that I ought to lend myself to it in order to show them that Spain could be useful to them even in their own country. This is the principal cause of the anxiety which the aforesaid leaders manifested that I should visit New Orleans. I have said all that I believe worthy of your notice on this matter. May God preserve Your Excellency many years. PENSACOLA, June 25, 1807. Marquis de Someruelos. [Indorsement:] Received August 16, answered August 22. REVIEWS OF BOOKS Religious Persecution: a Study in Political Psychology. By E. S. P. HAYNES, late Scholar of Balliol College, Oxford. (London: Duckworth and Co. 1904. Pp. xi, 208.) THIS is a small book on a large subject. Happily, its theme is narrower than its title. What really interests Mr. Haynes is not persecution but toleration, and toleration only on its political side; and for the period since the sixteenth century he restricts his study to England and America. Yet, even thus narrowed, the task he sets himself is not a light one. His object, he tells us (p. 17), is "not only to attempt a historical sketch of the growth of toleration in the civilisation of Western Europe and its outgrowths, but also to demonstrate that in general the political phenomenon known as religious toleration has necessarily a sceptical basis". Even so vague and so trite a thesis demands serious research; and the plea that "the subject here discussed ought to be discussed" (p. viii), so far from disarming criticism, is a confession that the theme is still too vital for careless treatment. But Mr. Haynes's book is not a work of research. He is still a very young man. So lately as 1899, as we learn from his preface, he was an Oxford undergraduate; and, though he then began the present study, his work, he tells us, has been sadly interrupted by business. His book shows only too plainly these limitations. With the more discursive English writers on his topic he is familiar. He has even dipped into a few works of first-hand research, like the studies of Mr. W. M. Ramsay and Mr. E. G. Hardy on the relations of Rome and Christianity or Mr. Lea's History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, but in so desultory a fashion that the statements he bases on them will perhaps startle their authors. His personal acquaintance with the sources seems limited to the verifying of a citation or two from the classics and the Fathers. Even in his knowledge of what has been written in English on his subject there are strange gaps, and of the existence in other tongues of a rich and multiplying special literature he shows no suspicion. He quotes, indeed, a single German essay-the translated address of Döllinger on the "History of Religious Freedom "-and he has used, in French, La Cité Antique of Fustel de Coulanges, Ernest Renan's Origines du Christianisme, and the general history of Lavisse and Rambaud; but of the monographs in these and other tongues, even though so pertinent as the studies of Paul Frédéricq or Francesco Ruffini's La Libertà Religiosa, neither his notes nor his text betrays any knowledge. But, if Mr. Haynes's equipment be scanty, his courage is more than ample. Of the modesty of his preface his text has little. With the easy omniscience of the sage or the sophomore and with a lightness of touch which borders hard on flippancy he shrinks from no generalization and his pages scintillate with epigrammatic obiter dicta. To the most famous case of Protestant intolerance he devotes two sentences (p. 94): "Calvin attempted to intimidate his opponents by the burning of Servetus, a mystical writer who criticised the doctrine of the Trinity. His person Calvin only obtained through collusion between the Catholics at Lyons and the anti-Calvin party in Geneva, who betrayed Servetus after promising safety to him." Could more of unverifiable assumption and grotesque misconception be compressed into so brief a space? Even more startling is his dismissal of the witch-persecutions. Scholars who have supposed these at their height in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries will be puzzled, if relieved, to learn (p. 59) that "It is common to think that Joan of Arc's condemnation as a witch was a judicial anachronism." Even Mr. Haynes knows a moment's doubt; for, having discovered Gilles de Retz, he hastens to aid: "Yet as late as 1440 one Maréchal de Rais was hanged and burned for sorcery at Nantes." Then, rising to a height of assurance which no evidence can shake, he appends this astonishing foot-note: "It is only fair to add that witches were often burnt both in England and Scotland in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but not wizards." After these specimens of Mr. Haynes's learning in his own field it would be trivial to point out such minor inaccuracies as his crowning of Charles the Great on Christmas Eve (p. 51), his placing of papal Avignon on French soil (p. 66), or his apparent confusion of Augustine of Canterbury with Augustine of Hippo (pp. 39, 43, 44) and of Sir Matthew Hale with Sir James Hales (p. 115). What really mars his book is not petty slips, of whatever sort, but a general thinness of historical knowledge which betrays itself in almost every paragraph. The best part of the book is its sketch of the development of English thought on tolerance in the last three centuries; for here it shows some first-hand acquaintance with the sources. For America, on the other hand, Mr. Haynes confesses to reliance in the main on the work of Mr. S. H. Cobb; and, though he can hardly have learned from Mr. Cobb that Providence is in Massachusetts (p. 103) or that the freemason Morgan was "drowned in Canada" (p. 34), it is clear from such generalizations as his assertion (p. 15) that "In the United States politicians use more rhetorical and sentimental language every year that his personal researches into our conditions have not been profound. This is the more to be regretted because it seems to have been largely the defects of American toleration and his conviction that "it would be well for all to appreciate that a Church is not necessarily liberal because it is dissociated from the State, and, vice versâ, that a new country is not necessarily tolerant because it is new (p. vii), which suggested the writing of his book. The late Professor Ritchie, he tells us, "advised publication on these grounds". The dominance of that teacher's influence is, indeed, perceptible everywhere in Mr. Haynes's book; and not least is this the case in what concerns America. But Professor Ritchie, however resolute to be fair to the persecutor, is at bottom a loyal and consistent, if a temperate, friend of liberty. If he exposes the narrowness of our tolerance, it is to shame us into a broader. His dazed disciple is ready to condone all persecution, past or present, our own included; and the brutal dictum of Samuel Johnson, so indignantly repudiated by Professor Ritchie-“Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth, and every other man has a right to knock him down for it "-Mr. Haynes declares (p. 7), "with certain reservations and qualifications, really hits the nail on the head". Despite the inadequacy of its scholarship, the looseness of its logic, and the too frequent heedlessness of its style, Mr. Haynes's book has one great merit-its unblinking honesty. Could he have waited for ripeness of knowledge and of thought, he might well have given us a work of quite another value than the rambling speculations of a young university man who has mistaken interest for information and haziness of thought for openness of mind. A Short History of Ancient Egypt. By PERCY E. NEWBERRY and JOHN GARSTANG. (Boston: Dana Estes and Co. 1904. Pp. ix, 199; London: Archibald Constable and Co. 1904. Pp. x, III. Paging of the American edition used below.) THIS little book presents a very readable sketch of the career of the Nile valley peoples. Such a panorama of three thousand years, however, puts to a searching test the ability of an author to perceive and in a few paragraphs to indicate with critical precision and incisive terms the essential characteristics of the successive periods which he surveys. It cannot be said that the book successfully meets this test. There is a painful lack of proper proportion. We find 124 pages devoted to the history before the Empire, while the Empire itself comes off with forty-five pages. Imagine a sketch of the history of Rome of which three-fourths were devoted to the earlier period of the Republic and one-fourth to the Empire! The 500 years from the reign of Rameses II to the rise of the Ethiopians is compressed into five pages, while the less than 500 years of the Old Kingdom,with its scanty records, receives thirty-five pages! This inability to appreciate relative values results in misunderstandings fatal to any proper conception of the great periods as a whole. We are told for example (p. 149) that the domination of the foreign Hyksos in Egypt left "little trace-upon the ages which succeeded". As a matter of fact the rule of the Hyksos not only taught the Egyptians warfare, but, being the first example of a supremacy embracing the contiguous regions of two continents, was the beginning of that fusion. of continents and nations which found its culmination in the period inaugurated by Alexander and continued by the Roman Empire. It thus broke down completely the reticence and the conservatism of ages in Egypt, a process which the authors place over 250 years later at the close of the eighteenth dynasty! That the great invasion of Syria by the Hittites at this time caused the total collapse of Egyptian power in Asia seems to have been unperceived by the authors, and is not even referred to by them (pp. 161-163). Again, in this very age of Egypt's decline abroad the authors place an extension of the Pharaoh's conquests in the Euphrates valley among the kings of Assyria and Babylonia, with whom, as the Amarna letters show, the Pharaoh was at this time enjoying relations of profoundest peace and friendship! The identification of Hittites and Hyksos (and elsewhere also of Etruscans) is unfortunate, and is totally without basis; nor was there any Hittite invasion of Syria before the latter part of the eighteenth dynasty. These examples will illustrate the defects of the work. The presentation in the little book of the new results from the archaic age deserves consideration as a serious contribution. To these results the excavations of Mr. Garstang have made a number of valuable contributions, while the excellent field-work of Mr. Newberry has also added useful observations here and there throughout the book. The American edition has some serious misprints: even the names of the authors are spelled "Newbury and Gastrang" on the cover. Of the invasion of the north by Narmer the text says (p. 30), "Entering through the portal of the Northern Kingdom, he vanished as he went ". The English edition has "vanquished". vanquished". It is presumable that the authors are not responsible for these errors. Antike Schlachtfelder in Griechenland. Bausteine zu einer antiken Kriegsgeschichte. Von JOHANNES KROMAYER. Erster Band. Von Epaminondas bis zum Eingreifen der Römer. Mit sechs lithographischen Karten und vier Tafeln in Lichtdruck. (Berlin: Weidmann. 1903. Pp. x, 352.) THIS book is the product of an expedition to Greece which was undertaken at the joint expense of the University of Strasburg and the Royal Academy of Sciences at Berlin. At the head of it was Professor Kromayer, now of Czernowitz, and with him were associated as expert advisers Captain Göppel and Colonel Janke of the General Staff of the German Army. The undertaking, which had for its purpose the location and delineation of battle-fields in Greece, was aided and encouraged by the governments, officials, and scholars of several nations. The book thus produced stands at present in the center of a very animated controversy. It arose in the following way. Professor Hans Delbrück had published the first volume of his History of the Art of War-that dealing with antiquity-and was on the point of issuing the second when the expedition returned. Professor Kromayer at once gave a lecture (Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1900, pp. 204-211) on his |