Of all the dozens of forms of government which have been devised, why is it that with a few exceptions all have perished except the one called monarchy? It is surely the survival of the fittest, and there must be some reason why it is the fittest. Perhaps the solution is found in the fact that in every part of the world there have been higher and lower races in contact, and that the latter could not appreciate a government fit for the former and had to be ruled. Eventually, it was found best to delegate the authority to one man. We adopt the same plan, even in the most democratic nations. But in all lower European and Asiatic races there is usually a representative of a higher race to rule them, and there is never a good government without the higher race in control.
Patricians were merely newcomers who were conquerors and plebians the older residents who were conquered. Aristocrats were rulers and peasants ruled. Further back the plebians were slaves or serfs. This exclusiveness of all conquerors is universal, and as Benjamin Kidd shows* results from the blood relationship of small early tribes and their belief in a common ancestor who becomes a hero and then a mythical god whom they eventually worship - the basis of the universal ancestor worship of all early civilizations from Chinese to Semites and Aryans. All tribes are thus religious communities of blood relatives, and they survived simply because of their closely woven structure which was solid enough to struggle for existence against the rivalry of other less organized savages. Admission to this society was impossible, indeed it would have been sacrilegious. All outsiders were "barbarians," treated with hatred, contempt, and inhuman brutality - again a result of selection, for our present ideas of humane behavior would not have permitted of survival in those primitive times. On the other hand, the duty to the tribe of an individual transcends anything known to modern civilization, even the modern man's duty to his family. In all parts of the ancient world we find a "small citizen class living amongst vast populations to which even the elementary rights of humanity were denied, and the existence of which was for the most part the direct result of war."* Slaves thus conquered by intruders may even have outnumbered the free population. Both Dorian and *™olian Greek life were based on the rule of a warlike aristocracy, and every Greek boy spent two years on the frontier fighting barbarians.
It is not true that lack of education keeps men slaves, as was believed in our South, where it was once criminal to teach them to read. Slaves may have been cultured men, but it made no difference as to their condition of servitude. It was an ethnic matter solely. In Greece it was common to exchange slaves with neighboring States, so that the vast majority were not of the native race. At one time in Rome nearly all the professional positions were held by slaves - they were writers, lecturers, bankers, physicians and architects whose immense profits went to the masters or owners.
* "Western Civilization," p. 171.
* Kidd, p. 181. Ibid.
The word "gentleman" was originally gens-man, and he was far from gentle in its modern meaning. Gentle meant belonging to the gens, but as these aristocrats gradually became cultured and the peasant did not, the gens-man became truly a gentle-man. In English the word is still used in its class sense, and curiously enough it is taking on the same meaning in America where every one is a gentleman no matter how ungentle.
The rule of ancient warfare was to kill all captives. Often, indeed generally, it possessed a religious significance as the captives were of alien blood and alien religion and being ascended from another god were without any rights. To save them by selling into slavery, was then a mitigation of the death penalty and the first glimmering of humanity in war - although this first glimmering was a result, no doubt, of desire for private gain to the generals.