ties would not often begin between one national group and another unurged and unbidden. Let the dead past bury its dead. The dawn is on the hori

zon.

The notion of patriotism as hatred is not only dangerous doctrine; it is false doctrine. There is such a thing as religious devotion, and then there is such a thing as sanctimonious cant. There is a difference as wide as the ocean between liberty and license, between love and lust, between enthusiasm and hysteria. So, also, there is a true patriotism and there is a false patriotism. It will never do to be vaguely idealistic about "the love of humanity" and then speak reproachfully about "narrow love of country." Patriotism is more than mushy sentimentality. It is all very well to be cynical about the value of mere sentiment, but it is probably more than an aphorism to say that the world is ruled by sentiment - or sentimentality. Take the matter of the conduct of war itself. No practical statesman, however cynical and blasé he himself may happen to be about the beautiful sentiment of loyalty, would, for a moment, discount the very real value of patriotism. He would know, as a matter of statistics, that no modern grand scale war could possibly be conducted for a month

without patriotism or something "just as good." Indeed this is precisely why he so sedulously cultivates the habit of patriotism in his subjects or fellow-citizens. There are not enough mercenary soldiers for sale in all the markets of the world and you cannot win wars without soldiers.

False patriotism, hate of another country, is fostered by pride, prejudice, envy, jingoism or fanaticism. True patriotism, on the other hand, is love of one's own country and love of one's own country does not mean love of a particular piece of ground, which may be provincialism; nor of a select kind of folk, which may be bigotry; nor of a certain sort of government, which is probably dogmatism; nor of a special style of culture, which is more than likely racial or national egotism. True patriotism, per contra, means four things: First, it means reverence for the past traditions of one's country; second, it means devotion to the present institutions of one's country; third, it means loyalty to the future ideals of one's country; and fourth, it means valour to fight, if needs must be, in defence of these same institutions and ideals.1

1 Nobody will quarrel with Mr. Homer Lea when he pleads the cause of duty and devotion to the homeland. "By the efforts men make," he writes in The Day of the Saxon (p. 2), “to preserve their families from want, from servitude or destruction do we judge their domestic virtues. In such a manner, only to a

We may paraphrase Tertullian and say that the blood of the patriot is the seed of the State. But are crimson foundations necessary? We are told that it is our duty to obey and die at the command of the State.1 But are we to have no choice in the matter? The time was when personal vengeance was considered a duty; but times have changed. Perhaps we shall some day have the higher courage to refuse to die except for justice and liberty. May the time never come when we shall be too cowardly to lay down our lives for our friends. Now the sentiment of loyalty is as universal as humanity, but its pulse sometimes "skips" and is weak. War has the effect of quickening and stimulating loyalty. Frequently this is blind devotion, a feeling and a passion. But true loyalty must be reciprocal. If our friends betray us they are no longer our friends and we cannot continue to love larger degree, should judgment be rendered upon these same men according to the efforts they make toward a like preservation of their race. If a man who gives over his family to the vicissitudes of his neglect is deserving of scorn, how great should be the contempt felt for him who evades the obligations he owes his race and gives over, not alone his family, but all his people to conquest or destruction. Public fealty is only a nobler conception of the duty a man owes his family. A nation is a union of families; patriotism the synthesis of their domestic <virtues. The ruin of states, like the ruin of families, comes from one cause-neglect. To neglect one's family is to lose it; to neglect one's country is to perish with it. Individuals are a part of the world only in the duration or memory of their race." 1 See Charles Rann Kennedy's The Terrible Meek.

them. If we are led astray by princes or demagogues our loyalty to them is only a pretension, compelled by fear.

The theory of Hobbes that warfare is the natural state of man is far from proved.1 The argument for racial and national loyalties is more reasonable. We may well believe that blood is thicker than water; but to-day unanimity is a stronger bond than consanguinity, and it frequently happens that people on opposite sides of a border are drawn into closer intimacies by mutual interests and purposes than unlike people in the same country. In the matter of personal habits and characteristics, we emphasise to-day the influence of environment above heredity.2 Much the same thing is true as to national and racial inheritance. It is far less important than social environment and moral ideals. The time may come when we will be ready to say "the world is my country, to do good is my religion," but that time has not come yet, and forced growth often means premature death.

1 See The Forks of the Road, by Washington Gladden. 2 Alfred Russel Wallace, Letters and Reminiscences.

CHAPTER XVII

SOULS IN REVOLT

THE fifth article in the creed of force says that Might Makes Right; in a word, Materialism. War is universal sabotage. As far back as the record of human history goes, one group seems to have taken a malicious delight in throwing its wooden boot into the machinery of another group. Slowly

it dawned upon the intelligences of men that all this was very stupid, that it was, in fact, social suicide. Men looked about them and saw that individual advance was dependent upon personal will. They observed that so long as they believed in the omnipotence of Nature they were bound to worship her might and crouch in abject fear. Just as soon as their wills awoke to consciousness they began to conquer and control the forces of environment and to remake the world to suit their fancy. It did not demand any considerable skill in reasoning to infer from this that social progress also must wait upon the integration of the social will.

It was seen that society would go ahead faster