of tribal unity than the basis upon which it was founded. Primarily the tribe existed for the purpose of offence and defence against other tribes, and assistance in the performance of this duty was supposed to be obtained from the gods of the tribe. Upon the other hand, in the clan the maintenance of a particular worship was the chief aim sought, the elements of mutual help and common ownership of property being secondary.

Origin of Political Authority. As regards the genesis of political as distinct from social authority over men, it would seem to be clear that its beginning is to be traced to the tribe, or to the clan in those cases in which the tribe was a product of the growth of a clan or of the union of two or more clans. In other words, political authority cannot be properly regarded as having developed out of the patriarchal authority as found in the early family. Even if it be held that some sort of family life must have existed before the formation of gentile or tribal associations, the groups of such individuals thus formed cannot be said to have exhibited distinctively political characteristics: they were purely social units founded upon the facts of parentage. Their members were limited to specific determinate individuals. The bond of union was a temporary one, and the status of the members was that of virtual slaves or chattels of the family's head, and not that of citizens. It is true that, in early times, the control of many matters, now regulated by the commands of the State, was in the hands of the head of the family, but its interests and authority were essentially private in character. It never was, and never became a subject of public law."

As contrasted with that of the family, the authority of the tribe must have been, from the beginning, purely political in character. Its chief derived his right to rule

Cf. Bentham, A Fragment on Government, sec. XIII, note C.

from the actual agreement or acquiescence of his subjects. No absolute limits were fixed to the membership of the tribe, nor to the duration of its existence; no degrees of citizenship were recognized; and, so far as its sphere of control extended, it was sovereign and selfsufficient. It was not one of a number of groups of equal status and co-ordinate power which composed a larger social unit.

It is of course true that, in the earliest times, the form of governmental organization that obtained was simple in the extreme, and that the extent to which the attempt was made to control the acts of its individual members, was comparatively slight, but, once established, the tribe and its authority furnished a beginning out of which the modern political State could develop by a mere process of elaborating its governmental organization and extending its control over additional human interests and activities. Thus, once established, an event which must have occurred very early in the history of every people, the tribe was able to grow, by conquest or natural increase, into the nation, its government into that of the modern State, and the authentic expressions of its will into the great systems of jurisprudence which the complicated character of present day life makes necessary. Beginning with a jurisdiction that extended little beyond that of direction in times of war, and judgment in a comparatively few matters in times of peace, the tribe had but to stretch out gradually its control, first by way of increase of its executive and judicial functions, and then, finally, by the exercise of direct legislative authority, in order to develop into the sovereign body-politic of today which practically monopolizes the legal right to employ physical coercion.

In this process of development, political authority has not changed its essential character, whatever may have

been the varying importance of the family or other social groupings within the body-politic. From the very beginning, as Hearn correctly says, "the State is not composed of other social organisms. Its members may be members of other social organisms, and the activities of these other social organisms may or may not clash, or tend to clash, with the activities of the State. But the organization of the State is complete within itself, and its power, within its own sphere and over its own members, is supreme. It has its own worship, its own property, its own functions, its own claim upon its members, its own duties towards them. It respects the rights and duties of the other associations which it includes, and does not, at least in its earlier stages, seek to interfere with the relations of its members to any of those other associations."7

Psychological Origin of Political Authority. Just as it is an idea or sentiment that transmutes an aggregate of individuals into a Nation, so it is a desire for political unity that provides a psychological basis for the State. As the eminent Austrian publicist, Jellinek, has put it, "The inner ground of the origin of the State is the fact that an aggregate of persons has a conscious feeling of its unity, and gives expression to this unity by organizing itself as a volitional and active subject." 8

It may be correct to say this desire for political union is, in many cases at least, the moving force that brings about the establishment of the State, but the mere existence of this psychological condition, granting, in a particular instance, that it exists, is not sufficient ground for asserting that a body-politic has been created. A State is not born until this subjective condition leads to the existence, in objective fact, of a ruling political or

The Aryan Household, p. 318. For an excellent popular discussion of the development of the modern State from its primitive form see Edward Jenks, The State and the Nation, published in 1919.

Die Lehre von den Staatenverbindungen, p. 157.

ganization. Other conditions favoring, or at least not hindering, this objective realization will result from the subjective inclination. But, except in rare cases, there is not this absence of hindrance. The political status quo ante has always to be considered. Existing political institutions and methods have the support of tradition, backed by the natural indisposition of men to change their habits and manner of life, especially when they cannot foresee with absolute precision the results that will follow from a change. And, most of all, an existing political authority is always supported by an enormous weight of selfish interest. To the desire to rule, which is almost universal in the human breast, are added the material and social interests and honors that are bound up in an existing political régime, thus making those in power reluctant to consent to even a change in administration, much less to the establishment of a new bodypolitic. It thus frequently happens that there exists in the minds of a community of people a desire for a political unity of a particular sort, and that this desire would be of sufficient strength to maintain the unity of a State, were it once established and organized, but that objective conditions prevent for many years the realization of such an end. It is only when this pent-up flood of feeling rises to sufficient height and strength to burst the existing political barriers that hold it in, that a new State is created.

As has been said, the natural tendency of the feeling of ethnic or cultural unity is to find expression in political unity. The two sentiments, then, that lie at the basis of the Nation and of the State are largely similar. The same conditions that tend to create the feeling of Nationality tend also, in most cases, to demand the establishment of the State. Absolute identity of these two sentiments, however, cannot be affirmed. It is possible, in other

words, for a well developed feeling of Nationality to exist with but slight desire for political unity. On the other hand, we find instances in which the establishment of political unity is clearly demanded by a People, among whom there is no other claim of Nationality. The factors that create the feeling of Nationality are community of race, language, historical tradition, mutuality of economic interests, and like degree of civilization. That which calls for the establishment of political control over a definite territory and community may be nothing more than political expediency,—the necessity for self-defensive or offensive strength. Certainly the feelings of American and British Nationality were very strong at the time of the severance of the American colonies from their mother country, yet independent political organization was nevertheless demanded and obtained by the Americans. Strong feelings of common Nationality were frequently displayed by the Greeks, especially when combating a common foe, yet at no time during the height of Grecian posperity was political unity called for. At the present day we see three distinct Nationalities organized under the Swiss Government with no demand. for separate political existence.

To those who would say that a national feeling does not truly exist unless there be a demand for political unity, that, in other words, the desire for such unity is a necessary consequence of the feeling of Nationality, it is to be replied, that this gives a more intensive and exacting definition to the sentiment of Nationality than is usually ascribed to it. It is an obvious fact that we often have instances of political unions in which there is an absence of such elements as community of race, language, custom, and historical tradition. It is, therefore, impossible to identify the desire for political unity, even before it obtains realization, with the sentiment of