for a succession of years in the University of Edinburgh, it might be expected to display all the learning and fidelity, which the subject demands. And in these respects, the reader is not disappointed; for the work manifests much diligent research, and a good deal of philosophical reflection. It imparts a just knowledge of the progress of literature and the arts, and of the state of society and government of different countries at different periods. All this is done so much better than it had been done before, in a small compass, that the work is a very useful addition to the class of books to which it belongs, though not calculated for the earlier stages of education. It too frequently indicates, that its origin was in the lecture room; for while it is sufficiently full of the philosophy of history, the philosophy is not sufficiently taught and illustrated by examples, to comport with the ancient definition of history given by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, which is so often quoted to this day. The speculations are too often dry and uninteresting, and not sufficiently intelligible to the young pupil, whose attention must be lured by easy and simple narrative, and who cannot be expected to gain much from abstruse reasonings upon causes and consequences, either physical or moral.

The style of this history partakes of the general character of the work itself; and is wanting in that simplicity, which is necessary to adapt it to youthful minds.

Well conducted philosophical discussions concerning persons and facts, are indeed among the higher excellences of the historian; but considerable maturity of mind is requisite, in order to estimate their value, and to derive from them the instruction they are intended to impart. We are persuaded that many of these discussions in Tytler's Elements are above the reach of learners, and anticipate much more historical knowledge than the book itself furnishes. This is a great blemish, and very discouraging to young readers. Indeed one of the greatest mistakes, and a mistake among the most difficult to avoid, both in books and in modes of teaching, is the presuming of too many things as already known, which are known only to the writer or preceptor. We are too apt in imparting instruction to children and youth, to come too suddenly to results, forgetting some of the steps by which we ourselves arrived at the knowledge we would convey; and the learner strives and perplexes himself in vain, to supply the defects of his teacher.

One other defect of this work, considered as an elementary

book, is the arrangement of its materials. It is divided into chapters, the subjects of which are often but slightly, and sometimes not at all connected with each other. The thread of historical narrative is so frequently broken, that the interest of the pupil is not awakened and sustained, and he comes from his task with vague and indistinct impressions. After having studied the whole work with diligence, he will indeed have obtained many important facts and useful truths; but his knowledge will be confused and unconnected, and no regular outline of the history of any empire or state will be impressed upon his

mind.

We are confirmed in the justness of the foregoing remarks, by the testimony of several experienced teachers; and it was probably the growing dissatisfaction with Tytler's Elements, which was perceived to exist among instructers and their pupils, that induced one of our own countrymen to offer the public a work of similar kind, but of a character more pleasing and popular.

The work to which we refer, is a Compend of History, by Samuel Whelpley. If Tytler, in his style, aiming to be didactic, is dry, and philosophically dull; Whelpley, on the contrary, striving to charm too much, by the eloquence of his diction, is often verbose and declamatory. As it is impossible to tell at how early a period of life a false taste in the use of language may be formed, we do not think it unimportant, and we deem the present a fair occasion, to protest against some of the faults of style, which pervade this Compend. We have said it is declamatory, not in the worst sense of the word, but far too declamatory for history. It is seldom sufficiently simple, and everywhere abounds too much in epithets; and the writer too frequently forgets, that there is any distinction between the province of the historian, and that of the orator. Hence it is there are many passages, which would not disgrace a fourth of July oration, and some, which would be animated and not unseemly in the pulpit; but which, in both kinds, are out of place in history. The directions of all the standard, philosophical critics require in narration a style at once concise and comprehensive, a style, which rejects superfluous words and circumstances. Redundant epithets are even sparingly allowed to poets; least of all writers, perhaps, to the historian. But beside the multitude of epithets, in the Compend of which we are speaking, they are often offensive in their kind. It is, to be sure, the

duty of the historian to give the proper proper moral distinctions between characters and between actions; but having done this, without exaggeration, he has done his duty. There is no need of perpetually heaping up epithets, as if it were impossible to reach the full measure of panegyric or indignation, which the person or action seems to invite or provoke. Infamous, atrocious, and abandoned,' are all linked together to brand one character ; another is an 'infernal monster,' and his acts those of 'savage barbarity;' 'atrocities of a villain, who deserves to sink into the shades of eternal infamy, ten thousand degrees below Nero or Domitian.' Now we must acknowledge, that these, and many other examples of the same kind, are not to our taste; and we should fear they would rather give our children a relish for the language of violent crimination, than increase their abhorrence of the criminal or of his crimes.

The arrangement of Whelpley is far preferable to that of Tytler, and the different portions of history are carried on with much less interruption. Many chasms have been filled by the recent editor, who laments, that the author scarcely touched some of the most important topics of history. The additions thus made, comprise about a third part of the last edition, and a valuable part; but they show the difficulty of completing a work, projected, but not sufficiently filled up by a previous hand. Though most of the additions are such as belong to a book of this kind, according to its general plan, yet they are sometimes disproportioned to the other parts, and more prolix than the subjects themselves seem to require.

There are some portions of the modern history, and those perhaps not the least entertaining and instructive, which do not come strictly within the plan of a compendious history. We mean those parts, which deal in generalities, which appear to belong to geography or itineraries, rather than to an elementary work of universal history.

If the remarks we have made are well grounded (and we have certainly no disposition to disparage either of the works mentioned), the appearance of a compend of history, more elementary than any preceding, cannot be unwelcome. We have, therefore, been induced to examine Mr Worcester's Elements of History, with attention, in the hope, that its contents would vindicate its title. His well earned reputation, in works of a kindred sort, justly excited an expectation concerning its merits, in which we are not disappointed. Though at first sight it may

appear to be too small, and too limited in its details, yet it will be found to contain a great mass of facts; for it is altogether historical, and shows that the author keeps in view the boundaries, which separate history, as well from geography, as from biography and travels, except so far as the ground is necessarily common. Geography is unavoidably connected, in some degree, with history; and in such a manner, that it has been significantly called, no less than chronology, one of the eyes of history. Mr Worcester, therefore, came to his new task with peculiar advantages, which will be more distinctly perceived, when we come to speak of the Charts, which accompany the History.

Historical truth is obtained frequently with great difficulty. In modern, and even in recent history, much critical discrimination, no less than unceasing fidelity, is often required to separate the true from the false. But in ancient history the task is vastly greater. The real and the fabulous have come down to us so mingled, as to demand the severest exertion of judgment to distinguish them. If, however, the object of history be not something more than amusement, or something different from instructive fiction, the labor of distinguishing them would hardly be repaid; and the credulity or want of discrimination, which mark the ancient history of Rollin, and which caused him to admit into it so much exaggeration, and so much of fictitious story, are not deserving of censure. But as a main object of history is truth, we cannot but commend the severity of Mr Worcester's judgment, by which he excludes from his elements of ancient history, what in his estimation is fabulous, or gives the necessary cautions against receiving it for truth.

It will be thought by some, perhaps, that this work is too partial in its extent, and that, in modern history particularly, it should embrace all the principal states and empires; giving to each a proportion of space corresponding to its relative importance, instead of confining its details to a few, whose history is the most interesting. This apparent defect, however, is supplied in a great measure by the Charts, in which is embraced a vast deal more than, from a cursory survey of them, we should be led to conclude. The foundation is therefore laid for an elementary history far more extensive, which the author can hereafter build upon, if it should be demanded. In the mean time, the pupil, who shall become possessed of all the facts which are here offered him, will have made no small advances in historical knowledge. These facts are presented also in an engaging manner, not only in the charts, which assist the memory, by forming a kind of picture of history for the eye, but also by the style in which the Elements are written. It is a style uniformly neat; without effort or perceivable ambition; without exaggeration from the use of superlative epithets; and unpolluted by any gross expressions. At the same time, it does not want for vivacity, and as far as we can judge for our juniors, we should expect to find the book read with great interest by them, and to be well understood by all, who are capable of entering on the study of history.

Connected with the Elements are nine large folio charts, comprising historical facts, combined with chronology, in such a way, that the great outlines of history may be learned with far greater facility, and by the power of association will be more permanently fixed in the memory, than in the ordinary method. There is no forced analogy, in this respect, in comparing them with maps in geography; the chart giving nearly the same kind of locality to persons and things, as the map does to places. Single charts of history and biography have been more or less used for many years; and valuable collections, like that of Le Sage, have been published in a manner much too expensive for general use; so that Mr Worcester is the first, who has given the American puhlic an opportunity to try this mode of instruction to any great extent. We have carefully examined his charts, and are fully persuaded of their great utility, and of their general

correctness.

One great excellence of these charts is, that, when studied with the Elements, they will enable the pupil to attend at once to the connexion of time and subject, and thus remove a great difficulty, which has always been experienced in the arrangement of general history. By means of the charts, the author has been enabled to devote his book to the more important parts of history, and to some topics particularly useful in an introduction to the study. He has also avoided the necessity of incumbering it with dates, to any considerable degree, and been enabled to trace a regular and uninterrupted outline of those empires or states, a knowledge of which is most important or interesting to the mass of readers and pupils in our own country. By presenting the whole skeleton of history (if we may so speak) in the charts, the necessity of treating of the minor states, in the book itself, is for the most part unnecessary; for by inspecting