words, "I want an explanation to the public." H. wrote in reply that he should do no such thing. There the matter rests; it is probable G. will revive the subject in the house tomorrow; in the mean time H. has taken measures to obtain evidence from two gentlemen now here, who have been at Paris, witnesses of Monroe's intrigues; Wm. Morris is one of them.

The Senate distributed today the subjects of the President's speech to several committees; by a previous arrangement, they have left out of the comtees, every one of the minority to shew them that they have no confidence in them and are afraid to trust them at this crisis: there is not a man of the minority on any one committee: I have [advised] Rutherford to get Martin and Hunter on some of them to try and detach them: These two are the best of that party. There are 30 members of the Senate present: the absentees are Gunn, who is soon expected, and Schyler, who is dangerously ill. I am told Burr has got into the state legislature. We have 99 members on the floor: my colleague and namesake voted against us, which I attribute in some measure to a visit he received yesterday from that rascal, Bache; Rutherford tried to keep him right, but I fear he is gone.

As I haven't time to write to Desaussure, pray shew him this letter, which contains what I sh. have written him had I had time.

I am Dear Sir

very affec1. yours

WM. SMITH.

WILLIAM SMITH TO RALPH IZARD.

PHILADA. June 2, 97.

Dear Sir

I rec. your last letter two days ago. We have not yet got thro the answer to the President's Speech. The great point in contest is whether we shall tell the President (indirectly) that he must concede to France the three grounds of complaint arising out of the British Treaty, without any equivalent or promise of compensation. The other party are for so doing; we object to saying anything about it, but contend that if we suggest that, we must also recommend the case of our merchants and demand redress for the spoliations. A vote has been carried [the day]" before yesterday 52 to 47 for inserting the proposition in its objectionable shape. Yesterday in the House we [won] over two [Virginians] and the proposition was carried only 50 to 49; we then moved to amend it, by introducing the words “a disposition on the part of France to redress our wrongs" or to the effect; this embarrassed the leaders of the other party prodigiously; they have moved the previous question on it, and the matter now rests; we hope to carry the amendm1. and then defeat the whole proposition. In the mean time the Senate are preparing bills for defense.

The nomination of Mr. Adams to Berlin is approved by the Senate 19 to 10-Hunter voted finally for it: there was first a motion to postpone the consid". of the nominat". to March next. Lost 17 to 12. Then a proposition that a minis. plen. at Berlin was not necessary—

"At places where square brackets have been introduced the manuscript is torn and conjectural readings have been inserted.

previous question carried 18 to 11-then the nom". agreed to. Day before yesterday the nomination was made of Gen. Pinckney, Chief Justice Dana of Massactts, and Gen. Marshall of Virginia (the celebrated lawyer) as envoys Extr3. and Min. Plen. to France. I had heard of this [project] several days ago and objected to it and in conseq. of my objection [the] nominations were postponed two days and the subject reconsidered by the Presi[dent] and council; but there were reasons for it too powerful in their opinions to change th[e p]lan -I dislike it however, it is done. I immed3. took measures to satisfy Rutledge and he is perfectly satisfied: [ ] has shown much ill humour and endeav. to prejudice Rut. but I was before hand. G'. Pinckney is at the head of the commission and will. I hope be pleased with the arrangement.

Yesterday morng, I called on Porcupine and paid him a visit; he was much delighted with the anecdote respecting St. Peter; he laughed very heartily; I read him your remarks about Webster; he acquiesces in the propriety. I dined yesterday with the President; he was easy and cheerful; suffic. familiar without loosing his dignity; Mrs. Adams conducted herself with the greatest propriety. without profusion; the wine rather mediocre. the anecdote about St. Peter. They were much pleased with it. Porcupine is a great favorite at Court.

The dinner was genteel,
In the evening I related.

I shall write again soon. Tell Harry that his friend Cochran is a very clever fellow; he has not spoke yet, but his opinions are very sound.

I hope the children are getting well from the hooping cough. Pray give my love to them.

REVIEWS OF BOOKS

GENERAL BOOKS AND BOOKS OF ANCIENT HISTORY

Das Antike Mysterienwesen in Religionsgeschichtlicher, Ethnologischer und Psychologischer Beleuchtung. Von Dr. K. H. E. DE JONG. (Leiden: E. J. Brill. 1909. Pp. x, 362.)

WITH the present interest in ethnology and the history of religion it is natural that much attention should be given to the ancient mysteries, which on the whole formed the most important element in the spiritual life of antiquity. But, in the nature of the case, the data on which our knowledge here depends are so insufficient and unsatisfactory that the most divergent views are held as to the real character of the rites, and the explanations offered of the effects which were undoubtedly produced have been of the most opposite sort. The latest attempt at explanation is made in the present book by Dr. de Jong of the Hague, whose excellent dissertation (De Apuleio Isiacorum Mysteriorum Teste, Leyden, 1900) led him to this larger study.

As the title of his book indicates, Dr. de Jong employs the abundant material which has been amassed by the study of religions other than those of Greece and Rome, as well as the results of ethnological and psychological research. After a short introductory chapter, he reviews in the two following chapters the familiar features of the Eleusinian mysteries and those of Isis and Mithras, which played a most important part in the second to the fourth centuries of our era; he then passes to the consideration of the various explanations which have been offered of the effects secured by the mysteries. In his contention that mere splendor of buildings or of ceremonies, which were certainly simple in the earlier period, was quite insufficient to cause these effects, he is undoubtedly right; nor could the sacred symbols seen or handled have by themselves profoundly influenced the initiates. The explanation is rather to be sought along the line suggested by Aristotle's much quoted statement that the initiates in the mysteries should not learn any definite thing, but be given an experience and be put in a certain state of mind, after being made susceptible thereto. In other words the explanation. must be a psychological one, and the whole purpose of all mystic ceremonies and symbols was to produce the "experience and state of mind" of which Aristotle speaks. At this point in his discussion Dr. de Jong announces his belief that all mysteries were essentially magic in their origins at least; and, after an interesting chapter on the part played by magic in the Egyptian cults, he proceeds to support his contention by

illustrations and parallels drawn from varied peoples of antiquity and modern times, ranging from the inevitable Australians and Chinese to the North American Indians.

The text for the last five chapters is furnished by the words of Apuleius: "I have approached the bounds of death; I have trod the threshold of Proserpina, and, after passing through all the elements, I have returned again. At midnight I have seen the sun flashing with a brilliant light; I have approached the gods of heaven and hell and done them obeisance face to face." In these words Dr. de Jong apparently sees the key to the mysteries. In his elucidation of them he discusses ecstatic or hypnotic states, visions of the other world, tests by fire, optical illusions, materialization and suggestion-a wide range, in short, of real and spurious religious experiences among many peoples and sects. In a liberal spirit he treats with respect later mystics and visionaries, including Swedenborg and F. W. H. Myers.

Now although we shall never know exactly the details of the various forms of initiation, probably everyone agrees that in them all the initiate was in some way by fasts, dreams, purificatory rites and other acts put into an ecstatic state in which he was especially responsive to suggestion. It is hard for the present reviewer to see that Dr. de Jong has gone beyond this in the explanations which he offers; his book is interesting and valuable in the collection which it offers of mystic and magical rites gathered from many sources; but edifying as it may be to observe similar practices arising at certain cultural stages among peoples widely separated by time and place, we must not forget that parallelism does not necessarily constitute explanation.

It is to be regretted that the index of the book is wholly inadequate. CLIFFORD H. MOORE.

The Acropolis of Athens. By MARTIN L. D'OOGE, Professor of the Greek Language and Literature in the University of Michigan. (New York and London: The Macmillan Company. 1908. Pp. xx, 405, v.)

It is now twenty years since Kabbadias concluded the definitive excavation of the Acropolis. Some part of that long campaign Professor D'Ooge, as director of our school at Athens in 1886-1887, saw with his own eyes; and he has twice returned for a sabbatical study of the subject on the spot.

But he is too wise to undertake even now a final history of the Acropolis; he proposes merely to "give a summary of the most important contributions to this history and to state the results of personal study of the site and of the ruins upon it". In this modest venture his patience and painstaking have stood him in good stead; and the serious student will find the book packed with sifted facts which hitherto he has had to gather for himself from a wide range of writers in various tongues.

The text is helped out by ample illustration, including nine excellent full-page photogravures and seven plans. Some of these, however, have the key on the back where it can be of little use; and one (plan III.) is bound in upside down.

The treatment is in the main chronological. After a brief account of the Hill in its natural features and as a pre-historic sanctuary, citadel and residence, there follow chapters on the Earliest Historic Period down to the Persian Destruction; from the Persian Destruction to the Age of Pericles; the Age of Pericles; the Temples on the Southern Slope and the Theatre; the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (Pausanias's Tour); from the Roman Period to the Present. There follow ten pages of notes (is the foot-note to be banished for good and all?); three appendices on the sources (including Frazer's translation of Pausanias on the Acropolis), the Pelargicon, and the Old Temple; and a fairly adequate index.

The author is more concerned with outstanding facts than with recondite theory. He rarely dogmatizes. With the "problems", his method is to state the various views; rarely to give a casting vote. Doerpfeld's no-stage theory is "adopted as being highly probable "; but on the Old Temple he agrees in most points with Michaelis ". He notes Doerpfeld's new view of the original plan of the Erechtheion-with a west half that (like the South Hall of the Propylaea) was never built; but expresses no judgment upon it. In the present stage of archaeological debate, it is just as well to have the open mind.

Well as Professor D'Ooge has done his chosen work, the story of the Acropolis is yet to be told. The ineffable charm, the universal human interest of it has never yet been put in a book. It never can be until archaeologists are poets or poets are archaeologists. Then only may we hope to be shown the things "worth seeing" in their proper atmosphere. Yet one cannot but regret that our author has taken his task so severely; that, after happily flinging open wide the Propylaea of our hopes on his first page, he gives us hardly another glint of the violet crown till we reach the last. For his last words are true: "To know the history of the Acropolis is to know not only the background of the history of Athens; it is also to know the beauty-loving spirit and brilliant genius of the people who dwelt in the city nobly built on the Aegean shore." J. IRVING MANATT.

Geschichte des Hellenistischen Zeitalters. Von JULIUS KAERST. Zweiter Band, erste Hälfte. Das Wesen des Hellenismus. (Leipzig und Berlin: B. G. Teubner. 1909. Pp. xii, 430.)

VOLUME I. was reviewed in the October number of this journal for 1902, pp. 100-103. It treated, in three books, of Die Hellenische Polis, Das Makedonische Königtum, and Alexander der Grosse, political philosophy in the first two being followed in the third by condensed historical narrative. This first half of volume II., also in three books, treats