in a lower order of language; the “ὁδος εἰς τὸ κάτω” of Heraclitus. The danger of this attitude lies in loss of effort, of aspiration, and even of imagination; he must stoop on the weary oar who, knowing no anchorage, is ever stemming the drift. Notwithstanding is there in history any lesson sadder than this, that where ideals have been loftiest sin and failure have most abounded? a lesson from which Carlyle learned that “the ideal has always to grow in the real, and often to seek out its bed and board there in a very sorry way.” Almost to this day then the mechanical arts, presumably concerned rather with the lower categories, have been regarded as base; and the craft even of the laboratory as unworthy of great souls. Anatomy had to labour against antipathy both ecclesiastical and popular; chemistry and mechanics were gross pursuits, unless endowed with the perilous distinctions of alchemy and sorcery. Unfortunately this charge upon the dignity of man was made heavier rather than lighter by Petrarch, and by the later humanists of the Renascence; even in the 17th century we find in Oxford that Boyle was bantered by his friends as one “given up to base and mechanical pursuits.” As Boyle himself put it in his delightful way—“There are many Learned Men ... who are apt to repine when they see any Person capable of succeeding in the Study of solid Philosophy, addicting himself to an Art (Chemistry) they judge so much below a Philosopher, and so unserviceable to him. Nay, there are some that are troubled when they see a Man acquainted with other Learning countenance by his example sooty Empiricks” ... “whose Experiments may indeed be useful to Apothecaries, and perhaps to Physicians, but are useless to a Philosopher that aims at curing no Disease but that of Ignorance.”[43] Lord Herbert of Cherbury, who early in the seventeenth century attended lectures at Padua, opined that natural science deals with “ignoble studies, not proportioned to the dignity of our Souls.” In the eighteenth century indeed, grave English physicians, humanists who forgot how Aristotle had exclaimed that marvellousness lies in all natural phenomena, scorned the trivial curiosity of John Hunter respecting flies and tadpoles.