« AnteriorContinuar »
of this new and hardly wholesome atmosphere? Where are we to realize it? Whence are we to trace it? As an artistic influence, how admirable is it?"
WHERE ART HAS FAILED.
These are the questions investigated in the article. Mr. McLeod says in conclusion :
Lastly, why is it that art may never be by intention ugly? Ought she not to try and influence moral ideas, and must she not use all means needful for this?
"I think all her acts must be ordered with reference to one great end, which is to inflame our spirits by the presentment of what is noble or beautiful. To lead us on by pointing to the heights above, not to the gulfs behind; to encourage us with the waving banner of hope, not flog us with our iniquities; by showing us the best, to inspire us to become the best. It is at once her limitation and her glory. We do not seek out physical ugliness in life; we tolerate it if need be, but we do not seek to perpetuate it, to people the isle with Calibans.
"Dante himself was not a happy man, and I sometimes wonder whether the world is happier for all he has written. But this is not the point. Perhaps the world ought not to be happier for him; but it ought to be happier for its pictures ; and it is because of this that men like the Orcagnas have failed.
"It is because of this that modern art has failed, too. In aspiring to teach, she has forgotten how to praise. Her eye has fallen from the star of beauty that used to lead her, and her feet are floundering in muddy wavs.'
WHAT IS ELECTRICITY?
MR. CARL SNYDER gives an interesting
account of the discussions concerning the nature of electricity in the October Harper's. It is one of the marvels of modern science that it is so impossible to decide definitely what is the nature of the force which is utilized so generally in modern life and industry. Benjamin Franklin thought electricity was a fluid. He assumed that all bodies were normally electrified at all times. If the quantity of electricity was increased, the body would be positively electrified; if decreased, negatively electrified. Electricity seemed to flow from a higher to a lower level, like water. The electric circuit was merely the passage of a quantity of electricity from a posi tive or negative to a more neutral stage.
Franklin's ideas of the fluid nature of electricity were not contradicted by the important discoveries of his immediate successors, Volta,
Davy, and Galvani. But with Faraday's discoveries of the relation of electricity to magnetism, Franklin's notions become rather crude. Then it was found that light and electricity traveled at the same speed, 184,000 miles a second, and Clerk-Maxwell, the Scotch physicist, came to the conclusion that electricity and light were at bottom identical, light, short ether waves; electricity, long ones. Sir Isaac Newton had decided that light might best be considered as an incessant hail of bodies so minute as to escape all means of direct investigation. Recently Prof. J. J. Thomson, of Cambridge, England, has taken up again this corpuscular theory of electricity and light, and there is an active discussion among the scientists of the real nature and phenomena of electricity.
THE CORPUSCULAR THEORY.
"Prof. J. J. Thomson has found a way to measure the speed of these particules, their weight, or mass, as well,-in a word, to demonstrate that they are real. They seem to be wonderful as well, for they are the smallest things known to man, and it may be that out of them the universe is made. Taking a leaf from Newton's notebook, Professor Thomson calls them corpuscles. It is rather bewildering to be told that these corpuscles may turn out to be electricity, matter, light, the aurora borealis, magnetism, chemical affinity, and various other trifles, all at once.
"These corpuscles have introduced an utterly new conception into the domain of electricity,— that the latter is atomic in character, or, according to the new ideas, atomic in structure. In order to get at some sort of a working model of the processes which go on in his laboratory, the chemist was obliged to resort to the notion of ultimate units of matter, atoms,-literally, that which cannot be cut. Choosing the lightest of the atoms, that of hydrogen, as a basis, the chemist weighs and measures his atoms of gold or sulphur or iron as if they were so much sugar or salt in his scale pans."
Professor Crookes, studying the peculiar actions which go on in the Crookes tube, the source of the Roentgen rays, was led to believe that the beautiful, velvety, greenish glow inside the vacuum tube which comes when an electrical discharge passes is due to the incandescence of tiny fragments of matter.
THE ELECTRICAL UNIT, OR ELECTRON. Professor Thomson found a way to count the number of corpuscles within a Crookes tube, and, knowing the total amount of electricity they bore, it was merely a problem of very long divi.
"The chemist's atom, in the new view, becomes but an aggregation of electrified corpuscles. The mass of the latter is but a thousandth part of that of the lightest of atoms-that of hydrogen; but a hundred-thousandth part of that of an atom of silver or gold. Clusters of these corpuscles, varying in number and arrangement, but absolutely identical among themselves, build up the different kinds of matter-the eighty or ninety 'elements' known to the chemist. The corpuscles, in a word, constitute primal matter; they are the stuff of which all existing things, a starfish or a planet, a music-box or a mummy, are made.
"On the other hand, the electrician is invited to see in the passage of a 10,000-kilowatt current but a drift of corpuscles."
Electricity, then, is supposed by these scientists to be a hail of these minute corpuscles, each forming an electron. Lord Kelvin computes the diamater of an atom at one twenty-five-millionth of an inch; a corpuscle is certainly not more than one one-thousandth so large as this, and probably is much less.
IS MARS INHABITED?
F we accept the dictum of some scientists, that life cannot be assumed to be anywhere possible under conditions that would render it impossible upon the earth, the problem of the existence of human life on the planet Mars is greatly simplified. This is the basis of Prof. D. G. Parker's reasoning in an article contributed to the current number of Popular Astronomy. He asks, "Could we live on any one of the other planets in our solar system without an environment of such conditions as would prove fatal ?" As regards the planet Mercury and the sun, the admittedly high temperature seems to leave no other conclusion possible than that the burdens of human life would be simply unbearable. On the subject of Martian life, however, the evidence is not so convincing. Professor Parker disre gards the presumed possibilities" on which is based so much of the current reasoning on the problem, and confines himself to the actual dis
coveries on which there is substantial agreement among astronomers.
THE "CANALS" AND 66 ICE CAPS" OF MARS.
"It is upon these admitted facts that we take the negative side. Passing over the fascinating philosophy of Flammarion, Proctor, and others, the discovery of Schiaparelli's canals were at first hailed as convincing proof of human workmanship, but this argument was dashed to pieces by micrometrical measurements which showed these lines to be from 20 to 70 miles wide, and in some cases more than 2,000 in length.
That these are irrigated strips of land made green and productive by liberated waters of melting polar ice caps seems equally untenable. It is true that the changing colors give this theory a look of plausibility. But when we consider what such a theory really involves, one may well hesitate before accepting it.
Who can seriously contemplate transformations the magnitude of which have no parallel upon this globe. How can we accept the proposition of winters so severe as to form ice caps 70 degrees of arc, followed by summers so tropical as to melt them all away, flooding vast regions far beyond the central zone. Not that the severity of the winter can be doubted, but that it should be followed by a season of so high temperature, while receiving only 43 per cent. of the sun rays which we enjoy, seems wholly improbable.
"The claims of those who picture such water supplies under so high temperature are irreconcilable with other known facts. It is admitted that the planet is without any large bodies of water such as our oceans and seas; that the atmosphere is very light,-less than half the density of ours, even at the highest mountain peaks. This cannot be doubted, as, unlike other planets, Mars is seen to the very surface of the ball. If there were water vapors they would condense into clouds, and these would obscure the observation.
"To create such polar snows and ice caps as are claimed presupposes an atmosphere freighted with aqueous vapors, and it would seem that such clouds could not fail to be detected.
That such plentiful supplies of watery vapors do not exist is further proven by the fact that there is substantially nothing to originate them. It takes the evaporations of large bodies of water to distribute the needed moisture for sustaining plant and animal life. This is proven from our own experience.
"Three-fifths of our globe is deeply covered with water evaporations from this are daily carried into the atmosphere in immense quantities and taken by the winds for distribution over
the planet. Even this is found to be insufficient, for vast deserts continue arid and parched, and yield no fruitage whatever.
"If this is our experience, what must it be upon Mars, where no such bodies of water exist to be vaporized."
REASONS FOR BELIEVING THAT MARS IS
Professor Parker rests his conclusion that the planet is not inhabited upon the following premises:
"1. The moisture, if any, is insufficient. is admitted that there are no large bodies of water to be vaporized, and the telescope practically demonstrates that there are no clouds sug. gestive of either snow or rain precipitations.
"2. Without abundance of moisture there would be insufficient vegetation to sustain life.
3. It is too cold. With a temperature presumably two and one-half times lower than our own, no life known to us could survive; nor does it help the matter to assume, as some have, that there is a blanketing process of heat storage, when facts demonstrate that there is no such blanket.
"4. Accepting the LaPlace theory of relative age, if man has ever dwelt upon that distant world, the period of his allotment has doubtless long since passed.
5. But the most convincing proof lies in the fact of its greatly rarified atmosphere: being generally admitted to be 100 per cent. lighter than ours, even at the highest mountain peaks. Man lives substantially on nitrogen and oxy. gen, and here we find his supplies practically
"Professor Lowell, though an affirmative advocate, after reviewing conditions of the atmosphere, is impelled to admit that Beings physically constituted like ourselves would be liable to meet with severe discomforts.'
"Is not this a fatal admission? How can life be long perpetuated under conditions of unbrokenly severe discomforts?' To suppose that life exists at all under such dissimilar conditions is to speculate upon some sort of organism having no analogy to our own, and about which we know nothing.
While it may hardly be consistent with the dignity of scientific investigation to rest a conclusion upon the opinion of others, it is nevertheless interesting to know that some of these reasons have had weight with many of the best minds of the present age. Want of space will forbid quotations, but we invite attention to recent utterances of Professors Newcomb, Young, Holman, and others.'
WHY DISTASTEFUL FOOD IS UNWHOLESOME.
OME remarkable experiments to show the comparative digestibility of different foods have recently been conducted by Professor Pawlow upon dogs. These experiments are described by Dr. Romme in La Revue for August:
The gullet of the animal was cut in sections and fixed to the neck, so that when it ate, the food merely fell to the ground, and the stomach was divided into two parts, one where no food was allowed to penetrate, the other into which was put the food necessary to keep the dog alive.
The results of the experiments proved that the mere offering to the dog of food which he liked caused an abundant secretion of gastric juice, although, of course, nothing had entered the stomach. If he were given a dainty,-not merely food which he liked,-the flow of gastric juice was much more abundant, that is, food taken without appetite will fall into a stomach without any gastric juices ready for it. The work of digestion was formerly supposed to go on all right if only The you could get the food to the stomach. Pawlow experiments show that it is either not digested at all or very badly digested.
Again, the brain transmits its orders to the stomach by means of two pneumogastric nerves. Professor Pawlow cut these nerves on a specially "prepared" dog. Then he gave the dog some raw meat, which again, of course, did not reach secreted. No method of mechanical excitement the stomach; but no drop of gastric juice was produced any juice. And if, unknown to the dog, without arousing in him the idea of food, bread or cooked white of egg were introduced
into the stomach, they remained hours without causing the least secretion of gastric juice. after administering extract of meat or milk first, the secretion was provoked.
HOW MENTAL DISTRACTION MAY CAUSE DYSPEPSIA.
Clearly, says Dr. Romme, in the poorer classes a man lives far more from his muscles than from his brain,-i.e., the desire for food. It is not a bad thing to be mildly greedy. The reason for dyspepsia being so common among men of letters and the like is that their brain is so much occupied with their work that they sit down to table and eat without thinking of the food taken. The pneumogastric nerves are not called into action, and the gastric juice is badly secreted. Now it is easy to understand why it is bad to be absorbed in a book or newspaper at meals.
As for consumptives with no appetite, and mad folk who often refuse food, the gastric juice may be set in motion in their case by taking milk or broth an hour or so before a meal.
NATURAL IMMUNITY. SIN INCE the bacteria came into public notice, they have shown us that many old theories were fallacies. New problems have presented themselves, and most unexpected discoveries are constantly being made, until bacteriology has developed into a science that involves vital questions relating to both pure science and economic matters. In the last number of the Centralblatt für Backteriologie, Dr. E. S. Loudon discusses current theories concerning the means by which any creature resists the action of injurious elements upon it, and describes experiments in confirmation of the theories.
The cells composing an organism are con sidered as living, microscopic laboratories, in which the material basis of immunity is produced. According to one theory, the phagocytes, or wandering cells, are the active agents of defense; according to another, immunity depends upon the properties of certain humors produced in the blood. Probably the individual conflict against foreign elements is carried on largely within the limits of the cell, although it cannot be denied that it also goes on outside, in the vicinity of the cells and in the intercellular substance as well.
REMOVAL AND DESTRUCTION OF HARMFUL ELEMENTS.
The fluid which maintains the immunity of any animal may be resolved into three components, different in character and use, but each supplementing the action of the others. first (desmon) opens the attack, so to speak, upon the elements to be destroyed. It affects cell elements foreign to the organism, which have penetrated in any way from the outside, and it is the
selves, but there is no method for isolating a single kind of leucocytes; and, if there were, it would hardly be possible to induce the formation in an animal of a specific solvent for a definite kind of leucocyte; but if an animal is inoculated with an exudate in which one kind of leucocute predominates, a serum will be produced in response to the stimulus which will destroy all kinds of leucocytes.
Among the cell poisons there is one which is formed in animals if a piece of ciliated epithelium from an animal of a different species is introduced under the skin. The serum of such an animal acquires the power of stopping the movement of the cilia in corresponding cells.
If an emulsion made from the suprarenal body of the guinea pig is injected under the skin of a duck it calls forth a change in the nature of the serum of the duck; the emulsion apparently acts as a poison, and in defense the blood produces something that counteracts its effects. If the serum from such a duck is then injected into a normal guinea pig, it will kill it in a few hours.
It is maintained that man, and every animal as well, has a specific serum (antihaemolysin) in his blood which, to a certain extent, will resist the action of any poison tending to dissolve its red corpuscles. It is not supposed that the presence of the antihaemolysin lends any greater powers of resistance to the red corpuscles, but that it reacts upon the dissolving poison (haemolysin) and weakens it. Normal serum can destroy the dissolving power of many bacterial poisons.
ANIMAL LIFE AND CONDUCT.
agent concerned with the removal of cell material AS Schiller said, "Hunger and love lead the
which has belonged to the organism but has become useless. It cannot destroy useless cell material, but accomplishes the first step in its removal by uniting with it and converting it into a substance which can be acted upon destructively by another component of the fluid (alexin), which in itself is indifferent to cell material except when it previously has been made vulnerable. Besides these, there is a third component (agglutin), which coöperates with the other two. The degree of immunity of any animal depends upon the quantitative and qualitative relations of these components. By some it is held that the action of the first component is to stimulate the leucocytes to destroy the harmful elements, and another view of its mode of action is through the affinity. existing between it and the alexin contained in the leucocyte.
It has been shown by the chemical reactions to staining fluids that leucocytes vary among them.
world; now hunger and love are simply other names for the fundamental systems of what the moralist calls egotism and altruism, and the most recent discoveries of science have thrown new light on the nature and reciprocal function of these two great motive forces. The question is one of capital importance, not only in biology, but also in sociology and ethics. Both in Germany and in England there is a " Struggle for Life" school, composed of more or less faithful disciples of Darwin, and on the other side various French philosophers who have never given up protesting against the theory which reduces the whole of life to a selfish struggle.
the law that might is right. This is the question which M. Fouillée investigates in his article on "The Conduct of Life Among Animals contributed to the second August number of the Revue des Deux Mondes. It has been objected by some biologists that what Schiller said as to hunger, etc., should rather be regarded as the desire of the cell for its own work of reparation and division. A locomotive is not hungry because it requires coal and water to go on running. This is not the place to follow M. Fouillée through his extremely technical discussions on animal phenomena; but he goes on to consider what is the origin of what he calls "society" among animals, by which he means, it is to be supposed, those social habits and tendencies which are by some considered to be based on self-interest, and by others on sympathy.
Friendly association is, of course, to be found most highly developed among animals which resemble one another most closely, indeed, an animal which sees another animal for the first time is troubled in proportion to the unlikeness of the other animal to itself,-provided that comparison is at all possible. Thus, a monkey in the presence of a chameleon exhibits a most ludicrous terror. M. Fouillée attributes the foundation of animal society to the desire that every animal has to have round it beings like itself, this pleasure, frequently repeated, ending in creating an absolute need. He considers, therefore, that it is instinctive sympathy and not selfish interest which plays the principal part in the social life of animals, utilitarian considerations merely strengthening bonds which have been established,-in fact, utilitarian motives, supposing them to exist, themselves presuppose the consideration of the advantages which social life gives.
TWO DOG STORIES.
A dog in his relations to man often does things which, if done by a human being, would have the character of moral actions. Thus, there is the story of Romanes' dog, which only stole once in his lifetime. "One day, when he was very hungry," says Romanes, "he seized a cutlet on the table and took it under the sofa. I had been a witness of the deed, but I pretended to see nothing, and the culprit remained for some minutes under the sofa, divided between the desire to assuage his hunger and a sentiment of duty. It was the latter which triumphed, and the dog came and put at my feet the cutlet he had stolen; that done, he returned and hid himself again under the sofa, whence nothing could persuade him to come out." As Romanes says, the par
ticular value of this story lies in the fact that the dog had never been beaten, so that the fear of punishment could not have been a motive with him at all.
There is another story of a Newfoundland and a dog of another breed who were engaged in quarreling near a jetty. They fell into the sea, and the other dog, being a bad swimmer, began to drown, whereupon the Newfoundland, forgetting his anger, had all his life-saving instincts aroused, and proceeded to bring his late enemy to the bank. Another story is told of two Pyrenean dogs in whom the feeling of property was so highly developed that each of them would defend his plate of food with the utmost valor against any depredations on the part of the other. One of these dogs was cleverer than the other one, and knowing that his companion was very fond of barking and making a fuss when horses went by, would often pretend that something interesting was going on in the distance, and make off at great speed toward it; he would allow himself to be outstripped in the race, and, returning quickly, would eat the other's food.
THE PIGEON PUNISHED.
A French pigeon fancier tells a remarkable story of a pigeon collecting sticks for his nest and having been robbed during his absence by another pigeon. Each time, on his return, he would display signs of astonishment, looking all around in a vain search for any sign of the lost sticks. This went on for some time, and then the pigeon laid a trap for the thief; he put down a stick and then pretended to go away, but really
watched the nest from a little distance off. When the thief came the lawful proprietor of the sticks fell upon him, and, with beak and wing, administered terrific punishment. The interesting part is that the robber only defended himself in a halfhearted manner, and seemed by his demeanor to admit the justice of his punishment.
FEELING TOWARD A NEW RELIGION.
"ANTICIPATIONS," by Mr. H. G. Wells,
attracted so much attention that the author has been encouraged to begin a new series of articles in the Fortnightly Review, entitled
Mankind in the Making." The first paper, which appears in the September number, is called "The New Republic." Its proper title should have been "The New Religion," for almost all of it is devoted to a discussion of what general principle, leading idea, or standard can be found. sufficiently comprehensive to be of real guiding value in social and political matters, and throughout the business of dealing with one's fellow-men. Mr. Wells describes his own enterprise as an