down their arms, especially as there can be little doubt that they will have to do so eventually. Not, indeed, because they are wanting in courage or bravery; none could have displayed more heroism than they; but their resources in men and money-in all that is essential for carrying on a protracted war-being confessedly so much less than those of the North, they must necessarily become exhausted in time, and none can admit this without also admitting that the sooner they put an end to the war the better. Let us hope, for the sake of North and South alike, that the success of General Sherman now before Savannah may be such as to convince the bravest and most desperate that any further resistance to the power of the inexhaustible and resolute North can only result in disaster and ruin to themselves.”

We need adduce no more evidence in order to show that we have acted in strict accordance with the motto on our own titlepage; and if this be admitted, it must also be admitted that we are entitled to a voice in the question under consideration. Indeed, the course of President Johnson thus far may be regarded as sufficient proof that he is disposed to do what is right without being urged to do so by any one; and what is more, that he understands what is right. If we are correct in this impression, Jefferson Davis will neither be executed nor harshly treated, however much he has deserved both. The best way to deprive him of all power and influence is to grant him pretty nearly his own former request― that is, to let him alone; let him go to England, to France, or to any other country he may choose to select for his future residence. But we really do not believe that, if he were left at home, his influence could ever again do us the least harm. Those whom he has deceived and ruined detest or despise him too much to encounter any danger on his account in future. If, however, there are those in authority who think otherwise, or if our leading jurists do so, let him be confined in some of our fortresses, from which he cannot escape. Should this be the course finally decided upon, as we think most likely, it would not be well, for the reasons already mentioned, to treat him with any more harshness than is absolutely necessary to prevent his escape.

With regard to General Lee, whom present rumors represent as likely to be arrested and put on trial, we think that, however clearly guilty he has been in drawing his sword against the Republic, the manner in which he surrendered entitles him to his liberty. Had he been captured in the field of battle, he would have had a right to claim to be treated simply as a prisoner of war. This right we ourselves recognised in advance the very first year the war commenced, -that is, when we entered into stipulations with the rebels

for the exchange of prisoners. Had no belligerent rights been granted them by the leading powers of Europe, this fact alone would have been sufficient to entitle Lee, or any of the other rebel generals who have surrendered, to be considered at worst only as prisoners of war. If even a rebel is entitled to consideration on account of his bravery and skill as a commander, and the long and formidable resistance he has made, the claims of Lee in these respects are beyond question; we think that those who are most dissatisfied with the course which he has pursued, or who feel most resentment against him for the large amount of blood he has shed, would readily admit that he has proved himself the greatest captain of the age, with, perhaps, the sole exception of his conqueror, General Grant.

It will also be found on reflection, even by those who are most incensed against the rebels, that the less of their property that is confiscated the better. Next to capital punishment for political crimes, nothing is more odious than confiscation; nothing excites a stronger sympathy in favor of the sufferers. For this reason, even despots are rather shy of it. Be it remembered that it is the Machiavellian policy in one of its most revolting forms. "When you have conquered those whom you wish to retain in your power," says Machiavelli, "ruin them." Elsewhere he says, "Crush them to the earth; destroy them." Russia and Austria have, indeed, taken his advice but too literally, as the unhappy Poles and Venetians can tell; but even these despots have learned that, after all, it is best not to do all the mischief they can; that it is not well to exasperate even serfs beyond the bounds of endurance.

Still more injudicious would it be, if possible, to deprive the rebel states of their former rights by degrading them to the condition of territories. Although there are many who urge this at the present moment, we do not think there is any danger that it will be acted upon. A little reflection will show that it would flatly contradict what has been the avowed object of the war from the beginning on the part of the Federal government; namely, to force back the revolted states to their former position as members of the Union. Now that they have been forced back, would it be logical to deny that they belong to the Union? To do so would be a virtual recognition of dissolution. We do not indeed mean that the leaders of the rebellion should be permitted to exercise the rights of citizenship; we do not think that they

ought; but we think that all should who are included in the President's proclamation as receiving an amnesty, and we are much mistaken if they are not.

As for slavery, that must be regarded as forever abolished. This will be punishment enough for the rebels, and yet they will be better off ten years hence, with the exercise of ordinary prudence and good management, after paying for their labor, than if they had still held the poor negro in bondage. It is pleasant to observe that many, if not the majority, of themselves begin to regard the subject in this light. And what a wonderful revolution in thought, as well as in fact, in so brief a period! This alone would have shown that the war has not been in vain, had it not been productive of no other fruits. Yet it is premature to exult much in the abolition of slavery until we see what disposition the millions thus set free will make of themselves. It is to be hoped that they will prove themselves worthy of their freedom by honestly working for their bread. As soon as all the questions at which we have thus hurriedly glanced are settled, as we trust they will be before long, the Republic will commence a more brilliant, great, and prosperous career, and excite tenfold more jealousy, than ever among the most powerful nations; a jealousy which, we trust will ere long be as great a source of pride to the Southerner as to the Northerner.

ART. IX.-NOTICES AND CRITICISMS.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE.

Lectures on the Science of Language, delivered at the Royal Institution of Great Britain, in February, March, April, and May, 1863. By Max MÜLLER, M. A., Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford; Correspondant de l'Institut de France. Second series. 12mo. pp. 622. London, 1865.

Ir is a great pleasure to take up another volume by Max Müller, for we are always sure of finding him thoroughly at home in his subject, and we feel a confidence that what he says is well supported by facts. Besides being a profound scholar, he has the power of expressing himself in choice English, in an interesting style, in a way that we do not expect from a German. He exerts through his writings a species of magnetism, very rare in such scholars, which excites his readers to think and study on what he says. By this quality he is well fitted to become one of the leaders of English scholars, and the band of his disciples will continually increase.

The first series of lectures was devoted to showing the existence of the science of language, and the progress it had made, and to a statement of the relation of the various languages of the world to each other, and their possible common origin. In the present volume the author confines himself to the exposition of certain principles and facts as seen chiefly in English and its immediate congeners, both Romance and Teutonic. Two things are especially considered: the clothing of language, or sounds and words, and the inside of language, or the primary and earlier ideas that were expressed by it.

The analysis of sourds given by Max Müller is the most complete and exhaustive that we have ever met with. Both vowel and consonant sounds are classified according to their method of production, and copious wood-outs are given, showing the exact position of the vocal organs in the utterance of each sound. These figures are drawn chiefly from actual inspection, and though in some cases a little exaggerated, show precisely the mode of producing each sound and their relations. We can easily see from these figures, and better yet by practising and observing our own mouths, the ways that letters change among different people. The smallest alteration in the position of the tongue varies the sound; the slightest approximation of the lower lip to the upper teeth will change a th into anf, as we see frequently in the word nothing pronounced by negroes as if noffing. Some persons and tribes find it impossible to distinguish between certain letters, either when they speak themselves or when they hear them. To the Hawaiians k and t are alike, and the ancestral tribes of the Greeks and Romans had the same difficulty about q or k and p. But phonetic decay is owing alınost entirely to muscular relaxation; to disinclination to make the requisite effort to utter the sound-for the change is always towards the easier sound. Sometimes letters are inserted for euphony, as our grammars say, but rather for ease of utterance.

We were somewhat startled to find Mr. Müller an advocate of the system of phonetic spelling, and were inclined to think him rather hasty in his judgment. But further reflection, and a careful perusal of the authorities to which Müller refers, have led us to a revision of our own conservative ideas. We know that a word is only a sound, and that the printed or written word is only the symbol of that sound. At first it expressed that sound exactly, but from the various causes which have led us to speak fast and slur over half our words, they no longer do express the sound. In reality we have two languages, one of sound, and another for the eye, which are only partly coincident, and which are diverging further continually. The question with us is, Shall we retain an inconvenient and unphilosophical system for the sake of habit and some slight advan tages? The chief of these is supposed to be the guide that we have to etymology, and Max Müller is charged with having refuted himself when he says that "sound etymology has nothing to do with sound." What he

means by this is plainly that similarity of sound is no test of an etymology, for we know that sounds have changed by fixed laws, and that in most cases a different sound is to be expected; but it is a sound after all. As far as regards the vowels, etymology would certainly be aided by their fixity. There is no doubt that at some time a reform will become an absolute necessity. We cannot consider such a thing impossible, for the Spaniards have adopted an orthographical reform, and a change is beginning in the spelling of German words, though not an authoritative one. Many nations have already changed their alphabet. These things show that reforms in printing and writing can be made.

On the subject of phonetics much that is valuable can be learned from savage tribes, whose language is now in the state that the language of the Aryan tribes once was. The dialects of the various Polynesian islands display the same peculiarities, in their mutual relations, that marked Sanscrit, Latin, Greek, and Teutonic. Variations in sound, phonetic laws, and most of the causes that can affect language are there seen in full play. In the case of language we must judge the past partly by the present. We must explain what has been done by what is taking place around us. The missionaries at remote stations are doing much for learning by reducing these various languages to writing, and Mr. Müller makes good use of their labors in illustrating his reasoning. Some of them, however, are of that school of philologists, who unfortunately have their headquarters at the Philological Society, who think that a few slight resemblances of any of these half-formed languages to those in modern use are a sufficient proof of paternity. Disregarding all considerations of dissimilarity of structure and of claim of languages, one man claims the Hawaiian to be the primitive tongue, just as another had claimed the Finnish to be the ancestor of the English. A few of these men seem as if actuated by a desire to overturn all the constructions of science, and bring back, as soon as possible, the reign of chaos. One, while confessing his ignorance of Sanscrit, writes a labored essay to prove that Sanscrit is of no use to the student of language. Another, Mr. Wedgwood, we hope has received his coup de grace, at least in one point. We refer especially to page 103, where his derivation of foul, filth, and fiend, from the interjection faugh, pfui, or pooh, is discussed.

Mr. Muller, again, urges the importance of a study of the roots of language, and elucidates the statements he had made in his former volume. The expression which he had used of phonetic types had occasioned some misconception, and in one lecture he shows the reality of such roots, and the probability that they were primarily used as words; that they were concrete before they became abstract. The necessity that the words of any language be reduced to roots is obvious before any speculations are indulged in with regard to their origin. At present it is better to drop all theories about the origin of language, and spend