of the highest concerns of the state which cannot be compressed into mere governments in a kind of independence which makes possible the best sort of co-operation. . . . After all is said and done, academic freedom cannot be expressed in formulas nor secured by mere systems of administration. It belongs to men who deserve it for pre-eminent worth and command it by the courage of wellreasoned conviction. No sort of freedom is worth having which can be marked out by fixed lines or maintained by inferior men without a struggle. It is a part of the mission of educational institutions to take their place and play their part in the conflicts which are necessary to the life of the peoples; and when their part assumes the form of a struggle for the right to teach the truth as they find it, the conflict itself may prove their best means of persuading men that truth is worth fighting for."-E. E. Brown, Academic freedom (Educational Review, Mar., 1900, pp. 219-231).

"The term 'academic freedom' has traditionally had two applications-to the freedom of the teacher and to that of the student. It need scarcely be pointed out that the freedom which is the subject of this report is that of the teacher. Academic freedom in this sense comprises three elements: freedom of inquiry and research; freedom of teaching within the university or college; and freedom of extra-mural utterance and action. The first of these is almost everywhere so safeguarded that the dangers of its infringement are slight. It may therefore be disregarded in this report. The second and third phases of academic freedom are closely related, and are often not distinguished. The third, however, has an importance of its own, since of late it has perhaps more frequently been the occasion of difficulties and controversies than has the question of freedom of intra-academic teaching. All five of the cases which have recently been investigated by committees of this Association have involved, at least as one factor, the right of university teachers to express their opinions freely outside the university or to engage in political activities in their capacity as citizens. . . . The simplest case is that of a proprietary school or college designed for the propagation of specific doctrines prescribed by those who have furnished its endowment. It is evident that in such cases the trustees are bound by the deed of gift, and, whatever be their own views, are obligated to carry out the terms of the trust. . . . Their purpose is not to advance knowledge by the unrestricted research and unfettered discussion of impartial investigators, but rather to subsidize the promotion of the opinions held by the persons, usually not of the scholar's calling, who provide the funds for their maintenance. Leaving aside, then, the small number of institutions of the proprietary type, what is the nature of the trust reposed in the governing boards of the ordinary institutions of learning? . . . They cannot be permitted to assume the proprietary attitude and privilege, if they are appealing to the general public for support. Trustees of such universities or colleges have no moral right to bind the reason or the conscience of any professor. All claim to such right is waived by the appeal to the general public for contributions and for moral support in the maintenance, not of a propaganda, but of a nonpartisan institution of learning... The function [of professors] is to deal at first hand, after prolonged and specialized technical training, with the sources of knowledge; and to impart the results of their own and of their fellow-specialists' investigations and reflection, both to students and to the

general public, without fear or favor. The proper discharge of this function requires (among other things) that the university teacher shall be exempt from any pecuniary motive or inducement to hold, or to express, any conclusion which is not the genuine and uncolored product of his own study or that of fellow-specialists. .

"The importance of academic freedom is most clearly perceived in the light of the purposes for which universities exist. These are three in number: (A) To promote inquiry and advance the sum of human knowledge. (B) To provide general instruction to the students. (C) To develop experts for various branches of the public service. Let us consider each of these. In the earlier stages of a nation's intellectual development, the chief concern of educational institutions is to train the growing generation and to diffuse the already accepted knowledge. It is only slowly that there comes to be provided in the highest institutions of learning the opportunity for the gradual wresting from nature of her intimate secrets. The modern university is becoming more and more the home of scientific research. There are three fields of human inquiry in which the race is only at the beginning: natural science, social science, and philosophy and religion, dealing with the relations of man to outer nature, to his fellow men, and to the ultimate realities and values. The second function -which for a long time was the only function-of the American college or university is to provide instruction for students. It is scarcely open to question that freedom of utterance is as important to the teacher as it is to the investigator. No man can be a successful teacher unless he enjoys the respect of his students, and their confidence in his intellectual integrity. It is clear, however, that this confidence will be impaired if there is suspicion on the part of the student that the teacher is not expressing himself fully or frankly, or that college and university teachers in general are a repressed and intimidated class who dare not speak with that candor and courage which youth always demands in those whom it is to esteem. . . . The third function of the modern university is to develop experts for the use of the community. If there is one thing that distinguishes the more recent developments of democracy, it is the recognition by legislators of the inherent complexities of economic, social, and political life, and the difficulty of solving problems of technical adjustment without technical knowledge. . . . It is obvious that here again the scholar must be absolutely free not only to pursue his investigations but to declare the results of his researches, no matter where they may lead him or to what extent they may come into conflict with accepted opinion. To be of use to the legislator or the administrator, he must enjoy their complete confidence in the disinterestedness of his conclusions. It is clear, then, that the university cannot perform its threefold function without accepting and enforcing to the fullest extent the principle of academic freedom. The responsibility of the university as a whole is to the community at large, and any restriction upon the freedom of the instructor is bound to react injuriously upon the efficiency and the morale of the institution, and therefore ultimately upon the interests of the community.

"The special dangers to freedom of teaching in the domain of the social sciences are evidently two. The one which is the more likely to affect the privately endowed colleges and universities is the danger of restrictions upon the expression of opinions which point towards extensive social in

novations, or call in question the moral legitimacy or social expediency of economic conditions or commercial practices in which large vested interests are involved. In the political, social, and economic field almost every question, no matter how large and general it at first appears, is more or less affected with private or class interests; and, as the governing body of a university is naturally made up of men who through their standing and ability are personally interested in great private enterprises, the points of possible conflict are numberless. When to this is added the consideration that benefactors, as well as most of the parents who send their children to privately endowed institutions, themselves belong to the more prosperous and therefore usually to the more conservative classes, it is apparent that, so long as effectual safeguards for academic freedom are not established, there is a real danger that pressure from vested interests may, sometimes deliberately and sometimes unconsciously, sometimes openly and sometimes subtly and in obscure ways, be brought to bear upon academic authorities. On the other hand, in our state universities the danger may be the reverse. Where the university is dependent for funds upon legislative favor, it has sometimes happened that the conduct of the institution has been affected by political considerations; and where there is a definite governmental policy or a strong public feeling on economic, social, or political questions, the menace to academic freedom may consist in the repression of opinions that in the particular political situation are deemed ultra-conservative rather than ultra-radical. The essential point, however, is not so much that the opinion is of one or another shade, as that it differs from the views entertained by the authorities. The question resolves itself into one of departure from accepted standards; whether the departure is in the one direction or the other is immaterial. This brings us to the most serious difficulty of this problem; namely, the dangers connected with the existence in a democracy of an overwhelming and concentrated public opinion. The tendency of modern democracy is for men to think alike, feel alike, and to speak alike. . . . In a democracy there is political freedom, but there is likely to be a tyranny of political opinion. An inviolable refuge from such tyranny should be found in the university. . . . It is, in short, not the absolute freedom of utterance of the individual scholar, but the absolute freedom of thought, of inquiry, of discussion and of teaching, of the academic profession, that is asserted by this declaration of principles."-American Association of University Professors, General report of the committee on academic freedom and academic tenure (American Political Science Review, May, 1916).

Opinion of President Barrows of the University of California.-"Finally, we come to that special freedom to which the term 'academic freedom' is sometimes confined-freedom of teaching and of thought and utterance associated with it. This is undoubtedly the most crucial point of our inquiry. Is a professor in a university, and above all in a state university, to be permitted to express himself without restraint? I am not sure that I represent the unanimous academic view, but as a practical answer I would say, 'yes, once a man is called to be a professor.' The earlier grades of academic advancement are necessarily probationary, but once the professorial status is conferred the scholar can not thereafter successfully be laid under restraint. . . . I appreciate that there are times which are exceptional; when men neither in

a university nor in civil society generally may use their privilege of speech and criticism. War is such a season.... War is a highly abnormal experience in which thousands and millions of men, at utmost danger to their lives, forego all freedom, surrender all liberty to the necessary requirements of military discipline. And this being the situation of the men who fight, some measure of restraint is justifiable over the entire nation, that the army may suffer no increased hazard. And there may also be other crises in a state so acute, so disturbing, so painful to large numbers, as to necessitate a temporary suppression of free utterance, but normally the rule of academic freedom holds. The university is not an open forum. Its platforms are not free to the uninstructed or to those without repute. It is not a place where any sort of doctrine may be expounded by any sort of person. There is a public attitude that sometimes questions the right, particularly of a state university, to exclude any from public utterance in university halls. But just as the permanent members of a university are selected with great care and for reasons of confidence in their knowledge, so those who are invited to speak incidentally or occasionally must be judged with comparable considerations."-D. P. Barrows, Academic freedom (School and Society, Apr. 17, 1920).

Opinion of President Lowell of Harvard University. "The teaching by the professor in his class-room on the subjects within the scope of his chair ought to be absolutely free. He must teach the truth as he has found it and sees it. This is the primary condition of academic freedom, and any violation of it endangers intellectual progress. In order to make it secure it is essential that the teaching in the class-room should be confidential. This does not mean that it is secret, but that what is said there should not be published. If the remarks of the instructor were repeated by the pupils in the public press, he would be subjected to constant criticism by people, not familiar with the subject, who misunderstood his teaching; and, what is more important, he would certainly be misquoted, because his remarks would be reported by the student without their context or the qualifications that give them their accuracy. Moreover, if the rule that remarks in the class-room shall not be reported for publication elsewhere is to be maintained, the professor himself must not report them. . . . That does not mean a denial of the right to publish them in a book, or their substance in a learned periodical. On the contrary the object of institutions of learning is not only the acquisition but also the diffusion of knowledge. . . . In troublous times much more serious difficulty, and much more confusion of thought, arises from the other half of our subject, the right of a professor to express his views without restraint on matters lying outside the sphere of his professorship. . . . The fact that a man fills a chair of astronomy, for example, confers on him no special knowledge of, and no peculiar right to speak upon, the protective tariff. His right to speak about a subject on which he is not an authority is simply the right of any other man, and the question is simply whether the university or college by employing him as a professor acquires a right to restrict his freedom as a citizen.... On their [the students'] side they have a right not to be compelled to listen to remarks offensive or injurious to them on subjects of which the instructor is not a master,-a right which the teacher is bound to respect. gravest questions, and the strongest feelin from action by a professor beyond his ch

and outside his class-room. Here he speaks only as a citizen. By appointment to a professorship he acquires no rights that he did not possess before; but there is a real difference of opinion to-day on the question whether he loses any rights that he would otherwise enjoy. . . . In the first place, to impose upon the teacher in a university restrictions to which the members of other professions, lawyers, physicians, engineers, and so forth, are not subjected, would produce a sense of irritation and humiliation. In accepting a chair under such conditions a man would surrender a part of his liberty; what he might say would be submitted to the censorship of a board of trustees, and he would cease to be a free citizen. . . . Such a policy would tend seriously to discourage some of the best men from taking up the scholar's life. . . . If a university or college censors what its professors may say, if it restrains them from uttering something that it does not approve, it thereby assumes responsibility for that which it permits them to say. This is logical and inevitable, but it is a responsibility which an institution of learning would be very unwise in assuming. . . . Surely abuse of speech, abuse of authority and arbitrary restraint and friction would be reduced if men kept in mind the distinction between the privilege of academic freedom and the common right of personal liberty as a citizen, between what may properly be said in the class-room and what in public. But it must not be forgotten that all liberty and every privilege implies responsibilities. Professors should speak in public soberly and seriously, not for notoriety or self advertisement, under a deep sense of responsibility for the good name of the institution and the dignity of their profession. They should take care that they are understood to speak personally, not officially. When they so speak, and governing boards respect their freedom to express their sincere opinions as other citizens may do, there will be little danger that liberty of speech will be either misused or curtailed."-A. L. Lowell, Annual report to the board of overseers, 1916-1917 (Excerpts as quoted in Harvard Graduates' Magazine, Mar., 1018).

Opinion of President Hadley of Yale University. "The problem of the liberty of teaching connects itself with other problems of civil liberty; and all these problems together reach back into past history, and can be properly analyzed only by historical study. Only by placing them all in their proper relations to one another can we understand either the reasons or the limitations of our system of academic freedom as it exists at the present day To the modern observer liberty in its various manifestations is neither an abstract right to be assumed, as Rousseau would have assumed it, nor a pernicious phantom to be condemned and exorcised, as Carlyle or Ruskin would have condemned it, but an essential element in orderly progress; not without its dangers and not without its limitations, yet justified on the whole because the necessary combination of progress and order can be better secured by a high degree of individual liberty than in any other fashion..." AT Hadley, Academic freedom in theory and in practice (Atlantic Monthly, Feb., 1003, pp. 152153)

Opinion of President Butler of Columbia University."You will enter here into an atmosphere of complete intellectual freedom. Each member of this university, teacher and taught alike, is under two limitations, and only two, in matters of speech and of conduct The first of these is the limitation put upon us all by the laws of the land. which are enforced by the properly constituted

ACADEMIES, International Union of. See INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ACADEMIES.

ACADEMY, takes its name from the "Academia" on the Cephissus, a sacred precinct of Athens, which spot probably belonged to Acadamus, a hero of Atticus. In time it became a public park; later, a gymnasium was built here where Plato held his first lectures in philosophy. The masters of the great schools of philosophy at Athens "chose for their lectures and discussions the public buildings which were called gymnasia, of which there were several in different quarters of the city. They could only use them by the sufferance of the State, which had built them chiefly for bodily exercises and athletic feats. . . . Before long several of the schools drew themselves apart in special buildings, and even took their most familiar names, such as the Lyceum and the Academy, from the gymnasia in which they made themselves at home. Gradually we find the traces of some material provisions, which helped to define and to perpetuate the different sects. Plato had a little garden, close by the sacred Eleusinian Way, in the shady groves of the Academy. . . . Aristotle, as we know, in later life had taught in the Lyceum, in the rich grounds near the Ilissus."W. W. Capes, University life in ancient Athens, pp. 31-33.-Academy in its modern sense, is a corporation or society organized to encourage the disinterested pursuit of art or science, or both. It is now used to refer to learned organizations of all kinds. It is usually endowed by the state or otherwise publicly recognized. A list of the more important academies, with the date of founding is appended: Académie française (1629-1635); Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres or "Petite académie" (1663); Académie des sciences (1666); Académie des beaux arts (Berne, 1677); Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (formerly Societas Regia Scientiarum, 1700); Académie Impériale des sciences de Saint-Pétersbourg (Imperatorskaya Akademiya naük, 1725); Royal Academy of Arts (London, 1768); American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1780); National Academy of Design (New York, 1826); National Academy of Sciences (U. S. A., 1863); American Academy in Rome (1865); British Academy (1002). Separate articles on the more important academies will be found under their own headings-See also EDUCATION: Ancient: B. C. 7th-A D. 3rd centuries Greece, Socrates and the philosophical schools: GYMNASIA: Greek.

ACADEMY, American. See AMERICAN ACADEMY IN ROME,

ACADEMY, French.-Founded by Cardinal Richelieu, in 1635, for the refining of the language and the literary taste of France. (See also FRENCH LITERATURE: 1008-1715] Its forty members are styled "les Quarante Immortels" (the Forty Immortals). Election to a seat among them is a high object of ambition among French writers The seats are numbered from one to forty, and the records of members are kept under the numbers o their respective chairs -“The literary movement of the Renaissance ended in Europe about the mid

dle of the seventeenth century. There appeared no more great writers in Spain, nor in Italy, nor in Germany. France, only, was for a century the country of learning. The writers of that period had a totally different conception of the art of writing from those of the time of the Renaissance. They neither wrote for the learned nor for the common people; they wrote for society; for those whom they called well-bred people, and it was the well-bred company gathered in the salons which decided upon the value of the works. The salons were set up in France during the reign of Louis XIII.; manners and language had been rude at first; the nobles brought with them the customs of the soldier; little by little the ladies brought about a change in the general tone, and introduced the custom of speaking politely, and in choice terms. The Marquise de Rambouillet (q. v.) set the example, by holding in her own mansion regular reunions where questions of literature and morals were discussed. The employment of trivial expressions was forbidden; the ladies called themselves 'Précieuses.' They sought to purify the language, and were aided in their work by the grammarians, and by the Academy. The French language at that time was composed of many words and turns of phrase, which had their origin in the French of the Middle Ages; others had been drawn from the Greek or Latin by the men of the Renaissance. The grammarians and the 'Précieuses' proscribed a great many expressions on account of their coarseness, or their provincialism and many new words taken from the Latin, because they were too pedantic. They endeavored to follow good usage,' that is, to employ only such words as were used in the best circles in Paris. It is far better,' said Vaugelas, 'to consult the women, and those who have not studied, than to counsel with those who are learned in Greek and Latin.' The French language thus purified, beame the language of the court, and of the salon, which every one must speak if one wished to be considered educated, and well-bred. 'One word amiss is sufficient to make one scorned in society.' To speak well is one of the forms required by good breeding.' In order to fix rules for the language, Richelieu founded the French Academy; to edit a dictionary of the French language is its especial charge. This small band called good society is the flower of the human race,' said Voltaire. 'It is for them that the greatest men have labored.' 'It is the taste of the court that should be studied,' said Molière. "There is no place where decisions can be more just.' This taste which was imposed on all writers, is called the classic taste. It consists in expressing only ideas that can be easily understood, and expressing them in terms clear, precise, and elegant, setting them forth in perfect order, taking care to employ no popular expression, neither a term of science, trade, or of the household; in one word, sparing the reader everything which may demand an effort of the mind, or which may shock the proprieties. Literature became the art of making fine discourses; it was oratorical rather than poetic. Its dominant quality was perfection."-C. Seignobos, History of mediaval and of modern civilization, pp. 424-426.— During the revolutionary period the Academy was suspected of monarchical sentiments and accused of constituting an intellectual aristocracy. It was accordingly suppressed August 8, 1793, by a decree of the Convention and incorporated, in 1795, into the Institut National, under the name of "La classe de la langue et littérature françaises." The Restoration replaced the Academy to its original status. The first edition of its dictionnaire was

issued in 1694; the sixth edition appeared in 1835, since augmented by supplements and revised. The selection of members for the Academy has long been a matter of bitter controversy. While a goodly number of great names in French history and literature appear on its roll, it is true that many others, equally great, are conspicuous by their absence. Among the more prominent of the latter category may be mentioned Diderot, Rollin, Rousseau, Beaumarchais, Helvétius, Condillac, Benjamin Constant, J. de Maistre, Prudhon, Béranger, Conte, Balzac, Gautier, Stendhal, Flaubert, Daudet, Zola, Flaubert, de Maupassant, etc. None of these became an "immortal." The following are some of the celebrated Frenchmen who held seats in the Academy: Racine (1672); Séguier (1635); Boileau-Despréaux (1684); Voltaire (1746); Corneille (1647); Bougainville (1754); D'Alembert (1754); Cardinal Dubois (1722); Cardinal de Rohan (1704); Bossuet (1671); Montesquieu (1728); Nicolas Bourdon, first occupant of seat No. 1 (1637); Scribe (1834); O. Feuillet (1861); Buffon (1753); Guizot (1836); Hugo (1841); Sainte Beuve (1844); Ampère (1847); De Tocqueville (1841); Lacordaire (père, 1859); Ph. de Ségur (1830); A. Thiers (1833); Merimée (1844); Chateaubriand (1811); Lamartine (1829); Condorcet (1782); Jules Favre (1867); Tissot (1833); A. de Vigny (1845); A. de Musset (1852); Montalembert (1851); Laplace (1816); Cuvier (1818) and Royer-Collard (1827) 1919.-Calling of International conference for union. See under INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ACADEMIES.

The membership of the Academy in 1920 in the order of election with the name of the predecessor in each case, was as follows:

Comte d'Haussonville, Gabriel Paul Othenin de Cléron (Caro)

de Freycinet, Claude Louis de Saulces (Augier, Emile)

Loti-Viaud, Pierre Louis Marie Julien (Feuillet, Octave)

Lavisse, Ernest (de la Gravière, Jurien)
Bourget, Paul (du Camp, Max)

France, Anatole Jacques Thibault (de Lesseps)
Hanotaux, Gabriel (Challemel-Lacour)
Lavedan, Henri (Meilhac, Henry)

Deschanel, Paul Eugène Louis (Hervé, Florimond Rongé)

Masson, Louis Claude Frédéric (Paris)
Bazin, René François Nicolas (Legouve)
Ribot, Alexandre (duc d'Audiffret-Pasquier)
Barrès, Maurice (de Heredia, J. M.)
Donnay, Maurice (Sorel, Albert)
Richepin, Jean (Theuriet, André)
Poincaré, Raymond (Gebhart)
Brieux, Eugène (Halévy)
Aicard, Jean (Coppée, François)
Prévost, Marcel (Sardou, Victorien)
Doumic, René (Boissier)

Mgr. Duchesne, Louis Marie Olivier (Card. Mathieu)

Vte. de Régnier, Henri (Comte de Vogüé) Baron Cochin, Henry Denys Benoit Marie (Vandal)

Général Lyautey, Herbert (Houssaye, Henri) Boutroux, Etienne Emile Marie (Général Lang

lois)

Capus, Alfred Vincent Marie (Poincaré, H.) de la Gorce, Pierre (Thureau-Dangin) Bergson, Henri Louis (Olivier, Emile) Maréchal Joffre, Joseph Jacques Césaire (Clare tie, Jules)

Barthou, Louis (Roujon, Henri)

Mgr. Baudrillart, Henri Marie Alfred (Comte de Mun, Albert)

Boylesve, René (Mézières)

de Curel, François (Hervieu, Paul)
Cambon, Jules (Charmes, Francis)
Clemenceau, Georges (Faguet, Emile)
Maréchal Foch, Ferdinand (Marquis de Vogüé)
Bordeaux, Henry (Lemaître, Jules)
de Flers, Robert (Marquis de Ségur)
Bedier, Joseph (Rostand, Edmond)
Chevrillon, André (Lamy, Etienne)

The above list was furnished by courtesy of the French government, in December, 1920.

ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (l'Académie des sciences), an institution founded at Paris in 1666 by Colbert and approved by Louis XIV in 1699; suppressed by the National Convention during the French Revolution and in 1816 reconstituted as a branch of the Institut de France (founded 1795). At first it served as an experimental laboratory and observatory; its purpose is to promote scientific research. It numbers sixty-eight members, ten honorary academicians, eight foreign associates, and one hundred corresponding members.

ACADIA. See CANADA: 1603-1605, 1610-1613, 1692-1697.

Origin of the name. See NOVA SCOTIA: 1604. Capture of. See U. S. A.: 1690.

Given to Great Britain at Treaty of Utrecht. See NEWFOUNDLAND, DOMINION OF: 1713.

In Nova Scotia. See NOVA SCOTIA: 1713-1730. Boundary dispute with England. See NOVA SCOTIA: 1749-1755.

Exile of inhabitants. See NOVA SCOTIA: 1755. ACANTHUS, a plant found in great abundance in ancient Greece. Because of its attractive form it was reproduced on metals and subsequently carved in stone, particularly by the Greeks. The succeeding styles of architecture employed the design especially in the Corinthian capital.

ACAPULCO, a seaport of Mexico, on the Pacific, in the state of Guerrero, with a very fine landlocked harbor, the chief port of call for steamships plying between San Francisco and South American ports. In the eighteenth century it was the port used for the Philippine trade.-See also MEXICO: 1810-1819.

ACARNANIA, a land in the western part of Greece, south of Epirus (see GREECE: Map of ancient Greece), whose people first emerged from obscurity at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War (431-404 B. C.). The Acarnanians formed "a link of transition" between the ancient Greeks and their barbarous or nonHellenic neighbours in the Epirus and beyond. "They occupied the territory between the river Acheloûs, the Ionian sea and the Ambrakian gulf; they were Greeks and admitted as such to contend at the Pan-Hellenic games, yet they were also closely connected with the Amphilochi and Agræi, who were not Greeks. In manners, sentiments and intelligence, they were half-Hellenic and halfEpirotic,-like the Etolians and the Ozolian Lokrians. Even down to the time of Thucydides, these nations were subdivided into numerous petty communities, lived in unfortified villages, were frequently in the habit of plundering each other, and never permitted themselves to be unarmed. ... Notwithstanding this state of disunion and insecurity, however, the Akarnanians maintained a loose political league among themselves.... The Akarnanians appear to have produced many prophets. They traced up their mythical ancestry, as well as that of their neighbours the Amphilochians, to the most renowned prophetic family among the Grecian heroes,-Amphiaraus, with his

sons Alkmæôn and Ampilochus: Akarnan, the eponymous hero of the nation, and other eponymous heroes of the separate towns, were supposed to be the sons of Alkmæôn. They are spoken of, together with the Etolians, as mere rude shepherds, by the lyric poet Alkman, and so they seem to have continued with little alteration until the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, when we hear of them, for the first time, as allies of Athens and as bitter enemies of the Corinthian colonies on their coast. The contact of those colonies, however, and the large spread of Akarnanian accessible coast, could not fail to produce some effect in socializing and improving the people. And it is probable that this effect would have been more sensibly felt, had not the Akarnanians been kept back by the fatal neighbourhood of the Ætolians, with whom they were in perpetual feud,-a people the most unprincipled and unimprovable of all who bore the Hellenic name, and whose habitual faithlessness stood in marked contrast with the rectitude and steadfastness of the Akarnanian rectitude and steadfastness of the Akarnanian character."-G. Grote, History of Greece, pt. 2, ch. 24.

ACARNANIAN LEAGUE.-"Of the Akarnanian League, formed by one of the least important, but at the same time one of the most estimable peoples in Greece . . . our knowledge is only fragmentary. The boundaries of Akarnania fluctuated, but we always find the people spoken of as a political whole. . . . Thucydides speaks, by implication at least, of the Akarnanian League as an institution of old standing in his time. The Akarnanians had, in early times, occupied the hill of Olpai as a place for judicial proceedings common to the whole nation. Thus the supreme court of the Akarnanian Union held its sittings, not in a town, but in a mountain fortress. But in Thucydides' own time Stratos had attained its position as the greatest city of Akarnania, and probably the federal assemblies were already held there. . . . Of the constitution of the League we know but little. Ambassadors were sent by the federal body, and probably, just as in the Achaian League, it would have been held to be a breach of the federal tie if any single city had entered on diplomatic intercourse with other powers. As in Achaia, too, there stood at the head of the League a General with high authority. . . . The existence of coins bearing the name of the whole Akarnanian nation shows that there was unity enough to admit of a federal coinage, though coins of particular cities also occur."-E. A. Freeman, History of federal government, ch. 4, sect. 1.See also ATHENS: B. C. 336-332.

ACAWOIOS. See CARIBS: Their kindred.

ACCA LARENTIA, the wife of Faustulus, who reared the Roman twins, Romulus and Remus. ACCAD: Ancient civilization. See BABYLONIA: Earliest inhabitants; SEMITES: Primitive Babylonia.

Language and literature. See ASSYRIA: Art and archæological remains; EDUCATION: Ancient: B.C 35th-6th centuries: Babylonia and Assyria. ACCEPTANTS. See CONVULSIONISTS. ACCIDENT INSURANCE, Industrial. See INSURANCE: Industrial insurance; SOCIAL INSURANCE: Accident and sickness insurance. France. See SOCIAL INSURANCE: Details for various countries: France: 1010.

Germany. See SOCIAL INSURANCE: Origin and early development

Great Britain. See SOCIAL INSURANCE: Details for various countries: Great Britain 1833-1011 Holland. See SOCIAL INSURANCE: Details for various countries: Holland 1804-1901