7 20 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



organizations form the chief part of the society, and, in the absence of 

 external enemies, the appliances for offense and defense are either ru- 

 dimentary or absent. Transitional as are nearly all the societies we 

 have to study, we may yet clearly distinguish the constitutional traits 

 of these opposite types, characterized by predominance of the outer 

 and inner systems respectively. 



Having glanced at the two thus placed in contrast, it will be most 

 convenient to contemplate each by itself. 



As before pointed out, the militant type is one in which the army 

 is the nation mobilized, while the nation is the quiescent army, and 

 which, therefore, acquires a structure common to army and nation. 

 We shall most clearly understand its nature by observing in detail this 

 parallelism between the military organization and the social organiza- 

 tion at large. 



Already we have had ample proof that centralized control is the 

 primary trait acquired by every body of fighting-men, be it horde of 

 savages, group of brigands, or mass of soldiers. And this centralized 

 control, necessitated during war, characterizes the government during 

 peace. Among the uncivilized, there is a marked tendency for the mil- 

 itary chief to become also the political head (the medicine-man being 

 his only competitor) ; and in a conquering race of savages his political 

 headship becomes fixed. Among semi-civilized, the conquering com- 

 mander and the despotic king are the same ; and they remain the same 

 among the civilized down to late times. The connection is well shown 

 where, in the same race, we find a contrast in the habitual activities 

 and in the forms of government. Thus the powers of the patriarchal 

 chiefs of Kaffre tribes are not great ; but the Zulus, who have be- 

 come a conquering division of the Kaffres, are under an absolute mon- 

 arch. Of advanced savages, the Feejeeans may be named as well 

 showing this relation between habitual war and despotic rule; the 

 persons and property of subjects are entirely at the king's or chief's 

 disposal. We have seen that it is the same in the warlike African 

 states, Dahomey and Ashantee. The ancient Mexicans, again, whose 

 highest profession was that of arms, and whose eligible prince became 

 king only by feats in war, had an autocratic government, which, ac- 

 cording to Clavigero, became more stringent as the territory was 

 enlarged by conquest. Similarly, the unmitigated despotism under 

 which the Peruvians lived had been established during the spread of 

 the Inca conquests. And that race is not the cause, we are shown 

 by this recurrence in ancient America of a relation so familiar in an- 

 cient states of the Old World. 



The, absoluteness of a commander-in-chief goes along with abso- 

 lute control exercised by his generals over their subordinates, and by 

 their subordinates over the men under them. All are slaves to those 

 above, and despots to those below. This structure repeats itself in 

 the accompanying social arrangements. There are precise gradations 



