siderably modified form it was offered to the Emperor of Morocco.11 It has already been noted that the treaties with Portugal and Denmark were not in the end consummated, and the same is true of the treaty with Tuscany, although there appeared for a time fair prospects that the negotiations in all three instances would meet with. ultimate success.42

The case of Tuscany deserves a further word. The project was transmitted on December 9, 1784,43 to Favi, the Tuscan chargé d'affaires in Paris, who in turn transmitted it to his court. On August 26, 1785, Favi wrote to the commissioners that the grand duke had determined to accept the treaty, but that there were some amendments, which, though not changing the substance of the convention, were rendered indispensable by local circumstances and the regulations of the country. The amendments proposed by the Tuscan court have not been found, but the observations of the commissioners upon them essentially reveal what the proposed alt rat ons were. 45

44

It has been seen that William Lee's efforts to negotiate a treaty with Austria in 1777 came to naught. Five years later he received indirect intimations that the Emperor was now desirous of entering into a treaty with the United States, yet it was not until a year later that the Imperial government pressed its intimations upon the American ministers. Even then the suggestions were still indirect, for the Emperor desired that the first overtures should come from the side of the United States. On July 13, 1783, Adams wrote to Livingston that the Emperor had caused it to be intimated in various ways that he wished to form a treaty,48 and on July 22 Franklin wrote to Livingston: "I have it also from a good hand at the court of Vienna that the emperor is desirous of

47

11 October, 1785. Ibid., pp. 666-673. The treaty which was concluded with Morocco (January, 1787) differs still further from the project. The treaty is in Jour. Cont. Cong., July 18, 1787, and in Treaties, Conventions, etc. (ed. Malloy), I. 1206-1212.

42 See, especially, Jefferson to Jay, October 11, 1785, April 23, May 12, and August 13, 1786. Dipl. Corr. U. S. A., I. 652, 725, 731, 804.

45 Ibid., pp. 583-591, accompanying a letter of the commissioners to Favi, June 8, 1785.

46 William Lee to the Committee of Foreign Affairs, March 31, 1782. Wharton, Dipl. Corr., V. 291.

47 See Schlitter, Die Berichte, pp. 231-234.

49 Wharton, Dipl. Corr., VI. 538. Cf. Adams to Livingston, July 3, 7. Ibid., pp. 510, 517.

establishing a commerce with us from Trieste, as well as Flanders, and would make a treaty with us if proposed to him."4"

What were the preliminary conferences between Franklin and the Austrian ambassador the correspondence does not reveal, although it is evident that definite negotiations awaited powers and instructions from Congress. This step was taken by Congress on October 29, 1783, and an addition to the instructions was adopted on May 7, 1784. Accordingly Franklin wrote to the Austrian ambassador, the Comte de Mercy-Argenteau, on July 30 that upon the arrival of Jefferson the commissioners would be ready to enter into a treaty with His Imperial Majesty.50 Mercy-Argenteau at once communicated with his government and on September 28 announced the Emperor's assent to the negotiation. "When the particulars respecting this matter shall be sent to me", he added, "I shall instantly communicate them."52 There was no further word upon the subject for considerably more than a year. The resumption of negotiations is described by Jefferson in a letter to Jay, January 27, 1786.53 On May 12 he wrote to Jay that the ambassador had asked for propositions and that he had given him a draft, "which was a copy of what we had originally proposed to Denmark, with such alterations as had occurred and been approved in our negotiations with Prussia, Tuscany, and Portugal ".5 The Austrian government entered earnestly into the consideration of the project," but meanwhile Jefferson's commission to sign such a treaty had expired,56 and Congress failed to renew it.

49 Franklin to Livingston, July 22-25. Wharton, Dipl. Corr., VI. 580-591. The "good hand" was doubtless Jan Ingenhousz. See Franklin to Ingenhousz, May 16, 1783. Smyth, Writings of Benjamin Franklin, IX. 41.

50 Wharton, Dipl. Corr., VI. 817. Cf. Franklin to Thomson, November 11. Ibid., p. 829.

51 Mercy-Argenteau to Franklin, July 30. Ibid., p. 817.

52 Ibid., p. 820.

53 Dipl. Corr. U. S. A., I. 713; The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, memorial edition, V. 265; cf. Jefferson to Adams, January 12 (ibid., p. 248); Jefferson to Gerry, May 7 (ibid., p. 315); and Jefferson to Monroe, May 10 (ibid., pp. 325-333).

Ibid., pp. 335-338; Dipl. Corr. U. S. A., I. 731.

55 This is evidenced by the proposition of Kaunitz to the Emperor (ante, p. 576). It will be observed that this proposition bears a date anterior by some weeks to the time when Jefferson's project was submitted. See also Schlitter, Die Berichte, pp. 235-238, and Jefferson to Jay, September 26, 1786 (Writings, memorial edition, V. 424).

56 The commission, which bore date of May 12, 1784, was to be in force not exceeding two years. See Jour. Cont. Cong., May 7, 11, 1784 (Secret Journals, III. 489, 498); cf. Jay to Jefferson, October 27, 1786 (Dipl. Corr., I. 794); Jefferson to Dumas, October 14, 1787 (Writings, memorial edition, VI. 341). Jefferson wrote to John Quincy Adams, March 30, 1826: "Austria soon after became desirous of a treaty with us, and her ambassador pressed it often upon me; but our commerce with her being no object, I evaded her repeated invitations." Ibid., XVI.

The draft which Professor Van Houtte has brought to light is undoubtedly that which Jefferson submitted to the Austrian ambassador, and the majority of its articles are identical with the corresponding articles of the Prussian treaty. The principal differences are the following: Articles II. and III. of the Austrian draft omit the clause found at the end of those articles in the Prussian treaty, "submitting themselves nevertheless", etc. Article V. of the project is much more ample than that incorporated in the Prussian treaty, but is identical with the corresponding article of the draft submitted to the Prussian minister.57 Several articles, in fact, which vary from the Prussian treaty follow verbatim the original propositions. Aside from some small variations in article VIII. the last half of that article in the Prussian treaty (beginning "except those established") is omitted. The clause in article X. of the Prussian treaty, "and exempt. . . subjects", is not found in the Austrian. draft. Article XII. of the Austrian project contains, however, the following clause not found in the treaty: "On the other hand, Enemy Vessels shall make Enemy Goods; insomuch that whatever shall be found in the vessels of an Enemy shall be confiscated without distinction; except such Goods and Merchandize as were put on board such Vessel before the Declaration of War, or within six Months after it, which shall be free." In article XIII. the Prussian treaty enlarged upon the draft submitted to Thulemeier, and the Austrian draft contains this further addition: "Nor shall any such Articles be subject to be taken or delayed in any case, if they be not in greater quantity than may be necessary for the use of the ship or of the Persons in it. And to remove all doubt respecting the Merchandize and Effects which shall be subject to the Arrangements in this Article, it is declared that they are the following, Canons (etc., as enumerated in the Articles of the armed Neutrality)." Article XX. of the Austrian project adds this clause: "unless bound thereto by some treaty now existing". Finally article XXI. omits from section 4 of the treaty the clause, "but by the judicature of the place into which the prize shall have been conducted".

EDMUND C. BURNETT.

57 See Dipl. Corr. U. S. A., I. 520, and cf. ante, p. 584.

REVIEWS OF BOOKS

GENERAL BOOKS AND BOOKS OF ANCIENT HISTORY

Expansion of Races. By CHARLES EDWARD WOODRUFF, A.M., M.D. (New York: Rebman Company. Pp. xi, 405.)

TEN years ago sociological studies were written around the theory that traits acquired within the lifetime of the individual by education. and environment could be passed into the germ-plasm and consequently inherited. It is encouraging to-day to find books like the present written around modern biological beliefs-pure inheritance of variations arising within the germ-plasm; repetition of types from one generation to another as long as the environment remains unchanged; adaptation the prime necessity; and natural selection the great deciding force, the last court of appeal. Dr. Woodruff's central position is strong. The same may be said of the three main theories which run through his work, that there is a universal tendency to supersaturation of population, that the "Aryan" is very superior to the "Non-Aryan" in natural ability, and that the white man is not at all suited to life in the tropics. The opening chapters give cumulative evidence that overpopulation is a universal phenomenon in human as well as in animal life, in the past as well as in the present, in the savage as well as in the civilized state. This does not, to the reviewer, appear to lead to an explanation why some races have migrated more than others, for the very reason of its universality. These opening chapters are valuable, however, for calling attention. vividly by means of a wealth of illustration to the folly of much of the misguided charity of the present day, which only makes the problem harder for the next generation. The sooner we face these facts the better it will be for all concerned. Eugenics is the only solution.

Dr. Woodruff's superior man is always an "Aryan". He derives him not from Asia but from the northwestern part of Europe just south of the retreating ice-cap, essentially a Scandinavian man. He dispels the theory of Asiatic origin with too little discussion, and almost ignores the anthropological sceptics who deny the entire existence of an "Aryan" race. Nevertheless, there certainly is to-day a clearly defined type of man, tall, light-haired, blue-eyed, and energetic, and this appears to be what Dr. Woodruff is writing about. He believes this man migrated southward as a conqueror into southern Europe, southern Asia, and even Africa, and degenerated under the tropical sun. Before the degeneration set in he built the great Oriental civilizations; made Greece and Rome what they were; wrote the Vedas; and penetrated even as far as China and Japan. This is a plausible and interesting theory, but it is equally possible to derive the Oriental overlords, the great

Pharaohs, aristocrats, and conquerors from the southern people themselves. The essential distinction would be that Dr. Woodruff's theory makes the aristocrat come fully formed as such and begin to degenerate as soon as he reaches his southern home, while the contrary theory would take into account all the forces which are constantly at work towards differentiating man from man within a homogeneous group where wealth is easily obtained. These forces of natural selection, of which marriage selection is perhaps the strongest, tend of themselves to increase with an accelerating ratio the superior end of the social scale at the expense of the inferior. This combined with heredity of talent makes men differ more and more in natural ability wherever there is surplus wealth, family life, legitimacy of descent, marriage selection of the sons of the successful with heiresses, the daughters of the successful.

Thus the northern men may have arrived in the fertile valleys already superior to the existing races whom they conquered but still comparatively homogeneous and undifferentiated and not containing within their ranks any of the great intellectual variations which they afterwards evolved. There may have been intellectual evolution as well as degeneration entirely within the hotter zones. Dr. Woodruff's theories stimulate further historical inquiries. In fact the whole book is more often stimulating and suggestive than conclusive, a fault perhaps inseparably associated with the method of collecting and marshalling researches and opinions in support of a thesis without the aid of any objective or impersonal check to guard against the personal equation. The reviewer believes the main contentions of this book are sound because the biological laws on which it is based have been so scientifically established that the conclusions logically follow. The facts of history have been but little and but recently treated scientifically in their applications to the broad problems of the rise and decay of nations. For this reason as soon as the historical records are appealed to there is usually no way of establishing a proof.

Dozens of questions are suggested in this interesting book the answers to which await the further development of this very field of inquiry which unites the knowledge of biology with that of history.

FREDERICK ADAMS WOODS.

Greek Athletic Sports and Festivals. By E. NORMAN GARDINER, M.A. (London: Macmillan and Company. 1910. Pp. xxiii, 533.)

IN view of the revival of the Olympic games and in considering the discussion which is raging now-a-days about the place of physical culture in education, it is well to turn to the Greeks, who succeeded, for a time at least, in reconciling the demands of body and mind, and see what the spirit of their sports was. From Gardiner's book the general reader cannot fail to learn much about these questions; and although most of the new material has already appeared in the Journal of Hellenic Studies,