Book Reviews [pp. 334-336]

33(3 - Book ~e7)iews. [~ept.
chapter upon Irving, ~Ir. Richardson brings us that all books do not belong to literature. In the
among the ministers again, and with that respect task of writing a history of American literature,
which is eminently due to them all, the Unitarians, however, he has found it impossible to subject him(who more than any fostered literature-.) the An- self to his own theory, and has made a gigantic undover theologians, the Beechers, Doctor Hodge, Hor- dertaki~g of what, by an absolute rule of criticism,
ace Bushnell, Theodore Parker and the rest-they is one of by no means large measurement. He
were makers of books and pamphlets, most of which would have been helped in his labor if he bad kept
lovers of literature only will never know, or will in mind Doctor Johnso~'s test, uttered in his preface
speedily forget. And with all proper patriotic pride, to Shakespeare: "He lias long outlived his century,
it seemstousthat we might modestly forbear toclaim the term commonly fixed as the test of literary
much, if any consideration, as a nation of philoso- merit," or that plainer limitation conveyed in the
phers, for we cannot help thinking that rather as common understanding of literature, as that which
orthodox theologians than as pure philosophers will is read by intelligent people, and is worth reading,
be remembered, if they are long remembered, outside of the curriculum of instruction. Mindful
the names that Mr. Richardson endeavors to that he lias reserved the novelists and poets for the
cherish, - Dr. L. P. Hickok, Mark Hopkins, second volume, the remaining harvest of literature
Noah Porter, and Doctor James McCosh. It is gathered from the Essayists, Philosophers, Critcertainly seems a little hard to the ordinary layman ics, and Historians. Are there more than half a
that he must read more than half through this vol- dozen of either class that have a certain place in
ume, before he can part company with the preach- American literature? That allowance would be
ers, who as lovely as many of them are, contribute over-generous to most of the,n. The writer's critiso little to what is considei~ed literature. But we cal sense does at times stimulate his independence
finally come to the essayists and critics, the histor- of judgment to protesting against the need of disians, and those wlio, in the classification of this vol- cussing works that in earlier days tickled our proume, stand on the border lands of American litera- vincial pride. A keener sense of literary worth
ture. The Essayists - Emerson is there facile prin- would have excluded the other large multitude,
ceps. Following him are Longfellow, wlio was at first whose works,he well enough knows, are not now read
a writer of excellent and instructive essays, Edgar by intelligent people with pleasure, and never will
A. Poe, H. D. Thoreau, Dr. 0. N\T llolmes, Geo. W. be read again. From this we may conjecture the
Curtis, John Burroughs, and (once much known, but ah an ties of his second volume, which he promises
to Mr. Richardson apparently wholly unknown) for another year. A conscientious answer to his
Henry T. Tuckerman, and Henry Giles, who wrote own query quoted above will lessen his labors as a
of the characters of Shakespeare and "Illustrations historian and critic, and later will abridge his two
of Genius." First among living American Essayists volumes into a single volunie of lesser bulk than this.
is James Russell Lowell. E. P. Whipple long held
an honorable place, but far above him Edmund Clar- Talks about Law' is a plain and interesting stateence Stedman. meat of so much of the law as every man and wo America seems richer in historians than in stu- man ought to know. It touches almost every topic
dents of almest any other field, and has a right of interest to people who have property, or wlio are
to be proud of such names as Bancroft, Hildreth, engaged in any occupation that makes their rights
Prescott, Motley, Pal frey, Parkman, and Tick- a matter of interest to themselves. It will not
nor. The specialists, scientists, philologists, gram- make a lawyer of any one, but it will clear every
niarians, and humonsta claim a chapter in Mr. one's mind of those endless and various vague ideas
Richardson's book, and considering tlie otherwise that cling to most persons, who run from a law
bulkiness of tlie volumes, it seems very generous 1)00k as from a Chinese puzzle. The style is agreein tlie author to give it up to them. Instructive able. It is not so weighty with learning as to be
and useful as they are, th~v are not makers of lit- burdensonie to read, nor forbidding by reason of
erature in any fair sense of the terra. He places citations. It has no page without some facts worth
them in the border lands of literature, but if he was knowing. and if the principles are a little dry, they
in letting them fill liis space because they are made agreeable by some illustration or applicagenerous tion. It is divided into forty-three chapters upon
liad a right to mention, lie was not half generous different topics, giving not too winch upon any
enough, for there are many wlio, by tlie same token,
have a right to battle against him for his failure to topic to weary the reader. It is good to win the
idea of what literature is, when lie calls it " the writ- mind of the lawyer.
ten record of valuable thought, having other than`Talks about Law: a popular of what our
merely practical purpose," and, says plainly eiiough, Boston and ~eww York: Hougliton, Mtffiia, & Co. 1881.