canonical Gospels, and the profound reverence in which they were held from the earliest times, the Diatessaron is of the highest value in establishing their integrity, their completeness and freedom from corruption.

The earliest notice of the Diatessaron, formerly known to students, is contained in a paragraph of Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, written about A. D. 325. He there tells us:

The former leader of the Encratites, Tatian, composed somehow a sort of connection and combination of the Gospels, and called it the Diatessaron; and this work is circulated in some quarters, even to the present day.

I

Theoderet, A. D. 420-457, in his treatise on Heresies, says: He [Tatian] composed the Gospel called the Diatessaron. myself found more than two hundred such copies in reverential use in the churches of our district. All these I collected and removed, replacing them by the Gospels of the four Evangelists.

Theoderet tells us that he removed the book from general use in the churches because it omitted the genealogies and some other passages, rather vaguely described as showing the Davidic descent of our Lord. We feel convinced that the reason suggested was not the true motive for the expulsion of the book, and agree with Zahn and Martin, that it was not condemned because of any grave error or imperfection. Neither Iraneus, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Eusebius, nor Epiphanius include the heresy of the denial of the Davidic descent of our Lord among the false doctrines they ascribe to Tatian; and the fact that the Harmony had been long previously in approved use in the Orthodox Catholic churches in place of the canonical Gospels, shows conclusively that it cannot have been marked by heretical features. Theoderet's predecessors in the See of Cyrrhus, of unquestionable orthodoxy, would not have permitted such an abuse.

The evidence adduced would seem sufficient to convince any but the most prejudiced and unreasonable of men that Tatian did write the Diatessaron. Yet that evidence was rejected by the critics of the Tübingen school. Rationalists committed to the doctrine that our canonical Gospels, and especially that of St. John, are apocryphal documents dating from late in the -second century, clearly perceived that the admission of the Harmony of these four Gospels by Tatian would be fatal to their theory. They whittled down, explained away, or obscured the historical evidence for the Diatessaron. The witnesses were discredited. The slightest confusion of statement was exaggerated. The actual meaning of many passages was distorted.

TH

REFORMATION.

PROFESSOR G. Kawerau.

Theologisches Literaturblatt, Leipzig, No. 33.

HE recent researches of Professor Walther into the history of German Bible Versions before the days of Luther have brought forth most surprising and even astounding results. He has found no fewer than eighteen complete editions of the Bible in German, also one in Dutch, and thirty-one editions of portions of the Bible. In addition to these he has discovered two hundred and two manuscripts, and in these has unearthed thirtytwo different versions of the Psalter and forty translations of larger or smaller portions of the Scriptures. What makes the matter more remarkable is the fact that many of these manuscripts do not contain original and new translations, but are

only copies, and we are led to the conclusion, that we have retained only a portion of the literary work done in this line before Luther gave his magnificent version. The calculations of Walther himself in this respect are exceedingly problematical, especially in regard to the number of manuscript translations which must have been lost. He argues that of the printed versions of that age only about 6 per cent. have been preserved in our libraries, and 94 per cent. have been destroyed. In the same ratio, he thinks the total number of manuscripts of German Bibles, entire or in parts, must have been at least 3,600.

However, some other considerations must not be overlooked in order properly to estimate the value and bearings of these new data. Let us note only the following facts. Of the Latin Vulgate, no fewer than ninety-eight complete editions are known to have appeared before the year 1500. Compared with this number, the twelve German editions cut rather a small figure. One of the favorite hand-books for the clergy, the Postilla Guillermi, had appeared in seventy-five editions down to the year 1500. Similar data exist in regard to other books. Comparatively, then, the German Bible was, even with the surprising figures given by Walther, rather sparingly used. This becomes all the plainer when we compare the figures with those of Luther's translation a few years later. Between 1466 and 1522, only eighteen German Bible Editions appeared. In the twelve years from 1522 to 1533, no fewer than eighty-five editions of Luther's version of the New Testament left the press. In this connection the question of the cost of a Bible in those days is interesting. From a remark written in one of the Bibles printed in the year 1489, we learn that the book at that time was sold for nine florins. As the market price of a fat ox at that period was three florins, the comparative value of a Bible is apparent.

One of the most remarkable features brought to light by these researches is the fact that in most cases these translators worked entirely independently of each other. The movement to give the Bible to the people was evidently not organized, but showed itself in many quarters at the same time. Again, it has now been made clear that these German Bibles did not emanate from Waldensian sources, as was maintained some years ago. This, too, has been made clear, that these versions did not come from the official circles of the Church. The Church merely tolerated them, because she could not forbid them. The versions all date from a period after 1340, and flourished in a period when the Papal power was rapidly decaying. In not a single case can it be shown that a Roman Catholic ecclesiastic had anything to do with the printing of any one of these translations.

MAN

MISCELLANEOUS.

PHYSICAL PROWESS.

ROBERT RAYMOND WILLIAMS.

Munsey's Magazine, New York, November.

AN, we know, is a creature a little lower than the angels; the end and aim of terrestrial evolution; a being whose marvelous past, and yet grander future are the philosopher's inspiring theme. But man is also an animal, genus and species, homo sapiens, belonging to the sub-kingdom, vertebrata, class mammalia. Reform his mental nature, strenthen his intellectual power as you will, the basis of his existence will always be animal structure, whose formation is his begetting, and whose dissolution is his death.

Physical beauty and physical strength-the love of them has run through all the ages of man's history. It is the common ground on which past and present meet. To the old Greek, strength and beauty were the motives of his heart, the ideals of his religion, the mainsprings of his life. Proud, indeed, was the State that could claim an Olympic victor among her

citizens. On his return home he would be greeted with great public rejoicings, and led to his home in triumph through a breach made in the city walls-in token that a city who possessed sons of such prowess had no need of walls. So long as he lived he was free from taxes, and the first seat at public celebrations was his. Rich Athens paid him five hundred drachmæ from her treasury; and warlike Sparta gave him the coveted privilege of fighting at the king's right hand in battle. The other races of early civilization were hardly behind the Greeks in their love of physical prowess. In Hebrew story, for example, Sampson plays a part comparable to the Herakles of Hellenic legend. At Rome the very names of the city and its mythical founder were derived from a root that signifies "strength." Roman skill and success in war went hand in hand with Roman delight in gymnastics. Very instructive is the degradation of sport that accompanied the decline of national character and the loss of liberty. The degradation of the Roman games marked the degradation of the race.

Through the dark ages athletic prowess was little sought or prized, save as it shone in war, or the mimic war of the mediæval tourney, where knights, mounted and armored, battled with spears for the applause of a watching court, or the favor of some fair lady. Athleticism is a modern revival, in the development of which the Anglo-Saxon race prides itself on having taken the lead.

That development may be said to have had its first real beginning about a century ago. In those days the present machinery of athletics-the great clubs, the championship meetings, the multiplicity of contests, the valuable prizes-was unknown. Cricket was first becoming recognized as a game whereat men played in tall hats and swallowtail coats. Football existed only in a primitive state; of base-ball and other modern favorites, there were only rudimentary beginnings. The first Oxford and Cambridge boat race was rowed thirty years later. But the noble art of boxing was attracting an increasing circle of devotees, and its professional champions were beginning to take rank among the celebrities of the hour.

Boxing led the development of modern athletic sports. It is the one that appeals more directly to man's ineradicable admiration of physical prowess, and its champions attract the homage of the masses to an extent that is to-day simply marvelous. That was an extraordinary and a significant sight in New York a few weeks ago, when Madison Square Garden was thronged by the thousands who assembled to greet the man who had a few days before lost the pugilistic laurel wreath. The scene was one of uproarious enthusiasm such as political excitement never inspired. The philosopher may have smiled with perhaps a trace of cynicism in his smile to see men pushing and yelling, fighting and scrambling for the privilege of touching the outermost hem of their hero's garment; but the spectacle revealed a phase of human nature that he may disapprove but cannot ignore.

You cannot indict a nation as Burke said; but if it is wrongful to take an interest in pugilism, then what a nation of sinners we were not long ago, when the fistic championship was at issue between Sullivan and Corbett! It would indeed, with nineteen men out of twenty, be sheer affectation to pretend indifference to the dramatic combat in which the science and agility of the younger combatant ended the supremacy of a man, who, considering solely his physical development, was undoubtedly, in his prime, one of the most perfect specimens of muscular manhood that ever was seen.

Men of peace! No we are nothing of the sort. The modern Anglo-Saxon is a fighter as his savage ancestors were. He goes into war with a zest as keen as any other nation's and a pluck which is or at least he thinks it is a little better than any. Between his wars he fights the lesser battles of the football field, the pugilistic ring, the base-ball diamond, or looks on and shouts approval while others fight. His boys learn to double their fists almost as soon as to walk; their favorite

Bible stories are of David's fight with the Philistine giant and the muscular exploits of Samson; they go to school to be taught to venerate the classic deeds of the fleet-footed Achilles and the masterful Herakles, and to regard as the modern successor of those ancient heroes the youth who, among his schoolmates has the quickest eye and the most powerful biceps. How can we ever forget that ""Tis excellent to have a giant's strength" when we are reminded of the truth of the adage at almost every turn of our daily lives?

THE

American Anthropologist, Washington, October. HERE is no need of proving that the name of the Mexican 'Chief of Men" (Flaca-tecuhtli) who perished while in the custody of the Spaniards under Hernando Cortes in 1520, was Mo-tecuhzoma, literally "Our Worthy Chieftain." Bernal Diez del Castillo, an eye-witness and the much prejudiced author of the "True History" of the Conquest, is responsible for the corruption into Montezuma, which has since become popular and most widely known. It is interesting how the misspelling has taken hold of the public mind, how it has completely supplanted the original true orthography and meaning. Meaning even is out of place here, for, while Motecuhzoma is a legitimate Nahuatl with a very plain signification, and also a typical Indian personal name, Montezuma has no signification whatever; and yet in Mexico, even the Nahuatl Indians -those who speak the Nahuatl language daily-know only Montezuma and would hardly recognize the original name as applicable to him, whom they have been taught to call an "emperor."

Still, it is not so strange when we consider that at Cozcatlan, in the State of Pueblo, at least two hundred miles from the City of Mexico, the Indians gravely tell the traveler that the ruins of an ancient Indian town in that vicinity are those of the "Palace of Montezuma," where that “ emperor" was 'born," and whence he started out to 'conquer the City of Mexico." It cannot surprise us to hear of perversions of names only. The folk-tale of the Indians of Cozcatlan (a modern tale, of course) shows how easily facts are distorted in the minds of primitive people when they do not originally belong to the circle of their own historical tradition.

No mention is made of Montezuma in Spanish documents on the Southwest of an earlier date than 1664, when, speaking of the (then recently discovered) ruins of Casas Grandes, in northwestern Chihuahua, Francisco de Gorraez Beaumont and Antonio de Oca Sarmiento speak of those buildings as the old "houses of Montezuma." Such an utterance, coming from Spanish officers of high rank, shows that even then the name Montezuma had become, in the minds of the Spaniards themselves, confounded with migration-tales of Indian tribes of a very ancient date, and that those tales apply, not to the unfortunate war-chief of the time of Cortes, but to one of his predecessors in office, Motecuhizoma Ilhuicamina, who commanded the forces of the Mexicans in the early part of the 15th Century, according to the still doubtful chronology of the ancient Mexicans. The confusion between those two personages had already been procreative of a mythical Montezuma in the minds of the educated people. Is it to be wondered at if that mythical figure took a still stronger hold on the conceptions of the simple Indian?

Every Spanish expedition that penetrated to the northward had in its company Indian followers as servants, and sometimes as interpreters, since dialects of the Nahuatl tongue prevailed as far north along the Pacific coast as Sinaloa. Among natives from the interior of Mexico the name Montezuma was, of course, a household word already in the second generation, for the fame of the war chief, and of his tragical end, increased in proportion to the distance from the time as well as from the scene of his career. In that second generation Motecuhzoma was already practically forgotten, and Montezuma remained in the mouths of the people as a hero. An Indian hero very soon becomes a mythical personage, and what with confused reports of old traditions and folk-tales current among nearly every tribe, Montezuma could not fail to become a figure which, in course of time, shone among the folk-lore of nearly every tribe.

Books.

THE CHILD OF THE GANGES; a Tale of the Judson Mission. By the Reverend Robert N. Barnett. 12mo, pp. 355. New York and Chicago: Fleming H. Revell Company.

[Whether the framework of this story is real or fictitious there is no indication in the book. The fortunes of the Orientals who appear in the tale are connected with Adoniram Judson, the Baptist missionary, and his first wife. Some of the incidents relating to Judson are actual occurrences, but for the details of the incidents the author appears to have drawn on his imagination. The heroine, who gives the title to the volume, is so called because she was taken from the Ganges, above Benares, where her mother had thrown her to the sacred crocodile. The little waif fell into the hands of the first Mrs. Judson, who brought her up. Just before the death of Mrs. Judson, it was discovered that the "Child" was the daughter of the Crown Prince of Burmalı, who, discarded by his father for refusing to worship at the shrine of Buddha, had found his way to the Judsons, and, having become a Christian, was living with them at the time of the discovery. With the Judsons at the same time was the wife of the Prince, the mother of his daughter. The scene of the reunion of the family is highly wrought, as are several other scenes in the book. As a specimen of these may be selected a description of the prison into which Judson was thrust, and of its jailer. The jail was known as the death-prison, from the fact that its miserable inmates seldom survived the treatment to which they were subjected.]

THE

'HE death-prison stands on a bare, burning plain just without the city, with not even a palm to protect its inmates from the fierce rays of the tropical sun that dance and shimmer on its slatted sides, or scorch its thinly thatched roof. The prison enclosure is a spacious square, surrounded by a high wall of boards held together by slats pinned on the outside. Within this enclosure, and extending the whole length of one side, is an open shed with the yard wall for its back. Beneath this, in wretched, squalid filth, live the under-jailers, or children of the prison, with their leprous wives and vermin-laden offspring. Without the wall is a structure resembling a square haystack, with steep, peaked roof, in which dwells the father of the establishment.

All the sons of the prison are condemned criminals, and may be recognized anywhere on account of their spotted faces, the sign of outlawry being branded with a red-hot iron on their cheeks, the names of their crimes being labeled in like manner on their breasts. Their lives are spared only on condition of their faithfulness and aptitude to execute all the cruel methods of torture resorted to by the tyrannical Government. They have no possible means of escape, as their ineffaceable sign of guilt is ever visible and known. Their only daily occupation is to torture prisoners. The sole music that greets their ears is composed of the shrieks and groans of suffering victims. As sameness in any occupation in life grows monotonous, they studiously display an ingenious variety in the tortures applied, and only those who make it a life-study could invent, with so few artificial or mechanical appliances, so many different modes as they use. From continual and hereditary association with such a life, they acquire a passionate fondness for their occupation, and nothing is to them such a source of amusement as to inflict their excruciating pains for the first time on a fresh victim, to see his writhings and listen with fiendish exultation to his ear-piercing cries. They never associate with any but prisoners; never see the great world outside, nor the pagan splendor of the palWithin the prison walls they propagate their race, intermarrying only with each other and such unfortunate prisoners as they choose to spare for their base purposes. The wretched children, fruit of incest and adultery, grow up with the vices of their parents entailed upon them, born like these parents, and, by association and practice, worse, if possible-demons and fiends incarnate.

ace.

The head jailer bore on his breast the significant title, "loo-that," man-killer. He is described by Mr. Judson's second wife as a tall, bony man, with sinews of iron; wearing, while speaking, a malicious sinirk, and given at times to a most revolting kind of jocoseness. When silent and quiet, he had a jaded, care-worn look; but at the torture he was in his proper element. Then his face lighted upbecame glad, furious, demoniac. His small black eyes glittered like those of a serpent; his thin lips rolled back, displaying his gums, toothless in front, with a long protruding tusk on either side, stained black as ebony. His hollow, ringed cheeks seemed to contract more and more, and his breast heaved with convulsive delight beneath the fearful word, MANKILLER. The prisoners called him father, when he was present to enforce this expression of affectionate familiarity; but among themselves he was irreverently christened the Tiger-cat."

The prison was a building forty by thirty feet square. The sides were six feet high with a sloping roof fifteen feet high in the centre.

Around the walls were ranged long rows of stocks, composed of two logs with holes bored between, and fastened together with long, wooden pins; each holding a pair of helpless victims by the eet. There was no light of day except the few rays that struggled through the chinks between the boards. By night a faint glimmer, sufficient only to "make the darkness visible," shone from a flame of impure earth-oil in an earthen cup, suspended from a tripod in the middle of the room. The only ventilation came with the light, and, of course, was equally, if not more, scanty. The prison had not been swept since it was built, yet it had been kept continually filled with the vilest of the land. There were no private accomodations and the consequent stench is indescribable. Here were huddled together more than a hundred people of all ages and ranks, and of both sexes.

The keepers never fed their prisoners. If one should enter there so unfortunate as to have no friend without who dared or was able to bring him food and drink, he starved to death. Even then food was not admitted without a fee to the jailer. Those who had no acquaintances in the city lay rolling in the heavy dust, with vermin gnawing their writhing bodies, mosquitos in hordes stinging their fettered feet, gaunt hands, and emaciated cheeks. Their dry, dusty tongues crying pitifully for water, and their empty stomachs, seemed enough to melt any heart; yet the Tiger laughed at their miseries and derived unspeakable delight from their sufferings.

DIE SPRACHWISSENSCHAFT, IHRE AUFgaben, mETHODEN, UND BISHERIGEN ERGEbnisse, Von Georg von der Gabelentz. Leipzig. 1891.

[Down to the present time the leading summaries of the results of comparative philology have been English works-those of Professor Whitney, of Yale, and of the Anglicized German, Max Müller, of Oxford. Both these works are already somewhat old; and a new and fresh treatise, in which the discussions of the onethousand-and-one detail investigations of recent years, particularly those of German scholars, are utiliized, is eminently a desideratum of the hour. This we have here in the volume of the famous Berlin Professor of Chinese, who, if there be one, is a thorough master of the department. Some samples of his conclusions on subjects of particular interest, not to specialists only, but to intelligent readers in general, will only whet the appetite of scholars for a closer study.]

THE

'HE question as to the number of languages and the number of families of languages in existence can as yet only be answered approximately. We do not yet know all languages on the globe, and recent studies in the Indian dialects of America have shown that the so-called isolated languages, i. e., those that are not organically connected with any other tongue, can be reduced by the discovery of family relations where none had been suspected. The question relating to the parentage of languages-i e., must we claim one or more original languages as parent or parents of them all?-is usually discussed, not from scientific grounds, but from religious motives. As yet the question cannot be satisfactorily answered. Attempts have been made to reconstruct the primitive parent-tongue of the globe, and even so thorough a specialist as Schleicher has composed a fable is this imaginary language. The researches of others, especially those of Brugmann, do not agree with those of Schleicher. As yet the entire subject is one of pure speculation. The possibility, however, of reconstructing this primitive parent-language on scientific methods cannot be denied. The relationship existing between languages must be determined chiefly by their grammatical structure. The lexicon must be regarded as a secondary and less reliable guide.

It is a great mistake of many representatives of the historic method of linguistic research to claim that only the ancient and dead languages and literature are worthy objects of investigation. Such a determined classical scholar as Lochmann states that he cannot understand why a person should spend time and work on languages that have no literature. It is the good service of the new school of grammarians to have shown that language, its history, factors, and forms can nowhere be better studied than in the living tongues of today. Accordingly, not only practical but also scientific interests urge a closer investigation of modern languages. This was practically the idea of W. von Humboldt, who taught that a language was never a finished work but rather a power which was active in the mind of

man.

The question as to the origin of human speech must be answered from the basis that man is a zoon politikon (Cov noλitinov). The possibility and the natural tendency to the expression of thought by means of sounds, were by nature implanted in man and were developed under the social relations of man to man. There never was an absolute homo alalus, e. g., a human being without speech. This conclusion is based upon the fact that the existence of man must be accepted as a given fact, whose ultimate origin cannot be scientifically <iiscovered.

WARRIORS OF THE CRESCENT. By the late W. H. Davenport Adams. 12mo, pp. 317. New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1892.

[The "Warriors," depicted by Mr. Adams, are all monarchs. Some of them are classed as "Sultans of Ghazni," and six of them as "The Great Moguls." Ghazni, in Afghanistan, was a famous city in its day, from about 1000 to 1152 A.D. Though now almost forgotten, it was the seat of an extended empire under two different medieval dynasties. The first of the Ghazni Sultans here described is Mahmud, who died in 1030. The last is Timur the Tartar, better known as Tamerlane, whose death took place about the year 1400. "The Great Moguls" come nearer to our time, for Babar, the first of them, died in 1530, and the last, Aurungzib, lived until 1707. A fair specimen of the author's style is his version of the often, though variously, told story of the affection of Aurungzib's father, Shah Jahan, for his wife, in memory of whom the Shah built the Taj Mahal, still standing in perfect condition at Agra, and which has been called "the most graceful and most impressive of the sepulch res of the world."]

IN

N the time of Jahan's father, while Jahan was still only heir to the throne, he was present at a fair, the various stalls of which were presided over by ladies of the Court. The Prince, while making the round of the gay scene, came upon the stall of Aijemund Banu, -daughter of the wazir and wife of Semel Khan, a woman of surpassing loveliness. Struck by her charms, Jahan lingered at the stall for some time. Asking her what she had to sell, he received the laughing reply that she had nothing left but one large diamond, the value of which was enormous. Whereupon, she showed him a lump of fine, transparent sugar-candy, resembling a diamond in shape. Keeping up the jest, he begged to know the price; she rejoined, with a fascinating smile, that she could not part with the diamond for less than a lakh of rupees, or about £12,500. The Prince took her at her word, paid the money, and, enchanted by her beauty and address, invited her to his palace, where she remained for two or three days.

Subsequently he received the fascinating woman into his seraglio. She made such good use of her gifts and graces of mind and person that she became his favorite wife, and acquired a very great influence over him.

On the accession of Shah Jahan to the throne, she was given the title of Mumtaza Zemani, the "Most Exalted of the Age." For twenty years they lived together in the utmost affection, confidence, and fidelity, no other wife dividing with her the Emperor's allegiance; and when she died, his grief was irrepressible.

In obedience to a double

promise made to her on her deathbed, the Emperor took no other wife, and erected at Agra, on the bank of the river Jumna, that magnificent and unequaled mausoleum, the Taj Mahal, which absorbed the labor of 20,000 men for two and twenty years and cost nearly one million sterling.

MR. BILLY DOWNS AND HIS LIKES. By Richard Malcolm Johnston. New York: Charles L. Webster & Co. 1892.

[This is another of Charles L. Webster & Co's. Fiction, Fact, and Fancy Series, edited by Arthur Stedman. The stories are quaint character-sketches of Southern life, by one who is characterized by the Editor in his introductory note as the founder of a school of fiction, and the dean of Southern men of letters." The volume contains six stories, severally entitled "A Bachelor's Counsellings," "Parting from Sailor," "Two Administrations." "Almost a Wedding in Dooly District," Something in a Name," "The Townses and their Cousins." There is a good deal of human nature in the stories, and some very mean traits depicted, but woman is dealt tenderly with through all. The "Parting from Sailor" may serve as an illustration.]

JIM

IM RAKESTRAW was a gaunt, dull, big-footed, lazy fellow, with a house full of children and more dogs than these, including, sometimes, the sides of bacon that were in his smokehouse. With one exception, these dogs were hounds, and that of low degree, so low indeed, that they would plunder hen's nests, and even sneak into the dairy and the pantry and help themselves to whatever they found

there.

Mrs. Rakestraw was an excellent, industrious, and extremely meek woman, trying to bring up her children well, and keep as decent a household as was possible in the circumstances. But Jim, too indolent to work, when not lounging about the house and yard went roaming with his hounds, and tried to believe that the rabbits, squir rels, and opossums taken in these excursions more than compensated for the absence of what his family might have had, if he had been without this pack of greedy consumers, and tended properly the small but sufficient bit of ground which his wife had inherited from her father.

On the place was a dog of which all the family, except Jim, were

very fond-an honest dog, who did not hesitate to attack the hounds on their marauding expeditions about the house, although Jim had several times whipped him for doing it. One day Jim said to his

wife:

Betsy, several people wants that dog Sailor. Mr. Jenks specially told me yesterday he'd like to have him for a guard dog; and I told him if you hadn't any great objection to it, I rather thought I'd let him take him. I didn't say I would positive and p'int-blank, 'cause I ain't sure in my mind that I can make a good thing out of it." And he tried to look very innocent and wise, but he looked only sheepish and foolish.

Mrs. Rakestraw demurred, and the matter dropped for three or four days when Jim announced to his wife that as she had been unwilling to give Sailor away, Mr. Jenks had said he was willing to buy him.

"Oh, Mr. Rakestraw! sell a dog, Mr. Rakestraw! Why I never heard of such a thing. I shall feel bad to see Sailor go; but I'd rather you'd give him to Mr. Jenks out and out than sell him. I don't know what people would think of us for selling such a thing as a dog, poor

as we are.

"It's no business of other people's. But, when a man, and a rich man at that, makes me a offer of twenty dollars for a piece of prop'ty that's no more account than that there cur dog, that he do nothin' under the sun but lay around the house and fight my hounds every chance he git, when he sees my very eye aint on him, like it were him owns these whole preemerses, and not me, why I say ag'in it's my very juty to take it; and my word is done passed to do it and that

to-morrow.

Twenty dollars! That does seem a big price for-for a dog." The next day Jim led Sailor away. When they were out of sight the mother and some of the children cried a little, but they needed money and twenty dollars was a big sum. As the dog was hers Mrs. Rakestraw decided that Jim would give her some of the money, and she comforted herself with the thought of the necessaries she would buy for the children.

Next morning after eating breakfast, and calling up his hounds, Jim remarked:

Betsy I'm going a huntin' this mornin'. 'Twasn't exactly convenient yesterday, and so Mr. Jinks said he'd send the pay for Sailor over here some time about 9 o'clock. Take keer of 'em till I get back won't you? and don't let the children go to handlin' nor meddlin' in no ways.

Two hours later Mr. Jink's negro boy arrived with a couple of hound pups.

I couldn't tell the dissappointment, the sense of humble hopelessness, nor the less humble submission. Yet there was some relief in that her husband had not sold the dog for money, a thing which she feared might have lowered him yet further in people's opinion.

IN

THE LONDON DAILY PRESS. By W. H. Massingham. With Illustrations and Portraits. New York and Chicago: Fleming H. Revell Company. 1892. (The Leisure Hour Library-New Series.) N this volume we have a history and description of the five great London Dailies-The Times, The Standard, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Chronicle, and The Daily News. The Evening papers are grouped together under two heads, the penny papers and the halfpenny papers, but they are all discussed individually, and the author writes as one thoroughly familiar with the inner workings of all of them, and, moreover, in the style of a journalist. In the Introduction, which is somewhat lengthy, the Daily Press is considered solely from the point of view of the Christian and the moralist. Gratification is expressed at the growing amount of space devoted to ecclesiastical news and intelligence about foreign missions; but the notice of racing and betting events, and the unsavory details of sensational cases which, together, occupy so much of its space, are commented on with grave disapproval. But realizing the force of the journalistic plea that the public only get what they ask for and insist on having, the author throws the responsibility upon the readers: the Christian readers, who are careless or hopeless in the matter of reform; and urges them to assert themselves, and demand Christian literature for Christian readers. Surely if the best sentiment in the land would make its demands felt, it should be strong enough to command a good, broad sheet, which neither in fact nor comment shall lend countenance to things that are not pure, lovely, and of good report.