May 27, 1880] 



NATURE 



75 



future before it as awaited Ci-cUcs Journal half a century 

 ago. 



The only method of "endowing the research" of the 

 pure mathematician is to give him a journal, and this the 

 Johns Hopkins University has done for America. Two 

 years ago it seemed a question whether it was worth 

 while to apply to the Cambridge Commissioners to endow 

 mathematics in a similar manner in England. On the 

 whole it seemed better not to make such an application, 

 as the obvious difficulties in the way of the editorship, 

 (S:c., of a subsidised journal would be considerable, and 

 the existing journals, which support themselves, seem to 

 fairly meet the demand. But for the foundation of the 

 London Mathematical Society in 1S65 the want of a large 

 mathematical journal would have become pressing ; as it 

 is, the Proceedings of this Society may now be regarded 

 as taking the place of a leading English journal. The 

 journal, however, has two important advantages over the 

 publications of a society; (i)the printing of the papers 

 is unaccompanied by the formalities of reading, being 

 reported on by referees, &c. ; (2) the journal is much the 

 more procurable, especially if separate numbers be 

 required ; it also affords more rapid publication. 



J. W. L. GLAISHER 



OUR BOOK SHELF 



Six Life Studies of Famous Women. By M. Betham 



Edwards. (London : Griffith and Farran, 1880.) 

 This is a readable and instructive collection of studies, 

 containing, among others, notices of two women notable 

 in their different ways in the history of science — Caroline 

 Herschel and Alexandrine Tinnc, the famous African 

 explorer. The studies are marked by care and neatness, 

 and are on the whole fair estimates of the work and life of 

 the subjects. They are accompanied by six well-executed 

 steel portraits. 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 



[ Tlie Editor does not hold hitnself responsible Jor of inions expressed 

 by his corresfonditits. Neither can lie undertake to return, or 

 to correspond with the 'writers of, rejected manuscripts. No 

 notice is taken of anonymous communications. 

 [ The Editor urgently requests correspondents to keep their letters as 

 short as possible. The pressure on his space is so great that it 

 is impossible othei'mse to ensure the appearance even of com- 

 vmnications containing interesting and novel facts.'l 

 Lord Rosse's Telescope. 

 In an article iu the Times newspaper there occurs the 

 passage—" With regard to the mighty mirror of the Parsons- 

 to^vii reflector M. Strave has spoken in no very complimentary 

 terms. It was said of Sir W. Herschel's four-feet reflector that 

 it ' bunched a star into a cocked hat ; ' but even this is scarcely 

 less satisfactory than JL Struve's remark that at Parsonstown 

 ' they showed me something which they said was Saturn, and I 

 believed them.' " This revival of the statement attributed by 

 Mr. Proctor in Frazer's Magazine for December, 1S69, to " a 

 distinguishing (j-;<r) astronomer," has called forth the appended 

 letter from the Imperial Astronomer of Russia. It is satisfactory 

 to receive direct from M. Struve a statement of his experience 

 of the performance of the six-foot instrument. RossE 



25, Chesham Place, S.W., May 26, iSSo. 



"My Dear Lord Rosse. — Yesterday evening a friend con- 

 veyed to me a note, inserted in the Times of April 3, under the 

 title 'Thi-ee Giant Telescopes,' in which I am told of having 

 expressed myself in a very uncourteous manner on the optical 

 qualities of the great reflector constnicted by your late father. 

 I beg leave to say that those e.xpressions are altogether invented 



by the anonymous author of the note, or, at least, quite a 

 voluntary and thoroughly wrong interpretation of what I may 

 have said. I am sorry my name is abused in such a manner by 

 people who probably have a design of their own in depreciating 

 the performances of the instrument, the construction of which 

 marked in itself a liigh progress in optics and mechanics, and 

 which in its space-penetrating power has not had any rival until 

 now, though certainly with regard to definition (particulary 

 when the mirror is considerably out of horizontal position) there 

 are other instruments superior to it. "Otto Struve 



"Pulkova, April 14 " 



Brain Dynamics 



In his clearly-written letter on this subject Mr. Tolver Preston 

 seems to think that the reconciliation which he offers between 

 Free Will and Necessity is a novel one. In this, however, he is 

 mistaken, as the supposedreconciliationwas very distinctly stated 

 by the late Prof. Clifford in his lecture at St. George's Hall on 

 "Body and Mind." But of more importance than the novelty 

 of the reconciliation is the question as to its validity, and it 

 is on this question that I shall make a few remarks. 



The suggested reconciliation is as follows : — No upholder of 

 Free Will can deshe to maintain that a man may act, or desire 

 and will to act, otherwise than in conformity with his character ; 

 for to maintain this would be to maintain that a man may act at 

 random, without reference to any fixed principles of action, and 

 that the Will is frie only in the sense of being erratic. But if ,it 

 is admitted that by freedom of the Will is meant freedom to 

 choose within the lines laid down by previous character, and 

 freedom, therefore, to shape future c'naracter by present volitions, 

 it follows that upholders of the Free Will doctrine ought not to 

 quarrel with those who uphold the doctrine of Necessity as due 

 to " brain dynamics " ; for the latter doctrine supplies the very 

 basis which the former doctrine requires. It shows -vhy the 

 Will always acts in accordance with previous character; it 

 shows that the Will can never be free in the sense of 

 being lawles-, or not determined by adequate causes ; and 

 it shows that the Will must be free in the sense of being 

 able to choose between motives supplied by the structure of pre- 

 formed character. Thus, it is represented, believers in Free Will 

 ought to welcome modern physiology with all its "materialistic" 

 deductions from "brain dynamics" to mental changes. For, 

 unless these persons desire to land themselves in that quagmire 

 of hopeless nonsense — the conclusion that volitions are uncaused 

 — they have no alternative but to conclude that volitions are 

 determined by motives, which are themselves determined by 

 previous character. But if once volitions are thus conceded 

 to enter the stream of causation, the more rigid the causa- 

 tion, the better for such freedom as remains, seeing that the 

 latter, if always strictly determined, can never be lawless or 

 erratic. Now of all tilings rigid, that which is least open to any 

 suspicion of laxity is physical causation. Consequently, if the 

 Determinism of Psychology admits of being resolved into the 

 Neurility of Physiology, believers in the Freedom of the Will 

 ought to rest peacefully satisfied that ^^■hiIe they are free to act 

 within the limits prescribed by their own characters, they have the 

 sure and certain guarantee of physical causation that their vohtions 

 can never break out into activity at random. Or, as Mr. Tolver 

 Preston puts it : " Solely in virtue of the fact that there is strict 

 Causal Sequence in nature are the actions brought into strict 

 conformity with individual brain structures (or widi character). 

 If the principles of dynamics were not rigid, or if the laws of 

 nature were liable to alteration, a man's actions might sometimes 

 be in harmony with his brain structure [character], sometimes in 

 discord with it ; or any number of persons, though possessing 

 totally different brain-structures [characters], might act identi- 

 cally. The questionable expediency of the proceedings of those 

 who are disposed to grumble at •\^ hat they term the ' iron ' laws 

 of nature becomes apparent here." 



Such, I think, is a full statement of the suggested reconcilia- 

 tion. I shall now proceed to show that as a reconcihation it is 

 utterly futile. 



There is nothing to be said against the reasoning as far as it 

 goes; but it is curious, if not unsatisfactory, that both Prof. 

 Clifford and Mr. Preston sliould have performed their Httle play 

 without letting us know that the Prince of Denmark has been 

 omitted. His name in this case is Responsibility. No doubt it 

 is perfectly true that the suggested reconciliation shows to all 

 believers in Free Will that their belief ought only to include 

 freedom "as freedom to act in accordance with" character; 



