LITERARY NOTICES. 



417 



both from defective knowledge and from 

 erroneous views of the nature of life, and 

 shows that no explanations of the phe- 

 nomena could be at all satisfactory until 

 biology had fully accepted and broadly 

 planted itself upon the evolution hypothe- 

 sis. Dr. Brooks's summary in this chapter 

 of the fundamental facts that have been 

 established in this field of inquiry, and 

 which he presents as requisites of a theory 

 of heredity, is very discriminating and help- 

 ful in the prosecution of the inquiry. In 

 Chapter III the same line of historic analy- 

 sis is pursued more closely, and the author 

 is here brought to the consideration of Dar- 

 win's theory of pangenesis, one of the latest 

 forms of the explanation of hereditary phe- 

 nomena. Dr. Brooks finds the hypothe- 

 sis of Darwin to be unsatisfactory, in that 

 it does not recognize such a difference in 

 the functions of the reproductive elements 

 of the opposite sexes as the facts require 

 and now seem to warrant. And, after his 

 review of the various theories that have 

 been thus far offered, our author then pro- 

 ceeds to the main thesis of his work, which 

 is the establishment of a new theory of 

 heredity based upon the different powers 

 and functions of the respective reproductive 

 elements. 



It will not be possible here to give any 

 full or satisfactory acccunt of Dr. Brooks's 

 theory as elaborated and illustrated in the 

 volume before us, nor will it be so necessary 

 to the readers of the "Monthly," as Vol. 

 XV of this magazine contains two articles 

 upon the subject by the author representing 

 his views, and exemplifying some of their 

 higher applications. It may be stated, how- 

 ever, that while Darwin holds that male and 

 female give equal elements in their com- 

 bined offspring. Dr. Brooks maintains that 

 they are not only different, but that the 

 difference rises to the import of a general 

 law. While the function of the female is 

 conservative, or to preserve and hand on 

 all the parts that belong to the race — all 

 that has been acquired, with little or no 

 tendency to vary from the race type — on the 

 other hand, the male, leading a more varied 

 and adventurous life, stamps the tendency 

 to variation, the impulses to higher de- 

 velopment, upon the common product of 

 organization. There is more than plausi- 

 VOL. XXIV. — 27 



bility, more even than probability, in this 

 idea, and those who look critically into the 

 evidence adduced by the author can hardly 

 fail to recognize that he has seized upon an 

 important principle in this field of investi- 

 gation. 



The English Grammar of William Cob- 

 BETT. Carefully revised and annotated 

 by Alfred Ayr£S. New York : D. Ap- 

 pleton & Co. Pp. 254. 

 " * Cobbett's Grammar,' " says the edi- 

 tor of this edition, "is probably the most 

 readable grnmmar ever written. For the 

 purposes of self-education it is unrivaled." 

 This is probably because it is not strictly a 

 grammar according to the common ideas of 

 a grammatical text-book, but is rather a 

 series of familiar, practical letters on the 

 use of the English language. Technicalities 

 are absent, and paradigms are rare, and 

 given only in illustration of the discussions 

 of the text. The editor's work has been 

 chiefly to call attention to the points in 

 which Cobbett's teachings differ from what 

 is now considered the best usage, a matter 

 in which changes may have occurred or 

 more strict distinctions have been estab- 

 lished since the first edition of the " Gram- 

 mar" was published in 1818; to note the 

 few errors of diction to be found in the let- 

 ters ; and to emphasize a more discriminat- 

 ing use of the relative pronouns than is 

 customary in English literature. The last is 

 a point on which the editor appears to set 

 much store. The rule he announces on the 

 subject is that " who and which are prop- 

 erly the co-ordinating relative pronouns, and 

 that is properly the restrictive relative pro- 

 noun. Whenever a clause restricts, limits, 

 defines, qualifies the antecedent — i. e., when- 

 ever it is adjectival — explanatory in its 

 functions — it should be introduced with the 

 relative pronoun that, and not with which, 

 nor with who or whom. . . . Who and 

 WHICH are the proper co-ordinating relatives 

 to use when the antecedent is completely 

 expressed without the help of the clause in- 

 troduced by the relative." The rule seems 

 to be a useful one, other things being equal ; 

 but as we read the thats which the editor 

 has inserted in brackets after Cobbett's 

 who's and which's wherever he judges the 

 change should be made in accordance with 

 his rule, and as we observe in other places, 



