2l6 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. X. No. 247 



further than this. He claims that a common postulate underlies 

 not only theism and natural science, but our whole mental life. His 

 position may best be elucidated by this passage from the preface : 

 " Kant pointed out that the ontological argument properly proves 

 nothing, and that the cosmological and design arguments depend 

 on the ontological. The argument, then, is not demonstrative, and 

 rests finally on the assumed existence of a perfect being. In a dif- 

 ferent form I have maintained the same position ; but, so far from 

 concluding that theistic faith is baseless, I have sought to show that 

 essentially the same postulate underlies our entire mental life. 

 There is an element of faith and volition latent in all our theorizing. 

 Where we cannot prove, we believe. Where we cannot demon- 

 strate we choose sides. This element of faith cannot be escaped in 

 any field of thought, and without it the truth is helpless and dumb." 

 Professor Bowne starts with the very evident fact that man is 

 religious. He points out that we may properly inquire as to the 

 source of religion, as to its history, and as to its foundation. Merely 

 pausing to aim a shaft at that sensationalistic philosophy which 

 would trace religion to some non-religious sources, the author sets 

 aside the first two questions as beyond his province, and addresses 

 himself to the third. In an analysis of the data of the religious 

 consciousness, it is conceivable that one of these results might be 

 reached. Either the theistic idea might be found to be (i) contra- 

 dictory or absurd ; (2) an implication of the religious sentiment 

 only, and without any significance for pure intellect ; or (3) a de- 

 mand of our entire nature, intellectual, moral, sesthetic, and reU- 

 gious. To establish the last alternative is Professor Bowne's aim in 

 this volume. He paves the way for his constructive argument by 

 pointing out the unnaturalness of subjective idealism and the irra- 

 tionality of chronic scepticism. It is not possible for us to follow 

 the author's elaborate argument. He aims to establish on the 

 principle noted above, the unity of the world-ground and then its 

 intelligence and personality. Its metaphysical attributes, its ethical 

 nature, and its relation to the world, form the subjects of subse- 

 quent chapters. The influence of Lotze, so strongly marked in 

 the author's work on metaphysics, is still seen here, and particularly 

 in his treatment of interaction. A brief concluding chapter passes 

 from the intellectual to the practical applications of the theistic 

 implication. The steps in the closely reasoned argument can 

 hardly be indicated without doing them an injustice. We therefore 

 refrain from making the attempt, and earnestly commend Professor 

 Bowne's book to all philosophical students. Even where it fails to 

 convince, it will stimulate and enlighten. 



NOTES AND NEWS. 



The death has been announced of Gustav Robert Kirchhoff, 

 the famous physicist. He was born IVIarch 24, 1824, and became 

 lecturer of physics at the University of Berlin in 1847. In 1850 he 

 was appointed professor in Breslau, and in 1854 in Heidelberg. It 

 was here that he and Bunsen made their famous optical researches 

 which led to the discovery of spectral analysis, The results of these 

 investigations were published in Berlin in 1861, under the title 

 ' Untersuchungen iiber das Sonnenspectrum und die Spectren der 

 chemischen Elemente." It is well known that these discoveries 

 were the foundation of astrophysics, and that they led to numerous 

 unexpected discoveries in chemistry. But this is only one of Kirch- 

 hoff's important works, which covered all parts of mathematical 

 physics, particularly the theories of electricity, galvanism, and elas- 

 ticity. In 1875 he accepted the professorship of physics at the 

 University of Berlin. 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 

 Romantic Love and Personal Beauty. 



Your correspondent of Oct. 14 might have observed a feature in 

 this book which would have explained and justified the repulsion 

 she felt in reading it. The author cannot resist the temptation to 

 be funny. He may be coarse, or refined ; but he must be witty. 

 He cannot carry us along in an uninterrupted narrative of sober 

 and well-digested facts. He must stop to make us laugh, or suf- 

 fuse his pages with ill-disguised humor that constantly divides our 

 interest between fact and fancy. This is hardly tolerable in what 

 aims to be in many respects a scientific discussion. It spoils both 



its science and its wit. The instance quoted, " Did Herbert Spencer 

 ever kiss a girl ? " is not a solitarj' one. French and German girls 

 simulating horror of some men whom " they secretly consider a 

 darling creature," he says, have a " spring-chicken coyness." Of 

 a certain class he says, " It would be absurd to include in this state- 

 ment people of refinement, who through misfortune have been 

 plunged into abject poverty. They do not belong to the ' Great 

 U7iwashed' {ol iroUol)." Again : " The modern ideal of woman is 

 exclusively feminine, i.e., devoid of hackles, spurs, cock-a-doodle- 

 doo, and pugnacity." "As for those old maids who are neither 

 ugly nor masculine, some of them are quondam coquettes, who 

 practised their arts just one season too long, and 'goi left ' in con- 

 sequence." " There is one difference between undervalued men of 

 genius and old maids : the men of genius admit that they are in 

 advance of their age, and are proud of it ; the old maids never, at 

 least hardly ever." Then, in the passage about woman's universal 

 tendency to fall in love with officers, he says it is not because of 

 their valor : " for they have perhaps never yet been opposite the 

 ' business ejid' of a rifle." If you want to win a woman's love, " put 

 brass buttons on your coat, have it dyed blue, and wear epaulettes 

 and a waxed mustache. This love charm has never beeti know?i to 

 fail." " What is fat .' It is an accumulation of unburnt i5(7^^z,(j«?." 

 Then this generalization of woman's love : " O Arthur ! how happy 

 I would be alone with you on a quiet island in the distant ocean ! " 

 — " Have you any other desire, dearest Ella ? " — " Oh, yes ! do get 

 me a season-ticket for the opera." "As a rule, the preliminaries to 

 animal marriages are doubtless brief. If a healthy, vigorous male 

 comes across a mature, healthy female, it is usually a case of 

 mutual veni, vidi, vici." We might go on with pp. 5, 6, 9, II, 22, 

 38, 103, 114, 122, 123, 164, 196, and no doubt to the end of the book, 

 with numerous instances of just such coarse humor in a scientific 

 work. We have referred only to the most striking, and his pages 

 everywhere abound in the use of some word or phrase that takes 

 all the color of seriousness out of the narrative. Nor is the trait of 

 which we complain confined to this book. In a letter to the Nation 

 of Oct. 20, the same author, speaking of Oregon, which he says is 

 called " Boomland," could not resist adding, " As I write, I hear 

 a mother scolding her baby for putting a handful of dirt in her 

 mouth. Real estate is too valuable hereabouts to be thus squan- 

 dered in lu.xurious living." 



Such a man cannot write science. He cannot state rightly a 

 plain fact : he can only see fun, and that of the coarsest kind too 

 frequently. It is provokingly offensive in such a mass of facts as 

 this book collects, because there is such a mixture of things which 

 we have to consider seriously, along with the absurd. But at the 

 same time you cannot take it so seriously as to condemn his theo- 

 ries : for you may be criticising an exhibition of wit or a joke. On 

 the other hand, too many of his facts are collected from poetr)', 

 newspapers, and the by-paths of literature, to possess either psy- 

 chological value or scientific interest. It is only his pedantic ref- 

 erences to evolution, sexual selection, etc., which every one must 

 take seriously to-day, and some pertinent moral I'eflections on cus- 

 toms and manners, that can give any flavor of scientific earnestness 

 at all to the book. The encyclopedic collection of facts and quo- 

 tations makes it seem pretentiously scientific, and no doubt much of 

 it is intended to be ; but the flippant tone everywhere visible, and 

 its humorous levity so frequent,N3ught to disarm all serious censure 

 except for bad taste. His use of evolution is not dangerous, be- 

 cause he has only a dilettante's knowledge of it. The book needs 

 'editing.' J. H. H. 



Answers. 



15. Is THE Trumpet-Creeper Poisonous? — While I was 

 in south-west Missouri during 1 879, I found a general belief that 

 the trumpet-vine (Tecoma radicans) was poison to the touch, 

 like Rhus toxieodendron. Upon investigation, however, I found 

 that most people were in the habit of confounding the two, Rhus 

 toxicodendro7i there climbing to the tops of tall trees, often having 

 stems three or four inches in diameter, the external characteristics 

 of the two vines being somewhat alike. I could not learn that the 

 idea had any other foundation than this failure to distinguish be- 

 tween the two species, and am satisfied that Tecoma is never poi- 

 sonous in any case. William F. Flint. 



Winchester, N.H., Oct. 24. 



