KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



[Sept. 



it is true, bj- a small number of individuals. It inhabits 

 the North Atlantic, and in winter frequents the coasts 

 of Europe, and in summer those of North America, 

 where probably the females are delivered. Iceland is its 

 northerly limit. It appears nearly certain that its 

 migrations take place entirely along the course of the Gulf 

 Stream. 



For some time past the number of individuals has 

 sufficiently increased on the coasts of Soutli Carolina ami 

 Georgia to make it an object to fit out vessels for eaptur 

 ing them, and the operations of these have given rtsults 

 that are satisfactory to the eyes of the promoters, but 

 deplorable to those of naturalists. As its restoration 

 has been nipped in the bud, will not the species for ever 

 disappear r — H. Jonas, in " Scimce tt Xatiire." 



(go £{5 I p. 



By Richard A. Proctor. 



The following illustrates Burns's " wad some pow'r 

 the giftie gie us. To see oursels as others see us ! " : — 



" The Edinburgh Reviewer of Spencer's ' First Prin- 

 ciples,' in January, 1884, thinks that something like the 

 following must have been omitted at the end of the 

 column on unconscious mistakes in writing and proof- 

 correcting, at ]i. 2.5:3, last week " : — " 'Yet I myself, last 

 year, iirsl charged tlie rfvi,-n-.-r ..f a pet of mine with 

 intentionallv makinir h^h-'ik'' • f :> i|Unt:it i..n liv omitting 

 one of two'lincs ^vliirh l.ili , l.-l »irl, ilu-'.same four 

 words; and then, wli, n I ,:.uic~..l ih-.a 1 ought not to 

 have said that, I added thai he could not be" acquitted 

 of gross carelessness in passing over such a mistake in 

 the proofs — or words to that effect. I suppose I found 

 the temptation to dispose of a whole article in the 

 Ediiibxirgh by one good kick irresistible, and then I 

 had to let myself down easy when I saw that first kick 

 would not do. I never write hastily, as I was once 

 accused of doing.' " 



Here we certainly hare a curious illustration of un- 

 conscious cerebration either by my correspondent or by 

 myself ; for if he is right, then in the interval which has 

 elapsed since the events above referred to took place, my 

 mind, unconsciously modifying them, I suppose, has pre- 

 .sented them to me in a very different aspect. My recol- 

 lection presents the matter as follows : — To begin with, 

 I by no means charged, or even thought of charging, the 

 Edinburgh Beviewer, with intentionally making nonsense 

 of a quotation by omitting two lines. My impression 

 after reading the review was that a strong sense of dislike 

 of Mr. Herbert Spencer's doctrines, had so far influenced 

 the mind of the reviewer, that he had not been careful to 

 understand fully what Mr. Spencers doctrine's were. I 

 know how it is myself in such cases. Having once 

 adopted the idea that a writer's views are utterly incor- 

 rect, I should be apt to misread and misjudge any work 

 of that writer's across which I might afterwards come. 



Here is a case in point, — my friend Mr. Neison, in 

 letters to me had shown such want of knowledge about 

 elementary mathematical matters that I had (justly, be it 

 noticed) learned to regard his opinion on such things as 

 not likely to be correct. A short time after, he published 

 his excellent book on the " Moon," in which calculations 

 of a more or less abstruse character were introduced or 

 referred to as of his own making. I was so possessed 



work uud study which would faii^; li.i\u L.ri:i;;ii •{ ilirice 

 the time, that — with the fairest iutuitioiis — I misjudged 

 his work, and wrote of it unfairly and unjustly. 



I MAY rit 



another case' where I am myself interested, 

 ■ w:i y. I wrote a fortnight or so ago an article 

 on tin- '• Ai \v Still- in Andromeda" for the Titncf:, which 

 a]ipe;:i-i(l witli a [iromptitude implying that it had 

 j)leased the Editor (I did not even have a proof of it). 

 >Vhen I read it myself, I was satisfied with it, as it 

 seemed to me at once correct and compact, as well as 

 happily worded and (I thought) effective. I was con- 

 firmed in the belief that it was not bad, by letters from 

 friends who had recognised it as mine, and <me letter 

 from a friend who had always carefully refrained from 

 expressing an opinion about my writings, but who on 

 this occasion said he had been moved to do so, as he 

 thought it my best bit of work yet, or words to that 

 effech Wliilo T was thus being led to view the article 

 somewliii < Mi!!|.l r.ntly (it appeared in last week's Ksow- 

 LEii.i '' '• i use of these expressions of opinion), 

 I rrri ' i II from a much-regarded friend, whose 



ojiiiii'': ; - :il\\;:i^ been of great weight with me, in 

 which tlie article was casually referred to as obviously by 

 So-and-So (So-aud-So being a person he loves not), with 

 the comment — "He can write more unparalleled rot about 

 astronomy than any living man." On this, considerably 

 tickled— though I felt that if my friend had known the 

 article was mine, and had found it atrocious, he 

 would have been heartily grieved to have seen bad work 

 from me — I wrote to another friend, equally valued, who 

 had recognised the article as obviously mine, asking him 

 for his frank opinion. His judgment went with those who 

 liked the article. He specially dwelt on the correct and 

 concise yet clear way in which astronomical facts were, in 

 his opinion, presented. Hence, though not necessarily 

 regarding the article as quite so satisfactory as I had at 

 first considered it,Iattribute its appearing as "unparalleled 

 rot " to my friend as the effect of his preconceived opinion 

 that it was written by a person who usually does write 

 considerable nonsense about astronomy, — this opinion 

 being based on external evidence. Certainly it was most 

 unlikely that I, being in Scarborough, on Saturday when 

 the news appeared (in the Times) to which my article 

 referred, and having, as my friend knew, much literary 

 and lecturing work on hand, should have found time to 

 write an article to appear in the Times of Tuesday. 

 Therefore, I think my friend did not read that article 

 very carefully, especially as there were some passages in 

 it which Mr. So-and-So would never have written, — 

 while the closing paragraph presents the precise views, 

 maintained hitherto (with the same fulness) by no other, 

 which I had presented at the close of my lecture on 

 "Star Clouds, Star Mist, and Star Drift," at the Royal 

 Institution, in 1870. 



I JUDGED that the Edinburgh Bevieiver, one of the 

 friends I esteem and value most, had read " First Prin- 

 ciples " with a feeling of prejudice which had prevented 

 his recognising the real value of Mr. Spencer's philo- 

 sophy. "With this feeling, he might readily have so 

 misunderstood the passage which was accidentally 

 garbled, as not to recognise the importance of the omitted 

 words. Their omission certainly made nonsense of the 

 pas.sage ; and therefore there was some degree of care- 

 lessness in overlooking the printers' mistake. If the 



