A History of the American School of Classical Studies, 1882-1942

Chapter II: The Chairmanship of Thomas Day Seymour of Yale University, 1887–1901

White’s resignation was accepted in May, 1887, and at that same meeting Thomas Day Seymour, Hillhouse Professor of Greek at Yale, was elected to succeed him.

Seymour’s father was Professor of Latin and Greek at Western Reserve University, and on his retirement in 1870 his son, who was graduated that year, was elected Professor of Greek and given two years’ leave of absence for study. These years were spent at Leipzig, Berlin and Athens. He held the Greek chair at Western Reserve till 1880, when he was called to Yale. Perhaps the man’s caliber can best be measured by the fact that he devoted his two years of study to preparation for his teaching and refused to spend the time seeking the doctor’s degree. In the youth of the generation now drawing to its close he was one of the “Big Four”—Gildersleeve, Goodwin, Seymour, White.

Seymour was elected to the Managing Committee at the November meeting in 1884 to succeed Packard. He first attended a meeting of the Committee in November, 1886. From that time till his retirement from the chairmanship in 1901 he was absent, as has been mentioned, only once (November, 1894).

The first problem of his administration was to secure the acceptance of the directorate of the School by Waldstein, to whom the position had already been offered.

At the November meeting in 1887 the regulations of the School had been amended to provide for a director for a term of five years and an annual director. Both were to be elected by the Managing Committee, the latter from the faculties of the cooperating colleges. The annual director was to reside in Athens and to have charge of the School in the absence of the director. But “the sole responsibility for the administration of the School should rest with the Permanent Director.” To avoid a possible ambiguity the title “Annual Director” was later (1892) changed to “Professor of the Greek Language and Literature” and still later (1914) to “Annual Professor.”

When the Managing Committee met in May, 1888, it was clear that the endowment of one hundred thousand dollars postulated by Waldstein could not be completed by fall. The expense of paying him a salary of three thousand dollars and of financing an annual director was beyond the means of the Committee. The annual directorate, with a stipend of five hundred dollars, was accordingly offered to Professor William G. Hale, of Cornell, who expected to be in Greece the following winter. Since Hale was unable to accept, Frank Bigelow Tarbell, who had been Assistant Professor of Greek at Yale, was appointed for 1888–1889, and further negotiations with Waldstein were left to the Executive Committee.

Meanwhile it was becoming increasingly clear that a permanent director was needed. Augustus C. Merriam, Professor of Greek Archaeology and Epigraphy at Columbia, was Director for the year 1887–1888. Writing to Norton from Paris in June, 1888, Mr. Martin Brimmer, one of the original Trustees of the School, comments on the situation at the School in Athens as he had found it that spring. After describing Professor Merriam as “intelligent” (a term which Jebb says is complimentary when applied to an elephant) and saying that he himself was providing outside blinds for the building (“a great credit to Ware”), he concludes, “It seems even more plain on the spot than elsewhere that a permanent Director must be had. It seems also most desirable that the Annual Professor should not be dispensed with.”

Waldstein came to America in the summer of 1888, and a protracted conference was held with him in Boston. In view of the fact that the desired endowment for the School had not been raised, Waldstein quite naturally declined to resign his post at Cambridge, which offered him a permanency, to assume at the School in Athens a position which might be regarded as quite precarious. After a thorough canvass of the situation it was finally agreed that Waldstein should be elected Director of the School for a year with a salary of one thousand dollars. He was to retain his position at Cambridge and visit Athens for a month at the end of the year (1888) and if possible again for another month in the spring of 1889. At the close of the school year the situation was to be reconsidered de novo with no prejudices to either party. Waldstein further offered to assist any student of the School who might be in Cambridge while he was in residence. That the amount, one thousand dollars, was inadequate was recognized by Waldstein and doubtless by the School authorities also.

Much correspondence passed between the Executive Committee and Waldstein during the winter of 1888–1889. He proposed a number of conditions on which he was willing to accept the appointment as director: residence in Greece from January 1 to April 1, twelve open lectures, direction of research and excavations. The Committee was to obligate itself to secure a “Director’s Endowment Fund” of one hundred thousand dollars and to devote the interest of this to the director’s salary. If such a capital sum was not raised sponsors were to be corralled who would guarantee a salary of at least three thousand dollars per annum, payable quarterly for three years, the appointment of the director being for “good behavior.” In a note to Ware, Waldstein complains that “matters that are the most important, namely present work suggested by the people on the spot [himself] is not seen to.” In spite of this, in March, 1889, Waldstein brought himself to accept the proposal of the Executive Committee: appointment for three years, salary of twenty-five hundred dollars per year, residence in Greece January 1 to April 1.

During the first year (1888–1889) of Waldstein’s directorate all seems to have gone smoothly, perhaps because of the diplomatic character of Tarbell, who was Annual Director, perhaps because Waldstein was in Athens such a limited time. In the second year friction began to develop.

The Annual Director was S. Stanhope Orris, Ewing Professor of the Greek Language and Literature in Princeton University. When the School building was planned, adequate provision was made for only one family because it was expected that there would be but one director. Now there was a director who was in Greece only three months during the year and in Athens only about half that time. Could the annual director with his family live at a hotel during his six months’ stay and manage the School from there while the director’s quarters in the School building stood vacant for all that time except six weeks? Orris’ answer was, “I trow not.” And in this he seemed to have the sympathy of the Committee. But in the general conduct of the School his directorate was far from winning the Committee’s approval.

Goodwin, who was in Athens that spring, had been suffering from an ulcerated sore throat and, “owing to the south wind,” as his physician said, was unable to speak aloud. He was, however, amply able to write. In a letter to Norton he described the work of Orris in terms the most complimentary of which was “thoroughly incompetent.” The exorbitant chaos of that year is best told in Goodwin’s own words:

I do not see how any first class man can ever be expected to take the annual directorship under the present arrangement, especially after this unfortunate experience [i.e., Orris]. I am more and more convinced that it is absolutely necessary to have our regular director in Athens (or at least in nominal “residence”) the whole of the School year; and when that can be done we need another permanent officer in the position of secretary who shall really assist the director in definite lines, but with no independent policy. Nothing can be worse, it seems to me, than to have a man there with full powers more than half of the time, who must suddenly give way in the middle of the year to a new man with different ideas and different policy. The change back again to the former regime is still worse, and it practically breaks up the school. It seems to be taken for granted that when Waldstein returned to England, before the middle of April, the work of the year was over; and our school was scattered just as our English neighbors were beginning most important work at Megalopolis. Our students were not a little ruffled that they had to stop work at Plataea just when the good season was beginning, and when $500 voted for this work remained untouched, apparently because there was nobody to superintend the excavations. Waldstein is a man of such impetuous mind, that he needs a long time to get settled in any new business; and this way the bustle attending his arrival in Athens, his departure to Plataea, his return to Athens, his departure for Troy, his return, and his final return to England made half of his time useless to the students.

At the meeting of the Managing Committee in November, 1890, Orris gave the report of his year’s work, in which he “emphasized the utility of the School in its vivifying influence upon classical study at home,” a subject on which it was hoped he was speaking from personal experience.

The Committee was further apprised of the unfortunate situation of affairs by Jabez Brooks, Professor of Greek in the University of Minnesota, who spent the spring of 1890 in Athens. On his return he wrote an article for Ariel, a publication of his university issued from 1877 to 1900. This came to the attention of the Managing Committee, and an excerpt appears in the Records. The complete quotation referring to the School is as follows:

The Archaeological Schools are four in number, French, German, English and American. The French is exclusive; the other three fraternize cordially. All are well equipped for general or special study and research in archaeological subjects, in addition to which the American School furnishes special advantages in the study of history and the classics. At present the supervision of the American school is cumbrous. A permanent director is appointed for three months and an annual one for the whole term from October to May. The utility of this arrangement is not apparent. If it is a necessity it is a misfortune. A conflict of authority, or a somewhat humiliating subordination of the annual to the permanent director is inevitable. A good endowment, with a salaried director, an American and not a foreigner, one who is in practical sympathy with American colleges, ideas and methods is a desideratum. The English school has the most students. The German school is the strongest in its directorship and the most successful in its achievements.

When the Managing Committee met the following May the whole question of the management was discussed fully. Norton had been made chairman of a committee on reorganization, and he reported that the committee regretted that it could see no possibility of there being more than twenty-five hundred dollars available for the management of the School, that it would, therefore, be impossible to add a secretary who should be permanently in Athens to assist the director; nor would it be possible to increase the amount (twenty-five hundred dollars) paid to the present director. It was likewise clear to the committee that it was “a manifest and undisputed fact that the success and usefulness of such an institution as the American School demands the continuous residence on the spot of a permanent representative of the Managing Committee.” It was accordingly voted that when Waldstein’s term of office expired in October, 1892, “the continuous presence on Greek soil of the permanent Director will be required during the whole school year or from October 1 to June 1 following in every year.” Provision was made for a special meeting of the Managing Committee to consider Waldstein’s reaction to this decision.

It was expected that Waldstein would visit America that summer. He did not do so, and when the fall meeting of the Committee took place (November 20, 1891) it was decided to proceed with the reorganization of the School as determined at the May meeting. There were eighteen present at this meeting—the largest attendance at a Managing Committee meeting up to that time. Norton was not there, but the Committee adopted his suggestion of calling the new executive head of the School the secretary. Seven names were considered, but on the second ballot Tarbell, who had been Annual Director with Waldstein in 1888–1889, was elected unanimously. His residence was to begin in October, 1892, and his salary was to be twenty-five hundred dollars. Against stiff opposition Seymour and Ware secured the election of Waldstein as Professor of Art in the School for 1892–1893 with a salary of one thousand dollars and a minimum residence of eight weeks in Athens.

It might have been expected that these actions would establish the direction of the School on firmer foundations for some time, but at the May meeting in 1892 Tarbell announced that he would be able to accept the secretaryship for only a single year because he had received a call to a professorship in the newly established University of Chicago.

This was undoubtedly a great disappointment to Tarbell’s friends on the Committee. There were, however, those who were still convinced of the great virtue of Waldstein’s services, and they were able to secure a vote by which “all the excavations of the American School at Athens for the year 1892–1893” were “put under the charge of Dr. Charles Waldstein.” The Executive Committee was charged with the responsibility of nominating another “permanent” chief executive of the School.

There had been a sharp difference of opinion in the Committee on the title to be given the chief executive officer in Athens. Those who favored the title “secretary” had succeeded in imposing it on Tarbell and had been able to prevent a reversion to “director” at the May meeting. But in November, 1892, the Committee, after listening to a letter from the Honorable J. Lowden Snowden, formerly United States Minister to Greece, in which he criticized the title of “secretary” as lacking in dignity, approved the title “director,” a designation which has ever since been used.

To the directorate, which this time was really to have some permanency, they unanimously elected Rufus B. Richardson. He held the office for ten years (1893–1903).

Richardson had been Annual Director for 1890–1891, following the unhappy Orris. He “had shown rather unusual powers of administration and of guiding the work of students during his term of office.” In the spring of 1891 he had worked with Waldstein in the excavation of the theater of Eretria and he took up this task again in 1894, the first spring of his directorate.

An important change in his relations to Waldstein was also made by the Managing Committee at their meeting in May, 1893. During Tarbell’s term as chief executive the excavations of the School had been under the direction of Waldstein. The Committee now voted that the director should have charge of all School excavations, thereby conferring on him, at last, full responsibility for the School’s activities. But Waldstein’s friends on the Committee succeeded at the November meeting in 1893 in passing a vote again limiting the director’s authority by giving entire charge of the Argive Heraeum excavation to Waldstein, as well as responsibility for the publication of these excavations. While this was perhaps unfortunate, since it weakened a central executive authority that was in sad need of being strengthened, the impasse which it threatened had already been avoided by the tactful action of the director in requesting Waldstein “to continue in charge of the excavation at the Heraeum.”

Waldstein had been elected Professor of Ancient Art for 1892–1893. There had been some fear that he might be offended by the offer of a subordinate position. These fears proved ill-grounded. Waldstein did accept and was reelected for 1893–1894 with the same salary, one thousand dollars, and a period of residence reduced from eight to six weeks. He was subsequently re-elected for annual terms till in the fall of 1896 the Managing Committee voted to allow the professorship of ancient art to lapse and to extend to Waldstein the Managing Committee’s “sense of the value of his services to the School.” He had been Director of the School for four years, 1888–1892, and Professor of Ancient Art for five years, 1892–1897.

Waldstein had undoubtedly done much for the School. His interest in the School had been spontaneous and genuine, though he frequently annoyed the students by his egotism and his brusqueness. He was an experienced excavator and enjoyed the work at the Argive Heraeum, the most important excavation undertaken by the School up to that time. When the Executive Committee directed him to close these excavations at the end of the season in 1895, leaving the work in “such condition that any work in future may be taken up at a satisfactory point,” his interest in the School largely evaporated, or was transferred, rather, to the completion of the publication of these excavations in a dignified form.

Waldstein was possessed of a passion for activity. His desire to be continually doing something did not make him the most helpful guide for his students. Goodwin, writing to White on April 14, 1890, at the close of Waldstein’s second year, finds this eminently true:

Our best students do not think that the School has gained much from W[aldstein] this year except in outside glory. W[aldstein] is our best possible representative socially and brilliantly, but he is never quiet long enough to be of real solid substantial help to the students at the School. The result of all the moves and counter moves this year has been that even now before the middle of April the School is practically broken up and the building in charge of a servant.

Waldstein’s correspondence with Norton (in the Houghton Library at Harvard) reveals a restless, self-centered individual. He is in trouble with the Institute for publishing material from the Heraeum without giving credit to the Institute for support. He manifested a petty jealousy of Merriam, due to the fact, probably, that Merriam was also an archaeologist, and this “made it almost impossible” for him to deal with Merriam, who was Chairman of the Committee on Publications. He apparently did have a real affection for Richard Norton, who was his most trusted assistant in the excavations at the Heraeum. But even the expression of this pleasant relation between director and student becomes wearisome in the too long telling of it.

Charles Eliot Norton himself composed the carefully worded note of appreciation which was extended to Waldstein at the close of his term as director. One paragraph sums up the matter, expressing in the language of diplomacy what Goodwin had said in idiomatic English:

[The Committee] are aware that the School owes much to him for unofficial as well as official services, and that for these they offer him their warm acknowledgement and thanks, while they recognize that to him is largely due the favourable regard in which the School is now held by the Government of Greece and the learned community at Athens.

One of the pleasant results of Waldstein’s directorate should not be forgotten: the appointment, in November, 1891, at Waldstein’s request, of Kabbadias, Ephor General of Antiquities in the Greek Government, as Honorary Professor of Hellenic Antiquities in the School.

The story of Phoebus Apollo and Zante Currants belongs really to the history of the Archaeological Institute of America. But since the Oracle vexed the School for nearly a decade, the base author of the plot may be indicated here and the villain exposed.

Professor Martin L. D’Ooge, of the University of Michigan, who was the fifth director of the School (1886–1887), wrote to Norton from Athens, October 23, 1886, as follows:

You probably recall a few words of conversation we had at the table of Professor Goodwin last May with reference to undertaking excavations at Delphi. I understood you to say at that time, that if I could get permission from the Greek government to carry on excavations in that most promising of all sites in Greece, you thought you could command almost any amount of money for this great undertaking. I have had several talks with the Ephor of Antiquities, Kabbadias, on the subject and at his suggestion called this morning with Hon. Walker Fearn, our U. S. Minister, on the Minister of Foreign Affairs to present the case. The situation is as follows:

Several years ago the French government began negotiations on behalf of the French School for the privilege of making excavations at Delphi, at which time the Greek government was disposed to expropriate the terrain on which the village, Castri, is located. The opposition to such expropriation was, however, so strong that the matter was dropped. Since then the French have been allowed to make a few excavations where the land was unoccupied. Meantime the village has grown and the difficulties of buying out the proprietors of the soil have increased. At present the terrain occupied by the temple, the theatre, etc., cannot probably be bought for less than $50,000. The Greek government would be willing to buy it for us (or others) and give us the right of excavation and then buy it back from us after we had done with it, thus reducing the first outlay. The expenditure requisite for the excavations Kabbadias calculates at $10,000. Of course, that’s an approximate estimate. I should say, however, that if we had $50,000 in hand we should be warranted in going ahead, hoping that any deficit would be easily made up. Now the French government has not the money, and it is somewhat questionable if it will be ready to vote this sum for some time to come, if ever. The Greek government, however, feels in duty bound, on account of the earlier negotiations left in suspense, to notify the French government of any proposal made by any other party. In case we could tell the Greek government that we can furnish the needed funds for this enterprise and the Frenchmen are not ready to go ahead, the chance would be ours. The Greek authorities are very friendly to us, and having discharged their obligation towards the French would gladly favor us. Suppose the expenditure to be $75,000 in toto—a large sum truly—we may remind ourselves that the Germans spent 800,000 marks at Olympia. May I quote a sentence from Newton’s Essay on the Discoveries at Olympia? “Is it too much to hope,” he says, “that some other nation may come forward to emulate the enlightened spirit which has undertaken this arduous and costly enterprise, not for the advantage of the German nation alone, but for the common benefit of all to whom classical archaeology is matter of interest?” Who can estimate the impetus the study of archaeology would receive in our country from the undertaking at Delphi?

Delphi was considered (as it proved to be) the most interesting and promising site in Greece for an extensive excavation. Both Schliemann and Doerpfeld recommended it, though Madame Schliemann was doubtful. Michaelis wrote from Strasbourg commending the project but stated that the discovery of valuable sculpture was unlikely!

In April, 1889, W. G. Hale wrote to Norton from Athens, giving a hopeful picture of the situation. This letter is summarized in the Secretary’s records as follows:

The French School has made no systematic excavations at Delphi,—the last in 1881.

French School estimate of expropriation at 40,000 dr[achmae]. Not by engineers. Official estimates 500,000 to 430,000 drachmae. Process of expropriation same as for a R. R.

Tricoupi stated unequivocally that we could have the concession if we came with the money. He said the French “were not patient persistent excavators.”

“The advantage to the country would be greater if another nation [than Greece] should undertake the task. Greece needed to be more widely known. The work of the Germans at Olympia had benefitted the country more than if the same excavations had been accomplished by Greeks.”

“The Greek Archaeological Society would prefer to have the Americans undertake the work.”

The Greek estimates of the cost of Delphi were made before anything was said to the Greek government with regard to the excavation of the site by Americans.

Mr. Fearn, like Tricoupi, is sure that France will not accept the treaty through any later assembly.

Dorpfeld and Schliemann believe that Delphi will prove a rich field. Mrs. Schliemann doubts. French minister told Fearn that he had no idea that the French would undertake the work. That is the general opinion in Athens. . . . .

Concession of Delphi to French made 7 or 8 years ago before Tricoupi came into power. He refused to go on with it. Convention modified 5 years ago and connected with the commercial treaty. This has been rejected twice (1884, ‘87) by French senate.

Stillman says Foucart and French minister are much irritated by the action of the Americans.

Excavations at least as expensive as Olympia.

Before Norton received this letter from Hale he had begun to sense opposition from the French but had none the less gone ahead. He wrote to George Herbert Palmer in January, 1889:

The Delphi matter is in a very interesting position. Mr. Fearn, our Minister at Athens, writes that Trikoupes, who is not only Prime Minister, but the Administration, so far as one man can be, promises us the concession provided we can guarantee such sum as may be needed for the expropriation of the villagers of Castri, the little town built up on the site of the old city,—at the outside $80,000, but presumably much less will actually be requisite, for there will be no necessity for removing the whole village. But French amour propre is touched, and both diplomatic and private pressure are being brought to bear to prevent the Greeks from withholding the concession from France. Any considerable delay on our part in affording the required guarantee is likely to spoil our chance.

The meeting at Bishop Potter’s seemed to me, and to others better able to judge, very successful in arousing interest in the matter. There were more than a hundred of the best persons to promote such an object as we have in view, present at it. Marquand, Cornelius Vanderbilt, S. Sloane, Jesse Seligman, Smith of “the Century,” James Loeb, and half a dozen more agreed on the spot to act as a Committee for obtaining the money needed. Marquand is Chairman, and subscribes $10,000. A meeting of the Committee has been called by him at his house tomorrow. Their action will determine our success or our failure, so far as action here can determine it. We cannot be sure until we have actually received the formal, official concession from the Greek Government If the result of the meeting tomorrow should be encouraging, a meeting will be called in Boston to forward the scheme.

Michaelis, hearing of the proposed Institute excavation of Delphi, wrote from Strasbourg in October, 1889, commending it heartily and damning the French with equal enthusiasm:

I was highly interested in the notice you sent me about the scheme of undertaking the excavations at Delphi, and I hope you will be fortunate enough to collect the necessary means. It is not likely you should discover sculptures of considerable importance, as the soil forms only a thin layer above the rock. The greater will be the harvest of inscriptions and of architectural remains. And here allow me to point out the absolute necessity of providing the staff of the excavators with an able architect, well acquainted with the results of and with the method of inquiry used in the recent excavations. It is one of the greatest losses for the history of Greek architecture that the French excavations throughout, and especially those at Delos, have been carried out without the aid of a trained architect, and there was a real danger, if the French had succeeded to make the excavations at Delphi, that the same system would have been followed. The French are interested exclusively in sculptures and especially in inscriptions, but they do care little about the general features of the spot they are exploring, and about the history of the buildings etc. which cannot be ascertained without a patient research and an exact statement of the whole matter of fact, even in its slightest details which often are able to throw light over important points. As far as I can see—and I hope that it is no narrow national partiality which makes me think so—our excavations at Olympia and at Pergamon owe their best results to this system, and it is a pleasure to see how the Greeks, availing themselves of the advices particularly of Dr. Doerpfeld, are following the same line. I feel sure that your architect, or architects, would find Doerpfeld always ready to help them, in their pursuits, and I fancy his counsels would do a real service to your excellent undertaking. Believe me, my dear Sir,
Yours very sincerely,
A. Michaelis.

Meanwhile the Institute conducted its campaign for funds with enthusiasm and success. In May, 1890, Norton could report to the Managing Committee of the School that the Institute had appropriated five thousand dollars for the project for that year, that thirty-one thousand dollars had been subscribed and that ten thousand was expected from Chicago. Waldstein was to spend that summer in America and solicit further gifts. Finally, at the meeting November 21, 1890, Seth Low announced that he had cabled Waldstein on the eighth that the Institute was prepared to pay four hundred thousand francs for the concession to excavate Delphi, that he had taken up the matter with the Department of State and that the United States Minister to Greece was being instructed to do all he could to further the success of the Institute plan. In view of this news, which seemed conclusive, the Managing Committee authorized the appointment of a sub-committee to “cooperate with the council of the Archaeological Institute in the conduct of explorations at Delphi in case the council invites the appointment of such a committee.”

But the worm was already busy at the root of the gourd. Michaelis had written to Norton from Strasbourg on November 6, 1890—two days before Low’s cable to Waldstein:

I read in the newspapers that the French have consented to reduce the duty of imported currants, and that the government asks a supply of 400,000 francs for the Delphi excavations. It would be a pity if this scheme should come to effect, because Delphi would be completely destroyed, owing to the careless and unscientific manner in which the French use to execute this kind of undertakings. All those who have seen Delos after the French excavations are affrighted at the devastation, so as to make the ruins completely unrecognizable. I whish [sic] heartily that your hopes might be fulfilled, and you might come in time to save Delphi from destruction. It would be a great loss to archaeology and topography.

The report was all too true. One of the conditions on which the Greek raisins known as Zante Currants were to be admitted to France with a reduced duty was that the privilege of excavating at Delphi be given to the French Archaeological School.

In spite of the criticism of the competence of French excavators levelled at them both by the Greek Premier and by the German archaeologist, and earlier by J. R. Sitlington Sterrett, it is doubtful if the American School at that time could have furnished the Institute with the personnel necessary for so large and complicated a task as the recovery of the temple and treasures at Delphi presented. Neither the French nor the American School had appreciated or learned to profit by the new technique in excavation developed by the Germans at Olympia. Ten years later either school could have done a competent job, and it is perhaps as well for the American School that it did not have to live down the incompetence of Homolle.

During Seymour’s chairmanship Norton and Ware were asked to submit a design for the seal of the School. The inscription, ΠAPΘENOΥ ΦIΛAΣ ΦIΛOI, is from a chorus in the Eumenides (line 999), “Ye beloved of the beloved maiden.”

Perhaps the authors of the seal would deprecate the use of the full quotation, for the next line reads σωφρoνoῦντες ἐν χρóνῳ, “Learning at last the way of Wisdom.” The date MDCCCLXXXI marks the appointment of the committee on organization. The School opened in 1882. This design was adopted as the official seal of the School at the November meeting in 1891.

At the May meeting in 1896 provision was made that the cooperating institutions might fund their annual payments of $250 by depositing $5,555 (later reduced to five thousand dollars) with the Treasurer of the Trustees, a payment of part of this amount might reduce the annual contributions pro rata. Brown University was the first institution to take advantage of this proposition. In 1902 Professor Poland deposited the final payment on this endowment with the understanding that “It shall be known forever as ‘The Albert Harkness Fund for the benefit of Brown University,”’ thus commemorating the distinguished scholar who had been one of the committee to organize the School and had been so influential in promoting its success. This fund was later very substantially increased. It now (1944) amounts to $9,664.09, the largest of any of the funded college endowments.

The question of publications was a cause of much perplexity. When the School was founded it had been hoped that each year the research of the director and students would produce a volume of papers. This ideal was realized only in the initial year, as has already been noted (p. 37). As the importance of the work of the School increased, the question of immediate, or at least early, publication of the results of research and excavation became more and more pressing. It was also realized that the American Journal of Archaeology, founded in 1885 and published quarterly by the Archaeological Institute, offered unusual facilities for presenting the work of the School to an interested clientele. A Second Series of the Journal was begun in 1897.

At the May meeting in 1888 the question of publication was fully discussed, and on Norton’s motion it was voted to send quarterly reports to the Journal together with such papers as the director of the School felt deserved publication. The Bulletins of the School were to be discontinued. Articles by members of the School printed in the Journal were to be stereotyped for later printing in the School Papers. The relations between the editorial staff of the Journal and the Publications Committee, however, needed clarification, for at the November meeting the Managing Committee felt compelled to define still further its position:

It was the intention of the Committee, that the publications of the School in the Journal of Archaeology should comprise Archaeological News, and such reports of a preliminary or comparatively slight nature as have heretofore been issued in the form of the Bulletins which on account of the facilities offered by the Archaeological Journal were ordered discontinued at the meeting of last May; but it was not the intention of the committee that such publication in the Journal should compete with or supersede the regular volumes of Papers, which constitute the proper permanent memorial of the work of the School.

There was some feeling in the matter and some talk of the School’s issuing a journal of its own from Athens. This would doubtless have been a serious mistake at that period of the School’s history. The danger to both institutions was recognized by A. L. Frothingham, Editor of the Journal, in a very frank letter written to Chairman Seymour, January 28,1889:

In thinking over the question of the best way to publish the discoveries of the School at the earliest possible date two ways have occurred to me, which I beg to propose to you and through you to the School Committee.

I. All discoveries of the School could be described in a general way and with as much detail as desired, in a Bulletin Sheet which the editors of the Journal of Archaeology would issue at their expense at whatever time and as often as wished by the School authorities. It could be issued to all the members of the Institute ten days after the Ms. is received from the Committee or the Director, and would be of the nature of News, not of articles.

II. In order to quickly place before the public the fuller results of the School discoveries and work as embodied in special papers, (I) the Journal will give to such papers the precedence over others in the make-up of its numbers; and (2) the papers so contributed by the school can be printed separately and distributed to the members of the Institute one or two months before the number of the Journal containing them could be issued. In this way it would be possible to publish the papers two or three weeks after the Ms. was received. The latter plan would involve a change in the manner of publishing the volumes of School papers which may commend itself to you and to the Committee. That is, these papers would form separate successive numbers of the volume which would thus be issued, not all at once, but in parts. It would perhaps be a good way to keep up interest in the School by issues of greater frequency and in smaller packages, and would be an economy even in the matter of postage as we could avail of the 2nd. class rates of postage per pound. For these articles the school would be charged only the cost of paper and press-work, and they could afterwards be stereotyped for future editions. We will be liberal in the matter of plates. To resume then, the Journal offers to issue the work of the School which the committee selects for it, in a prompter way even than could be done by a Journal printed at Athens, at hardly any expense to the School, and with the certainty of a pretty wide circulation. It will do it (I) by short preliminary reports in Bulletins; (2) by a series of papers which it will issue in advance of the Journal; or (3) by a combination of the two. You will see that we are willing to do anything in order to retain our alliance with the School and prevent the position and future of the Journal from being so damaged as it would be by the issue of another Journal in Athens, which, as it would have to be distributed entirely over here, would not possess any advantage in point of time and would be a great burden of expense.

The Committee on Publications, of which Professor Merriam was Chairman, recommended the acceptance of this offer, and it was confirmed by the Managing Committee at the meeting in November, 1889. At that time ninety-two pages of Volume V of the Papers had been stereotyped. This volume finally appeared in 1892.

The arrangement, so ideal on paper, proved in practice to be wholly satisfactory to neither party. At the May meeting of the Managing Committee in 1892 the subject was again discussed, and a special committee composed of Seymour, Merriam and Ware were asked to give it consideration.

The following November much time was spent in a discussion of the semi-perennial subject. It was stated with regret that the hopes expressed by Frothingham were far from fulfillment. No money had been saved, the hopes of prompt publication had been blasted, the prestige of independent publication had been sacrificed. At the same time it was realized that the Journal was a valuable asset to the cause of archaeology and that to withdraw the School’s support would be a serious injury. The Committee, therefore, gave Merriam and Ludlow power to deal with the situation but recorded the Managing Committee’s opinion that the present arrangement should be continued. They did, however, exact one condition: two thousand reprints of School Papers with continuous pagination should be printed and sent to all members of the Institute. It resolved:

That in the opinion of the Managing Committee of the School at Athens it would promote the interests of the School and of archaeology in general for the Committee of the Archaeological Institute to arrange for the sending of the Journal of Archaeology to all members of the Institute.

When Merriam and Ludlow, armed with these explosive resolutions, interviewed the editor of the Journal, the effect was at least apparently all that could be desired. The Journal was to be sent to all members of the Institute, and Papers of the School were to be published at the earliest possible date, avoiding the necessity of preprints. The committee re-affirmed its intention of making Bulletin V {The History of the First Twenty Years, by Seymour) the last Bulletin of the School and of publishing the “results obtained under the auspices of the School. . . . through the official channels of the School and the Institute.”

For the present all was quiet on the Publications front, and Professor Bernadotte Perrin, of Yale, succeeded Merriam as Chairman of the Committee, November, 1893. In November, 1894, the committee was given authority to select for publication in Volume VI of the Papers some of the articles which had appeared in the Journal. They were not obligated to republish all of them. The decision was more important than the member of the Managing Committee who approved it realized. For this volume of the Papers of the School was to be the last. Till Hesperia was founded under the auspices of Professor Capps, the results of the work of the School were to be scattered through the Journal of Archaeology, Art and Archaeology and other journals. They were not to be collected in a dignified series of volumes as the founder of the School had hoped.

But the question of publications would not down. A year later (November, 1895) the Managing Committee directed the Committee on Publications to confer with the Committee on Publications of the School in Rome regarding the best method of publishing School papers. And by 1898 the tension had grown to the point where the Managing Committee were moved to vote that the Secretary of the Institute be requested to furnish to the members of the Managing Committee five copies of any part of the Journal containing papers of the School and “that these parts be furnished on demand of the members of the Managing Committee, which demand shall be countersigned by the Chairman of the Committee ; that each member of the Managing Committee shall receive as many copies of the reports of the School as he may call for.”

During the earlier days of the School many subjects came to the Managing Committee for discussion which were later left to the discretion of the director. The enthusiasm with which the entire Committee pursued the harassed Crow till he disgorged a thesis to justify the results of his year’s work at the School was worthy of the Eumenides. Rules for the use of the library were made and revised with semi-annual regularity. The loss of five books from the library is noted with anger and regret. The entire Committee passes on the qualifications of applicants to be admitted to the School. The “waste of crockery” and the closing of the School or its transfer to a more salubrious climate in fear of the cholera epidemic of 1893 are subjects of discussion on succeeding pages of the record. A supervising architect for the School building is appointed with a salary (suggested by the architect himself) of one hundred francs (twenty dollars) a year.

Two years later (November, 1893) this was magnanimously increased to two hundred francs. Professor Sloane is authorized to endeavor to secure a Kodak camera for the use of the School.

The Committee was concerned, too, over the details of the students’ lives. The director was warned that arrangements for a bathroom at the School, if made, must be paid for out of the regular appropriation. “It was the sentiment of the committee that our students should be aided to the extent of having floor, walls, roof and insurance free but should pay the cost of other conveniences.” As late as 1889 the Managing Committee is still attending to the details of housekeeping in Athens. They are solemnly informed that “Basile would sweep the rooms and make the beds but once a month, a woman must be employed to scrub the floors and a man to assist in washing windows.” [It seems probable that a misplaced comma has cast unwarranted aspersions on the sanitary reputation of the School.] The following year for the first time luncheon for the Committee on the day of its regular meeting was paid for from the funds of the School. In May, 1895, the Committee formally approved the inauguration in 1896 in Athens “of international contests in outdoor sports, to be known as The Olympic Games.” One of the features of these games—as first announced—was to be a croquet match. (Later bulletins said cricket.)

One item of the regular School program which later became a source of justifiable pride was the “Open Meeting.” The earliest mention of this is in the r