in its own field contributes to the advance, and in so doing each gives its sanction to the movement. Since progress lies principally within the realm of the social organism, its sanctions are social rather than individual. And the error has been in failing to perceive the strong social nature of a certain type of intellection

and in assuming the metaphysical or introspective type to be the only one worthy of consideration. In the phrase 'devotees of science' there is a gleam of true meaning, for in its social quality, its instinctiveness, science is akin to religion. One might term science an intellectual religion and not go wide of the mark. While it may be argued that philosophy in the traditional sense does not sanction progress, it cannot be argued that science withholds either sanction or its encouragement. Science is social thought reflected back into the mind of individuals; metaphysics is individual thought radiated outward upon society. The sanction for social progress is therefore derived rather from society as a whole than from individual introspection. For this reason the intellectual sanction is all the more forceful and takes its place beside the moral sanction offered by religion. There need then be no fear that progress is intrinsically irrational, and there may be a science of religion, as there is a religion of science. It is the It is the function of the scientific method to organize for victorious contest the battalions of the intellect, while religion may bring on the moral forces. Therefore it appears that progress is an open-minded movement onward, of which we are all a part, and to which reason, under the sway of the scientific method, gives sanction no less than does emotion.

CONWAY MACMILLAN.

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA.

THE LIQUEFACTION OF GASES.-A CONTROVERSY.

THE scientific world has been treated during the last few weeks to one of those happily to-day rather infrequent controversies which are always unseemly, the more so when the parties are men of eminent scientific reputation. Polemics in science may sometimes be entertaining, but are always unprofitable and tend to

bring discredit upon the participants, if not on their work. The recent discussion* on the subject of liquefaction of gases is no exception to the rule.

Prof. Dewar, in defending his failure to give Prof. Olszewski due credit, has made what might have been looked on as a pardonable omission appear almost as intentional deceit. In taking up the cudgels in Prof. Olszewski's defense, Professor Muir has seemed to make an unjust and almost spiteful attack upon Professor Dewar; while Professor Olszewski, whose work was already too well and favorably known to need any defense, has added nothing to his reputation; indeed, he has rather laid himself open to the charge he prefers against Professor Dewar, inasmuch as in his article in the Engineering and Mining Journal he makes but slighting reference to the work of Pictet and Cailletet, and the name of Wróblewski is but once, and that incidentally, mentioned. The following is a summary of the more important work of these investigators in this field:

In 1877 two independent experimenters almost simultaneously succeeded in condensing to liquids the so-called permanent gases. Cailletet, the French ironmaster at Chantillon-sur-Seine, used a hydraulic press, and obtained the necessary lowering of temperature by suddenly diminishing the pressure on the compressed gas. A mist appears in the glass tube containing the gas, and, except in the case of hydrogen, condenses to small drops. Pictet, at Geneva, used the pressure occasioned by the generation of the gas in wrought iron cylinders, and cooled his steel condensing tube with liquid carbon dioxid. liquid carbon dioxid. In experimenting with hydrogen, Pictet obtained an opaque steel blue liquid, which appeared to solidify

*On the Liquefaction of Gases. Charles Olszewski, James Dewar, M. M. Pattison Muir, Nature, Jan. 10, 1895, and following numbers. Letters to the Editor. Also in The Philosophical Magazine.

on striking the ground. Later researches of Olszewski and Krzyzanowski have shown that this liquid could not have been hydrogen, and that the gas obtained, as Pictet's was, from potassium formate and caustic potash is by no means pure hydrogen. To Cailletet and Pictet belongs the credit of being the pioneers in this field, and to them in 1878 was awarded the Davy medal of the Royal Society.

A few years later (1883) the work was taken up by Wróblewski and Olszewski at the University of Cracow, and after the death of the former in 1886 was carried on by Olszewski alone, and more recently by Olszewski and Witkowski. The apparatus used was derived from that of Cailletet, the production of cold being by the boiling of liquid ethylene in a vacuum.

The aim of Olszewski's researches has been the exact investigation of the properties and conditions of matter at low temperatures. Many physical constants of the so-called permanent gases have been determined, and especially the optical properties of liquid oxygen have been thoroughly studied. More recently Olszewski was entrusted by Lord Rayleigh and Professor Ramsay with the liquefaction of Argon, and the results of this investigation have been widely published. His latest work is the determination of the critical temperature (-233°) and the boiling point (—243°) of hydrogen, the last gas which still resists condensation to a static liquid.

Professor Dewar, in his position at the Royal Institution of Great Britain, has been looked upon, perhaps, rather as a public lecturer and brilliant experimenter than as an exact investigator. In 1884 he delivered an address at the Royal Institution on the work of Wróblewski and Olszewski, during which oxygen and air were liquefied for the first time in public. He later so improved the apparatus, which was founded on the principles used by Cailletet and by Olszew

ski, that he could obtain with safety and without great difficulty very considerable quantities ('several pints') of liquid oxygen or air, and his public experiments with this liquid are famous. By the use of liquid air he has studied the electrical resistance of metals and alloys at low temperatures, extending greatly the work of Clausius, Cailletet and Bouty, and Wróblewski in this direction, and has undertaken work on the tension of metals at low temperatures. As far as these latter experiments have been carried, they seem to show that the breaking stress of metals increases decidedly at low temperatures (-182°) and hence that there is no decrease of molecular attraction as absolute zero is approached, although the most powerful chemical affinities are in abeyance, as Professor Dewar has shown. He was also the discoverer of the magnetic properties of liquid oxygen.

In his earlier work Professor Dewar certainly did not fail to give Professor Olszewski due and full credit. Of late years he has failed to often refer to him, and the charge that he has sometimes apparently claimed as his own that which he should have attributed to the Polish professor is, perhaps, not wholly unfounded; yet the claim of the latter for priority was so well understood by scientific men that his attack on Professor Dewar was at least unnecessary. That the Englishman, possibly somewhat rankled that his countrymen should have called on a foreigner to assist in their study of Argon, was led to make a spirited rejoinder, to pose as more of an independent investigator than the facts warrant, and to depreciate the work of his opponent, is perhaps not to be wondered at, but certainly not to be excused. Altogether the discussion is profitless and unfortunate.

JAS. LEWIS HOWE. WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY.

CURRENT NOTES ON ANTHROPOLOGY (VIII.).

A SPELEOLOGICAL SOCIETY.

Of course, everybody knows what spelæology means or perhaps there are one or two who do not, considering that the word was manufactured only last year. Its sponsor was M. E. A. Martel, a French scientist distinguished for his numerous and skillful explorations of caves for scientific purposes. In Greek Spelæus means a cave, and 'spelæology' is the science of cave-hunting,as it was called by the English. A society has been formed in Paris with that as a specialty, concerning which the curious inquirer can learn more if he addresses M. Martel, No. 8. Rue Menard.

The subject is one richly deserving this kind of concentrated and special study. No localities preserve more perfectly the records of the past than caverns. In their darkness and silence, guarded by their massive walls, layer after layer of deposits have been strown by their occasional visitors, by inundations and by percolation. A stalagmitic floor, clean, hard and imperishable, seals the traces of every occupant in perfect preservation through all time. Some of the most important discoveries in geology and archæology are due to these conditions. I need but mention the labors of Lartet, Christy, Boyd Dawkins, and in this country of Cope and Mercer, to attest this.

But nowhere is ignorant excavation more fatal than in cave-deposits. There is a high science in their examination; and M. Martel has planned an admirable scheme to disseminate valuable instruction on this essential point.

A VALUABLE STUDY IN PRIMITIVE ART.

A STUDY in primitive art of the most satisfactory character has been lately published by the Royal Irish Academy. It is entitled 'The Decorative Art of British New Guinea: A Study in Papuan Ethnography,' by Alfred C. Haddon, M. A., Professor of Zoology in

the Royal College of Science, Dublin. The author approaches his topic with an extensensive personal knowledge of it, and a thorough appreciation of its bearings on the leading questions of ethnology in general. The memoir is in large quarto, with twelve full-page plates and many cuts inserted in the text. Some of the designs are colored, and all are copied with fidelity and clearTheir variety is astonishing, considering that we are dealing with the art of cannibalistic savages, and the sense of proportion and harmony often manifested is just and real. The rapid development of conventionalism is evident, and even in such primitive examples one soon loses the traits of the original design. This has often been commented on in American aboriginal art.

ness.

Professor Haddon corrects the impression which sometimes prevails, that art decoration, for itself, is unknown to savages. Art is related to ease; as he says, 'Art flourishes where food is abundant.' Another vital conclusion he expresses in these words: "The same processes operate on the art of decoration, whatever the subject, wherever the country, whenever the age, illustrating the essential solidarity of mankind." No truer words have been spoken on the subject, and ethnographers should learn them by heart.

In every respect the memoir is most creditable to the writer and to the institution which publishes it.

D. G. BRINTON.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA.

JAMES EDWARD OLIVER.

ON March 27th, 1895, after an illness of ten weeks, died Professor J. E. Oliver, of Cornell University, universally honored and beloved.

For more than twenty years he has been at the head of the department of mathematics in this great institution.

Born in Maine in 1829, even from his graduation in 1849 he ranked as a mathematical genius, one of the most remarkable America has produced. But he seemed to have no ambition to leave an adequate record of his mental life in print. In personal character he resembled Lobachevsky, whom he intensely admired.

He was spontaneously loyal to the good and the true, enthusiastic, thorough, painstaking. He loved poetry; he loved Shakespeare; he was averse to religious creeds. For Professor Oliver goodness was spontaneous. He did the right not because it was right, but because he intensely wished to do just that. The spring of action seemed a combination of sympathy, perception, knowledge, scientific logic.

In mathematics Professor Oliver worked for the love of it and because he was deeply convinced that mathematics affords that fine culture which the best minds seek for its own sake.

He was a pronounced believer in the nonEuclidean geometry.

I vividly recall how he came up after my lecture on Saccheri at Chicago, and expressing his interest in the most charming fashion, proceeded unhesitatingly to give me a profound lecture on stellar parallax, the measurement of the angles of astronomical triangles and the tests of the quality of what Cayley called 'the physical space of our experience.'

Again, after the Brooklyn meeting of the American Association, he took up the same subject with me, explained a plan for combining stellar spectroscopy with ordinary parallax determinations, and expressed his disbelief that C. S. Pierce had proved our space to be of Lobachévsky's kind, and his conviction that our universal space is really finite, therein agreeing with Sir Robert Ball.

GEORGE BRUCE HALSTED.

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS.

JAMES DWIGHT DANA.

WE take from the authorized account by Professor Edward S. Dana, in the May number of the American Journal of Science, the following facts concerning Dana's life. He was born in Utica, N. Y., on February 12, 1813, his father and mother being from Massachusetts. He early showed an interest in natural history, which increased during his course at Yale College from 1830 to 1833. Immediately after graduation, Dana spent fifteen months as instructor in mathematics to the mid-shipmen of the United States Navy, the time being passed in the Mediterranean. He then spent two years at New Haven, being part of the time assistant in chemistry to Benjamin Silliman. The four following years were spent with the exploring expedition sent by the government of the United States under Wilkes to the Southern and Pacific Oceans. The following years were devoted to the study of the material collected. In 1844 he married a daughter of Prof. Silliman, who survives him, and in 1846 became associated with him in the editorship of the American Journal of Science. In 1850 Dana was made professor in Yale College. The remainder of his life was spent as teacher, editor, author and investigator.

Dana was President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1852, and was one of the original members of the National Academy of Sciences; he received the Wollaston Medal of the Geological Society of London, the Copley Medal from the Royal Society, and the Walker Prize from the Boston Society of Natural History. He received honorary degrees from the University of Munich, Edinburgh and Harvard. He was a member of the Royal Society of London, the Institute of France, the Royal Academies of Berlin, Vienna and St. Petersburg, and many other societies.

In addition to a large number of papers