174 SOCIAL HEREDITY AND SOCIAL EVOLUTION 



been a king, or an emperor. In some cases it has 

 been the power of the Roman Catholic Church. In 

 some cases it has been certain cities that have col- 

 lected around themselves various peoples, and have 

 controlled the organization. Again, it has been a 

 combination of a king, together with the power of the 

 nobles, and subsequently the power of the people, 

 that has joroduced the centralization, for even in 

 democratic England, centralization has been pro- 

 duced around the Parliament, which of course in a 

 way represents the people themselves. Whether cen- 

 tralization shall be develox)ed around the power of an 

 individual, a king, or an emperor, or whether it shall 

 develop around some other authority, has been 

 largely a matter of incidents of history. 



However varied have been the histories of the dif- 

 ferent races of modern Europe, they all illustrate the 

 same fundamental principle ; for they show that even 

 in the communistic Aryan races there is an irresist- 

 ible tendency toward centralization and organiza- 

 tion. This has occurred everywhere, although the 

 center around which the kingdom has been organized 

 has been different in each nation. In the Aryan as 

 well as in the Oriental races there has thus been some 

 dominating force at work which has led toward cen- 

 tralization. In the Oriental nations this centralizing 

 force was primitive and was a part of their system of 

 ancestor-worship, which demanded a subservience to 

 the king as the father of all. In the Aryan races, 

 however, centralization was contradictory to their 

 original customs, since the communal system does 

 not lend itself to centralization. But in spite of this, 

 in the Aryan races which have continued to exist 

 this principle of centralization has ever forced itself 



