ginning. The number of characters is unusually small, minor characters being seldom introduced. The refined spectators of the court and salons would take little interest in low characters and large crowds - vulgar mobs and crowded battle scenes appearing to them as being beneath the dignity of tragedy.

The French classical drama presents to us only princely characters, those of the nobility and royalty. In the seventeenth century the classes of society were rigorously separated, and the question of rank played an important part in determining the number and kinds of characters to be portrayed-high and low, noble and ignoble, not being allowed to mingle together in society or in drama. The elegant and polished spectators looked for their own portraits in the brave and dignified heroes who performed etxraordinary acts and displayed great emotions and passions. These representatives of the upper classes, these dignified courtiers and cultured members of the salons, surpass in strength and grace the ordinary classes of mankind. Their dignified bearing, polished manners, and graceful movements lifted them above the average people of the time, and enabled them to form a select and exclusive set, before whom could be represented only such characters as, by the display of the same qualities, should themselves be seen to be above the rank of private citizens and domestic heroes. Such aristocratic figures, of ideal strength and character, whose heroic courage, noble conduct, and distinguished bearing placed them above homely plebeians, were not allowed to mingle with other social classes. From their elevated social station these noble classical characters look down upon humble and deformed types of human beings. These respectable and exalted personages refuse to associate with dwarfs, hunchbacks, bandits, foundlings, laborers, lackeys, and their like. Our sympathy is excited not by the fate of monsters, demons, or plebeians, but by the misfortunes and woes of great leaders of men who pass their lives in fighting the foes of their country and in saving their kings and states. These characters of the court and salons are, above all, respectable people whose distinctive characteristics are charming manners and decorous reserve. Their spectators are sticklers for decorum who may suffer an infraction of morals, but never of manners.

Horrible deeds of violence and bloodshed must be banished from the stage. All vigorous and undignified action, such as blows, duels, battles, deaths, should be enacted behind the scenes and reported by some witness or messenger.

It is easily seen that such noble, heroic, polite, refined, and decorum-observing characters naturally tend to become mere types. These typical characters move in a narrow sphere, and display abstract, general, and common characteristics. Only their most constant, significant, and essential qualities are presented, individualizing and characterizing traits being almost wholly eliminated. Individuals are described by typical rather than by personal traits. Each classical character seems to be one of a class, all of whom have a general similarity. Classical heroes and heroines have no broadly and strongly marked personality, but are often the personification of a single vice or virtue, of a single idea or sentiment. As a result of such narrow impersonation we see a miser or hypocrite, but we seldom behold a man who is both a miser and a hypocrite. Eccentricities of person, dress, or conduct that sharply define a personality, will therefore be wanting. Those idiosnycrasies of manner, peculiarities of speech and ideas, and those physical beauties and blemishes that accentuate the individuality of a character and prevent him from becoming a mere type or caricature, will be largely suppressed. If by chance these characters are exhibited as possessing natural traits and physical aspects, these characteristics are so idealized that they are more suggestive than descriptive. They become creatures of pure intellect, with abstract qualities rather than concrete traits. In short, they can never be finished or full length portraits, but only shadowy silhouettes.

Typical characters, possessing scarcely any distinguishing mental, moral or physical qualities, emphasizing one significant trait at the expense of a multiplicity of characterizing and individualizing details, and appearing before us only at a supreme crisis of their lives which must take place, within the narrow space of one day and one locality, will necessarily be restricted to exhibiting only a part of their lives. Thus for another reason there is allowed no opportunity of representing the de

velopment and growth of character. We cannot see them lead their complete lives. Classical characters, furthermore, indulge in little inward conflict or moral struggle. We may observe how one is a miser or a martyr, but we hardly perceive how one becomes one or the other. If there is a real or an apparent evolution of character as in the case of some of Corneille's principal personages, we are conscious that it is a forced evolution, a sort of hot-house development, brought about by great crises, unusual forces, remarkable experiences, or striking situations. The classical stage likewise banishes enigmatic and inconsistent characters, and admits only those transparent and consistent figures whose personalities can be comprehended almost at a single glance. Few classical persons can change, at least naturally enough to gain credulity, by a gradual evolution, but must remain practically stationary characters.

The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

JAMES D. BRuner.

TENNESSEE AND THE REMOVAL OF THE

CHEROKEES*

The story of the relation of the Indian tribes of North America to the Government of the United States is a long one, in which the removal of the Cherokees, at the close of Jackson's second administration, and the events which led up thereto, form a chapter of striking dramatic interest. To this interest many things contributed. The sentimental feeling honestly voiced by some, and skillfully used by others, was one phenomenon; more important, however, was the fact that the sovereignty of the State of Georgia was felt by that State to be involved, and that with the sympathy of President Jackson, she was permitted to disregard not an act of Congress, but a mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States. The cases of the Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia and Worcester vs. Georgia represented the judicial climax of these events, which found their political dénouement in the Treaty of 1835-36, whereby provision was made for the removal of the Cherokees west of the Mississippi.

The very fact that Georgia was the protagonist of these years and had the satisfaction if such it were of successfully defying the Supreme Court, has attracted to the part of this State in the general question of the removal of the Indian tribes. almost the entire attention of the historians of this period. It has been observed, indeed, that Alabama and Mississippi, following Georgia's example, passed acts extending the jurisdiction of these States over the Indians within their borders; but the legislation and litigation in the same connection of Tennessee, Jackson's own State, appear to have been largely neglected.

Acknowledgement is made of assistance received from the Carnegie Institution of Washington in the preparation of this study. For an account of Alabama's experience and the friction between that State and the Federal Government see Fleming, "Civil War and Reconstruction in Alabama,” pp. 8-8; and Hodgson, "The Cradle of the Confederacy," ch. viii. The whole subject of the removal of the Indians is treated by Miss Abel in the Justin Winsor Prize Essay for 1906: but the delay in the appearance of Miss Abel's essay has unfortunately deprived the present writer of the opportunity of consulting it.

Yet in Tennessee there were developments which, if less important than those in Georgia, were sufficiently striking to deserve close study, and which if events had taken another turn, might have furnished a judicial and political test no less significant than those afforded in the Georgia cases. To recount succinctly these developments will be the attempt of this essay.

The close of the Revolutionary War left an evident community of interest to the Southern States, especially to the Carolinas and to Georgia, in the occupation by the Cherokees and other Indian nations of the western territory which these States claimed. After their cessions of this territory to the United States, and the establishment of new commonwealths therein, the same problem confronted these later members of the Union, Alabama, Mississippi, and before either of these —Tennessee. In the case of the last named, the presence of the Indians was a condition into which the State was born; in its infancy Tennessee, like Kentucky, was a "dark and bloody ground" of Indian wars, whose terrors were chronicled long ago in the nervous pages of Haywood. But most of the detailed narratives of Tennessee history, from Ramsey to Roosevelt, stop with the pioneer days, and do not sufficiently emphasize the continuance of this contact with and fear of the Indians over into the maturer years of the State's life. Whereas Georgia and Alabama, as their population increased, developed from the seacoast inland until they could no longer tolerate the Indian communities as barriers, Tennessee began her life in the interior, surrounded, and, indeed, divided by Indian country, and spread outward to the Mississippi and to the boundaries of the neighboring States. This process involved the dislocation of the Indians from block after block of territory, and the struggle was a long and painful

one.

As immigration increased, and the people from over the mountains poured in, the two triangles of white settlement which had Nashville and the Watauga country as their beginnings, widened in belts or strips of acquired territory, until in 1804, 1805 and 1806, and later, in 1817, 1818, and 1819, very large additions were made by treaties which brought the jurisdiction of the State - except in one direction - into full coinci