Ruling, like all other functions which require the great to justify them, has fallen into disrepute, thanks to the incompetent amateurs that have tried their hand at the game. As in the Fine Arts, so in leading and ruling; it is the dilettantes that have broken our faith in human performances. The really great ruler reaches his zenith in dominating an epoch, a party, a nation or the world, to the best advantage of each of these; but it does not follow that the motive power propelling him should necessarily be the conscious pursuit of the best advantage of those he rules,--this is merely a fortuitous circumstance curiously associated with greatness in ruling,--generally speaking, however, his only conscious motive is the gratification of his inordinate will to power. The innocent fallacy of democracy lies in supposing that by a mere search, by a mere rummaging and fumbling among a motley populace, one man or several men can be found, who are able to take the place of the rare and ideal ruler. As if the mere fact of searching and rummaging were not in itself a confession of failure,--a confession that this man does not exist! For if he existed he would have asserted himself! he would have needed no democratic exploration party to unearth him. "There is no sorer misfortune in all human destiny, than when the powerful of the earth are not at the same time the first men. Then everything becometh false and warped and monstrous."[2] "For, my brethren, the best shall rule: the best will rule! And where the teaching is different, there--the best _is lacking_."[3]