The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-11-28
BE LITERATURE.
REvTfW OF NEW BOOKS.

There is nothing more dlmculJ tndh the
writing Of personal contemporaneous history.
Mature reflection leads rather TO oppose all
formation of biographies of distinguished men
while they live, than to tolerate the prejudice or
favor which naturally abounds in the would
he disinterested author. Feeling con-
yinced then, as we do, that an impartial work
of the character of the one before us is an
simpossibility, we have read Mr.. Shanks' WORK.
making extra allowances. He has given us a
pleasant book. II is full OF anecdotes, illus
trating the personnel of men of national reputa-
tiop and is also enriched with series of
very wIetched wood-cuts .-----r
The author tells us that he intends to give us
a series of pictures of the leading Union army
officers, with all the mask of romance torn OFF;
that he viii deal impartially, and thus enable
us to Judge of our generals in new light, by
presenting us with new facts. These promises
he does not fulfil. He attempts to do away with
popular prejudice, but gives in its place per-
sonal painting OF his own, much less reliable
than that which the people would naturally
create Mr. Shanks has been war correspond
dent. As rule, all journalists of that class labor
under the deusion that they know little more
than anybody else, and great deal more than
the commanders. They are filled with abstruse
military terms; and seem to think that if they
know the difference between strategist and
tactician, they are qualified to form judgment
on all martial heroes, from Alexander down to
the present day. Mr.. Shanks is evidently pene-
trated with this idea. He tells us Sherman was
a great strategist; Thomas a great tactician;
Grant q combination in equal proportions;
Sheridan neither, but headlong fighter; and so
on through all the list. He evidently considers
Sherman the greatest general of the day; and as
we opine that Mr.. Shanks was with General
Sherman, we do not wonder at his partiality.
The opening chapter is devoted to the Hero of
the March to the Sea-" and is by far the best
written of any of the sketches. We feel as
though Mr.. Shanks has right to tell us about
Sherman, because we are confident from his
style that he knew the Lieutenant General. His
narrative of him, therefore, has some force, and
parucularizes in such manner as to make it
reliable. In regard to Thomas, the same remarks
are appropriate, only TO lesser extent. With
them our commentator ends. We do not
believe that Mr.. Sparks knew General Grant, or
any other of the officers, any better than we do
and our knowledge consists in the possession of
their photographs. There is a lack of force,
want OF the graphic in his descriptions, which
reveal to us his ignorance. No man who
attempts to describe another whom he knew
well, would deal entirely in generalities
He would give us vivid sketch of
hero ourselves. But the author does not
al attempt any such task: he only tells us that
Grant had grit" that Sheridan was grand
cavalry officer; that Hooker was of a belligerent
turn of mind and Logan also nghtlug man.
He has evidently personal pique against Rose
crans TO whom he denies every virtue or ability.
He gives a little sketch of Geary, with which
q we are all familiar, and dismisses each in sue.
cession, either with his censure or praise, as the
fancy takes him. We therefore consider that
the greater part of Mr.. Shanks' book is an
exhibition of presumption of no mean order.
He attempts a fIppant familiarity with certain
generals, as Sherman, for instance, and states
that he had better leave the army, and act as
war correspondent for some New York paper.
We do not like to see such efforts at familiarity.
r Calm, dignifed criticism, if he possesses the
qualities, is what is needed in an author of such
r-r5 a work. ..|
Yet, Notwithstanding the fact that we do not
consider Mr.. Shanks qualified to form an
opinion of any of our generals, if we except
Sherman, or to tell us anything new about
+, them, yet we consider his book is worth read.
ing, as it is spicy and pleasant, and will serve
to while away an hour without serious detri-
ment, although without any positive benefit TO
the reader,