presentation in the lecture room rather than the laboratory. The student is assumed to have already completed a good high-school course, and the aim is not so much to acquaint him with interesting phenomena as to put him in touch with the methods and means of physical investigation. Whether the book can be profitably used by teachers of physics generally, by putting it into the hands of their students, it is not possible to make any positive assertion; but it can not fail to be very suggestive and otherwise useful to all whose range of duty coincides even in part with that of the author.

Professor Sanford's book is like that of Dr. Millikan in one important particular, that it is intended jointly as a presentation of theory and a laboratory guide. He believes the lecture-room method of imparting knowledge to be the poorest of all methods with elementary students, and his book has been written with the idea that it will not need supplementing by a lecture course. "It has been prepared especially for the teacher who has had an adequate training in the physical laboratory, and it is not likely to succeed with any other teacher." It is issued more especially for California students of highschool grade who compose a majority of the applicants for admission to the Stanford University; but it is evidently best suited for that increasing proportion of high schools in which the work encroaches largely on that of the college, and which seem destined within the next generation to supplant the small college in all except the thinly populated parts of our country. The author lays much stress on the importance of following in the laboratory the general method of scientific discovery, in which the acquisition of individual facts must precede generalization, while this. in turn is followed by deduction and such special experimentation as is necessary to test its validity. Among the salient features of the book are the attempt to base the initial development of mechanics consistently upon the concept of energy, the discussion of the gaseous state of matter as a preliminary to that of the liquid and solid states, and in optics the complete elimination of the fiction

of rectilinear propagation.' This last is a self-imposed and quite unnecessary limitation. If we admit the wave theory and the existence of wave fronts in a medium with known properties, the direction of propagation becomes as recognizable as the wave front, and it can scarcely be called a fiction unless the medium is also fictitious. The luminiferous ether may perhaps be still called a fiction, though one of great convenience and an intellectual necessity at present. Whether the wave front method or the ray method of explaining optical phenomena be preferred is a matter of convenience or of fashion. There can be no inconsistency in using both or either at will, and certainly each has its own advantages.

The volume by Messrs. Andrews and Howland presents no such departures from prevailing usage as the two just noticed. It is well balanced, well arranged and clear in style, but it contains no features that have not been exemplified in some of the better elementary class text-books in common use. The general plan of the authors has been to eliminate subjects that are of mere theoretic interest and to emphasize those that are practical; to use the simplest language possible and to avoid mathematical formulas in all cases where these are not absolutely necessary; to show as much as possible, for every subject selected, its relation to fundamental principles or their obvious corollaries.

Gage's 'Introduction to Physical Science' is a revised edition of a book that has been on the market since 1887. The author was at that time the well-known champion of the idea, at present advocated anew by Professor Sanford, that the student must be an inductive investigator. Mr. Gage now fully recognizes the consensus of opinion among teachers of physics that the method of instruction which includes a due proportion of textbook study, lecture-room demonstration and individual work in the laboratory is the method conducive to the highest order of results from an educational point of view.' The present volume is essentially a class textbook, and not a laboratory manual or a reading book for parallel private study. It is

scarcely necessary for the present writer to repeat what he has said in commendation of Mr. Gage's skill as a text-book writer, manifested in other books reviewed in the columns of SCIENCE. He is fully up to the standard set in those volumes.

The third group of text-books, intended for parallel reading or private study, is exemplified by the last three books on our list. This, perhaps, might be expected from the fact that the authors are writing for readers on the other side of the Atlantic, two of them being English and the third a Russian. There has been a distinctly American evolution of educational methods; and this fact, quite independently of any author's individual merit, causes few foreign text-books to be now available for text-book purposes in American schools, except for advanced students.

Lehfeldt's Text-Book of Physics' is written for students of medicine, and the author has endeavored, therefore, to exclude mathematical formulas as much as possible. The mode of arrangement is not to be commended, there being many long paragraphs and but little to aid the reader in singling out salient points. It is impossible to avoid formulas entirely, and these are incorporated quite frequently in the midst of the paragraphs, instead of being put separately and equationally so that mutual relations may be readily perceived. The book contains no problems. Chapter VI., entitled 'Chemistry,' is made up wholly of paragraphs in fine print on such subjects as the law of mass action, the phase rule, thermo-chemistry, and the relation of heat to chemical equilibrium. A single paragraph of this fine print, considerably more than a page in length, consists of seventeen sentences. The book was written with a view to attracting attention to the intimate dependence of physiology on physical principles, and is made up of the author's lectures to students preparing for the intermediate examination at London University.

Edser's 'Light for Students' is written by one who is far better versed in the art of book-making. The paragraphing is good. The illustrations, chiefly diagrams with white lines on a black ground, are clear and well

selected. Mathematical formulas are used wherever necessary, and the deduction of them is usually in good shape, no knowledge of calculus being assumed. In discussing the wave theory the author recognizes the rectilinear propagation of light, not as a 'fiction' but as a resultant of wave motion, and light rays are assumed equally with wave fronts whenever suggested by convenience. Among the illustrations are several selections from Professor Wood's excellent photographs of air waves taken by the 'Schlieren-Methode.' Modern advances are noticed, including the production of stationary light waves by Wiener and Lippmann, the interferometer work of Michelson, and his echelon grating. The light phenomena accompanying electric discharges in high vacua come in for attention, X-rays being regarded as probably those of ultra-violet light of extremely short wavelength. The radiation from salts of uranium, polonium, actinium and radium is mentioned, but as the date of the preface is September, 1902, this subject is noticed more briefly than it would be to-day. The book is, on the whole, much to be commended.

The first volume of Chwolson's 'Physics' was published in 1897, at St. Petersburg, in the Russian language. A second edition appeared in 1900 and was brought to the attention of Professor Wiedemann at Erlangen. Appreciating its excellence, he took steps to secure its translation into German. This task was undertaken by Dr. Pflaum in Riga and the risk of publication assumed by Vieweg in Braunschweig.

Of late years two notable books on chemistry have come from Russians, the one by Mendelejeff, the other by Menschutkin; but neither could exert any important influence on the scientific world until freed from the shackles of an unspeakably difficult language. Chwolson's book is now in process of similar deliverance, and it has already received marked attention in Germany. The first volume, of nearly 800 pages in German, relates to the mechanics of gases, liquids and solids. The second, on acoustics and radiant energy, was to appear in Russian in 1898. The third relates to heat, and the fourth to

magnetism and electricity. The book has been written to meet the needs of university students, and in the first part it is assumed that the student has not yet had an opportunity to become acquainted with the methods of calculus; but this assumption is soon discarded.

The range of the first volume may be briefly indicated by an enumeration of subdivisions. After an introduction of fifty pages come the subjects of motion, force, work and energy, harmonic motion, radiant propagation of vibratory motion, universal gravitation, the potential theory, gravity. Then follows a section on instruments and methods of measurement, and separate sections on the theory of gases, theory of liquids and theory of solid bodies, the last including a discussion of elasticity and of friction. The style of presentation is clear and direct, and frequent brief summaries help the reader to seize upon fundamental principles. Each section closes with an index of literature relating to its subject matter.

Quite possibly the state of the American market may not warrant the translation of this excellent treatise into our language, but it is well worth the attention of those who are sufficiently interested to examine the German edition. W. LECONTE STEVENS.

SOCIETIES AND ACADEMIES.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY OF CHICAGO.

A REGULAR meeting of the Bibliographical Society of Chicago was held in connection with the annual meeting of the American Library Association on the afternoon of Wednesday, June 22, at Niagara Falls. After the president's address by Mr. A. G. S. Josephson, a paper on the 'International Catalogue of Scientific Literature,' by Dr. Adler was read. This paper is published above.

Dr. Herbert Haviland Field, of Zürich, was introduced and gave an account of the Concilium Bibliographicum founded in Zürich by the third International Congress of Zoology, in 1895. This institution collects and records all publications in biology, giving to each article separate cards of Library Bureau size. These

cards aggregate at present twelve million for 150,000 titles, and thus constitute one of the largest, if not, indeed, the largest, collection of printed bibliographical cards. The Concilium Bibliographicum regards it as a technical triumph to have produced these cards for sale at the low price of one fifth cent per card. The cards are classified according to a methodical classification which is a development of the Dewey decimal system. For each topic found in the various publications there is a separate card published. In determining the various entries the text and not the title of the publication is considered, the number of entries for a single work often attaining ten or twelve. Besides supplying libraries and other institutions with complete sets of cards, the Concilium permits individual investigators to order cards for their own specialties. Thus the traveler going to Borneo could apply for the cards dealing with the fauna of Borneo. He would receive these at a nominal charge. In like manner any topic of investigation whatsoever can be asked for. The Institute is to-day nearly self-supporting, though it receives an annual subsidy of $1,500 from the Swiss Federal Government. It confidently hopes that bibliographers in America will lend it their support in obtaining similar financial aid in the United States.

Mr. Wilberforce Eames, of the Lenox Library, New York, presented a report in favor of the formation of an American Bibliographical Society and recommended that the Bibliographical Society of Chicago be authorized to take the initiative in the formation of the society. The report was adopted and active steps toward organization will be taken in the fall. CHARLES H. BROWN, Secretary.

DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE. THE ST. LOUIS CONGRESS OF THE ARTS AND SCIENCES.

TO THE EDITOR OF SCIENCE: In the May number of the Atlantic Monthly there appeared an article by Dr. Hugo Münsterberg, giving, in a quasi-official manner, a statement of the plans for the St. Louis Congress of

the Arts and Sciences. The fact that a literary rather than a scientific journal has been selected as a means of communication to the public, and that the plan itself as there set forth is philosophical rather than scientific, affords my justification for writing on a matter which my own technical scientific qualifications would under ordinary circumstances hardly entitle me to discuss, excepting possibly as respects one group of the sciences.

That the article bases the working plans of the St. Louis Congress of Arts and Sciences upon a particular methodology emanating from a particular school of metaphysics, not as yet numbering among its adherents any great number of either scientific men or philosophers, naturally arouses certain apprehensions. I write chiefly in the hope that some explanation may be forthcoming which will allay these apprehensions, which I find I am far from alone in feeling. Even after the explicit statements of the article, one can hardly believe one's own eyes, and is sceptical of one's right to attribute to the distinguished committee the notion of basing the Congress upon a particular scheme of metaphysical logic. One is sure the plan must be capable of construction in some other way. Accordingly I beg in advance the pardon of the committee if I should attribute to it in my following remarks a plan which as a matter of fact it has not fathered.

1. The article begins by setting forth an idea which is rational and feasible, and which would probably command general if not unanimous assent: the idea that the Congress should concern itself with the general aspects and bearings of the sciences, their relations to each other and to the unity of human knowledge and endeavor, rather than with purely specialized questions and researches.

2. Apprehension begins when we read: "The natural condition would be a plan in which every possible striving for truth, every theoretical and practical science would find its exact place. *** It must be really a plan which brings the inner relation of all branches of knowledge to light *** a ground plan which would give to every sec

tion its definite position in the whole system (p. 674 of the Atlantic Monthly for May, 1903). It is repeatedly stated that the chief feature of the plan is that the arrangement of the sciences chosen is not one of practical convenience or effectiveness, but is one based upon a logical theory of knowledge. is hardly necessary to point out the radical difference between a Congress which should work along the lines of the generalized aspects and interests of the sciences, and a Congress based upon a previously formulated and predetermined scheme of the unity of knowledge, or to dwell upon the nonsequitur from the first notion to the second. It is not the Congress of scientific and philosophical workers which is to bring to light (or bring nearer to the light) the unity and interrelation of the various movements of contemporary intellectual life. No, a necessary precondition of the work of the Congress is that it follow the lines of a predetermination of what the unity really is, a notion foreordained by a committee in charge of the Congress! One naturally asks the pardon of the committee for attributing to it even the passing fancy of a scheme at once so presumptuous and so futile.

3. As we read further we learn that this precondition of a 'ground plan' has been met, the committee having officially adopted a 'ground plan.' From the historical point of view, we learn from the article that contemporary intellectual life is officially decreed by the committee to have got beyond materialism, positivism, psychologism, indeed beyond any scheme in which the mental and physical sciences are coordinated with each other. The practical bearing of this appears when we are told that each department is to have an address on the historical development of its own line of work in the last century. It will certainly tend to decrease intellectual labor that each speaker know in advance the 'ground plan' of development which his own group of sciences has followed in the last century. There are still those, however (of whom I confess myself one), who would prefer to gather their ideas of what the actual historical move

ment of the century has been from the results of the deliberate investigations of scientific leaders in a large number of fields, rather than to accept the conclusions of even so distinguished a body as the committee which has framed the plan for the Congress.

4. The 'ground plan' is also set forth in its logical scope and symmetry. There are five classes of sciences; the divisions being based upon the distinction, first between 'purposes' and phenomena,' and then between such purposes and phenomena as hold good for the individual and those which are more than individual in quality. There is we learn a radical gulf between purposes and phenomena. Purposes are not to be explained but to be interpreted' (sic, p. 677); they represent values which are to be appreciated, not described; they are to be approached by teleological not by causal methods (pp. 676-677). The student of art, history, literature, politics, jurisprudence, education, is, we are told, occupied with matters of this sort. Just what will happen to those students of art, history, politics, education, etc., who persist in considering that their concern is with phenomena, with their description and explanation, and who are desirous of employing psychological methods in this description and explanation, we are not told. Then 'phenomena and purposes' both subdivide themselves; each branches into those facts which are individual or hold only for one subject, and those which hold for every possible subject. The sciences which deal with the individual phenomena are the mental; those which deal with individual purposes are the historical. The sciences which deal with more than individual phenomena are the physical; those which deal with more than individual purposes are the normative, viz., metaphysics, logic, ethics and mathematics. Then we have a fifth class of sciences: those which deal with the relations between 'physical or mental, normative or historical facts on one side, and practical ends of ours on the other' (p. 678).

While it is somewhat confusing to discover in this fifth classification that purposes and norms turn out to be only facts, after all, and that

even after we have gone through the sciences devoted to norms and purposes there still remain practical ends to be dealt with, yet the point that I here raise is not that of the ultimate value or final truth of this classification. The point is that it is a scheme characteristic of one limited school of philosophical thought. The real question at issue is the wisdom of basing a world's congress of arts and sciences upon any sectarian intellectual idea representing some particular a priori logic. Why should the committee take it upon itself to define the constitution of the unity of human knowledge, and to provide ready-made a plan or map of the interrelation of all its parts? Why is it not the business of the scientific and philosophical workers called together from all parts of the earth to consider, collate and present their own ideas about the structure and the divisions of the unity of human knowledge? Is it not the business of such a congress to further a consensus of judgment, or at least of inquiry, regarding just the features which the committee, according to the Atlantic article, has seen fit to prejudge and forestall?

One might also raise the question whether any scheme has a right to arrogate to itself the title of a 'ground plan' of the unity of human knowledge whose final result is to separate the psychological sciences from logic, esthetics and ethics, to separate all of these from the historical sciences, and the historical sciences in turn from the sociological sciences, and then to set up a fifth division of practical sciences to furnish 'links' for what has thus been chopped up! It would involve discussion of the merits of the particular plan proposed to argue that any plan which terminates in such arbitrary divisions has thereby experienced a reductio ad absurdum. But it is within the scope of the present discussion to indicate that such divisions, if they have any effect at all, can only operate prejudicially to the freedom and completeness of the intellectual discussions of the congress. The essential trait of the scientific life of to-day is its democracy, its give-andtake, its live-and-let-live character. Scientific