The Harvard Monthly.

The third number of the Monthly, which appeared yesterday, is distinctly better than the preceding numbers. The articles are much longer than usual, but each of them possesses great vital excellence and marks an advance over earlier work.

The first paper, a sketch by J. S. of Dale, is a fascinating but horrible study in after-death pathology. The materialistic nature of future suffering is drawn with a realism at times absolutely repulsive. This article will, perhaps, be the one most interesting to the readers. Its effect upon the mind is a strange mixture of psychological curiosity and mental disgust. From this we turn with satisfaction to the translation from de Musset by Mr. Santayana. The poetical powers of Mr. Santayana might, perhaps, be questioned, when he handles that most dangerous of all compositions, the philosophical sonnet, but here they cannot be. The translation is peculiarly happy, and evidences no low order of poetical talent in the writer. The turn of the verse is often very good and leaves the impression of strong reserve power. Little effort or straining after a striking line is noticed, and the result is a piece of work at once powerful and poetical. There are a faint rythm and music which pervade the entire poem, rendering it harmonious even when the ideas fail to please us. Mr. Felton, in a well written, concise narrative, states clearly a rather complicated story. The peculiarity of the writer's style is to the best advantage, and the story cannot but call up vivid ideas of the stirring times of the "sixties." Mr. Sanborn's short poem is pleasing.

Mr. Houghton in a "Study of Despair" reviews the "Bubaiyat" and presents the most thoughtful work of the number. Although an optimist might quarrel with many of the conclusions drawn as representing Kayyam in too dark a light, the conclusions are by no means fanciful, and are upon their face the result of deep study and clear ideas. It is a question, however, whether the Tent-maker of Naishapur can be so systematically interpreted throughout. Is it true that a thread of despair runs through the mystic lines of Omar and darkens all their thought? One long magazine article has been written upon the concluding line alone of the poem to disprove this view. But the unity and evident earnestness of Mr. Houghton's work will redeem any possible error of ethics shown. The applications to Harvard life and ideas are well based and strongly made. But upon this subject a difference of opinion is inevitable. And yet there is much reason in the remarks. Hearty congratulations are due the editors of the Monthly for the true merit of their last publication, and their future work promises to raise still higher the elevated standard they have placed before them.