one on the "Theory of Rolling Curves," and the other on the "Equilibrium of Elastic Solids." During his college course in Cambridge he developed the germs of his future important work on electricity and magnetism, in a paper on "Faraday's Lines of Force," and five other papers on the same subject were contributed by him to the "Philosophical Magazine" during 1861 and 1862. Only a few months after obtaining his Cambridge degree in 1854, he contributed to the Cambridge Philosophical Society a remarkable paper on the "Transformation of Surfaces by Bending." In 1857 his paper on the "Motions of Saturn's Rings" obtained for him the Adams prize in the University of Cambridge. He received in 1860 the Rumford medal from the Royal Society for his "Researches on the Composition of Colors" and other optical papers. The subject of color Professor Maxwell has treated with great success, both experimentally and theoretically, his papers on the subject extending from 1855 to 1872. His important paper on a "Dynamical Theory of the Electro-magnetic Field," in which he endeavored to explain electric and magnetic forces by means of stresses and motions of the medium, and thus do away with the notion of action at a distance, was read before the Royal Society in 1864, and printed in the "Transactions" of that year. His contributions to the Kinetic theory of gases form one of the most important and valuable of his investigations. His first paper on this subject appeared in the "Philosophical Magazine" of 1860, and he at different times since published various others. Before him, Clausius had made a great advance by his explanation by this theory of the relation between the volume, temperature, and pressure of a gas, the cooling of it by expansion, and the slowness of diffusion and conduction of heat in it. An investigation was also made by him of the relation between the length of the mean free path of a particle, the number of particles in a given space, and their least distance when in collision. Maxwell by an investigation of the collisions of a number of perfectly elastic spheres, first when they are all of the same mass, and then when they are of different masses, reached the law of Gay-Lussac, that in a unit of volume there is the same number of particles in all gases when at the same temperature and pressure. He also explained gaseous friction, and showed that the coefficient of viscosity is independent of the density of the gas. The approximate length of the mean free path was first deduced by him from data furnished by Stokes. Pursuing the same subject, he made a few years later a valuable series of experimental investigations on the viscosity and internal friction of air and other gases, the results of which were brought to the attention of the Royal Society in 1866. A paper on "A Method of making a Direct Comparison of Electrostatic with Electro-magnetic Force, with a Note on the Electro-magnetic Theory of Light," was also presented to that body in 1868. He took great interest in graphical statics, and contributed in 1869 a paper on the subject, under the title "On Reciprocal Figures, Forms, and Diagrams of Forces," to the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Besides his numerous articles giving the results of investigations, a few only of which are above mentioned, he contributed to the "Encyclopædia Britannica" the articles "Atom," "Attraction," "Capillary Action," "Constitution of Bodies," "Diagrams," "Diffusion," "Ether," "Faraday," and "Harmonic Analysis." Of the works published by Professor Maxwell, that on "Electricity and Magnetism" is his most important, giving the results of his laborious life in this department of physics. Besides this, a work on "The Theory of Heat," and a small text-book on Matter and Motion "have been published by him. To these must be added his recently published volume on the "Electrical Researches of the Hon. Henry Cavendish," which he has enriched with copious and valuable notes. Of his more important pieces of experimental work, that connected with the determination of the British Association Unit of Electric Resistance and his verification of Ohm's law made by him at the Cavendish Laboratory, should be here mentioned. Professor Maxwell was Fellow of the Royal Societies of Edinburgh and London, and of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, and a voluminous contributor to their "Transactions." In 1872 he was elected Honorary Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and in the same year was created honorary LL. D. of Edinburgh, while in 1876 he received the honorary degree of D. C. L. at Oxford. He was appointed honorary member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, of Boston, in 1874; member of the American Philosophical Society of Philadelphia, 1875; and honorary member of the New York Academy of Sciences in 1876. He was also correspondent in the mathematical class to the Imperial Academy of Sciences, Göttingen; corresponding member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, Vienna; and associate of the Amsterdam Royal Academy of Sciences. Professor Maxwell did not confine himself to scientific research and exposition, but occasionally appeared in the field of literature with poetic effusions of a satirical character on scientific subjects. Professor Tait, in his review in "Nature" of Professor Maxwell's work, hopes "that these scattered gems may be collected and published, for they are of the very highest interest, as the work during leisure hours of one of the most piercing intellects of modern times. Every one of them contains evidence of close and accurate thought, and many are in the happiest form of epigram." Two samples of this poetic work are given by Professor Tait, one of which we append: "To follow my thoughts as they go on, Electrodes I'd place in my brain; Nay, I'd swallow a live entozoön, New feelings of life to obtain." CORRESPONDENCE. AMHERST COLLEGE AND EVOLUTION. Messrs. Editors. A FTER the publication of President Seelye's peculiar statement with respect to the teaching at Amherst College regarding the law of evolution, feeling a graduate's interest in the matter, I made careful inquiry, and find that, at a meeting of the faculty held a few years ago, the present Professor of Geology was requested by President Stearns to deliver a course of lectures on evolution, and the faculty, without any audible dissent, seconded the request. At the time, this Professor was known to believe in the evolution law. Since then, evolution has been taught in the department of zoology, the Professor or instructor giving such an exposition of the facts favoring and seeming to militate against the doctrine as would be suitable to students. By vote of the faculty, also, Dana's and Le Conte's text-books are used, both of which accept evolution, the second very positively. There is now established an instructorship in biology. Moreover, I learn that every professor in the scientific departments of study believes in the doctrine in question. The following language, with which one of the professors is credited, shows quite a different state of feeling in the institution from what President Seelye would lead us to believe: "Taking all the relations, as I judge them from my standpoint, it must be concluded that the truth lies somewhere within the lines of the evolution theories. Such unquestionably is the teaching of real science in nearly all places where it has both freedom and intelligence. As to its materialistic or atheistic tendencies, I regard it as having none whatever, except in the hollow brains of those wouldbe sages who talk most concerning that of which they know the least. The most important point is to find out the truth in nature, and teach that, regardless of all bearing it may have on any of our preconceived notions." Upon this state of facts, certainly very different from that which the ordinary reader would infer from President Seelye's statement (it is not entirely clear what he means), it may be concluded that Amherst College is working along abreast of the best thought of the time, notwithstanding the unfavorable reflection cast upon it by its President's remarks. There was a period when Amherst College had a reputation for its achievements in the field of science. Latterly, it has ceased to have much in that direction, chiefly because dominated by the influence of the teaching in its senior class-room, under the name of mental and moral science, of a collection of bizarre doctrines, expressed in words which have no corresponding thoughts, wholly unscientific and without any philosophical substance or consistency. Since President Seelye thinks he believes in these doctrines, it is hardly to be expected that he could apprehend the truth of statements which express laws of nature scientifically ascertained and verified. The only way in which he could be made to see such truth would be for him to follow the course found necessary by some of his graduates, namely, to unlearn everything taught at Amherst as philosophy, before attempting to take a step forward in the path of true philosophical knowledge. Of course, to the world of scholars at large, President Seelye's strictures, if they were meant to have application broadly to the doctrine of evolution, will not have the slightest interest; but it ought not to be pleasant for those who have any especial regard for the college to see its president putting forth, in an apparently ill-tempered fling, a statement characterizing unfairly a doctrine which a large portion of the scientific and philosophical world accepts as a nat ural law abundantly verified, and creating an impression, with respect to the college teaching, which does not seem to be true, and which, if it were true, would only bring discredit upon the institution. DANIEL G. THOMPSON. A CONSIDERATION OF SUICIDE. Messrs. Editors. THE article under this heading, in your April number, is an ingenious discussion of the subject, and one which also, considering the solemn matter of which it treats, we must suppose to be ingenuous, although through the entire argument runs the flaw of an erroneous definition. "What is suicide?" asks the writer, and answers, "The voluntary termination of one's own life." Perhaps we should be content with calling this definition imperfect. It has certainly led the writer into error, and to a distinction between egoistic and altruistic suicide, which has no foundation either in ethics or in the definitions of criminal law. There is no such thing as altruistic suicide. Sui- | cide is characterized by the intention to take one's own life. A voluntary death characterized by the intention to save life is certainly not suicide. To constitute suicide there must be criminal motive, just as in the case of any other crime. It must be felo de se; in its simplest statement, selfmurder. This, in fact, is the definition of Blackstone: "The act of designedly destroying one's own life committed by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind; self-murder." It must be distinguished, that is, from simple voluntary death, as murder is distinguished from simple homicide. There must be the intent to destroy life from a selfish or malign motive. The unjustifiable motive in the case of the suicide is the selfish desire to terminate life, and thus avoid some present or threatened evil, without regard to the evil or unhappiness inflicted on survivors. In the strongest case that can be put, that of an aged man who feels that he is a burden on his friends (or those who should be such), a pure and unselfish motive would incline him rather to inflict that burden on them than the far heavier burden and disgrace of a (to him) criminal and (to them) criminating death. For the rest-and to embrace under one head all Mr. Hopkins's illustrations of altruistic suicides, viz., heroes, martyrs, and engineers the man who dies defending or maintaining a trust is in no sense a suicide. His death is made to him, by moral reasons, inevitable. W. W. LORD. "ORIGIN OF CRIMINAL LAW." Messrs. Editors. CHARLES J. BUELL calls attention in your April number to some statements in Mr. W. W. Billson's article, "The Origin of Criminal Law," illustrating the way in which early law-makers seem to have taken the revengeful feelings of the aggrieved parties into consideration in imposing punishments upon wrong-doers. He says: "There appears to be something of this sort in the custom that will hold a man blameless if he shoot and kill the midnight robber who is merely trying to effect an entrance into his house, but will not hold him guiltless if he take the same sort of vengeance on the robber after he has once entered the house and stolen the goods and escaped with them." This law is based upon a principle as far as possible from the idea of gratifying the injured party's sense of revenge. When a man awakes in the night-time and finds another man trying to get into his house, he is not obliged to ask him if he intends to steal or murder. The man within may be timid; he may apprehend great personal danger; he may have the impres sion that an attempt is being made to murder him. The law protects him in acting upon such apprehension. This is simply self-defense. There is no question of anger or revenge about it. Now, when the robber has made off with the goods, and all possible fear of personal violence has vanished, or can not possibly arise, it then becomes a question, merely, of the "prevention of crime." Society ignores all idea of carrying out the spirit of revenge that may fill the breast of the injured party in fact punishes him, if he attempts to do so himself, as a criminal. Clearly, whatever may have been the guiding principle of the ancient law-giver, our present legislators do not attempt to administer to personal resentment. The object and reasons for the existence of government have been inquired into, and a scientific basis is gradually building for the great modern structure to rest upon. The passions are found to be the most unsafe guides. Only a few rules of law, relating almost wholly to domestic relations, rest upon them. The consequence is, that these relations figure most disgustingly in the proceedings of courts. Yours respectfully, EDITOR'S TABLE. MATTHEW ARNOLD ON COPYRIGHT. THE THE question of international copyright, as we have maintained on all occasions, is for the people of this country a very serious one. It is commonly regarded that our present condition in respect to it is merely an imperfect state of things which nobody knows how to remedy, and which need not much disquiet us, as it is happily working very much to our advantage. Why, it is asked, should we pick a quarrel with our own bread and butter, especially when the bread is buttered so thickly on both sides? The reason why the matter is grave is that the bread and butter are both stolen, and because theft is bad for those who lose their property, and worse for those who get it. A nation can not tolerate palpable dishonesty without vital injury to itself. One injustice leads to another, and demoralization spreads. Selfish advantages openly override correct principles, and then, worst of all, come the mental obliquity and confusion resulting from attempts to palliate and excuse injustice. If a flagrant wrong is long and widely practiced, there will always be plenty to rally for its defense-some dishonestly, from interested motives, and others with a senseless sincerity from innate crookedness, cloudiness, or eccentricity of mind. These crotchety, whimsical, and erratic intellects are found both at home and abroad, and they often prove capable of doing considerable mischief. that nobody's rights are violated, as there are no rights in the case. Mr. Arnold's point of view in regard to copyright is quite his own. Here, as everywhere else, he is haunted by the spirit of "Philistinism." The undesirable practice of appropriating an author's works is a miserable piece of middleclass indelicacy. "The spirit of the American community and Government is the spirit, I suppose, of a middle-class society of our race, and this is not a spirit of delicacy. One could not say that in their public acts they showed in general a spirit of delicacy; certainly they have not shown that spirit in dealing with authors." Mr. Arnold pursues this thought more fully. He says: "The interests of English authors will never be safe in America until the community as a community gets the sense in a higher degree than it has now for acting with delicacy. It is the sense of delicacy which has to be appealed to, not the sense of honesty. Englishmen are fond of making the American appropriation of their books a question of honesty ; they call the appropriation stealing; if an English author drops his handkerchief in Massachusetts they say the natives may not go off with it, but if he drops his poem they may. This style of talking is exaggerated and false; there is a breach of delicacy in reprinting the foreigner's poem without his consent, there is no breach of honesty. But a finely touched nature, in men or nations, will respect the sense of delicacy in itself, not less than the sense of honesty." Matthew Arnold affords the last example of this mental freakishness, in his article on the copyright question, in the March "Fortnightly Review." The article has excited a good deal of comment, and no little commendation, but it seems to us eminently unsatisfactory. We find no fault with the conclusion at which he arrives, which was intimated years ago, when he joined fifty other English authors in recommending the scheme of international copyright, which originated in this country, and which there has been much reason for thinking could be practically carried out. But, while Mr. Arnold's decision is sound, we think it would have been wise if he had withheld his reasons for it. They are not Now, there can not be the slightest such as will bring other men to the objection to this appeal to the sense of same result. They are such as will delicacy and honor in the effort to secarry other men to the opposite con- cure legal protection to the property of clusion. So far as logic is concerned, authors. It may be that there are those Mr. Arnold takes substantially the same who would be moved by this consideraground as that taken by Mr. J. M. tion and no other; and if Mr. Arnold Stoddart, the Philadelphia publisher, had been content to devote his paper to who is engaged in pirating the "Ency- this view of the case, there would have clopædia Britannica." They both agree | been no reason to complain of him. |