in their anxiety to restore the friendship which had once existed between the two states, used every effort to bring about reconciliation and amity between them. In this instance the effort was frustrated,-" our purpose," the report continues, was hindered of its fulfilment by the exceeding bitterness of their enmity, and the award was consequently decided by vote," -but there were many occasions, as the inscriptions testify, on which this aim of the arbitrators was realized and the settlement took the form of an agreement or reconciliation and not of an arbitral award. This is no mere question of words and names; it is indicative of the healthy spirit which inspired these arbitral boards.

Of the evidence brought forward in such trials we are well informed, especially by a series of long inscriptions which contain not only the official account of the enquiry and of the award, but also a summary of the evidence used by each side in support of its claims. This depended upon the nature of the dispute, and was of the most varied character. The appeal to mythology and the early epic poems carried considerable weight with a Greek court in determining the original ownership of territory, and we find archæological evidence also employed in the early dispute between Athens and Megara for the possession of Salamis. On that occasion Solon, the Athenian spokesman, cited two verses from the Iliad in confirmation of his case, the crucial one of which he is said to have himself foisted upon the poem, and backed up his contention by an appeal to the manner in which the Athenians buried their dead and a demand for the excavation of Salaminian tombs. The works of historians were also brought forward. We hear, for instance, of a dispute between the Prienians and the Samians, in which the latter rested their cause mainly upon the evidence of four historical writings, which they cited as supporting their claim; but a more careful examination showed the arbitrators that only one work that which bore the name of Maandrius of Miletus, but was widely regarded as a forgery-really favoured the Samian contention, while all the other historians-Creophylus and Eualces of Ephesus, Theopompus of Chios, and, most important of all, the four native Samians, Uliades, Euagon, Olympichus, and Duris―ran directly counter to it. Treaties and other public documents, receipts and decrees, deeds of sale and letters were also quoted as evidence, whether written upon paper and produced from state archives or engraved upon stone and set up in temples or other public places. Frequently the report of the

U

arbitrators quotes verbatim the decisive passages from such documents, in order to show how strong was the evidence upon which they based their verdict. A fragment has also survived recording the depositions made in a territorial dispute between two states of northern Thessaly: there we can read the testimony of an elderly shepherd, who had long pastured his flocks on the land in dispute and can tell, moreover, what the elders of the village used to say about the ownership of the territory, together with that of some fishermen, who add their witness in favour of the same side. The evidence was often complex and conflicting; much of it was indirect in its character, and the truth of oral statements and the authenticity of written works had to be carefully weighed. Yet the impression we receive upon a review of the extant records is that the courts were genuinely anxious to sift the evidence thoroughly and to arrive at an equitable verdict, and that if they sometimes made mistakes, as no doubt they did, it was not from any lack of conscientiousness or sincerity.

The award was written out by the court and copies of it were handed to the two states interested, to be lodged in their public archives. Sometimes this award was quite brief and contained nothing superfluous, as we see, for example, in the Argive award, declaring that three islets belonged to Cimolus and not to its rival Melos: in this case the whole record contains only forty-three words. Later, the desire not merely to declare but to justify their sentence led the arbitrators frequently to write lengthy reports, such as that of the Magnesians, the extant portion of which contains 141 long lines, or that of the Rhodians appointed to arbitrate between Samos and Priene, which is even longer. In order to secure public and permanent records of the verdicts, these were frequently engraved upon stone, both in the arbitrating state and in that which was successful in the trial, as well as in some neutral sanctuary, which was a common meeting-place of the Greeks of that region in which the contending states lay-for example, that of Apollo at Delphi or at Delos, that of Zeus at Olympia, or that of Asclepius at Epidaurus. Again and again our records speak of a quadruple or even quintuple publication of this kind, securing for all who were interested the opportunity of learning the exact terms of the award.

I am only too conscious that in my desire for, or rather, let me say, under the necessity of, compression I have run a serious risk of robbing what I have said of its human interest.

My hope was to bring before you part of the life and thought of the Greeks I fear I have only presented you with a skeleton of dead, dry facts. For history, to be appreciated aright, demands an effort not only of the intellect, but also of the imagination: those whose lives and actions we study were not automata, but living men and women with hopes and fears, passions and aspirations like our own, and it is possible to possess a full and accurate knowledge of the ascertained facts about them and yet fail to come into contact with that living, pulsating humanity which made them what they were. This effort of sympathetic imagination I ask from you to endow with life the facts I have set before you. I can only ask one question in conclusion, and indicate rather than formulate the answer I would give. Was arbitration amongst the Greek states a success? Bérard, in his treatise on this subject, replies with an emphatic negative, basing his verdict upon the continued existence, for centuries, of disputes which were repeatedly made the subjects of arbitral awards, such as those between Samos and Priene, or Sparta and Messene. Yet these form a very small proportion indeed of the cases known to us, and must be treated not as normal, but as exceptional, and even they will, I think, if carefully examined, lead us to a different conclusion. We shall admit that it was "unsportsmanlike" of the worsted city to refuse to accept its defeat as final, and to reopen the question again and again, but we shall also insist upon two facts, that the renewed appeal was always to a fresh arbitration, never to war, and that for a time, at least, often for half a century or even more, the award is accepted and acted upon. For, in spite of the oft-repeated yet one-sided truth, that an arbitral sentence cannot be enforced, that there is no international police to compel acquiescence, one lesson clearly taught by the experience both of ancient and of modern times is this, that it is only in very rare cases that the arbitrator's award is repudiated by either of the parties concerned. And thus, although remembering the existence of those age-long disputes, those chronic maladies of the Greek body politic, and of those other cases in which arbitral settlement was refused even by those who had bound themselves by solemn compact to employ it, I would emphatically record my own conviction that among the Greeks arbitration proved a striking success in averting war, in bringing national quarrels and misunderstandings to an equitable conclusion, and in promoting friendship and goodwill between state and

state.

We, in this twentieth century, boast a higher civilization, a more enlightened public opinion, a stronger and more developed moral sense in our midst is the Christian Church, and the person and teaching of its Founder exercise an influence far beyond its visible borders. May we not take the example of the Greeks in this matter as a stimulus, and accept their experience as of happy augury for our own future?

DISCUSSION.

Mr. DAVID HOWARD said: This valuable paper is one much easier to appreciate than to criticize. There is nothing new under the sun, and those who think that all noble and valuable ideas date from the beginning of this century, or very little earlier, would do well to learn the value of minute and laborious studies of past history, which seem to them of little value, but throw invaluable light upon the possibilities of applying to modern conditions the admirable, if not new, idea of substituting the civilization of arbitration for the barbarism of war.

The Rev. H. J. R. MARSTON congratulated the lecturer upon his great knowledge, his lucid exposition, and the general excellence of his paper. The reflection which arose to his mind was the greatness of the Greek endowment, not only in art, in which they were facile principes, but also in judgment and philosophy, and now from this paper he learnt they were equally great in some moral achievements of which arbitration was a most interesting case. He felt personally indebted to Mr. Tod for this instruction. The Greeks tried it very widely and very successfully. Their moral sense was so strong that, despite repeated failure, yet they stuck to the practice rather than come to blows.

Possibly the conditions between the small states made arbitration easier. Modern conditions as, for example, between England and America were very different, and made the principle far more difficult in practice. Again, the central authority, the Senate, could bind the small powers to carry out the results, and they would therefore be less likely to dispute the awards. The long existence of the spirit of arbitration, proved by this paper, encourages its continuance. He cordially agreed with the opening sentences. No

doubt war had done good, but certainly not such wars as those of Louis XIV. The Dutch wars did good, and there is undoubtedly a sense in which war may become a Christian act. But, unless necessary, it was a crime. He trusted the policy of the Greek world would be more and more adopted among Christian states.

Dr. THIRTLE said: One cannot but recognize that the subject before us is one of peculiar interest, and that it has been opened up in a singularly lucid manner. I am tempted, nevertheless, to raise a side issue, and inquire whether there is in the Old Testament any reference to arbitration as a means of settling disputes. Assuredly the term is not there, but is the thought equally absent? Pursuing our inquiry, we suggest that, in its elementary meaning, arbitration is an appeal to reason (as distinguished from an appeal to force), with the object of settling differences between parties that are estranged from one another, or are likely to become so. Though not prepared to indicate a concrete instance of such a proceeding in Old Testament history, I think we have the thing itself expressed in a well-known appeal found in the prophecies of Isaiah.

It is a celebrated passage to which I refer. By sin and evil courses the people of Judah had become alienated from Jehovah, and though judgment was due, if not imminent, words of mercy were spoken from heaven-all the while with the object of averting the terrible consequences of sin. Then it was that the appeal was made: "Come, now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord." (Isaiah i, 18.) It is, of course, admitted that the machinery of arbitration is not brought before us in the passage; but the language implies a tenderness and consideration for the side that is in the wrong, such as lies at the base of arbitration. The words may be paraphrased: "Come, now, let us face the issue; and may the difference be decided in a manner that shall result in your finding acceptance in my sight, and the doom of sin be averted." In following verses (19, 20) the consequences of acquiescence or refusal are indicated. I suggest that the appeal of Jehovah by the prophet is in the spirit of arbitration in the interest of the wayward nation; and if the language admits of such interpretation, it is reasonable to conclude that the idea of arbitration cannot have been altogether foreign to the Hebrew mind.

The CHAIRMAN said: Though our lecturer does not treat of world-arbitration, but only of that of the ancient Greek states, his