REVIEWS 34i 



have been actors in most of these undertakings. But there is no mention of the 

 great events which were happening outside, nor even of those which were taking 

 place just outside their own doors, such as the riots in 1768, the Gordon riots in 

 1780, or the Chartist rising in 1848. The Club met and dined serenely as usual 

 through all the wars outside and all the dangers at their own gates, and the 

 Royal Philosophers remained true to their title : this, however, does not mean 

 that they were wanting in patriotic concern then any more than now, but rather 

 that the meeting together was a great relaxation to them, and that such 

 companionship was most helpful to them in trying and strenuous times. 



A few words must be given to the dinners themselves. Sir Archibald Geikie 

 has given the menus of many of the earlier dinners, which will be of interest to 

 the deipnosophists of the present day. The Bill of Fare consisted generally of 

 "two kinds of fish at the top followed by joints of beef, lamb, veal or pork, with 

 calves' head, brawn, bacon and greens, fried trype, wild ducks, lobsters, one or 

 more ' plumb-puddings,' several apple-tarts, and ending off with butter and 

 cheese." What strikes one most is the extraordinary solidity of the fare, which 

 makes one marvel at the digestive powers of our ancestors ; but perhaps the 

 dinners were designed rather with a view to their appearance, than to the 

 consequences which might follow from eating them. Evidently for the Royal 

 Philosophers strong meat was indispensable ! Some of the Bills of Fare given by 

 the author make one agree that " Les restaurants anglais sont des hopitaux pour 

 guerir de la gourmandise." 



So there are many subjects of interest in this book, all of them treated with a 

 sympathetic humour which makes it delightful reading, quite apart from the more 

 solid historical part ; and any one who is interested in the scientific and social life 

 of the period covered by the Club's history cannot fail to derive much pleasure 

 and also knowledge from its perusal. 



God the Invisible King. By H. G. Wells. (Cassell & Co., Ltd., 1917.) 



Mr. Wells herewith presents to the world a succinct account of his religious 

 opinions. He believes that the views which he advocates represent the tendency 

 of thought exhibited by this age : and he has all the guileless confidence of an 

 average apostle in the forthcoming universal adoption of his creed. 



Our author appears to believe in two separate divinities. The one which he 

 calls the "Veiled Being" is responsible for the creation of the universe, and 

 stands behind the ultimate mysteries of nature. It appears to correspond with 

 Spencer's "Unknowable," except indeed that its name suggests a living organism. 

 The man of science will, however, regard it as no more than a name to cover our 

 ignorance, and will fail to perceive the utility of bestowing titles which mean 

 nothing while suggesting false connotations. 



Mr. Wells, however, is more interested in his other invention — the practical 

 God of humanity. It is not to be confused with the "Veiled Being," from which 

 proceeds " an impulse thrusting through matter " in the best style of Bergsonian 

 metaphysics. Nor is it the "Life Force," the "Will to Live "—for Mr. Wells 

 makes free use of these and other meaningless catchwords of popular ignorance. 

 On the contrary this second God is defined by four identifications. He is 

 "courage"; he is "a person"; he is "youth"; and he is "love." The thinker 

 who translates words into ideas will be totally at a loss to conceive an entity which 

 is all these four things at the same time : a moral attribute, an organism, a stage 

 of growth, and an emotion. Mr. Wells thinks he has "transferred the statements 

 of science into religious terminology." The religious terminology is obvious, but 



