1883.J Analyses of Books. 42I 
for “ loose fish.” Having inspected the wonders of the watery 
world he hears of an Aerarium where certain airy — not to say 
visionary — beings may be viewed. He enters, and looks through 
the glass sides of the different compartments. In one cell, near 
the entrance, he sees a tumultuous assemblage of tiny beings 
which are restlessly darting about in couples. Each of these 
beings has but one hand, with which it clasps the hand of its 
companion, and in this manner they move backwards and for- 
wards at the rate of 1844 metres per second ; and whilst each 
pair is thus engaged, each of its constituent members is turning 
round and round, advancing to or retreating from its partner. 
In another compartment we see similarly-constituted pairs of 
one-handed beings, in greenish yellow garb, and smelling not 
exadlly of patchouli. They also belong to the party of progress, 
though, being much heavier than the last-described sprites, they 
move only at the rate of 310 metres per second. It is scarcely 
necessary to tell the names of these beings : the inmates of the 
first cell are atoms of hydrogen grouped in molecules, whilst the 
next den is inhabited by chlorine. 
In a similar manner, and with a dry humour not to be pre- 
served in any translation, the author figures the molecules of 
other elements and compounds. Watching a molecule of hy- 
drogen chloride, he asks whether the members of this couple 
enjoy a permanent inward happiness in their union corresponding 
to the fire with which it was entered upon ? “ Of this we cannot 
feel so certain as might be desired ; the couple looks desperately 
sour, and the humiliated hydrogen seems to think ‘ affinity, alas 
affinity, has brought me into a scrape.’ ” 
Our author next discusses the question whether atoms of the 
same kind within the same molecule may claim equal or unequal 
rank ? Which of these two views is orthodox? No one seems 
to have permanent authority to decide. Hence many compounds 
have had more constitutions, and consequently more revolutions, 
than France. For none of these theories can the author feel any 
enthusiasm, though he hopes that each may be, perhaps, a nearer 
approximation to the truth than were its predecessors. “ Every, 
for the time being, modern dodlrine in the territory of our science 
is merciless to former views which it is unable to assimilate, and 
pronounces them simply injurious. 
The following passage is an excellent specimen of the author’s 
line of thought : — “ Do you recognise these ladies, each of whom 
is dancing so gracefully ? That is the light Methylia ; on her 
father’s side of a good family, — pyrogenita, if not porphyro- 
genita, — but her mother is a wooden thing. Behind her we see 
iEthylia, and there is the heavy Amylia. We know them, and 
a number of their friends of similar character. In our young- 
days they were known only by their fore-names,* and they were 
* The sensible German term for what we absurdly call the “ Christian name/ 
though its bearer may be a Jew, a Buddhist, or an Islamite. 
