them to organization about one of their number, as chief, for the purpose of forcing the priesthood to a division of power. The struggle must not be allowed to come to open conflict. The newly initiated must not declare what they have seen to the masses, lest the faith of the masses be shaken and the supports of law and order, of civilization and progress, be destroyed. The two parties must compromise. The priests must divide their powers with the warriors. They must also support the rule of the warriors by the power of religion. The despotism results. In spite of its ugly name, it marks a great step in advance. It gives greater exhibition of violence, but, at the core, it is far less despotic than the theocracy. It leaves a larger sphere of individual activity unrestrained. It lightens the spiritual oppression and depression which rest upon the souls of men, subject at every step and turn to the immediate intervention of divine command. It is a more human, if not a more humane, system. It tends to prevent the respect and obedience for law developed by the theocracy from becoming too timorous and servile. It raises human courage. It opens the way for a more general exertion of human reason. It makes it easier for the consciousness of the state to spread to still wider circles, while it holds fast to what has been won in political piety during the preceding era. It prepares the forces for the terrible struggle of the succeeding era, to whose awakening and exciting power we owe the spread of the consciousness of the state to the masses. The conflict in principle between the royal organization and the priesthood becomes irrepressible. The king loses his religious support in the eyes of the masses. His official subordinates learn to defy him successfully, and by the help of the priesthood to change their official agencies into more or less independent powers. It is an all-around battle between all the existent directing forces of human society. So far as these forces are concerned, it is not only irrepressible, but interminable. They can never bring peace; at best only armistice. A new and still more controlling force must appear. At last, through the educating power of the terrible antagonism, a large proportion of the population is awakened to the consciousness of the state, and feels the impulse to participate in the work of its objective realization. Animated by patriotism and loyalty, by the sense of human interests and by rationality, they gather about their king, as the best existing nucleus of their power. They give him the strength to overcome both defiant priesthood and rebellious officials. They establish the objective unity of the state. They bring the absolute sovereignty to objective realization. They subject all individuals and all associations of individuals to its sway. Apparently they make the king the state. Really they make him but the first servant of the state. The state is now the people in sovereign organization.

This is an immense advance in the development of the state. It is the beginning of the modern political era. Under its educating influence the consciousness of the state spreads rapidly to the great mass of the population, and the idea of the state becomes completely secularized and popularized. The doctrine that the people in ultimate sovereign organization are the state becomes a formulated principle of the schools and of political science and literature. The jurists, the publicists and the moral philosophers lead in the evolution of the idea. The warriors and the priests are assigned to the second place. The sovereign people turn their attention_to_the perfecting of their own organization. They lay hands upon the royal power. They strip it of its apparent sovereignty and make it purely office. If it accommodates itself to the position, it is allowed to exist; if not, it is cast aside. At last the state knows itself and is able to take care of itself. The fictions, the makeshifts, the temporary supports, have done their work, and done it successfully. They are now swept away. The structure stands upon its own foundation. The state, the realization of the universal in man, in sovereign organization over the particular, is at last established, the product of the progressive revelation of the human reason through history.

Many are the races of men whose powers have been expended in the process of this development. The torch of civilization has been handed from one to another, as each exhausted bearer has ceased to be the representative of the world's progress. Many are the races, also, which still wait to be touched by the dawn of this great light. Of all the races of the world only the Roman and the Teuton have realized the state in its approximately pure and perfect character. From them the propaganda must go out, until the whole human race shall come to the consciousness of itself, shall realize its universal spiritual substance, and subject itself to the universal laws of its rationality.

This, in many words, is what we mean by the proposition that the state is a product, nay, the product, of history. It contains, certainly, a nobler conception of the state in origin, development, and ultimate character, and of the relation of the individual to the state, than does any other doctrine or theory. In its contemplation, men feel the impulse to heroic effort, rejoice in sacrifice, learn to know true liberty and to despise fear. If it makes the state more human, it makes humanity more divine.

42. The origin of the state. In discussing the origin of the state, Willoughby emphasizes the subjective phase the growth of a consciousness of political unity - as follows: 1

1 Copyright, 1896, by The Macmillan Company.

Though we may not be able to obtain the facts regarding the actual origin of the State, yet we may be able to obtain from history and anthropology data from which, in combination with the operation of the natural and physical forces working in societies of which we do know, we may be able to draw valuable conclusions regarding the conditions of early political society and the early stages of its development.

With the association of man with his kind, arise by necessity social interests. These interests not being in all cases identical with individual interests, and selfishness being an universal trait of mankind, there early comes the necessity for some means whereby the common welfare may be protected. To a certain extent at least it becomes necessary that there should be some means whereby the actions of men may be restrained in so far as they are directed to the satisfaction of individualistic desires that conflict with the common weal.

In addition to the task of preserving internal order is soon imposed that of maintaining the individual autonomy of a society as a political unit. Indeed, it is probable that it is this necessity that is first consciously felt. With communal life, and, to a large extent, communal goods, there naturally arises in the mind of each individual a feeling of interest in the welfare and continuance of the social unit of which he is a member. To these utilitarian grounds there are early added sentimental feelings that in the aggregate constitute what is known as Patriotism. Thus is begotten in the minds of the people not only a consciousness of their unity, but an appreciation of the necessity for some sort of organization through which they may continue their existence as a social unit against hostile interests from without, as well as from disintegrating forces from within. As has been said, it is probably this necessity for a military organization that is first consciously felt. Afterwards, when social development has proceeded further, the existence of this armed organization is utilized for the satisfaction of internal needs as their existence is recognized.

Whether by original force or by voluntary recognition and establishment, whether founded upon acknowledged supremacy of personal prowess and sagacity of the leader selected, or whether springing from patriarchal authority the public authority becomes established, cannot now be known and undoubtedly differed in different instances. But however originated, a public authority once created, the State becomes an established fact.

With the permanent settlement of tribes upon definite areas of land, the territorial element becomes embraced in the empiric conception of the State, and is henceforth an integral part of its life. The State now becomes a people politically organized in a particular territory, and the

bonds of kinship and tribal relations become supplemented by geographical unity. The duties of the government necessarily widen with the cultivation of land, and with the growth of personal property arises the necessity for increased duties of protection and regulation. Thus as civilization progresses, pari passu, social interests become greater, and, by necessity, the governing powers more elaborately organized and endowed with more extensive jurisdictions.

Together with this increasing elaboration of structure comes an increasing definiteness. The powers of the public authority become more strictly defined and their scope and manner of exercise more and more regulated by customs that have crystallized into fixed rules, rules that collectively represent the jural idea of the given society at its then stage of development.

II. FORCES IN STATE BUILDING

43. Prominent forces in state building. Blackmar summarizes the most important influences that tend to create the state, as follows: 1

The origin of the state is difficult to determine. Like other institutions it has arisen from many sources and under many varying conditions, and like them it came into being gradually and almost imperceptibly. Likewise, its evolution has not been uniform or continuous. Its development cannot be traced to a succession of forms continuously merging into each other, but rather it is a method of life working through all forms. Logically and chronologically the family precedes the formal creation of the state. Yet in the horde, when family grouping is uncertain, or in the patriarchal family, or the tribe, elements of the state frequently appear. For wherever there is concerted action for public good, wherever there is an expression of civic life, however faint, there are the beginnings of the state. . .

Among the several influences which brought about the state we shall find that of the kinship very strong. It was the foundation of the ancient family group, and when the family government became too unwieldy and the state became necessary the relations of kinship formed the basis of the ethnic group. Religion always proved a strong force in creating the unity and solidarity of the state, for the family religion expanded with the development of the tribe and in the transition from the tribal life to the state a national religion was established. Thus, the family religion of Abraham became the national religion of the Hebrew commonwealth,

1 Copyright, 1905, by The Macmillan Company.

and so the expanded religion of the Aryan household became the national religion of the Greeks. But more powerful perhaps than these as direct agencies were a necessity for order and a desire for protection of all members of the group. It is beyond the power of one man to regulate, control, and deal justly with a large body of people, just as a father deals with his children. The social life becomes too complex for paternalism and so services and functions must be delegated to others. This delegation makes a perpetual differentiation of governmental functions, which is the process of state building. Also, in the encroachments of foreign nations and tribes it becomes essential to organize a whole body of people for defense, and the idea of protection became a strong force in state building.

44. Primitive social organization. The following is a brief description of a type of social life that preceded definite political organization : 1

It is the custom to speak of the Australians and other savages as living in "tribes.". . . The primitive "tribe" appears to be mainly a group of people engaged in hunting together, a coöperative or communal society for the acquisition of food supply. It would really be better to call it the "pack"; for it far more resembles a hunting than a social organization. All its members are entitled to a share in the proceeds of the day's chase, and, quite naturally, they camp and live together. But they are not sharply divided, for other purposes, from other "packs" living in the neighborhood.

The real social unit of the Australians is not the " tribe," but the totem group. . . . The totem group is, primarily, a body of persons, distinguished by the sign of some natural object, such as an animal or tree, who may not intermarry with one another. In many cases, membership of the totem group is settled by certain rules of inheritance, generally through females. .

The Australian may not marry within his totem. "Snake may not marry snake. Emu may not marry emu." That is the first rule of savage social organization. Of its origin we have no knowledge; but there can be little doubt that its object was to prevent the marriage of near relations. Though the savage cannot argue on principles, he is capable of observing facts. And the evils of close inbreeding must, one would think, have ultimately forced themselves upon his notice.

The other side of the rule is equally startling. The savage may not marry within his totem, but he must marry into another totem specially

1 Copyright, 1900, by The Macmillan Company.