but we see in these scholarly tastes and habits which do not seclude a man from the duties of real life and useful citizenship the only safeguard against the evils which the rapid heaping-up of wealth is sure to bring with it.
We do not always agree with Mr. Norton in his estimate of the comparative merit of different artists. We think he sometimes makes Mr. Ruskin’s mistake of attributing to positive religious sentiment what is rather to be ascribed to the negative influence of circumstances and date. We cannot help thinking that the mere arrangement of their figures by such painters as Cima da Conegliano and Francesco Francia, the architectural regularity of their disposition, the sculpturesque dignity of their attitudes, and the consequent impression of simplicity and repose which they convey, have much to do with the religious effect they produce on the mind, as contrasted with the more dramatic and picturesque conceptions of later artists. When we look at John Bellino’s “Gods come down to taste the Fruits of the Earth,” we cannot think him essentially a more religious man than his great pupil who painted that truly divine countenance of Christ in “The Tribute-Money.” At the same time we go along with Mr. Norton heartily, where, in the concluding pages of his book, with equal learning and eloquence, he points out the causes and traces the progress of the moral and artistic decline which came over Italy in the sixteenth century, and whose effect made the seventeenth almost a desert. This is one of the most striking passages in the volume, and the lesson of it is brought home to us with a force and fervor worthy of the theme. It also affords a good type of the quiet vigor of thought and the high moral purpose which are characteristic of the author.
1. _An American Dictionary of the English Language,_ etc., etc. By NOAH WEBSTER, LL. D. Revised and enlarged by CHAUNCEY A. GOODRICH, Professor in Yale College. Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam. 1859. pp. ccxxxvi., 1512.
2. _A Dictionary of the English Language._ By JOSEPH E. WORCESTER, LL. D. Boston: Hickling, Swan, & Brewer. 1860. pp. lxviii,, 1786.
Since the famous Battle of the Books in St. James’s Library, no literary controversy has been more sharply waged than that between the adherents of the rival Dictionaries of Doctors Worcester and Webster. The attack was begun thirty years ago, by Dr. Webster’s publishers, when Dr. Worcester’s “Comprehensive Dictionary” first appeared in print. On the publication of his “Universal and Critical Dictionary,” in 1846, it was renewed, and, not to speak of occasional skirmishes during the interval, the appearance of Dr. Worcester’s enlarged and finished work brought matters to the crisis of a pitched battle.
From this long conflict Dr. Worcester has unquestionably come off victorious. Dr. Webster seemed to assume that he had a kind of monopoly in the English language, and that whoever ventured to compile a dictionary was guilty of infringing his patent-right. He drew up a list of words, and triumphantly asked Dr. Worcester where he had found them, unless in his two quartos of 1828. Dr. Worcester replied by showing that most of the words were to be found in previous English dictionaries, and added, with sly humor, that he freely acknowledged Dr. Webster’s exclusive property in the word “bridegoom,” and others like it, which would be sought for vainly in any volumes but his own. Dr. Webster’s attack was as unfair as the result of it was unfortunate for himself.
We have several reasons, which seem to us sufficient, for preferring Dr. Worcester’s Dictionary; but we are not, on that account, disposed to underrate the remarkable merits of its rival. Dr. Webster was a man of vigorous mind, and endowed with a genuine faculty of independent thinking. He has hardly received justice at the hands of his countrymen, a large portion of whom have too hastily taken a few obstinate whimsies as the measure of his powers. Utterly fanciful as are many of his etymologies, we should be false to our duty as critics, if we did not acknowledge that Dr. Webster possessed in very large measure the chief qualities which go to the making of a great philologist. The very tendency to theorize, which led him to adopt those oddities of spelling by which he may be said to be chiefly known, united as it was to an understanding of uncommon breadth and clearness, would under more favorable auspices have given him a very eminent place among the philosophic students of language. His great mistake was in attempting to force his peculiar notions upon the world in his Dictionary, instead of confining them to his Preface, or putting them forward tentatively in a separate treatise. The importance which he attached to these trifles ought to have given him a hint that others might be as obstinate on the other side, and that the prejudices of taste have much tougher roots than those of opinion. We are inclined to think that many of the changes proposed by Dr. Webster will be adopted in the course of time. But it is a matter of little consequence, and the progress of such reforms is slow. Already two hundred years ago, James Howel (the author of Charles Lamb’s favorite “Epistolae Ho-Elianae”) advocated similar reforms, and, as far as the printers would let him, carried them out in practice. “The printer hath not bin so careful as he should have bin,” he complains. He especially condemns the superfluous letters in many of our words, choosing to write _don_, _com_, and _som_, rather than _done_, _come_, and _some_. “Moreover,” he says, “those words that have the Latin for their original, the author prefers that orthography rather than the French, whereby divers letters are spar’d: as _Physic, Logic, Afric_, not _Physique, Logique, Afrique; favor, honor, labor_, not _favour, honour, labour_, and very many more; as also he omits the Dutch _k_ in most words; here you shall read _peeple_, not _pe-ople_, _tresure_, not _tre-asure_, _toung_, not _ton-gue_, &c.; _Parlement_, not _Parliament_; _busines, witnes, sicknes_, not _businesse, witnesse, sicknesse_; _star, war, far_, not _starre, warre, farre_; and multitudes of such words, wherein the two last letters may well be spar’d. Here you shall also read _pity, piety, witty_, not _piti-e, pieti-e, witti-e_, as strangers at first sight pronounce them, and abundance of such like words.”
Howel gives a weak reason for making the changes he proposes, namely, that the language will thereby be simplified to foreigners. He hints at the true one when he says that “we do not speak as we write.” Dr. Webster also, speaking of certain words ending in _our_, says, “What motive could induce them to write these words, and _errour, honour, favour, inferiour_, &c., in this manner, following neither the Latin nor the French, I cannot conceive.” Had Dr. Webster’s knowledge of the written English language been as great as it undoubtedly was of its linguistic relations, he would have seen that the _spelling_ followed the _accent_. The third verse of the Prologue to the “Canterbury Tales” would have satisfied him:–
“And bathed every root in such licour”;
and a little farther on,–
“Or swinken with his houdes and laboure.”
In this respect the spelling of our older writers, where it can be depended on, and especially of reformers like Howel, is of value, as throwing some light on the question, how long the Norman pronunciation lingered in England. Warner, for instance, in his “Albion’s England,” spells _creator_ and _creature_ as they are spelt now, but gives the French accent to both; and we are inclined to think that the charge of speaking “right Chaucer,” brought against the courtiers of Queen Elizabeth, referred rather to accent than diction.
The very title of Dr. Webster’s Dictionary indicates a radical misapprehension as to the nature and office of such a work. He calls the result of his labors an “_American_ Dictionary of the English Language,” as if provincialism were a merit. He evidently thought that the business of a lexicographer was to _regulate_, not to _record_. Sometimes also his zeal as an etymologist misled him, as in his famous attempt to make the word _bridegroom_ more conformable to its supposed Anglo-Saxon root and its modern Teutonic congeners. It never occurred to him that we were still as far as ever from the goal, and that it would be quite as inconvenient to explain that the termination _goom_ was a derivation from the Anglo-Saxon _guma_ as that it was a corruption of it; the point to be gained being, after all, that we should be able to find out the meaning of the English word _bridegroom_, having no pressing need of _guma_ for conversational purposes. We have spoken of this word only because we have heard it brought up against Dr. Webster as often as anything else, and because the disproportionate antipathy produced by this and a few similar oddities shows, that, the primary object of all writing being the clear conveyance of meaning, and not only so, but its conveyance in the most winning way, a writer blunders who wilfully estranges the reader’s eye or jars upon its habitual associations, and that a lexicographer blunders still more desperately, who, upon system, teaches to offend in that kind. And it is amusing in respect to this very word _bridegoom_, that the whimsey is not Dr. Webster’s own, but that the bee was put into his bonnet by Horne Tooke.
Webster in these matters was a bit of a Hotspur. He thought to deal with language as the vehement Percy would have done with the Trent. The smug and silver stream was to be allowed no more wilful windings, but to run
“In a new channel fair and evenly.”
He found an equally hot-headed Glendower, wherever there was an educated man, ready with the answer,–
“Not wind? it shall; it must; you see it doth.”
“You see _it doth_” is an argument whose force no theorist ever takes into his reckoning.
We said that the title “American Dictionary of the English Language” was an absurdity. Fancy a “Cuban Dictionary of the Spanish Language.” It would be of value only to the comparative philologist, curious in the changes of meaning, pronunciation, and the like, which circumstances are always bringing about in languages subjected to new conditions of life and climate. But we must not forget to say that the title chosen by Dr. Webster conveyed also a meaning creditable to his spirit and judgment. He always stoutly maintained the right of English as spoken in America to all the privileges of a living language. In opposition to the purists who would have clasped the language forever within the covers of Johnson, he insisted on the necessity of coining new words or adapting old ones to express new things and new relations. It is many years since we read his “Remarks” (if that was the title) on Pickering’s “Vocabulary,” and in answer to the rather supercilious criticisms on himself in the “Anthology”; but the impression left on our mind by that pamphlet is one of great respect for the good sense, acuteness, and courage of its author. And of his Dictionary it may safely be said, that, with all its mistakes, no work of the kind had then appeared so learned and so comprehensive. It may be doubted if any living language possessed at that time a dictionary, or one, at least, the work of a single man, in all respects its equal.
But etymologies are not the most important part of a good working dictionary, the intention of which is not to inform readers and writers what a word may have meant before the Dispersion, but what it means now. The pedigree of an adjective or substantive is of little consequence to ninety-nine men in a hundred, and the writers who have wielded our mother-tongue with the greatest mastery have been men who knew what words had most meaning to their neighbors and acquaintances, and did not stay their pens to ask what ideas the radicals of those words may possibly have conveyed to the mind of a bricklayer going up from Padanaram to seek work on the Tower of Babel. A thoroughly good etymological dictionary of English is yet to seek; and even if we should ever get one, it will be for students, and not for the laity. Nor is it the primary object of a common dictionary to trace the history of the language. Of great interest and importance to scholars, it is of comparatively little to Smith and Brown and their children at the public school. It is a work apart, which we hope to see accomplished by the London Philological Society in a manner worthy of comparison with what has been partly done for German by the brothers Grimm,–alas that the illustrious duality should have been broken by death! A lexicon of that kind should be an index to all the more eminent books in the language; but we do not hold this to be the office of a dictionary for daily reference. A dictionary that should embrace every unusual word, every new compound, every metaphorical turn of meaning, to be found in our great writers, would be a compendium of the genius of our authors rather than of our language; and a lexicographer who rakes the books of second and third-rate men for out-of-the-way phrases is doing us no favor. A dictionary is not a drag-net to bring up for us the broken pots and dead kittens, the sewerage of speech, as well as its living fishes. Nor do we think it a fair test of such a work, that one should seek in it for every odd word that may have tickled his fancy in a favorite author. Like most middle-aged readers, we have our specially private volumes. One of these–but we will not betray the secret of our loves–contains some rare words, such as the Gallicism _mistresse-piece_, and the delightful hybrid _pundonnore_ for trifling points-of-honor; yet we by no means complain that we can find neither of them in Worcester, and only the former (with a ludicrously mistaken definition) in Webster.
A conclusive reason with us for preferring Dr. Worcester’s Dictionary is, that its author has properly understood his functions, and has aimed to give us a true view of English as it is, and not as he himself may have wished it should be or thought it ought to he. Its etymologies are sufficient for the ordinary reader,–sometimes superfluously full, as where the same word is given over and over again in cognate languages. We do not see the use, under the word PLAIN, of taking up room with a list like the following: “L. _planus;_ It. _piano;_ Sp. _piano;_ Fr. _plain._” Not content with this, Dr. Worcester gives it once more under PLAN: “L. _planus_, flat; It. _piano_, a plan; Sp. _piano;_ Fr. _plan._–Dut., Ger., Dan., and Sw. _plan._” Even yet we have not done with it, for under PLANE we find “L. _planus;_ It. _piano;_ Sp._plano_, Fr. _plan._” One would think this rather a Polyglot Lexicon than an English Dictionary. It seems to us that no Romanic derivative of the Latin root should he given, unless to show that the word has come into English by that channel. And so of the Teutonic languages. If we have Danish, Swedish, German, and Dutch, why not Scotch, Icelandic, Frisic, Swiss, and every other conceivable dialectic variety?
Another fault of superfluousness we find in the number of compounded words, where the meaning is obvious,–such, for instance, as are formed with the adverb out, which the genius of the language permits without limit in the case of verbs. Dr. Worcester gives us, among many others,–
“OUT-BABBLE, _v. a._ To surpass in Idle prattle; to exceed in babbling. _Milton._”
“OUT-BELLOW, _v. a._ To bellow more or louder than; to exceed or surpass in bellowing. _Bp. Hall._”
“OUT-BLEAT, _v. a._ To bleat more than; to exceed in bleating. _Bp. Hall_.”
“OUT-BRAG, _v. a._ To surpass in bragging. _Shak._”
“OUT-BRIBE, _v, a._ To exceed in bribing. _Blair._”
“OUT-BURN, _v. a._ To exceed in burning. _Young._” [The definition here is hardly complete; since the word means also to burn longer than.]
“OUT-CANT, _v. a._ To surpass in canting. _Pope._”
“OUT-CHEAT, _v. a._ To surpass in cheating.”
“OUT-CURSE, _v. a._ To surpass in cursing.”
“OUT-DRINK, _v. a._ To exceed in drinking. _Donne._”
“OUT-FAWN, _v. a._ To excel in fawning. _Hudibras._”
“OUT-FEAT, _v. a._ To surpass in feats. _Smart._”
“OUT-FLASH, _v. a._ To surpass in flashing. _Clarke._”
Similar words occur at frequent intervals through nine columns. Dr. Webster is equally relentless, (even roping in a few estrays in his Appendix,) and we hardly know which has out-worded the other. We were surprised to find in neither the useful and legitimate substantive form of _outgo_, as the opposite of _income_. This superfluousness (unless we apply Voltaire’s saying, “_Le superflu, chose bien necessaire_” to dictionaries also) is the result, we suppose, of the rivalry of publishers, who have done their best to persuade the public that numerosity is the chief excellence in works of this kind, and that whoever buys their particular quarto may be sure of an honest pennyworth and of owning a thousand or two more words than his less judicious neighbors. In this way a false standard is manufactured, to which the lexicographer must conform, if he would have a remunerative sale for his book. He accordingly explores every lane and _impasse_ in the purlieus of Grub Street, and pounces on a new word as a naturalist would on a new bug,–the stranger and uglier, the better. We regret that this kind of rivalry has been forced on Dr. Worcester; but he is so thorough, patient, and conscientious, that he leaves little behind him for the gleaner. We confess that the amplitude of his research has surprised us, highly as we were prepared to rate him in this respect by our familiarity with his former works. We have subjected his Dictionary to a pretty severe test. From the time of its publication we have made a point of seeking in it every unusual word, old or new, that we met with in our reading. We have been disappointed in hardly a single instance, and we are not acquainted with any other dictionary of which we could say as much.
An attempt has been made to damage Dr. Worcester’s work by a partial comparison of his definitions with those of Dr. Webster; and here, again, the assumption has been, that _number_ was of more importance than concise completeness. In the case of a quarto dictionary, we suppose an honest reviewer may confess that he has not read through the subject of his criticism. We have opened Dr. Webster’s volume at random, and have found some of his definitions as extraordinarily inaccurate as many of his etymologies. They quite justify a _double-entendre_ of Daniel Webster’s, which we heard him utter many years ago in court. He had forced such a meaning upon some word in a paper connected with the case on trial, that the opposing counsel interrupted him to ask in what dictionary he found the word so defined. He silenced his questioner instantly with a happy play upon the name common to himself and the lexicographer: “In _Webster’s_ Dictionary, Sir!” We find in Webster, for example, the following definition of a word as to whose meaning he could have been set right by any coasting-skipper that sailed out of New Haven:–
“AMID-SHIPS; _in marine language_, the middle of a ship with regard to her length and breadth.” Now, when one ship runs into another at sea and strikes her _amid-ships_, how is she to contrive to accomplish it so as to satisfy the requirements of this definition? Or if a sailor is said to be standing amidships, must he be planted precisely in what he would probably agree with Dr. Webster in spelling the _center_ of the main-hatch? Dr. Worcester, quoting Falconer, is of course right.
We give another of Dr. Webster’s definitions, which caught our eye in looking over his array of words compounded with _out_. “OUTWARD-BOUND; proceeding from a port or country.” Now Dr. Webster does not tell his readers that the term is exclusively applicable to vessels; and we should like to know whence a vessel is likely to proceed, unless from a port,–and where ports are commonly situated, unless in countries? If an American ship be “proceeding from” the port of Liverpool to some port in the United States, how soon does she enter on what lexicographers call “the state of being” homeward-bound? The narrow limits to which Dr. Webster confines the word would not extend beyond the jaws of the harbor from which the ship is sailing. Dr. Worcester’s definition is, “OUTWARD-BOUND. (_Naut_.) Bound outward or to foreign parts. _Crabb_.”
Under the word MORESQUE we find in Webster the following definition: “A species of painting or carving done after the Moorish manner, consisting of _grotesque_ pieces and compartments _promiscuously interspersed_; arabesque. _Gwilt_.” (The Italics are our own.) We have not Mr. Gwilt’s Encyclopaedia at hand; but if this be a fair representation of one of its definitions, it is a very untrustworthy authority. The last term to be applied to arabesque-work is _grotesque_, or _promiscuously interspersed_; and the description here given leaves out the most beautiful kind of arabesque, namely, the inlaid work of geometrical figures in colored marbles, in which the Arabs far surpassed the older _opus Alexandrinum_. Nothing could be less grotesque, less promiscuously interspersed, or more beautiful in its harmonious variety, than the work of this kind in the famous _Capella Reale_ at Palermo.
Dr. Webster defines NIGHT-PIECE as “a piece of painting so colored as to be supposed seen by candle-light,”–a description which we suspect would have somewhat puzzled Gherardo della Notte.
We might give other instances, had we time and space; but our object is not to depreciate Webster, but only to show that the claim set up for him of superior exactness in definition is altogether gratuitous. We have found no inaccuracies comparable with these in Dr. Worcester’s Dictionary, which we tried in precisely the same way, by opening it here and there at random. Moreover, looking at his work, not absolutely, but in comparison with Dr. Webster’s, (as we are challenged to do,) we cannot leave out of view that the former is a first edition, while the latter has had the advantage of repeated revisions.
Under the word MAGDALEN, we find Webster superior to Worcester. Under ULAN, we find them both wrong. Dr. Worcester says it means “a species of militia among the modern Tartars”; and Dr. Webster, “a certain description of militia among the modern Tartars.” In any Polish dictionary they would have found the word defined as meaning “lancer,” and the Uhlans in the Austrian army can hardly be described as modern Tartar militia. Both Dictionaries give SLAW, and neither explains it rightly. The word does not properly belong in an English dictionary, unless as an American provincialism of very narrow range. As such, it will be found, properly defined, in Mr. Bartlett’s excellent Vocabulary. Lexicographers who so often cite the Dutch equivalents of English words should own Dutch dictionaries. Under IMAGINATION, a good kind of test-word, we find Worcester much superior to Webster, especially in illustrative citations.
We have been astonished by some instances of slovenly writing to be found here and there in Dr. Webster’s Dictionary, because he was capable of writing pure and vigorous English. Under MAGAZINE (and by the way, Dr. Webster’s definition omits altogether the metaphorical sense of the word) we read that “The first publication of this bind in England was the _Gentleman’s Magazine_, which first appeared in 1731, under the name of _Sylvanus Urban_, by Edward Cave, and which is still continued.” A reader who knew nothing about the facts would be puzzled to say what the name of the new periodical really was, whether _Gentleman’s Magazine_ or _Sylvanus Urban_; and a reader who knew little about English would be led to think that “appeared by” was equivalent to “was commenced by,” unless, indeed, he came to the conclusion that its apparition took place in the neighborhood of some cavern known by the name of Edward.
We have only a word to say as to the _illustrations_, as they are called, a mistaken profuseness in which disfigures both Dictionaries, another evil result of bookselling competition. The greater part of them, especially those in Webster, are fitter for a child’s scrap-book than for a volume intended to go into a student’s library. Such adjuncts seem to us allowable only, if at all, somewhat as they were introduced by Blunt in his “Glossographia,” to make terms of heraldry more easily comprehensible. They might be admitted to save trouble in describing geometrical figures, or in explaining certain of the more frequently occurring terms in architecture and mechanics, but beyond this they are childish. The publishers of Webster give us all the coats-of-arms of the States of the American Union, among other equally impertinent woodcuts. We enter a protest against the whole thing, as an equally unfair imputation on the taste and the standard of judgment of intelligent Americans. If we must have illustrations, let them be strictly so, and not primer-pictures. Both Dictionaries give us the figure of a crossbow, for instance, as if there could be anywhere a boy of ten years old who did not know the implement, at least under its other name of _bow-gun_. Neither cut would give the slightest notion of the thing as a weapon, nor of the mode in which it was wound up and let off. Dr. Worcester says that it was intended “for shooting _arrows_,” which is not strictly correct, since the proper name of the missile it discharged was _bolt_,–something very unlike the shaft used by ordinary bowmen.
We believe Dr. Worcester’s Dictionary to be the most complete and accurate of any hitherto published. He intrudes no theories of his own as to pronunciation or orthography, but cites the opinions of the best authorities, and briefly adds his own where there is occasion. He is no bigot for the present spelling of certain classes of words, but gives them, as he should do, in the way they are written by educated men, at the same time expressing his belief that the drift of the language is toward a change, wherever he thinks such to be the case. We reprobate, in the name of literary decency, the methods which have been employed to give an unfair impression of his work, as if it had been compiled merely to supplant Webster, and as if the whole matter were a question of blind partisanship and prejudice. The assigning of such motives as these, even by implication, to such men, among many others, as Mr. Marsh and Mr. Bryant, both of whom have expressed themselves in favor of the new Dictionary, is an insult to American letters. Mr. Marsh, by the extent of his learning, is probably better qualified than any other man in America to pronounce judgment in such a case; and Mr. Bryant has not left it doubtful that he knows what pure and vigorous English is, whether in verse or prose, or that he could not employ it except to maintain a well-grounded conviction.
Apart from more general considerations, there are several reasons which would induce us to prefer Dr. Worcester’s Dictionary. It has the great advantage, not only that it is constructed on sounder principles, as it seems to us, but that it is the latest. Stereotyping is an unfortunate invention, when it tends to perpetuate error or incompleteness, and already the Appendix of added words in Webster amounts to eighty pages. For all the words it contains, accordingly, the reader is put to double pains: he must first search the main body of the work, and then the supplement. Again, in Worcester, the synonymes are given, each under its proper head, in the main work; in Webster they form a separate treatise. One other advantage of Worcester would be conclusive with us, even were other things equal,–and that is the size of the type, and the greater clearness of the page, owing to the freshness of the stereotype-plates.
We know the inadequacy of such hand-to-mouth criticism as that of a monthly reviewer must be upon works demanding so minute an examination as a dictionary deserves. For ourselves, we should wish to own both Webster and Worcester, but, if we could possess only one, we should choose the latter. It is a monument to the industry, judgment, and accuracy of the author, of which he may well be proud.
_Elements of Mechanics, for the Use of Colleges, Academies, and High Schools._ By WILLIAM G. PECK, Professor of Mathematics, Columbia College. New York: A.S. Barnes & Burr. 1859.
Text-books on Mechanics are of three sorts. Many teachers, school-committees, and parents wish to add a taste of Mechanics to the smatterings of twenty or thirty different subjects which constitute “liberal education,” as understood in American high schools and colleges. For this purpose it is of the first importance that the text-book should be brief, for the time to be devoted to it is very short; secondly, it must divest the subject of every perplexity and difficulty, that it may be readily understood by all young persons, though of small capacity and less application. Such a text-book can contain nothing beyond the statement, without proof, of the more important principles, illustrated by familiar examples, and simple explanations of the commonest phenomena of motion, and of the machines and mechanical forces used in the arts. To a few it seems that more light comes into a room through two or three broad windows, though they be all on one side, than through fifty bull’s-eyes, scattered on every wall. But the many prefer bull’s-eyes,–fifty narrow, distorted glimpses in as many directions, rather than a broad, clear view of the heavens and the earth in one direction. Hence superficial, scanty text-books on science are the only ones which are popular and salable.
The thorough study of Mechanics is, or should be, an essential part of the training of an architect, an engineer, or a machinist; and there are several text-books, like Weisbach’s Mechanics and Engineering, intended for students preparing for any of these professions, which are complete mathematical treatises upon the subject. Such text-books are invaluable; they become standard works, and win for their authors a well-deserved reputation.
Professor Peck’s book belongs to neither of the two classes of text-books indicated, but to a class intermediate between the two. It is at once too good, too difficult a book for general, popular use, and too incomplete for the purposes of the professional student. As it assumes that the student is already acquainted with the elements of Algebra, Trigonometry, Analytic Geometry, and the Calculus, the successful use of this text-book in the general classes of any academy or college will be good evidence that the Mathematics are there taught more thoroughly than is usual in this country. In few American colleges is the study of the Calculus required of all students. In preparing a scientific text-book of this sort, originality is neither aimed at nor required. A judicious selection of materials, correct translation from the excellent French and German hand-books, with such changes in the notation as will better adapt it for American use, and a clear, logical arrangement are the chief merits of such a treatise; and these are merits which seldom gain much praise, though their absence would expose the author to censure. The definitions of Professor Peck’s book are exact and concise, every proposition is rigidly demonstrated, and the illustrations and descriptions are brief, pointed, and intelligible. Professor Peck says in the Preface, that the book was prepared “to supply a want felt by the author when engaged in teaching Natural Philosophy to college classes”; but surely a teacher who prepares a text-book for his own classes must need a double share of patience and zeal. Every error which the book contains will be exposed, and the author will have ample opportunity to repent of all the inaccuracies which may have crept into his work. Again, the instructor who uses his own text-book encounters, besides the inevitable monotony of teaching the same subject year after year, the additional weariness of finding in the pages of his text-book no mind but his own, which he has read so often and with so little satisfaction. Even in teaching Mechanics, there is no exception to the general rule, that two heads are better than one.
* * * * *
_Stories from Famous Ballads_. For Children. By GRACE GREENWOOD, Author of “History of my Pets,” “Merrie England,” etc., etc. With Illustrations by BILLINGS. Boston: Ticknor & Fields.
All “famous ballads” are so close to Nature in their conceptions, emotions, incidents, and expressions, that it seems hardly possible to change their form without losing their soul. The present little volume proves that they may be turned into prose stories for children, and yet preserve much of the vitality of their sentiment and the interest of their narrative. Grace Greenwood, well known for her previous successes in writing works for the young, has contrived in this, her most difficult task, to combine simplicity with energy and richness of diction, and to present the events and characters of the Ballads in the form best calculated to fill the youthful imagination and kindle the youthful love of action and adventure. Among the subjects are Patient Griselda, The King of France’s Daughter, Chevy Chase, The Beggar’s Daughter of Bednall Green, Sir Patrick Spens, and Auld Robin Gray. Much of the author’s success in giving prose versions of these, without making them prosaic, is due to the intense admiration she evidently feels for the originals. Among American children’s books, this volume deserves a high place.
* * * * *
_Mary Staunton; or the Pupils of Marvel Hall_. By the Author of “Portraits of, my Married Friends.” New York: D. Appleton & Co.
This story has a practical aim, the exposure of the faults of fashionable boarding-schools. “A good plot, and full of expectation,” as Hotspur said; but the author had not the ability to execute the design. The satire and denunciation are both weak, and are not relieved by the introduction of a very silly and threadbare love-story.
* * * * *
_Poems_. By the Author of “John Halifax,” “A Life for a Life,” etc. Boston: Ticknor & Fields.
Some of the verses in this little volume are quite pretty, especially those entitled, “By the Alma River,” “The Night before the Mowing,” “My Christian Name,” and “My Love Annie.” Miss Muloch is not able to take any high rank as a poetess, and very sensibly does not try.
* * * * *
_Title-Hunting_. By E. L. LLEWELLYN, Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co.
This is a miraculously foolish book. Titled villains, impossible parvenus, abductions, and convents abound in its pages, and all are as stupid as they are improbable.
RECENT AMERICAN PUBLICATIONS
RECEIVED BY THE EDITORS OF THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY.
The Haunted Homestead, and other Nouvellettes. With an Autobiography of the Author. By Mrs. Emma D.E.N. Southworth, Author of “India,” “Lady of the Isle,” etc., etc. Philadelphia. Peterson and Brothers. 12mo. pp. 292. $1.25.
Adela, the Octoroon. By H. L. Hosmer. Columbus. Follett, Foster, & Co. 12mo. pp. 400. $1.00.
The Caxtons: A Family Picture. By Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, Hart. Library Edition. In Two Volumes. Philadelphia. Lippincott & Co. 16mo. pp. 398, 387. $2.00.
Julian Home: A Tale of College Life. By Frederic W. Farrar, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, Author of “Eric; or, Little by Little.” Philadelphia. Lippincott & Co. 16mo. pp. 420. $1.00.
Bible History: A Text-Book for Seminaries, Schools, and Families. By Sarah E. Hanna, (formerly Miss Foster,) Principal of the Female Seminary, Washington, Pa. New York. Barnes & Burr. 12mo. pp. 290. 76 cts.
Elements of Mechanics: For the Use of Colleges, Academies, and High Schools. By William G. Peck, M. A,, Professor of Mathematics, Columbia College. New York. Barnes & Burr. 12mo. pp. 338. $1.50.
The Human Voice: its Right Management in Speaking, Reading, and Debating, including the Principles of True Eloquence; together with the Functions of the Vocal Organs,–the Motion of the Letters of the Alphabet,–the Cultivation of the Ear,–the Disorders of the Vocal and Articulating Organs,–Origin and Construction of the English Language.–Proper Methods of Delivery,–Remedial Effects of Reading and Speaking, etc. By the Rev. W. W. Cazalet, A. M., Cantab. New York. Fowler & Wells. 16mo. paper, pp. 46. 10 cts.
American Normal Schools: their Theory, their Workings, and their Results, as embodied in the Proceedings of the First Annual Convention of the American Normal School Association, held at Trenton, New Jersey, August 19th and 20th, 1859. New York. Barnes & Burr. 8vo. pp. 113. $1.25.
History of the Early Church, from the First Preaching of the Gospel, to the Council of Nicea. For the Use of Young Persons. By the Author of “Amy Herbert.” New York. Appleton & Co. 16mo. pp. x., 383. 60 cts.
Our Bible Chronology, Historic and Prophetic, Critically Examined and Demonstrated, and Harmonized with the Chronology of Profane Writers: Embracing an Examination and Refutation of the Theories of Modern Egyptologists. Accompanied with Extensive Chronological and Genealogical Tables, from the Earliest Records to the Present Time; a Map of the Ancients; a Chart of the Course of Empires; and Various Pictorial Illustrations. On a Plan entirely New. Designed for the Use of Universities, Colleges, Academies, Bible Classes, Sabbath Schools, Families, etc. By the Rev. R.C. Shimeall, a Member of the Presbytery of New York; Author of an Illuminated Scripture Chart; Dr. Watts’s Scripture History, Enlarged; a Treatise on Prayer; etc. New York. Barnes & Burr. 4to. pp. 234. $2.00.
The National Fifth Reader: Containing a Treatise on Elocution; Exercises in Reading and Declamation; with Biographical Sketches and Copious Notes. Adapted to the Use of Students in English and American Literature. By Richard G. Parker, A.M., and J. Madison Watson. New York. Barnes & Burr. 12mo. pp. 600. $1.00.
Popular Music of the Olden Time: A Collection of Ancient Songs, Ballads, and Dance Tunes, Illustrative of the National Music of England. With Short Introductions to the Different Reigns, and Notices of the Airs from Writers of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Also a Short Account of the Minstrels. By W. Chappell, F.S.A. The whole of the Airs harmonized by G.A. Macfarren. In Two Volumes. London: Cramer, Beale, & Chappell. New York. Webb & Allen. 8vo. pp. xx., 822. (Paged as one vol.) $15.75.
The Material Condition of the People of Massachusetts. By Rev. Theodore Parker. Reprinted from the Christian Examiner. Boston. Published by the Fraternity. 16mo. paper, pp. 52. 15 cts.
Die Teutschen und die Amerikaner. Von K. Heinzen. Boston. Selbstverlag des Verfassers. 16mo. paper, pp. 69. 25 cts.
Letters from Switzerland. By Samuel Irenaeus Prime, Author of “Travels in Europe and the East,” etc., etc. New York. Sheldon & Co. 12mo. pp. 264. $1.00.
Disquisitions and Notes on the Gospels. Matthew. By John H. Morison. Boston. Walker, Wise, & Co. 12mo. pp. 588. $1.25.
Chamber’s Encyclopaedia: A Dictionary of Universal Knowledge for the People. Part XII. New York. Appleton & Co. 8vo. paper, pp. 64. 15 cts.
The Monikins. By J. Fenimore Cooper. Illustrated from Drawings by F.O.C. Darley. New York. Townsend & Co. 12mo. pp. 454. $1.50.
Life Before Him. A Novel of American Life. New York. Townsend & Co. 12mo. pp. 401. $1.00.
Against Wind and Tide. By Holme Lee, Author of “Kathie Brande,” “Sylvan Holt’s Daughter,” etc. New York. Townsend & Co. 12mo. pp. 440. $1.00.
Mrs. Ellis’s Housekeeping Made Easy. A Complete Instructor in all Branches of Cookery and Domestic Economy. Edited by Mrs. Mowatt. New York. Townsend & Co. 12mo. paper, pp. 120. 25 cts.
Life’s Evening; or, Thoughts for the Aged. By the Author of “Life’s Morning,” etc, Boston. Tilton & Co. 16mo. pp. 265. $1.00.
Wooing and Warring in the Wilderness. By Charles D. Kirk. New York. Derby & Jackson. 18mo. pp. 288. $1.00.
The History of Herodotus. A New English Version, edited with Copious Notes and Appendices, illustrating the History and Geography of Herodotus, from the most Recent Sources of Information; and embodying the Chief Results, Historical and Ethnographical, which have been obtained in the Progress of Cuneiform and Hieroglyphical Discovery. By George Rawlinson, M.A., late Fellow and Tutor of Exeter College, Oxford. Assisted by Col. Sir Henry Rawlinson, K.C.B., and Sir J.G. Wilkinson, F.R.S. In Four Volumes. Vol. III. With Maps and Illustrations. New York. Appleton & Co. 8vo. pp. viii., 463. $2.50.
Cathara Clyde: A Novel. By Inconnu. New York. Scribner. 16mo. PP. 377. $1.00.
Napoleon III. in Italy, and other Poems. By Elizabeth Barrett Browning. New York. Francis & Co. 16mo. pp. 72. 50 cts.
Say and Seal. By the Author of “Wide, Wide World,” and the Author of “Dollars and Cents.” In Two Volumes. Philadelphia. Lippincott & Co. 16mo, pp. 513, 500. $2.00.
Walter Ashwood. A Love Story. By Paul Siogvolk, Author of “Schediasms.” New York. Rudd & Carleton. 16mo. pp. 296. $1.00.
Elementary Anatomy and Physiology, for Colleges, Academies, and other Schools. By Edward Hitchcock, D.D., LL.D., of Amherst College, and Edward Hitchcock, Jr., M.D., Teacher in Williston Seminary. New York. Ivison, Phinney, & Co. 12mo. pp. vi., 442. $1.00.
Fragments from the Study of a Pastor. By Rev. George W. Nichols, A.M. New York. H.B. Price. 16mo. pp. 252. 75 cts.
“My Novel”; or, Varieties in English Life. By Pisistratus Caxton. By Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, Bart. Library Edition. In Four Volumes. Philadelphia. Lippincott & Co. 16mo. pp. 414, 408, 491, 482. $4.00.
Cousin Maude and Rosamond. By Mrs. Mary J. Holmes, Author of “Lena Rivers,” “Meadow Brook,” etc. New York. Saxton, Barker, & Co. 12mo. pp. 374. $1.25.
The Caxtons: A Family Picture. By Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, Bart. Library Edition. New York. Harper & Brothers. 12mo. pp. 505. $1.00.
Stories of Rainbow and Lucky. By Jacob Abbott. The Three Pines. New York. Harper & Brothers. 16mo. pp. 190. 50 cts.
Stories of Inventors and Discoverers in Science and the Useful Arts. A Book for Old and Young. By John Timbs, F.S.A. With Illustrations. New York. Harper & Brothers. 12mo. pp. 473. $1.25.