The Most Influencial People in the World: WILLIAM HARVEY (1578-1657)

William Harvey, the great English physician who discovered the circulation of the blood and the function of the heart, was born in 1578, in the town of Folkston, England. Harvey’s great book, An Anatomical Treatise on the movement of the Heart and Blood in Animals, published in 1628, has rightly been called the most important book in the entire history of physiology. It is, in fact, the starting point of the modern science of physiology. Its primary importance lies not in its direct applications, but rather in the basic understanding it provides of how the human body works.

For us today, who have been brought up with the knowledge that the blood circulated, and therefore take that fact for granted, Harvey’s theory seems completely obvious. But what now appears so simple and evident was not obvious at all to earlier biologists. Leading writers on biology had expounded views such as: (a) food is turned into blood in the heart; (b) the heart heats up the blood; (c) the arteries are filled with air; (d) the heart manufactures “vital spirits”; (e) blood in both the veins and the arteries ebbs and flows, sometimes going toward the heart and sometimes away.

Galen, the greatest physician of the ancient world, a man who personally performed many dissections and thought carefully about the heart and blood vessels, never suspected that the blood circulates. Nor for that matter did Aristotle, though biology was one of his major interests. Even after the publication of Harvey’s book, many physicians were unwilling to accept his idea that the blood in the human body is constantly being recirculated through a closed system of blood vessels, with the heart supplying the force to move the blood.

Harvey first formed the notion that the blood circulates by making a simple arithmetic calculation. He estimated that the quantity of blood that was ejected by the heart every time it beat was about two ounces. Since the heart beats about 72 times per minute, simple multiplication led to the conclusion that about 540 pounds of blood were ejected each hour from the heart into the aorta. But 540 pounds far exceeds the total body weight of a normal human being, and even more greatly exceeds the weight of the blood alone. It therefore seemed obvious to Harvey that the same blood was constantly recycled through the heart. Having formulated this hypothesis, he spent nine years performing experiments and making careful observations to determine the details of the circulation of the blood.

In his book, Harvey clearly stated that the arteries carry blood away from the heart, while the veins return the blood to the heart. Lacking a microscope, Harvey was unable to see the capillaries, the minute blood vessels that transport the blood from the smallest arteries to the veins, but he correctly inferred their existence. (The capillaries were discovered by the Italian biologist, Malpighi, a few years after Harvey died.)

Harvey also stated that the function of the heart was to pump the blood into the arteries. On this, as on every other major point, Harvey’s theory was essentially correct. Furthermore, he presented a wealth of experimental evidence, with careful arguments to support his theory. Though his theory at first encountered strong opposition, by the end of his life it had been generally accepted.

Harvey also did work on embryology, which, though less important than his research on blood circulation, was not insignificant. He was a careful observer, and his book, On the Generation of Animals, published in 1651, marks the real beginning of the modern study of embryology. Like Aristotle, by whom he was strongly influenced, Harvey opposed the theory of preformation—the hypothesis that an embryo, even in its earliest stages, had the same overall structure as the adult animal, though on a much small scale. Harvey correctly asserted that the final structure of an embryo developed gradually.

 

 

Harvey had a long, interesting, and successful life. In his teens, he attended Caius College at the University of Cambridge. In 1600, he went to Italy to study medicine at the University of Padua, at that time perhaps the best medical school in the world. (It might be noted that Galileo was a professor at Padua while Harvey was there, although it is not known whether the two ever met.) Harvey received his medical degree from Padua in 1602. He then returned to England, where he had a long and very successful career as a physician. Among his patients were two kings of England (James I and Charles I), as well as the eminent philosopher Francis Bacon. Harvey lectured on anatomy at the College of Physicians in London, and in fact was once elected president of the College. (He declined the post.) In addition to his private practice, he was for many years the chief physician at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in London. When his book on the circulation of the blood was published, in 1628, it made him famous throughout Europe. Harvey was married, but had no children. He died in 1657, in London, at the age of seventy-nine.

 

The Most Influencial People in the World: ERNEST RUTHERFORD (1871-1937)

Ernest Rutherford is generally considered to have been the greatest experimental physicist of the twentieth century. He is the central figure in our knowledge of radioactivity, and is also the man who originated the study of nuclear physics. In addition to their enormous theoretical importance, his discoveries have had a wide range of important applications including: nuclear weapons, nuclear power plants, radioactive tracers, and radioactive dating. His influence on the world has therefore been profound, is probably still growing, and will likely be enduring.


Rutherford was born and raised in New Zealand. He attended Canterbury College there, obtaining three degrees (B.A., M.A., and B.Sc.) by the time he was twenty-three. The following year he was awarded a scholarship to Cambridge University in England, where he spent three years as a research student under J. J. Thomson, one of the leading scientists of the day. When he was twenty-seven he became professor of physics at McGill University in Canada, where he stayed for nine years. He went back to England in 1907 to head the physics department at Manchester University. In 1919 he returned to Cambridge, this time as Director of the Cavendish Laboratory, and he remained there for the rest of his life.

Radioactivity had been discovered in 1896 by the French scientist Antoine Henri Becquerel, while he was doing some experiments with uranium compounds. But Becquerel soon lost interest in the subject, and most of our basic knowledge in the field comes from Rutherford’s extensive research. (Marie and Pierre Curie found two more radioactive elements—polonium and radium—but made no discoveries of fundamental importance.)

One of Rutherford’s first findings was that the radioactive emissions from uranium consist of two quite different components, which he called alpha rays and beta rays. He later demonstrated the nature of each component (they consist of fast-moving particles and showed that there is also a third component, which he called gamma rays.

An important feature of radioactivity is the energy involved. Becquerel, the Curies, and most other scientists had thought that the energy had an external source. But Rutherford proved that the energy involved—which was much greater than that released in chemical reactions—was coming from the interior of the individual uranium atoms! By so doing, he originated the important concept of atomic energy.

Scientists had always assumed that individual atoms were indestructible and unchangeable. But Rutherford (with the aide of a very talented young assistant, Frederick Soddy), was able to show that whenever an atom emits alpha or beta rays it is transformed into an atom of a different sort. At first, chemists found this hard to believe; but Rutherford and Soddy worked out the whole series of radioactive decays and formulated the important concept of “half-life.” This soon led to the technique of radioactive dating, which has become one of the most useful of scientific tools, with important applications in geology, archaeology, astronomy, and many other fields.

This stunning set of discoveries earned Rutherford a Nobel Prize in 1908 (Soddy later received a Nobel Prize also), but his greatest achievement was yet to come. He had noticed that fast-moving alpha particles could go right through a thin foil of gold (leaving no visible puncture!), although they were slightly deflected by the passage. This suggested those gold atoms, rather than being hard, impenetrable objects, like “”tiny billiard balls”—as scientists had previously believed—were soft inside! It seemed as if the smaller, harder alpha particles could go right through the gold atoms like a high-speed bullet going through jello.

But Rutherford (working with Geiger and Marsden, two younger associated) found that some of the alpha particles were sharply deflected when they struck the gold foil; in fact, some even bounced right back! Rutherford, sensing that something important was involved, had the experiment repeated many times, carefully counting the number of particles scattered in each direction. Then, by a very difficult but utterly convincing mathematical analysis, he showed that there was only one way of explaining the experimental results: A gold atom consisted almost entirely of empty space, with almost all of the atoms mass concentrated in a minute “nucleus” in the center!

At a single blow, Rutherford’s paper (1911) shattered forever our common-sense picture of the world. If even a piece of metal—seemingly the solidest of objects—was mostly empty space, then everything which we had regarded as substantial had suddenly dissolved into tiny specks rushing about in an immense void!

Rutherford’s discovery of the atomic nucleus is the foundation of all modern theories of atomic structure. When Niels Bohr, two years later, published his famous paper describing the atom as a miniature solar system governed by quantum mechanics, he used Rutherford’s nuclear atom as the starting point of his model. So did Heisenberg and Schrodinger when they constructed their more sophisticated atomic models using matrix mechanics and wave mechanics.

Rutherford’s discovery also led to a new branch of science: the study of the nucleus itself. In this field too, Rutherford proved to be a pioneer. In 1919, he succeeded in transforming nitrogen nuclei into oxygen nuclei by bombarding them with fast-moving alpha particles. It was an achievement to dazzle the dreams of the ancient alchemists.

It was soon realized that nuclear transformations might be the source of the Sun’s energy. Furthermore, inducing the transformation of atomic nuclei is the key process in atomic weapons, and also in nuclear power plants. Rutherford’s discovery has therefore been of far more than academic interest.

Rutherford’s “larger than life” personality constantly impressed those who met him. He was a big man, with a loud voice, boundless energy and confidence, and a conspicuous lack of modesty. When a colleague commented on Rutherford’s uncanny ability to always be “on the crest of the wave” of scientific research, he replied promptly, “Well, why not? After all, I made the wave, didn’t I?” Few scientists would disagree with that assessment.

The Most Influencial People in the World: JOHN CALVIN (1509-1564)

The famous Protestant theologian and moralist John Calvin is one of the major figures of European history. His views on such diverse subjects as theology, government, personal morality, and work habits have, over a period of more than 400 years, influenced the lives of hundreds of millions of people.


John Calvin (original name: Jean Cauvin) was born in 1509, in the town of Noyon, in France. He received a good education. After attending the College de Montaigu in Paris, he went to the University of Orleans to study law. He also studied law at Bourges.

Calvin was only eight years old when Martin Luther posted his Ninety-five Theses on the church door in Wittenberg, and thereby inaugurated the Protestant Reformation. Calvin was brought up as a Catholic, but as a young man he converted to Protestantism. To avoid persecution, he soon left Paris, where he had been living, and after traveling about for a while, settled in Basel, Switzerland. There he lived under a pseudonym while he studied theology intensively. In 1536, when he was twenty-seven years old, he published his best-known work, the Institutes of the Christian Religion. This book, which summarized the essential Protestant beliefs and presented them in comprehensive and systematic form, made him famous.

Later in 1536, he visited Geneva, Switzerland, where Protestantism was rapidly gaining in strength. He was asked to stay there as a teacher and leader of the Protestant community. But conflicts soon arose between the fiercely puritanical Calvin and the Genevans, and in 1538, he was forced to leave the city. In 1541, however, he was invited to return. He did so, and he became not only the religious leader of the city, but also its effective political leader until his death in 1564.

In theory, Calvin was never a dictator in Geneva: many of the townspeople had voting rights, and much of the formal political authority was held by a council which consisted of twenty-five persons. Calvin was not a member of this council. He was subject to removal at any time (and was, in fact, expelled in 1538) if he did not have the consent of the majority. In practice, though, Calvin dominated the city, and after 1555 he was a virtual autocrat.

Under Calvin’s leadership, Geneva became the leading Protestant center of Europe. Calvin consistently tried to promote the growth of Protestantism in other countries, particularly in France, and for a while Geneva was referred to as the “Protestant Rome.” One of the first things that Calvin did after his return to Geneva was to draw up a set of ecclesiastical regulations for the Reformed Church there. These were to set a pattern for many other Reformed Churches in Europe. While in Geneva, Calvin wrote many influential religious tracts, and continued to revise the Institutes of the Christian Religion. He also gave many lectures on theology and the Bible.

Calvin’s Geneva was a rather austere and puritanical place. Not only were adultery and fornication considered serious crimes, but gambling, drunkenness, dancing, and the singing of ribald songs were all prohibited, and could result in severe punishment. Attendance at church during prescribed hours was required by law, and lengthy sermons were customary.

Calvin strongly encouraged diligence in work. He also encouraged education, and it was during his administration that the University of Geneva was founded.

Calvin was an intolerant man, and those whom he considered heretics received short shrift in Geneva. His most famous victim (there were quite a few) was Michael Servetus, a Spanish physician and theologian who did not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. When Servetus came to Geneva, he was arrested, tried for heresy, and burnt at the stake (in 1553). In addition, several persons suspected of witchcraft were burnt at the stake during Calvin’s administration.

Calvin died in Geneva, in 1564. He had married, but his wife had died in 1549, and their only child had died at birth.

Calvin’s principal importance lies not in his direct political activities, but rather in the ideology he promulgated. He stressed the authority and importance of the Bible, and like Luther, denied the authority and importance of the Roman Catholic Church. Like Luther, St. Augustine, and St. Paul, Calvin held that all men are sinners, and that salvation comes not through good works, but through faith alone. Particularly striking were Calvin’s ideas on predestination and reprobation. According to Calvin, God has already decided—and without regard to merit—who is to be saved and who is to be damned. Why, then, should an individual bother to behave morally? Calvin’s answer was that the elect” (that is, those persons whom God has chosen to accept Christ and thereby achieve redemption) have also been selected by God to behave righteously. We are not saved because we do well, but we do well because we have been chosen for salvation. Although such a doctrine may seem strange to some, there seems little doubt that it has inspired many Calvinists to lead unusually pious and upright lives.

Calvin has exerted great influence on the world. His theological doctrine ultimately gained even more adherents than Luther’s did. Though northern Germany and Scandinavia became predominantly Lutheran, Switzerland and the Netherlands became Calvinist. There were significant Calvinist minorities in Poland, Hungary, and Germany. The Presbyterians in Scotland were Calvinists, as were the Huguenots in France and the Puritans in England. Puritan influence in America, of course, has been both long and strong.

Calvin’s Geneva may have been more a theocracy than a democracy, but the net effect of Calvinism has nevertheless been to increase democracy. Perhaps the fat that in so many countries the Calvinists were a minority made them inclined to favor restrictions on established power; or perhaps the comparatively democratic internal organization of the Calvinist churches was a factor. Whatever the reason, the original Calvinist strongholds (Switzerland, Holland, and Great Britain) become strongholds of democracy as well.

It has been claimed that Calvinist doctrines were a major factor in the creation of the so-called “Protestant work ethic,” and in the rise of capitalism. It is difficult to judge the extent to which that claims is justified. The Dutch, for example, were reputed to be an industrious people long before Calvin had ever been born. On the other hand, it seems unreasonable to assume that Calvin’s firmly expressed attitude toward hard work had no influence upon his followers. (It might be noted that Calvin did permit the charging of interest, a practice which had been condemned by mist earlier Christian moralists, but one that was important to the development of capitalism.)

How high on this list should Calvin is ranked? The influence of Calvin has been confined primarily to Western Europe and North America. Furthermore, it is plain that his influence has been sharply declining during the last century. In any case, much of the credit for the existence of Calvinism has already been assigned to earlier figures such as Jesus, St. Paul, and Luther.


Although the Protestant Reformation was an event of great historical importance, it is plain that Martin Luther was the person most responsible for that upheaval. Calvin himself was only one of several influential Protestant leaders who arose after Luther. On the other hand, Calvin must be ranked well ahead of such philosophers as Voltaire and Rousseau, partly because his influence has extended over twice as long a period as theirs, and partly because his ideas have had such a profound effect on the lives of his followers.

The Most Influencial People in the World: GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)

Gregor Mendel is famous today as the man who discovered the basic principles of heredity. During his lifetime, however, he was an obscure Austrian monk and amateur scientist, whose brilliant research was ignored by the scientific world.


Mendel was born in 1822, in the town of Heinzendorf, at that time within the Austrian Empire, but now part of Czechoslovakia. In 1843, he entered an Augustinian monastery in Brunn, Austria (now Brno, Czechoslovakia). He was ordained a priest in 1847. In 1850, he took an examination for teacher certification. He failed, receiving his lowest marks in biology and geology! Nevertheless, the abbot in charge of his monastery sent Mendel to the University of Vienna, where, from 1851 to 1853, he studied mathematics and science. Mendel never did get a regular teacher’s license, but from 1854 to 1868, he was a substitute teacher of natural science at the Brunn Modern School.

Meanwhile, starting in 1856, he performed his famous experiments in plant breeding. By 1865, he had derived his famous laws of heredity and presented them in a paper given before the Brunn Natural History Society. In 1866, his results were published in the Transactions of that society, in an article entitled “Experiments with Plant Hybrids.” A second article was published in the same journal three years later. Although the Transactions of the Brunn Natural History Society were not a prestigious journal, it was carried by major libraries. In addition, Mendel sent a copy of his paper to Karl Nageli, a leading authority on heredity. Nageli read the paper and replied to Mendel, but failed to comprehend the paper’s enormous importance. Thereafter, Mendel’s articles were generally ignored and, indeed, almost forgotten for over thirty years.

In 1868, Mendel was appointed abbot of his chapter, and from then on his administrative duties left him little time to continue his plant experiments. When he died, in 1884, at the age of sixty-one, his brilliant research had been nearly forgotten, and he had received no recognition for it.

Mendel’s work was not rediscovered until the year 1900, when three different scientists (a Dutchman, Hugo, de Vries; a German, Carl Correns; and an Austrian, Erich von Tschermak), working independently discovered Mendel’s Laws; each, before publishing his results, had researched the literature and come across Mendel’s original article; and each carefully cited Mendel’s paper and stated that his own work confirmed Mendel’s conclusions. An astounding triple coincidence! Moreover, in that same year, William Bateson, an English scientist, came across Mendel’s original article and promptly drew it to the attention of other scientists. By the end of the year, Mendel was receiving the acclaim that he had so richly deserved during his lifetime.

What were the facts about heredity that Mendel discovered? In the first place, Mendel learned that in all living organisms there were basic units, today called genes, by which inherited characteristics were transmitted from parent to offspring. In the plants that Mendel studied, each individual characteristic, such as seed color or leaf shape, was determined by a pair from each parent. Mendel found that if the two genes inherited for a given trait were different (for example, one gene for green seeds and another gene for yellow seeds) then, normally, only the effect of the dominant gene (in this case for yellow seeds) would manifest itself in that individual. Nevertheless, the recessive gene was not destroyed and might be transmitted to the plant’s descendants. Mendel realized that each reproductive cell or gamete (corresponding to sperm or egg cells in human beings) contained only one gene of each pair. He also stated that it was completely a matter of chance which gene of each pair occurred in an individual gamete and was transmitted to an individual offspring. Mendel’s laws, although they have been modified slightly, remain the starting point of the modern science of genetics. However is it that Mendel, an amateur scientist, was able to discover those important principles that had eluded so many eminent professional biologists before him? Fortunately, he had selected for his investigations a species of plant whose most striking characteristics are each determined by a single set of genes. Had the characteristics he investigated each been determined by several sets of genes, his research would have been immensely more difficult. But this piece of good luck would not have helped Mendel had he not been an extremely careful and patient experimenter nor would it have helped him had he not realized that it was necessary to make a statistical analysis of his observations. Because of the random factor mentioned above, it is generally not possible to predict which traits an individual offspring will inherit. Only by performing a large number of experiments (Mendel had recorded results for over 21,000 individual plants!), and by analyzing his results statistically was Mendel able to deduce his laws.

 

 
It is obvious that the laws of heredity are an important addition to human knowledge, and our knowledge of genetics will probably have even more applications in the future than it has had so far. There is, however, another factor to be considered when deciding where Mendel should be placed. Since his discoveries were ignored during his lifetime, and his conclusions were rediscovered independently by later scientists, Mendel’s research might be deemed expendable. If that argument is pushed to its limit, one might conclude that Mendel should be left off this list entirely, just as Leif Ericson, Aristarchus, and Ignaz Semmelweiss have been omitted in favor of Columbus, Copernicus, and Joseph Lister.


There are, however, differences between Mendel’s case and the others. Mendel’s work was forgotten only briefly, and once rediscovered, quickly became widely known. Furthermore, de Vries, Correns, and Tschermak, though they rediscovered his principles independently, eventually did read his paper and cite his results. Finally, one cannot rightly say that Mendel’s work would have had no influence if de Vries, Correns, and Tschermak had never lived. Mendel’s article had already been included in a widely circulated bibliography (by W.O. Focke) of works on heredity. That listing ensured that sooner or later some serious student in the field would come across Mendel’s article. It might be noted that none of the other three scientists ever claimed credit for the discovery of genetics; also, the scientific principles discovered are universally referred to as “Mendel’s Laws.”

Mendel’s discoveries seem comparable, both in originality and importance, with Harvey’s discovery of the circulation of the blood, and he has been ranked accordingly.

The Most Influencial People in the World: MAX PLANCK (1858-1947)

In December 1900, the German physicist Max Planck startled the scientific world with his bold hypothesis that radiant energy (that is, the energy of light waves) is not emitted in a continuous flow, but rather consists of small chunks or lumps, which he called quanta. Planck’s hypothesis, which conflicted with the classical theories of light and electromagnetism, provided the starting point for the quantum theories which have since revolutionized physics and provided us with a deeper understanding of the nature of matter and radiation.


Planck was born in 1858, in Kiel, Germany. He studied in the Universities of Berlin and Munich, and received his doctor’s degree in physics (summa cum laude) from the University of Munich when he was twenty-one years old. For a while he taught at the University of Munich, and then at Kiel University. In 1889, he became a professor at the University of Berlin, where he remained until his retirement in 1928, at the age of seventy.

Planck, like several other scientists, was interested in the subject of black body radiation, which is the name given to the electromagnetic radiation emitted by a perfectly black object when it is heated. (A perfectly black object is defined as one that does not reflect any light, but completely absorbs all light falling on it.) Experimental physicists had already made careful measurements of the radiation emitted by such objects, even before Planck started working on the problem. Planck’s first achievement was his discovery of the fairly complicated algebraic formula that correctly describes the black body radiation. This formula, which is frequently used in theoretical physics today, nearly summarized the experimental data. But there was a problem: the accepted laws of physics predicted a quite different formula.

Planck pondered deeply on this problem and finally came up with a radically new theory: radiant energy is only emitted in exact multiples of an elementary unit that Planck called the quantum. According to Planck’s theory, the magnitude of a quantum of light depends on the frequency of the light (i.e., on its color), and is also proportional to a physical quantity that Planck abbreviated h, but that is now called Planck’s constant. Planck’s hypothesis was quite contrary to the then prevalent concepts of physics; however, by using it he was able to find an exact theoretical derivation of the correct formula for black body radiation.

Planck’s hypothesis was so revolutionary that it doubtless would have been dismissed as a crackpot idea, had not Planck been well-known as a solid, conservative physicist. Although the hypothesis sounded very strange, in this particular case it did lead to the correct formula.

At first, most physicists (including Planck himself) regarded his hypothesis as no more than a convenient mathematical fiction. After a few years, though, it turned out that Planck’s concept of the quantum could be applied to various physical phenomena other than black body radiation. Einstein used the concept in 1905 to explain the photoelectric effect, and Niels Bohr used it in 1913 in his theory of atomic structure. By 1918, when Planck was awarded the Nobel Prize, it was clear that his hypothesis was basically correct, and that it was of fundamental importance in physical theory.

Planck’s strong anti-Nazi views placed him in considerable danger during the Hitler era. His younger son was executed in early 1945 for his role in the unsuccessful officers’ plot to assassinate Hitler. Planck himself died in 1947, at the age of eighty-nine.

The development of quantum mechanics is probably the most important scientific development of the twentieth century, more important even than Einstein’s theories of relativity. Planck’s constant, h, plays a vital role in physical theory, and is now recognized as one of the two or three most fundamental physical constants. It appears in the theory of atomic structure, in Heisenberg’s formulas. Planck’s original estimate of its numerical value was within 2 percent of the figure accepted today.

Planck is generally considered to be the father of quantum mechanics. Although he played little part in the later development of the theory, it would be a mistake to rank Planck too low. The initial breakthrough which he provided was very important. It freed men’s minds from their earlier misconceptions, and it thereby enabled his successors to construct the far more elegant theory we have today.

The Most Influencial People in the World: JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)

Joseph Lister, the British surgeon who introduced the use of antiseptic measures in surgery, was born in 1827, in Upton, England. In 1852, he received a medical degree from University College in London, where he had been an excellent student. In 1861, he became surgeon at the Glasgow Royal Infirmary, a position he was to hold for eight years. It was primarily during this period that he developed his method of antiseptic surgery.


At the Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Lister was in charge of the wards in the new surgical block. He was appalled by the high rate of postoperative mortality that occurred there. Serious infections, such as gangrene, were a common aftermath of surgery. Lister tried to keep his wards generally clean; however, this did not prove sufficient to prevent a high mortality rate. Many doctors maintained that “miasmas” (noxious vapors) about the hospital were the cause of these infections. However, this explanation did not satisfy Lister.

Then, in 1865, he read a paper by Louis Pasteur, which introduced him to the germ theory of disease. This provided Lister with his key idea. If infections were caused by microbes would be to kill the microbes of preventing postoperative infections would be to kill the microbes before they got into the open wound. Using carbolic acid as a germ-killer, Lister instituted a new set of antiseptic procedures. He not only cleaned his hands carefully before every operation, but made sure that the instruments and the dressings that were used also rendered completely sanitary. Indeed, for a while he even sprayed carbolic acid into the air in the operating room. The result was a dramatic drop in postoperative fatalities. During the period 1861-1865, the postoperative mortality rate in the male accident ward had been 45 percent. By 1869, it had been reduced to 15 percent.

Lister’s first great paper on antiseptic surgery was published in 1867. His ideas were not immediately accepted. However, he was offered the chair of Clinical Surgery at Edinburg University in 1869, and during his seven-year stay there his fame spread. In 1875, he toured Germany, lecturing on his ideas and methods; the following year, he made a similar tour in the United States. But the majority of doctors were not yet convinced.

In 1877, Lister was given the Chair of Clinical Surgery at King’s College in London, a position that he held for over fifteen years. His demonstrations of antiseptic surgery in London aroused great interest in medical circles, and resulted in increased acceptance of his ideas. By the end of his life, Lister’s principles of antiseptic surgery had won virtually universal acceptance among physicians.

Lister received many honors for his pioneering work. He was president of the Royal Society for five years, and was Queen Victoria’s personal surgeon. Married, but childless, Lister lived to be almost eighty-five. He died in 1912, in Walmer, England.

Lister’s innovations have completely revolutionized the field of surgery, and have saved many millions of lives. Not only do far fewer people die today from postoperative infections, but today surgery saves many persons who would be unwilling to undergo operations if the danger of infection were as great now as it was a century ago. Furthermore, surgeons are now able to undertake complicated operations that they would never have attempted in earlier days, when the risk of infection was so great. A century ago, for example, operations that involved opening the chest cavity were not normally contemplated. Although present-day techniques of aseptic surgery are different from the antiseptic methods that Lister used, they involve the same basic ideas, and are an extension of Lister’s principles.

One might claim that Lister’s ideas were such obvious corollaries of Pasteur are that Lister is not entitled to any significant credit. However, despite Pasteur’s writings, someone was required to develop and popularize the techniques of antiseptic surgery. Nor does the inclusion of both Lister and Pasteur in this book amount to counting the same discovery twice. The applications of the germ theory of disease are of such significance that, even when the credit is divided up, Pasteur, Leeuwenhoek, Fleming and Lister all are fully entitled to a place on this list.

There is another possible objection to Lister’s is being placed so high on this list. Almost twenty years before Lister did his work, the Hungarian doctor, Ignaz Semmelweiss (1818-1865), working in the Vienna General hospital, had clearly demonstrated the advantages of antiseptic procedures, both in obstetrics and in surgery. However, although Semmelweiss became a professor and wrote an excellent book setting forth his ideas, he was by and large ignored. It was Joseph Lister whose writings, talks, and demonstrations actually convinced the medical profession of the necessity for antiseptic procedures in medical practice.

The Most Influencial People in the World: NIKOLAUS AUGUST OTTO (1832-1891)

Nikolaus August Otto was the German inventor who, in 1876, built the German inventor who, in 1876, built the first four-stroke internal combustion engine, the proto-type of the hundreds of millions that have been built since then.

The internal combustion engine is a versatile device: it is used to power motorboats and motorcycles; it has had many industrial applications; and it was the vital requisite for the invention of the airplane. (Until the first jet plane flew, in 1939, virtually all aircraft were powered by internal combustion engines working on the Otto cycle.) However, by far the most important use of the internal combustion engine is to power automobiles.

There had been many attempts to construct automobiles before Otto developed his engine. Some inventors, such as Seigfried Marcus (in 1875), Etienne Lenoir (in 1862), and Nicolas Joseph Cugnot (about 1769), had even succeeded in building models that ran. But lacking a suitable type of engine—one capable of combining low weight with high power—none of those models was practical. However, within fifteen years of the invention of Otto’s four-stroke engine, two different inventors, Karl Benz and Gottlieb Daimler, each constructed practical, marketable automobiles. Various other types have since been used to power automobiles, and it is quite possible that in the future, cars powered by steam, or by electric batteries, or by some other device, will ultimately prove superior. But of the hundreds of millions of cars built in the past century, 99 percent have used the four-stroke internal combustion engine. (The Diesel engine, an ingenious form of internal combustion engine which is used to power many trucks, buses, and ships, employs a four stroke cycle basically similar to Otto’s, but the fuel is admitted at a different stage.)

The great majority of scientific inventions (with the important exceptions of weapons and explosives) are generally conceded to be beneficial to mankind. It is rare, of example, that anyone suggests that we abandon refrigerators or penicillin, or that we seriously restrict their use. The drawbacks of the widespread use of private automobiles, however, are glaringly obvious. They are noisy, they cause air pollution, they consume scarce fuel resources, and each year they cause a ghastly toll of dead and injured persons.

Clearly, we would never consider putting up with the automobile if it did not provide us with enormous advantages as well. Private automobiles are infinitely more flexible than public transportation. Unlike railroads and subway trains, for example, a private automobile will leave whenever you wish, will take you wherever you want to go, and will provide door-to-door service. It is fast, comfortable, and carries luggage easily. By providing we with an unprecedented degree of choice about where we live and how we spend our time, it has considerably increased individual freedom.

Whether all these advantages are worth the price that the automobile exacts from society may be debatable, but no one denies that the automobile has had a major impact on our civilization. In the United States alone there are over 180 million cars in use. Together, they account for approximately three trillion passenger miles a year—more than the combined mileage traveled on foot, in airplanes, in trains, in boats, and by all other forms of transportation.

To accommodate the automobile, we have built acres of parking lots and endless miles of superhighways, altering the whole landscape in the process. In return, the automobile provides us with a mobility scarcely dreamed of by earlier generations. Most car owners now have a vastly larger range of activities and facilities readily available than they could possibly have had without the automobile. It widens our choice of where we work and where we can live. Thanks to the automobile, numerous facilities that previously were only available to urban dwellers are now available to those who live in the suburbs. (This has perhaps been the principal underlying cause of the growth of the suburbs in recent decades and the concomitant decline of the inner cities in the United States.)

Nikolaus August Otto was born in 1832, in the town of Holzhausen, in Germany. His father died when he was an infant. Otto was a good student; however, he dropped out of high school at the age of sixteen to get a job and to gain business experience. For a while, he worked in a grocery store in a small town. Later, he was a clerk in Frankfurt. After that, he became a traveling salesman.

About 1860, Otto heard of the gas engine recently invented by Etienne Lenoir (1822-1900), the first workable internal combustion engine. Otto realized that the Lenoir engine would have many more applications if it could run on liquid fuel, since in that case it would not have to be attached to a gas outlet. Otto soon devised a carburetor; his patent application was denied by the patent office, however, because similar devices had already been invented.

Undiscouraged, Otto devoted his efforts to improving the Lenoir engine. As early as 1861, he hit upon the idea of a basically new type of engine, one operating on a four-stroke cycle (unlike Lenoir’s primitive engine which operated on a two-stroke cycle). In January 1862, Otto built a working model of his four-stroke engine. But he ran into difficulties, especially with the ignition, in making this new engine practical, and soon put it aside. Instead, he developed his atmospheric engine,” an improved two-stroke engine, which ran on gas. He patented it in 1863, and soon found a partner, Eugene Langen, to finance him. They built a small factory, and continued to improve the engine. In 1867, their two-stroke engine won a gold medal at the Paris World’s Fair. Thereafter, sales were brisk, and the company’s profits soared. In 1872, they hired Gottlieb Daimler, a brilliant engineer with experience in factory management, to help produce their engine.

Although profits from the two-stroke engine were good, Otto could not get out of his mind the four-stroke engine that he had conceived originally. He was convinced that a four-stroke engine, which compressed the mixture of fuel and air before igniting it, could be much more efficient than any modification of Lenoir’s two-stroke engine. In early 1876, Otto finally devised an improved ignition system, and with it was able to construct a practical four stroke engine. The first such model was built in May 1876, and a patent was granted the following year. The superior efficiency and performance of the four-stroke engine were obvious, and it was an immediate commercial success. Over 30,000 were sold in the next ten years alone, and all versions of the Lenoir engine soon became obsolete.

Otto’s German patent on his four-stroke engine was overturned in 1886 in a patent suit. It turned out that a Frenchman, Alphonse Beau de Rochas, had thought of a basically similar device in 1862, and had patented it. (One should not, however, think of Beau de Rochas as an influential figure. His invention was never marketed, and, indeed, he never built a single model. Nor did Otto get the idea of his invention from him.) Despite the loss of the valuable patent, Otto’s firm continued to make money. When he died, in 1891, he was prosperous.

Meanwhile, in 1882, Gottlieb Daimler left the firm. He was determined to adopt the Otto engine for vehicular use. By 1883, he had developed a superior ignition system (not, however, the one in general use today), which enabled the engine to operate at 700-900 revolutions per minute. (Otto’s models had a top speed of 180-200 rpm.) Furthermore, Daimler took pains to construct a very light engine. In 1885, he attached one of his engines to bicycle, thereby constructing the world’s first motorcycle. The following year, Daimler constructed his first four-wheel automobile. It turned out, though; that Karl Benz had beat him to the punch. Karl Benz had built his first automobile—a three-wheeler, but undeniably an automobile—just a few months earlier.

Benz’s car, like Daimler’s, was powered by a version of Otto’s four-stroke engine. Benz’s engine ran at well under 400 rpm, but that was enough to make his automobile practical. Benz steadily improved his automobile, and within a few years he succeeded in marketing it. Gottlieb Daimler started marketing his cars a bit later than Benz, but he, too, was successful. (Eventually, the Benz and Daimler firms merged together. The famous Mercedes-Benz automobile is manufactured by the resulting firm.)


One more figure in the development of the automobile must be mentioned: the American inventor and industrialist, Henry Ford, who was the first to mass-produce inexpensive automobiles.

The internal combustion engine and the automobile were inventions of staggering importance, and if a single person were entitled to exclusive credit for them he would rank near the top of this list. The principal credit for these inventions must, however, is divided among several men: Lenoir, Otto, Daimler, Benz, and Ford. Of all these men, Otto made the most significant contribution. The Lenoir engine was intrinsically neither powerful nor efficient enough to power automobiles. Otto’s engine was. Before 1876, when Otto invented his engine, development of a practical automobile was almost impossible; after 1876, it was virtually inevitable. Nikolaus August Otto is, therefore, one of the true makers of the modern world.

The Most Influencial People in the World: FRANCISCO PIZARRO (C. 1475-1541)

Francisco Pizarro, the illiterate Spanish adventurer who conquered the Inca Empire in Peru, was born about 1475, in the city of Trujillo, Spain. Like Hernando Cortes, whose career parallels his in many ways, Pizarro came to the New World to seek fame and fortune. From 1502 to 1509, Pizarro lived on Hispaniola, the Caribbean island on which Haiti and the Dominican Republic are now situated. In 1513, he was a member of the expedition, led by Vasco Nunez de Balboa, which discovered the Pacific Ocean. In 1519, he settled in Panama. In 1522, when Pizarro was about forty-seven years old, he learned of the existence of the Inca Empire from Pasqual de Andagoya, a Spanish explorer who had visited it. Pizarro, doubtless inspired by the recent conquest of Mexico by Hernando Cortes, decided to conquer the Inca Empire. His first attempt, in 1524-25, was unsuccessful, and his two ships had to turn back before reaching Peru. On his second attempt, 1526-28, he managed to reach the coast of Peru and return with gold, Llamas, and Indians.

In 1528, he returned to Spain. There, the following year, the emperor Charles V authorized him to conquer Peru for Spain, and supplied him with funds for an expedition. Pizarro returned to Panama, where he assembled the expedition. It sailed from Panama in 1531, at which time Pizarro was already fifty-six years old. The force which he had assembled included fewer than 200 men, while the empire that he had set out to conquer had a population of over six million!

Pizarro reached the coast of Peru the following year. In September 1532, taking with him only 177 men and 62 horses, he marched inland. Pizarro led his small force high into the Andes Mountains to reach the town of Cajamarca, where the Incan ruler, Atahualpa, was staying with an army of forty thousand warriors. Pizarro’s troops arrived at Cajamarca on November 15, 1532. The following day, at Pizarro’s request, Atahualpa left the bulk of his troops behind, and accompanied only by about five thousand unarmed retainers, came to parley with Pizarro.

In the light of what Atahualpa must have known, his behavior is baffling. From the time that they had first landed on the coast, the Spaniards had plainly demonstrated both their hostile intent and their utter ruthlessness. It is therefore hard to understand why Atahualpa. Had the Indians attacked him on the narrow mountain roads, where Pizarro reached Cajamarca was still more amazing. To approach a hostile army while he unarmed was incredibly stupid. The mystery is only heightened by the fact that ambush was a common tactic of the Incas.

Pizarro did not let his golden opportunity pass. He ordered his troops to attack Atahualpa and his unarmed escort. The battle—or rather massacre—lasted only about half an hour. Not a single Spanish soldier was killed; the only one wounded was Pizarro himself, who suffered a minor would while protecting Atahualpa, whom he succeeded in capturing alive.

Pizarro’s strategy worked perfectly. The Inca Empire was a highly centralized structure, with all authority flowing from the Inca, or emperor, who was believed to be semi-divine. With the Inca held prisoner, the Indians were unable to react to the Spanish invasion. In the hope of regaining his freedom, Atahualpa paid Pizarro an enormous ransom in gold and silver, probably worth more than 28 million dollars. Nevertheless, within a few months Pizarro had him executed. In November 1533, a year after the capture of Atahualpa, Pizarro’s troops entered the Inca capital, Cuzco, without a fight. There, Pizarro installed a new Inca as his puppet. In 1535, he founded the city of Lima, which became the new capital of Peru.

In 1536, however, the puppet Inca escaped and led an Indian revolt against the Spanish. For a while the Spanish forces were besieged in Lima and Cuzco. The Spanish managed to regain control of most of the country the following year, but it was not until 1572 that the revolt was finally crushed. By then, however, Pizarro himself was dead.

Pizarro’s downfall came about because the Spanish started fighting among themselves. One of Pizarro’s closest associates, Diego de Almagro, revolted in 1537, claiming that Pizarro was not giving him his rightful share of the booty. Almagro was captured and executed; but the issue was not really settled, and in 1541, a group of Almagro’s followers broke into Pizarro’s palace in Lima and assassinated the sixty-six-year-old leader, only eight years after he had entered Cuzco victoriously.

Francisco Pizarro was brave, determined, and shrewd. By his own lights, he was a religious man, and it is reported that the dying Pizarro drew a cross on the ground with his own blood, and that his last word was “Jesus.” However, he was also an incredibly avaricious man, cruel, ambitious, and treacherous: perhaps the most brutal of the conquistadors.

But Pizarro’s harsh character should not blind us to the magnitude of his military achievement. When, in 1967, the Israelis won a dramatic victory over Arab nations which greatly outnumbered them, and which possessed far more military equipment, many persons were surprised. It was an impressive triumph; but history is studded with examples of military victories won against sizable numerical odds. Napoleon and Alexander the Great repeatedly won victories against larger armies. The Mongols, under the successors of Genghis Khan, managed to conquer China, a country which had at least thirty times their population.

However, Pizarro’s conquest of an empire of over six million with a force of only 180 men is the most astonishing military feat in history. The numerical odds he overcame were considerably higher than those which faced Cortes, who invaded an empire of roughly five million with a force of 600 men. Could even Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan have matched Pizarro’s accomplishment? I doubt it, since neither of them would ever have been so reckless as to attempt a conquest when faced with such overwhelming odds.


But, one might ask, did not Spanish firearms give them an overwhelming tactical advantage? Not at all. Arquebuses, the primitive firearms of the time, had a small range and took a long time to reload. Although they made a frightening noise, they were actually less effective than food bows and arrows. In any event, when Pizarro entered Cajamarca, only three of his men had Arquebuses, and no more than twenty had crossbows. Most of the Indians were killed by conventional weapons such as swords and spears. Despite their possession of a few horses and firearms, it is plain that the Spanish entered the conflict at an overwhelming military disadvantage. Leadership and determination, rather than weaponry, were the chief factors in the Spanish victory. Of course, Pizarro had good luck as well; but it is an old saying that fortune favors the brave.

Francisco Pizarro had been condemned by some writers as little more than a courageous thug. But few if any thugs have had his impact on history. The empire which he overthrew ruled most of present-day Peru and Ecuador, as well as the northern half of Chile, and part of Bolivia. Its population was considerably larger than all the rest of South America combined. As a result of Pizarro’s conquests, the religion and culture of Spain were imposed on the entire region. Furthermore, after the fall of the Inca Empire, no other part of South America had any chance of successfully resisting European conquest. Millions of Indians still inhabit South America. But in most parts of the continent the Indians have never regained political power, and European language, religion, and culture remain dominant.

Cortes and Pizarro, each leading only small forces, succeeded in rather quickly overthrowing the empires of the Aztecs and the Incas. This has led many people to suspect that the conquest of Mexico and Peru by Europeans was inevitable. Indeed, it does seem that the Aztec Empire had no real chance of maintaining its independence. Its location (near the Gulf of Mexico, and a comparatively short sail from Cuba) left it vulnerable to Spanish attack. Even if the Aztecs had succeeded in defeating Cortes’s small forces, larger Spanish armies were sure to follow fairly soon.

The Inca Empire, on the other hand, was far better situated for defense. The only ocean bordering it was the Pacific, which was less accessible to Spanish ships than the Atlantic. The Incas maintained large armies, and their empire was populous and well organized. Furthermore, the terrain of Peru is rugged and mountainous, and in many sections of the world, the European colonial powers found it very difficult to conquer mountainous regions. Even in the late nineteenth century, when European arms were far more advanced than they had been in the early sixteenth century, an Italian attempt to conquer Ethiopia was unsuccessful. Similarly, the British had almost endless difficulties with the tribes on the mountainous northwest frontier of India. And the Europeans were never able to colonize such mountainous countries as Nepal, Afghanistan, and Iran. Had Pizarro’s invasion failed, and had the Incas thereby had the opportunity to gain some knowledge of European weapons and tactics, they might well have been able to fight off substantially larger European forces afterwards. As it was, it took the Spanish thirty-six years to suppress the Indian revolt of 1536, even though the Indians had very few guns and were never able to muster more than a small fraction of the troops which they could have assembled before Pizarro’s conquest. The Spanish might have conquered the Inca Empire even without Pizarro, but that conclusion seems far from certain.

Thus, Pizarro has been ranked slightly higher than Cortes on this list. Cortes speeded up history; Pizarro may possibly have altered its course.

The Most Influencial People in the World: HERNANDO CORTES (1485-1547)

Hernando Cortes, the conqueror of Mexico, was born in 1485, in Medellin, Spain. His father was a minor noble. In his youth, Cortes attended the University of Salamanca, where he studied law. At the age of nineteen, he left Spain to seek his fortune in the newly-discovered Western Hemisphere. He arrived in Hispaniola in 1504, and spent several years there as a gentleman farmer and local Don Juan. In 1511, he took part in the Spanish conquest of Cuba. Following this adventure, he married the sister-in-law of the Imperial Governor of Cuba, Diego Velázquez, and was appointed mayor of Santiago.

In 1518, Velasquez chose Cortes to be the captain of an expedition to Mexico. The governor, fearing Cortes ambition, soon reversed his order, but it was too late to stop Cortes. He sailed in February 1519, with 11 ships, 110 sailors, 553 soldiers (including only 13 with hand guns and 32 with crossbows), 10 heavy cannons, 4 light cannons, and 16 horses. The expedition disembarked on Good Friday at the site of the present city of Veracruz. Cortes remained near the coast for a while, gathering information about the situation in Mexico. He learned that the Aztecs, who ruled Mexico, had a great capital which lay inland; that they had great stores of precious metals; and that they were hated by many of the other Indian tribes whom they had subdued.

Cortes, who was bent on conquest, decided to march inland and invade the Aztec territory. Some of his men were frightened by the enormous numerical odds which they would have to overcome; so before marching inland, Cortes destroyed the expedition’s boats, thus leaving his men no choice but to either follow him to victory or be killed by the Indians.

Proceeding inland, the Spaniards encountered fierce resistance from the Tlaxcala’s, and independent tribe of Indians. But after their large army had been defeated by the Spanish in some hard-fought battles, the Tlaxcala’s decided to join forces with Cortes against the Aztecs, whom they hated. Cortes then advanced to Cholula, where the Aztec ruler, Montezuma II, had planned a surprise attack on the Spanish. However, Cortes, who had obtained advance information of the Indians’ intentions, struck first, and massacred thousands of them at Cholula. He then advanced toward the capital, Tenochtitlan (now Mexico City), and on November 8, 1519, entered the city without opposition. He soon imprisoned Montezuma, whom he made a puppet, and it looked as though the conquest was almost complete.

But then another Spanish force, under Pan Filo de Narvaez, arrived on the coast with orders to arrest Cortes. Cortes left some of his forces in Tenochtitlan, and hastily led the rest of his troops back to the coast. There, he defeated the troops of Narvaez and persuaded the survivors to join him. However, by the time he was able to return to Tenochtitlan, the subordinate whom he had left there had antagonized the Aztecs beyond endurance. On June 30, 1520, there was an uprising in Tenochtitlan, and the Spanish forces, suffering severe causalities, retreated to Tlaxcala. However, Cortes obtained additional troops, and the following May he returned and laid siege to Tenochtitlan. The city fell on August 13. After that, Spanish control of Mexico was reasonably secure, although Cortes had to spend some time consolidating the conquest of the outlying regions. Tenochtitlan was rebuilt and renamed Mexico City, and it became the capital of the Spanish colony of New Spain.

Considering the small number of troops with which Cortes started, his conquest of an empire of five million was a truly remarked military feat. The only example in history of a conquest against greater numerical odds is that of Francisco Pizarro over the Incas in Peru. It is natural to be curious about how and why Cortes succeeded. Certainly, his possession of horses and firearms was a factor; however, the very small numbers of those which he possessed were not in themselves nearly sufficient compensation for his enormous numerical disadvantage. (It is worth noting that neither of the two previous Spanish expeditions to the Mexican coast had succeeded in establishing a settlement or in making any permanent conquests.) Certainly, the leadership which Cortes provided, and his courage and determination were major factors in his success. An equally important factor was his skillful diplomacy. Cortes not only avoided inspiring an Indian coalition against him, but he successfully persuaded substantial numbers of Indians to join with him against the Aztecs.

Cortes was also aided by Aztec legends concerning the god Quetzalcoatl. According to Indian legend, this god had instructed the Indians in agriculture, metallurgy, and government; he had been tall, with white skin, and a flowing beard. After promising to revisit the Indians, he had departed over the “Eastern Ocean,” that is, the Gulf of Mexico. To Montezuma, it seemed very possible that Cortes was the returning god, and this fear seems to have markedly influenced his behavior. Certainly, Montezuma’s reaction to the Spanish invasion was weak and indecisive.

One last factor in the Spaniards’ success was their religious fervor. To us, of course, Cortes’s invasion seems an inexcusable act of aggression. Cortes, however, was convinced that his invasion was morally justified. He could, and did, quite sincerely tell his men that they would win because their cause was just, and because they were fighting under the banner of the Cross. Cortes’s religious motivation was quite sincere: more than once, he risked the success of his expedition by heavy-handed attempts to convert his Indian allies to Christianity.

Although Cortes was an excellent diplomat when dealing with the Indians, he was not equally successful in the political infighting with his Spanish rivals. The Spanish king rewarded him richly with lands and made Cortes a marquis, but removed him from his post as Governor of Mexico. Cortes returned to Spain in 1540, and spent the last seven years of his life vainly petitioning the king to restore his authority in New Spain. When Cortes died, in 1547, near Seville, Spain, he was an embittered though wealthy man. His large estates in Mexico were inherited by his son.

That Cortes was greedy and ambitious is obvious. An admirer who knew Cortes personally described him as ruthless, haughty, mischievous, and quarrelsome. But Cortes had many admirable qualities as well. He was courageous, determined, and intelligent. He had a generally cheerful disposition. Though a firm military leader, he was not wantonly cruel. Unlike Pizarro, who was universally hated, Cortes got along well with many of the Indians and tried not to govern them harshly. Incidentally, Cortes was apparently handsome and charming; he was always a great ladies’ man.

In his will, Cortes stated that he was uncertain whether it was morally right to own Indian slaves. The question had troubled him, and he requested his son to consider the matter carefully. For his times, this was a rare attitude; one can hardly conceive of Francisco Pizarro (or Christopher Columbus), being troubled by such a question. All in all, one gets the impression that of all the Spanish conquistadors, Cortes was the most decent human being.

Cortes and Pizarro were born within fifty miles of each other, and only about tem years apart. The achievements of the two men (who appear to have been relatives) are strikingly similar. Between them, they conquered a region of virtually continental size, and imposed on that region the language, religion, and culture of the conquerors. Throughout most of that region, political power has ever since remained with person of European ancestry.


The combined influence of Cortes and Pizarro was considerably greater than that of Simon Bolivar. Their conquests transferred political power in South America from the Indians to the Europeans. Bolivar’s victories merely succeeded in transferring power from the Spanish government to persons of European ancestry born in South America.

It might seem, at first that Cortes should be ranked higher than Pizarro because his conquests took place earlier and inspired those of Pizarro. Furthermore, Indians resistance in Peru had not ended when Pizarro died, whereas Cortes essentially completed the conquest of Mexico. But in my opinion, those points are slightly overbalanced by another consideration. The conquering zeal of the Spanish, and the superiority of their weapons, obviously posed a serious threat to both the Aztecs and the Incas. Peru, protected by its mountainous terrain, had some chance of retaining its independence. Pizarro’s bold and successful attack man, therefore, actually have changed the course of history.

But the Aztec dominions were less mountainous than Peru; furthermore, Mexico (unlike Peru) borders on a portion of the Atlantic Ocean and was therefore relatively accessible to Spanish forces. It therefore appears that the conquest of Mexico by Spain was virtually inevitable: the principal result of Cortes’s daring and able leadership was to hasten the process.

The Most Influencial People in the World: THOMAS JEFFERSON (1743-1826)

Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States of America, and the author of the Declaration of Independence, was born in 1743, in Shadwell, Virginia. His father was a surveyor and a successful planter who eventually left a large estate to his son. Jefferson attended the College of William and Mary for two years, but left without receiving a degree. Afterward, he studied law for several years, and in 1767, he was admitted to the Virginia bar. Jefferson spent the next seven years as a practicing lawyer and a planter. He also became a member of the House of Burgesses, the lower house of the Virginia legislature.


Jefferson’s first important essay, A Summary View of the Rights of British America, was written in 1774. The following year, he was chosen as one of Virginia’s delegates to the Second Continental Congress, and in 1776, he returned to the Virginia legislature, where he played a leading role in the adoption of several major reforms. Two of his important proposals were the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom and a Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge, which concerned public education.

Jefferson’s proposals on education included: public elementary education available to all; a state university in which the more gifted could receive a higher education; and a system of scholarships. His educational plan was not adopted by the state of Virginia at that time, although similar plans were later instituted by virtually all the states.

The statute concerning religious liberty is noteworthy in that it provided for complete religious toleration and for the complete separation of Church and State. (Previously, the Anglican Church had been the established church in Virginia.) There was considerable opposition to Jefferson’s proposal, but it was eventually passed by the Virginia legislature (1786). The same ideas were soon adopted in the bills of rights of other states, and later in the United States Constitution as well.

Jefferson served as governor of Virginia from 1779 to 1781. He then “retired” from political life. During his retirement, he wrote his only book, Notes on the State of Virginia. The book contains, among other things, a clear statement of Jefferson’s opposition to the institution of slavery. In 1782, Jefferson’s wife died. (They had been married ten years and had six children.) Though he was still fairly young, Jefferson never remarried.

Jefferson soon came out of retirement and entered Congress. There, a proposal of his for a decimal system of coinage was adopted. However, a similar proposal of his for a decimal system of weight and measures (this was before the metric system had been devised) was not approved. He also introduced a proposal which would have prohibited slavery in all new states; however it was defeated by a single vote.

In 1784, Jefferson went to France on a diplomatic mission. There, he soon succeeded Benjamin Franklin as the American ambassador. He stayed in France for five years, and was therefore absent from the United States during the entire period in which the United States Constitution was drafted and ratified. Jefferson favored adopted believed that a bill of rights should be included.

Jefferson returned to American in late 1789, and was soon appointed the country’s first Secretary of State. Within the Cabinet, a clash soon developed between Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, who was Secretary of the Treasury and whose political outlook was quite different from Jefferson’s. In the nation, supporters of Hamilton’s policies eventually came together to form the Federalist Party. Supporters of Jefferson’s policies joined together to form the Democratic - Republican Party, which eventually became known as the Democratic Party.

In 1796, Jefferson was a moderate and conciliatory towards his former opponents, thereby setting a valuable precedent for the United States. From the standpoint of lasting effect, the most notable governmental action during his term in office was the Louisiana Purchase, which roughly doubled the area of the United States. The Louisiana Purchase, perhaps the largest peaceful transfer of territory in recorded history, helped turn the United States into a great power, and was an event of far-reaching importance. If I thought that Thomas Jefferson were the person principally responsible for the Louisiana Purchase, he would be ranked considerably higher on this list. However, I believe that the French leader, Napoleon Bonaparte, by making the crucial decision to sell the territory to the United States, was actually chiefly responsible for the transfer. If any individual American deserves special credit for the Louisiana Purchase, it would not be Jefferson, who had never envisaged such an extensive purchase, but rather the American envoys in Paris, Robert Livingston and James Monroe, who when they saw the opportunity for an extraordinary bargain, exceeded their diplomatic instructions and negotiated the acquisition of the enormous territory. (It is noteworthy that Jefferson, who wrote his own epitaph, did not include the Louisiana Purchase as one of his principal achievements.)

Jefferson was re-elected President in 1804; however, in 1808, he chose not to run for a third term, thereby reinforcing the precedent which George Washington had set. Jefferson retired in 1809, and his only subsequent governmental activity was in connection with the founding of the University of Virginia (chartered in 1819). He thereby saw a portion of the educational program he had suggested to the Virginia legislature forty-three years earlier finally put into practice. Jefferson died on July 4, 1826, the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, after more than eighty-three years of a full and well-spent life.

Jefferson had many other talents besides his obvious political gifts. He knew five or six foreign languages; he was interested in natural science and mathematics; he was a successful planter who engaged in scientific farming. He was also a manufacturer, minor inventor, and skilled architect.

Because Jefferson’s talents and personal qualities were so outstanding, it is easy to overestimate the actual influence he has had on history. In assessing his true importance, we should perhaps start by considering the Declaration of Independence, since drafting that is usually considered to be his outstanding achievement. The first thing to note is that the Declaration of Independence is not part of the governing law of the United States of America; its primary importance is as a statement of American ideals. Furthermore, the ideas expressed in it were not original with Jefferson, but were largely derived from the writings of John Locke. The Declaration was not original philosophy; nor was it intended to be; rather, it was meant to be a concise statement of beliefs already held by many Americans.

Nor was Jefferson’s magnificent phrasing of the Declaration responsible for the American decision to declare independence. The Revolutionary War had actually commenced in April 1775 (more than a year before the Declaration of Independence), with the battles of Lexington and Concord. In the months following those battles, the American colonies faced a critical decision: should they demand outright independence, or should they seek a compromise with the English government? In the spring of 1776, sentiment in the Continental Congress was running strongly toward the former alternative. It was not Jefferson, but rather Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, who on June 7 formally proposed that the colonies declare their independence from Great Britain. The Congress decided to postpone a vote on Lee’s resolution for a few weeks, and appointed a committee, headed by Jefferson, to meanwhile prepare a public statement of the reasons for declaring independence. (The other committee members wisely permitted Jefferson to draft the statement almost singlehandedly. Congress took up Lee’s motion again on July 1, and the following day it was brought to a vote and carried unanimously. It was that vote, on July 2, in which the critical decision in favor of independence was made. It was not until after that vote that the text of Jefferson’s draft was debated. It was adopted by Congress (with some modifications) two days later, on July 4, 1776.

 

 
 
Even if the Declaration of Independence was not really as important as most people think would not Jefferson do other achievements still entitle him to a higher position on this list? In his epitaph, Jefferson mentioned the two other achievements for which he most wished to be remembered. One of those, his role as the founder of the University of Virginia, although certainly very praiseworthy, is hardly of sufficient importance to greatly affect his overall position on this list. The other accomplishment, his authorship of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, is quite significant indeed. Of course, the general idea of religious freedom had been expressed by several prominent philosophers before Jefferson’s statute went considerably further than the policies which had been advocated by Locke. Furthermore, Jefferson was an active politician who succeeded in having his proposals enacted into law, and Jefferson’s proposal influenced other states when they drew up bills of rights.


That brings up another question: to what extent was Thomas Jefferson responsible for the adoption of the Federal Bill of Rights? Jefferson was certainly representative of those persons who wanted to have a bill of rights; indeed, he was one of the intellectual leaders of that group. But Jefferson, who was out of the country from 1784 until late 1789, was unable to lead the fight for a bill of rights during the crucial period immediately following the Constitutional Convention, and it was James Madison who played the principal role in actually getting the amendments through Congress. (Congress passed the amendments on September 25, 1789, before Jefferson returned to the United States.)

It might be said that it was not Jefferson’s official actions, but rather his attitudes, which have most deeply affected the United States. However, it is rather doubtful to what extent Jefferson’s ideas are actually accepted by the American people. Many persons who honor the name of Thomas Jefferson support policies quite contrary to his. For example, Jefferson strongly believed in what we today would call “small government.” A characteristic phrase 9taken from his inaugural address) is, “…a wise and fugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their one pursuit of industry and improvement….”

The preceding paragraphs perhaps make it sound as if Thomas Jefferson had rather little influence, and does not belong in this book at all. But too great a concern with details can sometimes cause one not to see the forest for the trees. If, instead, one step back and tries to view Jefferson’s career as a whole, one can readily see why he has been described as the “preeminent spokesman for human liberty.”

Should Thomas Jefferson be ranked higher or lower than George Washington? American independence and democratic institutions were created by the combined efforts of men of ideas and men of action. While both were essential, I believe that in general the ideas were the more important contribution. On the executive side, George Washington plainly played the dominant role. Credit for the ideas, however, must be divided between a large number of men, including Americans such as Jefferson and James Madison, and Europeans such as John Locke, Voltaire, and many others. It is for that reason that Thomas Jefferson, despite his enormous talents and prestige, has been ranked substantially below George Washington on this list.