An attentive consideration of these questions in all their bearings has produced in the mind of the writer a full conviction that we must look to other sources for the revival of the study of the ancient geometry than either the writings of Stewart or Simson. It has been well observed by the most eminent geometer of our own times, Professor Davies--whose signature of PEN-AND-INK (Vol. ii., p. 8.) affords but a flimsy disguise for his well-known _propria persona_--that "it was a great mistake for these authors to have written their principal works in the Latin language, as it has done more than anything else to prevent their study among the only geometers of the eighteenth century who were competent to understand and value them;" and it is no less singular than true, as the same writer elsewhere observes, "that whilst Dr. Stewart's writings were of a kind calculated to render them peculiarly attractive to the non-academic school of English geometers, they remain to this day less generally known than the writings of any geometer of these kingdoms." The same remarks, in a slightly qualified form, may be applied to most of the writings of Simson; for although his edition of Euclid is now the almost universally adopted text-book of geometry in England, at the time of its first appearance in 1756 it did not differ so much from existing translations as to attract particular attention by the novelty of its contents. Moreover, at this time the impulse had already been given and was silently exerting its influence upon a class of students of whose existence Dr. Simson appears to have been completely ignorant. In one of his letters to Nourse (_Phil. Mag._, Sept. 1848, p. 204.) he regrets that "the taste for the ancient geometry, or indeed any geometry, seems to be quite worn out;" but had he instituted an examination of those contemporary periodicals either wholly or partially devoted to mathematics, he would have been furnished with ample reasons for entertaining a different opinion.