294 



MAECUS N. TOD, M.A., ON INTERNATIONAL 



researches have been not only interesting, but also important. It is 

 a paper which breaks new ground, and throws a flood of light in a 

 quarter, and upon a subject, little suspected by the majority of 

 antiquarians who are not Greek specialists. 



When thinking over the paper we have just heard, one realizes 

 how advanced the Greeks really were. It is true that there is some 

 doubt whether they brought all the good-will, and all the deter- 

 mination to give and take, which it is hoped that present-day 

 arbitration would exhibit ; but one may sa}^ that their eff'orts in 

 that direction had in many — perhaps in most — cases all the 

 elements needful for success. Then, as would also be the case now, 

 one side or the other may have had the determination to yield in 

 nothing, and to take from the other side all that it could possibly get. 



We shall never know how early men first thought of submitting 

 their disputes to arbitration. From our knowledge of savage tribes 

 it may be assumed that primitive men were always fighters. 

 Nevertheless, it is difficult to believe that the most uncultured, the 

 rudest, the savagest, always loved strife for strife's sake. Under- 

 lying all their disputes and conflicts (when not due to the mere 

 desire for revenge) was the yearning, common to all our race, to get 

 more than their rightful share of this world's goods and advantages, 

 and also to prove that they were the better men physically, and 

 the most determined morally. From time to time they must have 

 realized, however, that they had met their match, and arbitration 

 was the result. 



Mr. Marcus Tod has added to the interest of this interesting 

 paper by calling attention to what is apparently a very early 

 instance of arbitration in the ancient world, the states between 

 which it took place being those of Lagas and Umma* in Babylonia, 

 and the date 3500 years before Christ, or earlier. One would like 

 to be just a little more certain of the meaning of one or two of the 

 words before accepting this as a real instance of arbitration, but it may 

 be admitted that, if not altogether the real thing, it was at least 

 something very much like it. The text does not state that Me-silim, 

 king of Kis (the predecessor of Babylon in importance), was the 

 arbitrator, but, apparently enlightened by his goddess Gu-silim,t he 



^ Thus, according to the published explanatory lists, instead of 

 Sirpurla and Gisuh. 



t So I read instead of Kadi. 



