A paper to facilitate the applicability of M. Weber's typology of Herrschaft: legal-rational, traditionalistic & charismatic, by eliminating a few apparent contradictions due to its unfinished condition. The 'ideal-typical' used by Weber is replaced by `constructive type' terminology of Howard P. Becker & John C. McKinney. Disagreement among US Weberians as to the question of translating Herrschaft into authority, leadership or domination is noted. The legal-rational & charismatic types do not seem to require any finishing touches. Also the conceptual tools within these 2, such as legitimacy, rationality, bur'cy, charisma, forms of routinization & others have been frequently & successfully used. Only the traditionalistic type, perhaps a residual type in Weber's mind, & esp the subtypes within the traditionalistic type, non-existent in the other 2, represent certain difficulties which are not insoluble. Harry M. Johnson's preference for the use of `traditionalistic' rather than `traditional' is acclaimed. Of the 4 subtypes - patriarchalism, patrimonialism, sultanism & feudalism - it is suggested that sultanism be discarded entirely due to several operational ambiguities. Patrimonialism & feudalism are placed at the opposite ends of a `continuum' & at least 7 major areas of basic contrast are offered. Extensive historical evidence in support of this thesis is presented. Most of the controversial opinions on feudalism are noted. It is further suggested that patriarchalism as a conceptual tool be employed anly as the originating model for patrimonialism, but the same patriarchal model is not basic to feudalism. Finally, a functional break down is offered in the applicability of Weber's typology into 2 sets of types: (1) historical societies before the emergence of the modern bureaucratic state - charismatic, traditionalistic & feudal & (2) contemporary societies after the establishment of pol'al, industrial, technological & other institutional bureaucratization - charismatic, traditionalistic & legal-rational. COMMENT by Ernest Manheim: The principle of legitimacy, from which Weber derives his primary types of pol'al authority, appears to suggest a deductive typology. This first deductive classification of authority is, howevex, external to Weber's subsequent elaboration of the varieties of pol'al control. In the substantive portions of his pol'al sociol he ignores the rationale for the use of power & deals, instead, with its composition which he elaborates in a structural typology. What makes this typology efficient is the derivation of one type from another through the addition of a single structural component. Thus, patriarchalism, patrimonialism, the prebendary system, & feudalism are differentiated by the distinct sources from which the executive staff of each system derives its livelihood. The diff between the patrimonial & feudal org of power is basic to the divergent development of East & West. While feudalism fathered pol'al representation in the West, most supra-tribal power systems in Asia & Russia were either patrimonial or prebendary. The suggested explanation points to the more acute military exigencies in the East, requiring a higher degree of centralization than was necessary in the more sheltered locations of Western countries. The feudalization of patrimonial systems, in most instances, took place after the permanent military hazards had passed. AA.