the whole of human life. No division of power is then endurable
without danger--probably without destruction; the priest must not
teach one thing and the king another; king must be priest, and
prophet king: the two must say the same, because they are the same.
The idea of difference between spiritual penalties and legal
penalties must never be awakened. Indeed, early Greek thought or
early Roman thought would never have comprehended it. There was a
kind of rough public opinion and there were rough, very rough, hands
which acted on it. We now talk of political penalties and
ecclesiastical prohibition, and the social censure, but they were
all one then. Nothing is very like those old communities now, but
perhaps a 'trade's union' is as near as most things; to work cheap
is thought to be a 'wicked' thing, and so some Broadhead puts it
down.

The object of such organisations is to create what may be called a
cake of custom. All the actions of life are to be submitted to a
single rule for a single object; that gradually created the
'hereditary drill' which science teaches to be essential, and which
the early instinct of men saw to be essential too. That this regime
forbids free thought is not an evil; or rather, though an evil, it
is the necessary basis for the greatest good; it is necessary for
making the mould of civilisation, and hardening the soft fibre of
early man.

The first recorded history of the Aryan race shows everywhere a
king, a council, and, as the necessity of early conflicts required,
the king in much prominence and with much power. That there could be
in such ages anything like an oriental despotism, or a Caesarean
despotism, was impossible; the outside extra-political army which