A man

calling that one is a member of it; but all these traits are tremendously intensified by conscious rivalry with other groups, especially by actual or apprehended attacks from without. Patriotism is made up of two quite different things, love of one's country and dislike and depreciation of foreign peoples. Unhappily, the latter is the more vivid and unreasoning sentiment when once aroused. who exhibited no public spirit and consistently dodged his taxes in times of peace might find himself hurrying off to the trenches at the bugle's sound, urged on by an innate property of his nature of which he himself had not suspected the existence. The war-dance is in our blood. And this is no mere figure of speech, but a wellauthenticated scientific conclusion, backed up by adequate historical and anthropological observation. As Mr. Max Eastman points out: "The disposition of European people, grouped in nations, to wage war when their nation is threatened, and to believe it threatened upon a very light excuse, seems to be fixed in the nervous tissue, like self-preservation itself. Men who would not contribute a peaceable eight cents to the public weal, drop their cash, credit, and commercial prospects and go toss in their lives like a song at the bidding of an alien abstraction called the state." We should never understand this did we not realize that this abstraction called the state, alien as it may seem to most of our every-day interests and longings, is the modern equivalent of the tribal group in which our hunting ancestors formed the nature which they transmitted to us, their descendants.

On the surface, nationalism, as we meet it to-day, is a highly sophisticated product of theories and assumptions about racial characteristics of particular peoples as deduced from their supposed innate temperaments, their past achievements in war, literature, art, religion, and commerce. Underlying it, however, is the never-dying primitive impulse of tribal solidarity to which it can be traced back step by step, a crude, uncritical, instinctive thing, shared in all probability by all the peoples

now existing on the face of the globe, whatever their stage of civilization, common to Bushmen and aboriginal Australians and to Germans, French, and English of the most highly educated classes. But the fact that nationalism is a manifestation of a compelling instinct in no way detracts from the interest and importance of its historical development. Like the still more ancient and compelling sex instinct, it shows itself in manifold ways, and may be subjected to a process of "sublimation," such as is recommended in our efforts to reduce and control the demoralizing results of sexual attraction.

Patriotism, the love of one's terra patria, or natal land, is a recent thing. During far the greater part of his existence man has wandered over the earth's face as a hunter and can hardly have had any sweet and permanent associations with the tree or rock under which he was born. But the forerunners of territorial emotion were the group loyalties of the tribe, clan, family, and totemistic group, in whatever order and with whatever peculiarities these may have originated and come to exist side by side. Even when, ten thousand years ago, agriculture began to hold men to one spot until a crop could be garnered, there were still many reasons beside ancient habit for keeping them moving.

The first records of emotions which may properly be called national are to be found in the Old Testament. The twelve confederated tribes of Israel (or at least what was left of them after the exile) in Judea and the diaspora possessed a lively and varied conviction of common interests, a common origin, and a glorious future. The Greek towns and their colonies, scattered as they were, had not only their local patriotism, but a general feeling of superiority and a certain theoretical solidarity indicated by the comprehensive name Hellenes. Of the love of country the Roman writers have much to say. Cicero declares that of all social bonds those that unite each of us with the commonwealth are the dearest and strongest. "Parents are dear, children are dear, as

are our relatives and friends; but our fatherland embraces in itself all our love for every one" ("De officiis," I, xvii, 57). The writings of the Stoics, together with some passages in the later Hebrew prophets, afford us the earliest conscious protests against patriotism. The vast extension of the Roman Empire and the incoming of cosmopolitan religions, such as Mithraism, proselyting Judaism, Neoplatonism, and Christianity, must have undermined the older patriotism which had grown up in the city states, for this could not fail to suffer from the rivalry of these more inclusive competing loyalties.

The Middle Ages had their special group loyalties, corresponding to to the manor and the monastery, the commune and the gild, together with the supreme mystical entity of the Holy Catholic Church. The shifting feudal combinations and the weakness of the kings must have left little scope for anything corresponding to modern national feeling.

III

THERE is, so far as I know, no history of nationalism. If there were, it would have to take into account, by way of introduction, and among other things, the somewhat obvious examples of the mani'festations of the group spirit which I have been hastily reviewing. The next step would be to trace the development of the modern national state. This we are wont to distinguish and set off from the fiefs and towns of which it was gradually compounded, from the cosmopolitan Roman Empire, and from the ancient city states, as well as from what we rather vaguely call the Oriental despotisms. It is clear that our present national emotions have to do with the national state, but I am inclined to think that the state came first and then the emotion. For, if we neglect anomalous Switzerland and perhaps Holland, the national states have all grown up about a dynasty. Instead of national feeling, we have to reckon with the subjects' loyalty to their king. Backed by their faithful subjects, the kings fought one another for increased territory. They

did not advance national or racial claims, but put forward the rights of birth or of feudal succession. Regardless of race and language, the English kings subjugated, or sought to subjugate, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and the whole of western and southern France. The French kings laid claim to England, and at times sought to extend their dominion over the western German regions and over northern and southern Italy. The rulers of Spain held Portugal for a time, as well as portions of southern Italy. The German Hapsburgs have always shown themselves singularly indifferent to race, language, and historical traditions in building up the mongrel empire over which they now hold sway. Religious schisms have from time to time offered excuses for territorial aggrandizement. The doctrine of the balance of power has had its influence, and the French kings have urged that of "natural boundaries," geographical, however, rather than racial. So it would seem that the national spirit has not been conspicuous among the various forces which have produced the modern system of states. Down to the end of the eighteenth century race, language, and common traditions were not much considered in the actual and attempted redistributions of territory, and they have often enough been neglected since that time.. So I conclude that whatever forces may have served to generate the national state, the national spirit can scarcely be one of them; things happened the other way round: large states having come into existence through the enterprises of monarchs and their ministers. due, perhaps, to altering economic conditions, these larger territorial states have served to stimulate the ancient and everabiding instinct of tribal solidarity in a novel manner, with novel justifications. I am impressed, however, with the great complexity of the whole situation, which I make no pretense of analyzing. I only want to point out a few historical facts which will have to be considered in at

1In the case of the final unification of Germany and Italy, which took place in 1870-71, there can be no doubt that national spirit played an important rôle.

tempting to trace the development of nationalism as we now know it.

So long as states were composed of subjects rather than of citizens, the modern emotions of nationality could scarcely develop. Nationality, in our meaning of the term, is a concomitant of another mystical entity, democracy. The French Revolution began, it is true, in a period of philosophic cosmopolitanism,-since that was the tradition of the philosophes, -and the French armies undertook to liberate other peoples from their tyrants in the name of the rights of man, not of nations. But Napoleon, in a somewhat incidental and left-handed fashion, did so much to promote the progress of both democratic institutions and of nationality in western Europe that he may, in a sense, be regarded as the putative father of them both. His plebiscites were empty things in practice, but they loudly acknowledged the rights of peoples to decide on vital matters. He was a friend of constitutions so long as he himself made them. Then his attempt to seat brother Joseph on the Spanish throne produced a really national revolt, and led to the Spanish constitution of 1812 and all its later revivals and imitations. In Italy he stirred a desire for national unity and the expulsion of the foreigner which had been dormant since the days of Machiavelli's hopeless appeal. He is the founder of modern Germany. He succeeded in a task which had baffled German emperors from the days of Otto the Great; for in 1803 he so far consolidated her disrupted territories that the remaining states, enlarged and strengthened, could in time form a strong union and become a great international power. His restrictions on the size of the Prussian army after his victory at Jena suggested to Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and Boyne a subterfuge which made Prussia the military schoolmaster of Europe, and is now costing millions of lives offered up in the cause of nationality.

from his philosophic speculations to celebrate the glories of Deutschthum. In the fourth and fifth of his never-to-be-forgotten addresses delivered after the battle of Jena, Fichte deals with the salient differences between the Germans and the other peoples of western Europe. That portion of the Germans who have remained in their original dwelling-place possess, he contends, an autochthonous strength and potentiality which assures them a natural supremacy. As an Urvolk they have an Ursprache which can trace its unbroken history back to the first uttered syllable. The German speech alone has from the beginning been a spontaneous outpouring of natural power; in comparison with it all other western European languages are mere corrupt makeshifts. They are dead things compared with the ever-living German, with its roots deep in the original soil from which it sprang. Zwischen Leben und Todt findet gar keine Vergleichung statt. Since language makes the man rather than man the language, the studious German can master the other languages of Europe so that he understands them better than those who have spoken them. from childhood; he can comprehend the foreigner better than the foreigner understands himself. But the foreigner can hope to understand a German only by most painfully acquiring his language, and no alien will succeed in adequately translating German in its deeper meanings.

future progress, whereas other peoples can do no more than cast their eyes back to golden ages which can never recur for them.

The claims which Fichte makes for inherent German superiority were carried somewhat further in some directions by Hegel in his celebrated "Philosophy of History," based upon a series of lectures first delivered at Berlin during the winter semester of 1822-23. He describes the migrations of the world spirit which found its first incarnation among the ancient Persians, then sought its completer realization among the Greeks and Romans, and finally settled permanently, so to speak, among the Germans. To them, Hegel says in his characteristic manner, it assigned the rôle not merely of possessing the idea of freedom, "but of producing it in free and spontaneous developments from their subjective self-consciousness." "The German spirit," he claims, "is the spirit of the new world. Its aim is the realization of absolute truth as the unlimited self-determination of freedom." The Germans possess, moreover, a peculiar national and seemingly untranslatable quality, Gemüth. This the philosopher luminously defines as that "undeveloped, indeterminate totality of spirit in reference to the will, in which satisfaction of soul is attained in a corresponding general and indeterminate way." I infer that he is speaking of something nice and that the tribal instincts of his audience glowed with complacency in the assurance of its possession. A Frenchman has pointed out a German trait which Hegel does not mention, but upon which he always relied; namely, that in Germany the patience of the reader is always expected to outrun the obscurity of the writer. Like Fichte, Hegel assigned to the Germans a peculiar power of leavening the whole lump in which any of their race happened to be placed.

It is impossible here to give further illustrations of the manner in which German confidence in German destiny and Kultur have been fostered. I suspect that no other nation equals the Germans in the

Gründlichkeit and Planmässigkeit with which the spirit of nationality has been cultivated and wrought into education by intellectual leaders.

In France a less turbid, but perhaps equally wide and deep, stream of national self-assurance could be traced if there were time. It would be hard to outdo Nisard's statement that in his effort to portray the French spirit he finds himself almost depicting reason itself. Honor and glory, wit and clarity-these are always conspicuous among the characteristics which French writers discover in a preeminent degree among their fellow-countrymen.

But it is not my intention to call the roll of European peoples, big and little, who either have achieved political independence, like the English, Spanish, Italians, and Russians; or who, like the Poles, Bohemians, Croatians, and the discontented among the Irish, aspire to do so in the name of nationality. The histories of the various national spirits might of course be written. They would serve to amuse and sadden the philosophic reader. I venture to forecast that the theories of national peculiarities would be found to be conflicting and mutually exclusive, that they would be based upon many a historical mistake and distortion, upon insolent suppressions and arrogant exaggerations. They would possess exactly the same value as does a blind and ardent lover's description of his mistress. Singing the praises of one's tribe is the natural pastime of a boastful savage. "When Caribs were asked whence they came, they answered: 'We alone are people!' The meaning of the name Kiowa [an Indian tribe now settled in Oklahoma] is 'real or principal. people.' The Lapps call themselves 'men' or 'human beings.' . . . The Tunguses call themselves 'men.' call themselves 'men.' As a rule it is found that nature people call themselves 'men.' Others are something else-perhaps not defined-but not real men." 1 The word Deutsch, according to Grimm, had this meaning originally, and it is amusing to note a certain complacency in 1Sumner, "Folkways," 1911, p. 14.

German writers who point this out. The Franks, from whose name the French derive theirs, appear to have thought they were "the free.”

IV

WE have all been shocked by the readiness with which even intellectual persons, especially German professors, lapsed, under the stress of war, into the frame of mind of a Carib or Laplander. But this and other recent occurrences only prove that we have expected too much. Our ancient tribal instinct evidently retains its blind and unreasoning characteristics despite the fact that we are able nowadays, by means of newspapers, periodicals, railroads, and telegraphs, to spread it over vast areas, such as are comprised in modern states like Germany, France, Russia, and the United States.

When, by taking thought, exceptional persons come to realize the facts which we have been recalling and succeed in transcending the Carib point of view, their task is that of convincing their fellow countrymen that all men are really men. Here they meet the great obstacle of difference in language, which cuts peoples off from one another. Then the diplomatic relations of modern states are inherited from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries when the diplomats were agents of monarchs, scheming for territorial gains. Moreover, to most of our fellow-men, patriotism is a word that still falls most sweetly on the ear. It may seem a criminal abomination in other tribes, but is a most precious thing as we contemplate it in our own. Many seemingly thoughtful people resent even an analysis of it into primitive pugnacity and gregariousness reinforced by "baby. love" of one's earliest environment and associations, together with that agreeable sense of exaltation which, as has been pointed out, the group spirit engenders. Many educated persons are temperamentally indisposed to analyze cherished convictions and sanctified emotions. There are, nevertheless, certain considerations that may serve to cheer those who are cast down by the primitive

workings of the tribal spirit as they exhibit themselves in the present European conflict.

V

THE chief quarrel with patriotism is its innate tendency to precipitate war with other groups upon the most trivial pretenses. It is, in short, touchy and ugly in its most constant and characteristic manifestation. So long as war was accepted by every one as man's noblest preoccupation, this would naturally be no objection to patriotism. War might even be degraded to the status of a necessary evil without leading to any criticism of patriotism, but if warfare is to be viewed as a wholly gratuitous abomination, the way will be opened for a recognition of the common nature and interests of humanity which it is the chief business of patriotism to forget or obscure. Both the Stoics and the Christians accepted in principle the brotherhood of man, but so far as I know this doctrine never checked a war, secular or religious; and it is only in modern times that two or three Christian sects, bitterly persecuted and maligned by the majority of Christians, have stood out. against war on principle, the Anabaptists, the gentle Socinians, and, above all, the Quakers.

I

When, in 1726, Voltaire visited Eng-. land, he was charmed with the simple religious beliefs of the Quakers and especially with their denunciation of war. His "Letters on the English," published immediately upon his return to France, introduced his readers to the Society of Friends and their pacifist doctrines. am inclined to think that anti-militarism as a distinct and growing sentiment may be said to date from this time. So it has not yet had two centuries in which to develop plans and devices for countervailing man's inbred bellicosity. The French philosophes of the eighteenth century often prided themselves on being citizens of the world. They lauded the institutions of the English, Persians, Chinese, or Fiji Islanders as superior to those of their native land. Their influence af