ARTICLE X. NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS. THE LIFE OF THOMAS PAINE; with a History of his Literary, Political, and Religious Career in America, France, and England. By Moncure Daniel Conway. To which is added a Sketch of Paine by William Cobbett, hitherto unpublished. In Two Volumes. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. (Pp. xviii. 380 and 489. 3% x65%.) $5.00. Former lives of Paine have not been the best specimens of biographic honesty. Mr. Conway thinks he can discover five falsehoods on the titlepage of one of them, and that the prevarications are not confined to that page alone. Mr. Conway is far from being a disinterested biographer, but we believe that he has endeavored to get at the real truth and to state it fairly. All that he has to say in honor of Paine's patriotism, in praise of his philanthropy, in explanation of his religious views, in defence of his private life, and in extenuation of his faults, ought to be said, and ought to be believed unless disproved. Although it is scarcely possible that Mr. Conway's estimate of Paine is in every respect the correct one, this work is certainly a contribution toward a proper estimate of the man and his work. If Paine led in half the reforms described by Mr. Conway, he deserves to be remembered by something beside "The Age of Reason." It is little wonder that one who believes in Paine as sincerely and admires him as thoroughly as Mr. Conway does, should exclaim : "The first to urge extension of the principles of independence to the enslaved negro; the first to arraign monarchy, and to point out the dangers of its survival in the presidency; the first to propose articles of a more thorough nationality to the new-born states; the first to advocate international arbitration; the first to expose the absurdity and criminality of duelling; the first to suggest more rational ideas of marriage and divorce; the first to advocate national and international copyright; the first to plead for the animals; the first to demand justice for woman; what brilliants would our modern reformers have contributed to a coronet for that man's brow, had he not presently worshipped the God of his fathers in a way that theologians called heresy!" (i. 48.) We are somewhat surprised at some of the above, but whatever may be said of Paine's claim to having been the pioneer in all of these advance movements, with them all he was certainly identified, and his services in connection with them deserve to be remembered. The volumes before us are singularly free from a controversial spirit, when their subject, the stormy times to which they relate, and the interest of the author are remembered. The author acknowledges the help which he has received from all classes in the preparation of this work, and that no prejudice, political or religious, has impeded him. We trust that the same spirit of fairness will characterize the book's reception that has assisted in its preparation. Apart from all differences of opinion about his religion, and conflict of testimony about his death, no one can read these volumes without profound sadness that a life that displayed so many elements of strength should have been so encompassed with weakness; nor has even fiction a more tragic or pathetic event than his dying, disfranchised, in the republic which he helped to found. Mr. Conway has wrought over the subject of Paine's imprisonment in Paris with great care, and thinks that he has discovered the reason for it in the machinations of Governeur Morris, our minister to France. His case against Morris is at least a damaging one. Morris's appointment was not without opposition in America, and was confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 16 to 11 Nor was he popular in France. He was known to side with Eng land in her trouble with the French government. The French demanded his recall, and Washington seems to have wished to accede to the request. Some American vessels having been detained in France, the captains desired Morris to secure their release; but Morris, wishing to make it an international affair, laid the matter before the United States government instead of the French. The captains, impatient at the delay, drew up a petition to the French government, which was granted through Paine. Paine roundly censured Morris for taking his country's money and rendering it no service, and Morris, indignant that the French should treat with Paine instead of himself, as well as chagrined at the failure of his ulterior design in the detention of the ships, bided his time. This is Conway's theory. In support of this, a posteriori, he finds in Robespierre's order for Paine's arrest, no charge, but, a statement that it is in the interests "of America as much as France:" "Demander que Thomas Payne soit décréte d'accusation pour les intérêts de l'Amerique autant que de la France." In Morris's cold-blooded letter to Jefferson in which he refers incidentally, "lest I should forget it," to Paine's imprisonment and repeated appeals to him, he thinks he discovers a deep calculating scheme to keep Paine in prison, under pretence of making him safer from the guillotine: "I incline to think that if he is quiet in prison he may have the good luck to be forgotten, whereas should he be brought into much notice, the long-suspended axe might fall upon him." It can hardly be that Morris was sincere in this, whatever his intentions may have been. The French government, convinced that he was not to be recalled, was now courting his favor: for America was France's only ally against England, and Morris's sympathies tended to reverse America's cordial feeling toward France. The one thing that appears certain is that Morris could have secured Paine's release if he had desired, and that he could also have rescued him from the "longsuspended axe," had that later threatened him. The reader can hardly repress the conviction that Jefferson, then Secretary of Foreign affairs and the friend of Paine, or Washington, who repeatedly acknowledged the nation's indebtedness to Paine, would have rescued him but for the letters of Morris. Taking the work as a whole, it has awakened our deep interest, and on many points carried our assent. In saying this we do not deem it necessary to specify the points—and they are numerous—where our own opinion of Mr. Paine or his religious tenets does not coincide with that of the book before Whatever is to be said about Paine's opinions may better be said in connection with the new edition of his works, which the same publishers promise us in the near future, edited by Mr. Conway. Of the biography it is safe to say that it is one of the most important of recent years. us. OUR SIXTY-SIX SACRED BOOKS: How They Came to Us, and What They Are. Second Edition, with Analysis and Questions. By Edwin W. Rice, D. D. Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union. (Pp. 159. 34×5%.) We do not know of any book of like character of which so many good things may be said. It is brief, but its few words mean much it is cheap in price, but rich in information. It is suitable for the home and the school alike. It offers a suggestive outline to the pastor, and a useful and comprehensive bird's eye view of the subject to the general reader. It is simple enough for children, and contains much that is not known but ought to be known by well-read adults. It gives a history of our Bible versions, an account of the various manuscripts, and a discussion of the authorship, date, and purpose of all the books in the Bible. Against this array of favorable statements, we find very little occasion to place unfavorable criticism. Among the very few points that have occurred to us is that a note ought, and might easily be inserted on page 80 concerning the book of Revelation. It is hardly fair to indicate by interrogation points and notes, other and less doubtful questions, and place the date of the Apocalypse without question at 95–100. It would be easy to say, in such a note as that given to the Epistles to Timothy, that this question of date and the entire question of interpretation depends on whether the book predicts the destruction of Jerusalem, and that a large and increasing number of scholars, on the testimony of the book itself, place its date before that event. This would be in line with the author's treatment of similar questions, and would not in the least conflict with what is said of the Apocalypse in the text of pages 78, 79. THE BOOK OF JOB. By Robert A. Watson, D. D. Volume of the Expositor's Bible. New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son. 1892. (Pp. 416. 32x54.) $1.50. Dr. Watson's fresh and picturesque work on Judges and Ruth in this same series led us to expect a good volume on Job; and we are not disappointed. The book of Job is best understood when interpreted in the manner of these expository lectures, and has fallen into good hands to secure an able and appreciative setting forth. We do not agree with the author on every point: we hardly think he has wrought out fully his theory of the rela tion of happiness to blessedness; we do not find ourselves entirely satisfied with the opinion that the author of the book of Job was a Northern Israelite who lived in exile in the desert between the fall of Samaria and that of Jeru salem; the use of chapter xxviii. as "a choral interlude" seems to us out of character with the book, where all drapery, by a perfection of art, is unconsciously supplied by the dialogue itself; we are not convinced that the speech of Elihu is the effort of a later century to make the book conform to current opinion. But these points of difference only emphasize our appreciation of the book as a whole. It is captivating in style, and sound in its subject matter. It rivets the attention, and imparts a thrill such as comes only from mental contact with a profound and potent thinker. We have gone through it with interest almost amounting to eagerness, and rise from its perusal with a heightened regard for that sublimest of all poems in the world's literature, the book of Job. SACRED IDYLS: A Metrical Version of Solomon's Song, with Appropriate Explanations. By Professor James Strong. New York: Hunt and Eaton; Cincinnati: Cranston and Stowe. (Pp. 74 54x72.) $1.50. Professor Strong laments the fact that the Song of Songs is practically ignored as a part of Holy Writ, and that beyond this there exists a deeprooted and wide-spread prejudice against quoting it as an inspired production. Believing that a knowledge of the purport of the book would tend to a removal of these conditions, he has arranged this version in blank-verse with occasional stanzas of rhyme. An appendix gives the author's theory of the work, and a literal translation in which he seeks to justify the preceding exposition. The form of the work is attractive. The volume is gotten up like a gif:-book, with the words of the cantata in script, and with several engravings. The work is well done,--as is everything done by Dr. Strong,—and we find but one objection to it, which, however, is fundamental: we cannot agree with his interpretation of the poem. Ascribing the authorship to Solomon, he assumes that the occasion is his marriage to the Egyptian princess, and that the interpretation is to be allegorical. To give a sample each of his blank verse and rhyme, we quote from the beginning of the third scene, or morning of the second day : "Bridegroom: Wake not, I beg, fair Zion's maids, my love, The timid fawn, until her sleep be o'ei. Bride: Bridegroom: Like bounding deer 'Tis he, my loved one's voice! Rise, come with me, my love! The fig puts forth its fruit, The vines their fragrance yield; Rise, fair one, at my suit. And join me in the field. Coy nestler in thy bower, (Chap. ii. 7-14.) We quote this simply to show the character of the versification, and will not stop to point out reasons, which seem to us conclusive, why the first couplet belongs to the Shulamite and to the close of the preceding scene.1 The reason for moving this couplet from its place displays itself even more obviously throughout the work, and illustrates the insuperable obstacles in the way of any allegorical interpretation that can be of service to the Church as illustrating her relations to Christ. Without undertaking to point out in detail the places where this theory seems to us to fail, we instance the first dream of the Shulamite, which is here placed as Act IV., Scene I. (Chap. v.-vi. 2, 3). Beginning with the eighth verse, new and unnatural characters have to be introduced to sustain the interpretation, the whole of that chapter and three verses of the next being given to the dream; whereas, the characters present are sufficient, the recital of the dream ends with verse 7, and the dream is not referred to again. To avoid the natural interpretation, which refers the entire conversation in this scene to the persons present, —the Shulamite and “the daughters of Jerusalem," or court ladies,—much tinkering of the text is necessary: thus, into verses 8, 9, 10, vi. 1, and 2, bracketed explanations are introduced into the "literal translation," as follows: "I said to some passing females; ""But they only answered;" "I replied;" "The females then seemed to rejoin ;” “I could only say." All this is artificial, and becomes more and more improbable as the text is more carefully studied. In a word, the supposition that the Shulamite loves Sol omon is fraught with insuperable difficulties. If anything were necessary to disprove the theory that the Shulamite returns Solomon's love, beyond the fact that she answers his most vehement protestations of affection for her in the second person with frank avowals of love for her "beloved" in the third person; that she never says anything which implies affection for any one else than this absent "beloved;" that the court ladies praise Solomon to her, and ask disparagingly, "What is thy beloved more than another beloved?" that she repeatedly implores those who tempt her not to stir up love till it please; that she is sad by day amid her strange surroundings, and at night is haunted with troubled dreams of her absent "beloved;” that, throughout, (until near the close, vii. 11) her lover is not addressed as present; that the only time Solomon is addressed by the Shulamite, he is told to keep his 1 One reason, sufficient if there were no others, is the inadmissibility of the translation on which the paraphrase is founded (chap. ii. 7b): "Lest ye at all disturb the beloved Until she please [to arise]." Compare the Revision: "That ye stir not up, nor awaken love, |