^^z.'-. 19, 1875J 



NATURE 



309 



was added as a complement. The treatises contributed 

 to this work by Herschel, Airy, De Morgan, Peacock, 

 Whately, Senior, and others, are some of the most pro- 

 found works in English scientific literature, and maintain 

 their scientific value after the lapse of forty years or 

 more. It was the weight of these too- valuable treatises 

 which damned the commercial success of the whole 

 scheme. 



The "Encyclopaedia Britannica " has effected a com- 

 promise between the systematic and alphabetic methods 

 in another way, altogether inferior in a logical point of 

 view, but far more successful as actually carried into 

 effect. In this volume we have forty-four important 

 articles, almost every one of which is written by a master 

 of the subject, if not in every case by its most eminent 

 representative. The longest of these except one is that 

 on Astronomy, by Mr. R. A. Proctor. It occupies eighty 

 quarto pages, in addition to four large plates of en- 

 gravings, and might be easily made to fill a good-sized 

 octavo volume of 400 or 500 pages. This article is on the 

 whole a satisfactory compendium of the science, but it is 

 matter of regret that Mr. Proctor cannot avoid exhibi- 

 tions of bad taste. He has no right to insinuate in the 

 second column of p. 786 that two of the joint authors of 

 an important scientific paper are the assistants of the one 

 first named. The accuracy of some of Mr. Proctor's 

 statements as to the history of recent discoveries in solar 

 astronomy would have to be seriously called in question 

 were it possible in an article of this kind to enter upon a 

 subject involving many details. 



One of the most profound and at the same time 

 interesting articles is that of Dr. E. B. Tylor on Anthro- 

 pology, occupying about sixteen pages. As we should 

 expect from the principal founder of the new science, it 

 contains a luminous abstract of the evidence concerning 

 the antiquity, descent, and development of the human 

 race, mainly brought to notice since the last edition of 

 the " Encyclopaedia " was published. Taken in connec- 

 tion with Prof. Daniel Wilson's article on Prehistoric 

 Archaology, and Prof. St. George Mivart's elaborate 

 account of the Ape Family, filling twenty- one pages, we 

 have in this single volume of the work a full supply of 

 information relating to the origin and affinities of the 

 human species. It is curious to compare the views dis- 

 cussed in these articles with those propounded in earlier 

 editions of the " Encyclopaedia " under the title " Crea- 

 tion." 



Probably the longest article in the volume is that, the 

 joint production of Prof. T. Hayter Lewis and Mr. G. V.. 

 Street, upon Architecture, which, taken together with a 

 very useful glossary of architectural terms, extends over 

 ninety-four pages. If reprinted in a separate volume it 

 would form a convenient and much-needed text-book of 

 the science. As treated by Mr. Ferguson, the history of 

 architecture forms in fact one of the most instructive 

 branches of the new science of Sociology, and no subject 

 of study is better calculated to produce "^correct views of 

 the origin and development of civilisation. We are 

 unable to understand why the work of Mr. P'erguson is 

 referred to in the Bibhography of the subject (p. 457) only 

 under the head of Chinese Architecture. 



It will be a matter of regret to many that Professor 

 Huxley's article on the Classification oj the Animal 



Kingdom is restricted to six pages, but it is surprising 

 how many profound remarks he has managed to com- 

 press into this narrow compass. The article, however, is 

 only suited for the reading of experts. The article, again 

 on the word Aryan, by Prof. Max. Miiller, is another one 

 of which the brevity must be lamented, unless it be sup- 

 plemented by other articles on closely allied topics, to 

 which there is no reference. 



In spite of the fulness and excellent quality of some of 

 the articles relating to physical or natural science, we 

 entertain some fear that the weakest side of the " Ency- 

 clopaedia" will lie in this direction. The method of 

 arrangement prevents us from speaking with confidence, 

 because it is impossible to say how far subjects which are 

 weakly treated or altogether omitted in their alphabetical 

 place, will be introduced into later systematic articles. 

 There are indications, however, that Prof. Spencer Baynes 

 is not as ably supported in chemical, mathematical, or 

 general physical subjects as he should be. The brief 

 account of Antimony, for instance, is a very perfunctory 

 production, and, if the other elements are to be treated in 

 like manner, we should prefer to find them omitted alto- 

 gether. If Mr. Baynes can spare barely more than one 

 column for an element of considerable importance, he 

 need not have told us that the paint said in the Holy 

 Scriptures to have been used by Jezebel was made of 

 stibnite containing antimony. Nor need a sentence have 

 been wasted in repeating a tradition to the effect that the 

 metal was called antimony because a preparation of it 

 proved fatal to monks (hence antimonachos), a tradition, 

 it is added, which will hardly bear investigation. If so, 

 why give the tradition when there is so much else of 

 importance omitted. 



The article on Assaying, though not positively bad, is 

 not up to the proper mark, and is not sufficiently precise 

 to be of any technical value. The subject should either 

 have been omitted or more developed, and placed in the 

 hands of Mr. Chandler Roberts, the chemist and assayer 

 of the Royal Mint, who would have been in every way the 

 most fit writer to treat it. 



We hope that the column given to A?ithracite is not a 

 specimen of the way in which so important a subject as 

 Coal is to be dismissed. Yet it contains no reference to 

 Coal, Fuel, or other articles on related topics. Moreover, 

 we are unable to comprehend why, if there is to be a 

 satisfactory systematic article on Coal, as surely there 

 must be, this brief separate account of anthracite should 

 be given. As the article remarks, " No sharply defined 

 line of demarcation can be drawn between anthracite and 

 the bituminous varieties of coal, as the one series merges 

 by imperceptible degrees into the other." If so, why 

 allow the mere name to give rise to a separate article, 

 when the alphabetic system is not observed in other 

 cases ? 



Every now and then the mixture of systems gives rise 

 to a waste of space by useless repetitions. Thus, under 

 Asteroids, we find an article of seventeen lines, ending 

 with a reference to p. 806 in the article on Astronomy. 

 Turning to this page, we find a pretty full account of the 

 asteroids, filling four columns, and containing a complete 

 and useful table 01 the whole of the minor planets, 

 which were 143 in number when the table was drawn up, 

 although two or three new additions have since been 



