The Popular Science Monthly Volume LXXXVI July to September, 1915 The Scientific Monthly Volume I October to December, 1915

Part 2 out of 8

1874 promoted a conference in Brussels to codify the usages of
war, but the reaction from his earlier liberalism was setting
in about this time and, growing worse, led to his assassination
in 1881.

The next move in the direction of peace came, as the world
rather well knows, through the present Czar, Nicolas the
Second, who on ascending the throne in 1894, proclaimed that
Russia would rule in the interests of peace and would cultivate
the arts of it. In 1898 followed the first call for a World
Peace Conference, and in 1899 came another circular with a
similar object.

But it is out of the kind heart of Muscovy, and from the
troubled, humble and penitent soul of Russia that the real
peace movement of her land has arisen. For many centuries
calamities have been pouring upon her plains, profusely
pouring--drought, famine and invasions without number; now
Rurik and his Northmen to start the empire out of its
prehistoric lethargy; their dynasty of conquering blood still
sharing in the rulership of the land to-day; now the Tartars,
remnants of whom with their high cheek bones are still visible
in the Baltic provinces; particularly and always and ever
poverty beyond description; poverty, disaster and conquest,
like triple demons to humiliate the soul of Russia and keep her
dumb for many centuries, except for the beauty of her unending

And out of these conditions of life has grown the peace
morality that is native to the Russian people; out of their
sorrows and their conquered plains, out of their broken hearts
too, although the economic genesis of it all is very apparent.

The Russian people's Russia has ever been under the overlords
heel, downtrodden years without number, and yet it is a land
which has never produced a system of military tactics and
training--forever dependent for these creations upon her
neighbors; a land which has produced scarcely one great naval
or military commander who to-day holds a place in history as do
those of other nations; a land whose people have been usually
led to slaughter like sheep by Northman or Teutonic or Polish
generals; whose armies have never been noted for their great
campaigns, and always have been poorly drilled, managed and
fed, and never yet successful in any foreign wars. Surely from
such a land as this, no widespread war-morality or
world-conquering legions could come.

In fact the very reverse has come to pass: the philosophy of
Slavophilism has arisen in Muscovy, yet not so much arisen as
it has developed with the Russian soul, not as a thing apart,
but as a quality thereof, blossoming somehow with all other
Russian things, out of the primitive Scythian darkness. The
rebellious spirit having been crushed out of the generations
since, what is left but non-resistance? Yet in these latter
years a resisting spirit, nursed and suckled largely in western
Europe, has falsely made it appear that all Russia was in arms,
storming with chaotic unity at the church, the state and the
army, deluging their ancient customs with the destructive and
re-creative might of radicalism. Far and wide of the truth is
this! Let no one think the vast heart of Russia has changed!
Only the few have cast away the ancient quiet; only the few
have the modern consciousness instead of the medieval,
theocratic one; only the few are not at heart Slavophiles in
feeling and in morality.

This philosophy existed long in the national or social mind
before it was crystallized into public doctrines, and exists
even yet largely in its more primitive unworded or instinctive
form, although it was Peter the Great who unconsciously awoke
the latent and then unexpressed Slavophilic feelings and
moralities when he, like a civilizing Pied Piper, charmed the
chieftains of industry of Western Europe to follow his trail
into Muscovy, his "Empire of Little Villages," and there
regenerate them.

Therefore at about the end of the seventeenth century in
Russia, the "dumb silent centuries" gradually became articulate
in expressing their opposition to all things western. This is
the heart of Slavophilism, and no one can truly fathom the
Russian soul before understanding its philosophy. It is the
Muscovite theory of the simple life, still crying out against
the Great Peter's work and recalling the devotees of western
culture to its idealization of medieval, theocratic, autocratic

Despite this reaction, however, it has a great meaning, a
tender beauty, and a message of depth and power for our western
world. Primarily Russia is a peasant and an agricultural land,
and there is a colorless monotony in her vast plains. Indeed
land and people are alike; as in the average peasant there is
patience, resignation and submission, so there is in the very
land itself. Open and prostrate it lies beneath the torrid sun
of the south, and the arctic winds of the north; subdued and
downtrodden for centuries, it and its people have always been
at the mercy of ruthless men and rainless winds.

Thus passive endurance has become one of the saving qualities
of the Russian's soul. The peasant's nature is one that has few
wants and little rebellious power. The Greek church of the
simple gospel is his and a government of the Czar's will. His
power of self renunciation is one which in Slavophilic thought
gives him true liberty. Therefore ask the followers of this
doctrine, what need is there of the constitutional liberties of
the west, or its republics or limited monarchies, or its
differences in ecclesiastical faith and structure? Slavophilism
declares that Russia has the only true freedom, faith and
brotherhood, which other lands sadly lack. In addition she has
the ancient and splendid heritage of the communal land system,
wherein the inherent justice of the Russian peasant's heart is
shown by his voluntary division and re-division of the land
among his brothers at stated times.

What need therefore, Slavophilism asks, for the degenerate
justice of the west? None! Away with Europe then!--the Europe
of competition and gruesome factories! The Europe of
destructive forces, of greedy land grabbers, of capital and
labor wars, where society is held together, not as in Russia by
the ties of affection, brotherhood and communal interest, but
only by money and greed, and where free thinkers, atheists and
materialists abound, whose lives and thoughts would unsettle
the holy, orthodox feelings of Russia, disturb her ancient
conscience and poison her humility with murmurings of
discontent and rebellion.

Away with the books of the west, too! And its agricultural
implements! Wooden ploughs instead of chilled steel! Outdoor
work and not indoor prisons called factories! Peasants working
for centuries beneath the uncanopied sun, and on the floors
without walls, will not let doors and brickwork thumbscrew
their souls in confinement thus! Indoors awhile in winter will
they labor, but spring airs shatter the moralities of the
time-clock and away to the fields they rush; in the spring to
sow and sing, in the summer to sing again and at the harvest
time too, and then to plait the bearded stalks into wreaths and
crown the maidens with sheaths of corn; the hymns for the
"death of winter" and the "birth of spring," marriage songs and
funeral dirges and chants of olden times well intermingled with
the labor of their hands.

Herein the poetry of agricultural, peaceable Russia clashes
with the prosaic efficiency of the west, the efficiency of
commercial wars, strikes and class struggles which peasant
Muscovy has known so little.

And again, Slavophilism, with its theory of successive
civilizations, culled perhaps from the philosophy of Hegel,
each civilization superior to its forerunner, comes to show us
a vision: the gradual displacement of one type of society by
another, but continuing what is best in the preceding until
nothing except what is good remains and universal peace
results, thus portraying the displacement of national
civilizations by universal ones, from which ultimately an
idealistic world policy will result, and the federation and
peace of men.

Some Slavophiles saw even in Peter's work a process of
progressing from nationality to universality. In his time there
was the same yearning toward its peaceful ideal. The "Old
Russia" party wanted Peter to renounce war and conquest.
Alexis, his own murdered son, worked with this element which
was very largely representative of the nation. To them, St.
Petersburg, then a new and growing capitol, was typical of
change, unrest and falsity; Moscow was in their hearts the only
capital, typical of Russia's old comfort and quiet. Many nobles
antagonized Peter, but he swept them aside, imprisoning them or
sending them to the gallows. Like Russia's slight resistance to
Rurik and others, and to the Tartars, so was her feebleness
before Peter the Great, who was himself, however, by no means
an accomplished military leader, but an enlightened barbarian,
dealing with a people whom writers and observers declare to be
endowed with conspicuous traits of humility, scarcely found in
the Christian nations of the western world.

Russian fiction represents its people in the same way.
Unaggressive characters, who talk and think but do not act,
fill its novels; they dream of the great age of the "Universal
Idea" that shall come for all and regenerate the "rotten west,"
where "rationalism is the original sin"; the typical west that
Slavophilism condemns--the west of the struggles between the
rulers and the ruled; between Scripture and tradition and the
upper and lower classes. The Slavophile idea, in theory at
least, leaves no room for this. Christian love and humility and
peasant communes, where rationalism, strife and rebellion are
unknown, must be instituted in the west; then the "Universal
Idea" of Russia will create Millennial times. This was the
"Messianic hope of Slavophilism," and perhaps is yet to a great
degree destined in the minds of its devotees to give the last
feature to the development of the world, so that the love and
feeling of the east would appease the discord of the west,
diluting its discipline and its logic with true religious
intuition and humility, and eventually the idealized
relationship of autocracy for the Czar and self-government for
the people--the old system so rudely strained by Peter the
Great--would permeate the ruled and rulers of the world.

Here then is Slavophilism! And pacific Russia--the heart and
soul of her, claiming this to be the true ethical and spiritual
ideal for her people, and censoring her upper class, with its
foreign culture, materialism, and infidelity, as being the only
real traitor to this saving morality of the ancient regime.

Among the prominent advocates of this philosophy might be
mentioned, first, Constantine Aksakoff, Russia's Rousseau, who
in the middle of the nineteenth century, was a virtuous
propagandist of the doctrine. He earnestly, even religiously,
preached the return of Russia from the allurements of western
Europe, unto her own theory of national salvation, declaring
that "the social order of the west is on a false foundation"
and that Slavophilism would offset its degeneracy, if only
Russia would free herself from the false class leadership for
whose origin the Great Peter stands the convicted sponsor! Thus
Slavophilism, under the leadership of Aksakoff, instead of
leading forward with the great liberal movement that came after
the Crimean War, resulting finally in the emancipation of the
serfs, would lead backward to the stagnant hours of medieval
Russia. Then there were no German words to disfigure the
Russian language! Then there were no German divisions of rank
among the officials to strangle life by their formality. No,
none of these, nor the disturbing importations of Peter; in
Aksakoff's variation of the gospel, the Russians are the
"beyond men" and need them not. Thus before Peter's reign all
was Slavophilic!--a religion of the simple Christian gospel, a
church considering itself the only true ecclesia, a government
of the Czar's will, a life of passive humility; creating
freedom of conscience and speech for the peasants, and freedom
of activity and legislation for the rulers, unknown in modern
corrupted Russia!

And thus was old peaceable-hearted Muscovy of the past
centuries pictured as the metropolis of true political and
individual morality.

Herzen, too, an able pamphleteer in revolutionary things,
preached something similar, crying from his pulpit at home or
in exile, that Russia would solve all her problems and lead the
human race by the simplicity of the Slavophile ideal. His early
and rabid westernism was greatly tempered on contact with the
west. Disillusion and disgust overcame him. The mercantilism of
the bourgeoisie there drove him into Aksakoff's fold, and he
too thereafter found faith alone in the "regenerative power of
Russia," and her system of the mir, the central sun of the
Slavophilic state, the village commune, self-governing and
self-contained. And then from that, this was to ensue: the
whole world made of village communes as in Russia, perhaps even
their log cabins too, and fresh mud to go with them on their
walls! But this did not deter the vision of these evangelists.
The commune was to be indefinitely extended; national and
international ones were to be organized, all self- governing,
and then would follow as the night the day, universal peace
wherever these communes were found.

This is the Utopia Russia has given to the world to stand
beside Plato's, or Sir Thomas More's or Morris's or Bellamy's.
This was the dream of pacific Pan-Slavism.

Dostoievsky himself is of it, and is luminous not with a mere
facet flash of its philosophy but with the whole orb of it. To
him the Russians "are more than human, they are pan-human."

Count Tolstoi too must be listed with these preachers. He,
making his own shoes and cutting his own and the peasants'
grain, lived it, showing how he thought the world's work ought
to be done. What were factories or the culture of the west to
him in later years--Shakespeare or no Shakespeare? Destructive
ideals of life. Competition, money and land greed,
self-assertion--all things that are the anthitheses of
Slavophilism--he shunned; mocking the palsied heart and
poisoned ideals of the west, and indeed of the "upper class"
section of his own land as no other Slavophile did. And
following its teaching, he journeyed through self-renunciation
to freedom and communal life, after repentance for his
wanderings, expiation and regeneration.

Dostoievsky, on the other hand, reached this philosophy largely
by being born to it among the humble people who lived it.
Melancholy-minded by nature--a sort of a Russian Dante but
living in actual infernos and purgatorios, Siberia and prison
cells, he came at last to worship his fellow countrymen and
their ideals as almost nothing else in heaven or earth, and
bowed down before them "as the only remnant left of Christian
humility, destined by Providence to regenerate the world." Here
is Slavophilism in a fervid extreme. "The Down-trodden and
Offended," "Memoirs of a Dead House," "Crime and Punishment,"
"Poor People,"--these, the titles of his novels, show the
predilections of his own soul. He died in the mystic frenzy of
this enthusiasm.

Here then, in this philosophy and in the lives of these men, is
something of the soul of Russia, beautiful in its humility, yet
not so humble that it is not ambitious to embrace the world in
the folding arms of its peace, its communal government and its
morality. Pan-Slavism of this nature is the only kind that in
truth can ever come from Russia. Pan-Slavism of the military
sort, with musketry, bribery and all other diabolic black arts,
miscalled government, rests on such a slim foundation that it
need be but little apprehended.

It was this brotherly humble soul of Russia that greatly helped
to put an end to the Russo-Japanese war: not merely failing
finances and lack of transportation. The feeling of a kindly
people for their own and a neighboring race caused widespread
mismanagement, opposition and wholesale desertions from the
army, among both the officers and the men. The Romanoff family
and official Russia caused the conflict, but human Russia,
humble and poor, was a great factor in its conclusion.

There is no doubt, however, that a certain number of
Slavophiles are addicted to the military mania, and this form
of their belief is more dangerously reactionary than its
ordinary phase. Many of these belong to the bureaucratic caste.
Official Russia holds aloft the eagle; human Russia the dove.
Official Russia leads the anti-Jewish massacres; human Russia
is very little responsible for pogroms. Ignatieff, "Father of
Lies," a bureaucrat of the military Pan-Slavic breed, about
1882, began the worst persecutions against the Jews in the last
generation, and possibly Pobiedonosteff, the late procurator of
the Holy Synod, was the worst offender in this one. The
peaceful feelings of the masses of the people, however, do not
sanction these outbreaks, and Slavophilism of such a sort is
not the philosophy of the Russian heart, no matter how many
pogroms may be enumerated.

It is therefore to human Russia that one must look for the true
feelings of the people; to their faith and deeds, to the
humility of their devotions, and prostrations before their
numberless shrines and ikons, to their religious ceremonies in
the open fields for huge detachments of the army, to the
thousands of their yearly pilgrims to Jerusalem, to their
superstitions, their poverty and long-suffering, all of which
attest innate passive endurance and non-resistance, and show
their kind of Slavophilism, which all in all, is much more than
"mere reverence for barbarism."

The war-time excitement in their cities seemed characteristic
of this national soul: "Russia is the Mother of Servia" was the
street cry of the marching throngs. It might be added that the
word mother, "matushka," is a prevalent one in expressing their
feelings. They call their greatest river the "Mother Volga."
Conquering Rome said "Father Tiber" and the native warriors of
this continent called the Mississippi the "Father of Waters."
The difference in these appellations shows the tender quality
of the Russian soul, whose ardent sympathies in July, 1914,
were greatly aroused by the spectacle of a large nation
attacking a small one, notwithstanding whatever may be said to
justify that deed.

Finally, however, let it be added, that the one thing that will
recreate Russia in the image of the west, is capital. Once let
the vast sums that have invaded Muscovy be put, not to the
autocratic purpose of the official rulers, but into factories,
mines, city subways and transportation of all kinds,
irrigation, canals, agricultural implements and to other
productive uses, then capitalistic Russia will stand forth
shorn of the Slavophilic simplicities of non-resistance and
humility. Labor wars, practically unknown hitherto, yet now
beginning, will occur in much greater number and the peasant
class, still unified, will be torn asunder by differences in
wealth and interests; the middle class, now very small, will
grow to large proportions, and many destructive forces will
come upon the land which has hitherto mocked western Europe
because of their presence there.

The many centuries of peasant unity, with its beauty of
brotherhood, affection and communal interests, will come to an
end under such a new regime. Already competitive forces are
dissolving communism in land, and many of the old beauties of
Russia are disappearing. Capitalism will bring with it much
turmoil and strife, unhappiness and death, but also the dawn of
brighter hours; newer and better cities, cleaner water, better
food, houses and clothes, and after the stress of its first
attack is over, and Russia has evolved laws and means to
control and socialize the invader, it may be that the old
simplicities and beauties of life will return, and a greater
and holier Russia will arise, still able to teach and aid in
the regeneration of the rest of the world.




THE first duty of a people is to provide for the health of its
children. The possible human value of any country fifty years
ahead depends chiefly upon what is done by and for its
children. They are the future in the making.

History seems to justify the statement of Professor Tyler[1]
that conquering races have been physically strong races, and
that nations have failed when they became degenerate.

[1] Growth and Education," J. M. Tyler.

Dionysius, speaking of the advantage of virility in a nation,

It is a law of Nature common to all mankind, which no time
shall annul or destroy, that those who have more strength and
excellence shall bear rule over those who have less.

This law applies equally to individuals. Skill, cunning and
reason play their part, but the animal quality of endurance is
always back of these and is often decisive in a contest.

Darwin said he had difficulty in applying the law of the
survival of the fittest to the facts of the destruction of
Greece until it occurred to him that in this instance the
strongest was the fittest. Civilized people's have been
destroyed by ruder races that were physically superior.

The children that are now in our schools will take to adult
life such foundation as heredity has furnished, with the
equipment that society may care to add. We of this day have no
greater obligation than to prepare these children mentally and
physically for the duties that maturity may bring. Man did not
escape the physical necessities of the body when he became
civilized; the advantages of health are as great to-day as when
our forebears lived in tents. Very few of the primitive man's
activities are left; what he did regularly and from necessity
we do incidentally, and usually for sport, and yet the demands
upon the energies of man have not been lessened, they have only
been changed in form.

Our educational authorities, though in many instances
interested in physical development of the young, have not given
the subject the important place in their program that it
deserves. This is not wholly due to indifference, but largely
to their ideals that were derived from classical-ascetic

In the medieval ideal the human body was animal and sinful, to
be despised and repressed. The mind was said to be the
spiritual element in man, representing the immortal part of his
nature, and therefore was the only part worthy of attention in
an educational system. From the fall of the Roman empire to the
later nineteenth century this ideal dominated education.

The medieval universities, including Oxford and Cambridge,
provided only for mental training. Their education was intended
for those who were to follow the professions or to become
scholars or gentlemen of leisure. Education was not intended to
prepare the great mass of men for the every-day work of life.

While only indirectly related to my subject, it is interesting
to recall that there was in this country in the early
nineteenth century much opposition to the establishment of
common schools for the masses. It was claimed that those who
belonged to the working classes did not need to be educated.
Our own colleges and universities were originally founded on
the old classical-ascetic model, so that the spirit of the
medieval period survived in the educational plan of this
country. It is only in recent decades that these institutions
have begun to depart from the older, formal, classical methods
that made education a privilege of the few, the average man
being deprived of the advantages of the training that he
needed. Because of this the humble millions of men and women
who wove and spun, and fed and housed the world were left out
of the educational scheme.

Some years ago a London weekly paper, which speaks for the
conservative class of England, in discussing certain suggested
innovations in English higher education, said that the great
merit of education at Oxford and Cambridge was that it was
"absolutely useless." By this it was probably meant that the
education was for a chosen few, was not intended to prepare men
for the practical work of life and was essentially and only an
intellectual and cultural training.

The change of attitude that is seen in our day is due chiefly
to two great discoveries: the re-discovery of the human body
and its relation to our mentality and the discovery of the mind
of the child and youth. We have found that man is an animal who
graduated from caves and dugouts and to whom even barbarism was
a lade and great achievement. That the human body was made by
the experiences of that rude life, and that since then we have
made no change in it except to stand on two feet. Neither have
we added one nerve cell or fiber to our brains since the day
when the cave was home and uncooked food the daily diet.

The conception of man as an animal has led to a study of him as
such. Educators as a class now concede that the physical man
must be considered as an essential part of their scheme, that
the brain is an organ of the body among other organs, and is
subject to the same laws and influenced by similar conditions.

The influence of the mind upon the body is a commonplace of
psychology, but the influence of the body upon the mind is of
equal importance, though less frequently emphasized.

Whatever one's theory of the nature of mind, it must be
considered in relation to the brain as the organ of its
expression. The mind has, too, a broader base than the brain,
for every organ of the body has some share in the mental
functions. Every physician knows that physical disease lowers
the quality of the thinking and, with the exception of a few
geniuses like Darwin and Leopardi, it makes impossible
intellectual work of a high order. Disorders of the internal
organs rob the brain of nourishment and weaken it, and by
obtruding their morbidness upon it they batter down its
resistances and lower the thinking power.

Though we can never know the history of man's origin, the lives
of the child and of the wild man help us to understand
something of the order of racial development. All the higher
mental faculties grow in the child as they grew in the
race--out of impulse, instinct, feeling; and from infancy to
maturity we recapitulate mentally and physically the early
human-making stages, short circuiting in twenty years the

The life of physical activity that the child leads develops and
coordinates the brain and the muscular system. In this way the
great motor functions are organized in the brain and become
part of the physical basis of mind.

The older education that trained the intellect exclusively,
without reference to the practical demands of life or the needs
of the body, was inadequate in that it ignored the law of
thinking and doing. It is true that there is much to its
credit, as many fine spirits have testified. They at least
survived it.

Stanley Hall says "we think in terms of muscular movement," and
this expresses the most important single fact in the mature
mentality. That the mind is largely constituted of memories of
muscular movements is basic in development.

The muscles are the special organs of volition, the one part of
the body that the mind can directly command and act on. The
muscles are preeminently the mind's instruments, the visible
and moving part of its machinery. They are thought carriers,
and during the growth period their functional activities are
organized into the mental life. This is why "we think in terms
of muscular movement," and why muscular training supplies a
natural need of the developing mind.

The normal boy says little or nothing of what he thinks, but
much of what he is doing or intends to do. He has the motor
mind, the instinct for doing things by which he builds the
brain and body. It is nature's way of laying the foundation in
the individual as by the more tedious process of evolution she
laid it in the race. The mental development of the normal
infant is indicated by the increasing accuracy and delicacy of
muscular coordination. The feeble-minded child very early shows
its mental defect in the clumsy use of its muscles. Because of
the functional relation of the voluntary muscles and the
mentality, physical training is in a large degree mental
training. When by such training we give dexterity to muscles of
the growing person we are making possible better mental
development; that is, because of this relation of the mind to
action there is a direct mental discipline in the thought-out
processes of physical activity. If, then, we make physical
development a part of our educational process, we are taking
advantage of race tendencies, we are starting the individual as
nature started the race; we are laying the foundation in the
individual as it was originally laid in the race; we are
building as the race built.

Exclusively intellectual training may be sufficient for the
genius or for the few who have great initiative and
intellectual self-confidence, but for the great mass of boys
and girls this training is not sufficient. It does not prepare
the young for the kind of work that three fourths of them will
have to do. We are now beginning to recognize this and through
manual training, vocational guidance, etc., we are teaching
boys and girls how to do things, and this, too, has the
additional merit of being, in a measure, physical training.

Educators, until recently, have, in emphasizing the paramount
importance of mental training, lost sight of the needs of the
body. Their classical ideals and formal methods made dead
languages, mathematics, philosophy etc., the school diet of
boys whose normal hunger was for action, and for learning by

Sir William Hamilton, who wrote fairy tales in metaphysics for
a generation of Scotchmen, placed these lines over the doorway
of his lecture room.

In earth there 's nothing great but Man;
In Man there 's nothing great but Mind.

This sounds well, but it is poor philosophy. There is much in
earth that is great besides man and much in man that is great
besides his mind. The older type of metaphysician with his
staggering vocabulary and his bag of "categories" has now
chiefly a historic interest. In the modern view the
interdependence of mind and body is a fundamental fact of life.
As science reveals the physiologic marvels of the once despised
body, the latter grows in our respect, for we find that its
seeming humble functions are intimately related to our highest
powers. Sir William's couplet gives a hint of the dominance of
the classical method of his day. It overemphasized the
importance of reason and too often converted the youthful mind
into a rag bag of useless information. The educators of that
time and since have thought more highly of human reason than
experience justifies. With their medieval bias for a world of
will and reason, they drove the young with the whip and spur of
emulation toward what to them seemed the one possible goal,
intellectual achievement.

We exaggerate the share that reason has in conduct. In the
history of the race, which is epitomized in the life of every
individual, reason was a late outgrowth of feeling, passion,
impulse, instinct. It was these older faculties that ruled the
life of the primitive man who made the race, and it was through
them that the race gradually rose to reason by what Emerson
would call the "spiral stairway of development."

These functions of impulse and instinct dominate the life of
the child and they are only a little less potent in the conduct
of us grownups. Much of what we call reason is feeling, and
much of our life activities are due to desire, sentiment,
instinct and habit, which, under the illusion of reason,
determine our decisions and conduct. Some one has said that
reason is the light that nature has placed at the tip of
instinct, and it is certainly true that without these earlier,
basal faculties reason would be a feeble light. During the
growing period these are specially strong, and the important
thing is that they be guided and organized in relation to the
needs of maturity. In combining mental and physical training we
are in some measure furnishing this guidance, doing
intentionally what nature did originally without design.

In the uncivilized state the stress of life was chiefly
physical. The civilized man has to a large degree reversed this
old order, in that the use of the body is incidental in his
work, the stress being placed upon the brain. He piles his life
high with complexities and in place of life being for
necessities, and they few and simple, it is largely for
comforts which we call necessities, and Professor Huxley has
said that the struggle for comforts is more cruel than the
struggle for existence.

This stress which is put upon conscious effort in civilization
places a new and severe tax upon the brain. It intensifies and
narrows the range of man's activities; it causes him to
specialize and localize the strain to a degree that may be
dangerous. It is certainly true that every man has his breaking
strain, and there is nothing that will raise the limit of
endurance like a strong and well-developed body.

The Italian physiologist, Mosso, showed by an ingenious device
that when a person lying quite still was required to add a
column of figures, blood left the extremities and flowed toward
the brain. Any emotional state or effort of thought produces
the same result. This demonstration that we think to our
fingers' ends suggests the importance of a strong body as a
prompt support in mental work.

All our work, mental as well as physical, is a test of
endurance, not a test that is spiritual and non-material, but
even in the sphere of the mind it is plainly animal and
physical. Thinking is primarily a physical process and draws
upon the vital stores of every organ. The energy that makes
clear thinking possible depends largely upon the vigor of the
body, and to the extent that this fails, the brain functions
suffer. Therefore, any work, mental or physical, will be better
done and more easily done if the body is strong. Other things
being equal, the intellectual work of the strong man will be
better done than similar work by one of equal talent, but who
is not strong.

Big muscles are not necessary in physical development. Many
people are not designed for big muscles, and any attempt by
them to produce a heavy, massive development may do harm. What
is wanted is vigor, skill, muscular readiness and a reawakening
of the old associations of thought and action. Such training
goes further than thought and action, for it reaches all the
organs and adds immensely to the vital capacity and working
power of the individual.

The play instinct of the child is as old as the race, or older,
and is a vitally important factor, not only in physical
development, but also in mental development. In its destructive
and disorderly activities the child shows the later adult
forces in the formative stage. Old instincts and movements that
were once self-preservative and of serious meaning to a wild
ancestor reappear in the play of children, and, utilized
wisely, may under new form become a valuable possession of the
adult. There is a great big man, in fact, several possible men,
inside every boy. Through his running, jumping, fighting,
swimming, through impulse, instincts and emotions he is seeking
the man that is in him, and it is by this turbulent and
experimental course that he finally comes to the order of

Every boy is a vitally coiled up set of springs pressing to be
released. Race-old energies are struggling in him for
expression, and play is the normal way to satisfy the great
demand. The child may miss some important things and yet get
on, but it can not, without severe and lasting harm miss the
instinctive activities of play.

In play and games the young are re-enacting these old muscular
coordinations and developing mind and body on the old
foundation. The boy's love of outdoor sports and the adventures
of hunting are significant. Those ancestors of ours who hunted
and fished and shaped with care their arrow heads were
developing a manual skill and thinking power that we inherit.
We use our muscles for more varied and possibly more finished
purposes, but it is through the patience and practise of their
rude lives that we possess the delicate uses of the hands and
the finer dexterities of the mind.

The boy who goes whistling to the fields, or hunts, or fishes,
or swims, is unconsciously reaching out toward later life and
is preparing for serious and bigger things.

The growing formative period of life is the time for good
physical development. Whatever is gained and fixed then is
permanent, as it becomes a part of the physiological habits of
the individual. The years before twenty decide the future
energy stores, and the capacity to endure. Every function
enlarged, every gain of power, is additional storage room for
energy, to be drawn upon in the coming days of adult stress.

Good physical development not only gives strength and skill in
the use of the body, but develops a physiological habit of
surplus power that may be called quantity of energy. Life is
not alone in quality, in delicacy of adjustment, in accuracy,
in fineness of feeling; it is also in quantity. The poet who,
with frail physique and feeble pulse, sits in his quiet retreat
and puts his fine fancies into the rhythms of verse has
quality. But in the stress and rivalry of life that awaits the
majority of men, there is a need for quantity of energy, such
as enabled a Washington or a Caesar or a Napoleon or a
Wellington to shoulder his way through difficulties. These men
combined quality with quantity and this combination may make,
and often does make, the life of masterful achievement. The
quantity of energy in us average men may make the difference
between success and failure.

Many men fail in life for lack of staying power, for lack of
that kind of endurance that is furnished by having power in

The strong, confident person who has strength to spare,
reserves of energy, does his work easily and without friction.
Half the timidities and indecisions of men are chargeable less
to lack of ability than to lack of the physical vigor, the
QUANTITY of energy, which is the driving power of character. In
all the contests of life an important element in success is the
ability to endure prolonged stress, to have the reserve energy
that can be drawn upon and utilized as a driving force. This
power is not alone necessary in the emergencies, the "short
hauls" of life, but also in the long hauls that spread the
strain through greater periods. Many of the failures of life
are due as much to lack of ability to meet prolonged stress as
to lack of experience or intelligence. Men of moderate ability
but with great powers of endurance often succeed, while men of
greater talent fail for lack of the ability to endure strain.

The man with a weak body and without the self-confidence that
surplus energy gives is liable to be of uncertain judgment.
Such a man in the presence of a problem requiring quick
decision, doubts and hesitates and stands shivering on the
brink of action while hastening opportunities pass him by.

Much of the loose thinking of our time is undoubtedly due to
poor educational drill. In fact the failure of the schools to
teach pupils how to apply the mind and how to think is one of
their common reproaches. Inability to use the mind effectively
is also frequently due to a lack of vigor and physical stamina.
A person with poor digestion, or under-developed body, or weak
circulation has of necessity a badly nourished brain. Such a
brain, unless it belongs to a genius, will do poor thinking.

The mentally trained person who is also physically strong has
the combination that puts his powers at easy command. He can be
joyously busy doing the impossible because the doing of it has
been made easy by training.

How much native power there is in all of us that for want of
proper training or sympathetic encouragement never comes to
maturity! How many of the finer qualities of character that,
for want of a kindlier climate of cheerful companionship and
wise direction, failed to mature and now lie dead in us! Very
many people are only partly alive. A large part, and in some,
the best part, is dead. The capacity they show is probably only
a small share of a fine inheritance which, not knowing how to
use, they allowed to die.

We have an instinctive liking for people who are strong and
healthy. They appeal to us by their robustness and their
confident display of energy. We do not now need the big muscles
that were once necessary in wielding spear and battle-axe. We
need, however, as much as the race ever needed well-developed
bodies and habits of health.

It is not difficult for us to see that sports and games and
play help to physical development, but it is not so plain that
they may be made to develop the best qualities of character.

It is a fact, however, that all the important elements of
character are tried out in games and sports. Enthusiasm,
self-confidence, the adventurous spirit, alertness, promptness,
unselfishness, cooperation, quick judgment--all these have
their training and discipline on the game field. They comprise
those fundamental native qualities that have gone to make
humanity what it is. The young should have this training, and,
if of the right kind, it may be made to contribute to the
making of the best kind of character. The same quickness and
accuracy of judgment that enable a boy to win a point in
football may in later life be used to win a battle or save a
business venture. Beyond this, there is of course gained the
strong body that makes work easy and stress less difficult to

Hall calls attention to the fact that two generations ago,
Jahn, the great builder of German physique, roused the then
despairing German nation by preaching the gospel of strong
bodies. He created a new spirit in Germany, and the whole
nation was aroused and seized with an enthusiasm for outdoor
games and sports, and there arose a new cult for the body. His
pupils sang of a united fatherland and of a stronger race. The
Germans are in the habit of reminding us that it was about one
generation after Jahn that the German Empire was founded and
Germany became a world power.

Every argument for the physical training of boys applies with
equal force to girls. Women need to be physically as strong as
men. No race will remain virile and progressive unless both the
fathers and mothers have the physical stamina that produces
healthy, vigorous offspring. In this age, when women are going
out into the world to compete with men it is highly important
that they be physically strong if they are to stand the stress
successfully. It was from rough barbarians, the rude war-loving
Teutonic men and women described by Tacitus, that the
Anglo-Saxon race inherited those splendid qualities of mind and
body that have made their descendants masters of seas and

It has been objected that gymnastics and field sports make
girls coarse and mannish. The exact opposite has been found to
be the case. It has been observed in colleges that when young
women are properly led, their sports, in place of making them
mannish, have a marked refining influence. They care more for
correct posture because this is made one of their tests in
athletic sports. They develop better manners and a new sense of
pride in their appearance. They soon learn to avoid slang, loud
talking and boisterous behavior. In the University of Chicago
where they have excellent training, many of the girls have said
that they came to have a new sense of dignity and to care more
for their personal appearance.

They also develop the finer elements of character, a
cooperative spirit, obedience to commands, patience,
self-confidence, a spirit of comradeship, a democratic attitude
and an appreciation of good qualities in others wherever found.
All of these esthetic, social and moral qualities, woven into
the texture of the growing character, and with the vigorous
health that the physical training brings, are the best
contribution to the making of the most effective type of the
womanly woman. All games and sports and athletics for the young
should therefore make for refinement and esthetic development.

The state needs now, and will always need, men and women who
have sound bodies and abounding energy.

The harsher phases of the human struggle may pass and wars may
cease, but the old contests of races, nations and individuals
will continue under other forms.

As the race grows older life will become more largely mental.
The increasing complexity of human relations and the more
delicate adjustments that these relations require will bring a
new and finer social order that will make higher demands upon

While there is no evidence that experience or time or training
will ever change the structure of the brain, it is probable
that we have as yet but imperfectly utilized our mental
possibilities. Stratton says:

Out of the depths of the mind new powers are always

[2] "Experimental Psychology and Culture," George M. Stratton.

Back of the mental life, and making it possible, are the
energies of the body, the functioning of the animal in man,
which in the brain are changed to the higher uses of the mind.
The ability to execute, to act effectively, to do and keep
doing, to do the work of the professional man, the banker, or
the scientist, all this is primarily physical, and from top to
bottom of man's activities the physical test is applied. With
the mental and emotional strain of civilized life goes the
physical strain which is the other half of the struggle, and
which now and always is both mental and physical. The Greeks
recognized this unity of mind and body twenty-five hundred
years ago and their results remain unmatched by any race.

They saw that the thought-out movements of physical training
resulted in mental training and this law of mental development
through physical training was a fundamental principle in their
educational plan.

The nation that will again make this an ideal will produce a
finer race of men, and other things equal, will excel in all
that makes a people great.




WE are so exceedingly apt to take our blessings as a matter of
course that at the present time a large number of us have quite
forgotten, and some of us have never known, what a terrible
disease smallpox is and from how much suffering national
vaccination has saved us. But even many of us, who may not be
included amongst those who know nothing of smallpox, do come
within the group of those who know next to nothing of the life
and work of Dr. Edward Jenner. A number of persons think he was
Sir William Jenner, physician to Queen Victoria.

An infectious or communicable disease is one caused by the
admission of some form of living matter into the body of a
human being or of a lower animal. All diseases are clearly not
communicable in the sense that they are due to the presence of
living things. Indigestion, for instance, I can not communicate
to my neighbor, however serious my dietetic indiscretions.

Now, while the actual microorganisms causing many of the
infectious diseases have been discovered in these recent days
through the agency of the microscope--one of science's most
valuable gifts to suffering humanity--a few diseases
undoubtedly infectious have, even up to the present time, not
had their microorganic causes discovered. Smallpox or variola
is one of these. The term variola is from the Latin varus, a

The name Small Pox, which first occurs in Holinshead's
"Chronicle" (1571), was given to this disease to distinguish it
from the Great Pox or syphilis, the French disease, or Morbus
Gallicus which attained the proportions of an epidemic in
Europe about 1494. The expression "The Pox" in the older
medical literature always refers to the Lues Venereal The word
"pox" is the plural form of pock; the spelling "pox" is
phonetic; "pocks" is the correct form.[1]

[1] Thus the following expression in Galt's "Annals of the
Parish" is justified--"My son Gilbert was seized with the
smallpox and was blinded by THEM for seventeen days."

Smallpox is unquestionably a highly infectious or communicable
disease, and in the language of a past day, there is a virus or
poison which can pass from the sick to the unaffected; when
this transference occurs on a large scale we speak of an
epidemic of smallpox. As Sir William Osler truly says, "It is
not a little remarkable that in a disease, which is rightly
regarded as the type of all infectious maladies, the specific
virus still remains unknown." The same, however, is true of the
common diseases of scarlatina, measles and chickenpox. Of some
diseases, the virus is a bacillus or coccus, excessively minute
fungi recognizable only under the microscope; but the
bacteriologists are now beginning to speak of viruses so
impalpable that they, unlike ordinary bacteria, can go through
the pores of a clay filter, are filter-passers, that is are of
ultra-microscopic dimensions. Some authorities conjecture that
the virus of variola belongs to the group of filter-passers.
The virus of smallpox, however, is very resistant and can be
carried through the air for considerable distances; it clings
for long periods to clothes, books, furniture, etc.

I shall not now digress to give the clinical details of a case
of smallpox; the eruption may be slight or it may be very
extensive. It occurs in three forms, discrete, confluent and
hemorrhagic. The most dangerous form of smallpox is the
confluent, in which the face and arms particularly are covered
with large pustular areas of a most disfiguring appearance.

The disease called chickenpox, or varicella, has no
relationship to smallpox and does not protect from it, nor does
smallpox protect from chickenpox.


There seems very little doubt that the home of smallpox was
somewhere on the continent of Africa, although it is true that
there are traditions pointing to its existence in Hindustan at
least 1000 B.C. One Hindu account alludes to an ointment for
removing the cicatrices of eruption. Africa has certainly for
long been a prolific source of it: every time a fresh batch of
slaves was brought over to the United States of America there
was a fresh outbreak of smallpox.[2] It seems that the first
outbreak in Europe in the Christian era was in the latter half
of the sixth century, when it traveled from Arabia, visiting
Egypt on the way. The earliest definite statements about it
come from Arabia and are contained in an Arabic manuscript now
in the University of Leyden, which refers to the years A.D. 570
and 571. There is a good deal of evidence that the Arabs
introduced smallpox into Egypt at the sacking of Alexandria in
A.D. 640. Pilgrims and merchants distributed it throughout
Syria and Palestine and along the north of Africa; then,
crossing the Mediterranean, they took it over to Italy. The
Moors introduced it into Spain whence, via Portugal, Navarre,
Languedoc and Guienne it was carried into western and northern
Europe. The earliest physician to describe smallpox is Ahrun, a
Christian Egyptian, who wrote in Greek. He lived in Alexandria
from A.D. 610 to 641. The first independent treatise on the
disease was by the famous Arabian physician, Rhazes, who wrote
in Syriac in 920 A.D., but his book has been translated into
both Greek and Latin. The first allusion to smallpox in English
is in an Anglo-Saxon manuscript of the early part of the tenth
century; the passage is interesting--"Against pockes: very much
shall one let blood and drink a bowl full of melted butter; if
they [pustules] strike out, one should dig each with a thorn
and then drop one-year alder drink in, then they will not be
seen," this was evidently to prevent the pitting dreaded even
at so early a date. Smallpox was first described in Germany in
1493, and appeared in Sweden first in 1578.

[2] Osler thinks the pesta magna of Galen was smallpox; Marcus
Aurelius died of it.

The contributions of Sydenham, the English Hippocrates, to the
knowledge of smallpox, are classical.

Throughout the Middle Ages, owing to the very crowded and
unsanitary state of the cities of Europe, smallpox was one of
the various plagues from which the inhabitants were never free
for any length of time.[3] Leprosy, influenza, smallpox,
cholera, typhus fever and bubonic plague constituted the
dreadful group. In most countries, including England, smallpox
was practically endemic; an attack of it was accepted as a
thing inevitable, in children even more inevitable than
whooping-cough, measles, mumps or chickenpox is regarded at the
present time. There was a common saying--"Few escape love or
smallpox." In the eighteenth century so many faces were pitted
from severe smallpox that it is said any woman who had no
smallpox marks was straightway accounted beautiful. Very few
persons escaped it in either the mild or the severe form in
childhood or in later life.

[3] England was by no means exempt, but it was not infection in
the modern sense that Shakespeare meant when he wrote--
"This England,
This fortress, built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war."

Now it is characteristic of a microorganic disease that a
person who has recovered from an attack of it is immune from
that disease for a longer or shorter time, in some cases for
the remainder of life. This is, luckily, as true of smallpox as
of any of the other acute infections. We do not now need to
enquire into the theory of how this comes about; it is a
well-recognized natural phenomenon. The modern explanation is
in terms of antigens and anti-bodies and is fast passing from
the stage of pure biochemical hypothesis into that of concrete
realization. Persons who have recovered from smallpox rarely
take it a second time; the few who do, have it in a mild form.
It follows, then, that if smallpox is purposely inoculated into
a human being he will for a long time be resistant to the
subsequent infection of smallpox. The fact of smallpox
protecting from smallpox is by no means without analogy in
other diseases. Thus in Switzerland, in Africa, in Senegambia,
it has been the custom for a long time, in order to protect the
cattle from pleuro-pneumonia, to inoculate them with the fluid
from the lung of an animal recently dead of pleuro-pneumonia.
Of course since the time of Pasteur we have been quite familiar
with the inoculation of attenuated virus to protect from the
natural diseases in their fully virulent form, for instance,
anthrax, rabies, plague and typhoid fever.

As it was, then, known to mankind from a very early period that
a person could be protected from smallpox by being inoculated
with it, inoculation grew up as a practice in widely distant
parts of the globe. The purpose of intentional inoculation was
to go through a mild attack of the disease in order to acquire
protection from the much more serious natural form of the
disease--to have had it so as not to have it. A very high
antiquity is claimed for this smallpox inoculation, some even
asserting that the earliest known Hindu physician (Dhanwantari)
supposed to have lived about 1500 B.C., was the first to
practice it. Bruce in his "Voyages to the Sources of the Nile"
(1790) tells us that he found Nubian and Arabian women
inoculating their children against smallpox, and that the
custom had been observed from time immemorial. Records of it
indeed are found all over the world; in Ashantee, amongst the
Arabs of North Africa, in Tripoli, Tunis and Algeria, in
Senegal, in China, in Persia, in Thibet, in Bengal, in Siam, in
Tartary and in Turkey. In Siam the method of inoculation is
very curious; material from a dried pustule is blown up into
the nostrils; but in most other parts of the world the
inoculation is by the ordinary method of superficial incision
or what is called scarification. By the latter part of the
seventeenth century inoculation for smallpox was an established
practise in several European countries into which it had
traveled by the coasts of the Bosphorus, via Constantinople. In
1701 a medical man, Timoni, described the process as he saw it
in Constantinople. Material was taken from the pustules of a
case on the twelfth or thirteenth day of the illness. As early
as 1673 the practice was a common one in Denmark, Bartholinus
tells us. In France inoculation had been widely practiced; on
June 18, 1774, the young king Louis XVI., was inoculated for
smallpox, and the fashionable ladies of the day wore in their
hair a miniature rising sun and olive tree entwined by a
serpent supporting a club, the "pouf a l'inoculation" of
Mademoiselle Rose Bertin, the court milliner to Marie
Antoinette. In Germany inoculation was in vogue all through the
seventeenth century, as also in Holland, Switzerland, Italy and
Circassia. In England the well-known Dr. Mead, honored, by the
way, with a grave in Westminster Abbey, was a firm believer in
inoculation, as was also Dr. Dimsdale, who was sent for by the
Empress Catherine II. to introduce it into Russia. Dr. Dimsdale
inoculated a number of persons in Petrograd, and finally the
Grand Duke and the Empress herself. The lymph he took from the
arm of a child ill of natural smallpox. For his services to the
Russian court Dr. Dimsdale was made a Baron of the Russian
Empire, a councillor of state and physician to the Empress. He
was presented with the sum of 1,000 pounds and voted an annuity
of 500 pounds a year. At the request of Catherine, Dr. Dimsdale
went to Moscow, where thousands were clamoring for inoculation.
The mortality from smallpox in Russia seems to have been still
higher than in the rest of Europe. The annual average death
rate on the Continent at the end of the eighteenth century was
210 per 1,000 deaths from all causes, while in Russia in one
year two million persons perished from smallpox alone. In
England in 1796, the deaths from smallpox were 18.6 per cent.
of deaths from all causes.

A great impetus was given to inoculation in England by the
letters of Lady Mary Wortley Montague, the wife of our
ambassador to Turkey, Edward Wortley Montague, and daughter of
the Duke of Kingston. In 1717 Lady Mary wrote a letter to her
friend Miss Chiswell, in which she explained the process and
promised to introduce it to the notice of the English
physicians. So convinced was Lady Mary of the safety of
smallpox inoculation and its efficacy in preserving from
subsequent smallpox, that in March, 1717, she had her little
boy inoculated at the English embassy by an old Greek woman in
the presence of Dr. Maitland, surgeon to the embassy. In 1722
some criminals under sentence of death in Newgate were offered
a full pardon if they would undergo inoculation. Six men agreed
to this, and none of them suffered at all severely from the
inoculated smallpox. Towards the close of the same year two
children of the Princess of Wales were successfully inoculated;
and in 1746 an Inoculation Hospital was actually opened in
London, but not without much opposition. As early as 1721 the
Rev. Cotton Mather, of Boston (U. S. A.), introduced
inoculation to the notice of the American physicians, and in
1722 Dr. Boylston, of Brooklyn, inoculated 247 persons, of whom
about 2 per cent. died of the acquired smallpox as compared
with 14 per cent. of deaths amongst 6,000 uninoculated persons
who caught the natural smallpox. There was, however, great
popular opposition to the practice of inoculation, and Dr.
Boylston on one occasion was nearly lynched.

While successful inoculation undoubtedly protected the person
from smallpox, sometimes the inoculated form of the disease was
virulent, and certainly all cases of inoculated variola were as
infectious as the natural variety. Inoculated persons were
therefore a danger to the community; and there is no doubt that
such persons had occasionally introduced smallpox into towns
which had been free from the natural disease. At the end of the
eighteenth century, just about the time of Jenner's discovery,
public opinion was strongly against the continuance of the
practice of inoculation, and as natural smallpox had not at all
abated its epidemic character, the times were ripe for "some
new thing."

Now there is a disease of cows know as cowpox or vaccinia (from
the Latin vacca, a cow) which is communicable to human beings.
It is thought to be due to the same virus which in pigs is
called swinepox and in horses "grease." Jenner believed
vaccinia to be the same pathological entity as human smallpox,
modified, however, by its transmission through the cow. For a
long time this view was stoutly resisted, but it has now been
accepted as probably representing the truth. The identity of
vaccinia and "grease" is certainly much more doubtful.

To many of Jenner's contemporaries the view that vaccinia had
at one time been a disease of human beings seemed unlikely; but
we are now in a far better position to admit its probability
than were those of Jenner's time. We have since then learned
that man shares many diseases with the lower animals,
tuberculosis, plague, rabies, diphtheria and pleuro-pneumonia,
to mention only a few. We have also learned that certain lower
animals, insects for instance, are intermediary hosts in the
life-cycle of many minute parasites which cause serious
diseases in the human being, amongst which malaria, yellow
fever and the sleeping sickness are the most familiar.

It appears to have been understood before Jenner's time that
persons who had acquired cowpox by handling cattle, but
especially by milking cows, were immune from smallpox. In the
reign of Charles II. it is well known that the court beauties
envied the dairy-maids because having had cowpox, they could
not take smallpox which all women so dreaded. Dr. Corlett tells
us that the Duchess of Cleveland, one of the King's mistresses,
on being told that she might lose her place in the royal favor
if she were disfigured by smallpox, replied that she had
nothing to fear as she had had cowpox. In 1769 a German, Bose,
wrote on the subject of cowpox protecting from smallpox. In the
year 1774 a cattle dealer, Benjamin Jesty, at Yetminster, in
Dorset, inoculated his wife and three children with cowpox.
None of them ever took smallpox during the rest of their lives
although frequently exposed to its infection. Jesty died in
1816, and it is recorded on his tombstone that he was the first
person who inoculated cowpox to protect from smallpox. Cowpox,
or vaccinia, though infectious for cows, is not transmissible
among human beings, in other words, as a disease of man it is
not infectious. Edward Jenner, the Englishman of Berkeley in
Gloucestershire, was the first person to think scientifically
on the fact that cowpox protected from smallpox. John Hunter
had said to him, "Jenner, don't think, try." Luckily, however,
he did both. Thinking alone avails little, experimentation
alone avails not much, but the one along with the other has
removed mountains. Just as Newton thought scientifically about
that falling apple and reduced our conceptions of the universe
to order, just as Watt thought scientifically about that
kettle-lid lifted by the steam and so introduced the modern era
of mechanical power brought under man's control, so Jenner
thought about and experimented with cowpox until he had
satisfied himself that he had discovered something which would
rid the human race forever of the incubus of an intolerable

It was in 1780 that Jenner set himself to study cowpox in a way
that had never before been attempted, for he was convinced that
in the having had an attack of the disease lay the secret of
the conquest of that world-scourge. He confided in his fried
Edward Gardner about "a most important matter . . . which I
firmly believe will prove of essential benefit to the human
race . . . should anything untoward turn up in my experiments,
I should be made, particularly by my medical brethren, the
subject of ridicule." Luckily he was quite prepared for both
ridicule and opposition; for has not everything new been
ridiculed and opposed? Galileo was opposed, Bruno was opposed,
Copernicus was opposed, Harvey was opposed, George Stevenson
was opposed, Pasteur was ridiculed and opposed, and so were
Darwin, Simpson and even Lister. The physiological inertia even
of the educated has too often blocked the path of advancement:
but Jenner is in illustrious company, a prince amongst the
hierarchy of the misunderstood.

The facts or surmises before Jenner at this date, then,
were--(a) Cowpox produces an eruption extremely like that of
mild smallpox, it is, therefore, probably a form of smallpox
modified by transmission through the cow; (b) And an attack of
cowpox protects from smallpox. To test these things
experimentally some one must first be inoculated with cowpox,
and, having recovered from the vaccinia, that same person must,
secondly, be inoculated with the virus of smallpox or be
exposed to the infection, and, thirdly, this person ought not
to take the disease.

In 1788 Jenner had a careful drawing made of the hand of a
milkmaid suffering from cowpox to demonstrate to Sir Everard
Home how exceedingly similar were vaccinia and variola. Home
agreed it was "interesting and curious," and the subject began
to attract some attention in medical circles.

In November, 1789, Dr. Jenner inoculated his eldest child
Edward, aged 18 months, with some swinepox virus, and as
nothing untoward happened, he inoculated him again with
swinepox on April 7, 1791. The child had a slight illness, very
like vaccinia, from which he rapidly recovered. The moment for
the crucial experiment was not yet; it came in due time, but
Jenner had to wait five years for it, and five years are a long
time to a man who is yearning to perform his crucial
experiment. Happily for suffering humanity, in the early summer
of 1796 the opportunity came; the hour and the man were there

Cowpox had broken out on a farm near Berkeley and a dairy maid
called Sarah Neames contracted the disease. On May 14, 1796,
Dr. Jenner took some fluid from a sore on this woman's hand and
inoculated it by slight scratching into the arm of a healthy
boy eight years old, by name James Phipps. The boy had the
usual "reaction" or attack of vaccinia, a disorder
indistinguishable from the mildest form of smallpox. After an
interval of six weeks, on July 1, Jenner made the most
momentous but justifiable experiment, for he inoculated James
Phipps with smallpox by lymph taken from a sore on a case of
genuine, well-marked, human smallpox, AND THE BOY DID NOT TAKE
THE DISEASE AT ALL. Jenner waited till the nineteenth of the
month, and finding that the boy had still not developed
variola, he could hardly write for joy. "Listen," he wrote to
Gardner, "to the most delightful part of my story. The boy has
since been inoculated for the smallpox which, aS I VERNTURED TO
PREDICT, produced no effect. I shall now pursue my experiments
with redoubled ardor."

Here we are behind the scenes at a great discovery; "as I
ventured to predict"; prediction is part of scientific
theorizing; there is a place for legitimate prediction as there
is for experimentation. All discoverers have made predictions;
Harvey predicted the existence of the capillaries, Halley
predicted the return of his comet, Adams predicted the place of
the planet Neptune, the missing link in the evolutionary series
of the fossil horses had been predicted long before it was
actually found by Professor Marsh. Pasteur predicted that the
sheep inoculated with the weak anthrax virus would be alive in
the anthrax-infected field, while those not so protected would
all be dead. A prediction verified is a conclusion
corroborated, an investigator encouraged.

Early in 1797, through another outbreak of cowpox, Jenner was
able to inoculate three persons with variola, only to find as
before that they were immune from smallpox. He now felt himself
justified in preparing a paper for the Royal Society, the
highest scientific tribunal in England. The council, however,
returned him his paper with the remark that in their opinion
the amount of evidence was not strong enough to warrant its
publication in the Transactions. Jenner was wise enough not to
be discouraged, and so in June, 1798, he published the paper
himself under the title, "Inquiry into the causes and effects
of the Variolae-Vacciniae, a disease discovered in some of the
western counties of England, particularly Gloucestershire, and
known by the name of cowpox." This historic pamphlet, which
ranks with the great classics of medicine, was dedicated to Dr.
O. H. Parry, of Bath. Later on the Royal Society was sagacious
enough to elect the very man whose paper it had previously

While in London attending to the publication of his pamphlet,
Dr. Jenner called on the great surgeon Mr. Cline, and left some
cowpox virus with him for trial. Cline inoculated a young
tubercular patient with vaccinia and later with smallpox in no
less than three places. In due time this patient did not show a
sign of smallpox. So impressed was Cline with this remarkable
result that he wrote to Jenner thus: "I think the substitution
of cowpox poison for smallpox one of the greatest improvements
that has ever been made in medicine. The more I think on the
subject, the more I am impressed with its importance."

The word "vaccination" was coined by the French, so remarkable
for the aptness of their descriptive terms, and it has ever
since remained with us as a convenient expression for the
inoculation of vaccinia as protecting from variola.[4]

[4] It is certainly not necessary to point out that the
principle of vaccination has been one of wide application in
modern medicine. Our word "vaccine" testifies to this. A
vaccine is a liquid, the result of bacterial growth, injected
into a patient in order to render him immune from that
particular disease which is caused by sufficient infection with
the microorganisms in question, e. g., of typhoid fever or of

Dr. Jenner's views were now becoming known, and the critics and
the doubters had appeared: St. Thomas has always had a large
following. The most formidable of the early objectors was Dr.
Igenhouz, who had come to London to study inoculation for
variola, and had already inoculated, among other notable
persons, the Archduchess Theresa Elizabeth of Vienna. The
careless vaccinations of Doctors Pearson and Woodville at the
London Smallpox Hospital brought much apparent discredit on
Jenner's work. In all his early work Jenner used lymph obtained
directly from papules on the cow or calf, but Woodville in 1799
showed that excellent results could be got from arm-to-arm
vaccination. As this latter method is a very convenient one,
the technique was widely adopted. We have to remember that we
are speaking of a period about sixty years before Lister gave
to suffering humanity that other great gift, antisepsis: and so
many arms "went wrong," not because of being vaccinated, but
because the scratches were afterwards infected by the
microorganisms of dirt. Jenner knew well the difference between
the reaction of clean vaccination and that of an infected arm,
but a great many medical men of his time did not, and so he was
constantly plagued with reports of vaccinations "going wrong"
when it was septic infection of uncleansed skin that had
occurred. The explanation of these things by letter consumed a
very great deal of his valuable time. By the end of 1799 a
large number of persons had, however, been successfully
vaccinated. As one Pearson proved troublesome by starting an
institution for public vaccination on principles which Jenner
knew to be wrong, and as Jenner found himself virtually
supplanted and misrepresented, he came up to London in 1800 to
vindicate his position. The King, the Queen and the Prince of
Wales, to whom he was presented, materially helped on the cause
by countenancing the practice of vaccination. Lord Berkeley,
his Lord of the Manor, was in this as in all things a kind and
wise patron. In the United States of America vaccination made
rapid progress, having been introduced there under the good
auspices of Dr. Waterhouse, professor of medicine at Cambridge,
Mass. The discovery was announced with true American
informality as "Something curious in the medical line," on
March 12, 1799.

Things went even better on the continent of Europe; deCarro, of
Vienna, inaugurated vaccination with such zeal and
discrimination that it spread to Switzerland, France, Italy and
Spain. From Spain it passed over to Latin America. In Sicily
and Naples, "the blessed vaccine" was received by religious
processions. Sacco, of Milan, commenced vaccinating in 1801,
and in a few years had vaccinated 20,000. In Paris, a Vaccine
Institute was established; and Napoleon ordered all his
soldiers who had not had smallpox to be vaccinated. On Jenner's
application, the Emperor liberated several English prisoners
remarking--"What that man asks is not to be refused." Napoleon
voted 100,000 francs for the propagation of vaccination. Lord
Elgin introduced it into Turkey and Greece. The Empress of
Russia, Catherine II., was one of the greatest supporters of
Jennerian vaccination. She decreed that the first child
vaccinated in Russia should be called "Vaccinoff," should be
conveyed to Petrograd in an imperial coach, educated at the
expense of the state and receive a pension for life. The
Emperor of Austria and the King of Spain released English
prisoners at Jenner's request. There were statues of Jenner
erected abroad, at Boulogne and at Brunn, in Moravia, before
any in England. Thus the European countries showed their
gratitude to the Englishman whose patience, genius and absence
of self-seeking had rid them of the detestable world-plague of
smallpox. Vaccination was made compulsory by law in no less
than five European countries before it was so in the United
Kingdom in 1853. In eight countries vaccination is provided
free at the expense of the government. The clergy of Geneva and
of Holland from their pulpits recommended their people to be
vaccinated. In Germany, Jenner's birthday (May 17) was
celebrated as a holiday. Within six years, Jenner's gift to
humanity had been accepted with that readiness with which the
drowning clutch at straws. The most diverse climes, races,
tongues and religions were united in blessing vaccination and
its discoverer. The North American Indians forwarded to Dr.
Jenner a quaintly worded address full of the deepest gratitude
for what he had saved them from: "We shall not fail," said
these simple people, "to teach our children to speak the name
of Jenner, and to thank the Great Spirit for bestowing upon him
so much wisdom and so much benevolence."

There are two allusions to smallpox in "Don Juan," which was
published in 1819, showing to what an extent Jennerian
teachings were in the air. The first is:

The doctor paid off an old pox
By borrowing a new one from an ox.
(Canto I., stanza 129.)

The second is:

I said the smallpox has gone out of late,
Perhaps it may be followed by the great.
(Stanza 130.)

Before 1812, Jenner had been made an honorary member of nearly
every scientific society in Europe, and had received the
freedom of the cities of London, Edinburgh, Dublin and Glasgow.
The Medical Society of London presented him with a gold medal
struck in his honor; in Berlin in 1812 there was a Jennerian
festival on the anniversary of Phipps's vaccination. Addresses
and diplomas were showered on him, and in 1813 the University
of Oxford conferred on him the degree of M.D. honoris causa. As
he refused point blank to pass the examination in Latin and
Greek required by the Royal College of Physicians of London,
Jenner never obtained admission into that learned body. When
some one recommended him to revise his classics so that he
might become an F.R.C.P. he replied, "I would not do it for a
diadem"; and then, thinking of a far better reward, added: "I
would not do it for John Hunter's museum."

But while the pure in heart were thus receiving the blessing
offered them by the benovelent man of science, the pests of
society, those discontented and jaundiced ones who are always
to be found in the dark recesses of the cave of Adullam, were
not idle. Many of his medical colleagues did indeed sneer, as
some are always apt to do at any new thing however good. To all
these Jenner replied, and a very great deal of his valuable
time was consumed in arguing with them. But the sect of the
anti-vaccinators had arisen, and was to some extent organized.
Caricatures, lampoons, scurrilities, vulgarities and
misrepresentations, the mean, were scattered on all sides.
Nothing was too absurd to be stated or believed--that
vaccinated persons had their faces grow like oxen, that they
coughed like cows, bellowed like bulls and became hairy on the
body. One omniscient objector declared that, "vaccination was
the most degrading relapse of philosophy that had ever
disgraced the civilized world." A Dr. Rowley, evidently
imagining himself honored by a special participation in the
Divine counsels, declared that "smallpox is a visitation from
God, but cowpox is produced by presumptuous man. The former was
what Heaven had ordained, the latter is a daring violation of
our holy religion." It was rather hard to blame Dr. Jenner for
the origin of cowpox. It took much forbearance to endure this
sort of thing; but Jenner's was a first-class mind and he
evidently dealt leniently even with fools. It was not for the
first time in the world's history that a lover of mankind had
been spurned with the words--"He hath a devil and is mad."

Besides enduring all these mental and physical worries, and the
annoyance that the Royal Jennerian Society established in 1802
was so mismanaged that it collapsed in 1808, Jenner had spent a
very large sum of private money on the introduction of
vaccination. He had been, as he himself expressed it, "Vaccine
clerk to the whole world." Parliament, it is true, in 1801,
voted him a sum of 10,000 pounds which was not paid for three
years afterwards and was diminished by 1,000 pounds deducted
for fees, so that it barely recompensed him for his outlays. By
1806, the immensity of the benefit conferred upon his diseased
fellow-creatures having been recognized more perfectly in every
other country than his own, the British Parliament woke up, and
voted him a sum of 20,000 pounds, only one member representing
the anti-vaccinators opposing the grant. Parliament, which had
previously received from the Colleges of Physicians of London,
Edinburgh and Dublin the most favorable reports of the efficacy
of vaccination, decided to reestablish the Royal Jennerian
Institute. A subscription of 7,383 pounds from grateful India
reached Jenner in 1812. In 1814 he was in London for the last
time, when he was presented to the Emperor of Russia, Alexander
I., who told him that he had very nearly subdued smallpox
throughout that vast Empire. Jenner refused a Russian order on
the ground that he was not a man of independent means.

The management of the Institute caused him much concern in his
later years; he disapproved of the personnel and of many of the
details of its working. One of the last worries of his life was
an article in the November number for 1822 of the famous
Edinburgh Review. Although it contained a good deal of praise,
it was not favorable to Jenner, who said of it, "I put it down
at 100,000 deaths at least." I have ascertained that this
article was not written by the celebrated Francis Jeffrey,
although he was editor of the Review until 1829.

Jenner's life, apart from his great discovery and his
developing the practice of vaccination, has not much incident
in it. He was born on May 17, 1749, the son of the Rev. Stephen
Jenner, vicar of Berkeley, Gloucestershire, England, the same
Berkeley in whose castle, Edward II., the vanquished at
Banockburn, was murdered in 1327. Jenner's mother's name was
Head. Edward went to school at Wotton-under-Edge and at
Cirencester, and began to study medicine with a Mr. Ludlow, a
surgeon at Sodbury near Bristol. In his twenty-first year,
Jenner went to London as a pupil of the great John Hunter, in
whose house, he lived two years, during which time he was
entered as a medical student at St. George's Hospital. It is
interesting to know that while still a student he was asked by
Sir Joseph Banks to arrange and catalogue the zoological
specimens brought home by the circumnavigator Captain Cook in
his first voyage of 1771. Jenner devoted considerable attention
to natural history, to geology and to the study of fossils, on
which topics he kept up correspondence with Hunter long after
he left London. In the year 1788 he married a Miss Kingscote,
and settled down to practice in his native place. Mrs. Jenner
died in 1815, after which date Jenner never left Berkeley

Curiously enough, it was not until 1792 that Jenner obtained
the degree of M.D., and it was not from an English university
at all, but from the University of St. Andrews in Scotland.
This university, the smallest although the oldest of the
Scottish universities, has therefore the honor of being the
Alma Mater to the epoch-making Englishman. I have seen the
entry of the name in the list of graduates for the year 1792;
it has evidently been misspelled, for the name is corrected.
The first foreign university to recognize Jenner's eminence was
Gottingen. In 1794 Jenner had an attack of typhus fever. Jenner
never cared for London or a city life, and although in 1808 he
was persuaded to take a house in town, he soon gave it up and
went back to his beautiful Gloucestershire. For many years he
practiced during the season in the pleasant health-resort of
Cheltenham. He loved the country, he studied lovingly the
living things around him there: many are familiar with a piece
of verse he wrote on "The signs of rain."

The year 1810 was a sad one for Jenner: his eldest son died,
and that noticeably depressed his health. In 1823 he presented
a paper to the Royal Society on the migration of birds, a
subject not even yet fully cleared up. On January 26, in the
same year, he was stricken with paralysis on the right side and
died within twenty-four hours. His body was buried in the
chancel of the parish church of Berkeley, where there is a
memorial window placed by public subscription. In person,
Edward Jenner was short and rather heavily built; his
expression of face was pleasant with a touch of sadness. All
reports agree that in dress he was conspicuously neat, looking
more like a gentleman-farmer than a physician, with his blue
coat, yellow buttons, red waistcoat, buff breeches and

[5] He was painted by Sir Thomas Lawrence, by Northcote and by

There is no disguising the fact that during his lifetime Dr.
Jenner was much more appreciated in foreign countries than in
England. The medico-social club of Alverton, near where he
lived, would not listen to him when he addressed them on
vaccination. The effort to collect enough money from the
medical men of England in order to place a marble statue to
Jenner in the nave of Gloucester Cathedral, was successful only
after a long delay. An attempt to erect a statue in London died
of apathy; but in 1858, 32 years after he died, a statue was
erected in Trafalgar Square. In 1862 it was removed to a quiet
corner of Kensington gardens; and perhaps its surroundings, the
trees, the flowers and the birds he loved are more suitable
than the effigies of those national heroes who served their
country by taking, not by saving life. No, Nelson the hero is
hardly the suitable companion for Jenner the hero.

There is no doubt that Jenner's medical contemporaries, at
least in England, failed to appreciate the magnitude of the
gift their colleague had presented not merely to his own
country, but to the world at large. The discovery had, of
course, been led up to by several different lines of
indication, but this in no way detracts from the genius of
Jenner in drawing his memorable inductions from the few facts
which others had known before his time. The fame of Newton is
no whit diminished because Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo lived
and worked before him, the credit due to Harvey is none the
less because many before his time had worked on the problem of
the heart and vessels, and because some of them, notably
Cesalpinus, came within a very little of the discovery of the
circulation; the achievements of Darwin are not to be belittled
because Lamarck, Malthus or Monboddo had notions in accordance
with the tenor of his great generalization of evolution among
living beings. Certainly Jenner had precursors; but it was his
genius and his genius alone which, putting together the various
fragments of knowledge already possessed, gave us the grand but
simple induction based on his own experiments that vaccinia
prevents from variola. It was too simple and too new to be
appreciated in all its bearings either by the medical men or
the laity of his own day. Its impressiveness is not inherent in
it, as it is in the mathematical demonstration of universal
gravitation, as it is in the atomic theory or in that of the
survival of the fittest through natural selection. The English
country doctor merely said in essence--"let me give you cowpox
and you will not get smallpox." Unless the fact of this
immunity is regarded as possessed by all the nations of the
world for ever more there is nothing particularly impressive in
it; and so it failed to impress his contemporaries. It is only
when we contrast the loathsomeness and danger of smallpox with
the mildness and safety of vaccinia and varioloid that we grasp
the greatness of the work which Jenner did for mankind. The
very simplicity of vaccination detracts from its impressiveness
unless its results are viewed through the vista of the
centuries. We need the proper historical perspective in this as
in all else. Thus viewed, however, the simplicity of the
procedure and the universality of its application are most
imposing. Vaccination does not, indeed, dazzle the scientific
imagination like some of the other generalizations of biology,
but it is one that has been gloriously vindicated by the
subsequent history of the world's hygiene.

Jenner knew himself to be a benefactor of the human race; he
would have been insincere if he had pretended otherwise; he
finished his first paper with these words: "I shall endeavor
still farther to prosecute this enquiry, an enquiry, I trust,
not merely speculative, but of sufficient moment to inspire the
pleasing hope of its becoming essentially useful to mankind";
and on his death-bed he said, "I do not marvel that men are not
grateful to me, but I am surprised that they do not feel
grateful to God for making me a medium of good."

In private life Dr. Jenner was amiable and kind-hearted. Dibden
said of him: "I never knew a man of simpler mind or of warmer
heart." He was particularly kind to the poor. Dr. Matthew
Baillie said of him: "Jenner might have been immensely rich if
he had not published his discovery."

We may in conclusion examine some of the objections to and
criticisms of vaccination. The objections can be classified as
those entertained (a) by medical men and (b) those by the
public generally.

The objections raised by medical men are now a matter of
ancient history. Each generation of medical men has refused at
first to admit any new teaching promulgated in its time;
physiological inertia is not at once overcome. The most
enlightened of Jenner's critics did really believe that he was
drawing too extensive an induction from insufficient data; this
was the position of the Royal Society in 1788; but the
Edinburgh reviewer of 1822 should have known better. The purely
technical criticisms of Jenner's work have by this time been
fully assessed and replied to. It is true that at one time it
was not clear what were the relationships of chickenpox and
smallpox, of vaccinia and variola, of vaccinia and varioloid,
of the various forms of pox in animals--cowpox, swinepox,
horsepox or grease--either inter se or to human smallpox. But I
do not suppose that in this year of grace 1914 there can be
found one properly trained medical man, acquainted with the
history of Jennerian vaccination, familiar with the ravages of
smallpox and with the protective power of vaccinia, who could
be induced, by no matter how large a bribe, to say that he
disapproved of vaccination or that he believed it did not
protect from smallpox. There are cranks in all walks of life,
but the medical crank who is also an anti-vaccinationist is
happily the rarest of them all.

The lay objectors--the professed anti-vaccinators--are with us
yet in spite of some very serious lessons which have been
taught them. We may pass by the objectors of the class who
believe that vaccinated persons cough like cows and bellow like
bulls; these objections go into the limbo of old wives' fables
or into the category of wilful misrepresentation. Unfortunately
there is a large class of persons who can believe the absurdest
nonsense about any subject which is particularly distasteful to
them.[6] Another class of objection is the sentimental
repugnance to the idea of being given one of the diseases of
"the lower animals." Now the fact is that already we share a
great many diseases with the lower animals, a few of them being
tuberculosis, anthrax, rabies, tetanus, cancer,
pleuro-pneumonia, certain insect-borne diseases, some parasitic
worm diseases and some skin diseases like favus. As the
knowledge of the lowly origin of many of our diseases is more
widespread, this sort of objection will die out.

[6] Antivaccinators constantly allude to calf-lymph as "filth";
if lymph is filth, then I am able to assure them that each one
of them has about three liters of it in his own body.

An objection which is worthy of more consideration is that in
being vaccinated a child is apt to contract some infectious
disease such as tuberculosis or syphilis which are the two most
dreaded. Now so long as arm-to-arm vaccination was the routine
practice, there was a remote probability that this sort of
accident might occur. It appears to be true that a few
accidents of this kind have occurred, just as a few arms have
become septic or had erysipelas develop in them. But when the
few such cases are compared with the millions and millions of
uncomplicated vaccinations, their importance becomes very
insignificant. Now that arm-to-arm vaccination is no longer
practiced, but fresh calf-lymph used for each child, these
accidental inoculations are a thing of the past. The ignorance
of cause and effect is responsible for a great deal of the most
childish objections to vaccination as to much else. One woman
lately told me that she could not have her child vaccinated
because a child in the same street was made a cripple for life
by being vaccinated. Could we have a better example of the
"post hoc sed non propter hoc."[7]

[7] Now and again, however, we have the sad spectacle of some
one really well educated but apparently either ignorant of
logic or desirous of wilfully misrepresenting facts. The Hon.
Stephen Coleridge has an article in the June (1914) number of
the Contemporary Review which is, to say the least of it,
highly immoral in ethics and statistics.

I shall examine only that part of it bearing on vaccination.
The statements are that in the last five recorded years, 58
persons died from smallpox vaccination (he means vaccination
against smallpox), whereas in the same five years, 85 persons
died from smallpox itself. The inference we are intended to
draw from these figures is that to be vaccinated is nearly as
fatal as to have smallpox itself.

Now this kind of argument is a very common one with
statistically immoral persons, and is known as the suppression
of the ratio. Before we can appreciate the fact that in five
years 58 persons died after being vaccinated, we at least need
to know the total number of persons who were vaccinated. If
only 58 persons were vaccinated and they all died, then the
mortality was 100 per cent., but if, as was practically the
case, thousands of infants in Great Britain were vaccinated in
five years, then if only 58 died after vaccination (although
not necessarily in consequence of it) the mortality falls some
thousands of a per cent. The suppression of the ratio, i. e.,
58/many thousands is the deceit that is practiced.

Fifty-eight per year for five years, is 11.6 deaths per year of
persons vaccinated: presumably these were infants: taking the
birth-rate in England as 30 per 1,000 living, we may say that
900,000 infants were born; deduct 100,000 as not vaccinated, we
have 800,000 infants vaccinated, of these 11.6 died after being
vaccinated, which is 0.0014 per cent. This is not much of a
mortality from any cause; but using Mr. Coleridge's own
figures, it is a splendid demonstration of the safety of
infant-vaccination, the opposite of what he pretends it shows.

Mr. Coleridge proceeds to tell us that in five years 85 persons
died of smallpox in Great Britain, i. e., an average of 17
persons per year. In other words 17 persons died of smallpox in
a country with 30 million inhabitants, or 0.000056 per cent. of
persons living, not a high mortality. And we strongly suspect,
may we hope, that those 17 were persons who had not been

But in Pre-Jennerian days, 17 persons died of smallpox out of
every 100 persons dying from all causes.

Mr. Coleridge's figures, properly and honestly interpreted,
testify loudly to conclusions exactly the opposite of what he
desires to insinuate; he has no doubt taken the statistics of
the Registrar-General, but he has prostituted them.

Mr. Coleridge's paper could not be a better example of the art
of concealing the causes of phenomena.

He exhibits the following table:

Deaths from smallpox per annum per a million living:

1862-1870 ................................. 172.2
1871-1880 ................................. 244.6
1881-1890 ................................. 45.8
1891-1900 ................................. 13.3
1901-1910 ................................. 12.8

So that the table shows that since 1880 in Great Britain the
deaths from smallpox per million per year have declined until
they are only about 1/14th of their original number.

The natural inference from these figures, viewed in the light
of the history of smallpox in Great Britain, is that compulsory
vaccination has been steadily eradicating the disease; but this
is not Mr. Coleridge's conclusion: He says it is due to the
large number of persons who have refused to be vaccinated! This
would be laughable if it were not really serious; it is sad and
serious that a man of Mr. Coleridge's education and social
position should so consistently mislead the uncritical readers
of the Contemporary Review to whose pages he has unfortunately
very free access. If Mr. Coleridge really believes these things
he is either very stupid or very ignorant; if he knows them to
be otherwise, but wilfully deceives the public, he is immoral.
He suffers from the worst form of bias, the anti-scientific.
{the end of long footnote}

There is still that group of persons who object to
everything--anti-vivisection, anti-meat eating, anti-breakfast,
anti-hats and of course also anti-vaccination. They are anti
the usual and the normal that are quite good enough for the
most of people. They generally also believe that the earth is
flat; they are past praying for, all we can do with them is to
look them, like the difficulty of Jonah and the whale, "full in
the face and pass on."

Many people at the present time allow themselves to be
persuaded into being anti-vaccinators because neither they nor
their deluders have ever known what an epidemic of smallpox is,
have never seen with their own eyes the awful spectacle of a
person suffering from smallpox in any of its forms--discrete,
confluent or hemorrhagic. Thanks to this very Jenner, the world
has now for 100 years been almost free from epidemic, virulent
smallpox and most perfectly so in the vaccinated countries, so
that millions, the majority, of Englishmen, have never seen a
case of smallpox at all. Not knowing the awful danger they have
escaped, through Great Britain having had compulsory
vaccination since 1853, they have become lax in their belief in
the necessity for the continuance of that precaution. "They
jest at scars that never felt a wound." Towns such as
Gloucester in England, in which a large number of children have
been allowed to grow up unvaccinated, have always been visited
sooner or later by a serious outbreak of smallpox. It must be
so; the laws of natural phenomena can not be changed to suit
the taste of those persons who are mentally incapable of
understanding them. They can not be evaded; ignorance of the
law is no more an excuse in the realm of natural than of
man-made law.

We now come to that undesirable product of present-day,
grandmotherly legislation, the conscientious objector. As I am
not a politician, I shall not say anything for or against the
policy of inserting in a bill which makes vaccination
compulsory a clause giving to the conscientious objector the
power or right to refuse to have his child vaccinated, but as a
medical man who knows a little of the history of medicine, I
can only describe it as gratuitous folly. I am one of those who
believe that the laity should have no say in the matter of
whether any given procedure is or is not advantageous for the
public health. The efficacy of universal inoculation of
vaccinia as a prophylactic against variola is a question of
scientific medicine to be decided on technical grounds and
ought not to be a matter open to debate by the public at all.
It is perfectly monstrous to suppose that the ordinary person,
quite untrained to weigh evidence for or against the
advisability of the carrying out of a particular form of
national immunization against a horrid disease, is qualified to
form any opinion. He might as well be consulted on the
advisability of making the channel tunnel or on the safest type
of aeroplane or on any other subject involving the technical
training of the engineer. To permit the so-called "man in the
street" to say whether he shall or shall not permit the
carrying out of some important piece of civic hygiene is to
introduce a principle subversive of all system and obstructive
of all progress in the science of public health. It is absurd
that in a case like this the pronouncements of the judges are
to be submitted to the criticisms of the jury. England has
already had one or two pretty severe lessons through allowing
such places as Gloucester and Leicester to exercise their right
of private judgment on the question of vaccination. In
Gloucester where there was at one time a vigorous
anti-vaccination movement, a serious epidemic overtook the city
a few years ago (1896). What science pronounces to be
beneficial, the layman must submit to. What we want in these
days is less superstition and more faith--in science. I am
informed that there are more than 2,000 unvaccinated children
in the schools of this city at the present moment, and all
because a piece of legislation allows any unintelligent,
prejudiced or credulous parent to decide on the momentous
question of the vaccination of his children.

Our quarantine regulations are extremely strict, and rightly
so, on the subject of smallpox; but is it not a farce to take
so much trouble about the health of our immigrants when inside
the city we are all the time encouraging a high degree of
receptivity towards this very disease? I should call this a
very clear case of straining at the international gnat and
swallowing the municipal camel. The community at present is at
the mercy of its least instructed members. A most sensible
suggestion is that if an outbreak of smallpox occurs in
Halifax, the cost of it should be borne by the unvaccinated and
by the anti-vaccinators. The fact is we have forgotten what
smallpox is like. In 1796 before Jennerian vaccination, the
death-rate from smallpox in England was 18.5 per cent. of
deaths from all causes; in London between 1838 and 1869 it was
1.4 per cent., while in 1871--the worst year for smallpox since
vaccination became compulsory--the deaths from smallpox were
barely 4.5 per cent. of deaths from all causes, a proportion
which was exceeded 93 times in the eighteenth century. At the
present moment the deaths from smallpox in London constitute a
little under 0.24 per cent. of deaths from all causes, or 77
times less than in pre-Jennerian times.

According to MacVail, in the pre-vaccination period smallpox
was nine times as fatal as measles and seven and one half times
as fatal as whooping cough. To-day in the vaccinated community
its fatality is negligable, in the unvaccinated it is as high
as it was in the Middle Ages. In the city of Berlin, where
vaccination is absolutely compulsory, there is no smallpox
hospital at all; the cases of smallpox in that city being only
a few unvaccinated foreigners. In 1912 the deaths in New York
City were as follow: 671 from measles, 614 from scarlatina, 500
from typhoid fever, 187 from whooping cough and 2 from

In London there were in 48 years of the seventeenth century no
less than 10 epidemics of smallpox; in the whole of the
eighteenth, 19; and in the nineteenth no epidemic at all during
which smallpox was responsible for more than one tenth of the
deaths from all causes in any one year.

In Sweden, the highest death-rate before vaccination was 7.23
per 1,000 persons, the lowest 0.30; under permissive
vaccination the highest was 2.57, the lowest 0.12; under
compulsory vaccination the highest was 0.94, the lowest 0.0005.

It is so frequently said that the disappearance of smallpox is
due not to vaccination, but to improved general hygiene, that
we must look into this criticism with some care. In the first
place, a large diminution in the mortality from smallpox
occurred before there was any great change in the unsanitary
conditions of the English towns, before there was any enforcing
of the isolation of patients either in hospitals or in their
own homes. Since the introduction of vaccination, measles and
whooping cough still remain in the status quo ante, while
smallpox has been exterminated in all fully vaccinated
communities, these two diseases of children are as prevalent as
ever in England even although the general sanitary conditions
have been immensely improved in that country. Of course the
effects of vaccination wear out in time, and that is why it is
well to be revaccinated once or twice. Now there has been a
remarkable progressive change in the age-incidence of smallpox
"which can only be explained," says Dr. Newsholme, "on the
assumption that vaccination protects children from smallpox and
that the protection diminishes, though it never entirely
disappears, as age advances.

The "conscience clause" should be immediately removed from the
act in which it was inserted on the grounds that it is weak and
reactionary in principle, not in the interests of the
development of the legislative aspect of the science of public
health, and that it permits in certain unintelligent
communities quite a considerable number of unvaccinated
children to grow up as a permanent menace to their town and

When the history of medicine becomes more widely known, when
the principles of prophylactic inoculation are more generally
understood, when respect for science is the rule rather than
the exception, when great achievements in the saving rather
than the destroying of life are objects of national veneration,
then we may hope to see the day when it will be unhesitatingly
admitted that the discovery by Dr. Edward Jenner, the
Englishman, was one of the most momentous in the history of the
human race, and that his life was one of the noblest, most
unselfish and, in its far-reaching effects, most important that
has ever been lived on this planet.



Back to Full Books