find it described in the "Odyssey" as the social order of the Greeks in the Homeric period. Tacitus tells of the custom of giving cattle and grain to tribal chiefs which existed among the Germans and indicates the beginnings of barbaric feudalism among them.24 We have seen how a metronymic people like the Iroquois Indians had combined their tribes into a confederation which remained a source of power and dread to all their enemies for two hundred years.25 But patronymic tribes of the same racial stock, dwelling within a territory affording natural geographical unity and protection, have united in military confederations that are more formidable, and more stable than the strongest of metronymic confederations. "The Egyptians, the Chaldeans, the Hebrews, the Greeks, the Romans, the Saxons, the Franks, the Germans, and the Slavs were originally tribally organized peoples which, by growth of population, confederation, and consolidation, developed into civil states."

"When patronymic tribes confederate and form the ethnic nation, the agnatic principle and ancestor-worship, combined with political and military conditions, confer great authority upon the chief of the confederation. He becomes a military leader, a religious leader or priest, and a supreme judge, all in one. The chief, in a word, becomes a king." 20

This patriarchal organization of society did not indefinitely remain the characteristic mark of the social structure, for changes occurred in all of the component family groups in response to certain new conditions which grew out of these relations of prosperity and unity. The family became increasingly definite, the clan gave place 24 Tacitus, Germania, ch. xv. 25 Morgan, op. cit., pt. ii, ch. v.

26 Giddings, op. cit., p. 473.

to new and specialized forms, and so in like manner, did the tribe. The old series of organizations making up the ethnic nation were supplanted by compact kindreds, hamlets and towns. "This patriarchal kindred wherever found, as among the Aryans of India, the Greeks, the Slavs, the Celts, and the Germans, normally consists of five generations of descendants of a common ancestor, dwelling together as a community, sometimes as a joint family, and owning an undivided estate. At the end of the fifth generation the estate is divided, and each of the male heirs may be the first ancestor of a new kindred that will hold together, as before, for five generations." 27 This system recommends itself to our common sense when we consider that five generations is all that the average man can ever know of his kindred. His personal acquaintance seldom extends beyond his grandfather, and rarely to his great-grandsons; thus any given individual, his father and grandfather, his son and grandsons, may constitute a five generation group.

The patriarchal kindred occupied a definite territory, but on their possessions were often found dwellers in some sense attached to the kindred, though not strictly members of it. These people were of different origins; sometimes they were remnants of a conquered people, often they were individuals from shattered kindreds elsewhere who, by some service, had won the hospitality or protection of the proprietary kindred. By adoption they were often taken into participation in some of its privileges. Although commonly organized in partial imitation of the patriarchal kindred, these individuals were always on a basis of strict equality among themselves. In return for the privileges of occupying the land, they 27 Ibid., p. 481.

may have paid rent in produce or rendered the proprietary group various services. "In this differentiation of the population occupying land held by a proprietary kindred we probably see the beginnings of that sharper division which at a later time is presented within the manorial community. The groups of non-kindred, inferiors, equal among themselves, were probably the beginnings of the class afterward known as villain tenants. And that democratic equality which many students of economic history a generation ago attributed to the 'village community' probably never existed except within these organizations of non-kinsmen." 28

In these several ways, through tribal feudalism in which the bond of allegiance and faithfulness was substituted for that of simple blood relation, as well as through the custom of admitting to certain privileges of the five generation kindred a group of dependents who occupied the proprietary domain, the old structure of ethnic society was broken down and a new basis of relations was appearing. Now the supreme power which is vested in the patriarch of the group, faced new problems of organization forced upon it by the contact of a ruling and a subject population. The old usages were found ineffectual in dealing with the complex relations which had arisen. Unattached to the tribes with which they had cast their fortunes, but acquiring wealth and power, the miscellaneous elements living on the tribal domain demanded juristic and political rights.29 Commercial rights were first granted with but little hestitation. But

28 Ibid., p. 482; and Seebohm, F.-The Tribal System in Wales, and Tribal Custom in Anglo-Saxon Law; Seebohm, H. E.-The Structure of Greek Tribal Society; and The Venedotian Code, Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales.

29 Giddings, Principles, pp. 314-331.

to permit the alien to marry into a local clan was to admit the wife to the worship of strange gods, and was ultimately to intrust to strangers the solemn sacrifices to the protecting ancestral spirits. This innovation was of such a serious nature, to the mind of primitive man, that it was deferred until the pressure forced general recognition of the heterogeneous population. New relations, however, were in course of time expressly authorized and sanctioned; thus the customary usages of the people were converted into positive law.30

"Each nation in its infancy has regarded itself as a peculiar people. It has cherished its law as a body of unique and unequaled wisdom. When, therefore, after it has subjugated alien peoples and has annexed their lands, and has discovered that their systems of law differ only in form and detail from its own, its conception of the nature of law necessarily undergoes a profound change. It finds itself obliged to think of law as made up more of general than of peculiar principles. It begins to think of certain principles as universally true, and to identify them with the nature of society. It observes, moreover, that the universal rules of customary law are independ ent of the forms of government, and it begins to regard them, therefore, as of superior authority, and to believe that governments should themselves be governed by the universally accepted rules of right." 31

Back of these changes in the structure of society, and at the basis of most innovations in custom and usage, were certain wider economic conditions. One of the chief of these was the existence of natural resources in soil and surroundings which would permit of a somewhat easy

30 Ibid.; and Tarde, op. cit., pp. 310-322.

31 Giddings, op. cit., p. 329.

accumulation of wealth. As long as men lived from hand to mouth and consumed immediately all that was produced, no enduring basis for formidable power existed. But when men learned to store their food supply in flocks and herds and to depend upon cultivated plants for their subsistence, it was possible to lay aside an ever-increasing fund of supplies, a surplus which could be drawn upon in time of famine or other need. With the organization of patriarchal society, property became an established institution, and slavery became an important social system. The captive of war was employed as a cowherd or a shepherd. Since large flocks can be attended by relatively few herdsmen, slavery did not reach its most extensive form of development until opportunity was afforded for the use of large numbers. The pressure of population upon the food supply developed a system of cultivating the soil which, though arduous, was profitable, provided a good supply of labor could be had. The slave was forced into agricultural labor and cultivation of the soil was then carried on upon a large scale. By the employment of gangs of slaves it was possible to produce more wealth and thus increase the surplus. But if there was no opportunity to exchange the surplus products of one locality for desired articles from other regions, there was a definite limit to this surplus-producing cycle.

It was only with the growth of barter and the increasing possibility of exchanging surplus products that it became profitable to augment both one's land and one's slaves. A market for agricultural production must develop and trade routes open up before slavery can be highly lucrative.32 But in addition to the existence of a market, one other condition was essential to the spread of

32 Seligman, op. cit., pp. 154-162.