Have you ever seen a street view of Bruges or Nuremberg, those fantastic

old cities of mediæval Germany? You remember them, the tall gabled

houses with projecting stories, the picturesque grouping of porch and

gallery and oriel, the curious old bridges and the Gothic fountains, the

grotesque carvings over the doorways, and the perfect population of

dormer windows and turrets and lanterns. And did you not, _entre nous_,

like it better than those stiff, formal views of the French and Italian

cities? Was not the poetry more pleasing than the prose?

'Oh well,' you say, 'these turrets and gables and things look all very

well in pictures, but they would never do for our streets: we must build

in some regular style, you know.' The same old error again, the same

servile imitation of a vague something or other, which we call classic.

Do you think the old German burghers built in any regular style? Not a

bit of it. They built just what they wanted, in the most natural and

plain-spoken manner. If they wanted a porch over the door, or a bay

window at a certain corner, or a turret to enjoy some favorite

view--they made them, put them just where they were needed. Convenience

was everything, and precedent nothing.

Is there not something about this individual originality, this perfect

freedom of thought and expression, that might be adapted to express the

American character? And if more pleasing, why cling to the effete and

cumbrous tyrannies of a soulless classicism? Why crush out all symptoms

of natural growth to make room for the unsightly exotic?

Nature herself has made the law that beauty is _variety_. Monotony,

though magnificent, will become irksome, but variety is an unceasing

delight. Versailles, with its formal avenues of shorn foliage, and its

geometrical lawns and terraces, may please you more at first sight than

an English park, because the mind feels a sort of pride in being able to

grasp such vast ideas at a glance. But you will find, upon a second or

third visit, that the unnatural arrangement of the French pleasure

grounds has something of staleness about it. Nature disdains such

bondage. Louis XIV, it is said, grew weary of his splendid plaything,

almost before it was finished. How different the English landscape

garden, where graceful sweeps and irregular masses of foliage meet the

eye with unlooked-for beauties at every turn! Well do we remember how,

after a few days spent in viewing the grand dullness of the Bavarian

capital, we looked wearily back to the delightful visit we made at

Nuremberg, with its curious old streets and fountains:

'Quaint old town of toil and traffic, quaint old town of art and song;

Memories haunt thy pointed gables like the rooks that round them throng.'

To claim the merit of variety for our streets is wrong, for they are not

varied, but only incongruous. Their variety is rather that of an

architectural museum than the result of any combination. We have styles

enough, in all conscience, but none that will tolerate any other.

Against this may be urged the very argument with which we set out, that

a nation's architecture should be the exponent of its national

character, and as we are made up of every people and every class, that

this heterogeneous _mélange_ is our normal style. But mark the

distinction: Although we are made up of so many diverse elements, yet

the component parts are severally and mutually held in solution. Each so

affects the mass as to give rise to a new element--not a mere union, but

a result--not an addition, but a multiplication. But with the

representative art, the materials have merely come in contact--nothing

more. Our houses lack that social element which characterizes our

people. Each is itself, and itself alone, ruining the appearance of its

neighbors, and ruined by them in turn. _Odi profanum vulgus, et arceo_,

is the only law; while we are a chemical solution, our architecture is

only a mechanical one.

How proceed, then, to develop our national style, that unborn something

which a future age might refer to as American, just as we speak of

Byzantine or Gothic? Are we waiting for somebody to invent it? We think,

maybe, that it is to spring forth, ready made, like Minerva from the

brain of Zeus. If this is our idea, we might as well give up at once and

confess to the world our imbecility. Never, from Adam's day to this, did

anybody ever invent a new architecture. It is purely a matter of

genealogy. For just as we trace back a family line, can we trace the

generations of art. Spite of its complications, many an offshoot can be

followed up directly to the parent stock. Taking, for example, the

mediæval architecture of Spain, the brilliant 'Moresco,' we find it to

be a combination of the vigorous Gothic of the North with the beautiful

though effeminate Saracenic--the exotic of the South. And of these

latter, each is traceable, though by different lines, to the same great

prototype, the Roman. For when Rome was divided, the Dome fell to the

inheritance of the Eastern Empire, and the Basilica (which was only a

Greek temple turned inside out) to the Western. The former, joined to

the Arabian, and the latter to the Gothic, formed two great families,

from the union of whose descendants sprang the Moresco. But even the

Roman was a derivative style, leading us back successively through

Greece, Assyria, and Egypt. Each step is visibly allied to the

preceding, and yet how unlike the pyramid and the Spanish cathedral! Did

history permit, all the styles that have ever existed could be traced in

the same way; it is quite as easy to account for their diversities, as

for those of the nations that produced them. Ham and Japheth were of the

same household, yet how different their descendants of to-day! As from

one man sprang all people, so was there an original germ of architecture

from which all successive styles have been derived.

The composite forms that have arisen since commerce and civilization

have brought the ends of the world together, increase the complication.

There have been marriages and intermarriages, some good matches and some

bad ones, some with vigorous and some with sickly offspring, and some

hybrids of such monstrous malformation as almost to make us fear that a

new style can be invented. But the effect is impossible without the

cause. Save the mysterious Pyramids, every structure extant acknowledges

its ancestry. If physiologists are fond of claiming the history of the

race as one of their own chapters, architecture has at least an equal

claim.

But all this does not mean that we are mere passive agents in the

matter. _We_ are, in a great measure, the 'external influences' that

modify art. The motion exists, but it devolves upon us to give

direction.

We have already alluded to Venetian architecture as being parallel in

origin and tendency to our own, and much can be gained, we believe, by a

careful examination of what it accomplished. Not that we ought to copy,

line for line, the doge's palace or the Casa d'Oro--the arabesque

arcade, or the Gothic balcony--that would only be following the

well-worn rut of imitation. We are not to study the result, but the

cause. For the causes that produced the style in question were not

unlike what we find at home to-day. A commercial republic, there was the

same liberty of expression--the same preponderance of the individual

over the national; and there, as here, are we attracted rather by the

elegance of independent units than by any general unity of design.

But the growth of art in Venice (we ask special attention) was due to

her central situation, and the simultaneous influx of foreign elements.

It was her commerce that made Venice great: her glory came and departed

with it. Witnessing, as she did, the development of all the mediæval

styles, she became--geographically and historically--the metropolis of

architecture. 'The Greeks,' says Ruskin, 'gave the shaft, Rome gave the

arch, the Arabs pointed and foliated the arch.... Opposite in their

character and mission, alike in their magnificence of energy, they came

from the North and from the South--the glacier torrent and the lava

stream, they met and contended over the wreck of the Roman Empire; and

the very centre of the struggle, the point of pause of both, the dead

water of the opposite eddies, charged with embayed fragments of the

Roman wreck, is _Venice_.

'The ducal palace of Venice contains the three elements in exactly equal

proportions, the Roman, Lombard, and Arab. It is the central building of

the world.'

Truly, it was a glorious success that art achieved in the Italian

republic, Whether the old precedents were violated or not, the result is

unquestionably pleasing, and the pleasure-seeking tourist lingers there

as long as the critic.

At this transition state, through which Venice passed so nobly, have we

now arrived. We have collected our materials, and piled them up

together, but just as all seems most propitious, _le mouvement

s'arrête_, the materials will not coalesce. The brass and the silver,

the iron and the gold, are all in the crucible, but there is no fusion,

only a discordant clash.

Alas! there is no heat. We are not warmed, as yet, with any love for

art. We are too much absorbed in the rapid accumulation of wealth, or

the passing excitement of the hour, to attend to anything that is noble

or honest or beautiful. And now that devastating war is sweeping through

the land and clogging the wheels of progress, we are learning terrible

lessons; but, with experience for our teacher, learning them well. Where

war prevails, civilization for the time must stand still. _Inter arma

silent--artes_. And so long as we consider art a marketable commodity,

and consign it, like merchandise, to soulless builders, so long will it

remain in hopeless embryo. Only by taking a personal interest in it can

we hope to make it our own.

So much for what we have done. There is little to be proud of, and

little, we hope, that will influence our future art. To which we now

turn our attention.

To begin with, great public buildings will never form a distinguishing

feature of American architecture. It is to be preeminently a domestic

style. Herein shall we differ from the European nations, for in art, as

in politics, the people are the rulers. It is discouraging, at first

thought, to reflect that no such magnificent architectural combinations

as those of the French capital can ever find place in an American city.

They are grand, they are superb, these endless successions of palaces

and gardens and triumphal arches, with groves and fountains all in

perfect symmetry, and well-balanced vistas radiating in all directions;

but they are the result of centuries of despotism--of the impoverishment

of the many and the aggrandizement of the few. This, we hope, is not to

be the fashion in America. It is true that the ground plan for the city

of Washington exhibits a design analogous to the above, but we think it

will be a long time before it exists elsewhere than on the map. The

Greeks and Romans, we know, confined their efforts to public buildings,

but that was their business. They served their Governments, but our

Government serves us: the spirit of the age points in an opposite

direction. Since we are so fond of the classic, why not have chariots

for carriages, and triremes instead of gunboats and steamers?

Our real style will first appear in our residences and warehouses, in

our banks and hotels and railroad depots. It sounds odd, but it is

manifestly so to be. We are a commercial republic. Old European palaces

and cathedrals are doubtless very grand, and--for those who need such

things--most excellent models. But with us the private element already

predominates; we only need to begin honestly, and the thing is half

done.

Our national dread of Gothic, except it be for church purposes, should

be done away with. The Gothic _principle_, we mean; the style we may

follow or may not. But to be sincere and constructive, to build with a

purpose, we must do as did the mediæval builders. In their hands, our

daguerrean sky-lights and shot towers, our factory chimneys and

signboards, would have become glorious objects, become useful objects.

Their art did not confine itself to one day in seven; it permeated the

commonest details of every-day life, because they were common. Hence

they ennobled everything.

But the Romans, unfortunately, never had any shot towers, or hotels, or

railroad depots, and so we think such things exceptions to the ordinary

rules of architecture. But after all, perhaps, this is all the better

for their future, as it leaves them comparatively untrammelled. In the

matter of railroad depots, England has certainly stolen a march upon us,

the large city stations in that rail-bound country being perfect Crystal

Palaces in size and elegance, while those for the more rural places are

often the most exquisite little villas, unapproachable in neatness and

taste. In some parts of the Continent, the Swiss style has been pressed

into this service with notable success.

In regard to fire-alarm towers, we rejoice to be able to make an

exceptional remark. New York city has actually produced two or three of

these of new and elegant shape, perfectly adapted to their purpose; and

yet, so far as we know, not copied from anything else. Those in Sixth

and Third avenues have a grace of outline that is really elegant, and

show what we can accomplish if we only build what we want in a natural

and appropriate way.

Nothing, however, is to exert a vaster influence on our style than the

hotel. This 'institution,' as we have it, is comparatively unknown in

Europe; beyond all nations are we a travelling and hotel-building

people. Our hotels have not grown up with the scant traffic of the post

chaise or _diligence_; they overleaped that feeble infancy, and started

at once with the railroad and steamboat. Large, luxurious, and well

appointed, they are usually the prominent buildings in all our large

cities.

But as yet it is only their size and social importance that

distinguishes them, not their architecture. The recipe for a first-class

city house is simple: a vast square front of white, with ninety-six or a

hundred and forty-four windows, as the case may be, all alike, and all

equidistant. The variety afforded by this arrangement is much the same

as that of an uncut sheet of postage stamps. In such large masses, a

single color--white especially--is always disagreeable, unless treated

with some variety of form. Brick, with stone dressings, will almost

invariably produce a finer front than stone alone. But, after all, the

most desirable kind of variety is that which seeks to express exteriorly

the inner arrangement of the building, by giving some degree of

prominence to the principal rooms. As to interior, our hotels neglect a

grand opportunity in making no capital of the central space they

generally enclose. This, instead of being abandoned to cats and ash

barrels, might be made the feature of the establishment. Fancy such a

court roofed over with glass,[23] and surrounded with light arcades of

ironwork forming a continuous balcony at each story, arrange a garden in

the centre with a fountain, and give the whole a sort of oriental

treatment, and what a really elegant effect could be produced! The main

entrance in this case would be, not on the street, but on one of the

sides of this inner court, while an arched carriage way, to connect with

the street, would render vehicles accessible under cover. The arcades,

connecting all parts of the house, would take the place of halls and

corridors, besides forming delightful promenades. Some few hotels could

be named, in our large cities, which seem to have the germ of this idea,

but we know no instance of its complete development.

Still we have great hopes of the hotel, because it is the place of all

others which it is to our interest to make look well. People go to the

post office all the same, be it a barn or a parthenon, but they will go,

other things being equal, to the best hotel. Here comes in the American

principle of Competition, the keynote of all our enterprise. Competition

is to do for us what the hope of earthly immortality did for the

builders of the Pyramids, what the desire to glorify God did for the

builders of the cathedrals. It is to be the soul of our art: what sort

of a body it is to put on, we shall presently see. Even now it is safe

to assume that no more such granite prisons as the 'Revere' or the

'Astor' will be built for hotels. Lightness, variety, and vivacity will

more probably characterize this style.

The _shop front_ is something that we must have in some shape or other,

and, if fairly treated, it would become as decidedly American as

business is. It is susceptible of great variety, but care must be taken

that it harmonizes with the superstructure. How often we see massive

structures of marble, five stories or more, supported on basements of

plate glass, apparently; while the real supports are carefully

concealed! The best method, so far tried, seems to be that in which the

columns are made sufficiently prominent to show their object, and are

surmounted by arches, which give a good basis for what comes next

above, while affording sufficient window space to the store front.

But we must make up our mind to part with those hideous signboards,

which trail their loathsome length across our best buildings, regardless

of console or capital or cornice. For the importance of the sign renders

it constructive, and it has as much right to take part in the design as

a door or a window. Instead of being pinned on like an afterthought, it

should be built into the wall, panel fashion, and by a little taste in

the selection of the style of letter, it might become one of the most

striking features of the whole front. Color would be better for the

letters than relief, being more economical and more easily altered.

Our warehouses and even our factories might become imposing objects if

appropriately conceived, for is not labor ennobling? Anything that is

worth doing, is worth doing well; and if any of our manufacturing towns

are hideous, they are not necessarily so.[24] There is a certain

grandeur about many such places, with their myriad chimneys and

ponderous wheels and whirling engines, that deserves a corresponding

grandeur of expression, and some of our Pennsylvania ironworks already

afford splendid examples of this. We have seldom been more impressed by

the grandeur of mechanical operations than on a recent night visit to

one of the large rolling mills of Scranton. The whole interior, vast as

a cathedral, was brilliantly lighted by the numerous operations in

molten and red-hot iron that were everywhere in progress, and, with its

gleaming furnaces, ranged on either hand down the long vista, and

glowing here and there from the galleries, really made us feel prouder

of our race than did many a dim, dilapidated temple of the Old World.

As to churches, we cannot expect much, except that they will be tasteful

and commodious audience rooms, commensurate with the importance of their

congregations. The religion of to-day appeals to soul, and not to soul

and sense. The world is older and better educated than in the cathedral

era, and the apostles and prophets are read, not from sculptured doors

or painted windows, but from the printed page and the winged word.

Childhood, that cannot read, requires gaudily painted primers for its

instruction and amusement, but the world is a grown man now; the press

has superseded the cathedral, and if we imitate those structures in our

churches, we should bear in mind that it was their size that gave them

grandeur, and that they would be caricatures without it. We have heard

our American church interiors spoken of somewhere as divisible into two

classes--the charlotte-russe style and the molasses-candy style. This is

not true, we hope; but there is too much truth in it, for it shows the

influence of a too close imitation of European palaces and churches, and

the hard shamming that has to be done to make this imitation apparent.

If our rural architecture has been more successful, it is because our

better class of country houses are planned with reference to the

landscapes they occupy. A rich level meadow with here and there a waving

elm requires a different style of house from a fir-clad bluff on a river

bank or a wild gorge in a mountain. No intelligent architect, we take

it, would design a country house without an intimate acquaintance with

the surroundings, and yet the same man, likely as not, would make you a

sketch for the elevation of your house in town, without even looking to

see what it was to adjoin on either side. Now this method may be

correct, but it seems to us that, by first putting on paper the existing

houses, say one or two, on each side of the space to be built upon, the

new front could be much better planned, and much of that unnecessary

discord avoided which destroys so many of our best streets. This is what

is done in painting and other arts, and why not in architecture?

Particular situations require particular treatments. A front that would

appear well on a narrow street, would be inappropriate on a broad avenue

or a square. A corner, or the head of a street, are most responsible

situations. A tall marble front, placed in a modest row of freestone, is

hideous, and yet the unrelieved monotony of many such rows is quite as

bad. A dome, unless at the top of a street or on some open space, is

next to worthless. Who would ever notice Boston State House or the

Baltimore Cathedral, but for their elevated and central positions?

We often find among the old masters elegant architectural paintings,

street views, taken from the picturesque cities they lived in. We should

like to find some one bold enough to paint a street view of Broadway or

Washington street or Chestnut street.

It is a pity that our architects are unwilling to acknowledge the

importance of the _buttress_. Concerning this feature, it is not easy to

say whether beauty or utility is most apparent. It is the very

idealization of strength, and hence its inherent elegance. Suppose Nôtre

Dame or Milan Cathedral stripped of their double tiers of flying

buttresses. Would you not say that their glory was gone--their beauty

departed? And yet the old builders did not pile them up against their

naves for mere beauty's sake. By no means. But they knew the immense

weight of their vaulted roofs, and anticipated the outward thrust of the

walls. That was the problem, and most fairly was it met. They

counteracted the outward pressure from within by an inward pressure from

without, and there was the buttress. But what if they had said, We are

not going to spoil our fine churches by sticking props all around them,

and had resorted to concealed bedplates and invisible rods of iron,

would their structures have been better or nobler or more enduring?

Fortunately, they gave themselves no concern, as to how they would

look--for architecture was honest in those days--they simply built them,

allowing decoration to come in afterward in its proper order; and

thereupon the buttress became the distinguishing feature of Gothic art.

Perhaps this is the very reason why we so neglect it; but symptoms are

already appearing which lead us to hope that gothophobia is on the

decline, and not the least of them is the outcropping of something that

would be a buttress if it dared to, but hides its real intention under a

classic mask, and passes off as a pilaster or a panel border. But it has

a guilty look, and the sooner it puts off its borrowed garments the

better. Certainly the demand for it is immense. So long as we are a

commercial people, vast warehouses, piled from cellar to roof with heavy

merchandise, must abound in all our cities. And yet how utterly

incompetent would many such buildings be to stand alone! So long, too,

as we are a manufacturing people, must we have huge mills crowded full

with heavy apparatus, vibrating machinery, and _human lives_. Have we

forgotten Lawrence? Let us not wait for another such holocaust ere we

learn wisdom. We can do without ornament, but we must have safety. A

mere increase of dead weight is no remedy; there should be a

well-studied mechanical disposition of material. If buttresses are

applied to warehouses and factories with sole reference to their

utility, elegance will grow upon them afterward as naturally as leaves

grow upon trees.

Material must depend much upon locality, but iron is undoubtedly to hold

an important place in our architecture. Already it is extensively used,

but does not seem to command general favor. The reason is that nearly

everything that has been done with it so far is not iron architecture,

but stone architecture done in iron. We do not let it speak its own

language; the truss, the tie rod, and the girder are kept out of sight,

while every possible display is made of consoles and cornices and

Corinthian columns and balustrades, and all sorts of foreign

expressions. No wonder that it is unable to give an account of itself

with all these false witnesses. Stone houses should be made of stone,

and if made of wood or iron or plaster, they are nothing but shams,

unenduring and unsatisfactory.

Now architecture requires the least amount of material that is

compatible with the greatest amount of strength. The forms of different

materials must be varied to suit their texture, according as it is

fibrous or crystalline, tough or brittle. Iron, of course, requires a

peculiar treatment. At the risk of being charged with pedantry, we say

that there have never been but two iron buildings, of any pretension, in

this country--the Niagara Suspension Bridge and the Crystal Palace at

New York. The first still speaks for itself; and of the latter, no one

who saw it can forget what an exquisite structure it was, so light and

airy and elegant, and yet so strong. It was but a bird cage, though,

compared with its enormous prototype at Sydenham. That is unquestionably

one of the wonders of the world; its internal _coup d'oeil_ is without

a parallel. Fancy a broad level vista, a third of a mile long, flanked

on either side by graceful groves of ironwork, and covered with a

continuous crystal arch, a hundred feet above your head; line it with a

profusion of tropical foliage and clambering vines, that grow as

luxuriantly as in their native woods, and interspersed with statuary and

vases gleaming everywhere through the rich masses of verdure, while here

and there fountains of rare and exquisite design, rising from broad

marble basins, relieve without lessening the immense length--and you may

have some faint idea of this peerless structure. 'No material is used in

it,' says Fergusson, 'which is not the best for its purpose, no

constructive expedient employed which was not absolutely necessary, and

it depends wholly for its effect on the arrangement of its parts and the

display of its construction.' It is in iron what Gothic is in stone.

Details, if fairly studied, would do much to nationalize our

architecture. Why should we, in designing a capital or cornice, still

cling to the classic acanthus or honeysuckle ornament, or even the

English ivy, when we have such a fund of our own? The maize and the

sugarcane, the potato blossom and the cotton boll afford so many mines

of treasure, that it is surprising that they have not already been

worked. In the architecture of the Central Park, however, a decided

impetus has been given in this direction. The details of the grand

terrace at the end of the Mall are as elaborate as those of a European

cathedral, but they are all American--all our own.

Another excellent feature of our city houses is that little strip of

garden in front, just within the sidewalk. For this, too, we think we

have some claim of originality. At least it is not European, for in

Berlin, Vienna, etc., some of the most palatial quarters are without so

much as a sidewalk--the paving stones reaching from wall to wall. Such

barrenness of arrangement cannot be relieved by any architecture, nor

was there ever a building so good that it could not be improved by a

setting of foliage. The power of mutual relief between art and nature is

wonderful. To this is owing much of the effect of the celebrated 'Place

Napoleon,' the court of the New Louvre at Paris. The contrast between

the richly wrought façades of Caen stone and the foliage in the centre,

is most grateful to the eye. Even the grand quadrangle of the Tuileries

seems dismal after it, grand as are its ogre-roofed 'pavilions' and

triumphal arch, for it lacks the refreshing verdure. The eye wearies of

the everlasting buff color.

Not to overstep the subject, we will say just one word about the street

plans of our cities. It is really shameful that these are not more

studied. No one seems to think of adapting them to the surface of the

ground, but everything must needs be graded flat, and rectangular blocks

laid out thereon. Our Western cities, particularly, appear to

crystallize in cubes--their monotony is painful. An occasional

introduction of the curved street, so common in Britain, would be a

delightful relief. The London 'Quadrant' is a superb example--the way in

which the houses come into view, one by one, as you follow the curve, is

not to be surpassed. But the chief secret of success in plotting a town

is to seize upon the natural irregularities of the ground, and make them

part and parcel of the design. The beauty of Edinburgh--the 'Scottish

Athens,' as Dugald Stewart called it--is entirely owing to this. The new

town is a 'wilderness of granite, magnificently dull,' and the old has

barely enough of the picturesque to save it from being hideous. But

there is a broad, natural ravine, dividing the two, which has been

retained in its original shape, and being tastefully arranged with

shrubbery and terraced walks, forms a fine park. Near one end of this

the Castle Hill rises abruptly against the old town, while at the other

end the view is closed by Calton Hill, with its classic monuments, and

Arthur's Seat rising grandly beyond. Two or three bridges afford a level

communication between the old town and the new, and Prince's street, the

thoroughfare of the latter, forms a fine terrace along the northern edge

of the ravine, passing midway the Scott monument, a superb spire of

Gothic. This latter is perhaps the only commendable feature _per se_ in

the city--for the details of Edinburgh are notably poor, its pictorial

effect arising solely from the very happy manner in which they are

grouped, amphitheatre-like, around the 'Gardens.'

Did such a vale lie in the track of one of our cities, we would consider

it an unlucky blemish, to be filled up at once to the general level. It

would be named in the contract as such-and-such 'sunken lots,' and as

the Castle Rock was digged down and dumped in, tax-payers would rejoice

over the saved cartage. Having thus killed off Nature, we would put up

squares of houses upon the dead level, while the local papers would

comment upon the 'improvement of property.'

If we only had a Napoleon here, some think, his master mind might arrest

this Vandalism, infuse some system into our rag-bag cities, and make

each a Paris. But have we not Public Opinion, stronger than any despot?

Let a little of this current, guided by taste, be turned into the

channels of art, and the results will soon be forthcoming. We seem to be

hampered, as yet, with a kind of feudal system of architecture; this

will presently be done away with, for the American character is

eclectic, and naturally selects and combines the best in art, as in

politics and commerce. To combine English good sense without its

heaviness, French vivacity without its hollowness, and the exuberance of

German fancy without its inertia--to combine and reflect all these

should be the mission of our architecture.

Neither is it too much to say that a genuine love for art may have its

bearing on that part of us which is immortal. Not that any of these

things will exist after this life, but as children are drilled by their

teachers in many studies which have no practical bearing on their after

life, so may we consider ourselves as only at boarding school with

Nature while in this present temporary state; and if she has set us some

lessons which do not appertain directly to our more exalted future, we

should remember that this is her method of _discipline_. But she has

done more; she has made the very tasks delightful. Are not such studies

more beneficial and satisfactory than the idleness and play which fill

up so much of our lives?

No student can succeed, however, who tamely copies his neighbor's work.

Let us hope, then, that our art will soon drop its clumsy costume, and

take to itself something natural and national; that it will become, as

it should, the type of our Western civilization--a civilization that

spreads itself, not by sword or sceptre or crozier, but by life and

liberty and light.

JEFFERSON DAVIS AND REPUDIATION OF ARKANSAS BONDS

LETTER NO. III OF HON. ROBERT J. WALKER.

London, 10 Half Moon Street, Piccadilly,

_January 28th_, 1864

In two pamphlets, published by me last summer, Mr. Jefferson Davis was

clearly convicted of sustaining the repudiation of the Union Bank bonds,

and the Planters' Bank bonds of the State of Mississippi. These

pamphlets were most extensively circulated throughout the United States,

the United Kingdom, and upon the continent of Europe, and several

confederate writers have since referred to them; but no attempt ever has

been made, either by Mr. Davis himself, or by any of his agents or

friends, to refute any one of the facts or deductions contained in those

pamphlets. Indeed, the facts were founded upon authentic documents,

official papers, and Mr. Davis's own two letters over signature, plainly

and unequivocally sustaining the repudiation of Mississippi. It is true,

in the case of the Union Bank bonds of Mississippi, that Mr. Davis

justified their repudiation on the ground that the bonds of the State

were unconstitutional. But the utter fallacy of this position was shown

by two unanimous decisions of the highest judicial tribunal of the State

of Mississippi, before whom this very question was brought directly for

adjudication, affirming the constitutionality and validity of these

bonds. When it is recollected, also, that this was the Court designated

by the Constitution and laws of Mississippi, as the tribunal to which

the ultimate decision of this question was referred, the wretched

character of this pretext must be at once perceived. Mr. Davis's two

repudiating letters were published by him in the spring and summer of

1849, yet one of these decisions by the highest judicial tribunal of

Mississippi, quoted by me, affirming the validity and constitutionality

of these very bonds, was made in 1842, and again unanimously reaffirmed

in 1853. But still, Mr. Davis adhered to the same position. As to the

Planters' Bank bonds, however, the repudiation of which was shown to

have been justified by Mr. Davis, there never was even a pretext that

they were illegal or unconstitutional. Nor is there any force in the

suggestion, that these questions were decided before Mr. Davis came into

public life. They were _continuous_ questions, constantly discussed in

the press and before legislative and judicial tribunals. And, we have

seen, even as late as 1853, four years succeeding Mr. Davis's

repudiating letters, the second decision was made by the highest

judicial tribunal of Mississippi, reaffirming the validity and

constitutionality of these bonds.

But I will now cite another instance of the advocacy of repudiation by

Mr. Jefferson Davis, still more flagitious than that of Mississippi. It

was that of the State bonds of Arkansas, the validity and

constitutionality of which never has been disputed. A brief history of

this transaction is as follows: In 1830, James Smithson, an eminent and

wealthy citizen of London, in the kingdom of Great Britain, died,

bequeathing, by his last will and testament, the whole of his property

to the United States of America, in trust, to found at Washington, under

the name of 'The Smithsonian Institution,' an establishment 'for the

increase of diffusion of knowledge among men.' After some delay, the

Congress of the United States, in 1836, passed an act, accepting the

trust, and pledging the faith of the Government for the faithful

application of the money to the noble purpose designated by the

illustrious donor. Under this act, Richard Rush, one of our most

distinguished citizens, who had been minister to England and to France,

and had held the position of Secretary of State and of the Treasury, at

Washington, was sent by the Government to London, to obtain from the

Court of Chancery the fund, amounting to over $500,000. It is usual in

the proceedings of the English Court of Chancery, when funds, under

circumstances like these, are bequeathed to trustees for scientific or

charitable purposes, not to part with the money to the trustee, except

upon his filing in court absolute security for the faithful fulfilment

of the trust. In this case, however, the High Court of Chancery in

England, considering that to imply any laches or neglect of a trust so

sacred, on the part of the Government of the United States, was an idea

not to be entertained, did, by their decree, without any security, hand

over all the money to the Government of the United States, to be

appropriated to the purpose designated by the donor, receiving only the

pledge given by the Congress of the United States, for the faithful

appropriation of the money. Now, if there ever was any obligation, that

would be considered sacred by the whole civilized world, it was this,

and most faithfully has the Government of the United States executed

this trust. Nay, it has done much more; it has granted forty acres of

ground, belonging to the Government, in the city of Washington,

gratuitously, for the erection of the buildings upon them, erected by

the Government, are worth largely more than the whole bequest. Not only

has the Government done this, but, upon the whole fund received from Mr.

Smithson, it has always punctually paid an interest of six per cent. in

gold upon the whole sum, and pledged its faith for a similar perpetual

payment. It has also largely aided the institution by contributions to

its museum, collections, and library, and by the gratuitous services of

public officers in its behalf. Such was the bill passed by Congress in

1846, and which has always been most faithfully executed. So that the

institution is now established upon a permanent basis, and is fulfilling

all the great and noble purposes proposed by the illustrious donor. Now,

in 1837, this fund was received by the Government of the United States,

and invested by the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Woodbury, in the six

per cent. bonds of the State of Arkansas at par, to the extent of over

half a million of dollars. During the same year Arkansas invested this

money in a bank, entitled 'The Real Estate Bank of Arkansas;' and of

which the State was the great stockholder. In 1839, this Bank, having

loaned out these funds to the citizens of Arkansas, became absolutely

and totally insolvent, and has never been able to pay one cent on the

dollar to any of its creditors. In 1839, the State of Arkansas failed

to pay the interest on its bonds, and from that day to this has never

paid one dollar either of interest or principal on any of these most

sacred obligations.

On the 4th of March, 1845, I became Secretary of the Treasury of the

United States, and having taken the deepest interest in this Smithsonian

fund, and in its faithful application to the noble purpose of the donor,

and inasmuch as one of my predecessors had invested these funds in these

bonds, and the Government had made itself directly responsible for the

faithful execution of this trust, I endeavored to reclaim, as far as

possible, this money from the State of Arkansas, and to induce Congress

to appropriate its own moneys to redeem the pledge of the Government,

and fulfil this trust. My first official action on this subject was as

follows: By act of Congress, five per cent. of the net proceeds of the

sales of the public lands of the United States in Arkansas was payable

to that State, for certain purposes designated in the act. There was,

also, an act of Congress in force, authorizing the Secretary of the

Treasury, where there were mutual debts and credits between the

Government and any other person, to offset any debt due by any creditor

of the United States, against any debt, so far as it would go, due by

the United States to such creditor. I interpreted this act as

authorizing me to withhold this five per cent. fund from the State of

Arkansas and appropriate it, as far as it would go, in payment of the

interest which had accumulated on the bonds of the State of Arkansas, in

which my predecessor, Mr. Woodbury, on behalf of the Government, had

invested the Smithsonian Fund; thus saving a small portion of the

interest which had accrued on these bonds. For this act I was violently

denounced by the Senators and Representatives of Arkansas in Congress,

as also by the Legislature and Governor of the State, and strenuous

efforts were made, unsuccessfully, first to induce me to revoke my

action, and, secondly, to have it overruled by the Government. But I

adhered to it, and declared openly, that if such a breach of trust were

consummated, and my action overruled in the premises, I would resign my

seat in the cabinet. My official action, however, was sustained by an

almost unanimous public sentiment of Congress, and of the country.

Indeed, beyond the limits of the State of Arkansas, and the circle of

the repudiators of Mississippi, my course was sustained and approved.

Now, then, let us see what was the action of Mr. Jefferson Davis on the

question of these Arkansas bonds. On reference to the journals of the

House of Representatives, of the Congress of the United States, it

appears that Mr. Jefferson Davis took his seat in that body, as one of

the members elect from the State of Mississippi, on the 8th of December,

1845. (P. 56.) When the bill was pending for organizing the Smithsonian

Institution, and making good for both principal and interest, the sum

bequeathed by Mr. Smithson that had been invested by the Government of

the United States in these Arkansas State bonds, Mr. Jefferson Davis, on

the 29th April, 1846, as appears by the official proceedings of the

House, page 749, moved an amendment: 'To add at the end of the section

the following'--'_Provided, however_, That if the Governor of the State

of Arkansas shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the

Attorney-General of the United States, that he has used suitable means

to obtain from the Real Estate Bank of the State of Arkansas, payment of

the debt due by said Bank to the State of Arkansas, but without success,

then, in that case, and until the arrears due by the said Real Estate

Bank shall have been received into the Treasury of the State of

Arkansas, the said State shall be and is hereby declared to be absolved

from the promises on the face of her bonds by which the said State

heretofore pledged her faith for the due payment of the principal and

interest of said bonds.' Now, then, it will be remembered, that the

legality and constitutionality of these Arkansas State bonds never has

been disputed. These bonds were issued by the State, under direct

authority of law, signed by the Governor, with the broad seal of the

State attached, and recognized by the Government of the United States,

by the investment of this sacred fund in these obligations. Nay, more,

this fund thus received by the State from the Government on these bonds,

had been invested, under the law of the State of Arkansas, in a Real

Estate Bank, created by that State, and the money loaned to the citizens

of the State. That State Bank, however, in 1839, became utterly and

notoriously insolvent, and never did or could pay one cent in the dollar

on its obligations. And, more especially, never did it pay, after 1839,

one single cent of the principal or interest upon these State

obligations. Now, then, this institution, in 1846, being absolutely and

totally insolvent, its funds having been wasted and squandered without

the possibility of recovery, either in whole or in part, Mr. Davis

offers this resolution to authorize the State to repudiate its bonds,

and that the Government should look only to this insolvent Bank for the

payment of the principal and interest on these bonds, amounting then to

over $700,000. It was not alleged by Mr. Davis, or by any other person,

that these bonds were unconstitutional. No such pretext was ever made

even by the State of Arkansas. It was a most atrocious case of open

repudiation. And here, it matters not, so far as this question is

concerned, what may have been the obligation of the Government of the

United States to make good these funds. That is a totally distinct and

independent question. The true and real issue in this case is this: Was

not the State of Arkansas bound to pay these bonds, both interest and

principal, as it fell due, in, which bonds, by the request and authority

of the State, the Government of the United States had invested this

Smithsonian fund? This obligation of the State of Arkansas, both moral

and legal, is undisputed and indisputable; and yet Mr. Davis moved the

resolution before quoted, absolving the State from the payment of the

principal and interest of these bonds, except so far as the assets of

her own Bank, then notoriously bankrupt, should avail to make good these

obligations. That is, the Congress of the United States, by solemn act,

was to authorize the State of Arkansas to repudiate her solemn

obligations. Recollect, this was not a case of Mississippi bonds, of

which State Mr. Davis was then a Representative in Congress, but it was

the case of Arkansas, another State, having on the floor of Congress its

own Senators and Representatives. But it is a very remarkable fact, that

Mississippi, for many years, had then repudiated her own bonds, that Mr.

Davis justified and sustained that repudiation, and that now he appears

on behalf of Arkansas to induce Congress, by solemn act, to authorize

that State to repudiate her obligations also. Thus was it that Mr. Davis

travelled out of his own State into another, to make the Government of

the United States a party to the repudiation of her bonds by the State

of Arkansas. Let me not be misunderstood. I do not mean to say, that Mr.

Davis proposed or intended that the Government of the United States

should repudiate its faith, plighted to the British Court of Chancery,

to make good this fund. That is not the question. It is entirely

collateral. But, what he did do was this, and there stands his own

resolution, offered by himself in the Congress of the United States,

which, if carried into effect, would have released the State of Arkansas

from these bonds, or, in Mr. Davis's own words, 'The said State shall be

and is hereby declared to be _absolved from the promises_ on the face

of her bonds, by which the said State heretofore _pledged her faith_

for the due payment of the principal and interest of said bonds.'

Why should Congress release Arkansas from the payment of her State

obligations? Why thus justify the repudiation of her bonds? Can any

other reason be assigned than this, that Mr. Jefferson Davis was looking

to the repudiated bonds of Mississippi, and was endeavoring to establish

a precedent, by solemn act of the Congress, by which, if adopted as a

principle, Mississippi, and every other defaulting State, could be

justified in the repudiation of their bonds also. It is to the credit of

the Congress of the United States, that Mr. Davis's resolution was

rejected without a division, and without a count. When it is

recollected, that at this very time, I, as Secretary of the Treasury,

was appropriating the five per cent. found payable by the Government to

the State of Arkansas toward the liquidation of these bonds against the

protest of that State, the further meaning of these movements will be

clearly perceived. Had this resolution of Mr. Davis passed the two

Houses of Congress, absolving the State of Arkansas from the payment of

these bonds, I could, of course, as Secretary of the Treasury, no longer

have withheld that fund from the State, and appropriated it, so far as

it went, toward the liquidation of the interest accrued and accruing on

these bonds. It appears, then, by conclusive and official evidence, that

Mr. Jefferson Davis's repudiation of State obligations, was not confined

to his own State, nor even to the State of Arkansas; but that he desired

to make the Government of the United States, by solemn act of Congress,

a party directly sanctioning such atrocious violations of State faith

and State obligations.

R. J. WALKER.

APHORISMS.

NO. III.

TWO RULES.-To get safely and comfortably through the world, one

must observe two rules: first, keep your eyes open; second, keep them

shut.

Not to see the actual realities of our daily existence, is the part of a

fool.

Not to notice the thousand and one petty faults of others, and the

ever-recurring petty annoyances of our circumstances, is the part of a

wise man.

Even injuries intentionally done to us, are often best disposed of by

resolutely ignoring them.

So of evils that cannot be remedied--the less we know of them the

better. Not to see an ill sight, is often just as good as to remove it

from existence.

We need only to add: This seeing and not seeing, depends very much upon

the will. The wolf that wills it can easily see the lamb disturbing the

water that he drinks, even while the lamb is below him on the bank of

the stream; and the lamb, by a stern resolve, can refuse to _see_ the

injustice which it has no power to remedy. The will of man is little

less than omnipotent in the wide sphere of its appropriate power; and

that sphere is much wider than feeble-minded people may suppose.

LITERARY NOTICES.

LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF THEODORE PARKER, Minister of

the Twenty-eighth Congregational Society, Boston. By JOHN

WEISS. In 2 volumes. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 443 & 445

Broadway.

A work of two large octavo volumes, containing 1,020 pages, with two

portraits of Mr. Parker, and some vignettes on wood. The author is John

Weiss, and the biography is exceedingly well written, a great deal of it

being given directly from Mr. Parker's own letters and journals. He was

born in Massachusetts in 1810, and died in Italy before he had completed

his fiftieth year. He was brought up on his father's farm, taught school

while in his teens to provide money for further progress, prepared

himself for the university, taught a higher school during his college

course, studied the classics, acquired German, French, and Spanish,

became a divinity student in Cambridge, added Danish, Swedish, Arabic

and Syriac, Anglo-Saxon and Modern Greek, was ordained a Unitarian

minister in 1837, and settled at West Roxbury. His labors were great: he

preached, lectured, translated, edited, and wrote. His health sank under

his arduous mental toil. He went abroad to regain it, and died in

Florence in 1860. Whatever we may think of his creed, as a preacher he

was able and earnest. He was a man of varied gifts, of wide and detailed

culture. He was opposed to slavery, and stood in bold antagonism to the

Fugitive Slave Law. He was blamed, perhaps maligned, during his

lifetime, but posterity will acknowledge him as a man of large brain and

generous heart. His letters are exceedingly interesting, touching upon

almost every subject now under discussion.

'Would you be good, and fill each human duty?

One art's enough for that--the finest art--

See but the good in every human heart.'

WAS HE SUCCESSFUL? A Novel. By RICHARD B.

KIMBALL, Author of 'St. Leger,' 'Undercurrents,' 'Romance of

Student Life,' etc. New York; Carleton, publisher, 413 Broadway.

Leipsic: Tauchnitz. 1864.

The readers of THE CONTINENTAL have been favored with the first

perusal of this monitory novel. It is an accurate delineation of men and

manners found too frequently in our midst, and the moral should be

deeply graven on every heart. We feel the more at liberty to recommend

this work, as it was commenced in our columns before the present corps

of editors had entered upon their labors, and we cordially wish every

species of success to Mr. Kimball.

MUSICAL SKETCHES. By ELIZA POLKO. Translated from

the sixth German edition, by FANNY FULLER. Philadelphia:

Frederick Leypoldt. New York: F. W. Christern.

We think this book will become a favorite with our people. It contains

sketches, legends, and traditions of many of the great musicians. Bach,

Gluck, Mozart, Mendelssohn, Pergolesi, Schubert, Scarlatti, Weber,

Paganini, Gretry, Catalani, Malibran, Handel, Anderle, Haydn, Boieldieu,

Cimarosa, Beethoven, Lully, Berger, etc., float pleasantly through its

fanciful pages. Romance and reality mingle genially together, the

reality half persuading us that the romance is true. It is appreciative

and tender in the original, and the translation is well executed. The

vignette of the music-making cherubs is really beautiful.

HUSKS. COLONEL FLOYD'S WARDS. By MARION HARLAND.

New York: Sheldon & Co., 335 Broadway.

Few young writers have attained so sudden a popularity as Marion

Harland. We believe it well deserved. Her plots are interesting, her

characters well drawn, her style natural, her morals unexceptionable. Of

the two tales composing the present volume, we prefer 'Colonel Floyd's

Wards.' The interest is well sustained, and Virginian society and

manners truthfully depicted.

DIARY, from November 18, 1862, to October 18, 1863. By

ADAM GUROWSKI. Volume Second. New York: Carleton,

publisher, 413 Broadway.

Has Count Gurowski's course toward his own unfortunate country, heroic

Poland, been sufficiently loyal and faithful to induce us to put much

confidence in his portraitures of the men and events of the land of his

adoption?

THE GREAT CONSUMMATION. THE MILLENNIAL REST; or, The World

as it Will Be. By REV. JOHN CUMMING, D. D., F. R. S. E.,

Minister of the Scottish National Church, Crown Court, Covent

Garden; Author of 'The Great Tribulation,' and 'The Great

Preparation.' Second Series. New York: Carleton, publisher, 413

Broadway.

The writings of the Rev. Dr. Cumming are too well known to the public to

need any characterization at our hands. His style is clear and simple,

and we believe it is his desire to awaken and win souls. Although

frequently miscomprehending the dogmas of the Mother Church, he is

neither narrow nor bigoted in his religious views. In the volume under

consideration, he takes passages found principally in Isaiah and

Revelations as texts to describe the Millennium which he believes at

hand. He strives to inculcate the lesson, '_Be ye therefore ready_.'

CUDJO'S CAVE. By J. T. TROWBRIDGE, Author of

'Neighbor Jackwood,' 'The Drummer Boy,' etc. Boston: Tilton & Co.

We believe Mr. Trowbridge has achieved a real success in his Cudjo. The

plot is well conceived and sustained, and the interest never flags from

the first page to the last. There is no dull reading in the book, no

interminable preludes or introductions. We are presented in the very

first chapter to the hero, the young schoolmaster, about to be tarred

and feathered by a brutal mob. And a real hero he proves himself in his

gentleness, conscientiousness, and manly moral and physical courage.

Carl, the German boy, is an inimitable picture of young German life and

character. Toby, the house negro, is, in his mingled stupidity, cunning,

and faithfulness, drawn to the life. Nor are the negroes of the cave

less excellent. Events hurry forward, different characters are strangely

grouped, new elements and capacities constantly developed, while truth

to the original conception is constantly adhered to. Graphic

descriptions and picturesque situations abound. If scenes of violence

occur, it is because they are true to the history of the hour. We close

by extracting the closing sentence of this loyal and natural novel: 'For

peaceful days, a peaceful and sunny literature: and may Heaven hasten

the time when there shall be no more strife, and no more human bondage;

when, under the folds of the starry flag, from the lake chain to the

gulf, and from sea to sea, freedom, peace, and righteousness shall

reign; when all men shall love each other, and the nations shall know

God!'

UNITED STATES WALL ATLAS. Constructed and drawn under the

direction of A. GUYOT, by ERNEST SANDOZ. New

York: Published by Charles Scribner, 124 Grand street.

This is a physical map of the United States, giving the altitudes

(within certain limits) of the surface of the land, the height of the

principal mountains, the courses of the ranges and also of the rivers,

together with many other interesting particulars. The principal

political divisions and the chief towns are also indicated. The names of

that profound and earnest savant, Prof. A. Guyot, and of his talented

nephew, E. Sandoz, are a sufficient guarantee of the accuracy and

excellence of this useful work.

A BUDGET OF FUN FOR LITTLE FOLKS. By AUNT MAGGIE.

Boston: Loring, publisher, 319 Washington street.

JEAN BELIN; or, The Adventures of a Little French Boy. By

ALFRED DE BREHAT. Translated from the French. Boston:

Loring, publisher, 319 Washington street. For sale by O. S. Felt,

36 Walker street, New York.

Two very pleasant books for children. The first contains the adventures

of a knitting society, interspersed with sundry novel fairy tales, and

the second is intended to supply the need felt by all the little ones

when 'Robinson Crusoe' and the 'Swiss Family Robinson' have been

exhausted. The tale is lively and well told, and the characters natural

and ably sustained. We notice in both works an occasional inaccuracy of

expression. Such slight blemishes do not materially impair the

excellence of these sprightly volumes, but a little more attention would

have sufficed to render them entirely free from error. The examples of

language placed before youth cannot be too carefully revised. With this

minute exception, we heartily recommend the 'Budget of Fun' and 'Jean

Belin,' especially the latter, to all young people.

CARROT-POMADE, with twenty-six Illustrations by

AUGUSTUS HOPPIN. 'Hair ten carats fine.' New York: James

G. Gregory, publisher, 46 Walker street.

A ludicrous satire, and well deserved, on the general style of

advertisements. Hoppin is too well known to need laudation. His

illustrations are irresistibly comic. What could be happier than the

cupids of the brush and comb on the frontispiece? The poor 'krittur

which furnished the grease' is well conceived and executed.

POEMS. By HENRY PETERSON. Philadelphia: J. B.

Lippincott.

A volume of graceful verses. We quote its dedication: 'To the members of

that hard-working, poorly rewarded editorial profession, who make so

many reputations for others, and so few for themselves, this book is

respectfully dedicated by one of the fraternity.' 'Abra's Vision' is a

happy rendering of Leigh Hunt's 'Abou Ben Adhem.'

APPLETON'S UNITED STATES POSTAL GUIDE; containing the

Chief Regulations of the Post Office; and a complete List of Post

Offices throughout the United States, with other information for

the People. Published Quarterly. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 443 &

445 Broadway. One dollar per annum. Price, 25 cents.

This volume has been prepared with the sanction of Mr. Blair, Postmaster

General, and is an authorized medium of information between the Post

Office Department and the public. It meets a want very generally felt,

and will be welcomed by the community at large. Its table of contents is

a full one; we have space but for a few items: 'Officers, and recent

Orders of the Department; Rates of Postage to Foreign Countries; Rates

of Domestic Postage; Date of Sailing of Foreign Steamers; Establishment

of Post Offices; Mail Contracts; Penalties in certain cases; Suggestions

to the Public; Time occupied in the transmission of Letters; Local Post

Office Regulations; List of Post Offices in the United States, etc. We

regard the condensation of important and indeed almost necessary

information as of great value to our people.

LEGENDS OF THE BIRDS. By CHARLES GODFREY LELAND.

Illustrated by F. Moras. Philadelphia: Frederick Leypoldt,

publisher. New York: for sale by F. W. Christern, 763 Broadway.

An exquisite volume, containing illuminated pictures of the Birds of the

Legends. Very beautiful are the legends, tenderly and simply told in the

golden words of a poet. They are calculated to teach us humanity toward

the winged creatures of the air, so often the victims of our cruel

sports. We have The Swallow, The Eagle, The Robin, The Cock, The Swan,

The Falcon, The Wood Dove, The Humming Bird, The Scarlet Tannager, The

Peacock, and The Owl, each bird occupying his own illuminated page; each

with his own simple and touching legend. Mr. Leland's little poems will

speak to many a heart, and many a mother will read them aloud to the

wild boys begging for guns to devastate our forests, to inspire them

with mercy for these flying flowers, these musicians of the air. Paper,

print, type, arabesques, and designs, are excellent. We heartily

congratulate Mr. Leypoldt on the beauty of the publication.

HAND BOOK OF CALISTHENICS AND GYMNASTICS: A Complete Drill

Book for Schools, Families, and Gymnasiums. With Music to accompany

the Exercises. Illustrated from original designs. By J. MADISON

WATSON. New York and Philadelphia: Schermerhorn, Bancroft &

Co. Chicago: George Sherwood. 1864.

The American people are waking up to the importance of physical culture,

struggling to develop muscle, to strengthen weak nerves, and to build up

national bodily vigor. The purpose of the volume before us is to solve

this problem. The author "has aimed to make it a complete gymnastic

drill book, with words of command and classes of movements

systematically arranged, embracing all necessary exercises for the

lungs, the voice, the organs of speech, the joints, and the muscles."

Part 1st, under the head of _Vocal Gymnastics_, treats of Respiration,

Phonetics, and Elocution; concise and clear principles and rules are

given, accompanied by examples and exercises sufficiently numerous to

enable the student to bring them completely within his comprehension and

under his control. We regard this part of the work before us as

exceedingly important. To read aloud well is one of the rarest of

accomplishments, though one of the most desirable, and the training of

the voice is absolutely necessary to attain this end. When properly

pursued, such exercises are exceedingly invigorating. 'In forming and

undulating the voice,' says Dr. Combe, 'not only the chest, but also the

diaphragm and abdominal muscles are in constant action, and communicate

to the stomach and bowels a healthy and agreeable stimulus.' The poetic

selections are made with great taste, and are admirably fitted to

achieve the end for which they are designed.

Part 2d, under the head of _Calisthenics_, exhibits a varied course of

exercises without the aid of apparatus. Pupils are taught to beat time,

and use is thus made of the magic power of rhythmical movement. Nineteen

pieces of piano music are given, which are well chosen, and

appropriately introduced.

Part 3d, under the head of _Gymnastics_, presents a wider collection of

exercises for wands, dumb bells, Indian clubs, and hand rings, than any

of the books we have yet seen. All the exercises are arranged in

accordance with well-known principles of Anatomy, Physiology, and

Hygiene. 'In presenting a _new system_ of Calisthenics and Gymnastics, a

series of illustrations from _original_ designs is indispensable.' These

are remarkably well drawn and executed. Accent, quantity, with Iambic,

Trochaic, Anapestic, and Dactylic Rhythms, are _practically_ given in

the work, which, should the student have poetic talent, would be of

great use to him in making his own verses, while to the reader of poetry

a knowledge of them is indispensable.

We heartily commend this book to the notice of our readers--to all who

prize physical culture, health, and symmetrical education. We hope it

may find its way into our schools and families.

Print, paper, and the mechanical execution of this valuable Hand Book

are really excellent.

LIGHT ON SHADOWED PATHS. By T. S. ARTHUR, Author

of 'Ten Nights in a Bar Room,' 'Steps toward Heaven,' 'Golden

Grain,' etc. New York: Carleton, publisher, 413 Broadway.

The books of T. S. Arthur have had a very wide circulation both in this

country and in England. This volume is composed of thirty-three short

tales, well calculated to touch and soothe the popular heart. They are

tender, moral, and simple.

* * * * *

JANUARY PERIODICALS RECEIVED.

THE UNIVERSALIST QUARTERLY. Boston: Published by T.

Tompkins & Co. New York: H. Lyon, 119 Nassau street.

CONTENTS: The Logic and the End of the Rebellion. The Eastern

Church and Council of Nice. Salvation in Christ not Limited to this

Life. Contributions of Science to Religion. History of the Doctrine of a

Future Life. Atheism and its Exponents. Formula of Baptism. The

Universalists as a Christian Sect. General Review. Recent Publications.

American and English Quarterlies.

THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW, January 1st, 1864. Editors:

Prof. James Russell Lowell and Charles Eliot Norton, Esqs. Boston:

Crosby & Nichols, 117 Washington street. New York: H. Dexter,

Hamilton & Co., Sinclair Tousey, and D. G. Francis.

CONTENTS: Ticknor's Life of Prescott. The Bible and Slavery.

The Ambulance System. The Bibliotheca Sacra. Immorality in Politics. The

Early Life of Governor Winthrop. The Sanitary Commission. Renan's Life

of Jesus. The President's Policy. Critical Notices.

THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.--Contents: Weiss's Life of

Theodore Parker. Uhland. The Patience of Hope. Arthur Schopenhauer.

The System and Order of Christ's Ministry. Ticknor's Life of

Prescott. Our Ambulance System. The Two Messages. Review of Current

Literature. New Publications Received. Boston: By the Proprietors,

at Walker, Wise & Co.'s, 245 Washington street.

EDITOR'S TABLE.

ARTISTS' RECEPTION.

The evening of February 4th, 1864, will long be remembered as the

occasion of one of the most delightful receptions ever given in the

Tenth-street Studio Building. The Committee deserve great praise for the

successful manner in which they filled without crowding the pleasant

exhibition-room and the many interesting studios. Their task was

certainly not an easy one, and merits imitation by all managers of

social entertainments.

Want of space must for the present prevent any description of the fine

works exhibited; suffice it to say that the Committee--Whittredge,

McEntee, Thompson, as well as Gifford, Eastman Johnson, Bierstadt,

Beard, the Weirs, Hazeltine, William Hart, Dana, Leutze, Gignoux,

Shattuck, Brown, Suydam, etc., were all worthily represented. New York

has reason to be proud of her artists.

Amusing incidents were not wanting. As we stood before Beard's

'Watchers' (an impressive representation of a company of crows watching

the last struggles of a dying deer), we heard a lady ask her attendant

the meaning of the picture and of its name. The reply was, 'Why--do you

not see? Those birds are owls, and they are asleep, and the deer is

asleep too, and so they are all watchers!' 'Ah!' returned the lady, as

if this lucid explanation had flooded the subject with light. We were

accompanied by a very bright young girl, who, desirous of visiting the

studio of Mr. Church, and disappointed at learning that it had not been

opened to the guests of the building, exclaimed, 'Heart of the Andes,

indeed! Where is his own?' No lover of the true and the beautiful could

have resisted the pleading of those earnest blue eyes. We also overheard

that 'the Tenth-street boys hold their heads mighty high!' Long may they

continue to do so, and long may success of every kind crown their

efforts, whether as artists or as conscientious, patriotic men!

GOUNOD'S 'FAUST.'

This opera has attracted large audiences wherever it has been

represented, and has elicited much attention and criticism from the

musical public. Dwight's _Journal of Music_, Boston, January 23d,

contains the best review of its merits and defects which we have thus

far chanced to meet. Mr. Dwight gives M. Gounod ample credit for the

good judgment, common sense, science, taste, poetic feeling, rich and

highly dramatic orchestration, ingenious musical characterization of

individuals and situations, and the many passages of beautiful music

found in this elaborate work, but denies to him the _highest_

inspiration, the spontaneity of genius, and the attainment of any very

lofty ideal in the production of continuous, elevated, and

soul-entrancing melodies. We think this a pretty fair statement of the

facts in the case. Mr. Dwight, however, says: 'Not even Mozart in 'Don

Juan' had so great a subject;' and in this connection we feel compelled

to offer a few remarks. We think every great composer owes it to his own

God-gift, and to the human beings whom he is to influence, not to select

intrinsically repulsive subjects, and such have we found both 'Don Juan'

and 'Faust.' Now we are not morbidly fastidious, and we well know the

freedom that must be accorded to art, that it may have ample scope and

range in the delineation of human feeling and romantic situation; but

when we see a representation of 'Don Juan,' we instinctively strive to

ignore the plot, with its odious characters (the sensual Don, the

coarse-minded servant, the unwomanly, man-seeking Elvira, the vengeful

Anna, the insignificant Ottavio, the light-headed and shallow-hearted

Zerlina), and live only in the beautiful music which the prodigality of

genius has wasted upon so poor a theme. Not even _that_ libretto could

degrade the pure, serious, and essentially innocent character of

Mozart's conceptions; but, in turn, his refined musical conception has

been unable to lift the subject from the mire of Da Ponte's delineation.

We know that page after page has been written to unfold the mystic

meanings and profound philosophy contained in the story, but our

observation has been, that the effect of the whole upon pure minds is

simply--disgust. The musical grandeur of the finale rarely saves its

becoming ludicrous in the representation, and the _good joke_ of a life

of unblushing immorality is in no way lessened by the appearance of

demons, in whose existence half the world (at least of of opera goers)

has ceased to believe.

The 'Faust' is nearly, if not quite, as bad. The undisguised sensuality

of Faust, both in Goethe's drama and in the operatic rendering, is such

that it nearly destroys our sympathy with Margaret, and scenes that

should be pathetic are either merely repulsive, or excite our

indignation to such a degree that we 'turn all our tears to sparks of

fire.'

Nothing but loathing can attend the open, deliberate, and utterly gross

destruction of virtue as planned and executed by that miserable

libertine. Mephistopheles himself is scarcely more corrupt, and the

representation of these two great poisonous spiders, weaving their

meshes round their unfortunate and but too easy prey, can never in any

sense impress us as lofty specimens of _high art_.

How different is the plot of 'Fidelio,' where one can yield oneself to

the beauty of the music and the pathos of the story without a single

jarring sensation!

Let the masters then beware! Music is essentially pure, and should never

by great minds be wedded to coarse ideas. The subject must have an

influence upon the immortality of the work. The really noble and truly

art-loving men and women of all countries will, as they advance in

mental cultivation and comprehension of the higher aims of art, banish

such gross delineations and festering moral sores from the stage, and

fine musical works thus sullied will continue to live solely as

represented by such instrument or instruments as may best be calculated

to express their real value and meaning.

We go to the opera for relaxation, improvement, and enjoyment, and none

of these can be found in the spectacle of noble means perverted to

corrupt ends. May the day soon come when such important channels of

public amusement and instruction may be guided by a refined taste and

correct views of the intimate connection between the Beautiful and the

Absolute Good!

Ballads of the War.

THE DEATH OF COLONEL SHAW.

By ISABELLA McFARLANE.

Loud rang the voice of the chieftain,

As the Fifty-fourth rushed on:

'Charge on the guns of Wagner,

Charge--and the fort is won!'

On--like a wave of the ocean,

Dashing against a rock!--

Back--ah! back--all broken,

Like a wave from the fruitless shock.

Thus from the guns of Wagner

The Fifty-fourth surged back:

But the voice of their brave young chieftain

Checked not their backward track

For there, on the sands by Wagner,

The gallant Shaw lay low,

'Midst a heap of his brave black soldiers,

Left in the hands of the foe.

Not a flag was lowered in his honor,

Not a gun its deep voice gave,

When, on the sands by Wagner,

Shaw was laid in the grave.

Not a friend stood over his coffin,

Shedding tears on his gory breast;

But instead, was curse and insult,

Cruel laughter, ribald jest.

Wide and deep was the trench they hollowed,

Where the gallant Shaw was laid,

With forty negro soldiers

Piled over his noble head.

Yes, forty negro soldiers,

Whose hearts were hearts of steel,

Who had fought in the cause of freedom,

Who had died for their country's weal.

Was it then so great dishonor

For that chief so young and brave--

Who had led them on to the battle--

To be with them in the grave?

Nay--most just was the mandate

That in death they should not part,

For he loved his poor black brothers,

With a true and steadfast heart.

Move not his honored ashes--

Let him slumber where he lies,

Till the voice of the great Archangel

Sounds the trumpet-call to the skies![25]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] THE GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCES OF THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN, with Remarks on

Theories of the Origin of Species by Variation. By Sir CHARLES LYELL, F.

R. S. Author of 'Principles of Geology,' Elements of Geology,' etc.,

etc. Illustrated by woodcuts. Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 628 and

630 Chestnut street. 1863

[2] If any one is disposed to doubt that the doctrine that fossil forms

are direct creations, and were never living animals at all, is held by

any respectable person, we refer them to a book entitled 'Cosmogony, or

the Mysteries of Creation,' by Thomas A. Davies, and published by Rudd &

Carleton, of New York, of no longer ago than 1857.

[3] Principles of Geology, 9th ed., p. 740.

[4] Professor Louis Agassiz, the most patient, learned, and acute

investigator of embryology now living, finds in that science (upon

which, in truth, rests the final settlement of the so-called development

theory) _'no single fact_ to justify the assumption that the laws of

development, now known to be so precise and definite for every animal,

have ever been less so, or have ever been allowed to run into each

other. The philosopher's stone is no more to be found in the organic

than the inorganic world; and we shall seek as vainly to transform the

lower animal types into the higher ones by any of our theories, as did

the alchemists of old to change the baser metals into gold.' He also

says: 'To me the fact that the embryonic form of the highest vertebrate

recalls in its earlier stages the first representatives of its type in

geological times and its lowest representatives at the present day,

speaks only of an ideal relation, existing, not in the things

themselves, but in the mind that made them. It is true that the

naturalist is sometimes startled at these transient resemblances of the

young among the higher animals in one type to the adult condition of the

lower animals in the same type; but it is also true that he finds each

one of the primary divisions of the animal kingdom bound to its own norm

of development, which is absolutely distinct from that of all others; it

is also true that, while he perceives correspondences between the early

phases of the higher animals and the mature state of the lower ones he

never sees any one of them diverge in the slightest degree from its own

structural character--never sees the lower rise by a shade beyond the

level which is permanent for the group to which it belongs--never sees

the higher ones stop short of their final aim, either in the mode or the

extent of their transformation.' He likewise ('Methods of Study in

Natural History,' page 140) discusses the matter of breeds as bearing

upon diversities of species in a manner to justify his conclusion, that:

'The influence of man upon animals is, in other words, the influence of

_mind_ upon them; and yet the ordinary mode of argument upon this

subject is, that, because the intelligence of man has been able to

produce certain varieties in domesticated animals, therefore physical

causes have produced all the diversity existing among wild ones. Surely,

the sounder logic would be to infer that, because our finite

intelligence may cause the original pattern to vary by some slight

shades of difference, therefore a superior intelligence must have

established all the boundless diversity of which our boasted varieties

are but the faintest echo. It is the most intelligent farmer who has the

greatest success in improving his breeds; and if the animals he has so

fostered are left to themselves without that intelligent care, they

return to their normal condition. So with plants....'--_Ed. Con_.

[5] In Latin, _Sublaqueum_, or _Sublacum_, in the States of the Church,

over thirty English miles (Butler says 'near forty,' Montalombert,

'fifty miles') east of Rome, on the Teverone. Butler describes the place

as 'a barren, hideous chain of rocks, with a river and lake in the

valley.'

[6] _Monasterium Cassinense._ It was destroyed, indeed, by the Lombards,

as early as 583, as Benedict is said to have predicted it would be, but

was rebuilt in 731, consecrated in 748, again destroyed by the Saracens

in 857, rebuilt about 950, and more completely, after many other

calamities, in 1649, consecrated for the third time by Benedict XIII in

1727, enriched and increased under the patronage of the emperors and

popes, in modern times despoiled of ts enormous income (which at the end

of the sixteenth century was reckoned at 500,000 ducats), and has stood

through all vicissitudes to this day. In the times of its splendor, when

the abbot was first baron of the kingdom of Naples, and commanded over

four hundred towns and villages, it numbered several hundred monks but

in 1843 only twenty. It has a considerable library. Montalembert (Monks

of the West, ii. 19) calls Monte Cassino 'the most powerful and

celebrated monastery in the Catholic universe; celebrated especially

because there Benedict wrote his rule and formed the type which was to

serve as a model to innumerable communities submitted to that sovereign

code.' He also quotes the poetic description from Dante's _Paradiso_.

Dom Luigi Tosti published at Naples, in 1842, a full history of this

convent, in three volumes.

[7] Gregor. Dial. ii. 37.

[8] Butler, in his Lives of Saints, compares Benedict even with Moses

and Elijah. 'Being chosen by God, like another Moses, to conduct

faithful souls into the true promised land, the kingdom of heaven, he

was enriched with eminent supernatural gifts, even those of miracles and

prophecy. He seemed, like another Eliseus, endued by God with an

extraordinary power, commanding all nature, and, like the ancient

prophets, foreseeing future events. He often raised the sinking courage

of his monks, and baffled the various artifices of the devil with the

sign of the cross, rendered the heaviest stone light, in building his

monastery, by a short prayer, and, in presence of a multitude of people,

raised to life a novice who had been crushed by the fall of a wall at

Monte Cassino.' Montalembert omits the more extraordinary miracles,

except the deliverance of Placidus from the whirlpool, which he relates

in the language of Bossuet, ii. 15.

[9] 'Scienter nesciens, et sapienter indoctus.'

[10] The Catholic Church has recognized three other rules besides that

of St. Benedict, viz.: 1. That of St. Basil, which is stilt retained by

the Oriental monks; 2. That of St. Augustine, which is adopted by the

regular canons, the order of the preaching brothers or Dominicans, and

several military orders; 3. The rule of St. Francis of Assisi and his

mendicant order, in the thirteenth century.

[11] Pope Gregory believed the rule of St. Benedict even to be directly

inspired, and Bossuet (_Panégyrie de Saint Benoît_), in evident

exaggeration, calls it 'an epitome of Christianity, a learned and

mysterious abridgement of all doctrines of the gospel, all the

institutions of the holy fathers, and all the counsels of perfection.'

Montalembert speaks in a similar strain of French declamatory eloquence.

[12] Cap. 5: 'Primus humilitatis gradus est obedientia sine mora. Hæc

convenit iis, qui nihil sibi Christo carius aliquid existimant: propter

servitium sanctum, quod professi sunt, seu propter metum gehennæ, vel

gloriam vitæ æternæ, mox ut aliquid imperatum a majore fuerit, ac si

divinitus imperetur, moram pati nesciunt in faciendo.'

[13] Cap. 48: 'Otiositas inimica est animæ; et ideo certis temporibus

occupari debent fratres in labore manuum, certis iterum horis in

lectione divina.' vina.'

[14] The _horæ canonicæ_ are the _Nocturnæ vigiliæ_, _Matutinæ_,

_Prima_, _Tertia_, _Sexta_, _Nona_, _Vespera_, and _Completorium_, and

are taken (c. 16) from a literal interpretation of Ps. cxix. 164: 'Seven

times a day do I praise thee,' and v. 62: 'At midnight I will rise to

give thanks unto thee.' The Psalter was the liturgy and hymn book of the

convent. It was so divided among the seven services of the day, that the

whole Psalter should be chanted once a week.

[15] Cap. 59: 'Si quis forte de nobilibus offert filium suum Deo in

monasterio, si ipse puer minori ætate est, parentes ejus faciant

petitionem,' etc.

[16] Cap. 40: 'Carnium quadrupedum ab omnibus abstinetur comestio,

præter omnino debiles et ægrotos.' Even birds are excluded, which were

at that time only delicacies for princes and nobles, as Mabillon shows

from the contemporary testimony of Gregory of Tours.

[17] Cap. 66: 'Monasterium, si possit fieri, ita debet construi, ut

omnia necessaria, id est aqua, molendinum, hortus, pistrinum, vel artes

diversæ intra monasterium exerceantur, ut non sit necessitas monachis

vagandi foras, quia omnino non expedit animabus eorum.'

[18] This Maurus, the founder of the abbacy of Glanfeuil (St. Maur sur

Loire), is the patron saint of a branch of the Benedictines, the

celebrated Maurians in France (dating from 1618), who so highly

distinguished themselves in the seventeenth and early part of the

eighteenth centuries, by their thorough archæological and historical

researches, and their superior editions of the Fathers. The most eminent

of the Maurians are D. (Dom, equivalent to Domnus, Sir) Menard,

d'Achery, Godin, Mabillon, le Nourry, Martianay, Ruinart, Martene,

Montfaucon, Massuet, Garnier, and de la Rue, and in our time Dom Pitra,

editor of a valuable collection of patristic fragments, at the cloister

of Solesme.

[19] He was the last of the Roman consuls--an office which Justinian

abolished--and was successively the minister of Odoacer, Theodoric, and

Athalaric, who made him prefect of the pretorium.

[20] Or _Vivaria_, so called from the numerous _vivaria_, or fish ponds,

in that region

[21] Comp. Mabillon, Ann. Bened. 1. v. c. 24, 27; F. de Ste.-Marthe, Vie

de Cassiodore, 1684.

[22] I take this anecdote on Mr. Underhill's authority.

[23] As in the Hotel du Louvre in Paris.

[24] The great Bible-printing establishment at Oxford encloses a

spacious courtyard, which is laid out as a garden. The foliage is

agreeably disposed, and there are shrubbery walks, flowers, vases, and

parterres, all arranged in the best taste. Consider what a healthful

influence this must have on the character of the workman.

[25] 'Buried with his niggers.' Such was the answer of the rebel

commander at Charleston to General Gillmore's demand for the body of

Colonel Shaw, who commanded the 54th Massachusetts, one of the first

negro regiments organized, and was killed in an unsuccessful attempt to

carry Fort Wagner by assault.

End of Project Gutenberg's Continental Monthly, Volume 5, Issue 4, by Various