Page:Philosophical Review Volume 3.djvu/139

recommendation, signed by some worker in the special field better known than the author, is to be deprecated.

Preyer's observations are made the standard of reference throughout, and much of the interest attaching to Miss Shinn's record turns upon its agreement or disagreement with that of the Seele des Kindes. The 'Notes' practically cover the ground of Part I, Chap. I, of the latter work; but there are extra sections devoted to Form (drawing, etc.), Pictures, and other Representations, and to Interest in Seeing, while Preyer's two last paragraphs have, of course, no parallel.

It is to be hoped that the author has taken equally objective and careful notes with regard to the other senses. Incidental remarks seem to point to this conclusion. Reflex actions she modestly, but somewhat unfortunately, declined to observe.

E. B. T.

 

Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie. Von Wilhelm Wundt, Professor an der Universität zu Leipzig. Vierte umgearbeitete Auflage. Zweiter Band, mit 94 Holzschnitten. Leipzig, Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann, 1893.—pp. xii, 684.

Professor Wundt's indefatigable industry has enabled him to bring the fourth edition of his Psychology to completion far sooner than we could have expected. This second volume contains 648 pages of text, as against 554 of the third edition; and an elaborate Index of 36 pages (compiled by Dr. Meumann) replaces the rather scanty one of the earlier issue. The chief changes in the Table of Contents are: the devotion of a whole paragraph to the fluctuations of the attention; and the appearance of a new introductory section in Chap. XVIII. There are many more alterations; the exposition in certain chapters has been entirely remodelled. Review will follow.

E. B. T.

 

The Science of Mechanics. A critical and historical exposition of its Principles. By Dr. E. Mach, Professor of Physics in the University of Prague. Translated from the second German edition by T. J. McCormack. Chicago, The Open Court Publishing Co., 1893.—

Prefixed to the work is a short Preface by Professor Mach, in which he himself describes the translation as being 'excellent, accurate and faithful.' I have compared some fifty pages of it pretty carefully with the original (pp. 110 ff.; 229 ff.; 314 ff., etc.). The rendering of the text is adequate; the original form is often diverged from, but without damage to the sense of the passage. Minor faults of the translator are a tendency to use abstract expressions where concrete would be better in place, and a general leaning towards diffuseness: indeed, his 'outlines' are far less 'distinct and sharp' than are those of the author. The index has been considerably enlarged. The book itself, I hope, does not require an introduction or recommendation.

E. B. T.