The popular speech of every state and neighborhood swarms with names for varieties of political behavior and types of politicians. The study of political differences may very well begin by sifting the common vocabulary. Some of the popular images are derived from experience with government officials. Within the last hundred years the policeman has appeared over Western Europe, and a history of the popular conception of his rôle could be written around terms like “bobby,” “cop,” and “_Schupo_.” Whatever differences in dress, manner, social position, and common humanity are supposed to exist between a “civil servant,” a “_Beamter_,” and a “_fonctionnaire_,” there are common lineaments in the composite stereotype. A thick chapter in human experience could be entitled “The Bureaucrat,” wherein would be recorded the innuendo of popular comment on a necessary evil. The “legislator” is identifiable through all the detailed contrasts between the “congressman,” the “M.P.,” and the “M.d.R.” The popular tongue is rich in expressions which fill out the official cast of characters in the political drama by peopling the public stage with figures whose traits are essentially irrelevant to their office. There are men of ideas--“anarchist,” “socialist,” “liberal,” “communist,” “conservative.” There are men of ideas and of action--“reformer,” “revolutionary,” “martyr.” The history of American, British, French, German, medieval, Graeco-Roman, and every civilization could be written for the sake of showing how the carriers of public power figured in the eyes of the various groups within and without the culture. This profusion of types in the popular firmament of politics is supplemented by the types which have been isolated by serious students of culture, who have sought to impose order upon the life of the past. Among the political forms which have been described by the historians, the “benevolent despot” of the eighteenth century, the “demagogue” of Athenian democracy, the “prince” of the Italian Renaissance, and the “despot” of the oriental empires spring at once to mind. The masterly sketch of the evolution of the public official with which Max Weber[8] has enriched social science is, it is to be hoped, the forerunner of many elaborate studies. The traits and arts of political leaders have been most systematically handled by Aristotle, Machiavelli, Robert Michels, Christensen, and Charles E. Merriam.[9] These typologies, whether popular or scientific, possess several features in common. They may converge to what is practically the same picture. When W. B. Munro described the “reformer,” he filled out the popular image which arose in the American mind at a certain phase of American political evolution.[10] Practically every scientific conception is a refinement and generalization of some term in general circulation, though with local connotations.