and come to put their trust in labor or thrift. If "things are in the saddle," it is because the ideologies have not kept their promises. On the other hand, the triumphs of science lead men to value knowledge rather than religion or power. Science grants the health vainly besought by the worshiper; it turns aside the pestilence; it secures the husbandman his increase; it is a buckler against enemies. The decline of violence has, no doubt, done much to put the big brain above the strong arm, but even war is coming to be a test of intelligence rather than a test of brute strength. Knowledge and money, or, if you please, Science and Wealth, seem likely to become the heirs of the dying powers of the past.
Since food, sex, and safety are the most imperious, persistent, and universal wants of man, why, it may be asked, does not the sex-desire announce itself in history in some dramatic fashion? Why has no one offered a "genesic" interpretation of history?
The explanation seems to be that the sex-propensity does not group or array men. It embroils individuals (witness the "crimes of passion") but not tribes, classes, or nations. Unlike greed, it rarely precipitates mass collisions. Unlike fear, it does not inspire men to combined effort. Satisfied by the union of the sex-couple love, unlike hunger, does not give rise to co-operations, trades, and professions, the social division of labor. Nevertheless, on those rare occasions when they are summed together, the sex-desires constitute a stupendous social force. The most striking proof of this is the imposing of the monogamic relation upon the entire membership of society. The suppression of polygamy marks the triumph of the sex-needs of the many over the power of the few, and is, beyond question, the greatest anti-monopoly achievement on record. Perhaps the broadest encroachment ever made on the "right of the strongest" is the obliging of the rich and powerful to content themselves with one wife.
The distinction we have drawn between original and derivative social forces gives us a vantage-point from which to interpret the interpretations of history. We have seen that it is a mistake to lay the shiftings of interest to be discerned in the life of a
