London, 2 Graville
Pl. Portman Square
Sept. 4, 1927
Lady dear,
You have been in my mind very often since I left. We sailed from N.Y. on the Cedric, White Star, July 30th & reached Liverpool Aug. 8th. The trip was uneventful even from the standpoint of my being seasick. After 3 days in Liverpool & one in Chester we went by boat to Llandudno, N. Wales. It is a busy & beautiful watering place, perfect beach nestling in the arms of two mountain rainges. Wales is so small that one can get anywhere ina few hours. We walked a good bit taking train or two & getting off at desired points. I've never heard you speak of tramping in Wales. You've missed a lot if you haven't. The scenery is magnificent, the mountains are friendly, & not bleak. Their sides are covered with heather & gorse upon which hundreds of sheep feed quietly. There is no spot in journeying for hours from which one cannot get a marvelous view. Leaving Wales after 2 weeks we come on here to London whcih we are honoring with 2 weeks' stay. Sept. 8th we go to Devonshire - Lynton - for 2 weeks & sail on the 24th.
London is a city to love. Its antiquity is captivating. All I can do this trip is to get a bowing acquaintance. We stay in the W. section, so everything is accessible. British Museum, Wallace Collection, Tate Gallery, St. Thomas's Hosp. & the Nightinggale Tr. Sch. for Nurses, the Abbey, Tower, Zoolog. Gardens, Hampton Court, Windsor Castle and a motor trip out from London and a charming Irish nurse I met here. The pictures & bric a brac in the Windsor State apartments seem to me finer than the gallery collections. Perhaps seeing a whole room of Rubens & a whole room of Von Dycke enables their respective beauties to sink into my humble mind.
We have been twice to theatre seeing excellent shows - well done, & clean & wholesome in their wit and philosophy. I have enjoyed the Times. It has given full printing to the main address of the British Assoc. I cut out the presidential addresses of Sir Arthur Keith on Evolution, & that of Douglas on Physiology. If you haven't seen them I'll send them. Douglas emphasized the need of studying man as whole, not man in systems, valuable as the latter has been. He spoke of how much medical students need to know about man as an individual. My dear Chief produced that egg years ago, & science is just beginning to consider hatching it.
I left Father in Sherborn with his companion who seems ideally suited to him. I didn't decide to go to Europe until I had convinced myself that his senility made it unwise for me to be with him. I spent a week end in July in Sherborn. He began on his delusions that Aug. & I are stealing his money etc. Reasoning is out of the question. Why did he have to linger on in this condition, Miss Donis [?] go? It is the old story of life.
My love to you,
Esther
 Clipped news article, perhaps from the London Daily Express, enclosed with the letter. |
Charm of Women Scientists
Sir R. Gregory Pleads for More of Them. Men's Equals. "Let us have more women on the British Association. It needs brightening," said Sir Richard Gregory, the distinguished scientist, to a "Daily Express" representative yesterday. When the association meets at Leeds this year there will be only one woman president, the Duchess of Atholl, who will preside over the education section. The other twelve sections will have men presidents. Three women have presided over sections in the past - Mrs. Henry Sidgwick (Education) at Manchester in 1915, Miss E. R. Saunders (Botany) at Cardiff in 1920, and Dr. Gertrude Elles (Geology) at Liverpool in 1923. "There has yet been no woman president of the association," said Sir Richard Gregory, "but I do not see any reason why there should not be. Women are accepted absolutely as the equals of men in science, and many of them are doing wonderful things. There are women working in every one of the thirteen sections, and I think I could name women who are of equal eminence with the greatest men in zoology, physiology and botany, apart from education. Human Interest. "Women do well in education and anthropology because they are subjects with human interest, and women are more interested in the humanities than men. That is why I say we should have more of them on the assocation. Scientists as a body are rigid specialists, and apt to be dull outside their own subject. Women scientists are not. The old blue-stocking tradition is dead, and as far as my experience goes the women in science to-day are charming, normally attractive, and smartly dressed. The association, which is supposed to appeal to the public, needs their brightness and the human sympathy that they would bring to it. The association would lose nothing in its scientific value, and be far more popular with the public if it had women on its council." |