FEBRUARY 22, 1901.] 
History and Theory of the Heavens,’ as he ulti- 
mately designated its exposition, will probably 
be regarded hereafter as the most wonderful 
and enduring product of his genius ’’ (Introduc- 
tion i); and will write Dr. Hastie down a phil-: 
osophical Dogberry. 
gruity to find, while Leonato rages and Benedick 
offers his challenge, that Dogberry is the one to 
unravel the tangle of threads.’’ Our editor, un- 
trammeled by the faction of recent schools, 
sees more clearly than those who, distraught 
by preconceived opinion, have dealt us our 
Kant schillernd. In view of their battles, it 
may be added that the ‘ Natural History’ pos- 
sesses this chance of future fame—it can be un- 
derstood. 
Some of Dr. Hastie’s friends may be inclined 
to regret that he has elected to enlist his un- 
common erudition, strong personality and vital 
enthusiasm in the work of making other authors 
known, rather than in the production of orig- 
inal books. This regret is mitigated, in the pres- 
ent case, by the fascinating ‘ Introduction,’ 
which is a real addition to our literature on 
Kant. Indeed, Dr. Hastie has done much more 
than ‘ edit and translate,’ as the modest legend 
" runs on the title page, and the result isa highly 
composite production, the contents of which it 
were well, therefore, to set forth in detail. 
The book falls into three distinct portions. 
First, comes the ‘ Translator’s Introduction,’ ex- 
tending to 101 pages, and divided into eight sec- 
tions, as follows: (1) ‘Relation of Kant’s Science 
to his Philosophy’; (2) ‘the Scientific Return 
to Kant’; (8) ‘Kant’s Scientific Environment and 
Antecedents ’; (4) ‘Kant’s Discovery of the Re- 
tardation of the Rotation of the Harth’; (5) 
‘Kant’s Natural History and Theory of the 
Heavens’; (6) ‘ Kant’s Cosmogony in its His- 
torical Relations’; (7) ‘ Kant’s Cosmogony in 
Relation to Religion and Theology’; (8) ‘ Kant’s 
Scientific Achievement Generally.’ The appro- 
priateness of the dedication of the book to Lord 
Kelvin becomes apparent on this recital. Sec- 
ond, the main body of the work, presenting (1) 
a translation of Kant’s essay on the question 
(proposed by the Royal Academy of Sciences at 
Berlin), ‘ Whether the Karth has undergone an 
Alteration of its Axial Rotation’ (1754); (2) 
a translation of Kant’s ‘ Universal Natural His- 
“Tt is a charming incon- 
SCIENCE, 303 
tory and Theory of the Heavens ; or an Essay 
on the Constitution and Mechanical Origin of 
the Whole Universe, treated according to New- 
ton’s Principles’ (1755). These translations 
fill 167 pages. Third, the Appendices, giving (1) 
a translation of Konrad Dieterich’s ‘Summary 
of Kant’s Theory of the Heavens,’ taken from 
his ‘Kant und Newton’ (1876); (2) a transla- 
tion of the ‘Hamburg Account of the Theory 
of Thomas Wright of Durham,’ taken from the 
MS. in the library of the university of Hdin- 
burgh. This MS. is an excerpt copy transcribed 
from the ‘ Freye Urtheile und Nachrichten zum 
Aufnehmen der Wissenschaften,’ a periodical 
published at Hamburg. The Wright account 
came in the first number of the eighth year 
(January, 1751). Wright’s work, there sum- 
marized, was entitled, ‘‘ An Original Theory or 
New Hypothesis of the Universe, Founded 
upon the Laws of Nature, and solving by 
Mathematical Principles the General Phenom- 
ena of the Visible Creation; and particularly 
the Via Lactea. Comprised in Nine Familiar 
Letters from the Author to his Friend. And 
illustrated with upwards of thirty graven and 
mezzo-tinted Plates by the best Masters. Lon- 
don, MDCCL.”’ ‘This portion is embellished 
with a protrait of Wright. (8) A reprint of 
‘De Morgan’s Account of the Speculations of 
Thomas Wright of Durham.’ This is taken 
from the ‘London, Edinburgh and Dublin 
Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science,’ 
volume xxxii (1848). These appendices fill 38 
pages. 
By merely glancing over these titles, any one 
can infer that, if the labor involved be well 
done, the book constitutes a most valuable contri- 
bution to a chapter in the history of the relation 
between science and philosophy. As I have 
already said, Dr. Hastie’s part is admirably 
sustained. Indeed, I would have scientific 
men, in particular, read the book carefully, for 
it must act as a powerful solvent upon certain 
unfortunate prejudices. 
A word, in passing, about Wright. Like 
many another, so unfortunate as to live ere the 
times were ripe, he has been consigned to un- 
merited oblivion. Even the writer of the entry 
upon him in the ‘ Dictionary of National Biogra- 
phy ’—a work so uniformly accurate—is un- 
