JULY 21, 1899. ] 
This part of the work is interesting and valu- 
able, showing, as it does in detail, the different 
kinds of ceramics and wherein that difference 
consists, a branch of the art which has been 
neglected by amateurs generally and for whose 
enlightenment this part of the work will be 
specially valuable. 
The second part deals with the history of ce- 
ramies. Its primary divisions are by the differ- 
ent kinds of pottery: mat, varnished, enam- 
elled, fine, and ends with porcelain. Within the 
purview of each of these chapters, geographic 
subdivisions are made and the ceramics of the 
respective countries described. The processes 
of manufacture are not touched upon in the 
second part. 
THOMAS WILSON. 
A Short History of Freethought, Ancient and Mod- 
ern. By JoHN M. Roperrson. London, 
Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd.; New York, 
The Macmillan Co. 1899. Pp. xv + 447, 
Those who know Mr. Robertson mainly for 
that perfervid, not to say intemperate, though 
able book, ‘ Buckle and his Critics,’ will likely 
enough be swift to shun this new work. Its 
title and Mr. Robertson’s previous performance 
certainly give ground for summary suppositions 
as to to the contents of the ‘Short History.’ It 
ought, therefore, to be said at once that our 
author contrives to keep his balance here, for 
the most part, and has produced a book which 
is well worth reading and studying. Of course, 
like the majority of self styled ‘freethinkers,’ 
he is not nearly so fundamental as he supposes, 
and still occupies a standpoint which, though 
fashionable and influential more than a century 
ago, does little to further ‘freethought’ to-day, 
and much to discredit it. Nevertheless, he 
does attempt to maintain a scientific attitude, 
and, on the whole, he does not allow precon- 
ceptions to run away with him completely. 
This at least is somethiug to be thankful for. 
His careful citations, too, are much to be com- 
mended, even although he often contrives to 
cite as authorities some curiously lop-sided per- 
formances. 
The book covers an enormous range. This 
is due to the definition of ‘ freethought’ pro- 
posed in the introduction and faithfully upheld 
SCIENCE. 83 
throughout. ‘‘ For practical purpose, then, 
‘freethought’ may be defined asa conscious re- 
action against some phase or phases of conven- 
tional or traditional doctrine in religion—on the 
one hand, a claim to think freely, in the sense 
not of disregard for logic, but of special loyalty 
to it, on problems to which the past course of 
things has given a great intellectual and prac- 
tical importance ; on the other hand, the actual 
practice of such thinking (5).”’ 
Following out this definition, the work con- 
sists of sixteen chapters; these deal with prim- 
itive ‘freethinking,’ with ‘freethought’ in the 
ancient religions, in Israel], in Greece and Rome, 
in early Christianity, in Islam, in the Middle 
Ages, the Renaissance and the Reformation. 
Thence the author passes to modern ‘ free- 
thought’; deals with the English deistic move- 
ment, Cartesianism, and the conditions preced- 
ing the French Revolution ; takes a peep at the 
United States, and then, in a long chapter, the 
most interesting of all, discusses the ‘culture 
forces’ of the nineteenth century. The con- 
clusion is a brief, and inadequate (in the sense 
of being sadly out of perspective), review of the 
present state of thought in the nations. Con- 
sidering the range covered, and the extent to 
which secondary authorities are necessarily 
relied upon, the author’s management of his 
material is deserving of the highest praise. It 
would be a good thing were the average ‘ ortho- 
dox’ to peruse the book carefully—nay, to 
have it beside them. It might open their eyes 
to not a little which, as matters now stand, 
they seem never to fathom. 
Naturally, in so extended a study Mr. 
Robertson has his lapses, and it is interesting to 
note that these accumulate precisely in the 
period which he knows best—the modern. Bias 
here plays its unavoidable part. Of Voltaire 
we are told that his ‘sheer influence on the 
general intelligence of the world has never been 
equalled by any one man’s writing’ (838). On 
p. 344 we are informed that Rousseau, ‘though 
not an anti-Christian propagandist, is distinctly 
on the side of Deism’; on p. 354, when another 
purpose is on hand, we are surprised to learn 
that he was ‘ devoutly theistic.’ The ‘ Critique 
of Pure Reason’ is said to be ‘ definitely anti- 
religious’ (388), a statement sufficiently extra- 
