*The Analysis of Variance*as well as an extract from the Introduction and short extracts from twelve reviews. All but one of these review is of the first edition of 1959 while one is from a review of the 1999 reprint of this first edition. We have simply listed the reviews in alphabetical order by the reviewer's surname.

**1. From the Preface.**

**2. From the Introduction.**

An agricultural experiment of a relatively simple structure to which the analysis of variance would be applicable would be the following: In each of three localities four varieties of tomatoes are grown in tanks containing chemical solutions. Two different chemical solutions, which we shall call "treatments", are used, with different proportions of the chemicals. For each treatment in each locality there is a mixing tank from which the fluid is pumped to all the tanks on this treatment, connected "in parallel:" We do not want a "series" connection, where the outflow from one tank is the inflow to another, because this would confound the effects of the varieties in these two tanks with the effects (if any) of order in the "series" connection. The tanks are arranged outdoors with the same orientation, so that the plants in one tank will not appreciably shade those in another, etc. For each treatment in the three localities the chemicals are renewed according to the same specifications. Each variety is grown in a separate tank, with the same number of plants in each. The yield of each tank is the weight of ripe tomatoes produced. The yield from a tank may depend on the variety, the chemical treatment, and the locality. In particular, it will depend on interactions among these factors, a useful concept of the analysis of variance ... The sort of questions for which our theory offers answers is the following: Are the varieties different in yield when averaged over the two treatments and three localities? Do the yields demonstrate differential effects of the varieties for different localities? How can we quantitatively express the differences with a given degree of confidence? Etc.

**3. Review by: David Roxbee Cox.**

*Journal of the Royal Statistical Society*, Series A (General)

**123**(4) (1960), 482-483.

**4. Review by: Arthur Pentland Dempster.**

*Technometrics*

**2**(4) (1960), 517.

**5. Review by: Paul Sumner Dwyer.**

*SIAM Review*

**5**(1) (1963), 84-86.

**6. Review by: N L Johnson.**

*Journal of the Institute of Actuaries (1886-1994)*

**86**(2) (1960), 229-230.

**7. Review by: Thomas E Kurtz.**

*Amer. Math. Monthly*

**67**(9) (1960), 933.

**8. Review by: S L.**

*Population (French Edition)*

**16**(3) (1961), 569.

**9. Review by: C C Li.**

*The Quarterly Review of Biology*

**36**(2) (1961), 154.

**10. Review by: Dennis Victor Lindley.**

*The Mathematical Gazette*

**83**(498) (1999), 571-572.

**11. Review by: Robin L Plackett.**

*The Mathematical Gazette*

**45**(353) (1961), 272.

**12. Review by: Leonard Jimmy Savage.**

*Mathematical Reviews*MR0116429

**(22 #7217)**.

**13. Review by: Alan Stuart.**

*Economica, New Series*

**28**(112) (1961), 453-454.

**14. Review by: Colin White.**

*American Scientist*

**48**(3) (1960), 460.