comfort himself for this "way of the world" by a patient shrug and a pinch of snuff.[3] Irving, in his advanced life, could never have written his Washington, had not Sparks organized his twelve volumes of materials, and analysed them in the biography. That work must be _studied_, in order to be appreciated in relation to Mr. Sparks's literary merit: it is a mine of editorial tact and industry, displaying the mathematical spirit of the author in its method and organization, in its lucid statements, and in his sagacious perception of the value of what was retained and the worthlessness of what was rejected, so that Washington is self-shown to the hereafter by what he thought, and wrote, and did. The commendation bestowed on Mr. Sparks, in the masterly eulogium of Mr. Haven before the American Antiquarian Society, may be taken as a wise and exact definition of his labors in the field of History: "Not that Mr. Sparks," said he, "limited himself to the preparation and preservation of history _in bulk_; for he was equally able in narrative, in criticism, and in controversy,--he was an essayist as well as a compiler; but the last was his _forte_, his peculiar field of usefulness and eminence, where, it may be said, he reigns supreme." This estimate of Mr. Sparks by his friend does not classify him with the annalist and chronicler who build up a fleshless skeleton of facts and dates. Nothing could be less just to the subject or the commentator. Imagination was not a predominant quality of Mr. Sparks's mind. Its cool precision so curbed the exercise of the ideal faculty that it was unjustly subdued if not absolutely stifled; and thus we do not always discern in him that creative power, so rarely found combined with sagacity in gathering and marshalling details, which, while it apprehends the true relation of men and circumstances, masses the historic groups with picturesque effect, delineates character with intuitive insight, gives soul to the moving drama of national life, and vividly _realizes_ the scenes and personages of the past. But, if he was not so brilliant in description as others, or in the majestic and harmonious march of his story, or in keen scrutiny of character, he unquestionably excelled in ample, direct, and truthful statement, so that his narrative was not only transparent in the fulness of detail, but the detail itself disclosed its philosophic lesson. No man can charge him with hasty or capricious censure. He was always the careful protector of human reputation, dealing with the unresisting and undefending dead as their advocate as well as righteous judge; reluctant to condemn by argument or inference, and never unless the proved facts were irresistible. He studiously discarded all that might either attract or detract by fancy or elaborate discussion; in a word, he shunned ambitious rhetoric, so perilous to solid judgments, and so often giving false color to historical portraits, for he knew the risk