the　function　of　the　chief　is　altogether　one　of　INTELLIGENCE。　　The　chief　does　not　teach　the　others　to　associate；　to　unite　under　his　lead；　to　reproduce　their　kind；　to　take　to　flight；　or　to　defend　themselves。　　Concerning　each　of　these　particulars；　his　subordinates　are　as　well　informed　as　he。　　But　it　is　the　chief　who；　by　his　accumulated　experience；　provides　against　accidents；　he　it　is　whose　private　intelligence　supplements；　in　difficult　situations；　the　general　instinct；　he　it　is　who　deliberates；　decides；　and　leads；　he　it　is；　in　short；　whose　enlightened　prudence　regulates　the　public　routine　for　the　greatest　good　of　all。
  Man　（naturally　a　sociable　being）　naturally　follows　a　chief。　　Originally；　the　chief　is　the　father；　the　patriarch；　the　elder；　in　other　words；　the　good　and　wise　man；　whose　functions；　consequently；　are　exclusively　of　a　reflective　and　intellectual　nature。　　The　human　racelike　all　other　races　of　sociable　animalshas　its　instincts；　its　innate　faculties；　its　general　ideas；　and　its　categories　of　sentiment　and　reason。　　Its　chiefs；　legislators；　or　kings　have　devised　nothing；　supposed　nothing；　imagined　nothing。　　They　have　only　guided　society　by　their　accumulated　experience；　always　however　in　conformity　with　opinions　and　beliefs。
  Those　philosophers　who　（carrying　into　morals　and　into　history　their　gloomy　and　factious　whims）　affirm　that　the　human　race　had　originally　neither　chiefs　nor　kings；　know　nothing　of　the　nature　of　man。　　Royalty；　and　absolute　royalty；　isas　truly　and　more　truly　than　democracya　primitive　form　of　government。　　Perceiving　that；　in　the　remotest　ages；　crowns　and　kingships　were　worn　by　heroes；　brigands；　and　knight…errants；　they　confound　the　two　things；royalty　and　despotism。　　But　royalty　dates　from　the　creation　of　man；　it　existed　in　the　age　of　negative　communism。　　Ancient　heroism　（and　the　despotism　which　it　engendered）　commenced　only　with　the　first　manifestation　of　the　idea　of　justice；　that　is；　with　the　reign　of　force。　　As　soon　as　the　strongest；　in　the　comparison　of　merits；　was　decided　to　be　the　best；　the　oldest　had　to　abandon　his　position；　and　royalty　became　despotic。
  The　spontaneous；　instinctive；　andso　to　speakphysiological　origin　of　royalty　gives　it；　in　the　beginning；　a　superhuman　character。　　The　nations　connected　it　with　the　gods；　from　whom　they　said　the　first　kings　descended。　　This　notion　was　the　origin　of　the　divine　genealogies　of　royal　families；　the　incarnations　of　gods；　and　the　messianic　fables。　　From　it　sprang　the　doctrine　of　divine　right；　which　is　still　championed　by　a　few　singular　characters。
  Royalty　was　at　first　elective；　becauseat　a　time　when　man　produced　but　little　and　possessed　nothingproperty　was　too　weak　to　establish　the　principle　of　heredity；　and　secure　to　the　son　the　throne　of　his　father；　but　as　soon　as　fields　were　cleared；　and　cities　built；　each　function　was；　like　every　thing　else；　appropriated；　and　hereditary　kingships　and　priesthoods　were　the　result。　　The　principle　of　heredity　was　carried　into　even　the　most　ordinary　professions；a　circumstance　which　led　to　class　distinctions；　pride　of　station；　and　abjection　of　the　common　people；　and　which　confirms　my　assertion；　concerning　the　principle　of　patrimonial　succession；　that　it　is　a　method　suggested　by　Nature　of　filling　vacancies　in　business；　and　completing　unfinished　tasks。
  From　time　to　time；　ambition　caused　usurpers；　or　SUPPLANTERS　of　kings；　to　start　up；　and；　in　consequence；　some　were　called　kings　by　right；　or　legitimate　kings；　and　others　TYRANTS。　　But　we　must　not　let　these　names　deceive　us。　　There　have　been　execrable　kings；　and　very　tolerable　tyrants。　　Royalty　may　always　be　good；　when　it　is　the　only　possible　form　of　government；　legitimate　it　is　never。　　Neither　heredity；　nor　election；　nor　universal　suffrage；　nor　the　excellence　of　the　sovereign；　nor　the　consecration　of　religion　and　of　time；　can　make　royalty　legitimate。　　Whatever　form　it　takes；monarchic；　oligarchic；　or　democratic；royalty；　or　the　government　of　man　by　man；　is　illegitimate　and　absurd。
  Man；　in　order　to　procure　as　speedily　as　possible　the　most　thorough　satisfaction　of　his　wants；　seeks　RULE。　　In　the　beginning；　this　rule　is　to　him　living；　visible；　and　tangible。　　It　is　his　father；　his　master；　his　king。　　The　more　ignorant　man　is；　the　more　obedient　he　is；　and　the　more　absolute　is　his　confidence　in　his　guide。　　But；　it　being　a　law　of　man's　nature　to　conform　to　rule；that　is；　to　discover　it　by　his　powers　of　reflection　and　reason；man　reasons　upon　the　commands　of　his　chiefs。　　Now；　such　reasoning　as　that　is　a　protest　against　authority；a　beginning　of　disobedience。　　At　the　moment　that　man　inquires　into　the　motives　which　govern　the　will　of　his　sovereign；at　that　moment　man　revolts。　　If　he　obeys　no　longer　because　the　king　commands；　but　because　the　king　demonstrates　the　wisdom　of　his　commands；　it　may　be　said　that　henceforth　he　will　recognize　no　authority；　and　that　he　has　become　his　own　king。　　Unhappy　he　who　shall　dare　to　command　him；　and　shall　offer；　as　his　authority；　only　the　vote　of　the　majority；　for；　sooner　or　later；　the　minority　will　become　the　majority；　and　this　imprudent　despot　will　be　overthrown；　and　all　his　laws　annihilated。
  In　proportion　as　society　becomes　enlightened；　royal　authority　diminishes。　　That　is　a　fact　to　which　all　history　bears　witness。　　At　the　birth　of　nations；　men　reflect　and　reason　in　vain。　　Without　methods；　without　principles；　not　knowing　how　to　use　their　reason；　they　cannot　judge　of　the　justice　of　their　conclusions。　　Then　the　authority　of　kings　is　immense；　no　knowledge　having　been　acquired　with　which　to　contradict　it。　　But；　little　by　little；　experience　produces　habits；　which　develop　into　customs；　then　the　customs　are　formulated　in　maxims；　laid　down　as　principles；in　short；　transformed　into　laws；　to　which　the　king；　the　living　law；　has　to　bow。　　There　comes　a　time　when　customs　and　laws　are　so　numerous　that　the　will　of　the　prince　is；　so　to　speak；　entwined　by　the　public　will；　and　that；　on　taking　the　crown；　he　is　obliged　to　swear　that　he　will　govern　in　conformity　with　established　customs　and　usages；　and　that　he　is　but　the　executive　power　of　a　society　whose　laws　are　made　independently　of　him。
  Up　to　this　point；　all　is　done　instinctively；　and；　as　it　were；　unconsciously；　but　see　where　this　movement　must　end。
  By　means　of　self…instruction　and　the　acquisition　of　ideas；　man　finally　acquires　the　idea　of　SCIENCE；that　is；　of　a　system　of　knowledge　in　harmony　with　the　reality　of　things；　and　inferred　from　observation。　　He　searches　for　the　science；　or　the　system；　of　inanimate　bodies；the　system　of　organic　bodies；　the　system　of　the　human　mind；　and　the　system　of　the　universe：　why　should　he　not　also　search　for　the　system　of　society？　　But；　having　reached　this　height；　he　comprehends　that　political　truth；　or　the　science　of　politics；　exists　quite　independently　of　the　will　of　sovereigns；　the　opinion　of　majorities；　and　popular　beliefs；that　kings；　ministers；　magistrates；　and　nations；　as　wills；　have　no　connection　with　the　science；　and　are　worthy　of　no　consideration。　　He　comprehends；　at　the　same　time；　that；　if　man　is　born　a　sociable　being；　the　authority　of　his　father　over　him　ceases　on　the　day　when；　his　mind　being　formed　and　his　education　finished；　he　becomes　the　associate　of　his　father；　that　his　true　chief　and　his　king　is　the　demonstrated　truth；　that　politics　is　a　science；　not　a　stratagem；　and　that　the　function　of　the　legislator　is　reduced；　in　the　last　analysis；　to　the　methodical　search　for　truth。
  Thus；　in　a　given　society；　the　authority　of　man　over　man　is　inversely　proportional　to　the　stage　of　intellectual　development　which　that　society　has　reached；　and　the　probable　duration　of　that　authority　can　be　calculated　from　the　more　or　less　general　desire　for　a　true　government；that　is；　for　a　scientific　government。　　And　just　as　the　right　of　force　and　the　right　of　artifice　retreat　before　the　steady　advance　of　justice；　and　must　finally　be　extinguished　in　equality；　so　the　sovereignty　of　the　will　yields　to　the　sovereignty　of　the　reason；　and　must　at　last　be　lost　in　scientific　socialism。　　Property　and　royalty　have　been　crumbling　to　pieces　ever　since　the　world　began。　　As　man　seeks　justice　in　equality；　so　society　seeks　order　in　anarchy。
  ANARCHY；the　absence　of　a　master；　of　a　sovereign；＇1＇such　is　the　form　of　government　to　which　we　are　every　day　approximating；　and　which　our　accustomed　habit　of　taking　man　for　our　rule；　and　his　will　for　law；　leads　us　to　regard　as　the　height　of　disorder　and　the　expression　of　chaos。　　The　story　is　told；　that　a　citizen　of　Paris　in　the　seventeenth　century　having　heard　it　said　that　in　Venice　there　was　no　king；　the　good　man　could　not　recover　from　his　astonishment；　and　nearly　died　from　laughter　at　the　mere　mention　of　so　ridiculous　a　thing。　　So　strong　is　our　prejudice。　　As　long　as　we　live；　we　want　a　chief　or　chiefs；　and　at　this　very　moment　I　hold　in　my　hand　a　brochure；　whose　authora　zealous　communist　dreams；　like　a　second　Marat；　of　the　dictatorship。　　The　most　advanced　among　us　are　those　who　wish　the　greatest　possible　number　of　sovereigns；their　most　ardent　wish　is　for　the　royalty　of　the　National　Guard。　　Soon；　undoubtedly；　some　one；　jealous　of　the　citizen　militia；　will　say；　〃Everybody　is　king。〃　　But；　when　he　has　spoken；　I　will　say；　in　my　turn；　〃Nobody　is　king；　we　are；　whether　we　will　or　no；　associat