Recent Literature

IF the literary quality of this history 1 were equal to its mechanical execution, it would leave nothing to be desired in the way of excellence. The maps, in particular, deserve especial commendation, alike for their accuracy of detail and the beauty of their execution. In both respects they are unsurpassed by any battle maps with which we are acquainted. An illustrated paper on Block Houses as a means of Defense, by Colonel W. E. Merrill, of the United States Engineers, supplements the work. As these structures were relied on to defend the bridges and railroads by which the Army of the Cumberland maintained its lines of communication, this memoir, by the officer under whose supervision they were built, is particularly valuable. It explains the method by which they were made so completely successful that an army of one hundred thousand men was supplied for an entire season, over a single line of railroad nearly four hundred miles long, running through a hostile country, without the loss of a single ration.

The Army of the Cumberland was the centre of the national army, in the recent rebellion. This history, therefore, to be worthy of its theme, should relate all that properly belongs to the life and fortunes of such an army, from the causes that led to its being called into existence to the issues which permitted its dissolution. To the production of such a history, no comparison or collation of official reports, however exhaustive, is adequate. Such documents no more paint the life or interpret the spirit of an army than an array of tailors’ dummies present us the real man. Chaplain Van Horne has contented himself with trying to make a history by narrating in chronological order the events in which the Army of the Cumberland took part. This he has done with industry and fidelity. Probably no inaccuracies which affect the details of the story can be found in the whole work, and a great many facts are given which have never before been brought into a con-

nected narrative. But the philosophical qualities of mind, without which history cannot be written, seem to be lacking in Chaplain Van Horne. His work is therefore deficient not merely in those characteristics marking great military historians, like Napier, and Kinglake, and even the Comte de Paris, by which they are enabled to group together in logical order all the essential facts, and to assign to each its natural place and importance, but also in the less vital but not less attractive distinctions of style and literary expression. Indeed, he seems to lack what might be called mental perspective. Hence it is difficult to acquire a satisfactory understanding of those underlying general facts without which there can be no correct knowledge of special and particular ones. To take an example at random, on page 184, vol. i., occurs this sentence: “ On the 29th of September, MajorGeneral Thomas received an order at the hands of Colonel McKibbin, aid-de-camp to General Halleck, commander in chief, assigning him to the command of the Army of the Ohio, but at his request General Buell was retained. The day following, General Thomas was announced as second in command.” Every portion of this statement is literally true. But it utterly fails to convey — what a complete history should do — the least clew to a reason why it was deemed advisable to relieve General Buell, or why it was so immediately afterward decided to retain him. There is no previous hint of dissatisfaction with that general. And yet more than six weeks previous, on the 18th of August, while army head-quarters were at Huntsville, Alabama, and before Bragg’s plans had been fully developed, indeed, before he had crossed the Tennessee River, so much dissatisfaction had been expressed at the supposed slowness of General Buell’s movements, that the latter telegraphed to General Halleck : “ I beg that you will not interfere in my behalf. On the contrary, if dissatisfaction cannot cease on grounds which I think might be supposed, if not apparent, I respectfully request that I may be relieved. My position is far too important to be occupied by any officer on sufferance. I have no desire to stand in the way of what may be deemed necessary for the public good.”

Either Mr. Van Horne did not know of the dissatisfaction here so plainly exhibited,— in which case he failed to make use of all available sources of information, or he put it aside as of no consequence, — in which case he shows himself unable to appreciate the full requirements of history. It is acquaintance with just such facts as he has here omitted which gives one the key to the real condition of things.

Deficiences of a similar nature are manifest all through this work, deficiencies for which no accuracy of detail can compensate. We can instance but a few: no mention is made of the appointment of Andrew Johnson as military governor of Tennessee, or of his acts as such ; of the fortifying of Nashville by General Buell’s orders, in July and August, 1862; of the death of General Nelson at Louisville; of the reasons which finally led to the retirement of General Buell and the appointment of General Rosecrans as his successor; of the military commission which was detailed by the war department to examine into and report upon the campaigns of the former in Kentucky and Tennessee; of the outspoken annoyance of the authorities at Washington over General Rosecrans’s long delay at Murfreesboro’, or of the anxiety of Rosecrans himself at the subsequent lack of cooperation on the part of General Burnside; of the examination into the conduct of a number of the generals commanding corps and divisions at the battle of Chickamauga; of the causes which led to the change of commanders in the rebel army after the battle of Missionary Ridge ; or of the halfhearted support subsequently accorded to General Joseph E. Johnston by the Confederate chieftain.

It is also clear that Mr. Van Horne entirely misapprehends the situation of things in Kentucky during the operations of that portion of the army which was under the command of General Thomas, in December, 1861, and January, 1862. What he narrates is doubtless accurate in the main; but he does not see the whole field. The movement against the Confederate forces at Mill Spring, resulting in the defeat and death of Zollicoffer, was only an episode of the campaign,— not the chief object of the operations covering so vast a field. Mr. Van Horne evidently regards the efforts by which the incursions of the rebel army in Eastern Kentucky were checked as the leading features of General Buell’s plan ; and he gives the credit for them, by implication certainly, to General Thomas; whereas, in fact, these movements were entirely subsidiary; and, moreover, were wholly directed, except of course the manœuvres on the battle-field, by General Buell as the commander of the department. The hook, in fact, is rather a history of General Thomas’s connection with the Army of the Cumberland, with notices of its other commanders interjected, than a complete and comprehensive history of the army itself, based on information drawn only from the fountain-head, and after exhaustive research in every channel of intelligence. General Thomas deserves all the commendation he has ever received, but he did not command the Army of the Cumberland until more than two years after its organization. But whatever its faults and short-comings, we hope this history will be widely read, for it is the only one we are likely to have in this generation which embodies the story “of one of the grandest armies that ever battled for country or freedom, and which never, in its unity, gave but one field to the enemy, and even then gained the fruits of victory under the semblance of defeat.”

— The law of demand and supply, a reference to which serves so often as a substitute for wisdom, is hardly adequate to account for the best literature, but its operations seem to extend over a wide range of books and even to affect so serious a class as the historical. It was natural to expect that the new interest in our national history should give occasion for the preparation of historical compends and paragraph histories, but one is tempted to look with suspicion upon a work projected on a large scale and professing thoroughness, which is put forth ostensibly to meet a “ long-felt want.” Perhaps it is hardly fair to accept as identical the expression of publisher and author, and in examining Bryant’s Popular History of the United States2 we think we discover a possible conflict between the projected idea of the work and its accomplishment. We do not mean that the publishers have proposed one thing and the authors disposed another, but that all the persons engaged upon it have in a measure allowed the work to shape itself, and that its shape is different now from what was deliberately planned at the outset. The word popular still clings to it as a memento of what the book was intended to be, and doubtless it describes tolerably well what the authors still intend, but what the period so far covered presents little opportunity for fulfilling, — a treatment which shall take full cognizance of popular forces and popular illustration of national life. So far as this first volume is concerned, the title “popular” is a misnomer. The pictures are here, some of them innocently imaginative, and the reader is not afflicted with the solemn style which once was regarded as necessary to heroic history. There is, however, no such concealment of the anatomy of history as belongs to a popular narrative, nor any manifest attempt to persuade the reader that history is as delightful as a novel.

The authors distinctly disclaim any purpose of making their work simply a re-arrangement of accepted facts. “ It is not, they say, “ a compilation from histories already written, but in its narrative of events and its representation of the state of our country at different epochs has derived its materials, through independent research, from original sources.” That much labor has been expended in investigation is very clear, and the highest praise can be awarded to the conscientiousness of the authors, and to the judicial mind which they have brought to the task. In the sifting of evidence and the comparison of authorities they have shown a fairness and soundness of sense which are most important elements in historical writing ; but they have made the reader a partner in their labors to an extent hardly justifiable in a popular history. One feels, as one reads, not so much the enthusiasm of the authors, which is the reader’s right, as their labor and cogitation. He seems to be helping them examine authorities and settle disputed points, and unless he has a special interest in this task, which few have, his attention in reading is pretty sure to flag. We cannot get over the feeling that we are reading careful notes made for a history rather than history itself ; as if the authors were only just a little ahead of each completed chapter, and working indefatigably to keep ahead, like the teacher of Sanskrit who began his study of the language a week before his pupils came.

Whether this be so or not, we miss that freedom of narrative which results from a full mind. We find but three passages which approach the humorous, and humor in its simpler forms is an excellent element in historical writing. The style indeed is clear, and refreshingly free from false dignity ; it shows, we think, the constant influence of the senior author, whose nature and whose practice alike assert themselves in a truthful form of expression. This straightforwardness and manliness of tone are positive elements, but they do not preclude other important elements in historical writing which we miss here. We miss, for example, a certain sympathy with the varying narrative which, freely yielded to, displays itself in a subtle change of color ; the romantic portions and the matter-of-fact annals are treated with scarcely a perceptible difference of color, and the result is that the reader does not find the authors interpreters of the human element in the history. He is not enthusiastic, for they are not; he does not pity, for they do not; and he follows them through the slender footpaths of our early history, as they put aside the trees and bushes, with very much the same care for his own sureness of step, and with just as little admiration for the vistas or sudden glimpses of landscape, as the writers themselves have.

But there is a more serious defect in the book than any relating to style or manner. The close scrutiny of individual facts is not favorable to broad groupings or just perspective, and we have constantly been disappointed, in reading this volume, by the failure of the authors to seize upon the larger facts of history, while intent, with praiseworthy conscientiousness, upon the minor and disputed facts. In their desire to think, historically, for themselves, and to found their statements upon original research, they have missed some well-accepted historical truths. Niebuhr says in one of his lectures that he is very suspicious of paradoxes, that it is the koivὴ δόεη, the common opinion, which is to be relied upon in historical matters, meaning that the consensus of historians is to be respected beyond any striking view which has novelty for its chief merit. There is no tendency to paradox in this history, but there is a disposition to break away from the customary route of historians and to avoid familiar aspects. This produces a desirable freshness, but it is also liable to conceal important historic processes. For example, the ordinary contrast between the Pilgrim settlement at Plymouth and the Puritan settlement in Massachusetts Bay is scarcely referred to, and the heading of the chapter, The Puritans, which refers almost exclusively to the Separatists, is likely to mislead persons unfamiliar with Puritanism in English history. It is possible that future chapters will treat more particularly of the relation subsisting between the New England colonies and the mother country, but the opportunity is lost for calling attention to the significant change of base by which the government of the colony in Massachusetts Bay was transferred from London to Boston ; so, too, the marked importance of the personality of John Winthrop is not yet pointed out, though his accession was undoubtedly intimately connected with the transfer. We point out these instances not for any singular or grave omission, but because they seem to us to indicate an undue interest on the part of the authors in petty facts, and a neglect of leading and momentous ones. In reading this portion we constantly wish that the authors had kept more distinctly before the reader’s mind the fact that American history so far was in reality a part of European history, and can be truthfully related only by a person who takes his stand now on one side, now on the other, of the Atlantic. There is a disposition to regard the facts too exclusively with reference to their American aspects, and if this policy is carried out we shall miss the best lessons which history has to give us, lessons which show our connection with the world’s history and not our independence of it. We cannot help thinking that a truly popular history would have indicated those undercurrents of race, law, and institutions which make the nexus of the New World with the Old, and act us interpreters of the later history, wrought out under more separate influences.

It is unfortunate that we are called on to read a single volume of the four that are promised. It is by no means impossible that in the later volumes the same conscientiousness when dealing with more familiar facts will be united with a more comprehensive grasp of the leading lines of historical development, and we shall look for such a result. But the present volume is an illustration of the fact that an abiding history grows, and is not made to order; that a popular history may be the better for springing from a popular impulse, but that it cannot maintain its character and fulfill its purpose while the authors are striving for the more enduring qualities of a scientific history.

— Of the great modern philosophers, that one of whom least is known is William Herschel. This is a real loss to our generation, and one we can ill afford to suffer. We may appropriate the words which escaped him when the barren region of the sky near the body of Scorpio was passing slowly through the field of his great reflector during one of his sweeps, to express our own sense of absence of light and knowledge : Hier ist wahrhaftig ein Loch im Himmel. He was born of humble parents in Hanover in 1738; he was educated by his father, a musician, to be himself a musician, and at the age of twenty-one he went to England to seek his fortune. In 1765 we find him as organist at Halifax, and the next year as organist of the Octagon Chapel, Bath. Here he was a busy and successful man, conducting oratorios and concerts, writing anthems and glees, giving lessons to fashionable pupils and getting on in the world. He was occupied with Latin, Italian, and Greek, and the Opticks of Dr. Smith, attending the meetings of a philosophical society in Bath, and bringing out Judas Maccabæus, Samson, the Messiah, with an orchestra of one hundred performers; also writing four-part songs which when copied he could not spare time to send to the publishers.

A desire to possess a telescope having been baulked by the necessary expense, he proceeds to make one for himself ; successful in this, he makes and sells others, and by rare good fortune in 1781 he finds the planet Uranus, called by him Georgium Sidus, in honor of his king. He was speedily named Roval Astronomer, and from this moment the world knows but little of his life as a man. He lived in his observatory, and from his forty-third to his eighty-fourth year he only left it for a short time every summer, to go to London, to submit his classic memoirs, carefully copied out for him by his sister, to the Royal Society ; and even for these occasions he chose the period of moonlight nights when no observations could be made. Almost all that was known of the private life of Herschel is told in these few lines, and the natural desire to know something more of England’s great philosopher remained quite unsatisfied. Fortunately Lady Herschel, the wife of Sir John Herschel, his son, has given to the world the memoirs of Caroline, the youngest sister of Sir William, his companion and assistant in all the splendid researches and discoveries which have made him famous.

To the admirer of William Herschel this book will be precious; nowhere else can he learn so much of his private history, of his energy in all pursuits, of his enthusiasm for astronomy, of the ardor of his spirit. The student of his wonderful series of papers in the Philosophical Transactions must admire him, delight in his genius, almost revere the clear-sightedness and philosophical tact of his mind ; to learn to love him, he must be seen as he is portrayed by the faithful hand of his sister. Her naïve notes were meant only for the eyes of her nephew, and were written to beguile the weary years of her later life in Hanover, — the twenty years she spent in waiting for death to take her from a world which was no longer lovely to her, since her brother was no longer in it to demand her devotion and her aid.

After his discovery of Uranus in 1781, it was not long before Herschel was called to present himself to the king. While the plans for his appointment as Royal Astronomer were in progress, he wrote from the court to his “Dear Lina” very fully. His first letter closes thus : “ All my papers are printing, with the postscript and all, and are allowed to be very valuable. You see, Lina, I tell you all these things. You know vanity is not my foible, therefore I need not fear your censure. ” And again, in his next letter from the court, “I pass my time between Greenwich and London agreeably enough, but am rather at a loss for work that I like. Company is not always pleasing, and I would much rather be polishing a speculum. . . . To-morrow I dine at Lord Palmerston’s, next day with Sir Joseph Banks, etc., etc. Among opticians and astronomers nothing now is talked of but what they call my great discoveries. Alas! this shows how far they are behind, when such trifles as I have seen and done are called great. Let me but get at it again! I will make such telescopes, and see such things — that is, I will endeavor to do so.” At the court, Herschel was received warmly, and he exhibited his telescopes to good effect; on one occasion when the sky was overcast he displayed his ingenuity and tact by replacing the real Saturn of the sky by a pasteboard model, which he illuminated by a lantern so that “ the effect was fine, and so natural that the best astronomer might have been deceived.”

As the result of this stay Herschel was appointed Roval Astronomer on a salary of two hundred pounds a year — as Sir William Watson exclaimed, “Never bought monarch honor so cheap ” — and soon removed to a house at Datchet, near Windsor. Here much of his time was wasted in exhibiting his telescope to the royal party at Windsor, and in transporting it to and fro between the two places, for his nights were devoted entire to his astronomy; it was his constant habit to observe till daylight at all seasons. From Datchet, Herschel soon moved to Clay Hall, near by, and again in 1786 a final move to Slough was made. “ The last night at Clay Hall was spent in sweeping till daylight, and by the next evening the telescope stood ready for observation at Slough.” In this ardent way Herschel “ minded the heavens ” for thirty years, when, broken in health and spirits, he died in 1822, tended to the last by the faithful hands of his sister, who left England at once to go to her old home in Hanover, there to die, as she supposed.

The simple story of her life is as noble in its way as the more exalted history of his. From her earliest childhood she adored her brother William, and on the mere suggestion that she might be sent to England to remain two years with him, if only she could be spared from her duties at home, she set about knitting for her mother and brother “ as many cotton stockings as would last two years at least,” and making “prospective clothes for them.” At last she went to Bath and became a successful singer in the oratorios conducted by her brother, copying music for him, “lending a hand” in the work-shop, in the observatory, anywhere where she could be of use, but always with the profoundest humility of spirit. “ I was a mere tool which he had the trouble of sharpening.” But the tool had the true temper. She acquired a knowledge of astronomical calculation, she assisted in the manufacture of specula, and was Herschel’s constant companion in the severe labors of observation which he undertook. When he was away from home she computed for him all day and minded the heavens for him at night, discovering independently no less than eight comets, five of which were first seen by her, and many nebulæ. Best of all, though least conspicuous, she introduced the greatest order in the record of his nightly work, copying and re-copying, computing and re-computing, verifying and checking everything, so that the value of that labor is immensely enhanced. Her devotion in everything was complete: after a severe accident to herself while assisting her brother at the telescope, she speaks of the “ comfort” she had in knowing that “my brother was no loser, for the remainder of the night was cloudy.” Again, in her diary : “ May 3d. I intended to pay a long promised visit to Mrs. G——, hut found my brother too busy with putting the forty-foot mirror in the tube. . . . Therefore I postponed my journey till I was sure I should not be wanted at home.” “January 1, 1815. Mem. The winter was uncommonly severe. My brother suffered from indisposition, and I, for my part, felt I should never be anything else but an invalid for life; but this I very carefully kept to myself, as I wished to be useful to my brother as long as possibly I could.” In 1819, a little note of Sir William’s is indorsed in her tremulous handwriting: “ I keep this as a relic! Every line, now, traced by the hand of my dear brother, becomes a treasure to me.” She kept a commonplace book, in which she wrote out in full the answers which her brother gave her at breakfast, or in his few leisure moments, to her questions as to the mathematical formulæ she was to use in her computations, and the like. After her discoveries of comets, the publication of two of her works by the Royal Society, and the praise and recognition of her labors by astronomers all over Europe, she still writes, “ I had the comfort to see that my brother was satisfied with my endeavors in assisting him.”

She received in Hanover the gold medal of the Royal Astronomical Society, a gold medal from the government of Prussia, and notices of her election as honorary member of the Royal Astronomical Society and the Royal Irish Academy. Of this last honor she writes to her nephew, “ I cannot help crying out aloud every now and then, What is that for ? ” Again, “ But I think it is almost mocking me to look upon me as a member of an Academy; I that have lived these eighteen years (against my will and intention) without finding as much as a single comet.” Her days in Hanover were spent in the great labor of reducing to one epoch the observations of twenty-five hundred nebulæ made at Slough, and from her intellectual solitude there she writes that the heat has made “ havoc in her brittle constitution.” “At the heavens there is no getting, for the high roofs of the opposite houses;” “the few stars that I can get at, out of my window, only cause me vexation.” She felt “the blank of life after having lived within the radiance of genius.” The natural tendency to despondency in her disposition did not make her morose, nor take away her sprightliness. In response to a flattering letter from Maskelyne she says, “ You see, sir, I do own myself to be vain, because I would not wish to be singular: and was there ever a woman without vanity ? Or a man either? only with this difference, that among gentlemen the commodity is generally styled ambition.” To her nephew (in whose work she took great pride) she says, “ I fear you must often be exposed to great dangers by creeping about in holes and corners among craters of volcanoes, but you know best, and I hope you found something.” “In 1787 I helped my brother to receive the Princess Lamballe, who came with a numerous attendance to see the moon, etc. About a fortnight after, her head was off.”

In Hanover her life was quiet and uneventful. In her day-book the date when the Astronomische Nachrichten arrived is always noted. Great men occasionally wrote to her, and she kept her interest in their work to the last. “ How I envy you having seen Bessel — the man who found us the parallax of 61 Cygni.” Altogether we must be thankful for this book, which gives us information we can find nowhere else of the great philosopher, her brother, and which has introduced to the world another character, her own, which it could ill afford to be ignorant of. Lady Herschel in her touching preface to the work says truly, “Of the noble company of unknown helpers Caroline Herschel was one.” Her portrait, the frontispiece of the volume, shows a strong and patient face. That of her brother in his early life is the most pleasing we have seen, far more full of the inner genius of the man than the later one published in 1823 by Henry Caxton. The text is defaced by many careless errors which good proof-reading should have eliminated.

— It is astonishing what pleasure may be derived from Mr. Hamerton’s books by one who does not expect too much of them. He is a gentle and reflective egoist who only asks of you to tolerate his mood and hear him out. He does not fatigue you by his brilliancy, nor reproach you by his superiority, nor excite you by his originality ; but his Observations are often acute and his judgments almost always fair. His artist’s taste and training make him admirable in the description of natural objects ; most admirable of all in depicting minute forms and drawing delicate distinctions. He always expects you to look at a large landscape with some slight reference to its effect on P. G. Hamerton, or to the effect of the latter in it ; but he loves the landscape, and in the end he makes you love the painter. The present volume3 is a convenient reprint of two previous ones which first appeared in a more luxurious shape, illustrated by numerous etchings of the author’s own. The Sylvan Year is the story, under a light guise of fiction, of a year spent by Mr. Hamerton in that unfrequented part of rural France which lies between the vine-lands of Burgundy and the river Loire. The loveliest parts of his journal are those in which he analyzes the color of the landscape in that region, and describes its flora.

The voyage down the Unknown River loses more than the Sylvan Year by the absence of the etchings, which were all interesting, although of very unequal merit. But it is still more readable by one of quiet mind than the tale of most voyages of discovery.

— The aim of Mr. Klaczko, in his interesting volume,4 is to unveil the mysteries of diplomacy, and to show that while Gortchakof and Bismarck put their two heads together and outwitted the whole of Europe, Bismarck was playing a still deeper game on his own account, and now laughs much and long in his sleeve when he thinks of the way he has hoodwinked Gortchakof, to whom he intends to give and always has given merely the shell of the oyster. In proof of the soundness of this hypothesis, which is considered a satisfactory explanation of the recent changes in European politics, Mr. Klaczko has written a very fascinating history of European diplomacy during the last twenty-five years. Naturally a good part of this history concerns itself especially with Bismarck, for whom this author, who has strong Austrian sympathies, entertains a very hearty hatred. It must be said, however, that he is far too wily a man to show his hatred too plainly ; he has another end in view, the disclosing of his foe’s designs, and he is too clear-sighted not to know that his heaviest blows would be those which baffled Bismarck by betraying his intentions. By representing Russia as the blind tool of Germany he doubtless hopes to kindle the jealous wrath of those Slaves who are opposed to Teutonic influence, and in this way to check the growth of German power. Certainly this book tends to arouse Russian distrust, but that the arguments he has collected are sufficient to convince an indifferent outsider cannot be affirmed. Too much stress, in our opinion, is laid upon the early connection between Gortchakof and Bismarck, and it is by no means conclusively shown that they grew to be great friends. “At Frankfort he (Gorthakof) took especial pleasure in the society of his Prussian colleague, a young lieutenant in the Landwehr, an entire novice in the diplomatic career, although marked out for such a prodigious destiny,” is the sentence describing the beginning of the plotting between the arch-conspirators; to this is added, a few pages farther on, the statement that Gortchakof at Frankfort found “ firm support in his colleague of Prussia;” and farther on still, this feeble substructure is magnified as follows; “Prince Gortchakof, as we have already seen, had made the acquaintance of, and maintained the most intimate relations with a colleague,” etc. This is certainly not the way to write history, without giving the reader the testimony ; and a slip like this has no other effect than to put the cautious reader on his guard against possibly more warrantable statements on the part of the wouldbe historian.

It should be said, however, that in unraveling the tangled web of diplomacy, Mr. Klaczko is invariably an entertaining, even if an uncertain guide. He, like many others, cannot forgive Bismarck for being ambitious, for trying to lift Germany into a place among the higher powers; and all his polite satire and amusing reading of history are used for decrying him. That Bismarck will find him a very serious enemy can hardly be supposed, for a man who always misleads his adversaries by stating exactly what he is going to do, as is the case with the German chancellor, will not stand in too great dread of exposure ; and, moreover, he has too many burdens already on his shoulders to mind what every pamphleteer may have to urge against him. Indeed, what Mr. Klaczko has written is not so sure to redound to Bismarck’s discredit as may have been desired ; for at any rate his ability is not denied ; and this book, at the best, only proves his skill in diplomacy. Those who regard Bismarck as a fiend, for defeating Austria in 1866, and the French in 1870, will regard this veiled attack as a most just punishment for a wicked and ill-spent life ; those, however, who do not so utterly blame the course of Germany, will not dread this unflattering portrait of a great man; and all, whether they agree with Mr. Klaczko or not, will find his book entertaining.

The translation is on the whole well done, though there are places, here and there, which are marked by French rather than English idiom. For example, Bismarck’s mot is not well given in this form : “Paris is too great a personage that we should treat it in this manner,” etc. Moreover, was Mr. Eugene Schuyler ever “ambassador of the United States at St. Petersburg” ? This, to be sure, is an error of the original writer, but should it not have been corrected by the translator? The foot-note, page 188, also needs revision. “The narration made by M. Thiers himself, some days later, to the diocese of Orleans,” is an inaccurate rendering : what is meant is, what he said at the palace of the Bishop of Orleans.

— It is hard to see what there is of especial interest in the trip of a Centennial commissioner in Europe5 that he should write a book about it. In this case, however, the commissioner is an editor of a paper to which he wrote very hurried letters, and at the request of flattering friends he weakly consented to publish them in book form. That the letters are of startling novelty or interest it would be hard to say, although there are few people who would find so little to blame in what they saw as did Mr. Forney. In his first letter he says, “I am more than ever impressed, as I see the good results produced by our noble Americanbuilt steamers, with their heavy freights, full complement of happy passengers, and excellent management, as to the paramount justice of protecting American manufactures.” This testimony from so unprejudiced a witness is of great value, and when one considers how seasick and unhappy all the passengers sometimes are on the Cunard steamers, it may be said to be perfectly convincing. Perhaps Mr. Forney’s enthusiasm appears most strongly in his mention of the notorious Weston’s defeat of the English champion in a walking-match, which he visited in company with the late minister to England, General Schenck. “ Lightly built, agile, pale, and firm, with a bright, flashing eye, he (Weston) looked a sort of young Antinous. He saw and recognized us, and with a flash of glad and grateful welcome repeatedly kissed his hand to us as he passed.” This young Antinous “ wore a velvet coat, jaunty hat, and white kid gloves, with top-boots of thin patent-leather,” unlike the old Antinous, it will be noticed. But Mr. Forney’s bubbling enthusiasm does not stop here ; he goes on to say : “ As we passed out of the great hall and heard the band and the shouts of the honest crowds, I could not help asking an American friend whether the lamented James Buchanan, while minister to England, with his chilling white cravat, or Charles Francis Adams, robed in his cold, ancestral mantle, would have gone out like Robert C. Schenck to mingle with the boisterous and somewhat perilous British crowd to offer comfort to a young American stranger in London, in the hour of his expected defeat, with no hope of his overwhelming triumph.” One cannot help wondering what was the dress of our minister on that day when in company with Mr. Forney he found himself in an honest crowd. It is much to the credit of both these gentlemen that they were not more terrified.

Mr. Forney did not waste his time in pleasure alone ; he had the interests of the Centennial Exhibition near his patriotic heart, and accordingly he visited the exempress of the French to ask her to “send some token of the interest she manifested in the Exhibition.” It is hardly gallant of him, however, to begin his account of this meeting by mentioning the lady’s age, although he does away with any possible evil impression by relating at some length the impression she made upon his susceptible heart. A captious critic on the lookout for errors might detect what Matthew Arnold would call the note of provinciality, in Mr. Forney’s habit of bringing the people he describes vividly before his readers by mentioning the citizen of Philadelphia whom they most nearly resemble. Thus, Mr. Charles Reade looks like “our William Sellers, of Philadelphia;” again, “I do not know how better to bring John Bright before you than to say he is not unlike John O. James, or Colonel Thomas A. Scott, with a pair of white whiskers running under the chin, and snowy hair.” One more example must suffice : “ There was a fine old Catholic priest, with a figure like Archbishop Wood and a face like Shelton Mackenzie, who alternately devoured the pages of the Revue de Monde (sic) and discussed politics with his neighbor.” However convenient this habit may be to Philadelphians, to the countless readers of this volume in other parts of the world it cannot help being an unsatisfactory guide. Seriously, this book is a most depressing record of cheaply accumulated facts and the naïvest vulgarity, and that any attention should have been paid to the Exhibition by those who were brought into the presence of this commissioner speaks well for their good nature.

— Mrs. Dodge’s volume, Theophilus and Others,6 shows that she can write almost as entertainingly for grown people as she can for children, which is saying a great deal. This book is made up of a number of little stories of modest pretensions, and of essays which by no means exhaust the subjects considered, although they are for the most part bright and readable. Not all the contributions are of equal merit. The first one, Dobbs’s Horse, describes, in a way with which many experienced readers can sympathize, the struggles of a city family in the country over more or less uncommendable horses. Theophilus is the husband whose impetuosity, laziness, and good nature are no more than distinguish a large class of that race, and the “others” referred to in the title are children ; a Boston lady “of ‘Mayflower’ descent,” who says: “I should really admire to have Annie become intimate with her ; ” a wild negro servant; an Irish servant who states in two pages her objections to the Chinese, etc.

Mrs. Dodge’s humor is delightful; her sentiment is possibly a trifle tedious, as if the habit of writing for children had caused unnecessary and superfluous contempt for the intelligence of their elders, who also are expected to take their pathos watered. This is a trifling fault, however, and the volume, slight as it is, is sure to be liked.

— It may well be questioned whether the authors of the Wide, Wide World have added to their fame by this new novel.7 In the first place, the story it tells is one of no marked merit or originality, and the way in which it is told is in the highest degree crabbed and unintelligible. There is such an air of pertness about every one of the speakers, — and the story is told almost entirely by means of conversations, — that the reader gets the impression that all the characters are referring to jests known only to themselves, as if he were overhearing private conversations.

As may be imagined, this scrappy way of writing soon becomes very tiresome from the difficulty the reader has in detecting the hidden meaning of these curt sentences. The book tells the love of Rollo for Wych Hazel, and indulges in gentle satire against parties, round dances, etc. The love-story is made obscure, Rollo’s manners are called “ Spanish,” and he is in many ways a peculiar young man. We seem to be dealing much more with notes for a novel than with the completed product.

— It is hard to say anything about Miss Duhring’s book which will not sound harsh.8 For three hundred pages she expresses her opinion on Gentlefolks and Others, the others being Lovers of Nature, Letter-Writers, Foolish Virgins, Passionate Women, Authors, Egoists, Liars, Thieves and the Like, Confidants, etc. The general tone of these essays, in which the smoothness of expression is more marked than the profundity of the thought, may be gathered from this example: —

“ There is a strong tendency in the present age to depreciate letter-writing.

“ ‘ Of what use ? ’ cries the spirit of Utilitarianism. ‘ I have steam, electricity, commerce, and agriculture ; I see our country growing in extent, wealth, and power. Are not these enough ? ’

“‘Yes, more than enough!’ retorts the spirit of Beauty. ‘ I grant you all your strength and influence ; would do nothing to check your growth. But I, too, have my rightful place in the empire ; one from which you cannot rightly exclude me. If you ignore this right, you will see how courageously I can defend my birthright! ’ ”

It will be impossible, however, not to notice the inappropriateness of the remarks of both of these personified spirits ; commerce, agriculture, steam, and growth in wealth and power have nothing to say against the writing of letters, and the spirit of Beauty seems to indulge in unnecessary threatenings.

Throughout the volume there is no lack of instances of similar virtue in missing of the point. The book is full of idle reveries of a superficial sort, expressed with great fullness, never rising to any important utterance, but keeping the dull monotone of those vague fancies which rarely, in such profusion at least, see printer’s ink. Both the spirit of Beauty and that of Utilitarianism might make the book a text for some unpleasant remarks. Miss Duhring’s theory of writing is a very dangerous one. Good writing is, according to her, “ whatever you write without conscious effort, without knowing, when the pages are finished, what you have written.” A saying better worth remembering is this, that easy writing is hard reading.

— The second volume of the Life of Lord Shelburne 9 opens with his being made Secretary of State in 1766. The office was then divided into the northern and southern departments, and Shelburne held the southern, which was by far the more responsible, including the management of home and Irish affairs, and the correspondence with the states of Western Europe, India, and the colonies. He was twentynine years of age, and devoted to the principles and policy of Lord Chatham. His enemies, like Walpole, called him Lord Chatham’s creature, very falsely. Shelburne was never any man’s creature. On the contrary, his eccentric and over-haughty individuality made him unpopular even among his friends, and robbed him of much of the consideration which he should have won by the consistent liberality of his views and his patient devotion to what he considered the public weal.

The time was a stormy one in English politics. Ireland was unusually vicious and discontented; the American colonies were on the eve of their final revolt; the affairs of the East India Company had assumed a most threatening aspect; and the

other great European powers — France under the ministry of the ambitious and able Duc de Choiseul, Spain through her wily minister Masserano, Prussia with an unsatisfied private grudge against England, — were eagerly watching for the moment when they might best take advantage of Great Britain’s internal troubles. At the head of the administration was the brilliant and unscrupulous Charles Townshend, the leader of what was known as the king’s party, who encouraged George III. in every aggressive and implacable whim, especially toward the American colonies. Townshend also desired to flatter the East Indian magnates by opposing all schemes for the limitation of their revenues and the curtailment of their power, and whatever was lost to the general revenue of the country in this way he proposed to make up by increased taxation of the transatlantic states. Against such a policy Shelburne struggled as best he might. His letters on American affairs, despite the inveterate clumsiness and obscurity of style which he never, save in moments of very indignant eloquence, quite overcame, seem models of fairness and common sense ; and he strove manfully to have what were called the territorial revenues of the East India Company forfeited to the government, and their monstrous dividends limited to ten per cent. Shelburne’s position at this time was a peculiarly solitary and unpleasant one. His proper leader, Lord Chatham, was prostrated by the first attack of that mysterious malady, half physical and half mental, which deprived the state of his valuable services at a most critical time, and plunged him in so morose a silence that not even the young statesman who was understood to be the active representative of his views could get out of him a word of real sympathy or counsel for the space of three years. Chatham forbade his much - tried colleague to resign, and that was all. Once, indeed, during this period, Chatham, who continued to hold the Privy Seal, roused himself and made a strenuous effort to get rid of Townshend altogether, and have Lord North appointed in his place; but he failed, and Townshend revenged himself by attacking Shelburne in the famous “champagne ” speech, concerning which Horace Walpole, after deploring the accidental burning up of his first and fuller account, writes on the 12th of May, 1767, to Sir Horace Mann, “ It was a wonderful speech, apropos to nothing, yet about everything, — about ministers past, present, and to come, himself in particular, whom I think rather past than to come. It was all wit and folly, satire and indiscretion ; he was half drunk when he made it, and yet that did but serve to raise the idea of his abilities.” That speech was very nearly the last ebullition of Townshend’s lively malice. On the 27th of the next September we find Walpole writing from Paris, “Our comet is set! Charles Townshend is dead. All those parts and fire are extinguished ; those volatile salts are evaporated; the first eloquence of the world is dumb ! That duplicity is fixed, that cowardice has terminated heroically. He joked on death as naturally as he used to do on the living, and not with the affectation of philosophers who wind up their works with sayings which they hope to have remembered.”

On the death of Townshend, the Bedford whigs, under the leadership of the head of that house, came into full power, and Lord Shelburne’s position was not improved. In the first place, his office was divided, — a measure which had been proposed and had failed under Lord Rockingham, —and the department of American affairs was given to Lord Hillsborough, who was fully of the popular opinion that America was to be coerced into good behavior. Shelburne was, however, desired to keep the chief management of Irish and foreign affairs, and in vain did he attempt to obtain Lord Chatham’s opinion on the propriety of his retaining an office so curtailed. “ Your ladyship,” he wrote to Lady Chatham, for he no longer held direct communication with the great earl, “ sees the delicacy of this situation. My sincere and only wish is to do what is agreeable to Lord Chatham, not so much from a motive of private regard, as a thorough conviction that nothing but his compass and extent of mind can save this country from some great confusion. My reason for not choosing the new department proposed is no dislike to the office, but that I think the general system affected ; but if Lord Chatham desires I should do it, I am very ready to take the part he wishes, notwithstanding my own earnest inclinations.” He got no help in his perplexity, and in the end decided — one cannot help thinking from the most disinterested motives — to retain the office, which he did for about a year longer. He labored hard to effect some positive good for Ireland, being Irish born and an immense Irish proprietor, and thus feeling the real grievances of that ill-govered nation as no alien statesman could have done. He also resisted firmly the designs of France upon Corsica, and favored the independence of the island, although he did not heartily admire the ill-fated hero of the Corsican revolution, Pascal Paoli.

On the 19th of October, 1769, Shelburne finally resigned the seals of his secretaryship, and began, as member of the House of Lords, to work with all his might, and to very little purpose, in the distracted opposition. In January, 1771, his beloved wife died suddenly, and he himself, being in greatly impaired health, resolved to quit England for a time. He accordingly visited the Continent, taking with him his life-long friend, Colonel Barré, and in the philosophic circles of the French capital he found congenial society, an easy tolerance of his peculiarities of manner and temper, and the sort of sympathetic appreciation which his own countrymen had been slow to allow him. Here he met Malesherbes, for whom he conceived a most reverent admiration, and the Abbé Morellet, the French Adam Smith, who became his intimate friend, and to whom he afterwards extended the hospitality of the British Isles in the most superb manner.

It does not appear to us that the present volume of Lord Shelburne’s memoirs quite fulfills the promise of Lord Fitsmaurice’s prospectus. Undoubtedly, however, it gives us a clearer idea of Shelburne as a man than could be derived from the previous one. We recognize the superficial faults and foibles which hindered men from perceiving his real nobility of purpose, and in a measure defeated his justly earned fame. It was his misfortune to be, during the greater part of his public career, a member of an unsuccessful opposition, at a time, too, when party feeling ran very high, and personal abuse was unbridled. It seems to have been purely his misfortune that his manners were so artificial that people found it hard to believe in his sincerity of spirit. His theories, nay, his political action, were consistently liberal, almost democratic; yet he was personally very haughty and exclusive,— a combination so common that one would think men might after a while cease to be amazed at it. He did right in a wrong spirit. He had a certain careless contempt for his fellow-men, whom all the while he was resolved to benefit. He scorned to conciliate them, yet cherished a secret resentment because they did not always discern his generous intent under his forbidding manner. There was much more of this sort of antagonism with his own countrymen than with the French, among whom he was easily at home ; and indeed he seems always to have been regarded in England as a species of foreigner, and his highly ceremonious manners as very affectedly uninsular. There is a curious instance of this in a little affair he had with Lady Rockingham, who had supplied him with snuff once, when, in calling on her on his way to the House of Lords, he had found himself without that necessary stimulant. Lord Shelburne returned the snuff with such formality, and in a snuff-box of such offensive magnificence, that my lady felt her simple courtesy insulted, and replied in a very stiff and super-dignified note. On the other hand, it is interesting to see what a different impression the English statesman made upon Madame de l’Espinasse, whom he captivated upon their first meeting. She has been telling in a letter how dazzling and charming Madame Boufflers was at a certain dinner of Madame Geoffrin’s. “ But you should have seen,” she says, “ the effect upon Milord Shelburne. He is simple and natural. He is strong; he has a soul. He cares only for that which resembles himself, — at least in the matter of simplicity. I think he is most happy to have been born an Englishman.

I have seen a great deal of him, and heard him talk, and he is intellectual, ardent, elevated. He reminds me a little of both those men of the world whom I have loved, and for whom I would be willing either to live or die.”

The circle of esprits forts who used to frequent Bowood in the later years of Lord Shelburne’s life —Franklin, Barré, the distinguished dissenter Dr. Price, the Unitarian Dr. Priestley, to whom Shelburne gave an annuity of two hundred and fifty pounds and the nominal office of his librarian, and the philosophic Frenchmen who came and went—comprised some of the most noteworthy thinkers of the age; and doubtless they enjoyed themselves and one another after the manner of esprits forts. The present volume closes with a chapter entitled Shelburne on Men and Things, comprising extracts from memoranda found among the statesman’s papers which throw some curious side-lights upon his mind and character.


It is a singular thing about French novels that they can be so easily divided into distinct classes, one consisting of those which are likely to call up a blush for the moment, while at the same time they tend to undermine and do away with the habit of blushing, and the other of those that have almost nothing to do with the human heart except as an organ not to be tampered with by the assassin’s knife. When a French author sets about writing a novel which shall be free of all guile and a fitting occupant of the drawing-room, he invents a story of murder or robbery, in which the guilty ones are hidden, and the interest lies in detecting the well - concealed offenders. Now novels of this sort never fail in giving entertainment, though they have by no means the charm of love-stories, because every reader either has been, is, or expects or at least hopes to be, in love ; while even with the immunity now generally given to murderers, there are but few novel-readers who either have committed murders or intend to commit them, and fewer still, it is only fair to suppose, who are committing them while reading.

Le Serment de Madeleine 11 is a novel of this last-named class, and one that may be safely commended to those readers who are anxious to avoid being shocked by what they read. Madeleine, the heroine, is first the wife and then the widow of a man who is unjustly accused of the murder of a rich usurer, who is found killed the evening after a visit from her husband, a carpenter, who has just been making him a strong box. The testimony gathers around the innocent man very closely, but yet he is acquitted. When he returns home, however, he suffers from the scorn of his acquaintances, who had for a long time been jealous of him, and now look upon his stay in prison as a most degrading thing ; he finds that others have supplanted him in his business, so that his path in life is very thorny. His wife at the moment of his acquittal had sworn a solemn oath in the court-room, before judge, jury, lawyers, and spectators, to find out who was the guilty man, and the largest part of the book describes her efforts and varying success. She is a well-drawn character, and her energy and affection are clearly put before us. Indeed, in many respects this book has a certain modest value as a portrayal of the lives and ways of the peasants and villagers in the Vosges. At last the real murderer is detected. Madeleine’s husband has died broken-hearted, but she has yet her duty to her children to spur her on to revenge; and although the case is a complicated one, and when she finds out who really committed the murder she is tempted to keep silent, she does not and justice is not defrauded of its victim.

It may be seen that this is not one of the most fascinating novels that was ever written, but it need not be passed over too hastily on that account; it is readable, and for the time it is held in the hands it fixes the attention.

— Die Moderne Oper12 is one of a German series of books which is intended to cover a certain number of subjects interesting to all who care for literary, scientific, historical, and artistic matters. The list of authors who have agreed to write in it includes such well-known names as Auerbach, Paul Heyse, F. Bodenstedt, Louis Büchner, Bluntochli, Paul Lindau, Von Giesebrecht, Gutzkow, Häckel, Von Sybel, Spielhagen, Strodtmann, Carl Vogt, Daniel Sanders, and Vambéry, and almost every one of these, it is fair to say, is familiar to American readers who have followed the course of German literature during the last few years. It may be said here that the annual payment of the sum of thirty marks, or fifteen dollars, to Herrn Verlagsbuchhändler A. Hofmann, Kronenstrasse, 17 Berlin W , will reward the subscriber by the return of seven neatly - printed books of the series, bound in cloth.

The book before us is very entertaining; the author, Dr. Hauslick, is a musical critic of note in Vienna as well as professor of history, and in this volume it has been his endeavor to give a certain amount of information about the operas that have been given in Vienna during the last twenty years, with some account of the different composers. In his preface he says: “ The great excess in the number of very recent composers mentioned in these pages is explained by the condition of the modern repertory. Almost every year the once large contingent of older pieces grows smaller, and more and more do famous composers retire into the biographical dictionary, where they are styled immortal, whereas for the present age they are dead and forgotten. The famous axiom that what is ‘ really beautiful ’ (and who shall decide what is !) can never, in any lapse of time, lose its charm, is, so far as music is concerned, hardly more than a figure of speech.” And further on : “Every time has proclaimed the immortality of its favorites. Even Adam Hiller, in Leipzig, declared that if Hasse’s operas ever ceased to give delight, universal barbarism must ensue ; even Schubart, the writer on music, said of Jomelli that it was inconceivable that that composer should ever be forgotten; and what are Hasse and Jomelli now ? . . . History teaches us that operas, for the certainty of whose immortality we would gladly march to the stake, have an average life of from forty to fifty years, a limit which only very few survive and is seldom reached.” Certainly these passages show that the author looks at his subject with the eye of a philosopher, and that he does not spend his time in bewailing unavoidable change.

In this book he has written of the operas of Gluck, Mozart, Rossini, Auber, Meyerbeer, Ambroise Thomas, Gounod, Verdi, Schumann, Wagner, Rubinstein, and Johann Strauss, at some length, with briefer mention of those of Beethoven, Weber, Marschner, Cherubini, Méhul, and Boieldieu. It may be begging the whole question to say that Wagner belongs among those whose position on Parnassus is not yet assured; but, on the other hand, it is fair enough in view of the way in which his supporters are continually alleging his greatness, and thus betraying their uneasiness, just as seafowls betray to the intruder the nearness of their young by their anxiety to attract him from the spot. Hauslick says of him : “Wagner is certainly fortunate in everything. First, he raged against all crowned heads, and lo ! a noble king steps forward full of enthusiastic love, and secures him against want or poverty. Then he writes a squib against the Jews, and all the Jews, musical or unmusical, encourage him more warmly by writing favorable notices of him in the papers and by buying his Bayreuth bonds. In a pamphlet On Directing, he proves that all our conductors and musical directors are nothing but mechanics, to whom he would not trust a ‘ single tempo ’ of one of his operas; and at once our conductors and musical directors from Wagner unions send and enlist troops for the contest at Bayreuth. Opera singers and directors whose performances Wagner had criticised most severely in his writings follow his footsteps wherever he leads, and are made happy by a smile from him. He brands our conservatories (in a Report to King Ludwig) as the most worthless, pernicious institutions ; and the pupils of the Vienna Conservatory form a lane before Richard Wagner and collect money for a tribute of honor to the master. . . . Without doubt Wagner is a most remarkable man. His unwearying energy and love of work have won our admiring respect.” After speaking of Wagner’s reluctance to bringing out his operas in theatres where other operas have been played, Hauslick goes on; “ So Wagner has built a new theatre, a Wagner theatre, in order to serve up his gifts in fresh vessels. At the same time he thinks of renewing, with his performances at Bayreuth, that golden age of Greece when the theatre did not supply daily amusement, but a rare popular festival, a serious, religious, artistic uplifting of the nation. Whether classical Greece, which is so absolutely separated from our time, will be renewed through the Bayreuth theatre, the future will show ; one difference at least is clear. The Greek plays were really popular festivals, open to every one without expense ; but in order to see the Nibelungen operas at Bayreuth one must have a ticket costing three hundred thalers. Consequently only rich friends of music can secure this musical treat for themselves. By belonging to a ‘Wagner union ’ one has a chance of winning a ticket in a lottery.”Moreover, concerts are given to procure money for the tickets of needy lovers and students of music, Wagner himself taking it for granted that the pilgrimage to Bayreuth is indispensable for all; but since all cannot receive three hundred thalers from the concerts, the “ worthiest ” will have to be selected, whose “ worth ” will probably depend on their musical faith, “so that this festival, which pretends to be a German national festival, will really be that of the rich and of those poor Wagner enthusiasts for whom the rich pay. This does not agree with renewed Olympic games, or with the democratic clap-trap Wagner is not averse to using; if he had cared to give pleasure to the people he would have done better to take some large theatre already standing, where any one could have obtained admission for a few groschen.” The building of this theatre, he says, is one of the most remarkable events in the history of art, and the most extraordinary success a composer ever achieved.

Many lovers of music have a very reasonable dislike to reading books on music, where they often find confused attempts at interpretation of musical masterpieces; but in this book there is nothing of the sort. This author writes in a clear and brilliant style about music and musical men and musical matters, in a perfectly intelligible way, without affectation or pretense. His wit is often very keen and entertaining, and the reader moreover always has the feeling that he has to do with a man perfectly familiar with his subject.


Casseil, Petter, and Galpin, London : The History of Free Trade in Tuscany, with Remarks on its Progress in the Rest of Italy. By James Montgomery Stuart. — Systems of Land Tenure in Various Countries. A Series of Essays published under the Sanction of the Cobden Club. Edited by J. W. Probyn.

Claxton, Remsen, and Haffelfinger, Philadelphia; The Influence of the Blue Ray of the Sunlight, and of the Blue Color of the Sky, in developing Animal and Vegetable Life, as illustrated by the Experiments of General A. .J. Pleasonton and others.

John D. Conway, Lawrence, Mass. : The Complete Poems of John D Conway; or, Hours of Recreation.

Eighth Annual Report of the Noxious, Beneficial, and other Insects of the State of Missouri. By Charles V. Riley, State Entomologist.

Government Printing Office, Washington : Circulars of Information of the Bureau of Education.

E. J. Hale and Son, New York: Ellen Story. A Novel. By Edgar Fawcett.

Henry Holt & Co., New York: Leisure Hour

Series. A Story of Three Sisters. By Cecil Maxwell.

Hurd and Houghton, New York : Elements of Physical Manipulation. By Edward C. Pickering. Part II.

Lee and Shepard, Boston : The Chinese Problem. By L. T. Townsend, D. D. — A Nation’s Birth, and other National Poems. By George H. Calvert.

J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia: America discovered by the Welsh in 1170 A. D. By Rev. Benjamin F Bowen.

Longmans, Green, & Co., London : The Second Death and the Restitution of all Things. A Letter to a Friend. By Andrew Jukes. Fourth Edition. — The Types of Genesis, briefly considered as Revealing the Development of Human Nature. By Andrew Jukes. Third Edition.

J. R. Osgood & Co., Boston : A Study of Hawthorne. By George Parsons Lathrop. — Roadside Poems. For Summer Travelers. Edited by Lucy Larcom. — The Complete Poetical Works of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. Centennial Edition. With Numerous Illustrations. — The Dolliver Romance, and other Pieces. By Nathaniel Hawthorne. — Fanshawe, and other Pieces. By Nathaniel Hawthorne.

G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York : Clarel. A Poem and Pilgrimage in the Holy Land. By Herman Melville Vole. I., II. — German Political Leaders. By Herbert Tuttle. — A Philosophy of Religion, or the Rational Grounds of Religious Belief. By John Bascom. —The Science of Ethics. An Elementary System of Theoretical and Practical Morality. By Henry N. Day.

George Routledgc and Sons, London : Thomas Wingfold, Curate. By George Macdonald, LL. D.

J. W. Schermerhorn & Co., Now York ; Elements of English Grammar. By S. W. Whitney, A. M.

Swedenborg Society, London : Documents concerning the Life and Character of Emanuel Swedenborg. Volume I. By R. L. Tafel, A. M., Ph. D.

The Trow City Directory Co., New York : Trow’s New York City Directory. Vol. XC. For the Year ending May 1, 1877-

Trübner & Co., London: Love’s Trilogy. By Thomas Sinclair, M. A.— From Feudal to Federal; or Free Church, Free School, the Completed Bases of Equality ; with some of its Results in State, Constitution, and Empire. By J. A. Partridge. — Citizenship versus Secularists and Sacerdotalists, in the Matter of National Teaching. By a Birmingham Liberal. — Geological Survey of Victoria. Prodromus of the Palæontology of Victoria; or, Figures and Descriptions of the Victorian Organic Remains. Decade III. By Frederick McCoy, F. G. S., etc.

Twenty-First Annual Report of the Board of Directors of the St. Louis Public Schools, for the Year ending August 1, 1875.

John Wanamaker, Philadelphia: The SundaySchool Times Scholars’ Quarterly. A Help to Teachers and Scholars in the Study of The International Lessons. Third Quarter, 1876.

S. R. Wells & Co., New York : Heart Echoes. By Helen A. Manoille.

Virtue and Yorston, New York : Reminiscences of Saratoga and Ballston. By William L. Stone. Illustrated.

  1. History of the Army of the Cumberland. Its Organization, Campaigns, and Battles. Written at the request of Major-General George II. Thomas, chiefly from his private military journal and official and other documents furnished by him. By THOMAS B. VAN HORNE, U S. Army Illustrated with campaign and battle maps compiled by Edward Ruger, late Superintendent Topographical Engineer Office, Head-quarters Department of the Cumber land. Two volumes and atlas. Cincinnati : Robert Clarke & Co. 1875.
  2. A Popular History of the United States, from the First Discovery of the Western Hemisphere by the Northmen, to the End of the First Century of the Union of the States. Preceded by a Sketch of the Prehistoric Period and the Age of the Mound Builders. By WILLIAM CULLEN BRYANT and SYDNEY HOWARD GAY. Vol. I. Fully illustrated. Now York Scribner, Armstrong, & Co. 1876
  3. Memoir and Correspondence of Caroline Herschel. By LADY HERSCHEL. With Portraits. London : John Murray 1876
  4. The Sylvan Year, and the Unknown River. By P. G. HAMERTON. Boston: Roberts Bros. 1876.
  5. Two Chancellors: Prince Gortchakof and Prince Bismarck By JULIAN KLACZKO. Translated from the Revue des Deux Mondes, by FRANK P WARD. New York: Hurd and Houghton Cam bridge : The Riverside Press. 1876
  6. A Centennial Commissioner in Europe. 1874-76. By JOHN W. FORNEY, Editor of The Philadelphia Press. Philadelphia : J. B. Lippincott & Co 1876.
  7. Theophilus and Others. By MARY MAPES DODGE, author of Hans Brinker, or The Silver Skates, Rhymes and Jingles, etc. New York: Scribner, Armstrong, & Co. 1876.
  8. Wych Hazel. BY SUSAN and ANNA WARNER, authors of Wide, Wide World, Queechy, etc., etc. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons. 1876.
  9. Gentlefolks and Others. By JULIA DUHRING, author of Philosophers and Fools. Philadelphia: J B. Lippincott & Co. 1876
  10. Life of William, Earl of Shelburne, afterwards First Marquis of Lansdowne. With Extracts from his Papers and Correspondence. By LORD FITSMAURICE. Vol. II. London: Macmillan & Co. 1876.
  11. All books mentioned under this head are to be had at Schoenhof and Moeller’s, 40 Winter St., Boston, Mass.
  12. Le Serment de Madeleine. Par CHARLES DESLYS Paris: Dentu. 1875.
  13. Die Moderne Oper. Von DR. E. HAUSLICK. Berlin: Hofmann. 1876.