regular trial, they still had a hearing before the assembly and were condemned by a vote of the people by tribes. The thirty, however, ordered summary executions without trial, and proceeded to get rid of such of the people as they feared. Their tyranny was in striking contrast to the formal, free and orderly administration of established laws by the magistrates and dikasts. Though their authority was established with the sanction of the victor in the long and desperate struggle, its exercise was so utterly at variance with the prejudices and feelings of the people, even of their own partisans, that in the following year they were driven out under the leadership of the returning exiles, and the democracy was restored. While the Peloponnesian war was waged on the part of Sparta to destroy the power of a hated rival, it must ever stand to the credit of the victor that, instead of the destruction of the city after its surrender, after the destruction of its walls, the city was left uninjured, notwithstanding the demand of some of the allies that it be destroyed and its people scattered. The course of Sparta in this respect was in strict accord with the principle of the Delphic Amphictyonic league, which tended to mitigate the horrors of war among different Greek cities and prohibited the destruction of a conquered city. This league, religious in character, seems to have succeeded in promulgating, and enforcing in a great number of instances, humane principles mitigating the horrors of war. It was only in holy wars, waged against members of the league charged with some sacrilege, that these humane principles were cast aside and barbaric destruction inflicted without restraint.

From the close of the Peloponnesian war to the rise of the Macedonian power was a period of frequent wars and varying combinations. Thebes, the ancient enemy of Athens and frequent ally of Sparta, under the lead of Epaminondas finally terminated the power of Sparta at the battle of Leuctra. The Persian practice of hiring mercenary troops became prevalent with Greek cities, which now relied on money rather than on the devotion of their citizens for offensive and defensive operations. War, instead of being the exercise of patriotic

devotion, became a profession, and mercenary bands, fighting for whomever would pay, became numerous. The ancient spirit, so much admired in subsequent ages, decayed. Greece was still the land of culture, but not of incorruptible heroes. In this condition the arts and arms of Philip easily placed him at the head of the Hellenic world. Though neither he nor his son Alexander claimed despotic powers over the Greek cities, both were typical tyrants, recognizing no restraints. At the convention of deputies held at Corinth 330 B.C. Alexander was appointed commander of the Greeks for the purpose of prosecuting war against Persia. By the terms of the agreement then made the freedom and autonomy of each Greek city was recognized, and its existing constitution was guaranteed. Violence of one against another was prohibited and freedom of commerce guaranteed. Sparta of all the leading cities appears to have been the only one which did not join. Though this convention effectually bound the cities to Alexander, it utterly failed to place effectual restraint on him, for it provided for the admission into the cities of Macedonian troops, ostensibly to enforce obedience to the terms of the agreement. Protests against his tyrannies were unavailing. The revolt of Thebes was followed by its capture and the massacre of its people, including women and children, and the destruction of the city. The severity of the treatment was in accordance with the wishes of the Greek auxiliaries of Alexander's army. With the ascendency of Alexander the independence of Greek cities ended, and the peculiar political conditions under which the people had progressed so rapidly in intellectual development, in literature, philosophy, arts and sciences came to an end, but Greek culture endured and was diffused over Asia by the armies of Alexander and his successors, and over Europe under the subsequent empire of Rome.

No equal number of people in an equal period of time have left so many evidences of intellectual activity as the Greeks from the foundation of Sparta to the time of Alexander. At this day the names of illustrious Greeks of this period are familiar in greater number to the people of Europe and Amer

ica than those of any other country at any time, with the exception, perhaps, of Rome when at its zenith of power. But the intellectual activity of Greece was far more diverse and extended over a far wider range than that of Rome.

The Greeks developed the idea of determining controversies by laws declared in advance of the fact and by an impartial tribunal acting on evidence adduced at a public trial with the right to a full hearing in argument on the facts and the law. Individuality and self-reliance were the leading characteristics of the people. Religion and government, though not wholly disconnected, were not merged or confused. The same gods were worshipped by the Greeks of many cities, wholly independent of each other, and the bonds of common religion were always much wider than those of any governmental system. Though the religious sentiment was strong, it was in the main disconnected from political sentiment, and the laws passed were based on views of justice and policy rather than on religious sanction.

Authorities

Grote: History of Greece.

Adolph Holm: The History of Greece.

Thucydides.

Herodotus.

Plutarch's Lives.

Encyclopaedia Britannica.

CHAPTER XIV

ROME

The most ancient people of Italy of whom we have any information were in substantially the same stage of development as the earliest Greeks known to us. They tended flocks and herds and cultivated the soil. They had implements of iron and woven clothing. The relations of the members of a family were clearly defined, and the social organization developed from the germ of the household. Written history does not begin till centuries after the foundation of Rome, and what is known of the earliest days of the city comes through tradition and the evidence of the works which endured till letters were introduced. The mythical tale of Romulus and Remus no longer finds believers, and the easy and definite description of the foundation of the city is now impossible. At the time of the first settlements from which the city developed, we fail to find evidences of any social organization which included large numbers of people or extended over a considerable district. Apparently there was no government more comprehensive than that of a clan, and the authority exercised was paternal in character. Rome grew

from the clans settled on and about the Palatine hill. The city took more distinct form and character when the walls. were constructed on this hill. A discussion of the combination of Latin, Sabine and Etruscan elements to form the city would serve no purpose here. We must start with a considerable aggregation of people, including those following urban pursuits as well as herdsmen and cultivators of the soil.

The social organization of the clans did not disappear with the growth of the city, but the early structure formed the basis in this as in most states of that which followed. Though the monogamous family with the rights and duties of each member clearly defined is the product of an advanced social

stage, it not only existed at Rome in the earliest days, but was the most clearly marked feature of society, and furnished the basis of the governmental system. The free family was the social unit. It consisted of a father, who was his own master, a wife whom he had wedded by the priestly ceremony of confarreatio, their sons and sons' sons and their lawfully wedded wives and unmarried daughters. It did not include the children of a daughter, for if she were married they belonged to the family of her husband, and if not they had no place in the family. All the property of the family, including the slaves, belonged to the man at its head. The power of the father in his household was absolute and continued till death. He could punish wife and descendants even with death. The women of the family were not in fact treated as slaves, however, but within the household were its mistresses. Sons with families might be allowed to manage a separate property, but in law it belonged to the father. A father might even sell his son as a slave to a foreigner. As a Roman he could not be a slave in law to a Roman, though he might be so in effect. While the father was under no legal restraint in dealing with his family, he was subject to religious anathema in case of gross abuse of his authority. From the family the gens or clan developed, and these were distinguished one from the other only by ability to trace definitely the relationship. Those whose descent could be definitely traced to a common ancestor belonged to the family. Those who merely bore the family name but could not give the chain of descent belonged to the gens. Attached to the patrician houses there was a class of dependents, called clients, who sought the protection of the house. The relation of the client was intermediate between that of the slave and the free man. He was in the power of the patron, who afforded him ground to till or other means of livelihood, appeared for him in any litigation and obtained redress for wrongs committed against him. These clientes were regarded as part of the familia and were legally subject to the will of the father, who might, if he chose, exercise the same absolute power over them and their property as over the rest of the family. The father