i877-] 
Notices of Books. 
115 
that the words “ beetle ” and “ bug ” should be used in an accu- 
rate manner, surely the best method is to point out to the pupil 
the distinctions between the two classes of inseCts denoted by 
these terms. If this is once done there will be no more mistakes 
of the same kind. We should also fear that our author’s scheme, 
if used without the correction of a frequent appeal from words to 
the things which they represent, would rather tend to cherish the 
belief — already too common —in a “ pigeon-hole ” arrangement 
of the world. In physical science and in the affairs of daily life 
we have continually to classify; but our genera, groups, or what- 
ever we may call them, are established not so much by reference 
to a definition, or outside boundary wall, as to a type within. 
It must not be supposed, however, that we condemn the 
author’s system in its totality. On the contrary, subjeCt to the 
control of a constant appeal, whenever practicable, from words 
to things, from the symbol to the objeCt symbolised, we think 
the general features of his plan might be advantageously intro- 
duced in vocabularies. Only let no exaggerated expectations be 
formed as to the nature or the kind of knowledge and of mental 
discipline that may be expected to result from its introduction. 
As to the execution of the plan, we do not consider that the 
author’s categories are altogether beyond the reach of criticism. 
Errors are not wanting. Let us, for instance, turn to “ Class VI. 
Persons. Sub-class I. Persons in relation to Intellect.” Here 
we find a distinction between “No. 369, Thinker, and No. 370, 
Reasoner ,” the former head being made to include the speculator, 
inquirer, examiner, investigator, explorer, censor, and critic. Now 
it is, we submit, impossible to speculate, examine, or criticise with- 
out reasoning, and hence we fail to see how the author’s classifica- 
tion can be maintained. A little further we find “ sceptic ” 
introduced under the head “ unbeliever.” This may be in 
accordance with the conventional usage of the tea-tables and of 
“ serious society,” but in strictness a sceptic is one who neither 
affirms nor denies, but suspends judgment. Under the class 
“Dunce” figure the “sciolist” and the “ smatterer.” We 
wish the author had introduced the “ good man all round ” of 
modern examinations, who is incomparably the most hopeless 
specimen of duncedom ever produced. 
Again, we find under “ Class V. Things arbitrarily distin- 
guished, constructed, or produced,” Sub-class IV. Food. No. 331. 
Alcoholic liquors, ale, beer, porter, cider, and perry. But wine 
is found not along with these kindred fluids, but under “Class II. 
The material world. Sub-class VI. Organic nature. SeCtion 
IV. Vegetable products. No. 132. Starch, sugar, and allied or 
derived substances.” Why the juices of two fruits, pressed out 
and allowed to ferment, should be assigned respectively to two 
such distindt places in the author’s classification we must confess 
ourselves unable to understand. Nor yet can we see why arrow- 
