stances of equally signal and las can be pointed to in the same per of men of action under forty?

In the domain of thought, equa trations of the error of Doctor can be pointed out in abundance. mention minor things, because th be that these, while precious and no difference in the long run. L one overshadowing instance. If t case in which it can be asserted that the world is not "just wher been," it is the impressive case of sion of Greek philosophers, Soc Aristotle, each the disciple of the dominion of Aristotle over men's m in its duration not by centuries, 1 and the completeness of its sway d able part of that time is something parallel in the history of Western will anybody, we believe, deny the ing relation of Socrates to Plato Aristotle. But Socrates was 41 Plato was born, and Plato was 4 first saw the light. We fancy t would be the last to say that it wo

serious difference to the world if Socrates had desisted from his activities before Plato was born, and 31 years before the actual close of his own career; if Plato had ceased to think and teach and write before Aristotle was born, and 41 years before his own death; or even if Aristotle had undertaken to make his last contribution to the thought of the world 22 years before the time which actually marked the close of his vast labors.

To these and scores of other instances that might be adduced in the world of intellect the answer may be made that what was meant was something not inconsistent with any of this; that the idea in Doctor Osler's mind was that the initiating impulse, the setting forth along a new line, the vitalizing conception of a great thought, seldom fails to take place in the mind of its originator before he reaches the age of forty; that what is done after that age is almost always in pursuance of some line of thought upon which the mind had fastened at an earlier period. But who would deny such an assertion as this? Reduced to this harmless condition, the assertion would be almost as lacking in novelty as, in its original form, it was wanting in correctness. Doctor Osler, many persons in his audience must have felt, was putting in pointed, piquant, telling, interesting, unguarded form a thing which-so far as it is true-most persons would be ready to admit, but which few persons, perhaps, adequately realize. It is worth while to dwell on the preciousness of the years of bold and enthusiastic and creative intellectual impulse. One consequence of doing so, in the university world, ought to be a better utilization

of the powers of gifted young men for the kind of work which they would seize upon with eagerness, and from which they are too often turned aside to do the work of mere routine. But in the assertion itself there is nothing either novel or startling. It would have been strange, indeed, if Darwin had lived to the age of forty without having taken on the impulse that of an extremely simple though infinitely prolific idea—which guided the work of his whole life. And, having once become absorbed in that thought, and devoted to it, we require no hypothesis of semi-senility to account for his not having got out some other equally important theory in his later years. The bent of a man's life is determined before forty; he is less apt after that time to start out upon new ways; who has ever doubted this? But while we render unto the young man the things that are the young man's, there is no reason why we should withhold from the older man the things that are his.

There are other things in the world-even in the world of thought-that are great besides scientific discovery; and even in the domain of scientific discovery there are other things that are great besides the original or seminal idea of the discovery. The world is full of mute inglorious Newtons and Darwins as well as Miltons; men who have had the initial thought, the impulsive conception, but have not attained the high mastery, the comprehensive grasp, the lucid and mature judgment, that make the discovery real and substantial. Which of the two endowments is the more precious? The question is as idle as would be the question whether

ent argued the rarer, the more important the quality that made Darwin Darwin? n be but one answer. And that answer is sufficient to take the bottom out of the which Doctor Osler, we regret to see, has qualifiedly, not before a scientific audience, e a general public which he cannot expect the allowances and interpretations that ssary in order to free his assertion not n objection but from possibilities of real

kind of popular admiration such greets Theodore Roosevelt today. which most readily suggests itself is Jackson. The hero of New Orle fight against the Bank of the Unit a kind of popular idolatry not u President Roosevelt commands, a much more intense. But along w an equally intense party and pers rected against him; and his def Henry Clay, was a man who com thusiastic devotion on the part of H admirers as has probably not been entire history of American politics. was something of a class division pealing rather to the intellect an country, Jackson to the instincts of Roosevelt's case, the remarkable presented of a man born to wealth connections, a scholar and author, nationally as an advocate and p aristocratic" measure, civil serv is nevertheless above all a favorit masses of the people, while re equally a favorite with the class in

66