association, the fact of common effort, apart from any results which it may bring. This is the spirit of patriotism in this respect.

The critic has not found it quite easy to dispose of this side of the partiotic spirit. Let us quote Tolstoy again. "Patriotism is an immoral feeling, because, instead of confessing oneself a son of God, as Christianity teaches us, or even a free man guided by his own reason, each man under the influence of partiotism confesses himself the son of his fatherland and the slave of his government, and commits actions contrary to his reason and conscience." Its inevitable results, he says, are externally, wars, and, internally, the strengthening of "the terrible bond called government." The quotation implies a double line of attack. First, it is urged that patriotism may lead a man to do what is wrong, just because his country sanctions or commands it. Secondly, it is suggested that the institution to which patriotism is an attachment, the State or Government, is a bad and un-Christian institution, which, therefore, no man is under any obligation to serve. The first point is sufficiently answered by the reflection that the same criticism can be made of any personal affection. The love of husband and wife has no doubt been the excuse for many crimes; but it is not therefore condemned as immoral. The second point is much more difficult. It is true that the attack on the State in the interest of anarchism

makes no wide appeal at the present time. Government, as such, is not regarded by many as an evil. But other hostile influences, less academic, have for some time been at work, which threaten to rob the State of its pre-eminent and over-riding claim upon the citizen's service, or even to destroy the State-organisation, as we know it, altogether. The battle-cry of 1848, expressed in the famous phrase of the Communist Manifesto, "Proletarians of all Lands, Unite," claimed that the oppressed workers of the world had a truer community of interest with one another than with the capitalist oppressors of their own countries, and thus directly challenged the claims of the nations. And though the unity of Labour in the sense desired has not yet been realised, many still think it will be realised, and that its realisation will mean the extinction of Patriotism. There are others who think that the idea underlying the recently founded League of Nations is necessarily hostile to patriotism, presumably because it postulates community of interests where the patriot sees only diversity or opposition, and because it threatens to establish an authority superior to the nation which the patriot is supposed to be unable to accept. Lastly, there are the advocates of a number of ingenious but still rather tentative proposals for what may be called the break-up of the State. It is evident that each of these lines of criticism leads into deep waters, into which we are not at present in a position to follow.

§ 5. RELATION OF THESE THREE ELEMENTS TO ONE ANOTHER

We have distinguished in patriotism three elements, an affection, a wish, and the act of service. It remains to consider the relation of these three constituents to one another, and their joint application to political life.

In favourable circumstances all three elements are present, mutually reinforcing each other. The schoolboy, for example, is expected to be fond of his school, to wish it success in any of its undertakings, and to be ready to help it in any way he can. The more he can do for it, the fonder of it he becomes and the more strongly he wishes it success. The school's recognition of his value to it reinforces his conviction of its value to him. No alteration in the terms seems to be required if (again supposing favourable circumstances) we think of our schoolboy in later years, as a citizen, in his relation to the State or nation. The beliefs, customs, and practices of the community are suited to him and he to them. He is fond of it, wishes it success, and is glad to serve it; and both its successes and his own will tend to strengthen the whole complex called patriotism. The crude and arrogant expressions of patriotism, with which we are only too familiar, should not blind us to the essential rightness of this attitude in the happy conditions imagined. For it is easy to see that these

are not necessarily involved, and that they are not justified by the facts. Affection, certainly, will express itself in praise; but praise need not and cannot justifiably become a claim that its object is the best of its kind in the world. The conditions required for comparison cannot be satisfied, since the relation of a schoolboy to his school or of a citizen to his country is necessarily unique. A man, or a boy, can only be a member of one at a time, and in all his life only, in any real sense, of a very few. To the schoolboy or citizen his school or country is, as his, differentiated from all others, and of special interest to him. If it satisfies him, he may call it good; but "best" is rhetorical hyperbole, not comparison. The wish for its success in competition with other schools or countries is a natural consequence; and this wish, with the acts in which it finds expression, only turns to the general disadvantage when competition is allowed to take forms which are necessarily harmful, or so far as the desire for the first place tends to predominate over finer forms of selfassertion. Some teachers hold that competition between boys and schools for University scholarships is a bad thing; but, while it continues, they consent to assist their schools in the competition, and wish them success in it. Similarly, nearly all men agree that war is a disastrous and avoidable form of competition between nations; yet, when war is joined, they wish for their

country's success, and are very ready to help it. In any sphere in which competition is recognised the patriotic citizen or schoolboy will back his own school or country, and do his best to help it. Such an attitude, further, in the ideal case imagined, is right and reasonable, and need involve none of the crudities commonly associated with patriotism.

But the ideal situation is of course seldom or never realised in this imperfect world. No school is quite satisfactory, even in retrospect; and no State, either in its internal or in its external relations, can be expected consistently to behave in a way which will appear to a particular citizen wise, prudent, or just. And when in the eyes of any citizen the State seems to act wrongly or unwisely, the full realisation of patriotism is for him impossible. The more genuinely patriotic he is, the more wholeheartedly he has been accustomed to accept as his own his country's acts and purposes, the more difficult will it be for him in such a case to give assistance. Men of weaker and less energetic faith, less prominent and influential in the community, being less interested and less responsible, will be disposed to follow the majority without serious hesitation. For them little is at stake and compliance is cheap. It is precisely the keenness of his patriotism that makes the stake greater for him, and forces him to more vigilant criticism. Where he profoundly disapproves, he will be driven to