552 Analyses oj Books. [September, 
“ Fallacies concerning the Deaf, and the Influence of ^ such 
Fallacies in Preventing the Amelioration of their Condition. He 
exposes, in good truth, a number of very inveterate errors, some 
of which are of much wider import than the education of deaf- 
mutes. . . 
There is in the first place the superstition — for it is nothing- 
better — that a majority of persons born deaf are dumb also 
because of defective vocal organs. 
Another absurd notion is that persons born deaf are idiots. It 
is true that all deaf children are dumb, and it may be true that 
most — Mr. Bell says all — idiots are dumb. But this is far from 
justifying the conclusion that all deaf children are idiots. A 
further mistake, rarely perhaps formally asserted, concerns the 
nature of language itself. “ To unreflecting minds it appears 
that we grow into speech ; that speech is a natural produdt of the 
vocal organs.” Lastly, comes the crowning error, still hugged 
by those who strive to uphold the dodtrine of a “ great gulf 
between man and the lower animals. “ Without speech no 
reason,” was said by non-observers, and, in spite of facfts, it is 
asserted still by some who might know better. 
A Short Text-Book of Inorganic Chemistry. By Dr. Hermann 
Kolbe, Professor of Chemistry in the University of Leipzig. 
Translated and Edited by T. S. Humpidge, Ph.D., B.Sc., 
Professor of Chemistry and Physics in the University 
College of Wales. London : Longmans and Co. 
In general terms text-books of chemistry, inorganic or organic, 
have multiplied to such an extent as to become almost a nuisance. 
For at least five out of every six it would be difficult to show any 
o-ood reason why they should ever have come into existence. The 
present volume, however, constitutes a decided exception. Pro- 
fessor Kolbe as a chemist takes a well-marked, and, we fear, 
somewhat exceptional position. He is the great opponent of 
paper chemistry— of sensational formulae worked out upon a 
black-board without a solidly-demonstrated basis of fadts to 
support them. He insists upon clearness of thought and language. 
As a critic he is simply dreaded. He does not fear to rebuke the 
most admired writers when he finds them indulging in vague ex- 
pressions and in dreamy hypotheses. The quantity of such defec- 
tive matter which he has pointed out in the memoirs and treatises 
of some of the first chemists of the day is a very serious con- 
sideration. It would seem as if men of science were giving too 
free rein to their imagination, and growing impatient of the 
sober, steady methods of indudlive research. 
