latter, is unable to escape from the influence of the former. But we might at least have been spared the absurd rabbinical whims on points of grammar or interpretation, which are so often cited, sometimes with dissent, sometimes with approbation. As an illustration of the lack of sound judgment in which more than in want of learning lies the weakness of Dr. Fürst as a lexicographer, we may cite the articles devoted to the separate letters of the alphabet. He everywhere takes care to guard against the association of the form of the character with that of the object after which it was named. The first letter was called Aleph, because it was the initial sound in that word. True, but its form requires explanation as well, and this is found in the fact that it is a copy more or less complete of the object from which it was named. In the case of Aleph only the head of the ox was represented. Because the Hebrew alphabet is purely phonetic, we must not overlook the fact that the idea of such an alphabet was disengaged from an earlier hieroglyphic writing, such as the Egyptian, a trace of which remains both in the names and the forms of the present characters. And yet, in spite of its defects, we shall not be surprised to see this Lexicon usurp among us, to some extent, the place of Gesenius. We have already seen the grammar of Gesenius give place in some of our seminaries to a more recent though inferior one. But it is an evidence of the low state of Hebrew studies in our country. In Germany, where it has to contend with far more formidable rivals than the grammar of Dr. Green, it still holds, as a school grammar, the supremacy (v. statistics in "Zeitschrift für Gymnasialwesen," December, 1866). To beginners, Fürst's Lexicon will be attractive, from the large number of inflections and forms, with suffixes, which it gives, and which are omitted by Gesenius, unless they present some irregularity. To others, the apparent ease with which many difficult problems of the language are solved will prove enticing, though it is well for such to remember that, in philological science especially, the shortest way is not likely to prove the safest. These causes, joined to the prestige which naturally belongs to the latest work in any department, will doubtless give this Lexicon a degree of prominence which it does not deserve, and which it will not be able ultimately to sustain. DIXON'S "NEW AMERICA."* -This purports to be a book of travels in the United States. The author of it is known as the author of several other books of a popular cast, and better known as the editor of the "London Athenæum." The present work not only abounds in misstatements which a person careful of the truth would never be guilty of, but the whole drift and intent of it are likewise false. In his preface, and in various places in the course of the volume, he insinuates that the phenomena which he describes' are the forces now at work in remoulding American thought and society. Thus, in regard to the Shakers (p. 319), adverting to their insignificance in point of numbers, he says that "they seem to be of small account; and this would be the truth, if the strength of spiritual and moral forces could be told in figures, like that of a herd of cattle and a kiln of bricks. No one can look into the heart of American society without seeing that these Shaker unions have a power upon men beyond that of mere numbers." Wonderful power of the Shakers! Strange that none of us have ever discovered it! An Englishman, reading these pages, might well imagine that this country is in a fair way to be Shaker-ized. This is one specimen of the silly misrepresentations which are strewn thick on Mr. Dixon's pages. More than a hundred pages are devoted to the Mormons; the Spiritualists, the Oneida Communists; and other sporadic and extravagant phenomena occupy a large portion of what remains of the book. The statements about the barbarism of Colorado, about the terrible dangers of the overland route, and about the Mormons, have been shown by competent witnesses to be largely mixed with falsehoods. On page 307, we have an allusion to "the magnetic power" which Shakerism is exerting upon " American thought;" on page 283, the profound observation is made that "Oneida Creek and Salt Lake City-communities founded by Vermont men-are practical replies to the one great question of our day,what shall be done to reform the abuses of our social and domestic life?" On page 248,-see, also, the context,-it is affirmed that American women are so averse to having children, that the native stock is in the process of being supplanted by the Irish and Germans! We are comforted with the confession that these national * New America. By WILLIAM HEPWORTH DIXON, Editor of the "Athenæum,' etc. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1867. New Haven: Judd & White Price $2.75. "Some ladies," writes our ities have not yet turned the scale! veracious traveler, "set the fashion of laughing at mothers; nay, it became in Boston, Richmond, and New York, a sign of high breeding to be known as a childless wife." "In a score of different places, people have founded an annual baby show, at which they give prizes for the best specimens of baby beauty; so many dollars (or the dollars' worth) for fine teeth, for bright eyes, for chubby cheeks, for fat arms and hands, for the thousand nameless merits which a jury of ladies can assert in these rosy yearlings. What do these facts imply? Is infant beauty becoming rare?" "Do the facts suggest that babies are growing scarce on American soil?" (Page 425). "In the passing moment, America (I am told) is wasting for the want of mothers." When Dixon speaks of the South, he repeats the stale falsehoods about the gentle blood and chivalric origin of the planters. They were "of pure old English blood, offspring of men who had been the glories of Elizabeth's Court." If the traveler would only look into Smollet and Fielding-would glance at the remarkable history of "Moll Flanders "-he would know better than to characterize thus the early settlers of Virginia and the South. But we have no space for further quotations. It is mortifying that a book so full of caricatures and misstatements should have found so much applause from the American press. MR. G. W. GREENE'S STRICTURES ON MR. BANCROFT'S NINTH VOLUME.*-In a pamphlet composed of upwards of eighty pages, Mr. George Washington Greene undertakes to vindicate his ancestor, Gen. Nathanael Greene, against certain statements, reflecting upon portions of the military conduct of the latter, which have been put forth by Mr. Bancroft in his last volume. One of the main points concerns the omission of Gen. Greene to evacuate Fort Washington, and the surrender of that post. Mr. Bancroft alleges that the fort was held in contravention of the intentions of Washington, and was lost through the misjudgment of Greene in failing to abandon it. Mr. G W. Greene quotes Washington's letter of Nov. 8th, 1776, giving his views respecting the need of evacuating the post; and from the phraseology of that letter, infers that Washington was only "wavering in the opinion which he had previously held, and again authorized Greene to decide, because Nathanael Greene. An examination of some statements concerning MajorGeneral Greene, in the ninth volume of Bancroft's History of the United States. By GEORGE WASHINGTON GREENE. Boston: Ticknor & Fields. 1866. - Green was on the spot and he was not." After adverting to the passage of three vessels up the North river in spite of the fort, Washington says:- "What valuable purpose can it answer to hold a fort from which the expected benefit cannot be had? I am therefore inclined to think that it will not be prudent to hazard the men and stores at Fort Washington, but as you are on the spot, I leave it to you to give such orders as to evacuating Mount Washington, as you may judge best, and so far revoking the order given to Colonel Magaw to defend it to the last." Mr. G. W. Greene also maintains that as Washington was at Fort Lee, or in the neighborhood, from the thirteenth to the morning of the sixteenth of November-the fort was attacked on the sixteenth-all responsibility for not drawing off the garrison must rest upon him. The letter of Washington to General Greene, of the eighth of November, is also quoted by Mr. Bancroft. It is agreed on all hands that Washington did not give a peremptory order to Gen. Greene to abandon the fort. But that Washington thought it should be evacuated, and gave what may be properly called a discretionary order to that effect, are facts which Mr. G. W. Greene has not succeeded in disproving. Says Marshall (Life of Washington, II., 512): "General Greene had not withdrawn the garrison under the discretionary orders he had received on that subject." The same historian attributes to Greene "too great a confidence in the strength of the fort." In regard to the letter to Greene of Nov. 8th, Mr. Sparks observes (Life of Washington, p. 215), that Washington could have uttered "nothing more decisive without giving a positive order, which he was always reluctant to do, when he had confidence in an officer in a separate command." On the proper construction of that letter, Mr. G. W. Greene is therefore wholly at variance with Mr. Sparks, whose name he cannot write "without a thrill of tenderness and gratitude" (p. 33). Moreover Mr. Sparks adds, in regard to the surrender of the fort,-" that there was a great fault somewhere has never been disputed." "It seems plain that the loss of the garrison, in the manner it occurred, was the consequence of an erroneous judgment on the part of General Greene. How far the Commander-in-Chief should have overruled his opinion, or whether, under the circumstances of the case, he ought to have given a peremptory order, it may perhaps be less easy to decide" (Life of Washington, pp. 214, 216). But we have the most decisive evidence from Washington himself, that Mr. G. W. Greene's interpretations of the letter of November 8th, are incorrect. In a letter to his brother, dated November 19th, only three days after the attack, Washington says:-"What adds to my mortification is that the post, after the last ships went past it, was held contrary to my wishes and opinions, as I conceived it to be hazardous." "I had given it as my opinion to General Greene, under whose care it was, that it would be best to evacuate the place; but as the order was discretionary, and his opinion differed from mine, it unhappily was delayed too long, much to my grief." (Sparks's Writings of Washington, iv., 183). Mr. G. W. Greene omits to quote these passages, although he cites another passage from the letter which contains them. Had he quoted them, he would have given his readers the opportunity to choose between Washington's interpretation of his own letter, and that affixed to it by the author of this pamphlet. But we are in possession of still more full and explicit testimony from the pen of Washington. It is found in a letter to President Reed, under date of August 22, 1779 (Writings of Washington, vi., 328). In that letter Washington speaks of the concern which the loss of the fort had occasioned him, on account of the number and value of the prisoners taken and of the cruelties afterwards inflicted upon them. "But this concern," he adds, "received additional poignancy from two considerations, which did not appear; one of which will never be known to the world, because I shall never palliate my own faults by exposing those of another; nor indeed could either of them come before the public, unless there had been such a charge, as must have rendered an inquiry into the causes of this miscarriage necessary. The one was a non-compliance in General Greene with an order sent to him from White Plains, before I marched for the eastern side of Hudson's River, to withdraw the artillery and stores from the. fort; allowing him, however, some latitude for the exercise of his own judgment, as he was upon the spot, and could decide better from appearances and circumstances than I, on the propriety of a total evacuation." The other consideration was the resolve of Congress, of October 11th, 1776, urging him, if it should be practicable, "by every art and at whatever expense," to obstruct the navigation of the North River, and keep the enemy's ships from passing and repassing. "When I came to Fort Lee," he says, "and found no measures taken towards an evacuation, in consequence of the order before mentioned; when I found General Greene, of whose judgment and candor I entertained a good opinion, decidedly opposed to it; when I found other opinions so coincident with |