emand something from the lawgiver. Whether the latter subsequently
grants the promised reward or protection is another question. The spirit
of the relation as contemplated by the law is that the superior
completely controls the inferior, to be sure, but that a certain claim
is assured to the latter, which claim he may press or may allow to
lapse, so that even this most definite form of the relation still
contains an element of spontaneity on the part of the inferior.

Still farther; the concept "law" seems to connote that he who gives the
law is in so far unqualifiedly superior. Apart from those cases in which
the law is instituted by those who will be its subjects, there appears
in lawgiving as such no sign of spontaneity on the part of the subject
of the law. It is, nevertheless, very interesting to observe how the
Roman conception of law makes prominent the reciprocity between the
superior and the subordinate elements. Thus _lex_ means originally
"compact," in the sense, to be sure, that the terms of the same are
fixed by the proponent, and the other party can accept or reject it only
_en bloc_. The _lex publica populi Romani_ meant originally that the
king proposed and the people accepted the same. Thus even here, where
the conception itself seems to express the complete one-sidedness of the
superior, the nice social instinct of the Romans pointed in the verbal
expression to the co-operation of the subordinate. In consequence of
like feeling of the nature of socialization the later Roman jurists
declared that the _societas leonina_ is not to be regarded as a social
compact. Where the one absolutely controls the other, that is, where all
spontaneity of the subordinate is excluded, there is no longer any
socialization.

Once more, the orator who confronts the assembly, or the teacher his
class, seems to be the sole leader, the temporary superior. Nevertheless
everyone who finds himself in that situation is conscious of the
limiting and controlling reaction of the mass which is apparently merely
passive and submissive to his guidance. This is the case not merely when
the parties immediately confront each other. All leaders are also led,
as in countless cases the master is the slave of his slaves. "I am your
leader, therefore I must follow you," said one of the most eminent
German parliamentarians, with reference to his party. Every journalist
is influenced by the public upon which he seems to exert an influence
entire