PAGE

reter Von Cornelius........... 1

22

Free Schools........

24

25

Miss Eliza A. Pittsinger....... 29 The Indians and Mountains of Oregon.... 30 "What They Say"............. 32 Literary Notices............... 32 To Our Correspondents........ $3 Publisher's Department 34 General Items....... 34 The Coal-Mines of Eugland.... 40

The Journal.

Man, know thyself. All wisdom centers there;

To none man seems ignoble, but to man.-Young.

PETER VON CORNELIUS,

• THE EMINENT GERMAN ARTIST.

THIS is an imposing face. The great size of the cerebrum at once strikes the attention. The prominence of the perceptive faculties, the apparent breadth of the forehead, and the fullness of the side-head anteriorly, impress us with the strength and accuracy of his observation, the scientific compass of his analytical judgment, the force and fertility of his imagination. Appreciation of forms and proportions, the ready comprehension of mechanical relations and the laws of construction, the facile adaptation of means to proposed ends, and remarkable inventive and artistic discernment, were qualities which the great German painter and designer possessed to a surprising degree.

PORTRAIT OF PETER VON CORNELIUS.

He was by no means deficient in those | Self-Esteem, while the adjacent organs, organs which inspire perseverance, selfreliance, and aspiration; the elevated crown shows great Firmness and strong

Approbativeness, Conscientiousness, and Cautiousness, swell grandly on the view. Although of Teutonic stock, yet the

than a painter,-he is an artist, and one of the greatest in the world!" "And yet he is no painter," said the king, excitedly. "He wants to go away! Let him go! I will not detain him!" "Your majesty," said the artist," it will be a sad day for Munich and for us all, and you, your majesty, will lose in him a gem from your crown." These last words aroused Ludwig to a high degree: "What!" said he, "who is Art in Munich? Is it Cornelius? I! the king!" But Ludwig found out his loss afterward, and deeply regretted the slight that he had given him; but all his efforts to re-establish the old friendly relation between them were futile, for the noble spirit of Cornelius was as independent as it was gigantic.

Cornelius had long been the acknowledged and honored master of German art when death called him so suddenly away. His life-long enthusiasm had not been confined to his own soul, however; but by word and deed he had kindled it in the hearts of all who knew him. If his motto was, that art should represent life, he took care that his should not represent common life, but human life and human nature in its highest and noblest potencies. He himself had wandered through the whole history of man; he had studied him as he found him personified in Faust, in the Olympic paganism of the Greeks, in Homer's ideal songs, and among the wild romantic legends of his fatherland; and everywhere his lofty spirit appreciated whatever had the true ring of humanity; that represented man in his most exalted truthfulness; and these he wove into epic and dramatic scenes which are not less remarkable for their pureness of embodied thought than for their idealistic enchantment. His works are stamped throughout with the genius of originality; his spirit was full of the deepest poetic feeling, and from the fountain of his inexhaustible imagination his creations became ever newer, more elevated, and more beautiful.

Though Roman Catholic in religion, he was truly catholic in spirit; and whether in decorating the churches of the Protestant capital of North Germany, or the halls of Catholic Munich, he strove only for truth, and nothing but the truth-for a mind like his could not be bound by any narrow dogma of faith. In the annals of the history of German art his name will stand forth for all time among the greatest of German painters.

THEORY OF TRANSMISSION.-The physical characteristics, the intellectual traits, and the moral qualities and proclivities descend from sire to son. Upon seeing a man's children we instinctively begin to trace the resemblance to the father and mother, and sometimes discover a remarkable likeness to some grandparent or perhaps great-grandparent. That was the first series of observation in this line. Subsequent comparisons of phenomena established what is now generally accepted as the law of the transmission of mental and moral qualities.—C. F. Deems, D.D.

A FRENCH EDUCATOR ON AMERICAN FREE SCHOOLS.

THE intelligent reading classes in America are so much accustomed to seeing our systems of education censured and depreciated when reviewed in comparison with the English foundations and the French academies, and that, too, in newspapers and periodicals boasting the highest literary excellence in both the editorial and contributorial departments, that they have generally become convinced that the methods in common use for training the young idea are faulty and even pernicious.

If we were to believe the strictures on American education which we recently read in a prominent New York weekly, we would denounce our prevailing system as superficial and fragmentary in its practical results. But we countenance no such view. The grand system of free education, which is one of the noblest outgrowths of our democratic republican policy, commands our warmest approval, and must be acknowledged by every candid mind as the surest way yet discovered to the education and improvement of an entire nation. In literature, science, and art, it must be acknowledged that old Europe is somewhat in advance of young America. Our literature, i. e., the perfected expression of cultured minds, is young; it has no centuries of learned authorship to refer to as have the literatures of Germany, France, and England; yet it has already challenged the respect of foreign literati, and its vigor, boldness, ambition, and ardent hope are the earnests of future growth and excellence. The public school has proved, and will prove, a potent auxiliary to its growth, awakening to powerful endeavor, not a few scattered intellects, as in the case of schools on a private footing, but many, which are necessarily brought into conjunction and competition by a universal free system. But are American schools so faulty, so ill organized, and superficial? Let foreign testimony have its weight in answering this question, especially if such testimony be based on the only practical basis of comparative investigation. It will be scarcely necessary to remind our readers that at the Paris Exposition of 1867 there was a school building, with all the interior arrangements and apparatus generally found in American public schools of the primary grade. It was, in fact, "an exact reproduction of one of numerous free primary schools" of the West. This "curiosity" attracted no little attention, especially from the Continental educators and savants, and led to the publication of a very interesting paper on the American public school system in the Manuel General de l'Instruction Primaire of Paris, the chief French educational organ, by M. H. Ferte, late Chief of Instruction in Paris.

After a brief statistical review of the state of educational matters in Illinois, in the course of which he calls particular attention to the fact that a large portion of the teachers employed are females, "a singularity of which France

offers no example," attributing to this organization of teaching the well-known manly intellect for which the present generation of women in America are distinguished, M. Ferte proceeds to consider the general school system of the United States. The high-ceiled, commodious, and well-ventilated school-buildings, with their convenient furniture, challenge his admiration. The arrangement of the windows, so that a part of the sash can be readily opened to admit fresh air without creating a strong draft, the plan of the desks, and the adaptations of the maps, globes, books, and other apparatus are pronounced vastly superior to those in common use in France. To use his definite language: "While we have long tables, accompanied by long benches, for accommodating ten or twelve pupils, who crowd, elbow, and hinder each other, in this American school we find the desks or tables neatly arranged for either one or two scholars, with a seat having a support for the back of the pupil. teachers who read this will understand at once the advantages of such an arrangement. Does a scholar need to leave his seat, he can do so without disturbing his neighbor, or without being obliged, to the great detriment of discipline, to pass before seven or eight of his fellow-students, who never fail to make good such an occasion for mischief. It would be highly desirable to have these American desks introduced in our schools. The discipline would be benefited by it, the children could prosecute their studies without disturbance, and be very much more comfortable. We wish the same for the introduction of the inkstand, with which each table is provided. The calculators, geometrical figures, globes, charts, and other school apparatus, resemble much those in our best schools.

The

"Among the books we have examined, we find many deserving of high commendation. We notice improved methods of teaching penmanship, excellent and simple spelling, reading, and drawing books, quite superior in every respect, and also conveniences for cleaning black-boards, carrying books, and methods of object-teaching, quite unknown with us."

The sheets of moral mottoes hung up on the walls are regarded as no inconsiderable feature of the school apparatus. The essence of civil virtue and integrity contained in them exerts an influence most favorable to developing in youthful minds those principles which, if practiced, can not fail to make the children good men and women and worthy citizens.

The effects of such universal education are thus grandly described:

"The free primary school in America is truly the common center whence have sprung up the greater number of the men who have shed luster upon the commonwealth. It is there that were formed those energetic nations who have developed, in such a prodigious manner, the power of the United States. It is there that were blended together the Saxon, French, German, Spanish, Italian, and other races

which people the New World. Each one, on landing on these remote shores, brought his own manners, his language, his national spirit, his opinions and tastes. All these unevennesses and differences disappear in the new educated generation, to form only one great nationhomogeneous in its patriotism, persevering and enlightened in the accomplishment of its political and other duties, audacious and powerful in the realization of its gigantic purposes and destiny.

"All these wonderful results are due in a great degree to the primary school, where the young generations are molded and where they have learned that equality and liberty can live together in perfect harmony."

M. Ferte goes on to describe the higher departments of free education as they are graded in most of the States, viz., the grammar-school, the high school, showing that not only does America aim to afford a substantial basis for the mental development of all her citizens in the way of a thorough primary education, but she also seeks to cultivate a general taste for a high intellectual culture by providing liberal means for "all, without reference to race, color, or religious opinions," who may desire to improve themselves.

The equality of the sexes in mental culture as promoted by the free system is commented upon in the following terms:

"The American system can not be blamed for keeping females in a deplorable inferiority, as is often witnessed in the Old World. Far from it; instead of having not enough knowledge, men of sense have held the opinion that the American ladies have too much, and that they neglect, for abstract sciences, those home and house duties which in a woman ought to receive the first consideration.

"Experience, however, shows that American women are excellent mothers and devoted wives, no less than the women of the Old World; indicating, in another view, that the education so free, universal, and ample, exerts its beneficial influence upon all classes of society. It is the sanctuary of the family which becomes so admirable in America, and is another school where the young girl learns by her mother's side the lessons of domestic economy which go hand in hand with her school privileges, and which secure such capable and intelligent women as reflect great honor upon the American country and its institutions."

Those things which M. Ferte thinks amenable to improvement are the privilege exercised by teachers or single schools in selecting text books for use, and the almost exclusive adoption of American works in the school libraries. The former practice he regards as conducive to irregularity and detrimental to progress, though some benefit may result from such experimenting; the latter he considers unhappy, because so many valuable foreign authors are not brought to the notice and appreciation of American youth.

The methods of discipline and order are

highly commended, and on them, it is remarked, depends in a great measure the rapid progress made by children in their studies. The closing paragraphs of M. Ferte's review, which are a summary of what has been said, are worthy of reproduction as he framed them.

"It is found that the average expenses for the education of each child in the United States amounts to about sixty-two and a half francs (or $17 currency) per annum. Five hundred thousand teachers, male and female, spread in these vast regions the benefits of education to millions of children.

"This immense army of instructors is far from being composed, as a rule, of men. Women occupy the first rank in their number, devotion, and talent. Their salary is not large, but in return, the teachers (both male and female) enjoy a respect and esteem which adds very much to their moderate compensation. They are welcome among the wealthy and most respectable families, who extend to them every social advantage and consideration. This distinction is conferred with high satisfaction as a tribute to instruction, which is considered the basis of the social edifice. Professorships are esteemed so highly, that the most substantial families allow their sons and daughters to hold the position, and numerous persons occupy the place of teachers during preparation for college or a profession, while large numbers rise to eminence from beginning as teachers in the primary schools.

"The changes which are thus influenced among teachers must result in many abuses, which would not occur if the teachers found in their occupation an object for its permanent adoption as their definite career. But in the United States, as everywhere, teaching is, and will always be, a condition requiring great sacrifices in return for very small compensation.

The youth among this enterprising and ambitious people are more able amid the carelessness of material interests given by the hope of a long life to offer the commonwealth the ardor and abnegation which are the necessary conditions of good teaching. Everything is then for the best in this apparent disorder, and without admiring all that pertains to primary instruction in America, we can not help praising a system which from so many heterogeneous elements has been able to form such a great nation."

THE DEVELOPMENT THEORY.

[A Lecture delivered at Washington by Dr. THEODORE GILL, of the Smithsonian Institution, and expressly reported by SAMUEL BARROWs, phonographer, for the PHRENOLOGICAL JOURNAL.]

THE TWO SCHOOLS DEFINED.

IN considering this subject, it is first neces sary to take cognizance of the two different schools which exist among naturalists. One may be called the Creatory school, and the other the Development school. Of the Crea tory school, the most prominent advocate is Professor Agassiz. Of the Development school, the chief, as you are well aware, is Mr. Darwin. By the Creatory party it is generally maintained that all animals, as well as plants, have been created as they now are. The Development theory requires the belief that all animals, as well as plants, have sprung from one or few primordial germs. Most of the advocates of the Creatory theory further believe that all animals and plants have sprung from a pair or a combination of sexes; but it is not by any means granted by all who oppose the Develop ment theory that this is the case.

AGASSIZ' OPINION.

Professor Agassiz is the one who carries to the greatest extreme this Creatory theory, and, it may be added, carries it to its logical conclusion. He maintains not only that all animals and plants are descended from like ances tors, but that they have descended from communities; that, for example, man did not come into existence as a single pair; but that when the fiat of the Creator was given, he sprang upon the earth in communities such as we now find them. As Mr. Agassiz may be considered the chief representative of the Creatory theory, and has very clearly presented the alternatives of belief and non-belief thereon, I may be per mitted to read his views on that subject as published in Nott and Gliddon's "Types of Mankind," for they have relation to the subject of preceding lectures. Treating of the word spe cies, and accepting the definition of Dr. Morton, that species are primordial forms, he says: “I am prepared to show that the differences existing between the races of men are of the same kind as the differences observed between the different families, genera, and species of monkeys or other animals, and that these different species of animals differ in the same degree one from the other as the races of men; nay, the differences between distinct races are often greater than those distinguishing species of animals one from the other. The chimpan zee and gorilla do not differ more one from the other than the Mandingo and the Guinea negro; they together do not differ more from the orang than the Malay or white man differs from the negro."

"I maintain, distinctly, that the differences observed among the races of men are of the same kind, and even greater than those upon which the anthropoid monkeys are considered as distinct species." At another place he re"The coincidence between the circumscription of the races of man and the natural limits of different zoological provinces charac

sumes:

terized by peculiar distinct species of animals, is one of the most important and unexpected features in the natural history of mankind which the study of the geographical distribution of all the organized beings now existing upon the earth has disclosed to us. It is a fact which can not fail to throw light at some future time upon the very origin of the differences existing among men, since it shows that man's physical nature is modified by the same laws as that of animals, and that any general results obtained from the animal kingdom regarding the organic differences of its various types must also apply to man."

"We find upon Borneo (an island not so extensive as Spain) one of the best known of the anthropoid monkeys, the orang-outang, and with him as well as upon the adjacent islands of Java and Sumatra, and along the coasts of the two East Indian peninsulas, not less than ten other different species of Hylobates, the long-armed monkeys, a genus which next to the orang and chimpanzee ranks nearest to man. One of these species is circumscribed within the island of Java, two along the coast of Coromandel, three upon that of Malacca, and four upon Borneo. Also eleven of the highest organized beings which have performed their part in the plan of the creation within tracts of land inferior in extent to the range of any of the historical nations of men! In accordance with this fact we find three distinct races within the boundaries of the East Indian realm: the Telingan race in anterior India, the Malays in posterior India and upon the islands, upon which the Negrillos occur with them."

In closing he says: "Now there are only two alternatives before us at present-1st. Either mankind originated from a common stock, and all the different races with their peculiarities in their present distribution are to be ascribed to subsequent changes, an assumption for which there is no evidence whatever, and which leads at once to the admission that the diversity among animals is not an original one, nor their distribution determined by a general plan, established in the beginning of the creation; or, 2d. We must acknowledge that the diversity among the animals is a fact determined by the will of the Creator, and their geographical distribution part of the general plan which unites all organized beings into one great organic conception; whence it follows that what are called human races, down to their specialization as nations, are distinct primordial forms of the type of man. The con sequence of the first alternative, which is contrary to all the modern results of science, runs inevitably into the Lamarkian development theory, so well known in this country through the work entitled 'Vestiges of Creation,' though its premises are generally adopted by those who would shrink from the conclusion to which they necessarily lead."

THE QUESTION AT ISSUE STATED. Such are the alternatives presented, and fairly presented, I think, to us. Whether the community of origin of man and the alleged a Development theory-or a

consequence

Creatory one is most accordant with "all the modern results of science," is the question for examination. The advocates of the Development theory, as I have before said, instead of admitting that all men descended from a single pair, or instead of supposing, like Professor Agassiz, that all animals and plants are descended from communities or aggregations of individuals, insist that all animals and plants are descended, with modifications, from few primordial types. Although there are certain gradations of belief, yet they are not held by men most eminent in science. There are those who are willing to admit that all of the equine or horse tribe, for example, may have descended from a single horse-like animal, or all the feline tribe from a single cat-like one; yet the naturalist of wider experience, conversant with the classification of organic beings, contemplating all the conditions of existence, and going back to the times of the past and recognizing the fact of development among animals and plants, is logically and almost inevitably forced to the conclusion, if he admits these variations at all, that all are descended from a few primordial types.

THE THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT.

A statement of a few arguments for this belief may now be submitted. It has been shown in previous lectures that there is an identity of plan among all animals; that the plans are few in number; that there is also a regular subordination; that we find species that agree with each other in almost all essential characteristics, but differing in different ratios; that these species are combined into genera, these genera characterized, as is generally said, by ultimate modifications of structure, and differing also in various degrees. These genera are likewise combined into other groups, into subfamilies and families, characterized in a greater or less degree by fundamental similarity of form, and these families are combined again into orders, these orders into classes, these classes into branches, of which we have admitted five. In the vegetable kingdom we find nearly the same gradation, but with dif ferent names attached to some of the groups.

In examining these groups, we find as we ascend from the simple to the more comprehensive that it becomes more and more difficult to find distinctive characteristics for them; that is, it does in the main; there are exceptions. Although these different categories, these different combinations of individuals, of species, are recognized by the naturalist, it is by no means the case that they are clearly and distinctly defined in nature. Every practical naturalist is well aware of that, and the history of science shows well what a conflict there has always been, and still is going on, as to the limits of species and the limits and variations of groups. Take, for example, man himself. It is generally admitted that man forms one species; but Professor Agassiz will maintain that there is an indefinite number of species, for he is not decided upon the number, reserving the question for further study. But though we may variously estimate the varieties or

species, calling them three, accepting the views of Blumenbach; or five, accepting the views of Cuvier; or eleven, with Pickering; or many, with Professor Agassiz, it is impossible to give to each one of those species characteristics which will differentiate them from all others. If we look at the skull, we will find in the same race in the same tomb-yard those which are characterized by both brachycephalous and dolichocephalous forms. And take what character you will and run it through a long series of skulls, and it is impossible to find any one character which will hold good as defining any race. We can call in hybridity to account for this, but the facts exist nevertheless.

Take also the monkeys of the genus Hylobates. We find that Professor Agassiz admits ten species, while it is generally supposed that there are not more than seven or eight. There is, however, a reason for this latitude of opinion. These species of Hylobates are related together in various degrees. We have one type very distinct from any of the others. We have that one group equivalent in its value, although containing only a single species, to another containing, we will say, seven species, and those seven species so related to each other that they can be variously combined. The differences existing between the most nearly related of these aggregates of individuals have in one case been considered specific, and in the other varietal or individual. There is a difference of opinion also regarding the number of species of the orang-outang, or the genus Simia. Some say there are two, some three, and some that all are only varieties of a single species. With regard to the chimpanzee, some say there are three species, others that there are two, and others, again, that there is only one. There is also doubt about the value of the characters differentiating this animal from the gorilla. Some say that the characters are of generic value, others that they are only of specific value. In this case, likewise, difference of opinion prevails with regard to the interpretation of value rather than to the exact form of difference. It is acknowledged by all that difference exists. There is no doubt that the chimpanzee is separated from the gorilla by its smaller size, its less robust frame, its more rounded cranium, the number of the ribs, and the relative size of the incisors. There is no doubt that these differences exist; the only difference between naturalists relates to the interpretation of their value. So, in the same way, there is no doubt of the distinctions between representatives of the groups to which the name of genera, families, orders, and classes have been given; but there are doubts as to the interpretation which is to be given of these differences. Again, we see that although the differences between certain animals are extremely wide, there is still a recurrence in these extremes of the same elements; and though it becomes difficult in extreme cases for one who has not made a thorough study of comparative anatomy, of embryology, and geology to see these similarities, yet to one who is acquainted with these sciences, and who is endowed with