The volume, as a whole, will be found less dogmatic, calmer, more convincing, and more directly applicable to artistic judgment, than any of the others. There is the same love of mysticism and undermeanings, but freighted with deeper and more central truths: a charming conclusion to a fourteen-years' diary of such study of Art and Nature, so severe, so unremitting, as never critic gave before.
Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb.By W.W. GOODWIN, Ph.D. Cambridge: Sever and Francis.
Grammarians had once a simple way of disposing of the subject on which Professor Goodwin has given us this elaborate treatise of three hundred pages.
In the Greek Grammar of the Messieurs de Port Royal, which Gibbon praises so highly in his charming autobiography, and which has passed through several editions in England within the present century, we are taught, that, "though the moods [in Greek] are not to be rejected entirely, yet their signification is sometimes so very arbitrary, that they are put for one another through all tenses." Lancelot himself seems to have had a glimmering of the essential incredibility of this statement; for, though he attempts to substantiate it by citing from Greek authors a number of passages in which the Greek idiom happens to differ from the Latin,—passages, however, which Mr. Goodwin would have been glad to use, had they fallen in his way, to illustrate the regular constructions of the language,—he feels it necessary to appeal to the authority of the learned Budæus, the greatest of the early Greek scholars. Strange as it seems that really accomplished Greek scholars should have charged Plato and Demosthenes, speaking the most perfect of tongues, with arbitrary interchanges of moods and tenses, yet the same views continued to be presented in grammatical works down to the close of the last century. The transition to the new school of grammarians was made in 1792, by the publication of a Greek Grammar by Philip Buttmann, which, in the greatly improved form which it afterwards received from his hands, is familiar to all Greek scholars. In our frequent boasts of the great strides that knowledge has taken in the present century, we commonly have in mind the physical sciences; but we doubt whether in any department of physical science the manuals in use seventy-five years ago are so utterly inferior to those of the present day as are, for instance, the remarks of Viger, and his commentators before Hermann, on the syntax of the Greek verb, to the philosophical treatment of the same points by Professor Goodwin.
This work is entitled, we think, to rank with the best grammars of the Greek language that have appeared in German or English, in all the points that constitute grammatical excellence; while its monographic character justified and required an exhaustive treatment of its particular topic, not to be found even in the huge grammars of Matthiæ and Kühner. Indeed, not the least of its merits is this, that, in addition to the excellent matter which is original with Professor Goodwin, it furnishes to the student, American or English,—for we hope to see its merits recognized on the other side of the Atlantic,—a digest, as it were, of all that is most valuable on the subject of the syntax of the Greek verb in the best German grammars, from Buttmann to Madvig, enhanced, too, in value by being recast and worked into a homogeneous system by an acute scholar and experienced teacher. One excellence of the book we would by no means pass over, an excellence which we are sure will be particularly appreciated by all who have used translations of German grammars,—the precision both of thought and expression by which it is characterized, which releases the student from the labor of constructing the meaning of a rule from the data of the appended examples. Not that Mr. Goodwin is chary of examples; on the contrary, one of the most attractive and not least profitable features of the book is the copiousness and freshness of the illustrative quotations from Greek authors. These are as welcome as the brightness of newly minted coin to the eye which, in consulting grammar after grammar, has been condemned to meet under corresponding rules always the same examples, till they begin to produce that effect upon the nerves which all have experienced at the mention of the deadly upas-tree, or the imminence of the dissolution of the Union.
We must not omit to speak of the typographical merit of the work,—and especially of what constitutes the first and the last merit of books of this class, the excellent table of contents, and the indexes, Greek and English, which leave nothing to be desired in the way of facility of reference, except, perhaps, an index to the quotations.
The Law of the Territories. Philadelphia: C. Sherman & Son.
The author of the two able essays contained in this volume will be remembered by many of our readers under his assumed name of "Cecil." The second, as he himself tells us, on "Popular Sovereignty in the Territories," was published, as one of a series of essays on Southern politics, in the PhiladelphiaNorth American and United States Gazette. The first, we believe, has never been published before.
Our author, whom we may designate, without violating any confidence, as Mr. George Sidney Fisher, devotes an elaborate preface, which is itself a third essay, to discussing the invasion of Virginia by John Brown and the Southern threats of secession, drawing from the foray of Harper's Ferry a conclusion very different from that of the disunionists. In his own words,—
"Disunion is a word of fear. Is it not strange that it should have been as yet pronounced only by the South? The danger of insurrection and servile war belongs to the nature of slavery. It is, perhaps, not too much to assert that the safety and tranquillity of Southern society depend on the fact that the Northern people are close at hand to aid in case of need,—that the power of the General Government is ever ready for the same purpose. Four millions of barbarians, growing with tropical vigor, and soon to be eight millions, with tropical passions boiling in their blood, endowed with native courage, with sinews strong by toil, and stimulated by the hope of liberty and unbounded license, are not to be trifled with. Take away from them the idea of an irresistible power in the North, ready at any moment to be invoked by their masters, or let them expect in the North, not enemies, but friends and supporters, which even now they are told every day by these masters they may expect,—and how soon might a flame be lighted which no power in the South could extinguish!"
Mr. Fisher treats of the "Law of the Territories" in two essays,—the first considering more particularly "The Territories and the Constitution," the second, "Popular Sovereignty in the Territories." The first commences with a quotation so happy that it has all the effect of original wit:—
"The wily and witty Talleyrand was once asked the meaning of the word 'non-intervention,' so often used in European diplomacy. 'It is a word,' he replied, 'metaphysical and political, not accurately defined, but which means—much the same thing as intervention!' The same word has been frequently employed, of late years, in our politics, with the same difference between its professed and its practical signification. It was introduced for the first time in reference to the government of the Territories, when it became an object for the South to gain Kansas as a Slave State. Two obstacles were to be overcome. One was the Missouri Compromise, which was a solemn compact between North and South to settle a disturbing and dangerous question; the other was a possible majority in Congress, that, it was feared, might prohibit slavery in the new Territory. Southern politicians had at the time control of the government; and they got rid of both difficulties by repealing the Missouri Compromise in the Kansas and Nebraska Bill. By necessary implication, arising from the relation of the Territories to the rest of the nation, by the language of the Constitution, and by the uniform construction of it and practice under it from the earliest period of our history, the Territories had been subjected to the absolute control of the General Government. By the Kansas and Nebraska Bill they were withdrawn from that control. The principle of Popular Sovereignty, it was said, applied to them as well as to the States; and this bill declared that the people of the Territories should be perfectly free to choose their own domestic institutions and regulate their own affairs in their own way."
The means employed to carry out this plan and the ultimate failure of the plan itself are sketched with a boldness and vigor that our limits, much to our regret, forbid our reproducing. Mr. Fisher, however, fails to notice the wretched plea put forth by the Democratic managers, in favor of the recognition by Congress of the Lecompton Constitution,—that it had been officially authenticated. All might be wrong, but the official record pronounced it right; and behind that record Congress had no authority to go. And this plea was advanced in the face of overwhelming evidence tending to show that the officials, for whose record so inviolable a sanctity was claimed, were appointed for the express purpose of falsifying that record! If confirmation be wanted, we need go no farther than the fate of Robert J. Walker, who was eager to make Kansas a Slave State, but was so false to every principle of Democratic integrity as to confine himself to legitimate means to bring about that result,—a remissness for which he was promptly removed by President Buchanan! Mr. Fisher pertinently says,—
"Two great facts were plainly visible through the flimsy web of attorney logic and quibbling technicality, not very ingeniously woven to conceal them. One of these facts was, that the people of Kansas were heartily and almost unanimously averse to slavery; the other was, that the Government was trying by every means in its power to impose slavery upon them."
After describing the contemptuous rejection by the people of Kansas of the pro-slavery constitution, Mr. Fisher proceeds with an analysis of the Kansas-Nebraska fraud, so clear and so masterly that we must again quote his own language, with an occasional condensation or omission.
"It was clear, therefore, that the principle of Popular Sovereignty, introduced by the Kansas and Nebraska Bill, a principle before unknown to the law and practice of our government, would not suit the South. It appeared too probable that not only the people to inhabit all the territory north of 36° 30', but also much territory south of it, would, like the people of Kansas, reject slavery, if left to regulate their domestic institutions in their own way. What, then, were Southern politicians to do? Invoke the ancient and long exercised, but now denied and derided power of Congress over the Territories? This might prove a dangerous weapon in the hands of possible future Northern majorities. It was obviously necessary to withdraw slavery alike from the control of Congress and of the people of a Territory. Some ingenuity was required for this. The doctrine that the Constitution extends to the Territories (a doctrine broached before by Mr. Calhoun, but always defeated on the ground that the Constitution, by its language and the practice under it, was made for States only, and that the Territories were subject to the supreme control of Congress,—a control frequently exercised, not only independently of the Constitution, but in a manner incompatible with it) was introduced, with other innovations, into the Kansas and Nebraska Bill. The Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court followed, by which the Constitution recognizes slavery as a national institution. It recognizes slaves as mere property, differing in no respect from other merchandise. The Territories belong to the nation. Every citizen has equal rights to them and in them. Why, therefore, may not a Southern man, as well as a Northern man, go into them with hisproperty? What right has Congress to place the South under an ignominious bar of restriction? The Constitution declares that slaves are property; that all the States and the people have equal rights. The Territories belong to all. Therefore, under the Constitution, they should be enjoyed by all.
"By this ingenious logic the Kansas and Nebraska Bill is made to contradict itself. It first declares that the Constitution extends to the Territories; in other words, slavery exists there by force of the Constitution, without reference to the will of the people. It then says that the people of the Territories shall be 'perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way.'
"The contradictions, duplicity, and absurdity of the law are obvious at once. The first sentence announces a change in the settled principles and policy of the Government; else why declare that the Constitution 'shall' extend to Nebraska, if it already extended there? Then comes the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The reason given for this is, that it is inconsistent with the non-intervention by Congress with slavery, recognized in the Compromise of 1850. But that law declares positively that Congress does not intervene,because it is 'inexpedient'to do so; and gives the reason why it is inexpedient. Thepowerof Congresswas assertedby Mr. Clay, who made the law, and the terms of it were chosen for the very purpose of preventing any inference being drawn from it against that power.
"It is remarkable, too, that the Bill, whilst declaring theperfectfreedom of the Territories, should still have left them subject to the power of the President, who, as before, is permitted to appoint their Governor, Judges, and Marshals, officers who are his agents, and without whose sanction the acts of the Territorial Legislature can neither become laws, nor be construed and applied, nor executed. So that the will of the people may be defeated, should it happen to be opposed to the will of the President: as was seen in the case of Kansas.
"Why," Mr. Fisher asks, "is the anomalous monster of Popular Sovereignty to be introduced with reference to slavery? Is it because slaves are 'mere property'? Why, then, not subject all property, land included, to popular control? Is it because the subject of slavery is an exciting topic, a theme for dangerous agitation, to be checked only by placing the subject beyond the power of Congress? The answer is, that Congress cannot abdicate its power on the ground of expediency. If it may give up one power, it may give up all. Nor can Congress delegate its power for the same reason. Trust power, from its very nature, cannot be delegated. To break down great principles, to set aside ancient usage, to abandon legal authority, in order to appease the contests of parties, is too great a sacrifice. No true peace can come of it; only suppressed and adjourned war."
The natural inference from the extracts we have given would be that Mr. Fisher was a member of the Republican party. But such is not the fact: Mr. Fisher rests his hope upon a party "yet to be organized." "The extreme Northern, or Free-soil, or Abolition party is only less guilty than the extreme Southern and Democratic party." Which? Does Mr. Fisher mean that "Northern," "Free-soil," and "Abolition" are synonymous terms? And does any or do all of them mean the Republican party? Or, finally, does Mr. Fisher shrink from the conclusions presented by his logic, and is his vaguely convenient linking together of different words intended to leave his position gracefully doubtful? And in that case, do the Baltimore nominations, with their innocent unconsciousness, supply his political needs? It is not easy to answer these questions. We begin now upon the views of a Pennsylvania Oppositionist; and quicksilver defied not more utterly the skill of Raymond Lullius than the doctrines of the Philadelphia school perplex the inquiries of sharply defined New England minds. The rudimentary state of Republican principles may nowhere else be so clearly seen as in Pennsylvania. Four years of the Democratic administration of her "favorite son" have done much to make her less favored sons into good Republicans; but the State needs another Democratic President. Mr. Fisher appears to much more advantage in pulling down than in building up. We have hitherto seen only the keen, fearless dissector of fraud and hypocrisy; we are now to contemplate a circumspect alarmist, who dreads to call things by their right names for fear of unpleasant consequences. He is such a master of English, so judicious in the use of middle terms,—so shrewd a fencer altogether,—that even his timidity cannot make him other than a formidable opponent.
Mr. Fisher, believing that slavery receives ample protection from a fair interpretation of the Constitution, holds that
"Congress has plenary power over the Territories, often exercised on this subject of slavery. It may be said that Congress has on various occasions prohibited slavery in the Territories. True; but with the consent and coöperation of the Southern States. The people of all the States have equal right in the Territories. To exclude the people of the Slave States, therefore,without their consent, would be unequal and opposed to the spirit of the Constitution."
Certainly it would. Who proposes to do it? No living man, woman, or child. It is worth noticing, by the way, that the Republican party is not committed to the doctrine of carrying out the principle of the Wilmot Proviso. But supposing it were, Mr. Fisher's argument has no force or direction, unless he can establish his suppressed premise,—that the exclusion of slavery from the Territories is the exclusion of "the people of the Slave States" from the Territories. And to make that good, all Mr. Fisher's skill and ingenuity will be required. Why so many Northern politicians should have weakly surrendered this point is a mystery. Because the slaveholders (who are not, Mr. Fisher, "the people of the Slave States," by any means, but a small portion of them) are at home a privileged aristocracy, have they any claim to the same position abroad? If so, on what does it rest? The laws of the Southern States? They are now beyond their jurisdiction. The common law? To that wise and beneficent law slavery is a thing unknown. The Constitution? It is silent. There is no exclusion of the Southerners even proposed. Let them come: but when they claim to carry with them the right to hold a certain class of men as property because they are recognized as property by certain local regulations elsewhere prevailing, they must not complain, if such a claim be disallowed. The Southerner's complaint, that he is accustomed to the institution of slavery, is fairly met by the Northerner's retort, that he is accustomed to the institution of freedom.
Now, which voice shall prevail? Neither party has any more right than the other; and neither party has any right at all. The Territories are in a state of wardship; and Congress is to decide as it thinks best for their welfare, present and future; and if Congress thinks that a nation prospers with free institutions and droops under slavery, then let Congress admit the Territory as a Free State. True, there is some inconvenience to the slave-holder; but from so abnormal a relation as slavery some inconvenience must result. When admitted to be a necessary evil, it is barely tolerable; when boastingly proclaimed to be a sovereign good, it is fairly intolerable. And it is both criminal and foolish to try to make good all the evils inseparable from slavery by systematic injustice to other interests.
"Slavery has changed. When Southern men consented to its prohibition, they hoped and believed that the time would come when it could be abolished altogether. They have as much right to these as to their former opinions, and to have them represented in the Government."
Here Mr. Fisher hints at, rather than fully states, the grand retort of the Southerners,—"Our fathers, you say, were opposed to slavery: very good; but we are not: why should we be bound by their opinions?" A mere misapprehension of the force of the argument. The Southerner of 1860 isnotbound by the opinions of Madison and Jefferson; but the North may fairly adduce the opinions of those men, who were framers of the Constitution, not as binding upon their descendants, but as serving to explain the meaning of disputed provisions in that Constitution. The Constitution binds us all, North and South: then recurs the question, What is the meaning of its provisions? andthenthe contemporaneous opinions of its framers come legitimately into play as an argument.
Of the Missouri Compromise Mr. Fisher says,—
"It may be said that this law was a violation of the equal rights of the Southern people, by excluding them from a large portion of the national domain. The answer is, not merely that this was done with their consent, their representatives having approved the law, but that the law did recognize their rights, by dividing between them and the Northern people all the territory then possessed by the Government."
We are surprised that upon his own presentation of the case this simple question does not occur to Mr. Fisher: Supposing the South and the North to have had equal and conflicting rights in the national domain, and supposing that there was need of some arbiter, and remembering that Congress undertook the duties of arbiter and decided that the division under the Missouri Compromise gave each section its rightful share,—then, with what propriety can the South, after occupying its own share, call for a portion in the share allotted to the North?
The second essay, on "Popular Sovereignty in the Territories," presents comparatively few salient points. A very spirited and just history of the working of the Administration schemes in Kansas, a restating of some of the arguments against the Kansas-Nebraska Act set forth in the preceding essay, and a remonstrance against the headstrong course of Southern politicians are its most noticeable features.
"The Union, the Constitution, and the friendship of the North: these are the pillars on which rest the peace, the safety, the independence of the South. The extraordinary thing is, that for some years past the South has been, and now is, sedulously employed in undermining this triple foundation of its power and safety. Its extravagant pretensions, its excesses, its crimes, are rapidly cooling the friendship of the North,—converting it, indeed, into positive enmity. Its leading politicians are ever plotting and threatening disunion. disunion will he proffered to them from the North, not as a vague and passionate threat, but as a positive and well-considered plan, backed by a force of public opinion which nothing can resist. Ere long, the South is likely to be left with no other defence than the Union it has weakened and the Constitution it has mutilated and defaced.
"The makers of the Kansas and Nebraska law were clumsy workmen. They forgot to provide for the case of an anti-slavery President. They will, perhaps, learn wisdom by experience.
"'To wilful menThe injuries that they themselves procureMust be their schoolmasters.'
"Those who framed the Constitution and laid the foundation of this Union understood their business better. That Constitution was intended to protect the South, and has protected it. Southern politicians cannot improve it. For their own sakes they had better let it alone."
We have given enough to show that in discussing Mr. Fisher we are dealing with two different men. The field is now clear for the great political contest of 1860. Mr. Fisher may have allied himself before this with the Republicans, or may look to have his anticipations fulfilled by that third party who are as unconscious of wrong as powerless to rectify it, "the world-forgetting, by the world forgot." We wish him well through his troubles.
A Dictionary of English Etymology.By HENSLEIGH WEDGWOOD, M. A. Late Fellow of Chr. Coll. Cam. Vol. I. (A-D.) London: Trübner and Co., 60 Paternoster Row. 1859. pp. xxiv., 507.
There is nothing more dangerously fascinating than etymologies. To the uninitiated the victim seems to have eaten of "insanerootsthat take the reason prisoner"; while the illuminate too often looks upon the stems and flowers of language, the highest achievements of thought and poesy, as mere handles by which to pull up the grimy tubers that lie at the base of articulate expression, shapeless knobs of speech, sacred to him as the potato to the Irishman.
The sarcasms of Swift were not without justification; for crazier analogies than that between Andromache and Andrew Mackay have been gravely insisted on by persons who, like the author of "Amilec," believed that the true secret of philosophizingest celui de rêver heureusement. It is only within a few years that etymological investigations have been limited by anything; like scientific precision, or that profound study, patient thought, and severity of method have asserted in this, as in other departments of knowledge, their superiority to point-blank guessing and the bewitching generalization conjured out of a couple or so of assumed facts, which, even if they turn out to be singly true, are no more nearly related than Hecate and green cheese.
We do not object to that milder form of philology of which the works of Dean Trench offer the readiest and most pleasing example, and which confines itself to the mere study of words, to the changes of form and meaning they have undergone and the forgotten moral that lurks in them. But the interest of Dr. Trench and others like him sticks fast in words, it is almost wholly an aesthetic interest, and does not pretend to concern itself with the deeper problems of language, its origin, its comparative anatomy, its bearing upon the prehistoric condition of mankind and the relations of races, and its claim to a place among the natural sciences as an essential element in any attempt to reconstruct the broken and scattered annals of our planet. It would not be just to find fault with Dr. Trench's books for lacking a scientific treatment to which they make no pretension, but they may fairly be charged with smelling a little too much of the shop. There is a faint odor of the sermon-case about every page, and we learn to dread, sometimes to skip, the inevitable homily, as we do the moral at the end of an Æsopic fable. We enter our protest, not against Dr. Trench in particular, for his books have other and higher claims to our regard, but because we find that his example is catching, the more so as verbal morality is much cheaper than linguistic science. If there be anything which the study of words should teach, it is their value.
There are two theories as to the origin of language, which, for shortness, may be defined as the poetic and the matter-of-fact. The former (of which M. Ernest Renan is one of the most eloquent advocates) supposes a primitive race or races endowed with faculties of cognition and expression so perfect and so intimately responsive one to the other, that the name of a thing came into being coincidently with the perception of it. Verbal inflections and other grammatical forms came into use gradually to meet the necessities of social commerce between man and man, and were at some later epoch reduced to logical system by constructive minds. If we understand him rightly, while not excluding the influence ofonomatopeia, (or physical imitation,) he would attach a far greater importance to metaphysical causes. He says admirably well, "La liaison du sens et du mot n'est jamaisnécessaire, jamaisarbitraire; toujours elle estmotivée." His theory amounts to this: that the fresh perfection of the senses and the mental faculties made the primitive man a poet.
The other theory seeks the origin of language in certain imitative radicals out of which it has analogically and metaphorically developed itself. This system has at least the merits of clearness and simplicity, and of being to a certain extent capable of demonstration. Its limitation in this last respect will depend upon that mental constitution which divides men naturally into Platonists and Aristotelians. It has never before received so thorough an exposition or been tested by so wide a range of application as in Mr. Wedgwood's volume, nor could it well be more fortunate in its advocate. Mr. Wedgwood is thorough, scrupulous, and fair-minded.
It will be observed that neither theory brings any aid to the attempt of Professor Max Müller and others to demonstrate etymologically the original unity of the human race. Mr. Wedgwood leaves this question aside, as irrelevant to his purpose. M. Renan combats it at considerable length. The logical consequence of admitting either theory would be that the problem was simply indemonstrable.
At first sight, so imaginative a scheme as that of M. Renan is singularly alluring; for, even when qualified by the sentence we have quoted, we may attach such a meaning to the wordmotivéeas to find in words the natural bodies of which the Platonic ideas are the soul and spirit. We find in it a correlative illustration of that notion not uncommon among primitive poets, and revived by the Cabalists, that whoever knew the Word of a thing was master of the thing itself, and an easy way of accounting for the innate fitness and necessity, the fore ordination, which stamps the phrases of real poets. If, on the other hand, we accept Mr. Wedgwood's system, we must consider speech, as the theologians of the Middle Ages assumed of matter, to be onlypotentiatedwith life and soul, and shall find the phenomenon of poetry as wonderful, if less mysterious, when we regard the fineness of organization requisite to a perception of the remote analogies of sense and thought, and the power, as of Solomon's seal, which can compel the unwilling genius back into the leaden void which language becomes when used as most men use it.
There is a large class of words which every body admits to be imitative of sounds,—such, for example, asbang, splash, crack,—and Mr. Wedgwood undertakes to show that their number and that of their derivative applications is much larger than is ordinarily supposed. He confines himself almost wholly to European languages, but not always to the particular class of etymologies which it is his main object to trace out. Some of his explanations of words, not based upon any real or assumed radical, but showing their gradual passage toward their present forms and meanings, are among the most valuable parts of the book. As striking proofs of this, we refer our readers to Mr. Wedgwood's treatment of the wordsabide, abie, allow, danger, and denizen. When he differs from other authorities, it is never inconsiderately or without examination. Now and then we think his derivations are far-fetched, when simpler ones were lying near his hand. He makes the Italianbalconecome from the Persianbåia khaneh, an upper chamber. An upper chamber over a gate in the Persian caravanserais is still called by that name, according to Rich. (p. 97.) Yet under the wordbalkwe find, "A hayloft is provincially termed thebalks, (Halliwell,) because situated among the rafters. Hence also, probably, the Ital.balco, orpulcoya scaffold; a loftlike erection supported upon beams." As abalconeis not an upper chamber, nor a chamber over a gate, but is precisely "a loftlike erection supported upon beams," it seems more reasonable to suppose it an augmentative formed in the usual way frombalco. Mr. Wedgwood's derivation of barbican frombala khanehseems to us more happy. (Ducange refers the word to an Eastern source.) He would also derive the Fr.ébaucherfrombalk, though we have a correlative form,sbozzare, in Italian, (old Sp.esbozar, Port,esboyar, Diez,) with precisely the same meaning, and from a rootbozzo, which is related to a very different class of words frombalk. So bewitched is Mr. Wedgwood with this wordbalk, that he prefers to derive the Ital.valicam, varcare, from it rather than from the Latinvaricare. We should think a deduction from the latter to the Englishwalkaltogether as probable. Mr. Wedgwood also inclines to seek the origin ofacquaintin the Germ,kund, though we have all the intermediate steps between it and the Mid. Lat.adcognitare. Again, underdaunthe says, "Probably not directly from Lat.domare, but from the Teutonic formdamp, which is essentially the same word." It may be plain that the Fr.dompter(whencedaunt) is not directly fromdomare, but not so plain, as it seems to us, that it is not directly from the frequentative form domitare.—"Decoy. Properlyduck-coy, as pronounced by those who are familiar with the thing itself. 'Decoys, vulgarlyduck-coys.'—Sketch of the Fens, in Gardener's Chron. 1849. Du.koye, cavea, septum, locus in quo greges stabulantur.—Kil.Kooi, konw, kevi, a cage;vogel-kooi, a bird-cage, decoy, apparatus for entrapping waterfowl. Prov. E.Coy, a decoy for ducks, a coop for lobsters.—Forby. The name was probably imported with the thing itself from Holland to the fens." (p. 447.)Duck-coy, we cannot help thinking, is an instance of a corruption likebag o' nailsfrombacchanals, for the sake of giving meaning to a word not understood. Decoys were and are used for other birds as well as ducks, andvogel-kooiin Dutch applies to all birds, (answering to our trap-cage,) the special apparatus for ducks being aneende-kooi. The Frenchcoiadverbialized by the prefixde, and meaning quietly, slyly, as a hunter who uses decoys must demean himself, would seem a more likely original.—AndironMr. Wedgwood derives from Flem.wend-ijser, turn-irons, because the spit rested upon them. But the original meaning seems to have no reference to the spit. The Frenchlandieris plainly a corruption of the Mid. Lat.anderia, by the absorption of the article (l'andier). This gives us an earlier formandier, and the augmentativeandieronwould be our word.—Baggage. We cannot think Mr. Wedgwood's derivation of this word frombaguean improvement on that of Ducange frombaga, area.—CoarseMr. Wedgwood considers identical withcourse,—that is, of course, ordinary. He finds a confirmation of this in the old spelling. Old spelling is seldom a safe guide, though we wonder that the archaic formboorlydid not seem to him a sufficient authority for the common derivation ofburly. Ifcoarsebe not another form ofgross, (Fr.gros,grosse,) then there is no connection betweencornandgranum, orhorseandross.—"Cullion. It.Coglione, a cullion, a fool, a scoundrel, properly a dupe. See Cully. It.cogionare, to deceive, to make a dupe of…. In the Venet.coglionarebecomescogionare, asvogiaforvoglia…. Hence E. tocozen, as It.fregio, frieze;cugino, cousin;prigione, prison." (p. 387.) Undercully, to which Mr. Wedgwood refers, he gives another etymology ofcoglione, and, we think, a wrong one.Coglionareis itself a derivative form fromcoglione, and the radical meaning is to be sought incogliere, to gather, to take in, to pluck. Hence acoglioneis a sharper, one who takes in, plucks.Cullyandgull(one who is taken in) must be referred to the same source. Mr. Wedgwood's derivation ofcozenis ingenious, and perhaps accounts for the doubtful Germ,kosen, unless that word itself be the original.—"To chaff, in vulgar language to rally one, to chatter or talk lightly. From a representation of the inarticulate sounds made by different kinds of animals uttering rapidly repeated cries. Du.keffen, to yap, to bark, also to prattle, chatter, tattle. Halma," etc. We think it demonstrable thatchaffis only a variety ofchafe, from Fr.écauffer, retaining the broader sound of theafrom the older formchaufe. Sogaby, which Mr. Wedgwood (p. 84) would connect withgäwisch, (Fr.gauche,) is derived immediately from O. Fr.gabé, (a laughing-stock, a butt,) the participial form ofgaber, to make fun of, which would lead us to a very different root. (See theFabliaux, passim.)—Cress. "Perhaps," says Mr. Wedgwood, (p. 398,) "from the crunching sound of eating the crisp, green herb." This is one of the instances in which he is lured from the plain path by the NixyOnomatopoeia. The analogy betweencressandgrassflies in one's eyes; and, perhaps, the more probable derivation of the latter is from the root meaning to grow, rather than from that meaning to eat, unless, indeed, the two be originally identical. The A. S. formscoersandgoersare almost identical. The Fr.cresson, from It.crescione, which Mr. Wedgwood cites, points in the direction ofcrescere; and the O. Fr.cressonage, implying a verbcressoner, means the right ofgrazing.—UnderdockMr. Wedgwood would seem (he does not make himself quite clear) to refer It.docciato a root analogous withdykeandditch. He cites Prov.doga, which he translates bybank. Raynouard has only "dogua, douve, creux, cavité," and refers to It.doga. The primary meaning seems rather the hollow than the bank, though this would matter little, as the same transference of meaning may have taken place as indykeandditch, But when Mr. Wedgwood gives mill-damas the first meaning of the worddoccia, his wish seems to have stood godfather. Diez establishes the derivation ofdocciafromductus; and certainly the sense of a channel to lead (ducere) water in any desired direction is satisfactory. The derivative signification ofdoccia(a gouge, a tool to make channels with) coincides. Moreover, we have the masculine formdoccio, answering exactly to the Sp.duchoinaguaducho, theoforu, as indogeforduce, from the same rootducere. Another instance of Mr. Wedgwood's preferring the bird in the bush is to be found in his refusing to considerdout, to extinguish, (do out,) as analogous to _don,doff, anddup. He would rather connect it withtödten, tuer. He cites as allied words Bohemiandusyti, to choke, to extinguish; Polishdusic, to choke, stifle, quell; and so arrives at the English slang phrase, "dowsethe glim." As we find several other German words in thieves' English, we have little doubt thatdowseis nothing more thanthu' aus, do (thou) out, which would bring us back to our starting-point.
We have picked out a few instances in which we think Mr. Wedgwood demonstrably mistaken, because they show the temptation which is ever lying in wait to lead the theoretical etymologist astray. Mr. Wedgwood sometimes seems to reverse the natural order of things, and to reason backward from the simple to the more complex. He does not always respect the boundaries of legitimate deduction. On the other hand, his case becomes very strong where he finds relations of thought as well as of sound between whole classes of words in different languages. But it is very difficult to say how long ago instinctive imitation ceased and other elements are to be admitted as operative. We see words continually coming into vogue whose apparent etymologies, if all historical data of their origin were lost, would inevitably mislead. If we did not know, for example, the occasion which added the wordchouseto the English language, we have little doubt that the twofold analogy of form and meaning would have led etymologists to the Germankosen, (with the very common softening of thektoch,) and that the derivation would have been perfectly satisfactory to most minds.—Tantrumswould look like a word of popular coinage, and yet we find a respectable Old High German verbtantarôn, delirare, (Graff, V. 437,) which may perhaps help us to make out the etymology ofdander, in our vulgar expression of "getting one's dander up," which is equivalent to flying into a passion.—Jog, in the sense ofgoing, (tojogalong,) has a vulgar look. Richardson derives it from the same root with the otherjog, which means to shake, ("A. S.sceac-an, toshake, orshock, orshog.")Shoghas nothing whatever to do with shaking, unless when Nym says to Pistol, "Will youshogoff?" he may be said to have shaken him off. When the Tinker in Beaumont and Fletcher's "Coxcomb" says, "Come, prithee, let'sshogoff," what possible allusion to shaking is there, except, perhaps, to "shaking stumps"? The firstjogandshogare identical in meaning and derivation, and may be traced, by whosoever chooses, to the Gothictiuhan, (Germ,ziehen,) and are therefore near of kin to ourtug.Togsandtoggerybelong here also. (The connecting link may be seen in the preterite formzog.) The otherjogprobably comes to us immediately from the Frenchchoquer; and its frequentativejoggleanswers to the Germanschutkeln, It.cioccolare. Whether they are all remotely from the same radical is another question. We only cited it as a monosyllabic word, having the air of being formed by the imitative process, while its originaltiuhanmakes quite another impression.—Had the wordramosebeen a word of English slang-origin, (and it might easily have been imported, like so many more foreign phrases, by sailors,) we have as little doubt that a derivation of it from the Spanishvamoswould have failed to convince the majority of etymologists. This word is a good example of the way in which the people (and it is always the people, never the scholars, who succeed in adding to the spoken language) proceed in naturalizing a foreign term. The accent has gone over to the last syllable, in accordance with English usage in verbs of two syllables; and though the sharp sound of theshas been thus far retained, it is doubtful how long it will maintain itself against a fancied analogy with the grave sound of the same letter in such words asincloseandsuppose.—We should incline to think the slang verbto moseya mere variety of form, and that its derivation from a certain absconding Mr. Moses (who broke the law of his great namesake through a blind admiration of his example in spoiling the Egyptians) was only a new instance of that tendency to mythologize which is as strong as ever among the uneducated.Post, ergo propter, is good people's-logic; and if an antecedent be wanting, it will not be long before one is invented.
If we once admit the principle ofonomatopoeia, the difficulty remains of drawing the line which shall define the territory within which those capable of judging would limit its operation. Its boundary would be a movable one, like that of our own Confederacy. Some students, from natural fineness of ear, would be quicker to recognize resemblances of sound; others would trace family likeness in spite of every disguise; others, whose exquisiteness of perception was mental, would find the scent in faint analogies of meaning, where the ordinary brain would be wholly at fault. In the original genesis of language, also, we should infer the influence of the same idiosyncrasies. We were struck with this the other day in a story we heard of a little boy, who, during a violent thunder-storm, asked his father what that was out there,—all the while winking rapidly to explain his meaning. Had his vocabulary been more complete, he would have asked what thatwinkingout there was. The impression made upon him by the lightning was not the ordinary one of brightness, (as inblitz, (?)éclair,fulmen,flash,) but of the rapid alternations of light and dark. Had he been obliged to make a language for himself, like the two unfortunate children on whom King Psarnmetichus made his linguistic experiment, he would have christened the phenomenon accordingly.
Mr. Wedgwood has by no means carried out his theory fully even in reference to the words contained in his first volume, nor does the volume itself nearly exhaust the vocabulary of the letters it includes (A to D). Sometimes, where we should have expected him to apply his system, he refrains, whether from caution or oversight it is not easy to discover. The wordcow, which is commonly referred to an imitative radical, he is provokingly reserved about; and underchewhe hints at no relation between the name of the action and that of the capital ruminant animal.[a] Even where he has derived a word from an imitative radical, he sometimes fails to carry the process on to some other where it would seem equally applicable, sometimes pushes it too far. For instance, "Crag. 1. The neck, the throat.—Jam. Du.kraeghe, the throat; Pol.kark, the nape, crag, neck; Bohem.krk, the neck; Icel.krage, Dan.krave, the collar of a coat. The origin is an imitation of the noise made by clearing the throat. Bohem.krkati, to belch,krcati, to vomit; Pol.krzakaé, to hem, to hawk. The same root gives rise to the Fr.cracher, to spit, and It.recere, to vomit; E.reach, to strain in vomiting; Icel.hraki, spittle; A. S.hrara, cough, phlegm, the throat, jaws; G.rachen, the jaws." (Ascragis not an English word, all this should have come under the head ofcraw.) "Crag. 2. A rock. Gael.creag, a rock; W.careg, a stone;caregos, pebbles." We do not see why the rattling sound of stones should not give them a claim to the same pedigree,—the name being afterwards transferred to the larger mass, the reverse of which we see in the popularrockforstone. Nay, as Mr. Wedgwood (sub voce draff, p. 482) assumesrac(more properlyrk) as the root, it would answer equally well forrockalso. Indeed, as the chief occupation of crags, and their only amusement, in mountainous regions, is to pelt unwary passengers and hunters of scenery with theirdébris, we might havecreag, quasi caregos faciens sive dejiciens, sicut rupes a rumpere. Indeed, there is an analogous Sanscrit root, meaningbreak, crack. But though Mr. Wedgwood lets off this coughing, hawking, spitting, and otherwise unpleasant old patriarchRacso easily in the case of the foundlingCrag, he has by no means done with him. Stretched on the unfilial instrument of torture that bears his name, he is made to confess the paternity ofdraff, anddregs, anddross, and so many other uncleanly brats, that we feel as if he ought to be nailed by the ear to the other side of the same post on which Mr. Carlyle has pilloried Augustder starkeforever. But we honestly believe the old fellow to be belied, and that he is as guiltless of them as of that weak-witted HebrewRacawho looks so much like him in the face.
[Footnote a: An etymology of this kind would have been particularly interesting in the hands of so learned and acute a man as Mr. Wedgwood. It would have afforded him a capital example of the fact that considerable differences in the form and sound of words meaning the same thing prove nothing against the onomatopoeic theory, but merely that the same sound represents a different thing to different ears. L.Boare, mugire, E.moo; F.beugler, E.bellow; G.leuen, L.lugere, E.low, are all attempts at the same sound, or, which would not affect the question, variations of an original radicalgôorgu. For a full discussion of the matter, admirable for its thorough learning, see Pictet,Les Origines Indo-Européennes, Vol. I. Section 86.]
In the case ofcrag, Mr. Wedgwood argues from a sound whose frequency and marked character (and colds must have been frequent when the fig-tree was the only draper) gave a name to the organ producing it. We can easily imagine it. One of these early pagans comes home of an evening, heated from the chase, and squats himself on the damp clay floor of a country-seat imperfectly guarded against draughts. The next morning he says to his helpmeet, "Mrs. Barbar, I have a dreadful cold in my—hrac!hrac!" Here he is interrupted by a violent fit of coughing, and resorts to semeiology by pointing to his throat. Similar incidents carrying apprehension (as Lord Macaulay would say) to the breezy interiors of a thousand shanties on the same fatal morning, the domestic circle would know no name so expressive ashracfor that fatal tube through which man, ingenious in illegitimate perversion, daily compels the innocent breath to discharge a plumbeous hail of rhetoric.
But seriously, we think Mr. Wedgwood's derivation ofcrag(or rather, that which he adopts, for it has had other advocates) a very probable one, at least for more northern tribes. There is no reason why men should have escaped the same law of nomenclature which gave names to thecuckooand thepavo.[a] But when he approachesdraff, he gets upon thinner ice. Where a metaphorical appropriateness is plainly wanting to one etymology and another as plainly supplies it, other considerations being equal, probability may fairly turn the scale in favor of the latter. Mr. Wedgwood is here dealing with a sound translated to another meaning by an intellectual process of analogy; and no one knows better than he—for his book shows everywhere the fair-mindedness of a thorough scholar—the extreme difficulty of convincing other minds in such matters. He seems to have been unconsciously influenced in this case by a desire to give more support to a very ingenious etymology of the worddream. His process of reasoning may be briefly stated thus:draffanddregsare refuse, they are things thrown away, sometimes (as in Germandreck, sordes) they are even disgustful; and as there is no expression of contempt and disgust so strong as spitting, the soundractransferred itself by a natural association of ideas from the act to the object of it. He cites Du.drabbe, Dan.drav, Ger.träbern, Icel.dregg, Prov.draco, Ger., Du.dreck, O. F.drache, drêche, (and he might have added E.trash,) E.dross, all with nearly the same meaning. We have selected such as would show the different forms of the word. To the same radical Mr. Wedgwood refers G.trüjen,betrügen, and this would carry with it our Englishtrick(Prov.tric, in Diez, Fr.triche). In our opinion he is wrong, doubly wrong, inasmuch as we think he has confounded two widely different roots. He has taken his O. Fr. forms from Roquefort (Gloss. Rom. I. 411,) but has omitted one of his definitions,coque qui enveloope le grain, that is, the husk, or hull. Mr. Wedgwood might perhaps found an argument on this in support of our old friendRacand his relation to huskiness; but it seems to us one of those trifles, the turned leaf, or broken twig, that put one on the right trail. We accept Mr. Wedgwood's derivative signification ofrefuse, worthless, contemptible, and ask if all these terms do not apply equally well to the chaff of the threshing-floor? It is more satisfactory to us, then, to attribute a part of the words given above to the Gothicdragan, (L.trahere, G.tragen,) to drag, to draw, and a part to Goth.thriskan, to thresh. The conjecture of Diez, (cited by Diefenbach,) that the Italiantrescare(to stamp with the feet, to dance) should be referred to the same root, is confirmed by the ancient practice of threshing grain by treading it out with cattle. We might, indeed, refer all to one root, by derivingdross(a provincial form of which isdrass) through the O. Fr.drache, (as in O. Fr.treche, Fr.tresse, E.tress,) but we have A. S.dresten, which is better accounted for bytherscan. The other forms, such asdrabbe,dregg, anddragan, thebandvbeing analogous to E.draggle, drabble, draught, draft, all equally fromdragan. We have a suspicion thatdragonis to be referred to the same root. Mr. Wedgwood follows Richardson, who follows Vossius in a fanciful etymology from the Greek [Greek: derkomai = blepein] to see. Sharpness of sight, it is true, was attributed to the mythologized reptile, but the primitivedracowas nothing but a large serpent, supposed to be the boa. This sense must accordingly be comparatively modern. The eagle is the universal type of keenness of vision. The reptile's way of moving himself without legs is his most striking peculiarity; and if we derivedragonfrom the root meaning to drag, to draw, (because he draws himself along,) we find it analogous toserpent,reptile,snake.[b] The relation between [Greek: trechein] anddraganmay be seen in G.ziehen, meaning both to draw and to go. Mr. Wedgwood says that he finds it hard to conceive any relation between the notion oftreachery,betrayal, (trügen,betrügen,) and that of drawing. It would seem that todrawinto an ambush, thedrawingof a fowler's net, and the more sublimateddrawinga man on to his destruction, supplied analogies enough. The contempt we feel for treachery (for it is only in this metaphysical way that Mr. Wedgwood can connect the word with his radicalrac[c]) is a purely subsidiary, derivative, and comparatively modern notion. Many, perhaps most, kinds of treachery were looked upon as praiseworthy in early times, and are still so regarded among savages. Does Mr. Wedgwood believe that Romulus lost caste by the way in which he made so many respectable Sabines fathers-in-law against their will, or that the wise Odysseus was a perfectly admirable gentleman in our sense of the word? Even in the sixteenth century, in the then most civilized country of the world, the grave irony with which Macchiavelli commends the frightful treacheries of Cæsar Borgia would have had no point, if he had not taken it for granted that almost all who read his treatise would suppose him to be in earnest. In the same waydregsis explained simply as the sediment left afterdrawing offliquids.Dredgealso is certainly, in one of its meanings, a derivative ofdragan; so, too,trickin whist, and perhapstrudge. Indeed, all the words above-cited are more like each other than Fr.toitand E.deck, both from one root, or the Neapol.sciùand the Lat.flos, from which it is corrupted.
[Footnote a: The Germanpfauretains the imitative sound which the Englishpea-cock has lost, and of which our system of pronunciation robs the Latin.]
[Footnote b: And toworm, (another word fordragon,) if, as has been conjectured, there be any radical affinity between that andschwärmen, whose primitive sense of crawl or creep is seen in theswarmingof bees, andswarmingup a tree.]
[Footnote c: That is, unless he takes theragindraganto be the same thing, which he might support with several plausible analogies, such as E.rake, It.recare, etc.]
But the same subtilty of mind, which sometimes seduces Mr. Wedgwood into making distinctions without a difference and preferring an impalpable relation of idea to a plain derivative affinity, is of great advantage to him when the problem is to construct an etymology by following the gossamer clews that lead from sensual images to the metaphorical and tropical adaptations of them to the demands of fancy and thought. The nice optics that see what is not to be seen have passed into a sarcastic proverb; yet those are precisely the eyes that are in the heads and brains of all who accomplish much, whether in science, poetry, or philosophy. With the kind of etymologies we are speaking of, it is practically useful to have the German gift of summoning a thing up from the depths of one's inward consciousness. It is when Mr. Wedgwood would reverse the order of Nature, and proceed from the tropical to the direct and simple, that we are at issue with him. For it is not philosophers who make language, though they often unmake it.
Mr. Wedgwood's most successful application of his system may be found, as we think, under the words,dim,dumb,deaf, anddeath. He might have confirmed the relation between dumbness and darkness from the acutest metaphysician among poets, in Dante'sove il sol tace. We have not left ourselves room enough to illustrate Mr. Wedgwood's handling of these etymologies by extracts; we must refer our readers to the book itself. Apart from its value as suggesting thought, or quickening our perception of shades of meaning, and so freshening our feeling of the intimate harmony of sense and spirit in language, and of the thousand ways in which the soul assumes the material world into her own heaven and transfigures it there, the volume will be found practically the most thorough contribution yet made to English etymology. We are glad to hear that we are to have an American edition of it under the able supervision of Mr. Marsh. Etymology becomes of practical importance, when, as the newspapers inform us, two members of a New York club have been fighting a duel because one of them doubted whether Garry Baldy were of Irish descent. Any student of language could have told them that Garibaldi is only the plural form (common in Italian family names) of Garibaldo, the Teutonic Heribald, whose meaning, appropriate enough in this case, would be nearly equivalent to Bold Leader.
The Physiology of Common Life. By George Henry Lewes, Author of "SeasideStudies," "Life of Goethe," etc. In Two Volumes. Vol. II. New York.Appleton & Co. 12mo. pp. 410. $1.00.
Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856. From Gales and Seaton's Annals of Congress; from their Register of Debates; and from the Official Reported Debates, by John C. Rives. By the Author of "The Thirty Yeats' View." Vol. XIV. New York. Appleton & Co. 8vo. pp. 747. $3.00.
The Young Farmer's Manual: Detailing the Manipulations of the Farm in a Plain and Intelligible Manner. With Practical Directions for laying out a Farm, and erecting Buildings, Fences, and Farm Gates. Embracing also the Young Farmer's Workshop: giving full Directions for the Selection of Good Farm and Shop Tools, their Use and Manufacture, with Numerous Original Illustrations of Fences, Gates, Tools, etc., and for performing nearly Every Branch of Farming Operations. By S. Edwards Todd. New York. Saxton, Barker, & Co. 12mo. pp. 459. $1.25.
Ritchie's Illustrated Catalogue of Philosophical Instruments. Boston.E.S. Ritchie. 8vo. pp. 84. 25 cts.
The Kellys and the O'Kellys. A Novel. By Anthony Trollope, Author of"Dr. Thorne," etc. From the Last London Edition. New York. Rudd &Carleton. 12mo. pp. 432. $1.25.
A History of New York, from the Beginning of the World to the End of the Dutch Dynasty; containing, among Many Surprising and Curious Matters, the Unutterable Ponderings of Walter the Doubter, the Disastrous Projects of William the Testy, and the Chivalric Achievements of Peter the Headstrong,—the Three Dutch Governors of New Amsterdam: being the Only Authentic History of the Times that ever hath been or ever will be published. By Diedrich Knickerbocker. The Author's Revised Edition. Complete in One Volume. New York. Putnam. 12mo. pp. 472. $1.50.
The Confessions of Augustine. Edited, with an Introduction, by WilliamG.T. Shedd. Andover. Warren F. Draper. 12mo. pp. xxxvi., 417. $1.25.
History of the United States, from the Discovery of the American Continent. By George Bancroft. Vol. VIII. Boston. Little, Brown, & Co. 8vo. pp. 475. $2.25
Quaker Quiddities; or, Friends in Council. A Colloquy. Boston. Crosby,Nichols, Lee, & Co. 16mo. pp. 48. 25 cts.
History of Genghis Khan. By Jacob Abbott. With Engravings. New York.Harper & Brothers. 16mo. pp. 335. 60 cts.
Danesbury House. By Mrs. Henry Wood. New York. Harper & Brothers. 12mo. pp. 282. 75 cts.
The Little Beauty. By Mrs. Grey, Author of "Passion and Principle," "Old Dower House," etc. Philadelphia. Peterson & Brothers. 12mo. pp. 626. 31.25.
Cicero on Oratory and Orators. Translated or edited by J.S. Watson. NewYork. Harper & Brothers. 16mo. pp. 379. 75 cts.
A Smaller History of Greece, from the Earliest Times to the RomanConquest. By William Smith, LL.D. Illustrated by Engravings on Wood. NewYork. Harper & Brothers. 18mo. pp. xxiv., 248. 60 cts.
Class-Book of Botany. Being Outlines of the Structure, Physiology, and Classification of Plants. With a Flora of All Parts of the United States and Canada. By Alphonso Wood, A.M. New York. Barnes & Burr. 8vo. pp. 174. 75 cts.
Manual of Geology: Designed for the Use of Colleges and Academics. ByEbenezer Emmons, State Geologist of North Carolina, late State Geologistof New York, Professor of Natural History and Geology in WilliamsCollege, etc., etc. Illustrated with Numerous Engravings. SecondEdition. New York. Barnes & Burr. 8vo. pp. 297. $1.00.
Elements of English Composition, Grammatical, Rhetorical, Logical, andPractical. Prepared for Academies and Schools. By James R. Boyd, A.M.,Author of "Annotated Editions of English Poets," of "Elements of Logic,"of an Improved Edition of "Kames's Elements," etc. New York. Barnes &Burr. 12mo. pp. 406. 75 cts.
Elements of Analytical Geometry and of the Differential and IntegralCalculus. By Charles Davies, LL.D., Professor of Higher Mathematics,Columbia College. New York. Barnes & Burr. 8vo. pp. 194. $1.00.
Natural History. For the Use of Schools and Families. By WorthingtonHooker, M.D., Professor of the Theory and Practice of Medicine in YaleCollege, Author of "Human Physiology," "Child's Book of Nature," etc.New York. Harper & Brothers. 12mo. pp. 382. $1.00.
Introduction to the Study of International Law, Designed as an Aid in Teaching, and in Historical Studies. By Theodore D. Woolsey, President of Yale College. Boston. Munroe & Co. 12mo. pp. xx., 486. $1.25.
Somnambulism and Cramp. By Baron Reichenbach. Translated from the German, by John S. Hittell. New York. Calvin Blanchard. 12mo. pp. xxvi., 253. $1.00.
Right at Last, and Other Tales. By Mrs. Gaskell, Author of "Mary Barton," "Ruth," "Cranford," etc. New York. Harper & Brothers. 12mo. pp. 305. 75 eta.
The Three Clerks. A Novel. By Anthony Trollope, Author of "Dr. Thorne,""The West Indies and the Spanish Main," etc. New York. Harper &Brothers. 12mo. pp. 497. $1.00.
Travels, Researches, and Missionary Labors, during an Eighteen Years'Residence in Eastern Africa; together with Journeys to Jagga, Usambara,Ukambani, Shoa, Abessinia, and Khartum; and a Coasting Voyage fromMombaz to Cape Delgado. By the Rev. Dr. J. Lewis Krapf, Secretary of theChrishona Institute at Basel, and late Missionary in the Service of theChurch Missionary Society in Eastern and Equatorial Africa, etc., etc.With an Appendix respecting the Snow-capped Mountains of Eastern Africa;the Sources of the Nile; the Languages and Literature of Abessinia andEastern Africa, etc., etc. And a Concise Account of the GeographicalResearches in Eastern Africa up to the Discovery of the Uyenycsi by Dr.Livingstone, in September last. By E.J. Ravenstein, F.R.G.S. Boston.Ticknor & Fields. 8vo. pp. xi., 464. $1.25.
The Pathfinder; or, The Inland Sea. By J. Fenimore Cooper. Illustrated from Drawings by F.O.C. Darley. New York. Townsend & Co. 12mo. pp. x., 515. $1.50.
The Union. Boston. Crocker & Brewster. 16mo. pp. 48. 50 cts.
The Hidden Gem. A Drama in Two Acts. Composed for the College Jubilee ofSt. Cuthberts, Ushaw, 1858. By H.E. Cardinal Wiseman. Baltimore. Kelly,Hedian, & Piet. 16mo. pp. 176. 75 cts.
Autobiographical Recollections. By the late Charles Robert Leslie, R.A. Edited, with a Prefatory Essay on Leslie as an Artist, and Selections from his Correspondence, by Tom Taylor, Esq., Editor of the "Autobiography of Haydon." With Portrait. Boston. Ticknor & Fields. 12mo. pp. lx., 363. $1.25.
The Confederate Chieftains: A Tale of the Irish Rebellion of 1641. ByMrs. J. Sadlier, Author of "New Lights," "Red Hand of Ulster," etc. NewYork. Sadlier & Co. 12mo. pp. 460. $1.25.
The Mount Vernon Papers. By Edward Everett. New York. Appleton & Co. 12mo. pp. xxii., 491. $1.25.
Leaves from a Bachelor's Book of Life. By Francis Copcutt. New York.Rollo. 12mo. pp. 250. $1.00.
Chamber's Encyclopædia; a Dictionary of Universal Knowledge forthe People. On the Basis of the Latest Edition of the GermanConversations-Lexicon. Illustrated with Wood Engravings and Maps. PartsXIV. and XV. New York. Appleton & Co. 8vo. [each part] 64 pp. 15 cts.
The Sand-Hills of Jutland. By Hans Christia Andersen, Author of the "Improvisatore," etc. Boston. Ticknor & Fields. 16mo. pp. iv., 267. 75 cts.
Euripides. Ex Recensione Frederici A. Paley. Accessit Verborum et Nominum Index. Vol. I. New York. Harper & Brothers. 18mo. pp. 304. 40 cts.
Castle Richmond. A Novel. By Anthony Trollope, Author of "Doctor Thorne," "The Three Clerks," etc. New York. Harper & Brothers. 12mo. pp. 474. $1.00.
Both Sides of the Grape Question. Together with a Classification of Species and Varieties of the Grape-Vine. Philadelphia. Lippincott & Co. 16mo. paper, pp. 96. 25 cts.
Lovel the Widower. A Novel. By W.M. Thackeray, Author of "Vanity Fair,""Pendennis," "The Newcomes," etc. With Illustrations. New York. Harper &Brothers. 8vo. paper, pp. 60. 25 cts.
The Avoidable Causes of Disease, Insanity, and Deformity. By John Ellis,M.D., Professor of the Principles and Practice of Medicine in theWestern Medical College of Cleveland, Ohio; Author of "Marriage and itsViolations." A Book for the People as well as for the Profession. NewYork. Mason Brothers. 16mo. pp. 348, 48. $1.25.
Life in the Desert: or, Recollections of Travel in Asia and Africa. By Colonel L. Du Couret, (Hadji-Abd'el-Hamid-Bey,) Ex-Lieutenant of the Emirs of Mecca, Yémen, and Persia, Delegate of the French Government to Central Africa, Member of the Société Orientale, Académie Nationale, etc. Translated from the French. New York. Mason Brothers. 12mo. pp. 502. $1.25.
Immanuel. An Examination of the Two Natures of Christ in their Relations to Physiology and Revelation. By P.W. Ellsworth, A.M., M.D. Hartford. D.B. Moseley, Printer. 8vo. paper, pp. 24. 15 cts.
The Barbarism of Slavery. Speech of Hon. Charles Sumner, on the Bill for the Admission of Kansas as a Free State, in the United States Senate, June 4, 1860. Boston. Thayer & Eldredge. 8vo. paper, pp. 118. 25 cts.