316 PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTIONS. 



not willingly recognize the truth that without autocratic 

 rule the evolution of society could not have commenced ; 

 and one to whom the thought of priestly control is repug 

 nant, cannot, without difficulty, bring himself to see that 

 during early stages priestly control was necessary. But con 

 templation of the evidence, while proving these general 

 facts, also makes it manifest that in the nature of things 

 groups of men out of which organized societies germinate, 

 must, in passing from the homogeneous to the heterogene 

 ous, have first assumed the form in which one individual 

 predominates a nucleus of the group serving as a centre 

 of initiation for all subsequent steps in development. 

 Though, as fast as society advances, and especially as fast as 

 the militant type yields place to the industrial type, a cen 

 tralized and coercive control, political and ecclesiastical, 

 becomes less needful, and plays a continually decreasing 

 part in social evolution; yet the evidence compels us to 

 admit that at first it was indispensable. 



This generalization, which we saw variously illustrated 

 by political institutions and ecclesiastical institutions, we 

 now see again illustrated by professional institutions. As 

 the foregoing chapters have shown, all the professions origi 

 nate by differentiation from the agency which, beginning 

 as political, becomes, with the apotheosis of the dead ruler, 

 politico-ecclesiastical, and thereafter develops the profes 

 sions chiefly from its ecclesiastical element. Egypt which, 

 by its records and remains, exhibits so well the early phases 

 of social progress, shows us how at first various governmental 

 functions, including the professional, were mingled in the 

 king and in the cluster of those who siirrounded the king. 

 Says Tiele: 



u A conflict between the authority of priest and king was hardly pos 

 sible in earlier times, for then the kings themselves, their sons, and 

 their principal officers of state were the chief priests, and the priestly 

 dignities were not dissevered from nor held to be inconsistent with 

 other and civil functions.&quot; 



