556 
Proceedings of the Royal Society 
function which takes the form § ; but the most interesting point in 
the details of this part of Hegel’s work is his criticism of Princip. ii. 
lem. 2. Hegel accuses Newton of an error in elementary algebra, 
but in reality Newton’s work is strictly accurate, and Hegel has 
merely failed to see the point of the problem. Hegel’s own views 
of the calculus were got from Lagrange, whose treatise, with all its 
analytical skill, is yet a fruit of the very Aufldarung which in 
other matters Hegel especially opposes. Mistaking the abstract 
formalism of Lagrange’s intrinsically erroneous and now quite 
abandoned method for superior generality, Hegel still thinks it 
possible to reject certain incumbrances that cling to Lagrange, 
and which are in fact inevitable concessions to the physical view 
of the calculus, without which the method could have no value. 
Absolutely identifying analytical with algebraical method, and 
thus freed from all the difficulties about continuity which occur in 
the ordinary processes of algebra, Hegel, of course, cannot appre- 
ciate these parts of Lagrange’s work. He gives a simplified theory, 
and applies it, among other things, to the problem of drawing 
tangents. Hegel professes to deduce the correct rule, but he does 
so only by adopting an utterly false definition of a tangent, which, 
in fact, gives an infinite number of tangents at every point of a 
curve. In short, in this and other cases, Hegel makes errors of a 
mathematical character sufficient to show that his knowledge of 
the calculus was absolutely worthless. 
4. On the Connection between Chemical Constitution ana 
Physiological Action: — On the Physiological Action of 
the Salts of Ammonia, of Tri-methylamine, and of Tetra- 
methyl-ammonium ; of the Salts of Tropia, and of the 
Ammonium Bases derived from it ; and of Tropic, Atropic, 
and Isatropic Acids and their Salts. With further details 
on the Physiological Action of the Salts of Methyl- 
Strychnium and of Ethyl-Strychnium. By Professor A. 
Crum Brown and Dr Thomas B. Fraser. 
(Abstract . ) 
In papers which the authors have already communicated to this 
Society, thej have shown that there exists a very marked difference 
