and interests of France, the donor of that ideal statue of Liberty which lights our harbor and the world's people as they enter that harbor-Germany, Spain, Russia, and the rest. England cannot see these facts, and does not want anyone else to see them; for she knows that if at this crisis America should put herself into right relations with her own principles she would be invincible, and that, England forefends. For the more absolutely America stands upon her own high level, the further she separates herself from British methods to-day. So that if America were true to herself, she would rise to eyrie heights, which are above ordinary faith and ordinary fear-and where British force would have no more power than the nerves of a dead man. But when America descends from her right level and puts faith in, or has fear of, British methods, she then clothes England in a power not her own. England needs and desires to be so clothed, and she is trading on her assumption of oneness with America, and thereby is bringing upon America the dislike that France and Spain rightly have for the methods of their age-long enemy, England. Hence England insists upon making it appear that she is the mother of America, who therefore would be supposed to have faith in England and a fear of her, and to be at one mind with her in all her enmities, wishes, and ways. This, she already has gotten into the minds of Spanish colleges, and has confused the dignity of our flag with the indignities of her lion; embroiling us in her old quarrels with our friends, the relatives of our citizens. We long since came to a point at which we declared we would have no part in England's quarrels. If we go a step further now, and say to her definitely, "We have no faith in your methods, and we will stand by our own principles and our own citizens," England intends to be ready to answer: "Fear me, then! I have your bonds and here are my guns. As I am doing in Egypt, so will I do in America!"

And all this because America has-false to her principles -entered into an entangling alliance with England, to the amount of "five thousand million dollars, the annual interest of which is two hundred and fifty million dollars," and thus has unfittingly complicated the independence of her right relations, by adding to them that of debtor to the "Constable of Egypt." But America is not Egypt, neither are the people Egyptian fellaheen! So, besides being herself, America has the advantage of Egypt's experience of British ways. But all will be plain work, if the people will but swiftly study up the situation, and then put them

serves in right relations with their own principles, regardless of instructions from the enemy. This will make them invincible; and, of course, release them from England's specious claims and rouge et noir sort of money speculations; a game at which, as readers know, whoever loses, the bank wins. For, notwithstanding the incidental financial complications, the question of America's relation to England to-day, is but of the same importance as that of her relation to any and every other nation; and is first, independent, and next-well?-friendly, but by no means intimate, till the pressing needs of her own national family are adjusted. For what is "England"? It is within proof that the British nation is far from being English; and that, if it were English the lion would not be its symbol, nor would its policy be that to which the British now adhere. This sounds farcical; but a swift review of British history will show that neither the sovereigns nor the methods of Britain are particularly English, and that the British lion is the English people's worst enemy. As is well known, near the time of the establishment of the Saxon Heptarchy just after the Roman army of occupation was withdrawn from Britain about the middle of the fifth century, a horde of fighters pressed in to take advantage of the fine conditions with which ancient Rome had filled the island. So the Saxons invited the Angles from Southern Denmark to come to their help. But these Angles entered into the business so well, that they took possession, reducing the inhabitants to submission or driving them to retreat to the mountains. "From these Angles or Engles was derived the name of Angleland or England.'

The Danes then succeeded to the throne. But the Danes are kindred of the Saxon, and belong to the same great Teutonic family, having a similiar language and religion, says history. Yet the Danes and the Angles of Southern Denmark are not necessarily the same people, as is shown by Knight, an intelligent historian, who says, "After the death of Hardicanute, the English people (however composed of English, Danes, and Saxons) went on with their national songs and traditions under Athelstan, Alfred, and Edward,"-thus emphasizing the fact that, to the fighting force of Teutons-Saxons and Danes-was added the permeating influence of the tradition-keeping, Angle element. Let us hunt up this elusive element. Edward the Confessor was brought up in Normandy, educated as an illuminati, familiar with the customs and language of other peoples, and was a lover of studious cloister life rather than

of fighting. His seal shows him sitting with closed eyes holding in his right hand a staff surmounted by a white bird and in his left hand a sword unsheathed in its defence. He was of the Angles, though a Saxon, and he came from Normandy and loved the Normans. And after him came Harold, and then came William the Conqueror from Normandy, and then the Norman kings held the English throne for four hundred and nineteen years. Now the symbol of the Saxons was the "white horse," the symbol of the Danes was "the black raven," and there is much to prove that "the lion" was imported from Jerusalem at the time when the Norman Crusaders were trying to obtain the development which is hidden in its historical symbolism. The lion of the tribe of Judah is the symbol of a people whom the British have seemed to hate, but whose esoteric wisdom they have coveted, and a son of whose people they have worshipped.

In our search after the lion, in its connection with English history, we come upon a picture (in an old manuscript in the British Museum) of a man in gorgeous priest-like robes and cap, and with a curved shield about five feet long and of a pyramidal shape which he carries on his left arm in a way which enables him to stand within its protection during warfare. It covers his whole body and bears eight gladsome lions neither crouching nor ramping; but daneing on one fantastic toe, as in a perfectly buoyant upright attitude, each raises two arms (for they can hardly be called legs) to high heaven, while the hair (for it cannot be called mane) is combed decorously down in long love-locks on well-proportioned shoulders; and their tails are flicked up in a merry whip-lash style, as if they were snapping themselves up to the business on foot. Nothing more gaily uplifting was ever seen in beast or man! I doubt if David, king of Jerusalem, when he danced before the Lord, looked more devoutly exhilarated. Now the man of whom this is a picture is Geoffrey the Earl of Anjou, and the son of Foulke King of Jerusalem. The Anjou family had for several generations been among the Crusaders to Jerusalem; sometimes for repentance but always for study of the mysteries. It is probable that Geoffrey Earl of Anjou and the historian, Geoffrey of Monmouth are the same man. The Crusaders always returned wiser than they went and full of the substance of the stories of Merlin and the Knights of the Round Table and of the Arthurian period, something of which Boston people are trying to present on pictured walls of their beautiful public library.

But this learned Geoffrey of Monmouth (?), Earl of Anjou, married Matilda, the daughter of Henry I of England and widow, of Henry VI Emperor of Germany, and allied himself to the throne of England; and his son, Henry II of England, was the first of the fourteen kings of the House of Plantagenet; for this surname was given to that house, because of the sprig of broom which the Earl of Anjou wore in his cap, to symbolize the purpose which he carried in his heart. The broom is the plantegenista, or plant et genet, as the French have it. It is a plantain common to many countries in some of its varieties. One form of it is the banana tree; another is a kind of plantain whose flowers on the part nearest the stem are hermaphrodite, while those at the apex are male only. So those who could read this higher significance, saw that, like the lily, it symbolized the latent power of the human dual-soul whose invincible individuality depends upon the development of its equal halves, and then on the unifying and harmonizing of them. Henry II of England carried on his shield, the lion, but on his seal, its idealized spiritual quality in the form of a white bird which surmounted the cross which mounted the globe. This he held in one hand, and in the other, his sword unsheathed in its defence.

The second Plantagenet was Richard Cœur de Lion; and with him the lion stood confessed. After him came John I (he of the Charta epoch), who wore a different crown. His knights, who dispossessed him of his crown, stand (in the picture) leaning on their shields which bear the rampant lion-not at all like the buoyant creature which the Earl of Anjou wore on his shield, in the picture shown of him, in the manuscript at the British Museum. Next, the seal of Henry III shows him with a staff in one hand surmounted by a bird; and in his left, the globe bearing the cross, and with each foot set firmly on a small depressed lion, while others, half rising, support-as legs-his throne. No sword appears.

The first Edward of the Plantagenets on coming into power caused two hundred and eighty Jews to be hanged at once on charge of corruption of the coin; and fifteen thousand were robbed of their effects and banished from the kingdom. He was called Edward the Crusader. His seal shows him in tremendous armor, on a tearing white horse, whose trappings were covered with lions, running like hounds, with their bodies pressed down close to the earth; probably in search of Jews with whom he had somewhat dealt in England. He, however, is thought to have

built up the British nation, and is admired by those who think that is the chief thing to be done, at any cost of cruelty to all the rest of the world.

But an effigy of Edward II of Carnarvon in the Glouscester Cathedral shows him with his feet on a coiled-up dead or dying lion lying on its back, and with a staff, surmounted by conventionalized wings, in his right hand, and the globe in the other. Edward III's seal shows him with the globe in his hand, surmounted by the cross, and the plant et genet rising large above him, and falling on his shoulder. At his feet are two lions, half rising, not under his feet. While a statue of St. George of England, which is at Dijon, shows him with his sword above his head in one hand, and his visor raised to look down on the dragon under his two feet, into whose mouth he is thrusting his long sword.

There is much to show that the so-called British lion was brought to England as a symbol by the Norman Crusaders, and that this, which appears as the British standard today, is but a debased form of a spiritually significant symbol. The casual study of the seals of the kings, shows that reigns which made for the advance of higher life, were symbolized by the presence of the bird token.

When we come to the time of the division of the Plantagent family into the branches.of the House of York and the House of Lancaster, the fight goes on under the name of the "War of the Roses" white and red, which is a significant name from the fact that "while in most cases the rose of the poet and the botanist are one and the same kind, yet popular usage has attached the name, rose, to plants whose kinship with the rose no ordinary botanist would admit." The Rose Spinosissima (the Scotch Thistle?) and the Rose Marinus (rose of the sea, or water lily) which plays an important part in folk-lore, are interesting on that score; while mythologically, the white lily (Juno's rose) was taken in the middle ages as the symbol of heav enly purity, and was contrasted with the red rose of Aphrodite. So the true inwardness of the War of the Red and White Roses would repay research, and would show that the same principle was at stake as that symbolized in the "golden lilies of France," which were a variety of the plant et genet's blazing yellow blossoms.

So when in 1485 Henry VII married Elizabeth, granddaughter of Edmund Tudor, descended from the wise man Owen Tudor of Wales, the branches of York and Lancaster united in the red Tudor rose; bringing forward, who shall say how much of the rose-cross mysteries over which the