Mr. Dixon refers to a passage in _Fundamental Problems_, in which I say that “To four-dimensional beings, Kepler’s third law would most probably appear as the cubes of the times of revolutions of the planets being proportional to their mean distances to the fourth power.” His questions, “What sort of an assertion do you take Kepler’s law to be?” and “Why should the result appear different to them?” show that Mr. Dixon has overlooked the condition on which this proposition was made. The first sentence of this paragraph begins with the words, “If space inhered, as Kant maintains, in the thinking subject only, spatial relations and laws would appear different to four-dimensional beings.” Space relations are not subjective, in my opinion, but objective. Therefore, since space relations do not inhere in the thinking subject only, because they are a feature of the objective world, and inhere in the thinking subject in so far as it is at the same time an object in the objective world, Kepler’s law would appear to four-dimensional beings, if they could exist at all, just the same as it does to us three-dimensional beings. P. C. BOOK REVIEWS. SOCIAL STATICS. Abridged and Revised; together with THE MAN VERSUS THE STATE. By _Herbert Spencer_. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1892. JUSTICE. Being Part IV of the Principles of Ethics. By _Herbert Spencer_. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1891. Among Mr. Spencer’s most important books are those entitled _Justice_ and _Social Statics_. The latter, which first appeared in 1850, has just been republished in about one-half of the original size, some parts having been transferred to the book on _Justice_, and others omitted altogether. “One difference,” as he says, “is that what there was in my first book of supernaturalistic interpretation has disappeared, and the interpretation has become exclusively naturalistic—that is, evolutionary.” Another change is that a demonstration of the injustice of socialism is substituted for his former arguments, plainly repudiated in _Justice_, against private ownership of land. Equally important is the omission of the chapter asserting “The Right to Ignore the State.”