the so-called "monstrous" features it is hardly possible to imagine would be invented alike by three persons of such widely different types and civilization. The anthropological theory is that such a tale was invented either separately or in one place in a period of barbarism not unlike that of the Bushmen; it has staid with the Bushmen, with little modification; with the ancestors of the Greeks some of its crudities were pruned off as they advanced in culture and as the stories grew into their mythology, but some of them remained, e. g., the story of Cronus and Uranus. With the peasant class, the most stationary of the families of men in a non-reading age, the fortune of the stories was somewhat similar, though they became fairy tales and the like, a popular rather than a literary mythology. Such, in brief, is the basis of this later theory, which in the writer's opinion is likely to gain more and more

assent.

Little space is left for the last book on our list, The Ilistory of the Forty Vezirs, or the Story of the Forty Morns and Eves: written in Turkish by Sheykh-Zada. Done into English by E. J. W. Gibb. This well-known series of tales, of some importance to the folklorist, has never been, as a whole, translated into English before; so that Mr. Gibb's elegant version is very welcome. Based upon an incident like that of Joseph and Potipher's wife, the collection consists of the stories told by the forty wise Vezirs every morning to deter the king from executing his unjustly accused son, and of the forty counteracting tales of his young wife, the son's stepmother, told in the evening to nerve him to the execution. The Vezirs relate the inconstancy and frailty of women, and the queen, the treachery of sons and court favorites. There is a great variety of amusing incident in the tales, though many will find the medieval contempt for women too prominent and too much reiterated even if they are prepared for it and used to it. The dedication tells us that we owe this version to the suggestion of Mr. Clouston. Mr. Gibb, while not devoting particular pains to the matter, has called attention to striking parallels or variants of these stories in other countries. The volume is handsomely gotten up and is published by George Redway, London.

EDWARD G. BOURNE.

ARTICLE

II.-PROFESSOR

JOHNSTON'S "CONNECTICUT:" SOME THOUGHTS ON THE HISTORY OF A COMMONWEALTH-DEMOCRACY.*

Or the latest contribution to the "American Commonwealth" series, it may be said, in epitome, that the field chosen is an exceedingly fruitful one and that the labors of the author have secured a rich harvest. Professor Johnston writes of a small State, but one whose history is full of interest, alike to the scholar and the patriot. He is an accomplished historian and has made his study from the modern stand-point, which subordinates mere antiquarianism to the discovery of living principles. The task is one requiring superior qualifications, of trained skill in sifting masses of unrelated data, sound judgment in weighing the conflicting testimony of specialists, and a good flow of narrative. No one of these important elements is lacking to detract from the completeness and value of the present volume.

The story of the first settlement of Connecticut, dating from 1634-5, and the sufferings of the early colonists, is succinctly told. The causes which led to the emigration are fairly summarized. At the time of this exodus, the Massachusetts colony, it will be recalled, embraced only a narrow strip of country, near the sea-board, and included eight small towns, of which Dorchester, Watertown, and Newton (Cambridge) were the most recent additions. The "new-comers showed considerable independence-to the annoyance of the majority -in managing their civil affairs; but, as it seems to us, the cardinal point of difference between them and their neighbors was the proper relations of church and State. "Democracy," said Cotton, who represented the majority, "I do not conceive that ever God did ordain as a fit government for church or

* Connecticut: A Study of a Commonwealth-Democracy; by ALEXANDER JOHNSTON, Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Economy in Princeton College. Houghton, Mifflin & Co. Boston and New York. 1887.

commonwealth." From this view Thomas Hooker and Samuel Stone, graduates of Cambridge, England, and who, as pastor and teacher of Newtown, commanded great influence among the minority, differed radically, even to withdrawal into a wilderness, though one which was reported to be fertile.

To the character of the Rev. Thomas Hooker, the "strength of the migration," a deserved tribute of high praise is paid. He was, indeed, splendidly endowed by nature for a pioneer, and as a controversialist he was equal to any of his contemporaries. Governor Winthrop, of Massachusetts had written him, in regard to judicature by the body of the people. "The best part is always the least and of that best part the wiser part is always the lesser." And Hooker had answered, "In matters of greater consequence, which concern the common good, a general council, chosen by all, I conceive, under favor, most suitable to rule and most safe for relief of whole."

"It would not be difficult to say," remarks the editor, "from these two letters, which of them held the seed from which sprang the modern American Commonwealth."

Hooker's sermon* preached at Hartford, May 31, 1639 (and deciphered, after the lapse of so many years, from short-hand characters, by that accomplished scholar Dr. J. H. Trumbull), Prof. Johnston claims "is the first practical assertion of the right of the people not only to choose, but to limit their rulers, an assertion which lies at the foundation of the American system. There is no reference to a 'dread sovereign,' no reservation of deference due to any class, not even to the class to which the speaker himself belonged. Each individual was to exercise his rights, according to the blessed will and law of God,' but he was to be responsible to God alone for his fulfillment of the obligation. The whole contains the germ of the idea of the commonwealth, and it was developed by his hearers

* In the abstract, or memorandum, he exhorts his hearers: "They who have power to appoint officers and magistrates, it is in their power, also to set the bounds and limitations of the power and peace unto which they call them "-giving as his reasons: 1. "Because the foundation of authority is laid, firstly, in the free consent of the people. 2. Because, by a free choice, the hearts of the people will be more inclined to the love of the persons chosen, and more ready to yield obedience. 3. Because that duty and engagement of the people."

into the Constitution of 1639. It was on the banks of the Connecticut, under the mighty preaching of Thomas Hooker and in the constitution to which he gave life, if not form, that we draw the first breath of that atmosphere which is now so familiar to us. The birthplace of American Democracy is Hartford."

We come now to a subject which will be for many readers the most interesting in the book; which though ably, and we believe, correctly treated, will not be likely to escape criticism from some sources, viz: the rise and development of the Connecticut town system, especially as contrasted with the corresponding system in vogue in the Colony of Massachusetts.

The first Connecticut legislative body, or "corte," met, as is well known, at Newtown (Hartford), on the 26th of April, 1636, two magistrates from each of the original towns being present to constitute the same, and as was the case with the Massachusetts General Court at that time, assumed judicial as well as legislative functions. But the very next year there were present in the Connecticut "corte," besides the six magistrates, nine "committees," or deputies, chosen equally by the citizens of the three towns. The latter delegation in fact elected the six magistrates and gave them the oath of office. This departure from, or rather, improvement upon the Massachusetts idea, simple as it may seem, really was the beginning of a much more democratic system than existed at that time, or subsequently, for several years in the older colony. In Connecticut at first, as is well known, the affairs of town and church were practically identical, the same meetings of citizens, held in the church of course, sufficing to manage both. But the Connecticut churches rejected the example of their Massachusetts contemporaries in making church membership a requirement for voting or office-holding. "The better blood of the [latter] colony," Prof. Johnston says, "was determined to establish a privileged class of some sort; and the bulk of the freemen, instinctively inclined to democracy, found it difficult to resist the claims of blood, wealth, and influence, backed by the pronounced support of the church." These three original Connecticut towns had, on the contrary, left commonwealth control behind them once for all when they seceded from the

older colony. "They had gone into the wilderness each the only organized political power within its jurisdiction. Since their prototypes, the little tuns of the primeval German forest, there had been no such examples of the perfect capacity of the political cell, the 'town,' for self-government."

The town-system of Massachusetts, in the opinion of Prof. Johnston, was "subordinate to the colony, even after the real beginning of government." "In Connecticut," on the other hand, "it was the town that created the commonwealth; and the consequent federative idea has steadily influenced the colony and State alike. In Connecticut, the governing principle, due to the original constitution of things rather than to the policy of the commonwealth, has been that the town is the residuary legatee of political power; that it is the State which is called upon to make out a clear case for powers to which it lays claim; and that the towns have a prima facie case in their favor wherever a doubt arises."

Holding these views, it is not to be wondered at that the author regards the first constitution of Connecticut (adopted Jan. 14, 1638-(9) as the first really democratic written constitution drawn and used on this continent; for that document provided a way by which the "deputies" of the various towns could, if the Governor and "magistrates" refused to call them together, meet and organize a supreme legislature by themselves; and, moreover, the right of suffrage was bestowed unequivocally on all inhabitants who had been admitted by the towns. Nor was any attempt made to define the powers of the towns themselves. They were to choose their own officers and manage their own affairs and have their annual representation in the legislature of the commonwealth. short, it is difficult to imagine a completer system of local selfgovernment," of the people, by the people, and for the people," than was planned to prevail and did prevail in Connecticut, throughout the eventful years of its early history.*

In

* For many purposes," says the editor, of the New England town system, "it can be better studied in Connecticut than in Massachusetts; for the town in Connecticut was almost as free as independency itself, until near the charter, while in Massachusetts it was circumscribed in the beginning by commonwealth power.