constantly levels the charges of ignorance, apathy and contempt of new knowledge against Agnostics, and nowhere does he particularise or cite facts in support of his contentions. He digresses into Capitalism and Millionairism in his anxiety to confound Agnosticism, and here again I have to differ from him on a question of fact. In his overdrawn metaphor he says, "At its worst, the doctrine of the survival of the fittest is a gilded lie; at its best, a ghost at a banquet"; and ". . . it gives a moral as well as a material law to strengthen them (the capitalists) in every act of folly, avidity and cunning." The idea of the modern millionaire stopping to derive a "moral and material law" from the philosophy of evolution is delightfully entertaining. The notion is absurd. The notion is absurd. So far as I know, there is not a single professed Agnostic in the ranks of the millionaires. But, assuming Mr. Grierson's observation as correct, and granting, for argument's sake, that certain moral and material evils have resulted from the misunderstanding of the evolutionary doctrine, what follows? That because Agnostics are responsible for the discovery of this truth they are to be condemned? By no means. Passing from the abstract to the concrete world for a moment, let us take an example there; say the discovery of various poisons by chemists and others. The wrong use of these has resulted in numerous deaths, yet are the patient investigators who made the discoveries to be responsible for the misapplications of others? We shall be told, I know, that under certain circumstances the use of poisons is most useful and productive of good. retort is obvious, that so, too, is the doctrine of the survival of the fittest; even in regard to capitalism (for which Agnostics hold no brief) it has produced good results. Mr. Carnegie is a splendid example, and in America the gifts of millionaires to the universities are counted in hundreds of thousands of dollars. Sufficient has been said here, I think, to show that Mr. Grierson's position is untenable.

Then the

And now, after all this would-be destructive criticism, all this vain beating of the air, what has Mr. Grierson to offer us? He has attempted to demonstrate that Agnosticism is played out and effete, he has railed against Darwinism, and accused us of want of energy and ignorance, so that it is right that we should demand of him. something in the way of a constructive "ism." Yet he offers us nothing. He gives us a few instances of the remarkable advances of science in recent years-advances which Agnostics have watched quite as sympathetically as any other class of thinkers, and on the basis of these few facts he wishes us to renounce our "ism" and

join him in-what? He does not say. If he means that Agnostics should give more attention to psychic and telepathic phenomena, then the advice is totally unnecessary. It is a fact that the laws of mind have been too much neglected; things physical have been studied to the exclusion of things psychical, but that is not the fault

of Agnosticism. If proof of this were needed, the favourable reception accorded to M. Camille Flammarion's book, The Unknown, would suffice. As a recent writer well said, it might plausibly be argued that the average man does not care a straw about these abstruse matters, in view of the fact that the Psychical Research Society is practically unknown and receives only the most meagre support. that as it may, Agnostics welcome the daily increasing number of investigators into the laws of mind, and follow with the deepest interest each new step into the realm of the hitherto unknown. But the discovery that originated with Lamarck, and was developed by Darwin and Spencer, will rank always as one of the most important ever made. Mr. Grierson grants that Tyndall, Haeckel, and Huxley all did a work that had to be done, yet he accuses them of apathy and lack of energy! As a final refutation of the charge of ignorance, let the reader turn to Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy; in the whole history of human thought it is nowhere excelled-it is one of the most monumental tasks ever completed by

one man.

To sum up, however, there are not yet sufficient grounds to warrant the Agnostic rushing into the extreme state of positivism indicated by our critic-his (Mr. Grierson's) facts are not relevant to Agnosticism proper, and the study of telepathy and kindred questions is not sufficiently developed. That "attempts are being made" to ascertain certain things proves nothing, and until we have reliable data on which we can generalise with certainty, we shall rest content, having the moral courage to disregard "mental agony," it ever it exist, so that, having fought the good fight, we can face the end with unwavering fortitude, each

"As one who wraps the drapery of his couch around him
And lies down to pleasant dreams."

G. L.

CONTEMPORARY LITERATURE.

SCIENCE.

AN excellent text-book of elementary botany has just been pub'lished,1 and will be heartily welcomed by all who, while anxious to gain some knowledge of that science, are yet deterred by the copious technical terms with which most botanical books abound. Some special words are, of course, necessary in every science; but in this case the authoress has carefully avoided a too copious use of them, and the explanations given are clear and concise. The illustrations are numerous, and have been well drawn by Miss W. L. Boys-Smith. Altogether, we can strongly recommend this work to any one wishing to acquire a knowledge of the main elements of botany.

Not the least of the advantages conferred by the British Association for the Advancement of Science on the localities visited by it annually are the handbooks on local points of scientific interest. In connection with the Glasgow meeting three such handbooks were published. That on the Fauna, Flora, and Geology of the Clyde Area2 is of considerable importance, and will remain a valuable work of reference for local scientific subjects for many years. Some of the sections are mere lists of names, with localities more or less accurately indicated; others are interesting memoirs on special subjects by authors who have elsewhere contributed materially to our knowledge of the branches with which they deal. Among the latter class we may mention: The Geology of the Clyde Territory, by J. Home; The Crystalline Schists of the Highlands, by P. Macnair; The Drift or Glacial Formation, by J. Smith; and the Physical Conditions of the Clyde Sea Area, by H. R. Mill. A good coloured map illustrates several of the papers, and this alone would be found a very useful guide by any scientific man visiting the district.

We are ourselves so dependent upon the vegetable world for our supplies of food that all relating to the nourishment of plants should be of deep interest to us, far more so, indeed, than is usually the case. For many years a band of devoted workers have been grappling with the difficult problem of how best to utilise those 1 A Text-Book of Elementary Botany. By C. L. Laurie. London: Allman & Sons, Ltd.

2 Fauna, Flora, and Geology of the Clyde Area. Edited by G. F. S. Elliot, M. Laurie and J. B. Murdoch. Glasgow: J. Maclehose & Sons. 1901.

plant-foods which are known to be most essential to the growth of our chief crops. Dr. Bernard Dyer has made an important addition to our knowledge of the subject 1 by his study of the Phosphoric Acid and Potash in the soil of one of the fields of the celebrated experimental farm at Rothamsted. By means of a large number of analyses the author throws much light upon the migration of these important plant-constituents, and we can recommend a perusal of his work to all who are interested in the improvement of agricultural methods.

Another branch of scientific research in which much good work is being done is the investigation of fatty substances and oils, the chemistry of which is still obscure. A valuable contribution to the bibliography of this subject has just been published as part of the Jahrbuch der Chemie.2 In it Dr. Lewkowitsch, himself a well-known authority on these matters, gives an excellent summary of recent additions to our knowledge of fats, oils, and waxes. In these days of specialisation it is not easy for the chemist to collect all the literature bearing upon any subject, and it is a great advantage to have this done by one who, like Dr. Lewkowitsch, is so eminently capable of separating the wheat from the chaff.

PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY.

EVEN Hegel, seriously and intelligently interpreted, can be made interesting; and we may congratulate Mr. McTaggart upon having achieved this measure of success. Not that even Mr. McTaggart's Studies in Hegelian Cosmology3 are exactly easy reading, but they arrest the attention of the reader and contribute to his enlightenment. Our author's definition of cosmology is, the application to subject-matter empirically known, of a priori conclusions derived from the investigation of the nature of pure thought. The empirical things thus referred to are such as the human and absolute self, punishment, sin, love, &c.—things which the writer says suggest questions which cannot be dealt with by the finite sciences-they cannot be settled by observation nor determined by induction; the only possible treatment of such subjects is metaphysical. Here we

are disposed to utter a word of protest against the introduction

1 A Chemical Study of the Phosphoric Acid and Potash Contents of the Wheat Soils of Broadbalk Field, Rothamsted. By Bernard Dyer. London: Dulau & Co., for the Royal Society. 1901.

2 Technologie der Fette und Erdöle. Von J. Lewkowitsch. Brunswick: F. Vieweg und Sohn. 1901.

3 Studies in Hegelian Cosmology. By John McTaggart Ellis McTaggart, M.A. Cambridge: the University Press. 1901.

of the word "only." So far as these subjects have empirical elements in them they must be investigated by observation and induction; after that is done, we may see how far they can be explained by metaphysics. And there is a good deal of observation and induction in this book by which the reader may profit. The writer has an intention in calling his subject "Hegelian Cosmology," and not the cosmology of Hegel-it is rather consequences drawn by some disciples from Hegel's teaching than the direct pronouncements of Hegel himself; so Mr. McTaggart devotes a good deal of his space to discussing the views of Lotze, Mr. Bradley and Professor Mackenzie; a perfectly legitimate proceeding, and all the more useful as, no doubt, the majority of people who know anything at all about Hegel know him principally through his followers. It is unnecessary for us to follow Mr. McTaggart in his discussion of such great themes as Human Immortality, the Personality of the Absolute, and so on, and must content ourselves with a reference to a more popular side of the subject which attracts the attention of religious people-namely, Hegelianism and Christianity. Mr. McTaggart discusses the very interesting question whether Hegel was a Christian, and whether in calling his philosophy Christian he was guilty of deception. Our author holds that Hegel's system was not Christian nor in accordance with any orthodox form of Christianity, but he was not, therefore, in any sense dishonest in calling it Christian. He merely meant that Christianity, while being far from absolute truth, came nevertheless nearer to it than any other religion. The final chapter on the Further Determination of the Absolute contains many suggestive and lofty thoughts which carry us into the region of what we may call a "rational mysticism."

We confess that we always open books with high-sounding titles with a certain amount of prejudice, which we generally find justified upon closer acquaintance. Such is our feeling with regard to A Scientific Philosophy the Harbinger of a Scientific Theology,1 which has no author's name upon the title-page. We do not say that the volume does not contain some sensible things, but, if the theology offered is claimed as scientific, then we are compelled in the main to disagree with the writer. One purpose of this book, the writer tells us, is to place the great doctrines of Scripture upon a more satisfactory footing. Does he mean that Scripture doctrine is unsatisfactory and needs his assistance, or does he mean that certain doctrines alleged to be drawn from Scripture are unsatisfactory and that he can offer better ones? We presume it is the latter, but this is not what he says. We do not see, however, that the improvement he offers amounts to much; for he tells us, after

1 A Scientific Philosophy the Harbinger of a Scientific Theology; or, Steps to Philosophical and Theological Unity. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co. 1901.