That thee is sent, receyve in buxomnesse,
    The wrastling for this worlde axeth a fall. 
    Her is non hoom, her nis but wildernesse: 
    Forth, pilgrim, forth!  Forth, beste, out of thy stall! 
    Know thy contree, look up, thank God of all: 
    Weyve thy lust, and let thy gost thee lede;
    And trouthe shall delivere, it is no drede.

And this:—­

    Joy and woe are woven fine,
    A clothing for the soul divine;
    Under every grief and pine
    Runs a joy with silken twine. 
    It is right it should be so;
    Man was made for joy and woe;
    And when this we rightly know
    Safely through the world we go.

FOOTNOTES: 

     [1] Times Literary Supplement, July 18, 1918.

     [2] Hearnshaw, Democracy at the Crossroads, p. 63.

     [3] Miss M. Loane.  Mr. Stephen Reynolds has said the same.

[4] Professor Hearnshaw quotes:  ’Il y a opposition evidente et irreductible entre les principes socialistes et les principes democratiques.  Il n’y a pas de conceptions politiques qui soient separees par des abimes plus profonds que la democratie et le socialisme’ (Le Bon).  ’Socialism must be built on ideas and institutions totally different from the ideas and institutions of democracy’ (Levine).  ’La democratic tend a la conciliation des classes, tandis que le socialisme organise la lutte de classe’ (Lagardelle).

     [5] A.D.  Lewis, Syndicalism and the General Strike.

     [6] The Division of the Product of Industry.

     [7] First and Last Things (pp. 148-9.  Published in 1908).

PATRIOTISM

(1915)

The sentiment of patriotism has seemed to many to mark an arrest of development in the psychical expansion of the individual, a half-way house between mere self-centredness and full human sympathy.  Some moralists have condemned it as pure egoism, magnified and disguised.  ‘Patriotism,’ says Ruskin, ’is an absurd prejudice founded on an extended selfishness.’  Mr. Grant Allen calls it ’a vulgar vice—­the national or collective form of the monopolist instinct.’  Mr. Havelock Ellis allows it to be ‘a virtue—­among barbarians.’  For Herbert Spencer it is ‘reflex egoism—­extended selfishness.’  These critics have made the very common mistake of judging human emotions and sentiments by their roots instead of by their fruits.  They have forgotten the Aristotelian canon that the ‘nature’ of anything is its completed development (he phusis telos estin).  The human self, as we know it, is a transitional form.  It had a humble origin, and is capable of indefinite enhancement.  Ultimately, we are what we love and care for, and no limit has been set to what we may become without ceasing to be ourselves.  The case is the same with our love of country.  No limit has been set to what our