1882.] 
229 ) 
ANALYSES OF BOOKS. 
Force and Matter. Empirico-Philosophic Studies, Intelligibly 
Rendered. With Introduction, written for the English Edi- 
tion, by Dr. Louis Buchner, President of the Medical 
Association of Hessen-Darmstadt. Edited by J. F. Col- 
lingwood, F.R.S.L., F.G.S. Third English Edition. 
London : Triibner and Co. 
The present edition, in which the author has not found it needful 
to introduce any additions or emendations, may fitly serve as an 
opportunity for attempting an estimate of a celebrated work. 
Concerning Dr. Buchner’s introductory letter to the Editor and 
the five additional prefaces, we need say the less as they are in 
great part replies to criticisms with which the English public is 
not familiar. We note that Mr. Collingwood does not “ bring out 
this volume as one entirely in accordance with his opinions, for 
he cannot always subscribe to the alleged faCts contained therein, 
nor does he agree in all the inferences drawn from these faCts.” 
We find further, at the outset, a very remarkable statement made 
by the author. He considers that among his own countrymen 
“ the belief in the wonders of a supersensual speculation still 
appears to be stronger than the faith in reality,” and hence he 
anticipates that his “ work may not, in England, have to struggle 
against such gross misinterpretations as was the case >in Ger- 
many.” Now we generally understand that in Germany specu- 
lation in science and philosophy is freer, bolder, less fettered by 
conventionalism and prejudice than in our own country. Dr. 
Biichner, it seems, is of a different opinion. 
The work before us does not bring forward either novel faCts 
or new generalisations. Nor was such the author’s intention. 
He seeks to deduce from the conclusions of modern Science — 
or from what he accepts as such — a philosophy of life for the use 
of the general public. As materials for his task he admits the 
generally received doCtrines of the indestructibility of matter, the 
conservation of energy, and the immutability and universality of 
the “ laws of Nature ” — a term we do not like. He recognises 
uniformity in geology and evolution in the organic world. In 
common with most conscientious observers of animated nature, 
he holds that the distinction between the souls of mankind and 
of brutes is not qualitative, but quantitative. But he dissents 
from orthodox science, if we may be allowed the expression, in 
accepting so-called spontaneous generation. The teleological 
