the message. I hardly know what they will be, but I suppose they will comprise the S. C. opinions. Looking upon Mr. C. and the whole party here, as completely prostrate, I confess I feel no disposition to treat them with unnecessary harshness, or censure. Mr. C. will certainly not provoke any thing personal, between himself and me, and, as certainly, I shall forbear from any personal unkindness towards him.

It is now three years, My Dear Sir, since I ventured here, in the face of a most fiery opposition, to maintain sentiments, such as are contain'd in the Proclamation, and the Message. All the rage of party broke out upon me, for so doing, like an overwhelming flood. Mr. C. himself took a very active part agt. me (but not more so than the rest) and, as I believe, wrote very abusive paragraphs, in the Newspaper. Times, and men, have now changed; tho' as [for] Mr. Calhoun, he retains his same opinions, and he sees where they have brought him.

I suppose I shall learn tomorrow who is to be Senator, in my place. One thing I can say with sincerity-I hope the place will be better filled than it has been." Mr. Silsbee10 has bad news of his brother. I a little fear he will go home.

Yrs D. W.

Pray give my love to the Damsels.11

[P. S.]. Fanny Kemble is here, turning every body's head. I went to see and hear her, last Eve',12 and paid for it by a tremendous cold. I hear that the Venerable Judges go constantly.13

Judge Story14 has excellent health.

7 Calhoun had taken his seat in the Senate, after resigning the vice-presidency, on January 4. His resolutions of January 23 are in the Senate Journal of that date, pp. 121-122.

8 The reference, of course, is to the debate on Foot's resolutions ("Reply to Hayne", etc.) in 1830.

9 Webster, whose term expired March 4, 1833, was re-elected. 10 Nathaniel Silsbee, senator from Massachusetts 1826-1835.

11" The Damsels were the two younger daughters of Stephen White. The eldest daughter, Harriette (1809-1863), had already married James W. Paige; her journal of a visit to England with Webster and his wife in 1839 has lately been published, Daniel Webster in England (Boston, 1917). The younger daughters were Caroline (1811-1886), who afterward married Fletcher Webster, and Ellen (1812-1861).

12 The play on that evening was The School for Scandal. Fanny Kemble played in Washington throughout the 'week, January 14-19. Her own lively account of it is in her Journal (London, 1835), II. 117-143. She heard Webster in the Senate on the 14th; ibid., II. 120.

13"We have had little to do this week in Court.

Having some leisure on

our hands, the Chief Justice and myself have devoted some of it to attendance upon the theatre to hear Miss Fanny Kemble, who has been in this city the past week." Story to his wife, January 20. Story, Life of Story, II. 116.

14 Justice Story was a brother of Mrs. Stephen White, and uncle of "the damsels ".

REVIEWS OF BOOKS

GENERAL BOOKS AND BOOKS OF ANCIENT HISTORY

Diplomacy and the Study of International Relations.

By D. P.

HEATLEY, Lecturer in History, University of Edinburgh. ford: Clarendon Press. Pp. xvi, 292. 7 sh. 6 d.)

(Ox

THE purpose of this book, as stated by its author, is "to portray diplomacy and the conduct of foreign policy from the stand-point of history, to show how they have been analyzed and appraised by representative writers, and to indicate sources from which the knowledge thus acquired may be supplemented".

The first third of the volume consists of an essay of a general character on Diplomacy and the Conduct of Foreign Policy, written from a British point of view, but without discussing either the fundamental conceptions or the historical development of British policy. A great proportion of this chapter is devoted to citations from various writers and long and numerous explanatory notes, some of them having only a remote relation to the subject.

The entire volume, in fact, appears to consist chiefly of the contents of note-books made in the course of casual reading. So far as either diplomacy or the conduct of foreign affairs is concerned, the treatment is historical only in the sense that an attempt has been made to arrange the citations chronologically under the topics discussed. The reader who expects to find in this volume either a historical or an analytical method applied to the substance of diplomacy, in its operation or its results, will be disappointed. On the other hand, he will find in these pages many interesting comments on the instruments and maxims of diplomacy, ranging in time from Machiavelli to Bismarck, Salisbury, and Balfour.

The remaining two-thirds of this book consist of a general discussion of the Literature of International Relations. Under this heading we have a few pages on the scope of the study of diplomacy, in which Charles de Marten's Guide Diplomatique is chiefly drawn upon. There are two pages on general history, in which only a few well-known English works are mentioned; and, with the exception of Lavisse and Rambaud's Histoire Générale and Les Archives de l'Histoire de France, the extremely rich French literature on diplomatic history is wholly ignored.

Juristic literature receives more serious treatment, but historically is confined to Wheaton, Nys, and Walker. Under the treatises of international law Wheaton's Elements comes in for well-deserved high praise, although it was originally written so long ago. Besides this only the

works of Phillimore, Twiss, and Hall among writers in English are commented upon, while none of the Continental writers are mentioned except Vattel and G. F. de Martens. Even for the student for the diplomatic service this is a rather narrow range.

Under controversial literature is inserted a long disquisition on the Sovereignty of the Sea, not indeed without historical interest but without practical importance in the present state of sea-law. The reason for the inclusion of this excursus may perhaps be found in the closing paragraph, quoted from an almost forgotten writer, to the effect that because the "Soveraignty of our Seas" is "the most precious Jewell of his Maiesties Crowne, and . . . the principall meanes of our Wealth and Safetie, all true English hearts and hands are bound by all possible meanes and diligence to preserve and maintaine the same, even with the uttermost hazzard of their lives, their goods, and fortunes" (p. 141).

The bibliography on treaties, maps, and supplementary reading is rather scanty. Room could have been made for a wider view by the omission of long textual quotations from books that are easily accessible. The section on projects of perpetual peace could have been abbreviated by reference to well-known books, and the nearly thirty pages in French on the qualities of a diplomatist could as well have been read in Callières's full text, which can readily be had even in English. The appendix on the effect of telegraphic communications upon the responsibility of diplomatic missions contains the testimony of several important statesmen, and the sections on the treatment of international questions by the parliaments of different countries convey useful and not readily accessible information. A good index adds much to the value of the book as a work of reference.

In his references to the Federalist, the author cites and appears to commend Hamilton's comments on the deficiencies of democracies in the conduct of foreign relations. Mr. Heatley has been misled, however, apparently by Oliver, in his book on Alexander Hamilton (p. 351), when he says in the preface to this book, referring to Washington's Farewell Address, that it "came from the pen of Hamilton". It was the result of long meditation and a part of its substance had been formulated by Madison many years before the aid of Hamilton was invoked. The precise truth is stated in Horace Binney's Inquiry into the Formation of Washington's Farewell Address, in which he proves that "the soul of the address" was Washington's. See also Lodge, The Works of Alexander Hamilton (Constitutional edition), VIII. 187, 189. It is misleading, therefore, to say that it "came from the pen of Hamilton". Its wisdom was the wisdom of Washington.

It should be added that, whatever may be the estimate of this volume in other respects, its tone is scholarly and gives evidence of much painstaking in its preparation.

AM. HIST. REV., VOL. XXV.-46.

DAVID JAYNE HILL.

The Empire of the Amorites. By ALBERT T. CLAY. [Yale Oriental series, Researches, vol. VI.] (New Haven: Yale University Press. 1919. Pp. 192. $2.50.)

WHEN Sydney Smith was an Edinburgh reviewer he once began a notice with this sentence:

There are two questions to be asked respecting every new publication— Is it worth buying? Is it worth borrowing? and we would advise our readers to weigh diligently the importance of these interrogations, before they take any decided step as to this work of Mr. Edgeworth; the more especially as the name carries with it considerable authority, and seems, in the estimation of the unwary, almost to include the idea of purchase

—and then declined to give a direct answer! With greater boldness and less discretion, there is here to be an answer. This new book by Professor Clay is a sequel to a much smaller volume entitled Amurru, the Home of the Northern Semites, a Study showing that the Religion and Culture of Israel are not of Babylonian Origin (Philadelphia, 1909). The earlier book was in some measure vitiated by certain speculative etymologies, after the manner of Hommel, which have died unwept and do not appear in these pages. With these have disappeared also some other suggestions, as for example, the location of Ur, which are frankly withdrawn. It is a pity that other scholars are not always so transparently honest. What remains is a most learned, suggestive, and in many details persuasive account of the early Amorites. Beyond that I do not think that sober judgment is likely to go. Clay argues that there was a "great Empire of the Amorites" in which he gives powers of great magnitude to mighty Amorite rulers", and builds for them an "imperial city . . . which was powerful enough to rule the land from the Mediterranean to Babylonia". All this and much more is based on fragmentary evidence piled high and ever higher on names of places, names of deities, or fugitive allusions in Babylonian and Assyrian texts. all of periods far later than the "third, fourth and fifth milleniums" in which this supposed and subjective empire is presumed to have held. sway. One dislikes intensely to say it, but the book presents no objective, positive evidence that there was ever such an empire". The word empire is quite inexcusable, no kings' names of those who ruled it being known, and no imperial city of theirs ever having been excavated. If then this judgment be not unjust, it may well be asked what useful service Clay has performed in this book. The answer is not slow to be found; it is that the book is crowded with the proofs that Amorites lived and influenced the course of human history and that we must find a place for them larger than most of us had dreamed before Clay began these investigations more than a decade ago. It is his just due to say that he has opened new windows into the dimly seen and darkly understood lands of western Asia as the early kingdoms were founded. He has not demonstrated the existence of an empire, but of an influence,

and that is quite enough. If he had claimed less he would be likely to find a wider receptiveness. He has, for example, in chapter II., the Home of the Semites, attacked the theory, or hypothesis, of the origins of the Semites in Arabia, and at the end of the volume (p. 186) speaks of the "collapse" of the theory. I fancy that most of us are likely to continue to hold it, while we gladly concede that the land of Amurru had its place and its influence upon these same Semites, though we be unwilling to give our assent when Clay says, "It is of course apparent that the trend of what precedes is toward regarding practically everything that is Semitic Babylonian as having its origin in Amurru” (p. 186). But as to the wisdom of buying this book, or of borrowing it if that must be, let there be no doubt. There is instruction in it far beyond the limits of its claims as to an Amorite empire.

ROBERT W. ROGERS.

Histoire Ancienne de l'Afrique du Nord. Par STÉPHANE GSELL, Professeur au Collège de France. Tome IV. La Civilisation Carthaginoise. (Paris: Hachette. 1920. Pp. 515. 25 fr.)

THIS volume of Gsell's history is likely to interest readers even more than its predecessors, because the phases of Carthaginian life with which it deals are those which are at the same time least familiar to us, and yet most important in a study of ancient Mediterranean civilization. In a notice which the Review published two years ago (XXIII. 839 ff.) of volumes II. and III., the present reviewer spoke of the quality of Gsell's work and of his method of approaching his subject. Consequently, it may be of most service here to give a brief survey of the volume before us. The main topics which it covers are the economic, intellectual, and religious life of Carthage, and the rôle which she played in history. The material prosperity of Carthage, as everyone knows, depended largely on agriculture and commerce. Her progress in agriculture is illustrated by Mago's twenty-eight books on this subject, which were not only turned into Greek, but also enjoyed the distinction of being translated into Latin by order of the Roman senate, and later still were used by the Arabs. The agricultural produce of Carthage did not include large quantities of wine and oil until rather late, but as early as 203 B. C. the Romans were able to exact from the Carthaginians immense amounts of wheat and barley (cf. p. 11, note 1), and in the later period Africa became one of the principal granaries of the Empire. The scientific cultivation of the soil seems to begin during the first Punic war when Carthage lost the contributions of grain which Sicily and Sardinia had previously made (cf. p. 10). The loss of other ultramarine colonies in the second Punic war gave a further stimulus to this industry. Farm-work seems to have been done largely by slaves and natives (cf. pp. 11, 47). The cost of their subsistence was small, and they were not liable to military service, so that diversified farming was