of such a man was not the force that purchased, and gathered together, and cared for, the property in his possession. He was simply an upper-class individual who, by force of property rights, was able to appropriate the fruits of the labor of other people.

Social development in its prehistoric beginnings, then, must be regarded as a scramble wherein the masses become subordinate to property-holding classes who organize communal control, or government.

$30. As the smaller groups are fused into aggregates of national dignity, the local governments are combined under the authority of a general ruler, or king. The kingly office is at first elective, but with a tendency to become hereditary; and sooner or later it is associated with the holding of a larger amount of property than is possessed by any other member of the upper class. Government, then, is at first naturally of limited scope. Later, as tribes are settled permanently on the soil and formed into larger communities, general governments are established. Local authority is exercised by some member of the nobility, who is perhaps elected by his peers, or who perhaps holds his office by right of descent from some earlier chief. Separate communities occupying any region of uniform, or fairly uniform, physical characteristics, in which transportation and communication are not matters of great difficulty, tend to develop a general government at an early period. This result, however, is not always brought about in just the same way. Perhaps the pressure of invasion forces union for the common defense, the family and tribal chiefs electing a leader from their number. Perhaps the invaders are successful, their leader proclaiming himself as king of all that territory, and apportioning the soil and its inhabitants among his officers and principal followers. In either case, whether the invasion is successful or not, the communities of such a region are never afterward the same. The foundations of general control and affiliation have been laid; and, in spite of drawbacks, the tendency thus manifested represents a permanent so

The king and some

cial force which finds expression in many ways. is merely a well-to-do man of the free families times of humbler origin- -elevated to royal dignity by the votes of the upper class.

The masses of the people bear allegiance to the king only in an indirect way through their local rulers. This rough constitution, called "feudalism," tends to prevail for a time wherever mankind leave the wandering life, and advance into settled society. The ancient East never passed beyond it. The student of social evolution who is fully conscious of the animalistic anarchy out of which civ ilization develops, is prepared to see that the character of early government is of smaller significance than the fact of government. As Mr. Bagehot has well said, "in early times the quantity of government is much more important than its quality. What you want is a comprehensive rule binding men together" (4).

A good example of the formation of a general oriental government in accordance with these tendencies is found in ancient Egypt. Some suggestions of earlier Egyptian development are supplied by the orientalist Maspero in the following passage:

"We must

pronounce the first Egyptians to have been semi-savages, like those still living in Africa and America, having an analogous organization, and similar weapons and tools. A few lived in the desert, in the oasis of Libya to the east, or in the deep valleys of the Red Land . between the Nile and the Sea; the poverty of the country fostering their native savagery. The Egyptians, even in late times, had not forgotten the ties of common origin which linked them to these still barbarous tribes" (5).

. .

It is very plain that the famous people of the Nile were not united in one state from the first; and that originally they were split up into many political entities, or principalities, having little or no connection with each other (6). In time these principalities were consoli

dated into two groups, constituting Upper and Lower Egypt; while the Pharaohs of history, who ruled over a united Egypt, wore a double crown, symbolical of the sovereignty and earlier independence of the two great divisions of the country. The local principalities represented the prehistoric tribes or clanships which, in ages past, had settled there; while the principalities themselves, until far down in the course of Egyptian history, bore the animal totem names which had once belonged to the original clans.

A more familiar and equally good illustration of the formation of general governments is found in the history of the Israelites. As previously remarked, most of the important characters in Israelitish history belong to the free families of the upper social stratum. Under this upper stratum lay the lower class, constantly increasing in size. The free families, or "father's houses," were affiliated in clans and tribes which conquered the land of Canaan, and partly subjugated and partly allied themselves with its earlier inhabitants. Cleavage was, of course, more prominent after the conquest than it had been during the nomadic life of the tribes in the desert. After the settlement of Israel in Canaan the family and tribal jurisdictions were converted into territorial governments having only limited authority. Later a national government was established by the choice of a king from the free families of the upper class.

There was no such political life in the ancient oriental world as there is today among the modern democratic peoples. Oriental monarchies have always tended to be "absolute." But there were necessarily much private discussion and factional difference within the governments themselves; and the sociologist will appraise this abused political term, "absolute," at its true value.

§ 31. It is not easy to indicate just where the gov ernmental activities of the upper class merged into its other functions. At the least, the local and general governments did a great deal that government now does.

They actively promoted social peace and order, made provision for the common defense, constructed roads and canals, fostered commerce, and set up judicial tribunals. Let us take another illustration from Egypt.

"The encouragement of trade and commerce, the establishment and improvement of commercial routes, the digging of wells, the formation of reservoirs, the protection of roads by troops, the building of ships, the exploration of hitherto unknown seas such were the special objects which the monarchs of the eleventh dynasty [about 3,000-2,800 B. C.] set before them, such the lines of activity into which they threw their own energies and the practical ability of their people" (7).

This policy obtained its greatest development in the times of the succeeding, or twelfth, dynasty, under which, as Lenormant has observed, Egypt reached its apogee (8). But sometimes the king's energies were otherwise occupied :

"A considerable part of his time was taken up in war -in the east, against the Libyans in the regions of the Oasis; in the Nile Valley to the south of Aswan against the Nubians; on the Isthmus of Suez and in the Sinaitic peninsula against the Bedouin; frequently also in civil war against some ambitious noble or some turbulent member of his own family" (9).

This illustrates again the danger to which every early settled society is exposed. War was a prominent factor in the consolidation of ancient societies. They were always being attacked or threatened by communities on the same level of culture, and by militant tribes of inferior achievements. Hence they were compelled at the very least to stand on the defensive; and they were often forced to take the offensive, and chastise or subjugate belligerent outsiders if possible. This fundamental necessity for war bred a martial tendency which easily passed over into a habit of war, whether defense were strictly necessary or not; so that the line between necessary and unnecessary wars is often impossible to define.

§ 32. The subject of governmental supply, as compared with that of government itself, is, for a long time, of secondary importance. The fact of governmental support is more significant than the exact source or nature of the support. In other words, the science of governmental revenue necessarily remains in abeyance while government itself is becoming organized and doing its preliminary work. If we bear in mind the process by which political union originally comes about, we shall not find it difficult to comprehend the main lines of primitive taxation. Large landed estates are connected with the throne at an early period; and from these are defrayed the ordinary expenses of the court. In the conduct of war the king calls upon his nobles throughout the country; and these respond by bringing up contingents of armed men from their estates. We reproduce a pertinent passage from Maspero:

"The duties enforced by the feudal [Egyptian] state do not appear to have been onerous. In the first place, there was the regular payment of tribute, proportionate to the extent and resources of the fief. In the next place, there was military service: the vassal agreed to supply, when called upon, a fixed number of armed men, whom he himself commanded, unless he could offer a reasonable excuse" (10).

The operations of local government, on the other hand, were partly defrayed by the forced labor of the lower class, and partly by general taxation of property. Of taxation in detail, however, more later.

§ 33. In oriental society industry never attained anything like its modern development. The industrial phase of social evolution is illustrated more fully by the economic history of our western civilization; and we shall go more carefully into it at a later stage of our inquiry. In this connection we must be content with a very brief treatment, partly in the light of oriental evidence, and partly in view of European experience.