555 
1883. J Analyses oj Books . 
should have been given either on the metric system or else in 
“ parts.” Passing over this survival of the unfittest, the work 
seems likely to be of great service to microscopists. 
Elementary Text-Book of Physics. ByJ. D. Everett, M.A., 
D.C.L., F.R.S.E., Professor of Natural Philosophy in the 
Queen’s College, Belfast. London : Blackie and Son. 
After a careful examination we must pronounce this work — as 
might, indeed, be naturally expected from the standing of its 
author — unexceptionable, both in the matter and the manner of 
its teachings. It may seem, therefore, paradoxical if we declare 
ourselves unable to accept certain views here laid down. Dr. 
Everett, in his Preface, writes : — “ It \i.e., the book before us] 
aims at presenting, in brief space, those portions of Theoretical 
Physics which are most essential as a foundation for subsequent 
advances, while at the same time most fitted for exercising the 
learner in logical and consecutive thought. It does not give 
minute directions for manipulation ; but, avoiding details as 
much as possible, presents a connected outline of the main 
points of theory. 
“ In order to place Science upon an equal footing with the 
more established studies of ancient languages and mathematics, 
as a means of practically training the bulk of our youth to 
vigorous thought, it seems necessary that Science text-books 
should be constructed upon such lines as these. It is not prac- 
ticable to make the bulk of the boys in our public schools expert 
scientific manipulators, but it is practicable to ground them well 
in the main lines of scientific theory. The aim must be not so 
much to teach them many faCts as to teach them rightly to con- 
nect a few great faCts together. Science must be taught them 
from a liberal, not from a technical, standpoint.” 
We regret that we cannot accept the author’s contention. We 
submit that the objeCt of the introduction of Science into an 
educational course is to teach youth not mere “ vigorous 
thought,” but a something which classics and mathematics 
cannot even attempt to do, and which they rather unteach when 
cultivated alone, viz., the arts of observation, and of drawing 
right conclusions from the phenomena witnessed. But this can- 
not be done by reading or by hearing lectures, or even by wit- 
nessing experiments. An eminent American authority has said 
that the only sensible way to teach Botany is to begin with plants, 
and merely refer to books by way of summarising the faCts thus 
learned. Science should be taught the pupil not from a wordy , 
but from a thingy standpoint. The exaCt degree of manipulative 
2 0 2 
