( 96 ) 
[February, 
ANALYSES OF BOOKS. 
The Agnostic Annual, 1884. New and Revised Edition. Lon- 
don : H. Cattell and Co. 
This pamphlet, both in itself and in the circumstances connected 
with its appearance, is a phenomenon worth the heedful notice 
of all readers. Its editor seems to have drawn up three questions 
and sent them round to a number of “ distinguished scientists 
and honoured thinkers.” The questions put to these represent- 
ative men are: — “ (1) Whether, in your opinion, Agnosticism is 
in accord with modern science ? (2) What is its special relation 
to popular theology ? And (3) Whether you believe it is destined 
to supplant religious supernaturalism ?” 
As far as we can glean from the text, certain of the parties 
thus interrogated — whoever they may have been — did not respond 
at all. Others seem to have answered, indeed, but requested the 
editor to “ regard their communications as private.” A third 
body in their replies made no such proviso, and their opinions 
have accordingly been published in the form of a symposium. 
The names of these gentlemen are Prof. T. Huxley, Pres. R.S., 
Mr. P. A. Taylor, M.P., Prof. F. W. Newman, Prof. Ernst 
Haeckel (of Jena), and Mr. J. Beal. In addition we find the 
opinions of “ G. M. McC.,” of W. Stewart Ross, Charles Watts, 
“ Ignotus,” W. B. McTaggart, W. Sadler, and “ Julian,”— all 
recognised as advocates and champions of what is commonly 
known as Free-Thought. 
Foremost stands the reply of Prof. Huxley. The President of 
the Royal Society here informs the world that he, some twenty 
years ago, invented the word “ Agnostic,” — an instance, we may 
add, of his well-known propensity for the coinage of names. It 
was, he further tells us, “ to denote people who, like myself, 
confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety 
of matters about which metaphysicians and theologians, both 
orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with the utmost confidence.” 
He further tells us that “ Agnosticism is honoured by especial 
obloquy on the part of the orthodox.” He adds that he has « a 
sort of patent-right ” in “ Agnostic,” and that it is his “ trade- 
mark. Having thus asserted his claim to say what Agnosticism 
is and is . not, he goes on to answer the three questions. 
“ Agnosticism,’ he rules, “is of the essence of Science, whether 
ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say 
