done by organizations having for their avowed purpose the public indictment of present conditions and the conduct of a public propaganda for the introduction of specific measures of reform. It merely means that it is unwise for the same organization to attempt to ride these two horses at the same time.

The question is wholly one of method. The Institute, no less than other organizations, will reach definite opinions regarding what changes should be made in methods of organization and administration in order to make them more efficient and economical, and will seek no less strenuously to have these changes effected; but it will do so, as far as possible, by seeking to convince those charged with the conduct of public affairs of their desirability, and having them take the necessary steps for their accomplishment. That greater results in the long run can be secured in this way than by seeking to have reforms forced upon officials over their opposition, is the firm conviction of the officers of the Institute. Even where seeming success follows the latter method the results are often more apparent than real. Few administrative practices, no matter what their theoretical merits, will give good results unless those responsible for their operation are persuaded of their desirability and apply them in good faith. Many reforms, such as the introduction of cost keeping systems, have met with shipwreck for this reason.

For over thirty years the writer has been intimately concerned in one capacity or another with the administrative work of the national government. It is his experience that the directing personnel at Washington-the heads of departments, bureaus and divisions are of a high order of ability and genuinely desirous of having their services efficiently organized and conducted. If they have fallen short of achieving their aims in many respects this is due to the fact that each officer is concerned with the administration of but one service, that he has not been in a position where he can consider problems of administration from the standpoint of the government as a whole, and that the demands upon him for the performance of the current work of his service are such as to leave him little or no time for the study of methods of administration practiced elsewhere, or to work out

new principles and practices for himself. The experience of the Institute but confirms past experience that these officials are freely receptive to suggested improvements and welcome assistance when given to them in the proper way and spirit. With such a condition of affairs, it would be the height of folly not to assume a like sympathetic attitude and make the fullest possible use of this good will.

In concluding this account of the Institute for Government Research, it is not out of place to point out how closely its aims correspond to those of the American Political Science Association, and how nearly it meets a desire formally expressed by it. In 1908 this association addressed to the Carnegie Institution a letter and memorial pointing out the need for the establishment at Washington of a department of research in political science and suggesting that that institution take steps in that direction. In the establishment of the Institute for Government Research the association sees its wishes in great part accomplished. Though the Institute has apparently as its field but one branch of political science, that of administration, that field, properly construed, is of broad scope. Efficient administration depends in no small degree upon the existence of a proper political organization and the application of proper political practices. It cannot be achieved without due regard to these larger questions of political science. On the other hand, the aim of all political science is a good administration of public affairs. "The government best administered," writes Alexander Pope, "is best." In a way, therefore, the study of administration means but the study of political science or government from a certain standpoint, that of adaptation of forms and means to an end, efficiency in operation.

ASSYRIAN GOVERNMENT OF DEPENDENCIES

A. T. OLMSTEAD

University of Illinois

The labor member of the Belgian ministry, M. van der Velde, has drawn a parallel between the Assyrian methods of deportation and those practiced by the Germans. An orientalist has developed this theme with chapter and verse citation. Whatever our sympathies in this present world catastrophe and however close we find the analogy, the episode has undoubtedly excited a certain amount of curiosity as to the methods used by the Assyrians in the government of their dependencies. To the more scientific student there must be great interest in a system which furnished the model to the Persians, to the Hellenistic rulers, to the Romans, and so to the modern systems of provincial government.

As in so many other phases of their civilization, the Assyrians built upon Babylonian foundations, and, as in so many other cases, the Assyrians profoundly modified what they took over. In truth, the Babylonian foundation was comparatively slight. At the beginning of Babylonian history we have the completely independent city state. As one conquered the other, there was no attempt at incorporation, and the patesi, who as vice regent of god on earth ruled the dependent state, was permitted complete autonomy, subject only to the payment of a small tribute and to certain acts which acknowledged foreign suzerainty. After a time, some of these miniature empires developed a recognized unity, indicated by the use of a definite title, but these titles were still connected rather with the city which formed the capital than with the empire as such. With the coming of the Semite and the foundation of the Sargonid power, some twentyfive centuries before the time of Christ, these patesis tended to sink into the position of mere governors, and the process seems

complete under the kings of Ur. When Assyria first came into contact with Babylonia, then under the West Semites who formed the so-called First Babylonian Dynasty (2225-1916 B.C.), we find the process still incomplete. For example, the city state of Kish, within sight of Babylon itself, long remained under the control of a ruler who was actually permitted the title of king, whereas certain of the states farther away were at once incorporated. Which of the two systems should be followed seems to have depended on whether the city conquered had been earlier the capital of a state with imperial pretensions. Even under Hammurapi, we have subject kings who might claim for themselves conquests otherwise assigned to their suzerain. The Sin idinnam, to whom the official correspondence of Hammurapi is addressed, was not a governor, rather he was the viceroy of the entire south of Babylonia, where were the most ancient and famous cities and where also was the greatest need and greatest opportunity for an army.

The breakdown of the Hammurapi empire under his son Samsu iluna put an end to this development. When Babylonia once more was powerful, her new rulers, the Kashshites had brought from their isolated mountain valleys a feudal system which was the very negation of imperial organization. Worthy as would be the study of this feudal regime in the light of similar developments in Mediaeval Europe and in Japan, it is of merely negative importance in an investigation of the provincial organization. Had the system of Hammurapi developed to its natural limit, Shamshi Adad, patesi of the city state of Ashur, would have been supplanted by a governor of the city Ashur. The feudal anarchy for which the Kashshites were responsible gave opportunity for the patesi of Ashur to become the king of Assyria.1

The Assyrian kingdom thus began its growth when there was little to be learned from its former mistress. Scanty as are our sources for this earlier period, one thing at least stands out clearly: Assyria still lacked a definite imperial organization. Her first advances to the northeast, in the region of the later

1 The above sketch of the political development of Babylonia is based on detailed studies to appear in the American Journal of Semitic Languages.

Assyrian triangle, resulted in complete incorporation into the kingdom and these conquests were later considered home land. Farther advance, however, brought a series of problems. On the south was Babylonia, whose higher culture, the basis of so much of Assyria's own, demanded a peculiar consideration. To the north and east ran lines of mountains, cut up into narrow valleys, each filled with a hardy hill folk; while to the west Aramaeans swarmed across the uncultivated steppe from their homes in the Arabian desert. It was clear that a new system was imperatively demanded.

What was the system first developed is made very evident in the Annals of Tiglath Pileser I (1100 B.C.), where that monarch calls himself "King of the four world regions, king of all princes, lord of lords, mighty one, king of kings, who hath ruled the peoples who hath been proclaimed over princes." It is clear that we are still dealing with an empire of the crudest type, with no internal bond of union other than a common master of the various subject kings. We do indeed find a statement that "unto Assyria I added land, unto her people peoples," we even find that the land of Qummuh "to the boundary of my land I added," but that here we have no real incorporation is shown by the well-known later history of that region.3

The religious character of the empire is well brought out in the very beginning of the document where we are informed that "Ashur and the great gods commanded that I should extend the boundary of their land." The tax and tribute was that of "Ashur my lord." When the "heavy yoke of the king's lordship" was placed on newly conquered peoples, it was in reality to the "lord Ashur" that they were made subject. Enemies were "not submissive to Ashur my lord," and the conquered were "numbered with those subject before Ashur my lord." Complete subjugation of a land is indicated by the captivity of the conquered gods in the city of Ashur. When kings

An excellent translation in Budge-King, Annals of the Kings of Assyria, 27ff.

'Annals, I. 29ff. cf. Ashur nasir apal, Ann. I. 18ff with same formulae; I. 59ff; III. 30f.