494 Analyses of Books. [August^ 
In the third essay we have the same subjects again brought 
forward. 
The last memoir, “ On the Endowment of Research,” may 
perhaps be styled discursive. There is little, very little, concern- 
ing the ostensible subjeCt. But by way of compensation we find 
the Duke of Argyll’s opinions on the preservation of the Jews, 
Mr. Borrow’s writings on the Gipsies, the irrepressible John 
Bunyan, Buckland and English snakes, the “ Scotsman,” John 
Stuart Mill and his father James, in addition to “ Blackwood’s 
Magazine ” and Charles Waterton. We note the following 
passage : — “ Indeed George Borrow, Frank Buckland, and 
Charles Waterton may be described, without offence, as three 
impulsive, headstrong, ex cathedi'a-ta.\king dogmatists, incapable, 
when left to themselves, of constructing an argument of a com- 
plex nature, or of giving a satisfactory exposition of an intricate 
subjedt that could stand scrutiny. To train a 13-inch bomb on 
them in that respeCt would be superfluous, for a thimblefull of 
sparrow-hail would suffice.” Now of George Borrow we know 
praClically nothing. Frank Buckland we certainly consider to 
have been over-estimated, and in a notice of his posthumous 
work on the “ Natural History of British Fishes ” (“ Journal of 
Science,” 1881, p. 292) we referred to some of his shortcomings. 
We are also not blind to the defeCts of Waterton as a naturalist 
{see “Journal of Science,” 1880, p.638). But Mr, Simson’s 
style of discussion seems to us needlessly personal, and not well 
adapted to promote the cause of scientific truth. 
NOTICES. 
Several important works sent to us for review still stand over 
from want of space. 
In connection with the notice of Mr. Gerald Massey’s “ Natural 
Genesis,” in our last number, we must add that the copy we 
received consisted merely of the advanced sheets of the first 
volume. The work is published by Messrs. Williams and Nor- 
gate, London. 
ERRATUM 
Page 319, line 9 from top, for “ should be used ” read “ should not be used.” 
