have done no little service by exciting interest and diffusing information on the questions discussed. He takes pains to disavow any exhaustive or scientific treatment of philology proper, and to show becoming deference to writers eminent in that department from whom he frankly differs on related questions; yet none the less carries an air of excessive confidence, of something like dog. matism, which itself sometimes provokes dissent and antagonism. The pronoun "I" figures largely in his discussions, but this may be pardoned from their controversial character. It is amusing that he professes himself averse to controversy while dealing in it so freely, and in a manner that invites it. He professes little concern for himself about spelling, yet says, "I have reason to believe that I have never misspelled a word since I was old enough to be trusted with pen and ink" (p. 202); and as to pronunciation, "I do not know that I have any standard myself: how to pronounce a word is the last thing of which I should think" (p. 15); and in denying the charge of assuming to be a critical authority, he says, "I do not profess-I may say that I hardly try to write good English" (preface, p. 12). In repeating his request not to be called upon "to decide disputed points in language" he adds, "I have never set myself up as competent for such an office, and for it I have neither leisure nor liking" (note, p. 427). Yet these are things on which he has thought and read much, with close observation, and written fully and freely so as to command public attention. Certainly his own English style would appear to be a remarkable instance of success without effort or care in a department where both have often failed. We are reminded of an editor's judgment on a contributor who argued against all rules for spelling, leaving every man to his own fashion, that the only fault in the article was that it was all spelled correctly.

Besides the knowledge and discrimination everywhere shown in these pages, and their effective style, which make them stimulating and wholesome reading, the discussions which might otherwise have been dry for most readers are enlivened by pleasantry and a certain gossipy flavor, and not the less for the personal part borne by the author, which is in some degree due to the fact that they deal largely with inquiries addressed to him by interested readers, these inquiries showing the hold he has taken of the public mind. For the most part they will be found helpful toward a right use of our mother tongue, particularly in the fuller notices, than can be found elsewhere of current perversions and blemishes.

If we should go into more particular criticism of the critic, one of our chief exceptions would be in the matter of pronunciation, to the emphasis and exclusiveness with which he refers to what he regards as the best standard in the usage of well-bred people in England, with undue disparagement of the best American usage. In this respect as in some others may not our well-bred people have become already entitled with time to more consideration, and at least in prospect be able themselves to furnish a respectable standard? Certainly when a critic so positively cites the usage of the best English society on a disputed pronunciation, one may ask what special opportunities he has had of ascertaining that standard, itself. As far as we can learn (besides the wellknown diversities among the common people) educated speakers abroad are less uniform and punctilious on many questions of English pronunciation than our own, and sometimes surprisingly indifferent about the sounds of their own language while needlessly scrupulous about Latin quantities. On this subject the tone of this book here and there seems to us to be hardly in keeping with the third and sixth chapters of "Words and their Uses, where he deals freely with "Criticisms," and stands up well for our literature against foreign arrogance. We thank him for his protest against the modern foolish fashion in England which would confine the word sick to nausea, against the best authorities in the language, and hardly less for his argument against the fashionable misuse of drive as compared with ride. These are instances in which the best usage has been retained on this side of the water, and ought not to be given up. Of course there will not be unanimity among intelligent readers on all the questions mooted in these volumes as to the right use of words, and Mr. White would be the last to expect it, but he will be supported in most of his criticisms by competent judges, and certainly there are errors enough in our time and country, both in the use and pronunciation of words, to call for such effective comments. Moreover, one of the most wholesome lessons in all his essays is well directed against the verbose, turgid and affected style that seems to be "a besetting sin" of so many newspaper-writers and sensational speakers.

By the way, we second Mr. White's preference of the ee sound, rather than that of i long, in either and neither. Of the latter, which some speakers have taken pains to learn, he says in "Words and their Uses" (p. 264): "It is an affectation, and in

this country a copy of a second-rate British affectation. Persons of the best education and the highest social position in England generally say eether and neether" (see also p. 179 of this work). But in the same work we have nothing to say for his introduction of such a word as scunner (p. 257), which we 'guess" (though only from the connection) must mean prejudice or whim.

JOSEPH COOK'S "SOCIALISM."*-Joseph Cook's eighth and last volume is entitled "Socialism," and is partly on that subject and partly on others of a kindred nature.

It discusses the theories of socialistic political parties, powerfully advocates self-help as the hope of the poor, describes the coöperative stores of England, and the coöperative banks of Germany, and treats of sanitary and educational reforms, tramp laws and temperance. It is not a treatise; it contains no thoughts directly addressed by the author to the reader, but rather a record of what the author said, on certain occasions, to audiences in Boston. This fact is, as it should be, kept before the reader's mind. At the beginning of each lecture there are given the time and place of its delivery, and its number in the course, while the word "applause," frequently recurring, calls the reader's attention to the fact that the author is not actually addressing him, but is permitting him to know in what manner he once addressed certain other persons and how they received what was said. This makes the book more readable rather than less so, for it places one, in imagination, in the audience, and enables him to enjoy rhetorical periods, and to kindle his own emotions from those of others.

It follows that the volume should not be judged as a treatise; the critic has only to make up his mind whether the public addresses here recorded were good, and what were their particular merits. Poor lectures might possibly make a good treatise, but good lectures make necessarily rather a poor one. Mr. Cook's critics would all doubtless admit the above principles in theory, but some of them have forgotten it in practice, and have talked about his works as if they were originally written for print.

The present work is far too oratorical for a treatise, but none too much so for a course of lectures. It would be a serious de

* Socialism. With preludes on current events. By JOSEPH COOK. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1880, 12mo.

fect in a treatise on the subject here discussed not to contain a careful and extended analysis of the nature of socialism. A brief course of lectures outside of a class-room may be obliged to dispense with close definitions. A treatise ought not to use terms unscientifically, as the author does when he classes as "coöperative production," "coöperative distribution," and "coöperative consumption," three modes of industry all of which fall, scientifically, under the head of production; yet it would be pedantic to demand too fastidious a use of terms in a public lecture, provided no misunderstanding were occasioned. In a treatise such strained comparisons as that of the donkey in the tip-cart overbalanced and hoisted into the air by his load, would be out of place; yet this figure seems, from the applause which followed it, to have done good service as actually delivered.

Observant persons must notice the tendency of the age to substitute organizations for individuals in the owning and managing of capital; and this is done in many different ways, of which political socialism is only one. In some industries the end is accomplished by corporations, in some by coöperative societies, while in others, as in the postal service of this country, and in the railroad and telegraph service of many countries, the end can be best secured by state intervention. There is thus at work a very general movement, including political socialism and much beside, for which general movement there is no better name than socialism in the generic sense. It is partly voluntary and partly political, and, taken as a whole, it is natural, as distinguished from artificial.

Mr. Cook means by socialism only political socialism of a radical kind. This he discusses and very ably opposes, while he advocates with equal ability such forms of what we have termed generic socialism as are non-political. He emphatically condemns the nationalization of land, but eloquently advocates coöperative" stores, banks, and manufactories. State-help on the one hand, self-help on the other, mark the difference between what, in his use of terms, is socialism and what is not; while, according to the nomenclature above suggested, they mark the difference between political and voluntary socialism. In this part of the discussion a treatise might be, perhaps, expected to define, in principle, the limits which modern society places on self-help; a brief course of lectures can do nothing so useful as to advocate eloquently and powerfully, as the lectures do, self-help as opposed 18

VOL. III.

to state-assistance, and thus do all that is possible to foster a spirit of personal independence.

The latter lectures and their preludes render valuable service in attacking evils of modern society. With them Mr. Cook closes a three years' course of lectures, which, estimated as public lectures of a scientific character, must be admitted to be marked with a very high degree of ability. If he shall ever choose to reconstruct them sufficiently to make them into treatises, it will be the proper time to criticise them as such.

THE UNDISCOVEred Country.*—This last serial story in the Atlantic, from Mr. Howells, promptly given in the book-form, where it can be better appreciated and enjoyed, seems to have been already accepted as his best work. It has his characteristic grace of style, minute observation of nature, delicate delineation of character, and skillful conduct of conversation. The repose of his manner and his occasional felicities of expression wear well with the best class of readers. But this work has the advantage over its predecessors of a sincere moral purpose which makes itself felt without being too obtrusive for a work of art. It is a kindly exposure of the current 'spiritualism'-or what should rather be less ambiguously called 'spiritism,' as some have named it in the person of a sincere and amiable enthusiast of that school. This character is the better understood and delineated by virtue of sympathy with his aims and motives-a condition required for the highest criticism. The lesson is needed in our day, and not in our country alone. The superintendent of one of our hospitals for the insane not long ago reckoned the believers in spiritualism in this country,-meaning all who to some extent respected its theories and methods,-as not fewer than one-fifth of our population. With allowance for possible or probable exaggeration in the estimate, it suggests occasion for just such expositions as Mr. Howells has here given. We wish, however, that he had attempted some fuller explanation of the phenomena in question, particularly of the strange incidents in the tavern. There are things in mesmerism and biology, so-called, which scientific observers would do well to examine and expound more carefully. And we cannot help thinking the part of Dr. Boynton somewhat overdrawn, now and then provoking us to wish he had * The Undiscovered Country. By W. D. HOWELLS. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1880. 419 pages.