520 
NATURE 
[ Sept. 30, 1886 
was conferred at Ferrara, May 31, 1503. He sought, no 
diploma at Padua, though he studied medicine there 
during the four years of his second stay in Italy. The 
assertion that at the age of twenty-seven he was sum- 
moned to profess mathematics at Rome is inexact. Un- 
invited, so far as is known, he repaired thither with his 
brother early in the year of jubilee (1500) ; and delivered 
unofficially some brilliantly-attended lectures during ‘the 
ensuing winter. Finally, he settled down to his life’s 
work at Frauenburg, not in 1510, but in 1512. 
One rubs one’s eyes in amazement to find Basil 
Montagu’s discredited and superseded edition quoted as 
the best and completest of Bacon’s Works. Is it really 
possible that the news of the late Mr. Spedding’s labours 
has not yet reached Chantilly? It would appear not; for 
his name is unmentioned by M. Marie, who equally over- 
looks Mr. Fowler’s instructive edition of the “ Novum 
Organum.” 
In the date assigned for Robert Hooke’s death, he 
copies an error of Poggendorff’s, who states that he died 
at the age of eighty-seven, whereas he did not live to 
complete his sixty-eighth year. The substitution of 1722 
for 1703 is of more than simply formal importance, since 
the publication of Newton’s “ Optics” and his acceptance 
of the Presidentship of the Royal Society, both depended 
upon the event thus post-dated. Newton loathed con- 
troversies, although drawn into many. But while Hooke 
lived, they could only be avoided by self-effacement ; and 
this was accordingly the policy adopted, as far as possible, 
by his great rival. 
M. Marie makes no secret of his aversion to the sour 
little professor of Gresham College ; and it is too true 
that his character repels sympathy, while his achieve- 
ments were not of the dazzling sort to blind men to his 
failings. Still, his claim to due recognition remains 
intact, although ignored by our author, who states openly 
that only Poggendorff’s eulogies, by “forcing his hand,” 
frustrated his intention of punishing his egotism with 
neglect. Yet Hooke, by Newton’s express admission, 
discovered independently the law of inverse squares, and 
it is not too much to say that, but for his incitements, 
Newton would not have undertaken the investigation 
which led to his immortal discoveries. 
M. Marie’s grudge against Hooke does not seriously 
detract from the value of his work; but it is otherwise 
with his ill-will towards Newton. Not only is he avow- 
edly the partisan of Leibnitz in the never-ending debate 
concerning the invention of the Calculus ; but his dislike 
(not wholly unjustifiable) to Newton’s conduct in the 
matter extends to all the processes of his mind. He 
compels himself, it is true, to utter a few obligatory words 
in acknowledgment of the greatness of his work; but its 
entire significance seems to escape him. His readers 
are only quite casually reminded that the discovery of 
the system of the world was of greater moment in the 
history of science than the solution of the problems of 
the brachystochrone, or of the centre of oscillation. 
We are told by M. Marie that Newton represented his 
University in Parliament from 1688 until 1705, during 
which time he was assiduous in his attendance, but 
spoke once only, to request the usher to shut a 
window (t. v. p. 170). In fact he sat three (1689-90, and 
again 1703-5), not seventeen, years. At p. 162 of the 
same volume we meet the surprising statement that 
Halley predicted for 1682 the return of the comet ob- 
served by Kepler in 1607. It is almost superfluous to 
remark that its appearance in 1682 was as unlooked-for 
as that of any of its predecessors, that its periodical — 
character was then first divined, and in 1759 verified. 
The observation made by Wilcke in 1787 that the 
auroral corona forms in the magnetic zenith is attributed 
by our author to De Mairan in 1747. The eminent 
Academician, we can assure him, would have been the 
last to welcome a remark so subversive of the arguments — 
by which he sought to efface the magnetic character of | 
the. phenomenon. Neither is it the case that Halley 
noticed the bisection of the auroral arch by the magnetic — 
meridian. Obvious though the coincidence appear, it — 
was first pointed out by Ussher in 1788. : 
We note further M. Marie’s curious incredulity as to 
the authentic measurement, so far, of the parallax of any : 
single star; his statements that the accepted value of the — 
solar parallax is 8”'5 (t. ix. p. 43), that the mass of the 
moon is ,\; that of the earth, and that Herschel detected 
interstitial movements in resolvable nebulz (t. ix. p. 145); 
finally, his ascription to Sir Wz//éam Herschel of the 
translation of Lacroix’ “ Differential Calculus” executed 
by his son conjointly with Babbage and Peacock. J 
These and other similar blemishes, however, are very 
a. 
far outweighed by the merits of the work in which they 
occur. It is one of marked individuality ; and indivi-— 
duality lends interest, if it sometimes begets defects. No 
student of the higher mathematics should leave it unread; 
its perusal cannot fail to afford pleasure, as well as to- 
widen comprehension of modern methods by their com- 
parison with those they have succeeded, and by the 
intelligent survey of their growth in the past. 
CHEMISTRY OF WHEAT, FLOUR, AND 
BREAD 
Chemistry of Wheat, Flour, and Bread, and Technology 
of Bread-making. By William Jago. (Brighton; Pub- 
lished by the Author, 1886.) 
HIS bulky volume professes to treat of its subject: 
in an exhaustive manner. Wheat, flour, and 
bread-making are as important as they are universal ; 
and if they are common-place, their study requires dee 
insight into chemical science, Mr. Jago’s book will for: 
a valuable addition to economic science. The compo 
sition of wheats from all parts of the world, the minut 
structure of the grain, the composition of milling products, 
and the processes of panary fermentation, fall properl 
within the limits of such a work, and are dealt with in an 
exceedingly painstaking manner. The various methods 
of bread-making, the chemistry of the art, and the effec 
of blending different descriptions of wheat so as to secure 
the best possible results, are amply and ably discussed 
Modern milling and baking appliances are also describe 
carefully and illustrated graphically. There is likewis 
enough of the author’s own thought and research to re 
deem the work from the stigma of being mere compilatio: 
The book is decidedly useful, and, making due allowance 
for the progressive state of our knowledge upon many o! 
the topics dealt with, it will probably be received as 
standard work. It brings within its ample limits a vas 
