i88i.| 
553 
Analyses of Books. 
the Sciences, from which we might have expected something, is 
worthless. He does not even recognise the difference between 
the Natural and the Moral Sciences, without mentioning that of 
the two subdivisions of the former. He divides the Sciences 
into concrete, abstract, and abstract-concrete, without imagining 
that the forms of the knowledge stored up in them are perfectly 
indifferent for its trustworthiness and value. Still more de- 
plorable is Boens, 4 La Science et la Philosophic, ou Nouvelle 
Classification des Science.’ He arranges the Sciences according 
to the ideas, substance, quality, and relation, and vaunts this as 
the basis of the clasification of Comte the Positivist. It is 
curious what is put forward under the garb of Positivism ! We 
naturally find Comte’s fundamental error not here, but in his 
total ignorance of the gulf between the natural and the moral 
sciences, so that he could consider a physique sociale as pos- 
sible.” 
This passage is the more remarkable as certain thinkers, 
entitled to consideration, hold that Comte’s chief merit lies in 
his ignoring the alleged distinction between the 44 natural ” and 
the 44 moral ” disciplines, and proclaimed the unity of all Science. 
Our author holds that whilst physical science attains certainties 
in the shape of laws, the moral sciences cannot rise higher than 
rules which are defended the more vehemently the more doubtful 
their formation. The application of these considerations to the 
question of religious toleration is easy to be seen. That much 
of what is said bears the mark of great ability cannot be denied. 
But we could not enter upon its exposition without transgressing 
the boundaries of our jurisdiction. 
Conic Sections treated Geometrically. By S. Holker Haslam, 
B.A., and Joseph Edwards, B.A. London : Longmans 
and Co. 
The object of the authors is to furnish a concise and uniform 
method of treating geometrical conics. They define conics as 
plane loci , deducing their general properties from this definition 
by means of the so-called 44 auxiliary circle of a point.” This 
construction shows clearly the relation which the three species of 
conics bear to each other and to the circle. It leads to a method 
of plane projection, which the authors consider as more powerful 
than conical projection, and which they name “focal projection.” 
2 0 
VOL. III. (THIRD SERIES). 
