SOME BOOKS OF THE WEEK.
[yolks in this column does not necessarily preclude subsequent resins.]
record of the past year could be dull, and certainly The Annual Register is not, although comment is studiously withheld from the record of facts However sorely tempted, the editor has kept strictly in view the true function of a Register. The conciseness of the story is remark- ably successful, though every critic will think of some additional event that he would have thought worthy of reference. Few will find any that they would wish away. Only one or two incidents, of which it is said that they were soon forgotten, might have been left in oblivion. A narrative of the course of the war through the year is followed by the " English History " that usually predominates. A groat part of this is, naturally, condensed Times reports of Parliamentary proceedings. This is followed, again, by "Foreign and Colonial History." We are particularly grateful for these sections. So few Englishmen read any newspapers but their own, that they have the most meagre knowledge of what goes on even in European countries, and in 1915 fewer than ever could be bothered to seek out the news of neutral nations. Here they may find the means of filling the blanks is their knowledge of what the year has brought, say, to Spain or oven Mexico. The despatches of Admirals and Generals in command of operations offered a goad excuse for a return to the .Register's old custom of reprinting public" dociuments of special importance. They are given in full without comment. Caro has been taken that the articles on " Literature," " Art," " Com- merce," and in particular, as it seems to us, on " Salome," should not suffer from the concentration of interest upon tho war. The brief daily " Chronicle " and the " Obituary " keep up their comprehensive character. The loss of a man-of-war or of Sarah Bernhardt's log, the winning of the Chester Cup or of a great battle, are impartially noted. There are very few misprints, and it is a tribute to the editor to say that we have only noticed one discrepancy in the various sections—namely, between references to the painter, Arthur Hughes.
Previous page
