selves, constitute a valuable little volume, as comprising the historical merits and essential principles of the revolution. One or two others of the same class and crisis might be included. They are all well presented, though in an abridged form, by Marshall, vol. ii. Marshall's star, as the biographer of Washington, has indeed set below the horizon, giving place to the brighter and fuller luminaries that succeeded it. But we should be ungrateful and unjust not to remember, that in his sketches of events immediately preliminary to the revolution, he has had no rival except the younger Bancroft. Marshall's narrative of these transactions (high praise, we confess!) is as full of breathless interest as Irving's, and he has comprehended in it a great variety of most relevant particulars, for the omission of which by his more brilliant and renowned competitor, considering the plan of his book, we are unable to account. Marshall's narrative of the battle of Long Island, we have also the temerity to prefer somewhat to Irving's, on the score of clearness and fulness.

Some surprise, also, we confess to have felt for the omission in the present work, of any allusion to that pleasant little epistolary interview between Washington and the future President Dwight, then a chaplain in the army, during the melancholy winter of Valley Forge. It sounds like some sweet song of birds bursting in amidst the dreadful din of arms. Our readers shall have the pleasure of perusing a portion of the correspondence here, as we believe it to have been rarely quoted or referred to. It certainly constitues a choice morceau as well in the literary as the military history of our country. We extract it from the fifth volume of Mr. Sparks's collection. Dwight was chaplain of Gen. Parsons's brigade, stationed then at West Point. "The application, which is the subject of this letter," said he, in writing to General Washington, "is, I believe, not common in these American regions, yet I hope it will not on that account be deemed impertinence or presumption. For several years I have been employed in writing a poem on the conquest of Canaan by Joshua. This poem, upon the first knowledge of your excellency's character, I determined, with leave, to inscribe to you. If it will not be too great a favour, it will certainly be remembered with gratitude."

Mr. Dwight's letter was enclosed in one from General Parsons, in which he says of the poet :

"He is a person of extensive literature, an amiable private character, and has happily united that virtue and piety which ought ever to form the character of the gentleman, with the liberal and generous sentiments and agreeable manners of a gentleman. Of the merit of the performance he mentions, I am not a competent judge; many gentlemen of learning and taste for poetical writings, who have examined it with care and attention, esteem this work in the class of the best writings of the kind. He will be

particularly obliged, by your excellency's consent that it should make its first appearance under your patronage."

GENERAL WASHINGTON'S REPLY.

"To the Rev. Timothy Dwight:

66 Headquarters, Valley Forge, 18th March, 1778. "SIR: I yesterday received your favour of the 8th instant, accompanied by so warm a recommendation from General Parsons, that I cannot but form favourable presages of the merit of the work you propose to honour me with the dedication of. Nothing can give me more pleasure than to patronize the essays of genius, and a laudable cultivation of the arts and sciences, which had begun to flourish in so eminent a degree before the hand of oppression was stretched over our devoted country; and I shall esteem myself happy, if a poem, which has employed the labour of years, will derive any advantage, or bear more weight in the world, by making its appearance under a dedication to me. I am, &c."

We are happy to appeal to Mr. Irving's own example in some portions of his work, for instances of what we have been desiderating in other portions. Thus, how valuable, apposite, and delightful are the extracts which he gives from the diary of John Adams, in regard to the doings of Congress on the appointment of Washington as commander-in-chief! He has some capital illustrations, from original documents, of the picturesque incident furnished by the arrival of the Connecticut lighthorse at the camp in New York. Could he not have derived from the diaries and letters of Mr. and Mrs. Adams, and other contemporary sources, some interesting sketches of the state of society and modes of life in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston, while those cities were occupied by the British? Before tradition becomes silent, or manuscripts extinct, it is much to be hoped that records of this kind may be placed beyond the reach of destiny. Works, like the little volume of Eliza Wilkinson's letters, edited several years. since by Mrs. Gilman of South Carolina, would assist the extensive compiler of these desirable notices. The autograph collections of Dr. Sprague of Albany, Mr. Tefft of Savannah, and a few others, would furnish still fresh materials for the faithful chronicler.

We hope that at the close of Mr. Irving's work a copious index will not be forgotten. Every name as well as event should be traced to the page where it is recorded. More maps and engraved sketches of battles, both of simple character, are desirable. They greatly assist the reader, by saving hours of comparison and imaginative construction. When not placed near those portions of the narrative which they illustrate, references should be made to them. in the margin. We should have advised the numbering of the chapters to be continued throughout the history, instead of commencing a new series for each volume. The great histories have been generally so divided. A unity is thus preserved throughout the

whole. And when, as will probably be the case, Mr. Irving's work shall have an edition in one volume, there must be an awkward dislocation by the present arrangement.

We are glad, on the whole, that the author's fine taste induced him to abandon one feature of composition, into which his wellknown playful humour was beginning to beguile him in the early stages of his work. We allude to such sentences as the following: "John Bull is faithful to his native habits and native dishes, whatever may be the country or clime, and would set up a chop-house at the very gates of paradise." (Vol. i, p. 67.) Referring to the convivial habits of one of Washington's fellowpioneers in the wilderness, he tells us that "there may have been a moist look of promise in the old soldier Van Braam," p. 83. It is hard to say why these little caricatures and slynesses should not be permitted to diversify and enliven the grave march of history. The charge of puritanic precision seems awaiting the critic who objects to them. But somehow they were uniformly repudiated by the exquisite taste of the ancients. Many a modern historian, too, has been unboundedly popular without them. And our author, as just now observed, ceases to follow them up. No other instances of this frolicsome vein occur, we believe, in the course of the three volumes, with a single exception, which we here notice for another reason than a matter of taste. In vol. ii, p. 12, note, one of the occupants of Washington's celebrated headquarters in Cambridge is said to have been Mr. Worcester, "author of the pugnacious dictionary," &c. We suggest whether it is worthy of Mr. Irving's characteristic kindness and gentleness of heart to transmit this literary, and almost personal, sarcasm to posterity. Would not some other epithet have more truthfully designated one of the most faithful, laborious, and valuable services which the present age has rendered to the cause of letters? If pugnacious, that work has been, on the whole, but defensively pugnacious at the worst. Our excellent author himself, we believe, at one time mingled in a kindred fray, siding too, if we mistake not, with some of the principles maintained by Mr. Worcester. We are confident that in future editions some happier expression will be substituted for what here seems an inadvertent misprint. Reverting to the topic of these pleasant little humorous ebullitions, to say nothing more of their jarring with the general tone of dignity throughout the work, nor that, although they were capital in Salmagundi, they might be out of place in a life of Washington, (something like the chorus of "fol-de-rol," interspersed throughout an article in a Review,) we would observe, that in the present performance they are singularly unnecessary. The natural elasticity of the author's pen imparts to his whole history an unflagging interest. Always attracted to the most engaging topics, and instinctively dwelling on each at a precisely sufficient length, he permits no sense of ennui to steal into

the reader's mind. His genial, sympathising narrative takes full possession of our very souls. Except, perhaps, in the case of some of Gates's and Conway's embroglios, or some of the difficulties of the author's pet general, Schuyler, or a report of the interminable quarrel between Washington and Lord Howe, about the exchange of prisoners, the merits of which we could never exactly comprehend, and suspect that there was some fault on both sides, we scarcely remember a page which even whispered us to skip. So that we do not need to be called now and then from our smooth and rapid journey, and entertained by the author's agreeable toothpick remarks, as he sits enrobed and slippered in his easy chair. If we indulge Mr. Prescott in the habit, it may be that he chiefly confines it to his notes, or that he has not quite the sort of general buoyant charm of Mr. Irving, though even in that we would not presume to point out his deficiency.

From similar considerations, we are hesitating whether to pronounce it a merit or not in the present history, that the author occasionally indulges in a certain agreeable artifice, which is a favourite habit with writers of fictitious narrative. We mean the suspending of a chain of the interest at the close of a chapter, with the promise of resuming it at a distant interval. Thus, one chapter concludes in this way:

"On the fourth of September he overtook Montgomery at the Isle la Motte, where he had been detained by contrary weather, and, assuming command of the little army, kept on the same day, to the Isle aux Noix, about twelve miles south of St. John's-where, for the present, we shall leave him, and return to the headquarters of the commander-in-chief."

So, again, another closes thus:

"How he conducted himself on his arrival in the city, we shall relate in a future chapter."

There certainly is a piquant charm in these little conversational interludes, reminding us of our old favourites, Fielding and Scott. It is true that the history, as a history, would have been equally complete without them. At all events, they make up in vivacity what, with some readers, they may seem to detract from the elevated tone of the general narrative.

A few not very important statements in the course of these three volumes, may possibly require correction in future editions. We note such as have occurred in our perusal, for the sake of persons owning the extant edition, as well as for the consideration of the author and his publishers.

"John and Andrew Washington."-Vol. i, p. 16. For Andrew, Sparks inserts Lawrence Washington. There may be a reason.

for differing here from Mr. Sparks, but we are not aware of it. We wish that this and a few other instances had been explained.

"The three Delaware chiefs."-P. 175, bot. Page 173 mentions that there were but two. It may be worth while to have the number right in both cases.

"The Duke of Brunswick."-P. 190. Should it not be the Duke of Cumberland? See p. 152. How could the Duke of Brunswick have been a patron of Braddock? We are not enough posted up to decide on the identity of the dukedoms, which was à possible thing in the royal family of that time, at successive periods at least, but suspect an error.

"Her husband, John Parke Custis."-P. 277. We believe it should be Daniel Parke Custis. Their son's name was John. Washington himself, in a letter or instrument written soon after his marriage, refers to the preceding husband of his wife under the name of Daniel.

"The Duke de Choiseul."-P. 327. Count Vergennes must have been intended here. See p. 308. Choiseul was the rival of Vergennes, which may have unconsciously suggested the mistake. We see that the cheap edition has corrected it.

"General Howe with the left wing."-P. 476. the right wing, if the statement at the top of the "A mile distant to the west."Vol. ii, p. 5.

to the east. Corrected in the new edition.

Rather, with page be correct. We should say

"Stationing Capt. Claiborne."-P. 160. Confounded, it would appear in the next page, with Capt. Dearborn. Dearborn, we presume, was the man.

P. 197.-Nantucket should certainly be Nantasket.

P. 247.-1766 should be 1776. Corrected as above.

P. 483." The former," we think, should be the latter. Vol. iii, p. 144.-Delaware Bay is put for Chesapeake Bay. Corrected, we understand, in later copies.

"Lee was the son of the lady who first touched Washington's heart in his schoolboy days," &c.-P. 197. This does not exactly agree with the account in vol. i, p. 36, where the fact is only dubiously mentioned as a tradition. Perhaps, in the progress of his work, the author has lighted upon some confirmation of it. If so, the two passages should be harmonized.

"British detachment moving towards Monmouth."-P. 429. The text seems to imply that the detachment moved the opposite way, towards Middleton. The error, if one, is the same in Sparks, from whom the engraved sketch of the battle is copied.

"General Grey's incursion was rather to the northward than eastward."-P. 474. By the way, at p. 216 of this volume, Gen. Gray should have a different orthography to identify him with Sir Charles Grey, pp. 463, 474.

Next to matters of fact, we descend to matters of expression.