Now there are two classes of men, both of them wielding large powers over others, whose characters have been sharply contrasted by many writers. The kingly type is found in noblemen, at any rate of the old school, mediæval knights, landed proprietors and officers of the army and navy; the same traditions hold good in the upper ranks, at least, of the civil service and among the professional classes. The relations between these lords and the people committed to their charge, whether subjects, tenants or employés, are usually good, and friction rarely arises unless the subject class is of an alien race. These kings or lords have usually been able to retain for generations the respect of their subjects, often to inspire very great love and devotion. On the other hand the leader, whose claim to his position rests only upon wealth or the power to create wealth, is often even extravagantly generous, and has usually ingratiating manners, which are in sharp distinction from the _hauteur_ which is more characteristic of the lord; yet he rarely makes himself loved or even liked by those dependent on him, even though his actions be kind and his judgments just. This contrast has furnished a theme to many writers, and has been ably summarised by Ure,[369] who quotes in support pregnant passages from the works of H. G. Wells[370] and William James.[371] Such differences, Ure thinks, distinguished the king from the tyrant, and the same contrast, I would suggest, held good between the “Achæan” heroes and the rulers of the Minoan cities. We have seen reason for believing that the population of the Minoan cities of Greece consisted of Mediterraneans and perhaps some few Alpines, under the rule of a Prospector tyrant. The latter’s rule was possibly just, he made money for his city, but most of all for himself, and, in spite of occasional fits of lavish generosity, he would not have been popular. He was engaged in exploiting the proletariat, and they were fully conscious of the fact. Though his manner was outwardly ingratiating, he was distrusted by his subjects, who felt that they were but pawns in his game. Thus the sword swayed over his head as over that of Damocles, held only by a slender thread; revolutions or rumours of revolutions were of constant occurrence, and the tyrant, intent on money making, had little leisure or inclination, even if he had the capacity, for maintaining order or of inspiring loyalty in the hearts of his subjects.