HONOURS, MEDALS, DEGREES, SOCIETIES, ETC.
Order. K.C.B. 1905.
Medals. [192a]
1883. Telford Medal of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
1884. Royal Medal. [192b]
1892. Royal Astronomical Society’s Medal.
1911. Copley Medal of the Royal Society.
1912. Royal Geographical Society’s Medal.
Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Plumian Professor in the University.
Vice-President of the International Geodetic Association, Lowell Lecturer at Boston U.S. (1897).
Member of the Meteorological and Solar Physics Committees.
Past President of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, [193] Royal Astronomical Society, British Association.
Doctorates, etc., of Universities.
Oxford, Dublin, Glasgow, Pennsylvania, Padua (Socio onorario), Göttingen, Christiania, Cape of Good Hope, Moscow (honorary member).
Foreign or Honorary Membership of Academies, etc.
Amsterdam (Netherlands Academy), Boston (American Academy), Brussels (Royal Society), Calcutta (Math. Soc.), Dublin (Royal Irish Academy), Edinburgh (Royal Society), Halle (K. Leop.-Carol. Acad.), Kharkov (Math. Soc.), Mexico (Soc. “Antonio Alzate”), Moscow (Imperial Society of the Friends of Science), New York, Padua, Philadelphia (Philosophical Society), Rome (Lincei), Stockholm (Swedish Academy), Toronto (Physical Society), Washington (National Academy), Wellington (New Zealand Inst.).
Correspondent of Academies, etc., at
Acireale (Zelanti), Berlin (Prussian Academy), Buda Pest (Hungarian Academy), Frankfort (Senckenberg. Natur. Gesell.), Göttingen (Royal Society), Paris, St. Petersburg, Turin, Istuto Veneto, Vienna. [194]
XI
WAR MUSIC
AN ADDRESS TO A SOCIETY OF MORRIS DANCERS
DECEMBER 21, 1914
According to the Dictionary of Music [195] the military march is meant “not only to stimulate courage but also to ensure the orderly advance of troops.” In other words, military music serves to incite and to regulate movement. But these cannot always be discriminated. The tramp tramp of marching soldiers is ordered by the rhythm of the band. This is obvious, but we cannot say how far the bravery of the tune puts strength into tired legs, and this would be incitement,—and how far it is the unappeasable rhythm that forces the men to keep going, and this may perhaps be called regulation. There are occasions when the trumpet comes as a signal to troops waiting to make some sublime effort, and where the fierce imperious sound has a lift and a sting which perhaps no pre-concerted signal of a weaker type could give. This is an example of incitement, but in as much as it determines the moment of attack it is also a regulating agent.
Marching is still of importance,—in spite of the part taken by railways in modern strategy. I should like to know whether the magnificent marches of the Russians are made to the accompaniment of a band or of the regimental choir. One sees in our volunteer army the tendency to sing on the march. But it must be allowed that neither words or tunes are particularly inspiring. The Englishman is habitually afraid of being solemn, and though his marching songs may contain good things they are apt to be treated in a light spirit. There is one which includes the words, “Rule, Rule, Britannia!” and “God Save the Queen!” but these famous phrases serve as chorus to lighthearted fragments, e.g. nursery rhymes, such as “Little Miss Muffett.” I regret to add that even this classic is not respectfully used. It should run, “There came a great spider and sat down beside her and frightened Miss Muffett away.” I forget the precise words of the parody, except its ending, “And Little Miss Muffett said, ‘Bother the creature!’” I still remember the fine effect of German soldiers heard many years ago singing the “Wacht am Rhein” on the march. Once, too, I listened to Zouaves, and no greater contrast can be imagined. It was hardly more than a murmur, a chatter of diverse scraps, and had no inspiring effect. These magnificent troops may need no artificial stimulus, but ordinary folk are certainly kept going by martial music. I remember, as a boy, marching to the tune of the “British Grenadiers,” which has foolish words, and is not striking from a musical point of view, but it seemed to take us along.
This march-tune comes in finely in Rudyard Kipling’s story of the Drums of the Fore and Aft. An untried British regiment is cut up by Afghans and retires in a helter-skelter rush, leaving behind two boys of the Band, who strike up the “British Grenadiers” with the solitary squeak of a fife and the despairing roll of a drum. The answer comes in a great cheer from the Highlanders and Gurkas waiting on the heights, and in a charge that turns defeat into victory. I wish that Kipling had allowed the boys to survive, but the tragedy of their death is after all the effective close. To return to marching-tunes. For average people all that is needed is a well marked rhythm: “John Brown’s body,” etc., is an admirable march, though taken from its context of tramping soldiers it is hardly a fine tune. But so far as words are concerned it must be allowed that the refrain, “His soul goes marching along,” is in the right mood for a war song.
It may be objected that if all I want is rhythm I should be satisfied with instruments of percussion alone. To this I reply that the effect of drums is splendidly martial. I was at Aix at the outbreak of the war, and every day the regiment quartered there used to march out to the music of drums, and of bugles which played simple tunes on the common chord. When the buglers were out of breath, the drums thundered on with magnificent fire, until once more the simple and spirited fanfare came in with its brave out-of-doors flavour—a romantic dash of the hunting song, and yet with something of the seriousness of battle. And indeed this is the
sort of melody that suits the dauntless spirit of our allies. As I watched these men, so soon to fight for their country, I was reminded of that white-faced boy pictured by Stevenson, striding over his dead comrades, the roll of his drum leading the living to victory or death. Drums are said (incorrectly I believe) to be made of donkey’s skin, and Stevenson imagines how, after death, the poor beast takes this magical revenge for the blows received in life, by leading cruel man to destruction. The old English military music seems to have been played by drums alone. King Charles I issued a warrant in the following words: [198a] “Whereas . . . the March of this our nation so famous in all honourable achievements and glorious warres of this our Kingdom in forraigne parts was through the negligence and carelessness of drummers . . . so altered and changed from the ancient gravity and majestic thereof as it was in danger utterly to have been lost and forgotten. . . .” He therefore wills and commands drummers to play only what is recorded in the curious old notation of that day. It must be remembered that drums and trumpets had something of the sacredness of Royalty in the 17th century. No one was allowed to play them in public without a license from the Sergeant Trumpeter, [198b] an officer who certainly existed a few years ago, and may, for all I know, still survive.
In the 17th century it was a post of some dignity, and gave its holder the title of Esquire.
During the great retreat in the winter of 1914 the effect of music was magnificently illustrated. Mr. Conan Doyle [199] writes, “Exhausted as the troops were, there could he no halt or rest until they had extricated themselves from the immediate danger. At the last point of human endurance they still staggered on through the evening and the night time, amid roaring thunder and flashing lightning, down the St. Quentin road. Many fell from fatigue, and having fallen continued to sleep. . . . In the case of some of the men the collapse was so complete that it was almost impossible to get them on. Major Tom Bridges, of the 4th Royal Irish Dragoons being sent to round up and hurry forward 250 stragglers at St. Quentin, found them nearly comatose with fatigue. With quick wit he bought a toy drum, and accompanied by a man with a penny whistle he fell them in and marched them, laughing in all their misery, down the high road towards Ham.” When he stopped he found that the men stopped also, so he was compelled to march and play the whole way to Roupy.
In Sir Henry Newbolt’s Song of the Great Retreat (The Times, Dec. 16, 1914), this triumphant success is described:
“Cheerly goes the dark road, cheerly goes the night,
Cheerly goes the blood to keep the beat:
Half a thousand dead men marching on to fight,
With a little penny drum to lift their feet.”
This song ought to be especially interesting to our Society, because the effect of a small drum and a penny whistle is roughly the same as that of the pipe and tabor, and these are the traditional instruments for English Folk Dances. It is perhaps worth noting that they must in old days have been used in war, for there is an illustration in an ancient manuscript of a taborer piping at the head of a body of troops marching out from a town.
Man is a social animal, and his natural strength lies in community of action with his fellows. It is this which gives music its power over masses of men, the pulsation of the drum, the blare of the answering trumpets, or the strident voice of the bagpipe cry to them in tones which cannot be misunderstood, binding them into a brotherhood of courage and obedience. But a society of Morris Dancers does not need to be reminded of the noble effect of human movement controlled by music. The word ‘caper’ has somewhat ridiculous associations, but we have learned to respect it for what it implies: the finely ordered strenuous movement of strong bodies leaping in rhythmic dance. It suggests something pagan and prehistoric, a physical religion of astonishing beauty. Some of our Morris men are now giving all the vigour of their young bodies to a great and just cause. Let us wish them a victorious home-coming.
XII
THE TEACHING OF SCIENCE [201]
It is not difficult to sympathise with what Dr. Birkbeck aimed at in founding the College which bears his name. His idea seems to have been, that whatever a man’s calling may be, he is the better for accurate knowledge of the things with which he deals. This is a sufficiently obvious statement. But if for the word ‘accurate’ we substitute ‘scientific,’ it is no longer a platitude—at least it is not so in the ears of the semi-educated. For we can still find people who believe in the “practical man” as opposed to one whom they probably call a scientist. One would like to know more of the conception of science formed by the unscientific. They are probably unaware that science is eminently practical in asserting that only to be true which rests on wide and accurate generalisation. It is also practical wisdom to hold, as science does, that truth is temporary and relative, and is in fact merely the best conclusion that can be drawn in the present state of knowledge. To many people science is wearisome and somewhat ridiculous, and these qualities appear in the naturalist of fiction. Thus when even George Eliot draws a coleopterist, he is made a feeble old man shuffling to and fro among his
ridiculous beetles. And on the French stage I have seen a botanist treated in the same spirit.
Positiveness and bumptiousness are also supposed to be our attributes. In the ‘New Republic’ the characters said to represent Huxley and Clifford are completely disguised by their pompous pretentiousness.
It is not difficult to describe the ideals of science, but it is only too easy to fall short of them. It is easy for instance to become a sectarian, to belong to a school, and to be literally incapable of fairness towards the opposition. This was plainly seen at the incoming of evolution, and it was one of the many glories of Sir Charles Lyell that he could accept the ‘Origin of Species,’ and that, in the words of Hooker, he could under-pin his work with an evolutionary foundation and find his edifice stronger than ever. But we need not consider the battles of giants; we are much more likely to be concerned with the mentally dwarfed or deformed—with the dangerous man who makes positive statements on insufficient data, or suffers from that other vice of not being able to confess ignorance. The only lectures which impressed me, as an undergraduate at Cambridge, were those of the late Sir George Humphry; and his most striking words were confessions of complete ignorance about many parts of physiology. Here is an instance of an opposite state of things, of a want of courage. An eminent chemist was asked why common salt thrown on the fire gives a blue flame. Now the chemist was a German, and having been brought up in that land of stoves, probably had not
performed an experiment so easily made in the home of open fires. So he rashly answered, “It does not burn blue, it is impossible, sodium-salts give a yellow flame.” On this my friend fetched the salt and threw a handful on to the glowing coals—with the result that the eminent chemist rose up and fled in silence from the room. He gave an admirable example of how not to behave. He ought not in the first place to have denied the fact a priori, and when he was convicted he should have been glad to learn.
It has been said that in scientific work accuracy is the most valuable quality and the hardest to attain. Accuracy alone may strike us as a dull quality to be so highly rated. When a given result has been obtained in eleven successive experiments, and fails on the twelfth occasion, it is the accurate-minded man who makes a wise use of the failure. It ought to arouse in us a flame of curiosity, lighting in us a whole posse of theories, which force us to vary our procedure and finally enable us to solve the difficulty.
Most of us are inclined to treat an unexpected result in a cavalier spirit, pushing it aside as “only an exception,” whereas it should be received as possibly a personage of distinction in disguise, and not as a rude disturber of our pet ideas.
A class of experimentalists exists from whom we all suffer—namely, cooks. How happy we should be if they possessed this lively desire to understand their own lapses from good cookery! It may be urged in excuse, that although the essence of cooking is the application of heat to food,
not one cook in a thousand has a thermometer in her oven. I hope that some of the ladies who have in these laboratories learned to believe in accuracy, will become missionaries among the ignorant and insist on this simple reform.
There is a type of accuracy of a very different kind which may become an actual vice. For instance, the desire to weigh things to 1–10 mg. which should only have been weighed to a centigram, measuring to 1–10 mm., and calculating averages to several places of decimals. In such a science as Botany this may be positive waste of time. Sachs, the great German botanist, in whose laboratory I worked, was never tired of complaining of this “sogenannte Genauigkeit,” (this so-called accuracy). I am told that Lord Rayleigh, whose physical inquiries demand in some cases excessive and minute accuracy, has a wonderful instinct for knowing when and where he may relax his methods.
I have been compelled to use the words ‘science’ and ‘scientific’ because these terms have become firmly adherent to a group of subjects such as Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Botany, etc., and cannot now be detached from them. Unfortunately ‘scientific’ is used in another sense as implying accuracy of experimental method and in deduction from results. So that in calling ourselves scientific men we run the risk of seeming to claim a monopoly of method, as though we pretended to be somehow superior to the trained workers in other branches. The current use of the word seems therefore to cast unjust suspicion on literature. I wish that
the word science could be restored to its original meaning of knowledge, or the art of knowing; but words (like organisms) are evolved, and against evolution the gods fight in vain. In any case I hope it will be believed that in speaking of knowledge I have taken instances from what is usually called science, not out of disrespect to literature, but like Dr. Johnson in a different affair—from ignorance.
I imagine Dr. Birkbeck to have had no idea that this institution would be so extensively used for preparing people for examinations. I doubt whether he would have liked it, but respect to the pious memory of a founder may be exaggerated, and since there is no getting rid of examinations, the next best thing is to make the art of coaching as little harmful as may be to pupil and teacher. I do not mean to speak slightingly of coaching as a whole, for a great deal of it is only a very skilful way of imparting knowledge, but it will be allowed that some of it is not educative in a broad sense.
You will remember that Mr. Brooke, in Middlemarch, was in the habit of mildly investigating questions which he always threw over because he foresaw they would “carry him too far.” I confess to feeling very like Mr. Brooke when I attempt to balance the interests of teacher and student. In that comfortable period, the 18th century, things were all in favour of the teacher. The poet Gray, who was Professor of History at Cambridge, could never decide whether to lecture in Latin or English, and ended by never lecturing at all.
It is now easier to find cases where the teacher
is the victim and slave of his pupils, and has no time or strength to continue his own education.
This has at least two bad results, and probably more than that number: (1) From want of time for reading the teacher can hardly avoid falling behind in a rapidly progressive subject such as one of the natural sciences, and consequently the University or College that enslaves him is injuring its own property. (2) He has no time to do any original work, and this is even worse for him (and therefore, as before, for the College). He ceases to be on intimate terms with the plants or animals or chemical substances with which he has to deal, and his teaching must necessarily lose that vigour and freshness that comes from first-hand personal knowledge. It is downright cruelty to deny time for research to those who vehemently desire to add something to the fabric of human knowledge.
The hampered teacher reminds me of a certain migratory bird living with clipped wings in a Zoological Garden: when the migrating season came round the unfortunate prisoner started to walk, and was to be seen pressing its breast against the bars at the north end of its pen. I hope that nowadays all Colleges realise that they must not prison their birds, but give them the means of satisfying their natural instinct for fresh and self-gained knowledge. The students are in one way better off than their masters, since laboratory work is generally new to them and has therefore some of the charm of discovery.
In what I have said to-night I have confined myself to Natural Science, in which alone I have
had experience of teaching or examining. On the literary side of things I am, I fear, a Philistine, or enfant terrible. I belong to that class of persons (which has at least the merit of being very large) who have hardly opened a Greek or Latin book since the day they passed their Little-go.
I grudge the time that is given at school to making small boys groan over books not well suited to them, while French and German are, or were in my day, all but untaught. If I had had good oral teaching in modern languages (such, for instance, as that given at the Perse School in Cambridge) I could forgive my teachers. We should without tears have learned to talk fluently and write correctly in at least one modern language, and for the sake of this I could perhaps have borne the weariness of Greek and Latin grammar. If it were not for the tyranny of examinations, classical teaching might be put to its proper use, which is not to serve as an instrument of torture, but to enable us to read ancient authors.
I would teach Latin and Greek only to older boys, and by the method in which we all learn a modern language—that is when we have the advantage of being at once teacher and learner. I mean by reading quickly, with a translation if necessary; at first without understanding half of what we read, but gradually picking up words as we go along. This is how I learned to read easy Italian. By the advice of the late Henry Sidgwick I began on a bad Italian translation of a French novel, because such a version, being full of French idioms more or less literally translated, is
easier than idiomatic Italian. The right book to begin on is a good murder story, such as one of Gaboriau’s, which are fortunately to be had in bad Italian. What would an old fashioned teacher of Greek and Latin have said to this! In my own case I feel that the difficulty of reading the classics was good discipline, and so far educational. In Henry Sidgwick’s method one is carried along by the detective business, and learns Italian words as a child picks up its own language, by context and re-iteration. It will be said that this method is not applicable to Latin and Greek, and that even if it were so, it would not be educative. I confess I do not expect my words to sink into the hearts of the teachers of what are unkindly called the dead languages. The great Moloch of examination has constantly to be supplied with human children, to say nothing of grown-up people. Some escape, but how many are reduced to ashes?
I have said nothing about what should have been my theme, namely, the beginning of the College year. To my thinking beginnings have something of the melancholy that seems more appropriate to endings. Sad associations tend to adhere to all that has the quality of periodicity. I for one feel this when spring once more puts on the familiar look with which our childhood and youth seemed to mingle on equal terms, but which upbraids us now we are no longer young.
And in a more work-a-day spirit Monday morning is sad. I think this is so because the conception Next Week is full of the ghosts of dead resolutions. No doubt it was on Monday mornings that Mr.
Shandy renewed his vow to have the hinge of the parlour door mended, which I think remained unrepaired to the end of the book.
But after all, this gloomy point of view belongs to the onlooker, not to the actors in the rhythm of things. Each particular Monday is a new-born entity, and doubtless feels a pleasurable excitement in its brief life. And to the actual snowdrops and winter aconites that pierce the cold ground, spring is a new and glorious experience. In this academic springtime (which chances to occur in autumn) the onlooker need have no morbid feelings, only perhaps a touch of envy of those whose College life begins to-day.
XIII
PICTURESQUE EXPERIMENTS
To those who have never made experiments on plants it may seem that ‘picturesque’ is an odd term to apply to laboratory methods. But to an experimentalist the adjective does not seem overstrained. There is not merely the pleasure of seeing a prediction verified—that may be experienced in more everyday matters. There is a peculiar delight in the discovery of a method of revealing some detail in the natural history of living things. I remember vividly the pleasure which I felt when I first tried the experiment on Sorghum, described in the essay on the Movements of Plants in this volume. [210] I hoped that the seedlings would curve in the elaborate manner shown in Fig. 4. But I had so little expectation of success that I did not explain the object of the trial to my laboratory assistant, and it came as a shock of delight when he told me that the seedlings had “curled up like corkscrews.” I do not think that it is an exaggeration to say, that this result is a picturesque illustration of the distribution of gravitational sensitiveness in plants. The instances in the present essay are not concerned with the movements of plants, and are so far less interesting, but I think the reader will not refuse them the same adjective.
We all know that in plants—from the smallest weed to the giant trees of America—there flows a stream of water from the root to the topmost leaf. Nevertheless, it is an experience to have ocular proof of this life-giving current. A branch of laurel is so arranged that it has to suck up the water it needs through a coarse thermometer tube, dipping into a beaker. The laurel does not wither, and we know therefore that it is continuously supplied with water. If the beaker is removed we shall see the absorption, for the thermometer tube does not remain full of water; a minute column of air is seen at its lower end which rapidly increases in size, and finally when the tube is emptied of its water-content, bubbles of air escape one after another into the larger tube, which contains the cut end of the branch. This, the simplest possible experiment, is nevertheless a vivid ocular proof of the laurel’s power of absorbing water. It can be shown that the sucking power of the branch depends on its leaves, for if these are removed the rate of the current is very greatly diminished. It can also be proved that it depends on some quality of the leaf surface, for if a new specimen is taken, and if the lower sides of its leaves are rubbed with vaseline, the rate of absorption will be seen to diminish very greatly. Greasing the upper surface of the leaves does not produce this result, and when we examine the two surfaces it is found that the lower one is riddled with innumerable microscopic holes (stomata), while the upper side of the leaf has no such apertures. The stomata in fact are the arbiters of what shall pass in or out of the body of the leaf;
they are the gate-keepers who regulate both export and import. They are known by actual inspection (with a microscope) to close at night: the result of this is that the evaporation of the leaves is much slower at night, and this is true when allowance has been made for the fact that evaporation is also checked at night by the dampness of the air.
The microscopical inspection of stomata is not a completely satisfactory method of discovering to what degree they are open. It has, however, been my good fortune to resuscitate and simplify a method of studying the stomatal condition. The method was many years ago tried in a hopelessly cumbersome form by a German, but never came into use. My apparatus is described in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, [212] and is known as the
Porometer. Its essential part is shown in Fig. 7. It consists of a funnel-shaped tube, having a broad flange, which is cemented on to the stomata-bearing surface of a leaf. The leaf is represented by the obliquely shaded object and is enormously magnified. To the upper orifice of the funnel is fixed a rubber tube, and by means of it steady suction can be supplied. The result is that a current of air is drawn through the stomata into the leaf, and then out of the leaf into the cavity of the porometer. The rate of this current is an index of the degree to which the stomata are open. With this apparatus a number of interesting points can be determined.
Fig. 8 shows the effect of alternate periods of light and darkness. The fall of the curve represents
partial closure, and is seen to occur in the periods of darkness (black), and to rise when the plant is re-illumined. These changes are necessarily accompanied by rise and fall in the evaporation of the leaf, but into the question of the accuracy of this correlation I shall not enter.
There are other methods of demonstrating the movements of the stomata. Stahl had the happy inspiration of making use of the colour-changes of cobalt chloride. A piece of filter paper soaked in a 5 p.c. solution of this salt is blue when dried, and turns pink in damp air. A dry piece of this material, applied with proper precaution to the stomata-bearing surface of a leaf, rapidly changes to pink if the stomata are open. When, however, the same trial is made on the upper surface of a leaf, where stomata do not occur, no such change occurs. If two leaves are treated at the same time, one in the normal position and the other upside down, it is delightful to watch the appearance of a pink picture of that leaf whose stomatic surface is in contact with the paper, while no such change takes place over that which exposes no stomata to the tell-tale material. Another method was discovered by the accident of finding in an old house in Wales a Chinese figure of a man, cut out of a thin shaving of horn, which writhed and twisted when placed on the hand. It was clearly very sensitive to moisture, and it seemed possible that horn-shavings might be used to test the condition of the stomata. The first difficulty was to obtain a supply of this material. Having discovered from the P.O. Directory that there were two
horn-pressers in London I proceeded to visit one of them somewhere in Hoxton. He turned out to be of a highly suspicious disposition, but his wife had more discernment, and persuaded him that I was a harmless customer, with no designs on trade secrets, and I finally obtained what I wanted. A delicate strip of horn was fixed to a little block of cork and placed on a leaf, and to my delight showed the stomata to be open by violently curving upwards. It was only necessary to fix a graduated arc to the cork, and to fasten a delicate hair on to the horn so as to serve as index. The instrument is not of course accurately quantitative, but it does at least show whether the stomata are nearly shut, moderately open, or widely so. Rough as it is I found it good enough for determining a number of interesting facts in the physiology of stomata. [215a]
I now pass on to a different subject, the all-important process on which the life of green plants depends, an act therefore by which our own existence and that of all other animals is conditioned. I mean the process known as assimilation. This is the truly miraculous feat of using as a source of food the carbonic acid gas (CO2) which exists in minute quantities in the atmosphere. The plant is in fact a carbon-catching machine, and the machine is driven by the energy of the sun, and can therefore only work in light. The eminent Russian botanist, Timiriazeff, in a lecture on this subject [215b] before the Royal Society, made a witty use of Gulliver’s Travels—a book not commonly quoted
as an authority in scientific matters. He pointed out that the philosophers of Lagado, who were extracting sun-beams from cucumbers, were not doing anything absurd. On the contrary, since the cucumbers had been built with the help of sunshine, it was a reasonable expectation that energy corresponding to the sunshine should be obtainable. This indeed is what we do when we drive a steam engine by burning coal which ages ago was built by vegetable machinery driven by sunlight.
It is possible to show the existence of this process by very simple experiments. The most direct, but the least interesting, experiment is to take two similar plants, and expose plant A to an atmosphere containing CO2 while B is in air freed from that gas. Both specimens are placed in bright light, and after a sufficient interval of time their leaves are tested for the presence of starch. This is a simple matter; the green colouring matter is washed out of them by means of alcohol, and they are then placed in a dilute solution of iodine, which has the property of staining starch purple. It is always pleasant to see the leaf that had been supplied with CO2 turn blue, while the starved leaf remains a hungry yellow.
Some of the prettiest methods of demonstrating this process depend, not on the manufacture of starch in the leaf, but on the fact that an assimilating plant sets free oxygen, by breaking up the molecule CO2, building the carbon (C) into its own tissues, and letting the oxygen (O) go free. A beautiful method was discovered on these lines by
Engelmann, which I was never tired of seeing year after year in my Cambridge class. Defibrinated bullock’s blood is freed from air by means of an air pump and charged with CO2. In the course of this process it acquires the dingy tint of venous blood. A single leaf of the American weed (Elodea) is mounted on a glass slide in a drop of this blood and covered by an ordinary cover slip. Then comes the dramatic moment: the preparation is exposed to sunshine, and in 3 or 4 minutes a delicate scarlet border begins to appear round the leaf and grows rapidly, making a curious sunset effect in contrast with dingy purple of the venous blood. The meaning is very clear; the Elodea leaf in sunshine took the carbon from the CO2, and the oxygen thus set free gave the venous blood the scarlet hue characteristic of the arterial condition. Professor Farmer has designed a striking method based on another well-known experiment of Engelmann’s. A drop of water containing the products of decay, and therefore swarming with bacteria, supplies the test. A drop of this fluid is placed on a glass slip, one or two delicate leaves of a green water plant (Elodea) are added, and a square of thin glass is placed on it. Round the edges of the cover-slip the preparation must be sealed with a preparation of wax, which melts at a low temperature, and when cold serves to prevent the preparation drying; it also isolates it from the surrounding atmosphere. After making sure under the microscope that the bacteria are in active movement, the glass slip is placed in the dark for some 3 or 4 hours. It is then examined, and the bacteria will be found to have
ceased to move because they and the leaves between them have consumed the oxygen dissolved in the water, and bacterial activity being dependent on oxygen naturally came to an end. The preparation is placed under the microscope and illumined with bright incandescent gas, and after a short time the bacteria begin to stir and are soon once more whirling in their insensate dance. The reason is obvious—the green leaves under the influence of light were able to seize the carbon from the CO2, and the O thus set free put the bacteria in motion. The bacterial dance is therefore evidence of the act of assimilation carried on by the Elodea leaf.
Yet another method is worth mention, viz., that of Boussingault. The plant is placed in an inverted glass vessel resting in a dish of water, and is filled with hydrogen mixed with a percentage of CO2. Inside the vessel a fragment of phosphorus is suspended, and as a small amount of oxygen is sure to be mixed with the hydrogen the phosphorus will be oxygenated and white fumes will fill the vessel. The observer must wait until these clouds have subsided, which may need a couple of hours. This must take place in the dark, and as soon as the atmosphere is clear, the whole preparation is placed in bright light, when obvious clouds will again appear—a proof that oxygen has been set free by the assimilation of the green plants. With this example I must bring my short series of experiments to a close, with the hope that my readers may not deny that they are picturesque.
XIV
DOGS AND DOG LOVERS
“The more I see of men, the more I like dogs.”—Archbishop Whately. [219]
Why is it that some people do not like dogs? There are those who dislike other people’s dogs just as they dislike strange children. This is a point of view which is comprehensible though unattractive. Still, in comparison with those who do not like dogs at all this class seem positively amiable. I knew a lady with the most perfect understanding of the qualities of human beings, whether bad or good, yet she had no sympathy with dogs. She would be kind to them, as an external duty to all living things, but a dog had absolutely no place in her heart. What made this blindness seem all the more incomprehensible was the fact that she could love a bullfinch; she could not therefore plead that she loved humanity so much that she had no love left for beings of another sort. After all, it may be that not to care for dogs is no more a blemish than a lack of musical ear, which is not a sign of general dullness of artistic perception since it is found in some poets. We must accordingly allow that not to love dogs is not a sign of a black heart or
a debased nature. A dog lover will grant this to be an unavoidable intellectual conclusion, but in the secret corners of his mind he will feel something more hostile than mere Christian pity for these emotionally deformed people. If he holds Erewhonian doctrines he would like to send for the family straightener, and bear with fortitude the punishment inflicted on his friends and relations.
I fear that we, the dog lovers, are, by those who do not share our tastes, held to be unbalanced persons, who intrude their passions on the reasonable and well bred. They object to us as victims of perverted instincts, who talk unknown dog-language in and out of season. It is not clear to me why we care so much for dogs. Is it, in truth, an exaggeration, or an offshoot of that love of the helpless young of our own kind which natural selection develops in social animals? This is not necessarily maternal, as we see in the story of the heroic male baboon, who risked his life in saving a young one from a pack of baying hounds. [220a] Or is it an instinct developed in a hunting tribe—a blind tendency to take good care of the food-providers (at the expense of starving aunts and grandmothers), such as we see among the Fuegians, who explained that, “Doggies catch otters—old women no.” [220b]
However this may be, it is I think certain that the love of dogs is an unreasoning passion, having all the force of an instinct. In a story by Miss
Wilkins we see how the love even of a cat may come to be regarded as a human right or need. The old woman who had lost her cat (he afterwards emerged half starved from the cellar), rebelled against the will of God. She allowed that the happiness of husband and children was possibly not to be expected by everyone, but “there was cats enough to go all round.”
I think it impossible to account for the especial affection that we bear to certain dogs. Dogs are, as I have said, in a degree like our children; they come to us and they have to be tended, fed, and guarded, and in these services we learn to love them. And when our affection is reflected back to us from the thing we love, it gains an especially touching quality. In the case of dogs our affection is certainly not a response to any inherent charm obvious to all the world—and here again they resemble children. The dog I loved best was an inferior Irish terrier, who gave me much trouble and anxiety. He was constantly fighting; he barked fiercely at innocent visitors. He killed chickens, and for this I had to beat him cruelly, tie him up and leave him trembling with a dead victim round his neck, a punishment for which I still feel remorse, though it saved him from being shot as a criminal, and cured him of his murderous tendency for many years. Pat was not a clever dog, and when striving to learn certain simple tricks he used to fall into abysses of miserable stupidity, and give up all hope of winning the biscuit earned by his fellow-dog, a Scotch terrier, with all the intelligent certainty of his nation. Pat
had one attractive physical quality; he was perfectly sweet and clean; indeed his adoring family compared his scent to that of new mown hay; he had also a smooth head, which was compared, by one enthusiastic admirer, to a putting-green. He had the attractive and not very common quality of grinning—tucking up his lips and showing the teeth, but producing the effect of a smile, and expressing a shy and apologetic frame of mind.
Pat lived with a bad tempered Scotch terrier called Whisk, whom I liked for his strong character and intellectual acquirements, but I had no great affection for him. He could not bear being spoken to or even looked at while he ate his dinner, and would growl with his mouth full, in a terrific manner, if so disturbed. In the same ferocious spirit he would growl and snap if his basket was accidentally kicked when he was dozing in the evening, and however much we apologised he would take each expression of regret as a fresh insult, and answer them all with growls, which gradually died away in sleep.
We only once had a big dog, and he was not a success though he was an agreeable person. We bought him and his brother, two very fat mastiff puppies, at North Berwick, and brought them south. The one pleasant incident in the journey was the question of a German in Edinburgh station: “Madam, who are these dogs?” We gave away one and kept the other, who bore the magnificent name of Tantallon, soon abbreviated into Tan. He had many friendly habits, but they were on too large a scale for domestic life. He had, for instance,
a way of placing a dirty paw on the table cloth at meals, and he knocked down street children by trying to lick their faces and (so rumour said) by wagging his tail. He frightened cab horses into hysterics, and their drivers fell off and claimed damages. He ate with enjoyment the embroidered perambulator-cushion of a neighbour, who was discovered looking on while Tan tore strips off the cushion with that powerful upward movement of the head and neck which few cushions can withstand. Finally poor Tan had to be given away, and was lost sight of.
These rough outlines of the characters of some of our dogs are meant to show that the reasons for loving dogs are not patent, and that we cannot complain if the words, used by a little girl in Punch towards a couple of earwigs, should be applied to us and our dogs, “Nasty creatures! I cannot think how they can care for each other.”
Stevenson’s essay [223] on The Character of Dogs is not entirely satisfactory. It is surely a one-sided view of the dog that “he is vainer than man, singularly greedy of notice, singularly intolerant of ridicule, suspicious like the deaf, jealous to the degree of frenzy, and radically devoid of truth.” It is hardly possible that he should be vainer than man; and in the dog, vanity is a far simpler and more lovable thing than the complex and offensive passion in his master. His greed for notice and his jealousy are part of his great love for his master. I do not remember that Stevenson ever speaks of
the passionate love (not for mankind, but for one special person) which burns in the heart of a dog. It is a singular omission—and I cannot but think it intentional. If so he was wise, for it certainly does not lend itself to the manner which Stevenson adopts towards dogs. No doubt I may be led into sentimentality and general wearifulness in attempting to describe what seems to me the most striking characteristic of dogs—their great and enduring power of loving. It may be that “the day of an intelligent small dog is passed in the manufacture and laborious communication of falsehood.” But he does not lie when he says quite plainly how greatly he loves his master. Nor do I agree that a small spoiled dog would prate interminably, and still about himself. I think he would say, “I love you” rather often, but that bears repetition. I know a Schipperke whose main interest in life is his dinner, but when his mistress was ill he had only two desires, to lie on her bed and to bite the doctor for approaching her. He had to be dragged out for a walk instead of eagerly begging for one. Was this an elaborate falsehood? Was it pretence? Was it conventionality?
A dog can hardly be expected to plead guilty when detected in crime. He jumps off the forbidden bed when he hears someone coming, and, being unaware that the warm place on the counterpane will betray him, he assumes a calm and happy air. But this is a lie so natural that I for one cannot blame the liar.
In my life with dogs I have felt much more clearly their desire to speak, and to speak truth,
than the wish to deceive. I had an old Scotch terrier, who in his youth, before I knew him, had been called Nigel, no doubt because he was black and small, but as he grew up he somehow acquired the uncouth name of Scrubbins. At one stage of his career he was condemned to death for eczema. I begged him off, and he lived some five years with me, and was cured of his eczema by the devoted care of a servant. He was a dog of large heart, who, while he cared for others, was especially devoted to me. In his old age his eyes became dim and his limbs stiff. He had a pathetic way of standing staring into my eyes, or with difficulty getting his paws on to my knees to ask to have his head rubbed, an attention of which he never wearied. No one could doubt that this was his expression of the mutual love that bound us to each other. This was the indestructible impression produced, and it is useless to tell me that he may have been striving to conceal some crime, or at least some base and worldly point of view. When sentiment is applied to facts, rational conclusions are apt to be rare—but without a share of sentiment there might have been no facts to record.
There are innumerable cases proving the devotion of dogs—a passion surviving the master’s death, and prolonged until the dog himself dies. Such is the story of the heroic dog seen to watch his master’s dead body in South America, keeping the vultures off it, and only allowing himself an occasional rush to the river for water, until he too died. What is there here but a passion of love?
We may call it instinct, but what is the love of a human mother?
A dog differs from his master in not taking offence; you may tread on his tail and he will only apologise for being in your way. But I have known a dog bite his mistress when she interfered with him in a fight, while he was beside himself with anger. In the same way an unhappy dog caught in a trap may be so maddened with pain as to attempt to bite those who seek to free him, but these are extreme cases. It is again part of this same lovable quality of dogs that they are not given to moods. They are always ready to welcome us and to wag tails when we notice them.
M. Anatole France shows in some ways a sympathy with dogs, and a sensitiveness to their mental attitudes, finer and more true than anything in Stevenson’s essay. The misery of Riquet [226] over the démenagement of his master, M. Bergeret, is admirably drawn. Riquet begins by barking fiercely when “des hommes inconnus, mal vêtus, injurieux et farouches” invade his beloved house, and ends in being lifted in silent misery and shut up in a portmanteau. Riquet soon becomes too human, but he does at least show his adoration of M. Bergeret, in mourning over the desecration and removal of “ton fauteuil profond—le fauteuil où nous reposions tous les soirs, et bien souvent le matin, à côté l’un de l’autre.”
No. XII. of the Pensées de Riquet does not bear on the love that subsists between dog and man;
it goes deeper however, for it shows that men as well as dogs are dominated by instinctive night fears which unite them by a most ancient and enduring bond. Riquet says: “À la tombée de la nuit des puissances malfaisantes rôdent autour de la maison,” a fact obvious to all children. There is (No. XII.)an admirable comic prayer to his master beginning, “O mon maître Bergeret, dieu de carnage, je t’adore.” But it seems to me to miss the true flavour of doggishness.
Professor A. C. Bradley [227] strives to show that Shakespeare “did not care for dogs.” His opinion is worthy of respect, and all the more that he seems to be a dog lover himself. At least, so I interpret what he says of Shakespeare: “To all that he loved most in men he was blind in dogs, and then we call him universal!” “What is significant,” he says, “is the absence of sympathic allusion to the characteristic virtues of dogs, and the abundance of allusions of an insulting kind.”
I had always imagined that the description of the hounds in “A Midsummer’s Night’s Dream” was written by one who liked dogs as individuals, not merely as a picturesque piece of hunting apparatus. But Professor Bradley’s contrary opinion is probably the sounder. In the same way I think that the passage in “Lear,” “Tray, Blanche, and Sweetheart,” etc., could only have been written by one who understood the shock which the little dogs’ behaviour gave the King. On the other hand, I agree that Shakespeare does
not sympathise with the admirable conduct of Launce, who sat in the stocks to save his dog from execution for theft.
Scott was a genuine dog lover. It is on record that he excused himself for not keeping an engagement on the score of the death of an old friend, that friend being his bulldog Camp. His deerhounds Bran and Maida are, like the Duke of Wellington’s horse Copenhagen, known to all the world. I am glad to think that Scott’s dogs are preserved in several of his portraits. In his books there are two types of dogs, Dandie Dinmonts’ Pepper and Mustard who have given their master’s name to a breed and are real dogs of flesh and blood. Or again, Harry Bertram’s Wasp, who helps to save Dandie from the thieves. But there is also the theatrical dog, Roswal, in The Talisman, who springs at the throat of Conrad of Montserrat and saves his master’s honour. Between these come Gurth’s dog, Fangs, slightly tinged by the “tushery” of Ivanhoe, but still striking and pathetic. I keep still my sympathy with Gurth, who swears “by S. Edmund, S. Dunstan, S. Withold and S. Edward,” that he will never forgive Cedric for having attempted to kill his dog, “the only living creature that ever showed me kindness.”
But apart from his love of dogs Scott shows that he can use them with splendid dramatic effect; for instance, when Dugald Dalgetty and the Child of the Mist are escaping from the Duke of Argyll’s prison, how we thrill as the distant baying of those deadly trackers, the bloodhounds, strikes on the ear of the fugitives.
I am not clear as to what was Dickens’ personal attitude towards dogs, but he certainly understood the passion of the dog lover.
The man who ousted David Copperfield from the box-seat in the London Coach [229a] remarked, “‘Orses and dorgs is some men’s fancy. They’re wittles and drink to me—lodging, wife and children, reading, writing, and ’rithmetic—snuff, tobacker, and sleep.” Probably we should have felt, as Mr. Pickwick did on a similar occasion, [229b] that it would have been well if horses and dogs had been ‘washing’ also. I doubt, in fact, whether we should have enjoyed his company, or even whether we should have felt him a dog lover of our own sort—but we should not be too nice, and must allow some merit to his form of the passion.
Another of Dickens’s characters, Mr. Sleary, [229c] of “the Horse Riding,” has a much more attractive way of caring for animals. His theory of how a dog he has lost found him again always pleases me. The dog is believed to set on foot inquiries among his friends. “You don’t happen to know a person of the name of Sleary, do you? Person of the name of Sleary in the Horse-Riding way—stout man—game eye?” The inquiries were successful; and I like, too, the frankly sentimental account of the appearance of the clown’s dog after his master’s death, and the dog’s search for the clown’s little girl:—
“We was getting up our Children in the Wood one morning, when there comes into our Ring by the stage door a dog. He had travelled a long way, he was in very bad condition, he was lame, and pretty well blind. He went round to our children, one after another, as if he was a-seeking for a child he knowd; and then he come to me, and throwed himself up behind, and stood on his two forelegs, weak as he was, and then wagged his tail and died.”
I might doubtless give other instances of well-known men who were lovers of dogs, [230a] but I shall refrain from further quotation. The instincts of man are being purged of the brutality by which they are too often characterised, and what are clumsily called dumb animals have benefited side by side with human beings. It is not yet true that even a merciful man is merciful to his beast, but in England, at any rate, it is recognised that actual cruelty to animals is wrong, but even this is not always the case among other nations. My father used to tell us how, when his horse was exhausted, he lagged behind his S. American companion who shouted, “Spur him! Don Carlos, spur him! he is my horse,” and simply could not understand my father’s motive. But I am glad to remember that even among rough people, in uncivilised ages, a sense of humanity to animals was not unknown. Busbecquius [230b] records that in Constantinople an angry crowd assembled before a shop in which
was exhibited a living bird with its mouth forcibly opened to show its huge gape.
Cruelty is often said to be the outcome of ignorance and stupidity rather than of innate brutality. I wish I could believe this: in any case it is an evil which must be not merely held in check but rooted out. All lovers of animals owe a debt of gratitude to the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, not only for their great organisation for the prevention and punishment of brutalities, but also, and perhaps especially, for their guidance of public opinion.
THE END.
printed by w. heffer and sons ltd., cambridge, enlgand.