in Book iii. ch. v. suggest that he was really insensible to considerations which some of his contemporaries realized, much in the same way as he shirked the objections raised in his time to slavery. The wisest man of his age may sometimes be less wise than quite inferior men. However, these remarks are intended only by way of qualifying some of Mr. Stewart's expressions; and it is mainly in the earlier portion of the notes that this questionable language. will trouble the reader. The defect is not to be weighed against the merits of a book which achieves the difficult object of being interesting as well as massive.

Simultaneously with Mr. Stewart's new commentary on the Ethics appears a new translation by Mr. Welldon, who has already translated the Politics and the Rhetoric, and may, it is to be hoped, go on to some of the less popular works. There are already two good translations of the Ethics, the older one of Williams and the later excellent translation of Mr. Peters. Mr. Welldon's translation has great merits. It appears to be accurate, and it certainly makes Aristotle very readable. In this last respect it is probably superior to the older versions.

S. ALEXANDER.

EVOLUTION AND ETHICS. The Romanes Lecture for 1893. By Thomas H. Huxley, F.R.S. London and New York: Macmil

lan & Co., 1893. Pp. 57.

Professor Huxley's Romanes Lecture will no doubt be read by every one interested in ethical subjects, and it is consequently needless to give any account of its contents. Its interest lies chiefly in the fact that, though written by one of the most enthusiastic of our biological evolutionists, it entirely repudiates the idea that ethics can be founded on a mere study of the evolutionary process of animal life. "The propounders," he says, "of what are called the ethics of evolution,' when the evolution of ethics' would usually better express the object of their speculation, adduce a number of more or less interesting facts, and more or less sound arguments in favor of the origin of the moral sentiments, in the same way as other natural phenomena, by a process of evolution. I have little doubt, for my own part, that they are on the right track; but as the immoral sentiments have no less been evolved, there is, so far, as much natural sanction for the one as the other. The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good

and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before. Some day, I doubt not, we shall arrive at an understanding of the evolution of the æsthetic faculty; but all the understanding in the world will neither increase nor diminish the force of the intuition that this is beautiful and that is ugly." Such a declaration, coming from such a quarter, must be regarded as carrying considerable weight; yet it seems doubtful whether Professor Huxley has sufficiently considered the attempts that have been made by such writers as Mr. L. Stephen and Mr. S. Alexander to find a basis for ethics in the evolutionary process. One would have liked to see

some more direct criticism of their efforts. One would have liked also to see some indication of the way in which Professor Huxley himself would establish the validity of moral distinctions. As it is, however, it is important to have this acknowledgment from so eminent an evolutionist, that the question of origin is not quite the same as that of validity. It is needless to say that the lecture is written in a highly vigorous, impressive, and interesting style. J. S. MACKENZIE.

ANTHROPOLOGICAL RELIGION. The Gifford Lectures delivered before the University of Glasgow in 1891. By F. Max Müller, K.M., Foreign Member of the French Institute. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1892. Pp. xxvii, 464.

Following the broad lines sketched out in his Introductory Lecture of 1889, Professor Max Müller here treats the third distinct portion of his subject. In the first series, under the title "Natural Religion," certain more general considerations, relative to the nature of religion as a whole, were elucidated. Secondly, in "Physical Religion," such doctrines and beliefs as might be affiliated to external objects received attention. Here, on the contrary, as the title implies, a transition is effected to a sphere in which a distinctively religious content finds place. By contemplation of the real world, or by contact with certain of its objects, man may, by physical means, arrive at the belief in a Superior Being. But, on account of the limitations incident to the physical sphere, this Being, derived by a species of induction, remains foreign to human nature. The other-worldliness of deity is his chief characteristic in physical religion. God stands over against man just like a cabbage or a cliff. In contradistinction to this,

anthropological religion is constituted by man's effort to discover the infinite and divine within himself. "Otherwise anthropological religion has nothing to do with anthropology. It is called anthropological simply and solely in order to comprehend under that name all the attempts which have been made to discover something not merely human, then superhuman, then divine and immortal in man. The most interesting parts of this process are the beginning and the end, the first discovery of something different from the body, and the final identification of that something with the divine." The introductory matter is very extended and practically monopolizes the first six lectures. Thereafter, by way of animism, linguistic suggestions, folk-lore connected with death and the disposal of the dead, the author brings us, in the thirteenth and closing lecture, to the divine in the human. The second great article of faith is, "I believe in my own soul and in its divine worship."

From the foregoing analysis it will be apparent to all that those who, like the present writer, had the privilege of hearing the lectures, were charmed by the wealth of illustration at Professor Max Müller's command. But this very opulence has proved a snare. It may certainly have originated such fine passages as that in the fourth lecture headed, "I am that I am." Yet, on the whole, I believe it to be answerable for the very great defect, which, in my opinion, mars Professor Müller's entire scheme. He confines himself to the collection of interesting details; and this work he carries out in masterly fashion. But it is not natural theology. Moreover, when he strives to induce order in the chaos of facts, he adopts a division which, from the point of view of philosophy of religion at least, is wholly indefensible. "Physical" religion cannot be separated from "Anthropological," nor can either be sundered from "Natural" religion, except by false abstractions. And to premise that "Anthropological" religion occupies a sphere distinct from that of "Psychological" (the subject of the final course soon to be published) is the greatest abstraction of all.

UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.

R. M. WENLEY.

TRUE MORALITY; OR, THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF NEO-MALTHUSIANISM. By J. R. Holmes, pp. 144 (Hanney, Wantage), 1892.

As forty pages of this little book are devoted to an illustrated price-list, necessarily inartistic, and most of the remainder to a

citation of opinions, many of which are valueless, the work is noticed here not for any virtue of its own, but on account of the importance of the problems which it suggests. We must say that the author's fingers do not meet around the difficult questions which he handles, and we find little indication that he appreciates the complexity of the biological and ethical problems. Mr. Holmes seems to be much in earnest, and we agree with him that publicity is useful, but he has, outside his price-list at least, nothing new to say,-nothing to suggest beyond Neo-Malthusian practice, which, helpful as it may be in alleviating present and future misery, is itself fraught with danger. It cannot, we believe, be wisely regarded as more than a very partial solution of the problem of sexual conduct in relation to future generations. It is an ugly pis-aller. Yet where people perish for lack of knowledge, "TRUE MORALITY,” which can be bought for a penny, may be of more use than wiser works. One can only hope that it may never be a dear pennyworth.

J. ARTHUR THOMSON.

THE HUMAN AND ITS RELATIONS TO THE DIVINE. By Theodore F. Wright, Ph.D. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1892. Pp. 271.

Dr. Wright's erudite little treatise, a mine of citations, accompanied by interesting but not startlingly novel expressions of opinion, will be entirely satisfactory, from the theoretical point of view, and despite its broadly conciliatory tone, only to theological readers who are in pretty close sympathy with his own opinions. For the general student of non-theological tastes, the book is, however, a valuable collection of illustrations of certain aspects of those doctrines concerning self-consciousness which have appeared in European philosophy from Socrates to James, and which bear upon the question as to the reality and the significance of the Self. On pages 46-48 is a brief but historically valuable mention of Abraham Tucker's book (London, 1763) on "Man in Quest of Himself." Kant's theory of Self-consciousness is very skilfully indicated in an extremely brief but telling way (pp. 5057). In fact, Dr. Wright's capacity for brief statement of complex historical matters is the most valuable feature of his book. The tolerance of this whole historical statement is also an excellent feature. The positive doctrine is not novel, and does not wish to seem so. Man is a finite free agent, in intimate but, by God's VOL. IV.-No. I

9

will, relatively independent relations to his creator. He is spiritual; his ego is a unity; he is creative and reactive; his duty lies in the conscious service of God. The lesson of the history of opinion lies in its confirmation of these views. The book shows on every page, however, that the theological apologist for tradition, in respect to these matters, can keep his eyes wide open to appreciate the views of many who differ from him in opinion, and can be a receptive student of philosophy, as well as an apologist. In an age of syntheses and "conciliations," every such book has its place. What we want in philosophy is never the strident voice and the revolutionary "novelty," but the combination of keen criticism, cautious reflection, careful method, deep and vital experience, and conciliatory temper. These, to be sure, are manifold demands. Many different workers are needed to furnish them all. Where a man's philosophical method seems to us, as Dr. Wright's does, very unsatisfactory, we can still thank him when he suggests breadth of view and sympathetic synthesis. Methods deserve, in the long run, a criticism as patient and severe as that which keeps Mr. Williams's * readers so long in suspense,—yes, and severer criticism still. But the philosophical attitude, the spirit of receptive gentleness, is also valuable in its place. Dr. Wright's book gives us, in addition to his erudite citations, little indeed but such an attitude, and that is something which is its own relative justification.

JOSIAH ROYCE.

MORALITY IN DOCTRINE. By William Bright, D.D., Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, etc. London and New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1892. Pp. xxiv, 351.

A volume of sermons, even when designed to illustrate the proposition that Christian morality must presuppose Christian belief, cannot be regarded as ethically systematic. It is therefore probable that, despite its purpose, Dr. Bright's book is not fraught with special interest to the readers of this journal. No doubt its tone is manly, its learning in a certain kind is wide, and its theme is viewed from points so varied as "Grace and the Will" and "God's Contest with the Soul." But, even thus, it falls short of the comparative impartiality and scientific accuracy which ought to mark

*" Evolutionary Ethics," by C. M. Williams. New York: Macmillan & Co., 1893. Reviewed in the July number, vol. iii. p. 533.