ceived that they fulfil the promise of the specimen sheets sent out in advance; the paper is white and firm, the print clear and finished, and the steel engravings, of which two are given in each volume, of the highest style of the art.

and important things in this work, and to those who will use it in subservience to a fuller and more methodized reading in history and science, it will be a profitable acquisition.

ARCTIC ADVENTURE: By Sea and Land, from the Earliest Date to the Last Expeditions in Search of Sir John Franklin. Edited by EPES SARGENT. With maps and illustrations. Boston: Phillips, Sampson & Co., 1857. [From James Woodhouse, 137 Main Street.

Mr. Epes Sargent is an industrious maker of books, and has seized upon the present moment of vivid interest in Arctic Explorations, created by the appearance of Dr. Kane's great work and the melancholy death of that "noble Sailor boy," to bring out a volume for a "run." It is a Yankee enterprise decidedly, but the book itself is a valuable compilation from the writings and memoranda of eminent Arctic navigators, and any one desirous of "reading up" the whole subject of Polar discoveries can do so with little trouble and expense by procuring a copy of it.

THE AMERICANS IN JAPAN: An Abridg ment of the Government Narrative of U. S. Expedition to Japan Under Co modore Perry. By ROBERT TOMES New York: D. Appleton & Company 1857. [From A. Morris, 97 Mail Street.

We are not particularly fond of abridg ments in general, but the author of this one has a peculiar right to reduce the ponderous work of the Government int smaller dimensions, since he contribute 1 originally much of the material, aLi knows much better than any body els can, how to cut out considerable portions without injuring the unity of the narro tive. The Government volumes were s costly as to be wholly out of the reach the million, and it was therefore desim that an abridgment of it should be offere: at a reasonable price. Mr. Tomes ha performed an acceptable service in ar ranging this convenient work for publi cation.

THINGS NOT GENERALLY KNOWN: A Popular Hand Book of Facts not Readily Accessible in Literature, History and Science. Edited by DAVID A. WELLS. New York: D. Appleton & Company

1857.

Upon general principles we are disposed to receive volumes like the present with little favour, because they seem to offer an easy way, a ride by the rail, as it were, to knowledge, and we think that very much of the superficial learning and shallow observation of the present day may be traced to the employment of these mental labour-saving machines. Nevertheless they are useful as books of reference, and save the scholar the trouble sometimes of looking up a fact in a huge Encyclopedia, or refreshing his memory by examining a ponderous history. Mr. Wells has put together many curious

The Fourth Annual Report of the Board of Managers of the Petersbur Library Association has just been sp mitted to us in a neat pamphlet from the press of O. Ellyson of Petersburg, Va. This Association, which is under exo lent management, has done much to re fine and elevate the taste of the commu nity that sustains it. With a Library of nearly 5000 volumes, and a Reading Room, in which the leading English and American journals and periodicals are ta be found, it offers to the public a Winter Course of Lectures from gentlemen acknowledged ability, and leaves no in trumentality of popular instruction unem ployed. As long as it remains under the control of such able and efficient officers as are now at the head of its affairs, it must continue to prosper.

The Superintendent of the V. M. Institute published an "Introductory Ad. dress" at the opening of the current session, in which he assumed, for his abnormal institution, certain claims to which we chose to demur, as will be found set forth in the March number of this magazine. In the April number, a Sequel to the "Address" appears,-whether sanctioned at "Head-quarters" or not, we are not informed.

In the "Sequel," we are verily glad to find the claims of the Superintendent greatly softened down. It seems that his friends who enlist under his banner, are not yet prepared to extend the Protectorate of his military establishment quite so far as he is himself disposed to do. We were especially struck with the deference paid to the University, by the writer of the "Sequel." If he is a manat-arms, he seems to have thought it quite within the sphere of his dignity to doff his military chapeau in the presence of that magnificent institution. Its pride of pre-eminence he would by no means wound. But the Superintendent himself is not so entirely deferential, as will be seen by looking into the Introductory Address, (pp. 13, 14,) or into the March Lumber of the Messenger, (p. 162.) He says also, that the Military Institute “at once broke in upon the established systems of college education as they had come down from the monastic institutions of Europe." But the author of the

VOL. XXIV-26

"Sequel," (April No., p. 246,) seems to think that this "breaking in" operation had been performed by a different power. He says: "Now it is one of the chief excellencies of our own University, that its system broke in upon the illiberal systems which precedent had established." So doctors will disagree.

But we must break off just here, lest the author of the "Sequel" may think that we are trying to get up a quarrel between him and the Superintendent, as he seems to think we tried to do, between the University and the Institute, in our article of March last. Now, in all sincerity, we would like to know from this writer, how he can torture any sentence of that article so as to make it even tend "to stimulate unkind feelings between" these two public institutions. We deny the charge, as a forced and wrongful construction of language. No motive so unworthy called forth any word or sentence in that article.

The writer of the "Sequel" thinks that some one of several motives may have called forth the review of the "Introductory Address," in which we took the liberty of indulging, to wit: "the absorbing interest of the great cause of educational progress in Virginia," or "the merit of the Lecture itself," or a desire on the part of the reviewer to give utterance to some unkind feeling."

66

Beginning now with these several hypothetical motives in reverse order, we

say, in the first place, that we never had any "unkind feeling" towards the worthy author of that Address, and of course could not have intended to "give utterance" to any. And here we state, distinctly, that nothing in the article above alluded to, was intended to be personally disrespectful; nor, on the present occasion, shall we intentionally indulge in any remark personally offensive to the Superintendent of the Military Institute, or to any one else. The writer of the 'Sequel" must not think, when we run our lance through the Colonel's logic, that we would be so blood-thirsty as to treat him personally in the same way.

The other motive mentioned, "the absorbing interest of the great cause of educational progress in Virginia,” we confess had much to do with our writing. But therewere two things about this "educational progress" of which we were desirous to give the correct view. The first of these, was the source from which this progress chiefly emanates. We flatter ourselves, that we succeeded in showing to every unprejudiced reader, that the University is the great central power, by which this onward movement is kept up; and that next to, and around this, stand the colleges,-then, outside of the ring, the Institute. The other point which we endeavored to enforce was, that education may be made to progress downwards as well as upwards; and that we must look out, and see that we are going the right way. On this subject the reader is referred to the March number, page 103, where it is shown that the Superintendent would have us progress downwards.

The "

Sequel" says: "Nor will the

truth ever be reached by ridicule." If our article in March was a little tinged at one or two points with ridicule, the only apology we can offer is, that our sense of the ridiculous has always been acute; and whenever any one makes ridiculous assumptions, and from them draws still more ridiculous conclusions, we must be allowed to laugh-nature prompts us to it, and we can't easily help it. Besides, we contend that the truth may often be reached by ridicule. For, when a thing is simply ridiculous, how are we to set it forth in its true light? Must we construct a syllogism according to the rules of Whateley, mount our logical stilts, and, with all the dig nity of an advocate at the Court of Ap peals, state in due form the major and minor premises, with the grounds upon which they are based; then proclaim with all due gravity the inevitable conclusion," therefore, the thing is merely ridiculous?" Wherever a fair semblance of logic appeared in the Address, on points from which we chose to enter our dissent, we met it with fair logical refu tation. But the most plausible logic in the Address, is nothing more than a fine illustration of that form of fallacy which logicians call "Non causa pro causa." We here again refer back to page 162, second column.

The "Sequel" is chiefly a re-cast of the material of the Address; but the metal seems to have been greatly softened in the second moulding. The two writers seem to have viewed some things in a different light. This is especially conspicuous, as we have shown in regard to the obligation of the University to the Military Institute. In regard to the colleges, too, the "Sequel" seems not to set up quite as high claims as the Address had previously done. Let us quote a few sentences first from the Address: "The colleges did not seem to comprehend either the nature or appli cation of discipline. Their students were neither disciplined in good habits, nor were they disciplined for bad hab its," (p. 7.) "The defective scientific instruction was the effect of the college system, and did not proceed from any

want of taste or appreciation on the part of our Virginia students, of these important scientific branches.

"I took charge of the V. M. Institute upon its organization in 1839. It at once broke in upon the established systems of college education," &c.,-(p. 10.) "So that since the year 1839, the system of mathematical and scientific instruction, in six of the most prominent colleges of the State, has been radically changed; the standard of graduation in all, most materially elevated," &c. "The effect of these material changes in the character and quality of collegiate instruction and dicipline, was necessarily to increase in the first place the standard of scientific education, and therefore of graduation," (p. 14.) "I do not hesitate to assert, that there are many high schools and academies amongst us, which afford at this time, a better education than the colleges of Virginia supplied fifteen years sgo."

66

Now, we should say to you, gentlemen,--you college-bred gentlemen, who received your education prior to the "Reformation" of 1839, that you had better try it over again; especially if you can get into one of those high schools" or academies" kept by one who has been nourished at the pure funtain head. As for ourselves, we can bat think that the Superintendent will regard us, as at least tolerably well educated, since we were fortunate enough to get our college training, after the light of the "Reformation" had dawned upon our Old Dominion.

The writer of the " Sequel" seems to view the above assumptions of the Address, through a veil of gauze, which gives them to his eye a somewhat mellowed aspect. He says, "It is disinctly claimed for the V. M. Institute

1st. That it has been an important ency in the educational progress, brough which the State has been passag in the last fifteen years.

"2d. That it has borne a prominent art in elevating the standard of scientieducation in our schools and colleges. "3d. That it was the pioneer in introlueing a more efficient system of discip

line in the schools and colleges of Virginia."

The reader will perceive that there is nothing here about "breaking in upon college systems," "radical changes," """"elevating standards of graduation."

A considerable part of the " Sequel" is taken up with an elaborate effort to prove that the instruction, discipline, patronage, &c., of the University and colleges had not obtained as high a standard in 1839, as the friends of these institutions desired. On this point he might have saved his strength; for we distinctly admitted this to be true in our March number. We believe that almost every one will admit the same thing. We believe, too, that almost every one will admit, as we have done, that decided progress has been made by most of our institutions, since that time; -so of the institutions of the South generally. This, then, is not the point at issue.

We want no shuffling here. Let us come right up to the question. "Is the Military Institute entitled to the high claims it sets up, in regard to reforming the colleges, and increasing their patronage?" Any argument advanced to establish the affirmative of this proposition, with regard to the colleges, will apply with greater force to the University. These arguments are based upon three things. 1st. The low condition of the colleges, prior to 1839. 2d. The organization of the Institute. 3d. The subsequent elevation of the condition of the colleges.

Now, in 1844, the writer of the "Sequel" states the whole number of students attending the six colleges to be 460. This gives an average attendance of 75 for each institution. He gives the University, at the same date, 41 non-professional students. The colleges, then, seem not to have needed as much renovation as the University, thirteen years ago. At present the average number of students in the same six colleges is about 85. That is, the increase of patronage has been about 13 per cent. in thirteen years. The number in the University has meanwhile increased, we suppose, to

at least 400 non-professional students. This gives an increase of patronage, amounting to about one thousand per cent. in thirteen years.

The Superintendent undertakes to show (as quoted above) that the low state of the colleges was owing to defective discipline, and deficient instruction. The writer of the "Sequel" says, (p. 144,) "An inquiry was instituted by the House of Delegates of Virginia, under a resolution of Dec. 22d, 1844, and the committee after an elaborate investigation, reported three causes as operating to diminish the number of matriculations at the University, neither of which is pecuniary distress-but two are stated to be defective discipline—and inadequate preparatory training."

According, then, to the showing of these two gentlemen, the University and the colleges seem to have been in the same category. Both deficient in patronage, because they were not worthy of it, because they were deficient in their method of instruction, and defective in their discipline. How have these defects been remedied? The "Sequel" gives the conclusion of the whole matter in one short paragraph, thus: "Finally, and as resulting directly, in part, indirectly, in part, from the influence of the V. M. Institute, the Superintendent shows that the West Point course of mathematics has been introduced since 1839, into every college of the highest grade in Virginia; [the Address includes also the University,] a more efficient system of discipline has been adopted by all, and that, as a direct consequence from these material causes, the patronage of all has materially increased," (p. 242.)

But with a "tip of the cap," and a very respectful bow, he adds, on page 245, "The Institute stands subordinate to the University, and has always honoured it for its zealous efforts in the cause of education." This same writer goes on a little lower down on the page, "The Institute stands in no rivalry to the colleges. Its course of studies is different its system of discipline is altogether distinct.-" Yet, notwithstanding these. marked distinctions, the University and

colleges could not have arisen to their present enviable degree of prosperity, without the example and influence of the Institute! The efforts of their own Boards of Trustees and their learned Faculties, could have been of no avail, without this miniature pattern of West Point before them! Are not such conclusions simply-ridiculous?

Taking patronage as the test of merit -as the Superintendent does passimand the "example and influence” of the Institute as the cause of "the patronage of all being materially increased ;" and, of course, of the standard of merit in all being elevated, the obligation of the University to the Institute for this "example and influence," is to the aver age obligation of the colleges, (as above shown,) in the ratio of 1000 to 13the patronage of the University having increased 1000 per cent., while that of the colleges has increased only 13 percent.

It seems to us very strange that a subordinate institution should wield such a mighty influence. No, the truth of the matter is, that the prosperity of the Virginia University is to be attributed about as much to the Institute, as it is to Brown University. Prof. Courtenay, it is true, did a great work for that noble institution, and for the cause of mathematical instruction throughout the State, but this he would have done, if he had never heard of the Military Institute. The Institute has done a great deal, too, in the same department. In these remarks we wish to be neither “unkind to the dead," nor "unjust to the living:"nor are we willing to strip the dead of half his well-earned laurels, that we may weave a larger chaplet for the head of the living.

As for the colleges, their more efficient discipline is owing to the "demerit systems." So says the Superintendent. Well, what if it is? Their "system of discipline is altogether distinct" from that of the Institute. "But they express their grades of merit and demerit with numerical figures just as the Institute does." Certainly-and they draw their mathematical figures on the black-board with the same kind of chalk, too. And their relationship in this latter particu