April 1, 1886.] 



♦ KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



19^ 



the fallacies of Ricardo in connection witli the quantity of 

 labour and the cost of production, and, incidentally, Mill's 

 self-contradiction does not escape criticism. The subject of 

 profits is next discussed, as are in succession interest and 

 discount. We then arrive at the ve.cata qucestio of rent, 

 and here again our author makes mincemeat of Ricardo's 

 teaching, and shows how, if landlords were swept off the 

 face of the earth, the consumer would derive no benefit 

 whatever. The chapter on labour, which follows the one 

 on rent, is eminently well worth reading, demolishing as it 

 does certain stock dicta of political economists which have 

 come to be regai-ded almost in the light of fetishes : or, at 

 any rate, as being inexpugnably true and quite unassail- 

 able. The eleventh chapter deals with rights or incorporeal 

 wealth, and the work is brought to a conclusion by a series 

 of successive dissertations on foreign exchanges. Law's theory 

 of paper money, the definition of currency, and the organi- 

 sation of the Bank of England. On the practical value of 

 • this portion of tlie volume to the banker, merchant, and 

 financier it is quite needless to insist ; while the less special 

 parts of it will commend themselves by their soundness, 

 accui-acy, and, in short, plain commonsense, to every student 

 of the science of economics. 



,'^'chool Electricitij. By J. E. II. Gordon, B.A. C'amb. 

 (London : Sampson Low, jMarston, Searle, k Ri\"ington. 

 1886.) — Mr. Gordon modestly calls this capital book "School 

 Electricity," but the adult who will take the pains to master 

 its contents wiU have derived no mean knowledge of the 

 science. For it certainly enters into more varied defciil of 

 an elementary kind than any similar book which has, up to 

 the present time, fiillen under oiu* notice, aiid supplies just 

 that kind and amount of information needed for the intelli- 

 gent apprehension of the principles of electrical measuie- 

 meut, and the practical application of electricity in the 

 telephone, the electric bell, electric lighting, the dvnamo, 

 electrolysis, the induction coil, A-c, to say nothing of its 

 more recondite affinities with other forms of force. Our 

 author commences ^vith a description of the nature and 

 most salient eflects of the electric ciu'rent, and in the outset 

 explains Ohm's law. The question of the speed of the 

 cm-rent through wires and telegraph cables naturally leads 

 to the subject of magnets and electro-magnets, to lines of 

 force, and the application of the magnet to telegraphy. 

 Then a chapter on the relation of electric cm-rents and 

 pressure to mechanical forces is followed by a highly prac- 

 tical one on electrical units. After this the sources of elec- 

 tricity are discussed , as are in succession electro-measurements, 

 telegi-aphy, the telephone, electric bells, electric lighting, and 

 electrolysis. From these more especially economical appli- 

 cations of electricity we pass to diamagnetism and magne- 

 crjstallic action, the induction coU, and Crookes's marvellous 

 researches on i-adiant matter, the volume concluding with 

 chapters on the action of magnetism and electricity on 

 polari-sed light, and on Clerk Maxwell's electro-magnetic 

 theory of light itself. A series of examination papers forms 

 a kind of appendix (in addition to questions which appear 

 at the end of each chapter), and an index completes the 

 work. We can heartily recommend Mr. Gordon's volume 

 to all students of electricity. 



The Laws of Xature and the Laws of God : A Reply 

 to Professor Drunimond. By Samuel Cockburn, M.D., 

 L.R.C.S.E. (London : Swan Sonnenschein, Le Bas, &, 

 Lowrey. 1886.) — That a, gigantic jiefitio principii underlies 

 the whole of the arguments in Professor Drummond's very 

 able and remarkable book, he would himself probably be 

 sc;\rcely concerned to deny. Admitting, however, his 

 postulate, no one can fail to admire the conspicuous ability, 

 moderation, scholarship, and eloquence with which he 



advances and enforces his thesis, and hence anything 

 claiming to Ije a •• reply " to his contention must, to be in 

 the least degree effective, meet him on his own gi-ound. This 

 Dr. C'ockburn fails, hopelessly, to do in the mass of twaddle 

 now before us. His argument, if it can be dignified by that 

 name, is fomuled on the familiar type of polemics to Ije 

 heard in street discussions. " I say it is." " I s;iy it is isn't," 

 and so on da capo. Two quoted specimens of his science 

 and theology respectively will sufiice to exhibit his argu- 

 mentative and ratiocinative power. The first develops a new 

 theory of genesis, and is to be found on pp. 18 and 19. 

 •• The forms of matter are often determined by conditions 

 under the control of man, and thus, in so far as the forms 

 are concerned, he becomes a creator in the sense of a potter. 

 .... There are noxious and destructive forms of matter 

 which in a paradisaical condition could have had no existence, 

 and wliich never were created b>/ God, and which in a truly 

 regenerated condition could be of no use, and consequently 

 could not exist. We need only mention in this connection 

 all the family of parasites and the widespread, destructive 

 germs of disease." If this sentence fand notably the words 

 we have italicised) means anything, which is, of course, open 

 to discussion, it can only be interpreted as signifying that, 

 while the simshine, the rose, and the lamb were the subjects 

 of Divine creation ; the louse, the flea, and the stomach- 

 ache ai-e the products of man's perverted pottering with 

 protoplasm. Our theological quotation .■^hall be shorter 

 still. On page 3-5 we read ;— "The man spiritually dead is 

 not what God made him, and )iot what God intended him 

 to be " (the italics are again ours). Whether Dr. Cockburn 

 here denies the omnipotence or the omniscience of his Deity, 

 he does not condescend to inform us. If Professor Drum- 

 mond had been seeking an easy triumph, we can well 

 imagine him repeating the concluding clause of the 35th 

 verse of .Job xsxi. in connection with a faiTago which we 

 close with a sigh of relief. 



6 <j 5 1 p« 



By Richard A. Proctor. 



In reply to many questions, I note that the translation 

 of Josephus, from which I quoted in " A Historical Puzzle," 

 and last month, is Whiston's well-known one. So far as I 

 know, there is only one edition of that translation published, 

 and a singularly cheap one it is. 



* * * 



Many correspondents have been careful to point out that 

 several theologians have accepted, as genuine, the passage in 

 which Josephus is made to refer to Christ as being the 

 Messiah. Of course, that is well known. Whiston himself 

 accepts the passage. Even Renan does. But Renan, like 

 the theologians, held a retainer for that side. The theologians 

 who reject it are more to the purpose. 

 « * * 

 The evidence would satisfy any one who had not been 

 trained to see everything of one colour till his natural eye- 

 sight was of no use to him. After Photius had tried to 

 explain why there was no reference to John the Baptist, 

 we find a passage relatiog to John the Baptist which Photius 

 must either not have known, or must have rejected. After 

 Oricen had dwelt on the absence of all reference to Christ, we 

 fincf a passage i-elating to Christ as veritably in Josephus's 

 opinion the Messiah. And it is not noticed by theologians 

 of the " find-any thing-in-any thing" school censured by 

 Bishop Butler, that not only do the two passages stare out as 

 interpolations, even as patches of yellow in a pm-ple garment. 



