And here I will devote a few lines of criticism to this phrase, "original investigations," so often used in a somewhat towering sense at the present time, by those who profess to be engaged in them. Investigation means "the action, or process, of searching minutely for truth, facts, or principles" (Webster). Of course, its methods are various, but they all imply the use of the senses alone, as in the search for facts, and sometimes for truths; or of the reason more especially; or of both combined. The most facile method is that which exercises the senses alone, and this everybody can profess at least, though very few will achieve discoveries even of facts. On the other hand, but few can exert the combined influences of the senses and the understanding in their investigations. The other party will, therefore, from their number, raise the greatest clamor respecting their own labors ; while, at the same time, the mind of larger grasp and rational tendencies, usually waits till it can modestly state what it has done, instead of proclaiming what it is doing. Besides, the mere seekers after facts, can display to the uninitiated their instruments of brass and of glass, packed in rosewood cases, or arrayed upon the walls of a laboratory; while the rational discoverer carries the main part of his apparatus for discovery entirely out of sight, within his cranium. But the word '' original" has, also, to some, a sort of talismanic and exclusive signification, as applied to their own scientific labors. Indeed, some gentlemen seem to attach far more importance to the originality, than to the investigations themselves, or their results. To be engaged in "original investigations," is, forsooth, the plenum of their scientific aspirations; though their labors prove as barren as the observations of the eastern fakir, who spends his days in the contemplation of his omphalos. Original means "first in order; preceding all others." But whether mere priority confers any special merit upon our investigations, depends upon their objects, their methods, and, above all, upon their results. The greenhorn who should attempt to ascertain the dimensions of the man in the moon through a telescope of his own construction, would, so far as is recorded, be engaged in an original investigation. But, should any especial renown accrue therefrom? The alchemists made many original investigations in search of the philosopher's stone, and the universal solvent; and they also sometimes boasted of their labors. But all others, at the time, and even since, have derided them as visionary, ridiculous, and without results. He who first institutes a legitimate scientific investigation, deserves all commendation and encouragement, that he may attain to some important result; and when the latter is achieved, he may expect the praise of all scientific men; but it is sufficiently out of character for the true scholar to boast of a thing, even when it is already done. The less, therefore, we think of the originality, and the more of the objects of our investigations, and their results, the better is the prospect of advancing our science. The mere seekers for facts have, however, no exclusive claim to originality. To say that the investigations of Harvey were not as original as those of Fabricius, is simply absurd.

FALSE ORIGINALITY. 89

Originality falsely so called.

There are, however, two very cheap methods of acquiring a reputation for originality to which I may here allude. The first consists in the repetition, under some modification of circumstances, of the observations of others, and tacitly allowing or actually aiding them to pass for "original investigations." The other is adopted generally by those who boast of writing '' original works" in the various departments of our science. Of course, two persons may make the same investigations, neither being aware that another had ever made them; and in such a case, both are entitled to the merit of originality, if that is of any account, though he only who preceded in point of time will retain it. But I am now alluding to what is at best but a mere imitation, and often a very lame one, of the experiments of others. On the other hand, upon most of the departments of our science, it is folly to pretend, at the present day, to write an original work. To assume that the facts and principles contained in such a work have all been obtained first, or originally, by the author, is assuming that they were before unknown; and therefore asserting that the work is one upon an entirely new department of science. An original work, therefore, at the present day, on descriptive anatomy, physiology, pathology, or either of the practical departments of medicine, is an impossibility. A new work on either of these departments may contain new facts or principles acquired by the author's original investigations, perhaps; or it may possess originality of plan or object, or arrangement, or in the manner of presenting the various facts and principles to the reader's mind. Indeed, if it is not original—" the first in order, preceding all othersr'—in some of these respects, it should never see the light, and will be very certain not long to enjoy it. Tet such a work is not, as a whole and unqualifiedly, an original work; or, if it be still asserted to be such, then a treatise or a compendium may be as deserving of this distinction as a monograph or an essay. A truly original scientific work is one in which original investigations, ideas, or principles—or all these together—predominate. Tested thus, it is true that original works are very rare. There is much writing with comparatively little new matter. Most that is done is // vertiginous, or in the way of perpetual rotation;" * and most authors who profess the most originality, fill their works with egotism instead. But original works, as just defined, are by no means indispensable to the advancement of science; while new works are so, in order to incorporate into it, in a permanent form, the new facts and truths which are successively ascertained. On the other hand, also, an original work, like original investigations, as has been shown, may be entirely barren and useless. The question, then, suggested by the announcement of each new scientific work should be not, "is it original?" but "is it truly useful?" i. e. will it conduce more than its predecessors to the advancement of science?

PERSEVEBANCE NECESSARY TO THE DISCOVERER. 91

Moral qualities required in a discoverer.

Fourthly. Certain moral elements are also demanded in the future discoverer of scientific truth. I first mention faith, as opposed to skepticism and infidelity. He must constantly remember that

"There is more in heaven and earth
Than is dreamt of in his philosophy,"

or that of his times. And a higher faith is a very essential aid; and hence, as Prof. Whewell has remarked, "discoverers in science have generally had a belief in an intelligent Creator." * •

Fifthly. Another important moral element is a patient perseverance. Habits of intense and continuous thought are indispensable to the real or rational discoveries, and hence they are not rapidly or easily made. When Newton was asked how he made his discoveries, he replied, "by constantly thinking of them." He also thought and labored for seventeen years after his discovery of the law of gravity, before it could be said to be demonstrated and completed. Harvey's work cost him a labor of twenty-six years; and Marshall Hall states that he devoted to his discovery of the reflex or diastaltic function of the spinal cord, not less than 25,000 hours of intense thought, and as many more to its applications to diagnosis and pathology. Hence it is that the greatest discoverers have generally been men of the highest intellectual endowments, and of extensive general, as