The Civil War Dictionary (review)

212CIVILWAR HISTORY about the country as a printer and, around 1903, settìed down in Des Moines for the last eight years of his life. During five of those years Dyer worked constandy on his Compendium. Although he reworked some sections of the book as many as seven times, the veryscope ofthe study would make some errors expected, if not natural. A few omissions exist; one or two numerical figures are less than they should be. (For example, Dyer's computations put the total number of Federal deaths in the war at 359,258 though the accepted figure today is 360,022 men.) He examined hundreds of original muster rolls, talked with thousands of veterans, and examined all available printed sources, including the 128 volumes of the Official Records. But above all else, it must be borne in mind that this work of almost 1,800 double-columned pages was done by Dyer alone. As a result, Dr. Wiley states, "it is unquestionably the most valuable Civil War referencework compiled byone author." If, from the more than 40,000 books treating of the Civil War, one wished to acquire the ten most useful volumes, A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion should be one of them. Archivists, researchers, and writers have consulted it constanüy for what it is: a dictionary of Federal units and actions. With the Bibliography of State Participation in the Civil War Dyer's compilation forms the two best reference works on the struggle of the 1860's. We Southerners can but lament the fact that no similar compendium exists for the Confederacy. James I. Robertson, Jr. State UniversityofIowa. The Civil War Dictionary. By Mark M. Boatner, III. (New York: David McKay. Pp. 974. $15.00.) this is a DrFFICULT book to appraise, or even to define. In the literal sense, it is more of an encyclopedia ("a comprehensive summary of a branch of knowledge ") than it is a dictionary (a definition of "words or phrases used in any system or province of knowledge") , and the author in the introduction refers to it as a "reference work." Yet, in defining its purpose, Colonel Boatner writes that "the emphasis is on inclusiveness rather than comprehensiveness" . . . (and) ... "is designed more to point the way to further research than to attempt to be the ultimate source book of Civil War history." The difficulty lies in finding the line which divides ultimate from non-ultimate. The book is addressed to "the researcher and the serious student" rather than to "the casual reader." As most intense students of the Civil War are disparate in their knowledge, concentrating upon one phase to the relative neglect of others, this reference book would offer no help at all in any area of special knowledge. For the field in which the student's knowledge was superficial, or his interest slight, the book would be useful on statistical data, such as dates; but, partly because of compression, there are none of the emphases or evaluations which would give fullness of impression of either events or personalities. On personalities, Colonel Boatner writes, "if you want a biographical sketch," that "a general encyclopedia or biographical dictionary" is "the place Book Reviews213 to look." Yet, in devoting more than half his book to people, he never gives any hint of where these sketches can be found. Certainly the Dictionary of American Biography is mostincomplete and not always accurate, and tracing down Confederate brigadiers was hopelessly time-consuming until the recent ìy published and extremely valuable Generals in Gray, by Ezra J. Warner. In comparison, this Dictionary is very non-ultimate on personalities, wherethebrevity can givefalseimpressions. As illustration, Ewell and Seddon were in poor health, but that was not the reason Ewell was transferred out of the Army of Northern Virginia nor why Seddon resigned as Secretary of War. G. W. Smith, to whom the author unaccountably devotes a full column and another reference, is never caught precisely in his nebulous functions around Richmond. Incomprehensibly the city of Richmond receives no direct treatment at all, though there is a weak account of the defensive structure at the capital. The defensive structure of Richmond is an involved study, due to...