NKW HOOKS. 409 Alter a oharmingljr-WlittH) if somewhat desultory introduction, the author sots out tin- philosophical views which were adumbrated in the
eiiie hymns and the Upanishads before the time when any philosophy in
India had been built up into a system. In doing so he constant I i or refers to. writings which belong to a very niiieh later stage than the one under exposition. This is confusing, and the result may instruc- tively be compared with the treatment in the first volume of Prof. P. Deussen's .lll</i'nii iin t;<-*fhi<-hti' i/>'r l'hili>*i>/>ltii', where the same part of the subject is dealt with according to clearer, more historical methods. Tin' author has possibly himself failed to grasp the essential fact and features of historical growth in the ideas he is handling. Or is it mere ambiguity which prompts him to say (p. 239) that the system of the Vedftnta was slowly elaborated "thousands of years ago " '? It is much the same with the subsequent chapters which treat, in succession, of those six systems which were subsequently built up by the scholastic writers of medin-val India, and which, while they do not exhaust the wealth of Indian Philosophy, constituted during an epoch the orthodox curriculum. Authorities differing in time by centuries are quoted side by side without sufficiently clear distinction being drawn between them. It is apparently much more difficult to assign dates to Indian writers than to those of Europe. But it is certain from what the author himself states, that a distinction between earlier and later thought is possible. We find much sympathy, theoretically, for historical treatment, but practically no at- tempt at it is made. In spite of the abundant material set out in this volume, it conveys the impression of having been done hastily, and of being rather a furbishing up of a book of notes written long ago than a really careful study of exposition and criticism such as the times are ripe for. The work is compiled for students of philosophy in general, and, to adapt and strengthen the author's over-modest assertion, the time is now come when no one ought to claim that name who is not acquainted with the leading features in the history of Indian philosophy. Our insular dilatoriness has suffered a task to be attempted by a veteran publicist which should be occupying the thought of our leading philoso- phers. The result, even if it can scarcely add to the former's great reputation, at least in its intention does him honour. Letter-, Word-, and Miml-HUmliit'im. By JAMES HINSHELWOOU. M.A., M.D., F.F.P.S. Glasgow, Surgeon to the Glasgow Eye Infirmary. London: H. K. Lewis, 1900. Pp. 88. Mainly a reprint from the Lancet of papers read before the Gl Medieo-Chirurgical Society. Six new and valuable cases are recorded, four from the author's own observations (complete letter- and word- blindness, place-blindness, partial mind-blindness with dyslexia, and word- without letter-blindness), one from notes by Dr. J. Love on ti of Dr. Finlayson's, and one from notes by Dr. .1. Carslaw on of Sir W. T. Grainger's (both letter- without word-blindness . The last two cases are especially interesting, and the author believes that the type is not rare though generally overlooked. The reported cases are throughout compared with similar accounts by other writers, and the general exposition is clear and straightforward. But the book sufters from faults common to all reprints of lectures. On the one hand there is too much repetition, and on the other there is a lack of the comprehensiveness claimed at the outset of the work. Thus tin- | logy of the preliminarv chapter is so terse as to be misleading as in the statement that ' when' we recognise a friend in the street, we do so by
