196 NATURE 
[JUNE 26, 1902 
= = ve 
view of Rich, duly mentioned in its place by Mr. Johns, 
was shown to be correct. 
Other articles which may be highly commended are 
those of Prof. Deissmann on “ Papyri,” which contains a 
most valuable discussion of the character of New 
Testament Greek, of Dr. Benzinger on “Law” and 
‘© Passover,” of Prof. Prince on “ Music,” besides various 
contributions by younger English Semitic scholars, e.g. 
Mr. S. A. Cook and Mr. Maurice Canney. We also 
welcome several short contributions by Sir W.  T. 
Thiselton-Dyer on botanical subjects and a paragraph on 
the flora of Palestine by Mr. H. H. W. Pearson. 
We have touched but superficially upon the many 
articles in this volume which deal with New: Testament 
criticism. It is a highly controversial subject, and if 
things have to be said which are likely to shock the 
feelings of the average Christian, they should at least be 
said as tactfully as possible. But it cannot be said that 
we find much tact in the contributions, already referred 
to, of Profs. van Manen, Usener and Schmiedel, for 
example. This is a pity, for it prejudices readers in this 
country against this kind of critical work, which, though 
often exaggerated in its methods and not seldom self- 
contradictory in its conclusions, is still deserving of 
careful attention and study. 
The general editing of the ‘‘ Encyclopedia” could be 
improved with advantage. The highly laudable aim 
of employing only specialists in certain branches of 
biblical knowledge to deal with questions connected with 
their own special studies has resulted in a certain irri- 
tating choppiness of treatment. Thus we get an article, 
“Purim,” of which five paragraphs are written by Mr. 
Johns, one by Mr. Frazer and one by Prof. Cheyne. 
Mr. Johns tells us all he knows about the possibility of a 
Babylonian origin for the feast; Mr. Frazer discusses 
Mordecai and Marduk, Vashti and Esther and Ishtar, 
the mock-king of the Sacaea and the king and queen of 
the May; and Prof. Cheyne implies that Mr. Frazer is all 
wrong, because there never were any such names as 
Mordecai and Esther, which are simply corruptions of 
Jerahmeel and “Israelith,’? and the book of Esther 
originally referred, not to Babylonia or Persia, but “to 
a captivity of the Jews in Edom” (italics in original). At 
least, we understand that Mr. Frazer wrote § 6 of this 
article ; it is signed with his initials. But a fact which 
militates against this theory-is that in the paragraph in 
question “J. G. F.” refers to himself always in the third 
person—J. G. Frazer thinks this or J. G. Frazer thinks 
that—and an editorial note at the bottom of co/. 3980 says 
that the editors ‘‘have no hesitation in appending a 
sketch of J. G. Frazer’s view... .” Is it their sketch or 
is it Mr. Frazer’s? If it is theirs, why is it signed 
“J. G. F.”? Prof. Cheyne often adds paragraphs with 
remarks of his own, chiefly about Jerahmeel, to the work 
of other contributors ; one conspicuous instance is in the 
article “‘ Moab,” by Profs. G. A. Smith and Wellhausen, 
which is followed by Prof. Cheyne for two columns with 
an addendum correcting Wellhausen’s work in accordance 
with the supposed results of the latest criticism, 7.e. 
Musri and Jerahmeel. 
The faults of this volume are, then, many and great, 
but, we repeat, this fact ought in no way to detract from 
the inestimable value of the immense overplus of sound 
NO. 1704. VOL. 66] 
learning which is to be found in it. Prof. Cheyne’s own 
articles do not all stray into the paths of Jerahmeel by 
any means, and the large majority of the other con- 
tributors, who show no trace of Jerahmeelite influence, 
are experts in their own particular branches, and their 
splendid work must be regarded as redeeming the 
“Encyclopedia” from many of its faults. 
The publishers have done their utmost ; the typography 
and general get-up of the book are first-rate : it is a pity 
that their efforts should be so severely handicapped by 
the wild theorising of one of their editors and by the 
tactlessness of some of their less notable foreign con- 
tributors. 
In conclusion, a word of commendation must be given 
to the excellence of the proof-correcting ; we have hardly 
discovered any errors in this regard. A slip of the pen 
left uncorrected is, however, noticeable in co/. 3165, Z. 2 
from the top, where “al-Misr” should read simply 
“Misr.” The phrase “al-Misr” does not, apparently, 
occur in the Himyaritic (Minzean) inscription G/. 1155 , 
(= Hal. 535) which is here mentioned ; only “ Misr” or 
“Misran ” is spoken of, the latter expression = al-Misr.! 
THE FORAMINIFERA. 
The Foraminifera, an Introduction to the Study of the 
Protozoa. By Frederick Chapman, A.L.S., F.R.M.S. 
Pp. xv + 354. (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 
1902.) Price 9s. net. 
HE contents of this book may be divided into two 
parts, general and special. Beginning with the 
latter, we find presented in a convenient form (chapters 
vii.-xvi.) an account of the families and genera of the 
Foraminifera. One species of each genus is described 
and figured, the conditions of its occurrence and its 
paleontological history being also given. The figures 
are reproductions of pen and ink sketches, and in most 
cases will no doubt enable the student to refer his speci- 
mens to their proper genera. Some are, however, too 
indefinite to serve even this purpose, and the attractive- 
ness of the book would have been increased if more 
care had been taken to give something of the elegance 
and finish of the natural objects. ; 
In dealing with the phenomenon of the occurrence of 
two or three plans of arrangement of the chambers which 
is presented by many forms in the growth of the individual 
test, the use of the words dzmorphous and trimorphous 
is advocated. The terms dimorphic and trimorphic were 
originally applied to such tests, but now that it is re- 
cognised that the species of the Foraminifera present 
themselves under two forms, arising by different modes 
of reproduction, the words dimorphic and dimorphism 
have been, in accordance with customary biological usage, 
employed in the latter sense. Fresh words are therefore 
needed, as the author points out, for the use to which 
1 That Egypt, by the way, is here meant, and not any place in North 
Arabia, is evident from the inscription itself, which obviously contains a 
reference to the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses. We are strongly of 
opinion that M. Hz artme ann’s dating of this inscription in Zeftschr. fiir 
Assyriologie, x. (1 . 32, 1S absolutely correct. A asd defence 
(Mitteilungen der vasiatischen Geselischaft, 1901, 1, TD) 
of Glaser’s later view, as altered and amplified by W sates and 
Hommel, is weak. Weber also, like Prof. Cheyne, takes the existence of a 
North-Arabian Musri for gospel ; we prefer to wait till Dr. Winckler has 
proved its existence, which he has not yet succeeded in doing, before we 
accept it. 
