of type, greatly facilitate the use of the book for study and reference. The text is accompanied with thirty-two historical maps, which are well selected and distributed. It is noticeable that six of these record political changes which have occurred during the past sixteen years. This suggests a specially useful feature of the book, its clear account of very recent history. In reproducing some of the maps (we have particularly in mind the series relating to Central Europe) names, colors, and lines are retained which are not explained by anything in the text, and by which teachers even may be puzzled unless they have access to such a work as Mr. Freeman's "Historical Geography of Europe." Is it not a mistake, in the lower map opposite page 328, to extend the yellow color beyond the broken line which marks the assured boundary between the Roman Empire and the Hungarian and Ottoman territories? Something more might be done, without crowding, in marking places where important battles were fought. For instance, Tinchebrai might easily be indicated on the instructive map, "France and England A. D. 1154-1189." In the interest, moreover, of the hundreds of scholars who will doubtless thumb this admirable text-book, we could wish that the backs of the colored maps might be made a trifle deeper so that they would open more flatly, and that a stronger paper, or linen even, might be used for this purpose. In other respects the binding and the entire mechanical makeup are very satisfactory. 1885. Egbert C. Smyth. THE FIRST NAPOLEON. A Sketch, Political and Military. By JOHN CODMAN By Professor JOHN ROBERT Two exceedingly worthful books. Each is a critical, entertaining, and, on the whole, discriminating narrative of Napoleon's entire public career. Ropes dwells much the more on its military aspect, Seeley on its political, which he discusses with the same ample knowledge of the period evinced in his "Life and Times of Stein." The books thus excellently supplement one another. Ropes gives of Napoleon's campaigns and battles probably the best brief, non-technical account extant. It cannot be commended too highly. No reader who enjoys expositions of strategy will lay this book down till he has seen its last line. Clear, easily comprehensible maps of battle-fields accompany and wonderfully aid the description. Seeley presents no maps. Ropes's observations upon political events are often deep and original, as are Seeley's, less often, upon military. Ropes appeals mainly to the ordinary intelligent reader; Seeley's discussion is rather of the nature of an essay for the political student, the last third of it being professedly this. As a keen, brief political résumé of Napoleon's times it has no equal. Each author's style is easy and clear, neither's everywhere correct. In paper and printing the English book is good, the American superb. Both have fine indexes. Ropes's view of Napoleon, as man, ruler, general, tends to be favorable, and, in the main, is so; of Seeley's precisely the reverse is to be said. Yet both histories are, speaking generally, candid, the one free from fulsome praise, the other from sweeping condemnation. Much accomplished by Napoleon, which Ropes refers to genius, Seeley ascribes to circumstance. But Seeley agrees with Ropes that their subject was in no wise the monster of selfishness and wickedness, the foe to liberty and to man, which Lanfrey and Madame de Remusat represent. When he enslaved Venice he was not yet supreme, but the servant of the French Republic. For toying with the national heart of the Tyrolese he himself was to blame, but it was only another of the many such acts with which those honored monarchs, Frederick the Great, Joseph II., and Catherine of Russia had made the eighteenth century familiar. He disregarded international law. So did the Republic; so did the allies. They had, for instance, no ground in international law for opening war upon him when he returned from Elba. He, as a sovereign ruler, had conquered France. Napoleon was cruel. Yes; Lord Nelson was cruel also. Napoleon had many wars, but hardly one of them did he begin. As to his liberalism, Ropes maintains, with great vigor and success, that it was no mere pretense at any time, and was never abandoned. Napoleon was, doubtless, not a Washington. He sought glory, and in his quest therefor too often forgot France. he took from France no liberty which she ever really possessed, while he rendered solid and permanent that political betterment which the Revolution had brought her, but which she bade fair soon to lose. If he smote down republican forms, it was because he believed it proved by events that the people were not yet ready for them, - like Cæsar and Cromwell in this, both of whom, critical historians are more and more agreed, really wished liberty. In fact, that Napoleon was understood to be the champion of liberalism was precisely what all along caused the deadly hostility of absolutist Europe against him. It is idle to speak of his having intended mere conquest, like an Attila. Had this been his lust, he would certainly have tried to avoid embattling against himself the whole world at once. This relative reasonableness and unselfishness on Napoleon's part, so urged by Ropes, Seeley, in a spirit bespeaking the Englishman more than the historian, hesitates to admit, though hardly venturing to deny. Seeley, indeed, is convinced that good, vast and lasting, came from the French stirring-up of Europe, but would have us believe that the seeds of it all were planted by the Republic, and that they would have grown and fruited far better under the tending of another, Moreau, for instance, than they did. Moreau is, for Seeley, the model French hero and patriot of that age. Another theory of Seeley's, which seems to spring more from national spirit than from historical acumen, is that Napoleon's central purpose was, from first to last, the conquest or the ruin of England, he fighting Austria, Prussia, and Russia only because England's allies, and as a means of humbling England. Ropes, too, it were dangerous to follow in all points. He excuses faults too easily. In particular, we think, he goes to an extreme in his endeavor to exculpate Napoleon respecting the death of the Duc d'Enghien, although his argument has tempered our judgment on this matter. But Ropes's philosophy of the fall of Napoleon is sound. The great man, beguiled by the splendor of his early campaigns, was led fatally to distrust and disuse peaceful measures. If he did not court wars, he did too little to shun them; too readily hazarding all upon the sword. Meantime he had been schooling the world in the arts of camp and field, training up military leaders for his foes. Worst of all, his own military work grew careless. Had he fought his reserve at Borodino, as von Moltke did his the third day at Metz, the Russian army would have been annihilated. He should have known Blücher too well, especially after Ligny, to take it for granted that he had gone home. However, neither Blücher nor Wellington defeated Napoleon at Waterloo. Gneisenau, Blücher's chief of staff, deserves that glory, a fact which both our authors miss, but which von Treitschke sets forth in detail. Old Blücher had fallen under his horse as the day closed at Ligny, and was supposed dead. The command devolved on Gneisenau, who- it was the decisive factor in the mighty turn which history now took - determined to retreat on Wellington instead of toward Prussia. BROWN UNIVERSITY. E. Benj. Andrews. A SANSKRIT PRIMER. Based on the Leitfaden für den Elementar-Cursus des Sanskrit of Professor GEORG BÜHLER, of Vienna. By EDWARD DELAVAN PERRY, of Columbia College, New York. Pp. xii., 230. Boston: Ginn & Co., 1885. $1.50. Introduction price $1.25. THOSE Who began the study of Sanskrit twenty years ago, and struggled painfully through the elements with such grammars as the time afforded, and sought, with a courage supported by worthy aims, to read the literature with helps like Bopp's Glossary and Benfey's Dictionary, may well lament that they were born a score of years too soon, in view of the multitude of works that now smooth the difficulties of the way. Those were the days of stage-coaches; these of Pullman cars. First, we have the great Petersburg lexicon complete, with other special lexical helps too numerous to mention; next, Professor Whitney's Sanskrit grammar, which has for the first time put the facts of the language in scientific and apprehensible shape; thirdly, Lanman's "Reader," with its well-selected specimens of the literature and excellent vocabulary; and lastly, as milk for babes, Perry's "Primer." Surely, Mr. Burritt's dream of "Sanskrit for the fireside" is about to be realized! The Sanskrit Primer, of which we are to speak more particularly, is a revision of Professor Bühler's "Leitfaden für den Elementar-Cursus des Sanskrit," which was published in Vienna in 1883. The original work was an attempt, already begun in the schools of India, to apply to the learning of Sanskrit the so-called "practical method," which has become so familiar to students of Latin, Greek, and the modern languages of Europe. Unfortunately, however, as we learn from the American editor's Preface, for we have no copy of the German work by us, - Professor Bühler adhered to the unscientific mode of classifying the material of the language which has come to us from the Hindu grammarians, and has been, until recently, such an obstacle to the ready acquisition of their literary tongue. Hence, the task which Mr. Perry has undertaken is to combine the practical portion of the German scholar's work with the more rational grammatical scheme elaborated by Professor Whitney. We have, first, an Introduction of twenty-three pages, half of which is devoted to the alphabet, as written and spoken, and the remainder to declension, conjugation, etc., in the briefest possible outline. Next follow forty-five lessons, in each of which is doled out a portion of the grammar, accompanied with a vocabulary and typical sentences to be translated into English from Sanskrit, or the reverse. Taken together, they are designed to convey so many of the elementary facts of the language as it is judged the pupil ought to know before beginning to read a continuous text. The euphonic laws, which are so prominent a feature of Sanskrit grammar, are set forth mainly in the first thirteen lessons, while declension and conjugation are taught pari passu through the whole. Naturally there is little allusion in a work of this kind to the earlier usages of the language, which the student will come to know farther on; but two remarks occur to us to make in this connection. First, the statement on page 16 might easily be misunderstood as implying that in the Veda the aorist" is used in the sense of a "perfect" only; but, in fact, there are many passages where it has precisely the ordinary signification of the Greek aorist. Again, regarding the position of relative clauses as stated on page 80, instances are not wanting in the Veda where the relative clause is inserted into the antecedent clause, though they certainly are not common. The language of the grammatical statements in this book is, in small part, Professor Perry's own, but is taken bodily, with condensation and trivial change here and there, from Whitney's grammar; so that, to borrow a term from Hindu life, the editor's office has been chiefly that of the ghatak or "match-maker," to marry the works of the two eminent scholars. This delicate service he has certainly performed with judgment and tact. Two vocabularies - Sanskrit-English and English-Sanskrit and a brief appendix close the book. Our general impression of the work, though we have not had leisure to scan every detail, is decidedly favorable. It will be found a convenience to teachers of Sanskrit in elementary instruction, and especially such to persons who wish to acquire the language without a teacher. We desire to add a single remark by way of caution. It has long been our impression that the matter of "primers" and "lessons" is sometimes carried to excess, and the pupil kept too long in swaddling bands. Our choice would be, as soon as he is fairly on his feet, to entice him, without long delay, to begin to make excursions into some easy text. With a teacher to help over the hard places the interest is best sustained in this way. John Avery. BOWDOIN COLLEGE. BOOKS RECEIVED. Brown, Thurston, & Hoyt, Fogg & Donham, Portland, Me. The History of the Anti-slavery Cause in State and Nation. By Rev. Austin Willey, editor of anti-slavery paper during the conflict. 16mo, pp. xii., 503. 1886. $2.00. Ginn & Co., Boston. A Sanskrit Primer. Based on the Leitfaden für den Elementar-Cursus des Sanskrit of Professor Georg Bühler of Vienna. By Edward Delavan Perry, of Columbia College, New York. Pp. xii., 230. 1885. Carl Schoenhof, Boston. Missionsstunden von R. W. Dietel, Pfarrer in Mülsen St. Jacob. II. Heft. Pp. 148. Leipzig: Verlag von Johannes Lehmann. 1886. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. What does History teach? By John Stuart Blackie. 16mo, pp. 123. 1886. 75 cents; The Fight for Missouri. From the Election of Lincoln to the Death of Lyon. By Thomas L. Snead, A. D. C. of the Governor: Acting Adjutant-General of the Missouri State Guard, etc., etc. With maps. 16mo, pp. viii., 322. 1886. $1.50; - Letters to Dead Authors. By Andrew Lang. 16mo, pp. vi., 234. 1886. $1.00. Scribner & Welford, New York. Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students. Edited by Rev. Marcus Dods, D. D., and Rev. Alexander Whyte, D. D. Candlish on the Work of the Holy Spirit. Pp. 118. Deliv J. H. Smart & Co., Kansas City. The Missouri Christian Lectures. ered at Columbia, 1884, and Brownsville, 1885. 16mo, pp. v., 354. 1886. THE ANDOVER REVIEW: A RELIGIOUS AND THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY. VOL. V.-MAY, 1886.- No. XXIX. LIBERAL EDUCATION IN GERMANY. BESIDES aiming at the general development of the mental powers, and fitting the pupils for the ordinary duties and varied special callings in life, German education is controlled by the ideas that national unity must be promoted by national culture, that existing authorities must be respected, and that the training of the individual is to fit him for consecrating his powers to the welfare of the whole people. But, aside from these fundamental aims, the various schools do not form an educational system whose parts are so articulated as to form an organism. While the unity of the elementary, intermediate, and highest schools is apparent, there are numerous other institutions which do not prepare for the highest instruction, but directly for life, or some particular calling, so that they cannot be viewed as part of an organic union. It is this heterogeneity which makes the subject of education in Germany so difficult of comprehension. The lowest and highest schools, namely, the common school and the university, are easily understood. The former furnishes the education regarded essential for both sexes, and for every station in life, and attendance on it is compulsory. The university is annually attended by hundreds of American students, and is better known in our country than the other higher schools. The Universitas Litterarum aims to give the most advanced instruction in the highest departments of learning; but its division into the four Faculties of Theology, Law, Medicine, and Philosophy indicates that its aim is specific rather than general. The term "philosophy" is here used in the broad, traditional sense, which is much more comprehensive than the present technical use of the word. Thus, besides philosophy proper, the Philosophical Faculty includes the mathematical, natural, political, economical, industrial, and phi Copyright, 1886, by HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN & Co. |