ON THE PROGRESS OF MATHEMATICS AND PHYSICS. 39 



two kinds, with somewhat different objects in view ; and in considering 

 the best mode of meeting these objects it may be well to keep the 

 distinction in view. 



' First, there is a report, the object of which is to prepare a sort ot 

 repertorium of what has been done in a particular branch of science since 

 the date of the last report of similar character in the same branch of 



1 A report of this kind should present the reader with a brief account 

 of the leading aim and chief results of the various memoirs which have 

 been published within the time on the branch of science to which it 

 relates ; the writer should not be expected to criticise the memoirs, except 

 in plain instances of errors or imperfections, but the responsibility of 

 sifting the wheat from the chaff should in the main be left to the 

 reader. 



' Secondly, there are reports of a more comprehensive and far more 

 critical character. These should be made at wider intervals, should take 

 a more comprehensive view of the subject, and should be highly critical, 

 sifting out the substantial acquisitions that had been made to the branch 

 of science to which they refer. 



' Each kind of reports are of value, though in somewhat different 

 ways. The first aids the individual in keeping himself up to the progress 

 of science around him,— a progress in which from his position he may be 

 expected to take part and to exercise influence. They lighten to him the 

 labour of search, but teach him to exercise his own discrimination. 



' The second should be a material aid to the student in making himself 

 master of what was really of value, and help him to avoid wasting his 

 time on what was of little importance, and aid him in judging of the 

 relative importance of different lines of research. 



1 Reports of the first kind may be much promoted by the work of 

 committees. The division of labour lightens the task, and the feeling of 

 co-operation carries a man through labour which otherwise, as the man is 

 likely to have a good deal else to do, he might hesitate to undertake. 



' Reports of the second kind eminently demand the hand of a master, 

 and the hand of a master is not always free. I doubt much if the 

 appointment of committees would aid much in the preparation of good 

 reports of this class, and unless reports are thoroughly good they are 

 better, perhaps, not attempted. I do not see what is to be done except 

 to work a good man when you can get him.' 



It is evident that the distinction here pointed out by Professor Stokes 

 has an important bearing on the question of the reappointment of the 

 Committee. The work required for the production of reports intended 

 simply as systematic records ' of the leading aim and chief results ' of 

 published investigations, would be merely that of careful compilation. It 

 would not only be possible to divide work of this kind among a con- 

 siderable number of contributors, but to get it done at all such division 

 of labour would be necessary, and accordingly reports of this class could 

 only be furnished by committees. On the other hand, a report which is 

 of the nature of a critical survey of the condition of knowledge in any 

 branch of science, and is intended to indicate the relative value of different 

 investigations, requires to possess a unity of plan and thought which can 

 only result from its being the work of an individual author possessing 

 a complete mastery of his subject. In such a case the function of the 

 committee would be confined to the suggestion of the subject and to 



