We say there must be a primal loyalty to life:  the only question is, shall it be a natural or a supernatural loyalty?  If you like to put it so, shall it be a reasonable or an unreasonable loyalty?  Now, the extraordinary thing is that the bad optimism (the whitewashing, the weak defence of everything) comes in with the reasonable optimism.  Rational optimism leads to stagnation:  it is irrational optimism that leads to reform.  Let me explain by using once more the parallel of patriotism.  The man who is most likely to ruin the place he loves is exactly the man who loves it with a reason.  The man who will improve the place is the man who loves it without a reason.  If a man loves some feature of Pimlico (which seems unlikely), he may find himself defending that feature against Pimlico itself.  But if he simply loves Pimlico itself, he may lay it waste and turn it into the New Jerusalem.  I do not deny that reform may be excessive; I only say that it is the mystic patriot who reforms.  Mere jingo self-contentment is commonest among those who have some pedantic reason for their patriotism.  The worst jingoes do not love England, but a theory of England.  If we love England for being an empire, we may overrate the success with which we rule the Hindoos.  But if we love it only for being a nation, we can face all events:  for it would be a nation even if the Hindoos ruled us.  Thus also only those will permit their patriotism to falsify history whose patriotism depends on history.  A man who loves England for being English will not mind how she arose.  But a man who loves England for being Anglo-Saxon may go against all facts for his fancy.  He may end (like Carlyle and Freeman) by maintaining that the Norman Conquest was a Saxon Conquest.  He may end in utter unreason—­because he has a reason.  A man who loves France for being military will palliate the army of 1870.  But a man who loves France for being France will improve the army of 1870.  This is exactly what the French have done, and France is a good instance of the working paradox.  Nowhere else is patriotism more purely abstract and arbitrary; and nowhere else is reform more drastic and sweeping.  The more transcendental is your patriotism, the more practical are your politics.

Perhaps the most everyday instance of this point is in the case of women; and their strange and strong loyalty.  Some stupid people started the idea that because women obviously back up their own people through everything, therefore women are blind and do not see anything.  They can hardly have known any women.  The same women who are ready to defend their men through thick and thin are (in their personal intercourse with the man) almost morbidly lucid about the thinness of his excuses or the thickness of his head.  A man’s friend likes him but leaves him as he is:  his wife loves him and is always trying to turn him into somebody else.  Women who are utter mystics in their creed are utter cynics in their criticism.  Thackeray expressed this well when he made Pendennis’ mother, who worshipped her son as a god, yet assume that he would go wrong as a man.  She underrated his virtue, though she overrated his value.  The devotee is entirely free to criticise; the fanatic can safely be a sceptic.  Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is.  Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.