which the reflective understanding makes between an idea and the corresponding reality.  This reflection holding to an abstract and consequently untrue idea, not grasping it in its completeness, or—­which is virtually, though not in point of form, the same—­not taking a concrete view of a people and a State.  We shall have to show, further, on, that the constitution adopted by a people makes one substance, one spirit, with its religion, its art, and its philosophy, or, at least, with its conceptions, thoughts and culture generally—­not to expatiate upon the additional influences ab extra, of climate, of neighbors, of its place in the world.  A State is an individual totality, of which you cannot select any particular side, although a supremely important one, such as its political constitution, and deliberate and decide respecting it in that isolated form.  Not only is that constitution most intimately connected with and dependent on those other spiritual forces, but the form of the entire moral and intellectual individuality, comprising all the forces it embodies, is only a step in the development of the grand whole, with its place pre-appointed in the process—­a fact which gives the highest sanction to the constitution in question and establishes its absolute necessity.  The origin of a State involves imperious lordship on the one hand, instinctive submission on the other.  But even obedience—­lordly power, and the fear inspired by a ruler—­in itself implies some degree of voluntary connection.  Even in barbarous states this is the case; it is not the isolated will of individuals that prevails; individual pretensions are relinquished, and the general will is the essential bond of political union.  This unity of the general and the particular is the Idea itself, manifesting itself as a State, and which subsequently undergoes further development within itself.  The abstract yet necessitated process in the development of truly independent states is as follows:  They begin with regal power, whether of patriarchal or military origin; in the next phase, particularity and individuality assert themselves in the form of aristocracy and democracy; lastly, we have the subjection of these separate interests to a single power, but one which can be absolutely none other than one outside of which those spheres have an independent position, viz., the monarchical.  Two phases of royalty, therefore, must be distinguished—­a primary and a secondary.  This process is necessitated to the end that the form of government assigned to a particular stage of development must present itself; it is therefore no matter of choice, but is the form adapted to the spirit of the people.