Page:American Historical Review vol. 6.djvu/181

 Minor Notices i 7 1 which throng the streets, squares and gardens, and take part in the daily life of the Parisians. Good photographs of the buildings or places de- scribed embellish the text, and maps affording bird's-eye views of the different quarters of Paris serve as a glossary. Historical accuracy is not to be expected in a compilation of this nature, nor should we cavil at such fusions of fact and fancy as Hugo, for instance, delights in. And the objection which might be raised that many of the descriptions are a generation and more old can be met by the answer that the illustrations are recent and correct possible miscon- ceptions. But the errors of proof-reading are more serious. French accents come and go at will, as "Theatre des Varietes " (p. 308). Words are disfigured, as 71?// for Faif (p. 251) ; Quai de la Rappe, for Rapee (p. 222). The editor seems to have personal views about orthography, for ' ' Sevigne ' ' and ' ' Palais Royale ' ' occur repeatedly ; while to label the vista of the Champs Elysees the " Bois de Boulogne" (p. 390) shows negligence. These defects detract from the general excellence of the press-work. F. M. Warren. A Short History of Russia, by Mary Piatt Parmele (New York, Scribner, pp. xii, 351). Mrs. Parmele reminds one of a person wading along an irregular beach. At times she makes rapid progress, and is not impeded by the depth of water ; occasionally she meets with a gully where expert swimming is required, and expert swimming is not in her province. The book seems to be largely a condensation of Rambaud's History of Russia, but the author is not slavish in following Monsieur Rambaud's lead. She has some just ideas of the formation of the Rus- sian Empire and she is quite right in dealing with it as the history of a power and not of a people. Unfortunately she does not write in a very accurate English style and the volume is disfigured by many misprints and by some serious errors of statement. For instance, speaking of the Princes of Moscow, she says (p. 63) that their line has remained un- broken until the present time. But a little further on (p. 97) speaking of the death of Dmitri and Feodor, the sons of Ivan the Terrible, she says, "There was not one of the old Moscovite line to succeed to the throne, ' ' and she adds ' ' The work of the Moscovites was finished, and the extinction of the line was the next necessary event in the path of progress." Such inconsistencies of statement are inexcusable in a his- tory. She speaks of the fanatical sect known as Raskolniks. Raskolnik is simply the generic term for dissenter ; there are and have been in Rus- sia many different sects of Raskolniks. She declares that the title Tsar is derived from the name " Caesar." One would be rash to say that it was not derived from Caesar ; nevertheless it is a question whether the word Caesar may not be derived from Tsar. A little revision would make the volume a useful, brief compendium of Russian history and the vivacity of the narration is certainly in its favor.