All this was admirable, and if Rome had not become a great imperial state, and if some super-structure of the humanities could have been added in a natural process of development, it might have continued for ages as an invaluable educational basis.  But the conditions under which alone it could flourish had long ceased to be.  It is obvious that it depended entirely on the presence of the parents and their interest in the children; as regards the boys it depended chiefly on the father.  Now ever since the Roman dominion was extended beyond sea, i.e. ever since the first two Punic wars, the father of a family must often have been away from home for long periods; he might have to serve in foreign wars for years together, and in numberless cases never saw Italy again.  Even if he remained in Rome, the ever increasing business of the State would occupy him far more than was compatible with a constant personal care for his children.  The conscientious Roman father of the last two centuries B.C. must have felt even more keenly than English parents in India the sorrow of parting from their children at an age when they are most in need of parental care.  We have to remember that in Cicero’s day letter-writing had only recently become possible on an extended scale through the increasing business of the publicani in the provinces (see above, p. 74); the Roman father in Spain or Asia seldom heard of what his wife and children were doing, and the inevitable result was that he began to cease to care.  In fact more and more came to depend on the mothers, as with our own hard-working professional classes; and we have seen reason to believe that in the last age of the Republic the average mother was not too often a conscientious or dutiful woman.  The constant liability to divorce would naturally diminish her interest in her children, for after separation she had no part or lot in them.  And this no doubt is one reason why at this particular period we hear so little of the life of children.  There is indeed no reason to suppose that they themselves were unhappy; they had plenty of games, which were so familiar that the poets often allude to them—­hoops, tops, dolls, blind man’s buff, and the favourite games of “nuts” and “king."[271] But the real question is not whether they could enjoy their young life, but whether they were learning to use their bodies and minds to good purpose.

When a boy was about seven years old, the question would arise in most families whether he should remain at home or go to an elementary school.[272] No doubt it was usually decided by the means at the command of the parents.  A wealthy father might see his son through his whole education at home by providing a tutor (paedagogus), and more advanced teachers as they were needed.  Cato indeed, as we have seen, found time to do much of the work himself, but he also had a slave who taught his own and other children.  Aemilius Paullus had several teachers in his house for this purpose, under his own superintendence.[273]