tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70015199958424362122024-03-05T13:58:05.798+01:00story of freedomTelling of the dream of self-governance and working with communities world-wide to make it realcoordinatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01483215435633115889noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001519995842436212.post-27532231884040759522009-06-24T11:36:00.003+02:002009-06-24T12:21:04.042+02:00Graphical Summary of Various Projects& Plans for World Democracy EXPLANATION<div align="left"> <u>A Model of Work Projects for Global Democratization</u><br /><br />A Graph and Explanation Presented to the 1st Virtual Congress of the CWC, 2006,<br />by Kenneth J. Kostyó<br /> </div><div align="left"><strong> [ The original graph can be found at </strong><a href="http://globaldemo.org/library/1865"><strong>http://globaldemo.org/library/1865</strong></a><strong> ]</strong></div><div align="left"><br /><strong>Introduction</strong><br />This table was drafted to provide a visual model of the variety of plans for global democratization. It positively reveals the wide spectrum of potential political action in the field of global democracy, but it negatively reveals how little is being done in some obvious areas.<br /><br /><strong>Explanation</strong><br />The various plans being analyzed are organized from top to bottom on the left-hand side.<br />The vertical (y) axis entitled “Degree of Democratic Penetration” represents the “depth” of democracy promoted by the various plans. The plans near the top show moderate democratic intervention at the international level. These are more conventional plans starting with basic promotion of democracy within national governments by international actors. Towards the bottom of the vertical axis, appropriately, are “deeper democracy” plans involving more radical levels of citizen involvement in international politics. The most extreme or “deepest” of which would be direct democratic intervention at the transnational level represent here by legally enforceable international popular referenda.<br />The horizontal (x) axis entitled “Tools” represents the various types of societal engagement that can be taken to realize the plans. They are organized left to right from the lowest to the highest level of impact or potential for change. This table displays three societal sector tools (although more could be envisioned): academic, public awareness, and finally actual political / legal change.<br /><br />The idea behind this table is that every idea for global democratization can be translated into actual action in different sectors of society.<br />We can illustrate this by using the well-known example of a popularly elected United Nations assembly (UNPA). UNPA can be written about and further explained and explored in academic journals. Moving to the right on this table we could imagine articles about UNPA in popular newsweekly magazines and then discusses at community meetings, etc.. Further to the right would be lobbying parliamentarians for an UNPA treaty and then the actual drafting of proposed enacting legislation. This processed would be finished i.e. at the farthest right point on our table when the UNPA is formally and legally established.<br />We can also use a well-known example to show vertical movement along this table. Let us take the example of a law review article written to show the legal applications of global democracy. This would obviously be an effort in the academic sector near the left of our table. Strauss and Falk have written about democratic reform of the United Nations. The work by Dr. Amersinge in support a world constitution would be “farther down” our graph because it is academic work in support of a more drastic level of democratic penetration at the world level.<br /><br /><strong>Conclusions</strong><br />This table shows that there is a very wide variety of creative projects in the field of global democratization. It also shows, however, that extremely little is being done in most of these areas. Almost every project is ignoring certain tools and/or is doing too little because there are too few funds or activists.<br />Our success and effectiveness as global democrats depends exclusively one exactly what steps we are taking in these fields and how effectively activists in the various fields are working together.<br /><br /><strong>Key</strong><br /></div><div align="left">P.U. = parliamentary uniton – transnational parliamentary<br />assemblies composed of legislature selected from various<br />national legislatures.<br /></div><div align="left">Bretton Woods organs - World Bank, International Monetary Fund – also now the<br />World Trade Organization (WTO)</div><div align="left"><br />WF = World Federalist<br />NIGD - Finnish NGO<br />WPE - German NGO<br />VWG - Canadian NGO<br /></div><div align="left"><strong>Yellow</strong> highlight = cautionary remarks – even though there is work being down in this area there are still substantial problems to overcome.</div><div align="left"><br /><strong>Red</strong> text = no organized steps being taken in this area<br />Borders of the cells indicate how effectively activists within the fields are cooperating with each other.</div><div align="left"><br /><strong>Yellow</strong> = too little cooperation and Red = nearly no cooperation.<br /></div><div align="left"> </div>coordinatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01483215435633115889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001519995842436212.post-54525688842099368192009-05-22T12:54:00.003+02:002009-05-22T13:01:52.786+02:00Student Government (original screenply)FADE in: ESTABLISHING SHOT - NEW YORK CITY STREET - DAY<br /><br />"Based on actual historical events" appears on screen over a contemporary residential city street. ANDRES struts into view. He seems cocky, and is dressed in stylish clothing. He turns and walks into the doorway of a town house. RAP MUSIC is playing.<br /><br />INT./EXT. APARTMENT BUILDING STAIRCASE - DAY<br /><br />Andres walks through the door and closes it. His pace slows considerably as he walks upstairs.<br /><br />INT. OLDER JESUS'S APARTMENT - DAY<br /><br />OLDER JESUS (pronounced Hay-Suse) hears the DOORBELL. He is in his late seventies. He gets up slowly, but with dignity. His dress and the apartment's decor are proper, tasteful, and simple. He opens the door.<br /><br />OLDER JESUS<br /> Hello, Andres.<br /><br />Older Jesus seems happy and surprised to see Andres, but he acts reserved. He turns and walks back into the living room. Andres closes the door, and follows Older Jesus into the living room. Andres is acting agitated, and does not sit. He speaks in an urban drawl.<br /><br />ANDRES<br /> Hey, Pop.<br /><br />OLDER JESUS<br /> Shouldn't you be in class?<br /><br />ANDRES<br /> No class today.<br /><br />OLDER JESUS<br /> I'm not stupid, Andres.<br /> (pauses briefly)<br /> You used to be such a good boy.<br /><br />ANDRES<br /> Don't start busting me. I'm<br /> just here to visit.<br /><br />OLDER JESUS<br /> Why?<br /><br />ANDRES<br /> (handing him some folded<br /> money)<br /> I brought you a present.<br /><br /> OLDER JESUS<br /> I do not need anything, especially<br /> your ill-gotten money.<br /><br />ANDRES<br /> Uh?<br /><br />OLDER JESUS<br /> I did the best I could after your<br /> parents died.<br /><br />ANDRES<br /> Take it.<br /><br />OLDER JESUS<br /> Did you really think it would<br /> be that easy?<br /> (pauses briefly)<br /> Maybe I was guilty of the same<br /> thing.<br /><br />ANDRES<br /> Uh?<br /><br />OLDER JESUS<br /> Hopefully you will learn that<br /> there are many things you cannot<br /> buy with money. Fortunately,<br /> I am still one of them.<br /><br />Andres leaves the money, turns and closes the door behind him as he leaves. Older Jesus walks over to a record player, and turns on a SALSA that has a beat and revolutionary theme similar to the rap song. He walks into the kitchen and starts to make some tea. He gets weak. All of the SOUND DIES. He collapses to the ground. The only SOUND is the EXAGGERATED THUD of Older Jesus crashing to the ground. The SOUND DIES again and Older Jesus's hand knocks over the water. The water splashes his face. All the SOUND is DEAD except for the EXAGGERATED noise of SPLASHING. This is followed by the BARELY AUDIBLE SALSA, which continues after fade to black.<br /><br />EXT. NEW YORK CITY STREET - DAY<br /><br />The MUSIC has changed to a much LOUDER version of the opening RAP SONG. Andres lights a cigarette and resumes his cocky strut along the city streets. He passes a group of three bums. Andres stops and talks to the stylish blond drug DEALER. Andres arrives at a school, and the MUSIC ABRUPTLY ENDS. He goes into the door.<br />INT./EXT. SCHOOL HALL - DAY<br /><br />Andres walks slowly into the hall and closes the door.<br /><br />INT. CLASSROOM - DAY<br /><br />OLDER PEDRO is lecturing the class. He is dressed in priest's garb, and is in his mid seventies.<br /><br />OLDER PEDRO<br /> ...Several students have joined<br /> me on this trip before, and you<br /> can ask them how fulfilling it<br /> was. Many of you are Hispanic<br /> like myself, and this is a good<br /> way to learn about our culture,<br /> and to serve our people.<br /><br />Andres enters, and takes the only available seat, which is in the first row. He is slouching and unresponsive.<br />OLDER PEDRO<br /> (to Andres)<br /> Oh, what a rare treat. Where<br /> were you this time?<br /><br />ANDRES<br /> Visiting my grandfather.<br /><br />OLDER PEDRO<br /> Even if that is true it's still<br /> irrelevant. I want to speak with<br /> you after class.<br /> (addressing the class<br /> again)<br /> For those of you who are not Hispanic,<br /> this trip will be a good opportunity<br /> to learn about a different culture. <br /> We all need to live together,<br /> and the more we know about each<br /> other, the easier it will be for<br /> everyone...<br /><br />The BELL RINGS. Andres hurriedly leaves before anyone else. Older Pedro does not have a chance to catch him.<br /><br />INT. OLDER PEDRO'S OFFICE - DAY<br /><br />Older Pedro is speaking into an intercom microphone.<br /><br />OLDER PEDRO<br /> Please excuse the interruption. <br /> If...<br /><br />INT. CLASSROOM - DAY<br /><br />Andres is sitting in the back of another class. He instinctively walks towards the door the instant the announcement starts.<br /><br />OLDER PEDRO<br /> (continuing)<br /> ...Andres Fuente is on the premises,<br /> please have him report to the<br /> principal's office immediately.<br /><br />Andres closes the door as he leaves.<br /><br />INT. OLDER PEDRO'S OFFICE - DAY<br /><br />Older Pedro is sitting impatiently at his desk. He looks at his watch several times. After the final glance, he bursts out of the office, and notices a nervous BOY waiting for him. Older Pedro impatiently addresses the Boy.<br /><br />OLDER PEDRO<br /> What do you want?<br /><br />BOY<br /> Nothing, sir. My teacher gave<br /> me this slip for chewing gum,<br /> but I...<br /><br />Older Pedro interrupts the Boy by grabbing the slip, looking at it for about a second, and then crumbling it as he leaves.<br /><br />OLDER PEDRO<br /> Forget it.<br /><br />OFF SCREEN<br /><br />Older Pedro opens the door and then slams it shut.<br /><br />BOY<br /> (calling out to the closed<br /> door)<br /> Thank you, Father Pedro. I mean<br /> Father Torre!<br /><br />INT. SCHOOL BATHROOM - DAY<br /><br />Cut quickly to Andres exhaling smoke. Older Pedro rushes in, grabs the pipe from Andres and throws it into the toilet. The embers in the pipe fizzle out in the toilet water.<br /><br />At this moment of extreme tension, the Boy walks into the bathroom, and runs out frightened.<br /><br />OLDER PEDRO<br /> You don't know how stupid your<br /> excuse was this morning.<br /><br />ANDRES<br /> (Seemingly stoned)<br /> Uh?<br /><br />OLDER PEDRO<br /> Your only visit was to a dead<br /> man.<br /><br />ANDRES<br /> Uh?<br /><br />OLDER PEDRO<br /> Maybe you were too stoned to notice,<br /> but your grandfather was dead<br /> this morning.<br /> <br />After hearing this, Andres slowly slides downs the wall onto the floor. This is the most visually emotional he has been.<br /><br />OLDER PEDRO<br /> (continuing)<br /> I was going to make a crack about<br /> you murdering him, but you seemed<br /> shocked.<br /> (sliding near Andres,<br /> his tone softens)<br /> One of the few redeeming qualities<br /> you had left was your love for your grandfather.<br /><br />Older Pedro pauses. Andres is stunned.<br /><br />OLDER PEDRO<br /> (continuing)<br /> I called to confirm your story. <br /> I knew there was a problem when<br /> he didn't answer. He always stays<br /> in on Tuesday morning to listen<br /> to the Cuban music program on<br /> the radio.<br /><br />They both snicker reservedly.<br /><br />OLDER PEDRO<br /> (continuing)<br /> I went over to check on him.<br /> (pauses thoughtfully and<br /> looks away)<br /> I don't know why I got angry with<br /> you. I don't know what I thought<br /> happened--what you did. Did something<br /> happen?<br /><br />ANDRES<br /> (Shakes his head no,<br /> and then answers)<br /> I mean he was upset, but he has<br /> been for a while. He didn't have<br /> any reason to live.<br /><br />OLDER PEDRO<br /> I don't believe you said that. <br /> You know better. He did a decent<br /> job of raising you. He had to<br /> go through that twice. It was<br /> him who was responsible for making<br /> you tough, and then you went and<br /> used it for all of the wrong reasons.<br /><br />ANDRES<br /> I was better at being tough than<br /> he was.<br /><br />OLDER PEDRO<br /> You have no idea.<br /><br />ANDRES<br /> What do you know? You never had<br /> to live with him. What would<br /> anyone tell their priest anyway? <br /> I went and did things--made a<br /> life for myself. He just sat<br /> in his room. He never lived.<br /><br />OLDER PEDRO<br /> You have absolutely no idea. <br /> You should know we are...were<br /> cousins. I have literally known<br /> Jesus my entire life, but for<br /> some reason it all seem to start--<br /> almost everything in my life seem<br /> to start around the time he went<br /> to college...<br /><br />CUT TO<br /><br />EXT. JESUS'S LAWN - DAY<br /><br />Fade from Older Pedro's face to PEDRO's face. He is at a lawn party with costumes and surroundings that indicate that it is in the early 1930's, and the guests are aristocrats in a tropical nation. JESUS walks on screen. He starts to approach Pedro. They both are elegantly attired and intoxicated.<br /><br />PULL BACK TO REVEAL<br /><br />A huge gathering of slightly drunk and formally dressed people, some are wearing elaborate military dress uniforms. There are many servants present. "Havana, Cuba 1933" appears on screen.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> (sarcasm to Jesus)<br /> Enjoying yourself, Jesus?<br /><br />Jesus stares at him with a bitter look.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> (continuing)<br /> Pretty soon you will be away from<br /> all this.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> So. At the University, I will<br /> be dealing with the offspring<br /> of all these disgusting people.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> You never had trouble having a<br /> good time.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> The reason I act this way is because<br /> I do have trouble having a good time.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> I'm going to miss you. We are<br /> two of a kind. The only two of<br /> that kind it seems.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> Yea, I suppose so.<br /> (pauses)<br /> Take care of yourself, Pedro.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> (snickering)<br /> I will.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> You know what I mean. You got<br /> to slow down. Nobody should act<br /> like that at your age. I didn't,<br /> and look how I turned out. Believe<br /> me. You don't want to be any<br /> worse off.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> I'll be alright.<br /> (pauses)<br /> Did you hear? President Machado<br /> is at this party.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> So. I've met him before. He<br /> is usually at the worst parties<br /> not the best.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> I know what you mean.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> I'm going to walk around a little.<br /><br />He gets up and walks towards the water. He sees and stares at MARIANA who is sneaking through the woods behind the house. She is extremely dark and beautiful, about Jesus's age, not as formally dressed as the other guests, and her hair is a too long for the event. Jesus accidently walks into the water.<br /><br />CUT TO<br /><br />INT. LIVING ROOM - NIGHT<br /><br />There is a college party in progress. Everyone is formally dressed, and there is a great deal of alcohol. Jesus is drunk and slouching in a couch. There are servants present. Jesus stands up and walks away. <br /><br />EXT. CAMPUS - NIGHT<br /><br />Jesus stumbles outside, and stares into a wading pond. He sees the reflection of Mariana behind him. He dashes after her, but it is too late.<br /><br />INT. LIVING ROOM - NIGHT<br /><br />Jesus stumbles back into the party, and grabs another drink. The other guests appear to be the sons of the guests at the lawn party in the previous scene. He addresses one person specifically, in the general direction of several others and finally to the crowd, all without any response amounting to more than a polite shrug.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> Does anyone know who that girl<br /> was? Who is she? You've seen<br /> her before?<br /> (stumbling over to a<br /> phone and dialing)<br /> Operator, get the Castillo-Torre's.<br /><br />INT. PEDRO'S HOUSE - NIGHT<br /><br />PEDRO'S FATHER gets out of bed to answer the PHONE. He is stern in his responses. Pedro is able to hear the conversation, but cannot be seen by his father. Pedro is fully dressed, and has a bottle in his hand.<br /><br />PEDRO'S FATHER<br /> Hello.<br /> (waits for response)<br /> Yes, I think Pedro is here, but<br /> I am sure he's sleeping.<br /> (pauses)<br /> Is that you, Jesus?<br /> (pauses)<br /> Is there something wrong? You<br /> don't sound good. Are you calling<br /> from the University?<br /><br />Pedro's Father looks at the receiver as if he's been disconnected. Pedro turns and rushes out the door, and closes it.<br /><br />EXT. PEDRO'S LAWN - NIGHT<br /><br />Once outside Pedro jumps on his bike, which is on the ground near the house.<br /><br />EXT. ROAD - NIGHT<br /><br />Pedro passes pools of water. It is extremely dark. <br /><br />EXT. CAMPUS - NIGHT<br /><br />He stops at the University campus, and addresses several REVELERS.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> Do any of you know Jesus<br /> Castillo-Garcia?<br /><br />Most look at him strangely and continue walking. Two people slow down, and address him.<br /><br />REVELER<br /> (smugly)<br /> Yea, I know the name.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> Do you have any idea where he<br /> would be right now?<br /><br />REVELER<br /> (quick and sarcastic)<br /> From what I've heard, he should<br /> be at the watering hole. I mean<br /> it is after nine A.M.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> (calling after them)<br /> What is that? Is that a bar or<br /> a house?<br /><br />Pedro doesn't receive a response. He forgets his bike, lights a cigarette and runs huffing. He walks up to a place that seems to be holding a party. He walks in and closes the door.<br /><br />INT. LIVING ROOM - NIGHT<br /><br />Pedro walks into the house where Jesus was attending the college party. It is later and calmer.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> Hello, do you know if Jesus<br /> Castillo-Garcia is here?<br /><br />HOST<br /> Uh...I'm not sure. Is he supposed<br /> to be here?<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> Uh...<br /> (pauses and tries to<br /> sound convincing)<br /> yes. My name is Pedro<br /> Castillo-Torre<br /> (shakes hands)<br /><br />HOST<br /> Nice to meet you. Feel free to<br /> look around. May I offer you<br /> something?<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> Thank you. Actually, I would<br /> like to use your lavatory.<br /><br />HOST<br /> Yes, of course.<br /><br />The Host gestures up towards the bathroom, and Pedro dashes in that direction.<br /><br />INT. BATHROOM - NIGHT<br /><br />Pedro closes the bathroom door. He turns and looks down. Jesus is passed out in the toilet and is wearing an untucked formal shirt without the collar. His suspenders are hanging down. Pedro sighs, bends down with difficulty, looks in, and then FLUSHES the toilet. He starts to finish the drink, and then throws it into the toilet as he passes somewhat backwards.<br /><br />PEDRO'S POV<br /><br />of the ceiling slowly rotating. There is a LOUD sigh from Jesus followed by a long pause.<br /><br />SLOW PAN OVERHEAD SHOTS<br /><br />between Jesus and Pedro as they converse. They don't look directly at each other. The conversation is delayed by a pause after every single phrase.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> Jesus.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> Is that you, Pedro?<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> Yea.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> What am I doing here?<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> You are suppose to be studying<br /> at the University, but until three<br /> minutes ago you were stewing in<br /> your own digestive juices.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> Is that you, Pedro?<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> Yea.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> What the hell are you doing here?<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> I overheard you talking to my<br /> father. I came to rescue you.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> I was talking to your father?<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> Yea.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> What did I do that? I...why did<br /> I do that?<br /> (long pause)<br /> Rescue me from what?<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> I don't know. I'm in pretty bad<br /> shape myself. It seemed like<br /> the noble thing to do at the time. <br /> I guess I was just looking for<br /> an adventure.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> You don't know what?<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> Uh?<br /><br />JESUS<br /> You don't know why I called your<br /> father or you don't know why I<br /> needed to be rescued?<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> Both. Let's get out of here.<br /><br />Jesus closes the door behind them.<br />INT. LIVING ROOM - NIGHT<br /><br />The stuffy guests are staring at Jesus and Pedro with disbelief. Pedro has also unbuttoned his shirt, and he has a towel around his neck. Jesus and Pedro try to remain cool while leaving. The door is shown closing, but not opening. The uptight students are stunned.<br /><br />Jesus comes back, takes a bottle and leaves again. The door closes.<br /><br />ANGLE ON THE UPTIGHT STUDENTS<br /><br />Jesus reenters, and walks with forced dignity into the bathroom. He closes the door. Pedro mechanically follows the same routine after a short pause. The stuffy students watch with unbelief.<br /><br />INT. BATHROOM - NIGHT<br /><br />Pedro stares at the toilet, FLUSHES it, and goes over to the tub where he finds Jesus. Pedro stumbles over and turns on the shower.<br /><br />TIGHT ANGLE ON JESUS'S FACE<br /><br />The visibility is cut by mist.<br /><br />EXT. POND - DAWN<br /><br />Direct cut to the mist resulting from the two of them jumping into a pond, coming out naked and drying off and lounging against a tree. Jesus takes a drink from a flask. They both light cigarettes and relax for a moment.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> I think my reputation at that<br /> school is ruined already.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> I wouldn't worry about it.<br /> (unprompted)<br /> God, I just figured out what you<br /> meant in the bathroom. You were<br /> trying to reach me when you called,<br /> not my father.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> I was drunker than you for a change. <br /> I shouldn't do that anymore.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> You just said that fifteen minutes<br /> ago.<br /> (no response)<br /> That bike ride really took it<br /> out of me.<br /> (suddenly)<br /> Oh damn! I forgot my bike.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> It will be there in the morning. <br /> Anyway, we can afford plenty of<br /> bikes.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> That's not the point. I mean,<br /> what else do I forget if I forget<br /> what I was riding?<br /><br />They both lean up.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> (continuing)<br /> It's time for both of us to polish<br /> our acts.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> Yea, I don't want to get started<br /> on the same road all through university<br /> too.<br /> (pauses)<br /> Speaking of which, shouldn't you<br /> be at school in a few hours?<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> (standing)<br /> Yea, I guess so.<br /> (pauses)<br /> We could both use a free day in<br /> the city to clear our heads.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> I guess it couldn't hurt to sign<br /> one more pass.<br /> (standing)<br /> We didn't sleep one bit.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> That's good. I never sleep any<br /> more. I've been too excitable.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> I use to be the same way. Lately<br /> I've been sleeping all the time.<br /> (pauses)<br /> It's good to get back in these<br /> habits. The sun is starting to<br /> come up.<br /><br />EXT. ROAD - DAWN<br /><br />Pedro and Jesus approach an earthen road that cuts through the beautiful tropical lush, which is beginning to be bathed in red light. Pedro is only wearing underwear and a shirt.<br /><br />PULL BACK TO REVEAL JESUS AND PEDRO APPROACHING<br /><br />REVERSE SHOT<br /><br />Jesus and Pedro walking down the road. A cheery SALSA starts. The light, MUSIC and distance all build together.<br /><br />EXT. CITY STREET - DAWN<br /><br />They approach the city, which is coming awake. MUSIC is slowly replaced by the SOUNDS of a CITY.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> What a great city!<br /><br />There is the THUNDERING SOUND of an EXPLOSION.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> (extremely shocked)<br /> What the hell was that?<br /><br />JESUS<br /> I don't know. It probably came<br /> from the docks. We should find<br /> some clothes before we get any<br /> farther into town.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> How do we do that exactly?<br /><br />JESUS<br /> I don't know. There aren't any<br /> stores near here. By the time<br /> anything opens, half the day will<br /> be wasted.<br /> (pauses and looks around)<br /> I would really rather not get<br /> any closer to the docks until<br /> I cover my butt.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> I got it.<br /> <br />Pedro approaches a MAN working with what appears to be laundry or disposed clothing. He addresses him cheerfully and sincerely.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> (continuing to the Man)<br /> Hello, sir. My friend and I had<br /> a rough night--fell into a sewer<br /> and that sort of thing. What<br /> would you want for some of those<br /> clothes there?<br /><br />MAN<br /> I don't know. I mean what do<br /> you want? What do you got?<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> Anything at all, hopefully a pair<br /> of pants for my friend<br /> (searching pockets of<br /> non-existent pants)<br /> Shit. I guess I left my wallet<br /> in my pants somewhere.<br /> (thinking and then handing<br /> the Man his watch)<br /><br />MAN<br /> Yes, sir. Take what you want. <br /> Take it all.<br /><br />They go through clothing, and quickly take a piece or two for each of them. They start to walk away towards a side street.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> Have a nice day.<br /><br />MAN<br /> Yes, sir.<br /><br />They put on clothes that are ridiculously too big for them. Pedro's pants are tied by a rope.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> I can't believe you gave him your<br /> watch. These clothes don't fit<br /> very well considering we could<br /> have bought a couple of cheap<br /> suits for what you paid for them.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> Who wants cheap suits? These<br /> are more fun.<br /><br />EXT. DOCKS - DAY<br /><br />Jesus and Pedro are still exploring around. They come across the harbor area, which is active with sailors and small vendors.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> The next necessities are my treat. <br /> I don't think any proper establishments<br /> are open yet so we'll just get a loaf of bread. Something we can carry<br /> around with us all day. I think<br /> these cufflinks should do.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> That's the spirit.<br /><br />They stop and buy a huge loaf of bread and coffee, and Pedro puts pieces of tropical fruit into his pocket. They sit down on the dock and warm their faces with the steam rising from their cups. SIMON approaches. He is casually dressed in his sailor's clothes.<br /><br />SIMON<br /> Do you guys want to buy a tooth?<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> No thanks. I already have some.<br /> (snickers)<br /><br />SIMON<br /> It probably came from a political<br /> dissident.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> (placing the tooth up<br /> to his mouth.)<br /> Actually it looks a little too<br /> big. My guess is that it's shark.<br /><br />They laugh. Pedro addresses Simon.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> What do you mean?<br /><br />SIMON<br /> Most of the bodies we pull out<br /> of the water are political prisoners<br /> who have committed suicide.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> What do they do jump from prison<br /> all the way into the water?<br /><br />SIMON<br /> Well the police give them a push<br /> for the last twenty miles or so.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> (shocked)<br /> Are you serious?<br /><br />SIMON<br /> You guys aren't from around here.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> We're university students.<br /><br />SIMON<br /> You don't look like it, but you're<br /> acting like it.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> We had a rough night.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> What's your name?<br /><br />SIMON<br /> Simon De La Fuente. How about<br /> you guys?<br /><br />JESUS<br /> Jesus Castillo-Garcia.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> Pedro Castillo-Torre.<br /><br />SIMON<br /> You guys related?<br /><br />JESUS<br /> Yea, cousins<br /><br />SIMON<br /> (making stabbing motion<br /> with tooth)<br /> You boys take an easy, and make<br /> sure you keep these things out<br /> of your sides.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> What was that all about?<br /><br />JESUS<br /> I don't know. Don't worry about<br /> it.<br /> (pauses)<br /> The steam rising from the cup<br /> is warming my face.<br /> (pauses)<br /> It feels good.<br /><br />Jesus leans his forehead against the far rim of the cup, and pauses for a contemplative moment. He then leans up, and stretches his neck.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> (continuing)<br /> You know what? I remembered why<br /> I tried to call you last night. <br /> I think I saw that girl again.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> (continuing)<br /> I don't know what I was thinking,<br /> but I wanted to ask you about her.<br /> (waits for and does not<br /> receive response)<br /> Do you know her?<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> (pauses nervously)<br /> Uh, yea.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> What's her name? How do you know<br /> her?<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> Uh, Mariana<br /><br />JESUS<br /> How do you know her?<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> Uh...her parents are friends of<br /> the family.<br /> (pauses)<br /> Why do you ask?<br /><br />JESUS<br /> I think it's obvious why I ask. <br /> Anyway, I find it hard to believe<br /> that your parents have friends<br /> like that.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> Can we eat?<br /><br />JESUS<br /> Let's go to our fathers' club. <br /> Wouldn't that be ironic.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> Do you have a death wish?<br /><br />JESUS<br /> As much as you do.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> Well fine. Let's go.<br /><br />JESUS<br /> We are going to need some proper<br /> clothing.<br /><br />PEDRO<br /> Let's go.<br /><br />As they start to walk away. They are stopped by the STUDENT VICTIM. He looks and acts as if he is extremely agitated. He addresses Jesus.<br /><br />STUDENT VICTIM<br /> Jesus! Can I stay with you for<br /> a few days?coordinatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01483215435633115889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001519995842436212.post-21773377558710657842009-05-21T19:32:00.002+02:002009-05-21T19:35:54.039+02:00The Medina ConstitutionThis is a document from Muhammad the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), governing relations between the Believers i.e. Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib and those who followed them and worked hard with them. They form one nation -- Ummah.<br /><br />The Quraysh Mohajireen will continue to pay blood money, according to their present custom.<br /><br />In case of war with any body they will redeem their prisoners with kindness and justice common among Believers. (Not according to pre-Islamic nations where the rich and the poor were treated differently).<br /><br />The Bani Awf will decide the blood money, within themselves, according to their existing custom.<br /><br />In case of war with anybody all parties other than Muslims will redeem their prisoners with kindness and justice according to practice among Believers and not in accordance with pre-Islamic notions.<br /><br />The Bani Saeeda, the Bani Harith, the Bani Jusham and the Bani Najjar will be governed on the lines of the above (principles)<br /><br />The Bani Amr, Bani Awf, Bani Al-Nabeet, and Bani Al-Aws will be governed in the same manner.<br /><br />Believers will not fail to redeem their prisoners they will pay blood money on their behalf. It will be a common responsibility of the Ummat and not of the family of the prisoners to pay blood money.<br /><br />A Believer will not make the freedman of another Believer as his ally against the wishes of the other Believers.<br /><br />The Believers, who fear Allah, will oppose the rebellious elements and those that encourage injustice or sin, or enmity or corruption among Believers.<br /><br />If anyone is guilty of any such act all the Believers will oppose him even if he be the son of any one of them.<br /><br />A Believer will not kill another Believer, for the sake of an un-Believer. (i.e. even though the un-Believer is his close relative).<br /><br />No Believer will help an un-Believer against a Believer.<br /><br />Protection (when given) in the Name of Allah will be common. The weakest among Believers may give protection (In the Name of Allah) and it will be binding on all Believers.<br /><br />Believers are all friends to each other to the exclusion of all others.<br /><br />Those Jews who follow the Believers will be helped and will be treated with equality. (Social, legal and economic equality is promised to all loyal citizens of the State).<br /><br />No Jew will be wronged for being a Jew.<br /><br />The enemies of the Jews who follow us will not be helped.<br /><br />The peace of the Believers (of the State of Madinah) cannot be divided. (it is either peace or war for all. It cannot be that a part of the population is at war with the outsiders and a part is at peace).<br /><br />No separate peace will be made by anyone in Madinah when Believers are fighting in the Path of Allah.<br /><br />Conditions of peace and war and the accompanying ease or hardships must be fair and equitable to all citizens alike.<br /><br />When going out on expeditions a rider must take his fellow member of the Army-share his ride.<br /><br />The Believers must avenge the blood of one another when fighting in the Path of Allah (This clause was to remind those in front of whom there may be less severe fighting that the cause was common to all. This also meant that although each battle appeared a separate entity it was in fact a part of the War, which affected all Muslims equally).<br /><br />The Believers (because they fear Allah) are better in showing steadfastness and as a result receive guidance from Allah in this respect. Others must also aspire to come up to the same standard of steadfastness.<br /><br />No un-Believer will be permitted to take the property of the Quraysh (the enemy) under his protection. Enemy property must be surrendered to the State.<br /><br />No un-Believer will intervene in favour of a Quraysh, (because the Quraysh having declared war are the enemy).<br /><br />If any un-believer kills a Believer, without good cause, he shall be killed in return, unless the next of kin are satisfied (as it creates law and order problems and weakens the defence of the State). All Believers shall be against such a wrong-doer. No Believer will be allowed to shelter such a man.<br /><br />When you differ on anything (regarding this Document) the matter shall be referred to Allah and Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).<br /><br />The Jews will contribute towards the war when fighting alongside the Believers.<br /><br />The Jews of Bani Awf will be treated as one community with the Believers. The Jews have their religion. This will also apply to their freedmen. The exception will be those who act unjustly and sinfully. By so doing they wrong themselves and their families.<br /><br />The same applies to Jews of Bani Al-Najjar, Bani Al Harith, Bani Saeeda, Bani Jusham, Bani Al Aws, Thaalba, and the Jaffna, (a clan of the Bani Thaalba) and the Bani Al Shutayba.<br /><br />Loyalty gives protection against treachery. (loyal people are protected by their friends against treachery. As long as a person remains loyal to the State he is not likely to succumb to the ideas of being treacherous. He protects himself against weakness).<br /><br />The freedmen of Thaalba will be afforded the same status as Thaalba themselves. This status is for fair dealings and full justice as a right and equal responsibility for military service.<br /><br />Those in alliance with the Jews will be given the same treatment as the Jews.<br /><br />No one (no tribe which is party to the Pact) shall go to war except with the permission of Muhammed (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). If any wrong has been done to any person or party it may be avenged.<br /><br />Any one who kills another without warning (there being no just cause for it) amounts to his slaying himself and his household, unless the killing was done due to a wrong being done to him.<br /><br />The Jews must bear their own expenses (in War) and the Muslims bear their expenses.<br /><br />If anyone attacks anyone who is a party to this Pact the other must come to his help.<br /><br />They (parties to this Pact) must seek mutual advice and consultation.<br /><br />Loyalty gives protection against treachery. Those who avoid mutual consultation do so because of lack of sincerity and loyalty.<br /><br />A man will not be made liable for misdeeds of his ally.<br /><br />Anyone (any individual or party) who is wronged must be helped.<br /><br />The Jews must pay (for war) with the Muslims. (this clause appears to be for occasions when Jews are not taking part in the war. Clause 37 deals with occasions when they are taking part in war).<br /><br />Yathrib will be Sanctuary for the people of this Pact.<br /><br />A stranger (individual) who has been given protection (by anyone party to this Pact) will be treated as his host (who has given him protection) while (he is) doing no harm and is not committing any crime. Those given protection but indulging in anti-state activities will be liable to punishment.<br /><br />A woman will be given protection only with the consent of her family (Guardian). (a good precaution to avoid inter-tribal conflicts).<br /><br />In case of any dispute or controversy, which may result in trouble the matter must be referred to Allah and Muhammed (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) of Allah will accept anything in this document, which is for (bringing about) piety and goodness.<br /><br />Quraysh and their allies will not be given protection.<br /><br />The parties to this Pact are bound to help each other in the event of an attack on Yathrib.<br /><br />If they (the parties to the Pact other than the Muslims) are called upon to make and maintain peace (within the State) they must do so. If a similar demand (of making and maintaining peace) is made on the Muslims, it must be carried out, except when the Muslims are already engaged in a war in the Path of Allah. (so that no secret ally of the enemy can aid the enemy by calling upon Muslims to end hostilities under this clause).<br /><br />Everyone (individual) will have his share (of treatment) in accordance with what party he belongs to. Individuals must benefit or suffer for the good or bad deed of the group they belong to. Without such a rule party affiliations and discipline cannot be maintained.<br /><br />The Jews of al-Aws, including their freedmen, have the same standing, as other parties to the Pact, as long as they are loyal to the Pact. Loyalty is a protection against treachery.<br /><br />Anyone who acts loyally or otherwise does it for his own good (or loss).<br /><br />Allah approves this Document.<br /><br />This document will not (be employed to) protect one who is unjust or commits a crime (against other parties of the Pact).<br /><br />Whether an individual goes out to fight (in accordance with the terms of this Pact) or remains in his home, he will be safe unless he has committed a crime or is a sinner. (i.e. No one will be punished in his individual capacity for not having gone out to fight in accordance with the terms of this Pact).<br /><br />Allah is the Protector of the good people and those who fear Allah, and Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is the Messenger of Allah (He guarantees protection for those who are good and fear Allah).coordinatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01483215435633115889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001519995842436212.post-50457745469437407452009-05-06T22:44:00.002+02:002009-05-06T22:54:12.503+02:00The World Democracy Museum Workplan (draft)A Communications Platform of Global Democracy Resource<br /><br /><strong>1 introduction and SUMMARY</strong><br /><br />Total Cost for First Year € 45,000.00<br />Required to Commence € 15,000.00<br />Amount Requested € 4,500.00 / 13,500.00<br /><br /><strong>Our Mission and Vision<br /></strong><br />We are dedicated to freedom and democracy, and to communicating effectively about their manifestations, history and future, sources and threats. We are telling the story of freedom to help communities worldwide make real the long cherished dream of self governance.<br /><br />We focus on political democracy and on the broader concept of community freedom. We believe community freedom to mean groups of people can solve problems most effectively when they assume their rights and develop solutions for themselves, as well as collectively establish the rules by which they can execute those solutions. Community freedom is an ongoing dynamic present throughout human experience; one surviving in brutal dictatorships as well as still developing in long established democracies.<br /><br /><strong>Our Overall Objective<br /></strong><br />To tell the story of freedom effectively, we are building the world’s first thorough democracy museum. In its full development, we will have created a useful, ongoing, and collaborative (a) museum of democracy; (b) a democratic museum; and (c) a museum for democracy.<br /><br />a. The World Democracy Museum is a museum in a traditional sense. It is intended to be a thorough electronic portal for all things related to freedom and good governance, a full service, “one stop shop” for democracy related information and resources;<br />b. We will not leave democracy on shelves. The World Democracy Museum is also a new type of living, community museum (Museum 2.0). It will be interactive: allowing users to add their own materials and descriptions and choose how to contextualize these material in the overall story of democracy as presented in the Museum. This will allow people to tell their own community’s story of freedom from their unique perspective. Different communities worldwide will work together to plant and grow this collaborative museum. The people also will give life to the World Democracy Museum by being directly involved in its governance;<br />c. The World Democracy Museum is also a new type of activist museum. The organizational home of the Museum is an advocacy organization, the GDR, which is an NGO active in the global democracy movement After the establishment of Museum projects, the World Democracy Museum will participate in the community through other civil society projects.<br /><br /><strong>Why the World Democracy Museum is Needed<br /></strong><br />Steps and stumbles on the road to freedom are our shared heritage. It is a thrilling narrative, which is being composed and recomposed. The ongoing struggle for popular governance is one of the oldest and most important undertakings in history. It is, therefore, surprising there is no museum focusing on it. There certainly is none focusing on democracy as an integral movement in the world. There is no museum or gallery or academic center focusing on history of democracy or democracy in art. There does not seem ever to have been a thorough touring exhibition on any of these important and fascinating subjects. There is also no exhaustive library, no academic center, nor recurring film festival on freedom and good governance and its history and other aspects. There is no center on freedom as an inspiration for and influence of architecture or film. There is no literary anthology; virtual or otherwise. There is not an exhaustive online library or portal focusing on history of democracy or law of democracy or new developments in democracy.<br /><br />The story of freedom has something to teach about solutions to current and future problems. Someone wanting to witness the narrative and learn its important lessons would need to go to hundreds of libraries and thousands of webpages. This situation is inconvenient, but worse, it prevents the narrative from living and teaching us effectively. Failure to provide a holistic picture of democracy perpetuates a false implication that democracy is something belonging to any one place or time. It is important to understand there is no overall portal to assemble and present democracy as a philosophy and movement of all times and places, intrinsic to many aspects of social and political life. There is also a need to present good governance as something that flourished in different times and places thus dispelling myths that democracy is “European”.<br /><br /><strong>How the World Democracy Museum is Timely</strong><br /><br />Democracy as a form of government has spread dramatically over recent decades. There has been a contemporaneous increase in real and perceived threats to democracy (e.g., increased cross border criminality, surveillance technology, voting fraud, mass poverty, etc.). In summary, democracy is a hotter topic than it was in past decades. This has increased the immediacy of needing to learn more about democracy, its workings, and what causes it to fail.<br /><br />GDR specifically designed the Museum to respond to several important trans-national trends:<br /><br />a. Proliferation of physical and electronic museums and increase in their perceived<br /> economic importance;<br />b. Alteration in the culture and functionality of the worldwide web (web 2.0). Users expect or demand interaction. People want to do more than look at content. They want to download and edit it, post their own content, comment and respond to other comments. This information flood has given rise to community portals – an effort to organize all the information on one subject into one website (i.e. sites of different media related by theme versus single medium sites of different themes such as You Tube );<br />c. Proliferation of the third sector of the economy (civil society and NGOs);<br />d. Breakdown of various types of organizational forms. Once clear divisions between sectors of society are blurred by public/private partnerships, privatization of municipal functions, NGOs/IGOs assuming government tasks, foundations established by companies, et cetera.<br /><br /><strong>How the World Democracy Museum Meets Needs</strong><br /><br />We will close the gap between existing needs and trends. Instead of addressing any one issue, we are creating a thorough and dynamic community portal on freedom and democracy; assembling and then disseminating geographically dispersed material. Activities will begin immediately in the form of a grassroots start-up. Rather than wait for large institutional funding and elite endorsements, we will begin with eager partners and donators, free software, and volunteers. We believe the power of this plan and the ideas behind it will attract adequate resources. <br /><br /><strong>Our Internal Governance</strong><br /><br />The World Democracy Museum is housed in Stichting World Democracy Library, an incorporated Dutch foundation conducting activities as Global Democracy Resource (GDR). The management of the Museum itself will be an exercise in democracy. The Board of Directors will be assembled to represent a cross section of world communities and beliefs. The Board of Directors has plenary legislative authority, and management is delegated to the Coordinator who will represent the Coordination Team (executive authority) on the Board of Directors. All donors to the World Democracy Museum are represented in a proportional amount of membership. Citizens may join the World Democracy Museum as members, and collectively elect representatives on the Board of Directors. Members also will be able to make resolutions directly online in a members’ corner on the webpage. Resolutions are passed at the regular general meetings. This is a bold and useful step forward in Web 2.0, which includes, like Wikipedia, citizen input, but more importantly, the World Democracy Museum includes actual citizen involvement in its governance.<br /><br />GDR will design and coordinate the Museum. We will work to attract members and organizational partners, who may participate democratically. We are seeking a combination of experience and contacts of mature institutions and motivated focus of smaller, newer organizations.<br /><br /><strong>Our Target Audience</strong><br /><br />The World Democracy Museum’s primary audience will be democracy activists and organizations, researchers and teachers. The material will also be enjoyable and useful for the general public as a secondary audience. In full development, we will provide useful resources to citizen activists worldwide to be used for democratization efforts.<br /><br /><strong>Our Orientation</strong><br /><br />There will be introductions to concepts of freedom and democracy; themselves often in conflict and debatable. It is important to note the World Democracy Museum is non-partisan and non-sectarian—perhaps more accurately pan-partisan and pan-sectarian. We will let visitors and members take an active part in the debate, and make their own conclusions.<br /><br /><strong>Summary of Main Activities<br /></strong><br />The main projects of the World Democracy Museum will be the first exhaustive online library dedicated to a full range of democracy issues. This will be multimedia communications portal allowing visitors to download (and upload) written, audio, and visual material. We will also feature the history of democracy and its future developments projects. This will contain an interactive map and timeline to facilitate learning. There will be an ever expanding number of special projects to outline interesting and useful themes related to democracy (democracy e-xhibits). In all projects, members and visitors will have an opportunity to upload and download material and to comment upon it, etc. as well as purchasing related material in an online store. There will be a dedicated user friendly website (and domains) for the Museum. When possible, all materials will be distributed free of charge.<br /><br /><strong>Our Location</strong><br /><br />“Decentered” and international with Netherlands coordination.<br /><br /><strong>Organization of Material in the World Democracy Museum<br /></strong><br />In a short time, the Museum will gather materials covering a wide variety of times and places. For both internal and external purposes, materials will be organized into four general categories:<br /><br />Theme e.g., e-democracy, direct democracy;<br />Time e.g., year, exact date, century, historical period;<br />Place UN members with accommodation for other groups and historical states;<br />People encyclopaedic summary of important men and women in the story of freedom.<br /><br />There will also be special categories for the democracy e-xhibits.<br /><br />Members and users of the World Democracy Museum will be able to categorize the material they upload by indicating (via pull-down menus) the themes and countries, etc. they believe are relevant to the material they are adding to the Museum. The quality of this process will be monitored by the Coordination Team.<br /><br />An example: a user will be able to interface with the material via a timeline (time category) and map (place category), and to be able to post their own article about people power (theme category) in the Philippines (place category) in the 1980s (time category).<br /><br />Grouping of material by categories will allow viewers exploring material in one category to easily access information in another. For example, someone viewing material for the above example will have the option to review pop-up entries regarding people power revolutions in Ukraine and democracy movements in the Philippines during the Nineteenth Century as well as an external links to Wikipedia articles on Corazon Aquino (people category). There also will be other external links to well known portals (e.g., YouTube, Gutenberg.org, and Freedom House, etc.).<br /><br /><strong>Timeline and the Activities<br /></strong><br />This Workplan explains the start-up phase of the World Democracy Museum. It is envisioned that this will take one year. At the end of a year the Museum will not be finished, but the functionality described below will be established and the process of “filling the Museum” will have begun in earnest. The activities are classified as Objectives and Democracy e-xhibits. The Objectives are the basic and necessary functionalities, which will be established at the launching of the Museum. The Democracy e-xhibits below are meant to give a sample of the envisioned special focus projects. The Democracy e-xhibits in this Workplan can be commenced in course of the start-up of the Museum. The actual Democracy e-xhibts pursued will depend on funding and partners.<br /><br /><strong>Potential Competitors and Problems</strong><br /><br />There are some projects dedicated to democracy in particular areas (e.g. Greece, South Korea, American campaign pins). It is more accurate to view these efforts as potential partners than competitors. None are exploring democracy throughout the world, and none are interactive. The market niche of the World Democracy Museum is unique. The designers of the Museum have intentionally planned an early and inexpensive commencement. This allows many to get involved as quickly, but it also means a similar project could be started elsewhere. The story of popular governance is a long and complex one, and it certainly can support many centers with different focus. We welcome that, and even hope to inspire such competition. There are countless museums dedicated to money or maritime history. An important area like democracy deserves as much if not more attention. The collaborative governance of the World Democracy Museum will allow Members to respond to new needs and variables as they develop.<br /><br /><a name="_Toc139211187"><strong>2 description of PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND activities</strong></a><br /><br />Objective 1 – The World Democracy Bibliography and Library<br />Develop comprehensive bibliography of democracy related materials and assemble or create digital versions of available materials to be hyperlinked to continuously updated online multimedia (written, audio, visual, etc.) library that can be freely accessed, downloaded, and printed.<br /><br /><strong>Potential Initial Democracy e-xhibits</strong><br /><br />The Banned Books Project<br />Special feature assembling / analyzing forbidden political materials throughout the ages;<br /><br />The Center for World Constitutions<br />A special feature presenting all constitutions in the world (national, sub-national, supra-national, and past and present) as well as summaries and searchable database broken down by various themes. This feature will allow visitors to rank and rate the various building blocks of constitutions and to reassemble them so as to “create their own constitution”.<br /><br /><strong>Objective 2 – The Art of Democracy Project</strong><br />Develop an online gallery of art related to freedom and democracy. This will include all media (written, video, music, etc.), and will be organized by the categories above.<br /><br />Potential Initial Democracy e-xhibit<br /><br />A House for All the People Project<br />A special feature focusing on democracy’s influence on architecture (particularly public buildings and spaces) and how this has evolved with democracy throughout the ages.<br /><br /><strong>Objective 3 – The History of Democracy Project</strong><br />We will create the first center dedicated to history of democracy. This will be a comprehensive, interactive multimedia service dedicated to self governance throughout the ages. Museum material will be presented via a dynamic map/timeline allowing visualization of democracy developments. As users move along the timeline, points will pop-up on map locations that were hotspots in democracy at the time indicated. The pop-ups will provide a brief explanation and can be clicked for a fuller explanation as well as relevant links to relevant material (internal and external). This will include democracy e-xhibits on interesting focal points of recurring and trans-national themes in history of freedom, such as world revolutions, democracy’s third wave, etc.. There will be a particular emphasis on ‘non-traditional’ areas of democratic development such as in the developing world and history of democracy in places other than the classical and Franco/Anglo worlds.<br /><br /><strong>Potential Initial Democracy e-xhibit</strong><br /><br />On the Track of Freedom Project<br />A feature providing information regarding where and how to see and experience democratic history; a sort of first ever tourist guide for the evolving story of freedom.<br /><br /><strong>Objective 4 – The New Frontiers in Democracy Project<br /></strong>We will fully present developments and emerging movements in the area of democracy (e.g., direct, economic, and electronic democracy, parliamentarianism, local assemblies, etc.).<br /><br /><strong>Objective 5 – The World Town Square</strong><br />We will create a feature allowing members and users to suggest or upload their own materials as well as comment on the materials and respond to others and to tag<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=7001519995842436212#_edn1" name="_ednref1">[i]</a> the material according to categories they believe to be relevant.<br /><br /><strong>Objective 6 – The Democracy Corner Store</strong><br />We will subcontract an online service for the commercial provision of materials not yet in the public domain, and to sell related merchandise.<br /><br /><strong>Objective 7 – The Members’ Corner</strong><br />We will create a website area where members may post resolutions regarding governance and/or content of the World Democracy Museum and otherwise engage the World Democracy Museum itself and other members.<br /><br /><strong>Future Objectives – World Democracy Museum Goals for Growth</strong><br /><br />a. Language<br /><br />During this start-up phase of the World Democracy Museum, the working language will be English. We intend to translate the material as soon as practically possible into all the other official U.N. languages and ultimately in the languages of the world spoken by more than one hundred million people. The first focus will be on Mandarin, Hindi, Spanish, Arabic, Russian, Portuguese, French, Japanese, and Urdu. Since the foreseeable workload and budget will not permit for this, we will rely on volunteer translators for the most important materials. A future fundraising program will be conducted to secure translation resources.<br /><br />b. World Democracy Communications Platform Expansion<br /><br />Our decentralized virtual education model can be expanded and applied to other democracy related topics. Another natural growth path the Coordination Team could follow is to design creative and interesting projects utilizing material gathered in the World Democracy Museum. For example, an online World Citizen Film Festival. New democracy e-xhibits will be added regularly. Prioritization of these can be done in cooperation with funders and partners. For example, we can work with certain cities or companies to raise necessary funds to examine and display the relevance of democracy in particular areas or sectors. Individuals and/or groups in our membership community can also contribute to creating democracy e-xhibits.<br /><br />In the second year of operations, the Coordination Team would like to invite a variety of democracy scholars and political historians, etc. to assemble a board of experts for the World Democracy Museum. The most important task would be to monitor the Museum material for accuracy. It would also provide another forum to reflect a diversity of peoples and ideas.<br /><br />To increase visibility of the World Democracy Museum, we intend to include an officer to create media outreach tools to more thoroughly promote the World Democracy Museum. This officer can be charged with the production of several useful and freely accessible democracy education tools such as e-study guides, course models, and (home) study packages. There are several professors in the global democracy movement who have shown interest in this and can provide an outlet. We envision a World Citizens’ Guide to World Governance as an early project.<br /><br />c. World Power Watch Program<br /><br />This is a natural and useful extension of the work of the Museum and part of logical and practical growth: We initially will assemble and disseminate existing (static) content. We will then focus on doing this with newly created (dynamic) material and ultimately will participate in creating new material. The World Democracy Museum can utilize skills it assembles during its first years to become a more active partner in the larger democracy movement. We can become a democracy social entrepreneur and catalyst for new projects. In addition to having social value unto themselves, participation in a wider variety of projects will provide an opportunity to reach a wider audience. The World Power Watch Program will be the substantial step in the World Democracy Museum becoming an active citizen of world civil society. This Program will provide interesting materials directly to visitors, but it will also serve as a center for activism. The members will be able to do as well as to learn.<br /><br />We will select various concentrations of political power and shed light on them by researching and reporting. We envision a clearinghouse of learning and activism around threats to democracy. We will gather, analyze, and disseminate information on the state of governance and freedom in the world in a process similar to the ‘surveying, analyzing, reporting, training, and advocating’ done by Transparency International for transparency or Human Right Watch for human rights. Despite the success and value of such organizations, there are still large and basic gaps, which we will focus on filling. Potential activities could include creating a first ever comprehensive information center on the world’s various monarchs featuring a database comparing and contrasting their powers and privileges (“Monarchy Watch”), and applying the same watching, rating, and training methodology to the proliferating private militia companies (“Mercenary Watch”). Special focus could be placed on the varying legal status of such entities. We also could introduce open source map mash-up<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=7001519995842436212#_edn2" name="_ednref2">[ii]</a> technology so citizens worldwide can blog, etc. about their varying experiences with these non-governmental armed organizations but also indicate where the experience occurred, which will be translated on a map for the viewers. Another example could be working with NGOs and parliaments, etc. worldwide to assemble the first exhaustive list of elected officials and other power players (the “Who Speaks for You?” Project). This would allow visitors to complete a short and basic form to generate a list of names and contact details of individuals and agencies representing the user at various government levels.<br /><br />d. World Democracy Museum – Physical Institution<br /><br />Research shows virtual visitors outnumber physical visitors at the world’s major museums<a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn3" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=7001519995842436212#_edn3" name="_ednref3">[iii]</a>. Starting with an online museum lowers start-up costs and allows a more physically dispersed audience to be reached nearly immediately. The electronic platform will allow for quicker and cheaper gathering materials, particularly those scattered throughout the world. Over time, if the amount of physical material and the needs of the member community demand a physical home for the World Democracy Museum, we will consider this option at that time.<br /><br /><a name="_Toc139211188"><strong>3 </strong></a><strong>OVERALL MONITORING and evaluation Methodology</strong><br /><br />Evaluation Procedures<br />• Self monitoring (by both the Coordination Team and Board of Directors) through continuous measurement of the goals versus results;<br />• Ongoing survey on the website for users as well as follow-up surveys of members;<br />• Monitor number of websites linking to the World Democracy Museum;<br />• Monitor level of users’ printing and downloading of material;<br />• Disaggregate socio-demographic data of users (also sector and organizational affiliation);<br />• Posted request on website for ongoing suggestions, corrections, and other feedback (and e-mail address and online form provided for ease of responsiveness) as well as a standard citation and request for users of materials to credit GDR as the source of materials and to inform us how they are using the materials.<br /><br />Evaluation Indicators<br />• Hits, unique visits, and links to the website;<br />• Number of people directly and indirectly involved as well as gender and age diversity;<br />• Geographic diversity of users and the number being members of vulnerable groups;<br />• Quality and quantity of feedback gathered from participants;<br />• Amount of material processed and level of new material generated;<br />• Media exposure (both old and new media).<br /><br />Expected Results<br />• Facilitated learning through worldwide distribution of easily accessible and free material;<br />• Nurtured notion of democracy as diverse set of beliefs and practices;<br />• Presented democracy as result of long and interesting history and philosophy;<br />• Demonstrated democracy is salient in different parts of the world and different cultural contexts;<br />• Provided visibility to large amount and diversity of democracy materials;<br />• Assembled largest possible amount and widest spectrum of materials in same place;<br />• Further encouraged more and more diverse works by providing an additional outlet for them;<br />• Provided additional exposure to and interest in democracy works;<br />• Further augmented the collection of the World Democracy Library with new work;<br />• Broadened and enriched the debate regarding governance reform;<br />• Strengthened ties in democratization community by provision of centralized free collaboration;<br />• Encouraged sharing of experiences and best practices;<br />• Generated new thinking about governance and new ideas about how it can be reformed;<br />• Increased number of visitors to the World Democracy Museum with each new activity;<br />• Provided place for newly interested parties to participate and get involved;<br />• Provided additional content to parties worldwide to use in their democracy related work;<br />• Brought new attention to old/out-of-print works and in doing so helped conserve patrimony.<br /><br />Targets<br />• Website hits increase by 1,000 per month;<br />• 1 substantive contribution by visitor per month included in the bibliography;<br />• 1 work per week downloaded, printed, etc.;<br />• Hits, links, visitors, and members from 40 countries on 3 continents;<br />• 150 members by the end of the third year of operations;<br />• A reasonable amount of gender parity and age distribution after 2 years of activities;<br />• Apply to I.C.O.M. (and “.museum” domain) within 18 months of commencement;<br />• Museum covered in at least ten related civil society or other newsletters.<br /><br /><a name="_Toc139211189"><strong>4</strong></a><strong> RESOURCES NEEDED<br /></strong><br /><strong>Initial Human Resource Requirements</strong><br /><br />a. Coordinating Officer<br /><br />To act as permanent employee but may commence activities on a part time contract basis to minimize initial fixed costs:<br />Extensive knowledge and connections in law, governance, and global democracy movement;<br />Familiarity with (researching) democracy literature and other materials;<br />Experience in international organizations and law and finance to incorporate the trans-national structure and Board of Directors and to manage the books and operations of a small start-up Coordination Team;<br />Experience with civil society and other start-ups as well as familiarity with open source content management systems.<br /><br />b. Web Development Specialist<br /><br />A sub-contracted service or individual:<br />To develop the website (basic functionality and design themes);<br />To establish ongoing content management system (open source – Drupal).<br /><br />Initial Marketing Requirements<br /><br />The Museum will have a logo and trade dress (designed by volunteers) as well as some very basic printed marketing tools (e.g., business cards) to distribute at meetings, etc., but the vast majority of marketing will occur through new media and social networking channels. This is much more cost efficient, but it is also more effective at quickly gathering interest among younger populations. This is also important to appeal to this online audience, since the World Democracy Museum itself will commence activities as an electronic project and will position itself as a collaborative museum / museum 2.0.<br /><br />Time Requirements<br /><br />The World Democracy Museum is designed to be a permanent enterprise of all citizens interested in freedom and good governance. The activities described above will be ongoing and will be commenced upon the securing of a minimum amount of funds. These are envisioned to be able to be started in one year, and to reach some fruition during that time. The potential initial democracy e-xhibits described above are an example of what is able to be done with the resources detailed herein. Initial focus will be on getting the Museum started and making it sustainable. More activities and democracy e-xhibits will be added as resources become available. The more fundable democracy e-xhibits will be prioritized.<br /><br /><a name="_Toc139211190">5</a> financial requirements (Budget)<br /><br />Please see Annex A<br /> <a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=7001519995842436212#_ednref1" name="_edn1"></a><br />[i] “Tag” is a new term associated with Web 2.0 methodologies meaning a keyword associated with and assigned to information and/or data allowing this information to be classified together with other information similarly tagged and thus accessible together under certain search functions, et cetera.<br /><br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=7001519995842436212#_ednref2" name="_edn2">[ii]</a> “Mash-up” is a new term associated with Web 2.0 methodologies describing information and/or data assembled together with information from another source and media creating a new presentation. The most common example is GoogleMaps, which allow users to take textual or photographic information and situation on a related location on a map.<br /><br /><a title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn3" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=7001519995842436212#_ednref3" name="_edn3">[iii]</a> See for example, ECSITE Annual Conference Report (December 2004) by R. Hawkey at http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications_reports_articles/web_articles/Web_Article550 .coordinatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01483215435633115889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001519995842436212.post-49245767069185328702009-05-06T15:51:00.003+02:002009-05-06T16:08:04.570+02:00Immanuel Kant's Perpetual Peace<div align="center"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivuTI2N2bPm5ehjPPObSwGyljZwNlI1-PElfDnUb1D52mwFWXL2-IYBw23qozxMEh6iqZKEx7US6AyhqA-AsW4kw7vh5WXKu6zQD-QwB_nB80Vf3nOH3r8SMPu-f3FEslX17qo7GTZIbts/s1600-h/Kant.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5332712121817474322" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 85px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 128px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivuTI2N2bPm5ehjPPObSwGyljZwNlI1-PElfDnUb1D52mwFWXL2-IYBw23qozxMEh6iqZKEx7US6AyhqA-AsW4kw7vh5WXKu6zQD-QwB_nB80Vf3nOH3r8SMPu-f3FEslX17qo7GTZIbts/s200/Kant.jpg" border="0" /></a> <strong>Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch<br />By Immanuel Kant</strong><br /></div><div align="center"><strong>1795<br /></strong><br /></div><br /><br />Whether this satirical inscription on a Dutch innkeeper's sign upon which a burial ground was painted had for its object mankind in general, or the rulers of states in particular, who are insatiable of war, or merely the philosophers who dream this sweet dream, it is not for us to decide. But one condition the author of this essay wishes to lay down. The practical politician assumes the attitude of looking down with great self-satisfaction on the political theorist as a pedant whose empty ideas in no way threaten the security of the state, inasmuch as the state must proceed on empirical principles; so the theorist is allowed to play his game without interference from the worldly-wise statesman. Such being his attitude, the practical politician--and this is the condition I make--should at least act consistently in the case of a conflict and not suspect some danger to the state in the political theorist's opinions which are ventured and publicly expressed without any ulterior purpose. By this clausula salvatoria the author desires formally and emphatically to deprecate herewith any malevolent interpretation which might be placed on his words.<br /><br />SECTION I<br />CONTAINING THE PRELIMINARY ARTICLES FOR PERPETUAL PEACE AMONG STATES<br />1. "No Treaty of Peace Shall Be Held Valid in Which There Is Tacitly Reserved Matter for a Future War"<br />Otherwise a treaty would be only a truce, a suspension of hostilities but not peace, which means the end of all hostilities--so much so that even to attach the word "perpetual" to it is a dubious pleonasm. The causes for making future wars (which are perhaps unknown to the contracting parties) are without exception annihilated by the treaty of peace, even if they should be dug out of dusty documents by acute sleuthing. When one or both parties to a treaty of peace, being too exhausted to continue warring with each other, make a tacit reservation (reservatio mentalis) in regard to old claims to be elaborated only at some more favorable opportunity in the future, the treaty is made in bad faith, and we have an artifice worthy of the casuistry of a Jesuit. Considered by itself, it is beneath the dignity of a sovereign, just as the readiness to indulge in this kind of reasoning is unworthy of the dignity of his minister.<br />But if, in consequence of enlightened concepts of statecraft, the glory of the state is placed in its continual aggrandizement by whatever means, my conclusion will appear merely academic and pedantic.<br />2. "No Independent States, Large or Small, Shall Come under the Dominion of Another State by Inheritance, Exchange, Purchase, or Donation"<br />A state is not, like the ground which it occupies, a piece of property (patrimonium). It is a society of men whom no one else has any right to command or to dispose except the state itself. It is a trunk with its own roots. But to incorporate it into another state, like a graft, is to destroy its existence as a moral person, reducing it to a thing; such incorporation thus contradicts the idea of the original contract without which no right over a people can be conceived.<a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm#fn1#fn1">1</a><br />Everyone knows to what dangers Europe, the only part of the world where this manner of acquisition is known, has been brought, even down to the most recent times, by the presumption that states could espouse one another; it is in part a new kind of industry for gaining ascendancy by means of family alliances and without expenditure of forces, and in part a way of extending one's domain. Also the hiring-out of troops by one state to another, so that they can be used against an enemy not common to both, is to be counted under this principle; for in this manner the subjects, as though they were things to be manipulated at pleasure, are used and also used up.<br />3. "Standing Armies (miles perpetuus) Shall in Time Be Totally Abolished"<br />For they incessantly menace other states by their readiness to appear at all times prepared for war; they incite them to compete with each other in the number of armed men, and there is no limit to this. For this reason, the cost of peace finally becomes more oppressive than that of a short war, and consequently a standing army is itself a cause of offensive war waged in order to relieve the state of this burden. Add to this that to pay men to kill or to be killed seems to entail using them as mere machines and tools in the hand of another (the state), and this is hardly compatible with the rights of mankind in our own person. But the periodic and voluntary military exercises of citizens who thereby secure themselves and their country against foreign aggression are entirely different.<br />The accumulation of treasure would have the same effect, for, of the three powers--the power of armies, of alliances, and of money--the third is perhaps the most dependable weapon. Such accumulation of treasure is regarded by other states as a threat of war, and if it were not for the difficulties in learning the amount, it would force the other state to make an early attack.<br />4. "National Debts Shall Not Be Contracted with a View to the External Friction of States"<br />This expedient of seeking aid within or without the state is above suspicion when the purpose is domestic economy (e.g., the improvement of roads, new settlements, establishment of stores against unfruitful years, etc.). But as an opposing machine in the antagonism of powers, a credit system which grows beyond sight and which is yet a safe debt for the present requirements--because all the creditors do not require payment at one time--constitutes a dangerous money power. This ingenious invention of a commercial people [England] in this century is dangerous because it is a war treasure which exceeds the treasures of all other states; it cannot be exhausted except by default of taxes (which is inevitable), though it can be long delayed by the stimulus to trade which occurs through the reaction of credit on industry and commerce. This facility in making war, together with the inclination to do so on the part of rulers--an inclination which seems inborn in human nature--is thus a great hindrance to perpetual peace. Therefore, to forbid this credit system must be a preliminary article of perpetual peace all the more because it must eventually entangle many innocent states in the inevitable bankruptcy and openly harm them. They are therefore justified in allying themselves against such a state and its measures.<br />5. "No State Shall by Force Interfere with the Constitution or Government of Another State"<br />For what is there to authorize it to do so? The offense, perhaps, which a state gives to the subjects of another state? Rather the example of the evil into which a state has fallen because of its lawlessness should serve as a warning. Moreover, the bad example which one free person affords another as a scandalum acceptum is not an infringement of his rights. But it would be quite different if a state, by internal rebellion, should fall into two parts, each of which pretended to be a separate state making claim to the whole. To lend assistance to one of these cannot be considered an interference in the constitution of the other state (for it is then in a state of anarchy) . But so long as the internal dissension has not come to this critical point, such interference by foreign powers would infringe on the rights of an independent people struggling with its internal disease; hence it would itself be an offense and would render the autonomy of all states insecure.<br />6. "No State Shall, during War, Permit Such Acts of Hostility Which Would Make Mutual Confidence in the Subsequent Peace Impossible: Such Are the Employment of Assassins (percussores), Poisoners (venefici), Breach of Capitulation, and Incitement to Treason (perduellio) in the Opposing State"<br />These are dishonorable stratagems. For some confidence in the character of the enemy must remain even in the midst of war, as otherwise no peace could be concluded and the hostilities would degenerate into a war of extermination (bellum internecinum). War, however, is only the sad recourse in the state of nature (where there is no tribunal which could judge with the force of law) by which each state asserts its right by violence and in which neither party can be adjudged unjust (for that would presuppose a juridical decision); in lieu of such a decision, the issue of the conflict (as if given by a so-called "judgment of God") decides on which side justice lies. But between states no punitive war (bellum punitivum) is conceivable, because there is no relation between them of master and servant.<br />It follows that a war of extermination, in which the destruction of both parties and of all justice can result, would permit perpetual peace only in the vast burial ground of the human race. Therefore, such a war and the use of all means leading to it must be absolutely forbidden. But that the means cited do inevitably lead to it is clear from the fact that these infernal arts, vile in themselves, when once used would not long be confined to the sphere of war. Take, for instance, the use of spies (uti exploratoribus). In this, one employs the infamy of others (which can never be entirely eradicated) only to encourage its persistence even into the state of peace, to the undoing of the very spirit of peace.<br />Although the laws stated are objectively, i.e., in so far as they express the intention of rulers, mere prohibitions (leges prohibitivae), some of them are of that strict kind which hold regardless of circumstances (leges strictae) and which demand prompt execution. Such are Nos. 1, 5, and 6. Others, like Nos. 2, 3, and 4, while not exceptions from the rule of law, nevertheless are sub- jectively broader (leges latae) in respect to their observation, containing permission to delay their execution without, however, losing sight of the end. This permission does not authorize, under No. 2, for example, delaying until doomsday (or, as Augustus used to say, ad calendas Graecas) the re-establishment of the freedom of states which have been deprived of it--i.e., it does not permit us to fail to do it, but it allows a delay to prevent precipitation which might injure the goal striven for. For the prohibition concerns only the manner of acquisition which is no longer permitted, but not the possession, which, though not bearing a requisite title of right, has nevertheless been held lawful in all states by the public opinion of the time (the time of the putative acquisition).<a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm#fn2#fn2">2.</a><br /><br />SECTION II<br />CONTAINING THE DEFINITIVE ARTICLESFOR PERPETUAL PEACE AMONG STATES<br />The state of peace among men living side by side is not the natural state (status naturalis); the natural state is one of war. This does not always mean open hostilities, but at least an unceasing threat of war. A state of peace, therefore, must be established, for in order to be secured against hostility it is not sufficient that hostilities simply be not committed; and, unless this security is pledged to each by his neighbor (a thing that can occur only in a civil state), each may treat his neighbor, from whom he demands this security, as an enemy.<a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm#fn3#fn3">3</a><br />FIRST DEFINITIVE ARTICLE FOR PERPETUAL PEACE<br />"The Civil Constitution of Every State Should Be Republican"<br />The only constitution which derives from the idea of the original compact, and on which all juridical legislation of a people must be based, is the republican. <a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm#fn4#fn4">4</a> This constitution is established, firstly, by principles of the freedom of the members of a society (as men); secondly, by principles of dependence of all upon a single common legislation (as subjects); and, thirdly, by the law of their equality (as citizens). The republican constitution, therefore, is, with respect to law, the one which is the original basis of every form of civil constitution. The only question now is: Is it also the one which can lead to perpetual peace?<br />The republican constitution, besides the purity of its origin (having sprung from the pure source of the concept of law), also gives a favorable prospect for the desired consequence, i.e., perpetual peace. The reason is this: if the consent of the citizens is required in order to decide that war should be declared (and in this constitution it cannot but be the case), nothing is more natural than that they would be very cautious in commencing such a poor game, decreeing for themselves all the calamities of war. Among the latter would be: having to fight, having to pay the costs of war from their own resources, having painfully to repair the devastation war leaves behind, and, to fill up the measure of evils, load themselves with a heavy national debt that would embitter peace itself and that can never be liquidated on account of constant wars in the future. But, on the other hand, in a constitution which is not republican, and under which the subjects are not citizens, a declaration of war is the easiest thing in the world to decide upon, because war does not require of the ruler, who is the proprietor and not a member of the state, the least sacrifice of the pleasures of his table, the chase, his country houses, his court functions, and the like. He may, therefore, resolve on war as on a pleasure party for the most trivial reasons, and with perfect indifference leave the justification which decency requires to the diplomatic corps who are ever ready to provide it.<br />In order not to confuse the republican constitution with the democratic (as is commonly done), the following should be noted. The forms of a state (civitas) can be divided either according to the persons who possess the sovereign power or according to the mode of administration exercised over the people by the chief, whoever he may be. The first is properly called the form of sovereignty (forma imperii), and there are only three possible forms of it: autocracy, in which one, aristocracy, in which some associated together, or democracy, in which all those who constitute society, possess sovereign power. They may be characterized, respectively, as the power of a monarch, of the nobility, or of the people. The second division is that by the form of government (forma regiminis) and is based on the way in which the state makes use of its power; this way is based on the constitution, which is the act of the general will through which the many persons become one nation. In this respect government is either republican or despotic. Republicanism is the political principle of the separation of the executive power (the administration) from the legislative; despotism is that of the autonomous execution by the state of laws which it has itself decreed. Thus in a despotism the public will is administered by the ruler as his own will. Of the three forms of the state, that of democracy is, properly speaking, necessarily a despotism, because it establishes an executive power in which "all" decide for or even against one who does not agree; that is, "all," who are not quite all, decide, and this is a contradiction of the general will with itself and with freedom.<br />Every form of government which is not representative is, properly speaking, without form. The legislator can unite in one and the same person his function as legislative and as executor of his will just as little as the universal of the major premise in a syllogism can also be the subsumption of the particular under the universal in the minor. And even though the other two constitutions are always defective to the extent that they do leave room for this mode of administration, it is at least possible for them to assume a mode of government conforming to the spirit of a representative system (as when Frederick II at least said he was merely the first servant of the state).<a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm#fn5#fn5">5</a> On the other hand, the democratic mode of government makes this impossible, since everyone wishes to be master. Therefore, we can say: the smaller the personnel of the government (the smaller the number of rulers), the greater is their representation and the more nearly the constitution approaches to the possibility of republicanism; thus the constitution may be expected by gradual reform finally to raise itself to republicanism. For these reasons it is more difficult for an aristocracy than for a monarchy to achieve the one completely juridical constitution, and it is impossible for a democracy to do so except by violent revolution.<br />The mode of governments, <a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm#fn6#fn6">6</a> however, is incomparably more important to the people than the form of sovereignty, although much depends on the greater or lesser suitability of the latter to the end of [good] government. To conform to the concept of law, however, government must have a representative form, and in this system only a republican mode of government is possible; without it, government is despotic and arbitrary, whatever the constitution may be. None of the ancient so-called "republics" knew this system, and they all finally and inevitably degenerated into despotism under the sovereignty of one, which is the most bearable of all forms of despotism. SECOND DEFINITIVE ARTICLE FOR A PERPETUAL PEACE<br />"The Law of Nations Shall be Founded on a Federation of Free States"<br />Peoples, as states, like individuals, may be judged to injure one another merely by their coexistence in the state of nature (i.e., while independent of external laws). Each of then, may and should for the sake of its own security demand that the others enter with it into a constitution similar to the civil constitution, for under such a constitution each can be secure in his right. This would be a league of nations, but it would not have to be a state consisting of nations. That would be contradictory, since a state implies the relation of a superior (legislating) to an inferior (obeying), i.e., the people, and many nations in one state would then constitute only one nation. This contradicts the presupposition, for here we have to weigh the rights of nations against each other so far as they are distinct states and not amalgamated into one.<br />When we see the attachment of savages to their lawless freedom, preferring ceaseless combat to subjection to a lawful constraint which they might establish, and thus preferring senseless freedom to rational freedom, we regard it with deep contempt as barbarity, rudeness, and a brutish degradation of humanity. Accordingly, one would think that civilized people (each united in a state) would hasten all the more to escape, the sooner the better, from such a depraved condition. But, instead, each state places its majesty (for it is absurd to speak of the majesty of the people) in being subject to no external juridical restraint, and the splendor of its sovereign consists in the fact that many thousands stand at his command to sacrifice themselves for something that does not concern them and without his needing to place himself in the least danger.<a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm#fn7#fn7">7</a> The chief difference between European and American savages lies in the fact that many tribes of the latter have been eaten by their enemies, while the former know how to make better use of their conquered enemies than to dine off them; they know better how to use them to increase the number of their subjects and thus the quantity of instruments for even more extensive wars.<br />When we consider the perverseness of human nature which is nakedly revealed in the uncontrolled relations between nations (this perverseness being veiled in the state of civil law by the constraint exercised by government), we may well be astonished that the word "law" has not yet been banished from war politics as pedantic, and that no state has yet been bold enough to advocate this point of view. Up to the present, Hugo Grotius, Pufendorf, Vattel, and many other irritating comforters have been cited in justification of war, though their code, philosophically or diplomatically formulated, has not and cannot have the least legal force, because states as such do not stand under a common external power. There is no instance on record that a state has ever been moved to desist from its purpose because of arguments backed up by the testimony of such great men. But the homage which each state pays (at least in words) to the concept of law proves that there is slumbering in man an even greater moral disposition to become master of the evil principle in himself (which he cannot disclaim) and to hope for the same from others. Otherwise the word "law" would never be pronounced by states which wish to war upon one another; it would be used only ironically, as a Gallic prince interpreted it when he said, "It is the prerogative which nature has given the stronger that the weaker should obey him."<br />States do not plead their cause before a tribunal; war alone is their way of bringing suit. But by war and its favorable issue, in victory, right is not decided, and though by a treaty of peace this particular war is brought to an end, the state of war, of always finding a new pretext to hostilities, is not terminated. Nor can this be declared wrong, considering the fact that in this state each is the judge of his own case. Notwithstanding, the obligation which men in a lawless condition have under the natural law, and which requires them to abandon the state of nature, does not quite apply to states under the law of nations, for as states they already have an internal juridical constitution and have thus outgrown compulsion from others to submit to a more extended lawful constitution according to their ideas of right. This is true in spite of the fact that reason, from its throne of supreme moral legislating authority, absolutely condemns war as a legal recourse and makes a state of peace a direct duty, even though peace cannot be established or secured except by a compact among nations.<br />For these reasons there must be a league of a particular kind, which can be called a league of peace (foedus pacificum), and which would be distinguished from a treaty of peace (pactum pacis) by the fact that the latter terminates only one war, while the former seeks to make an end of all wars forever. This league does not tend to any dominion over the power of the state but only to the maintenance and security of the freedom of the state itself and of other states in league with it, without there being any need for them to submit to civil laws and their compulsion, as men in a state of nature must submit.<br />The practicability (objective reality) of this idea of federation, which should gradually spread to all states and thus lead to perpetual peace, can be proved. For if fortune directs that a powerful and enlightened people can make itself a republic, which by its nature must be inclined to perpetual peace, this gives a fulcrum to the federation with other states so that they may adhere to it and thus secure freedom under the idea of the law of nations. By more and more such associations, the federation may be gradually extended.<br />We may readily conceive that a people should say, "There ought to be no war among us, for we want to make ourselves into a state; that is, we want to establish a supreme legislative, executive, and judiciary power which will reconcile our differences peaceably." But when this state says, "There ought to be no war between myself and other states, even though I acknowledge no supreme legislative power by which our rights are mutually guaranteed," it is not at all clear on what I can base my confidence in my own rights unless it is the free federation, the surrogate of the civil social order, which reason necessarily associates with the concept of the law of nations--assuming that something is really meant by the latter.<br />The concept of a law of nations as a right to make war does not really mean anything, because it is then a law of deciding what is right by unilateral maxims through force and not by universally valid public laws which restrict the freedom of each one. The only conceivable meaning of such a law of nations might be that it serves men right who are so inclined that they should destroy each other and thus find perpetual peace in the vast grave that swallows both the atrocities and their perpetrators. For states in their relation to each other, there cannot be any reasonable way out of the lawless condition which entails only war except that they, like individual men, should give up their savage (lawless) freedom, adjust themselves to the constraints of public law, and thus establish a continuously growing state consisting of various nations (civitas gentium), which will ultimately include all the nations of the world. But under the idea of the law of nations they do not wish this, and reject in practice what is correct in theory. If all is not to be lost, there can be, then, in place of the positive idea of a world republic, only the negative surrogate of an alliance which averts war, endures, spreads, and holds back the stream of those hostile passions which fear the law, though such an alliance is in constant peril of their breaking loose again.<a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm#fn8#fn8">8</a> Furor impius intus . . . fremit horridus ore cruento (Virgil).<br />THIRD DEFINITIVE ARTICLE FOR A PERPETUAL PEACE<br />"The Law of World Citizenship Shall Be Limited to Conditions of Universal Hospitality"<br />Here, as in the preceding articles, it is not a question of philanthropy but of right. Hospitality means the right of a stranger not to be treated as an enemy when he arrives in the land of another. One may refuse to receive him when this can be done without causing his destruction; but, so long as he peacefully occupies his place, one may not treat him with hostility. It is not the right to be a permanent visitor that one may demand. A special beneficent agreement would be needed in order to give an outsider a right to become a fellow inhabitant for a certain length of time. It is only a right of temporary sojourn, a right to associate, which all men have. They have it by virtue of their common possession of the surface of the earth, where, as a globe, they cannot infinitely disperse and hence must finally tolerate the presence of each other. Originally, no one had more right than another to a particular part of the earth.<br />Uninhabitable parts of the earth--the sea and the deserts--divide this community of all men, but the ship and the camel (the desert ship) enable them to approach each other across these unruled regions and to establish communication by using the common right to the face of the earth, which belongs to human beings generally. The inhospitality of the inhabitants of coasts (for instance, of the Barbary Coast) in robbing ships in neighboring seas or enslaving stranded travellers, or the inhospitality of the inhabitants of the deserts (for instance, the Bedouin Arabs) who view contact with nomadic tribes as conferring the right to plunder them, is thus opposed to natural law, even though it extends the right of hospitality, i.e., the privilege of foreign arrivals, no further than to conditions of the possibility of seeking to communicate with the prior inhabitants. In this way distant parts of the world can come into peaceable relations with each other, and these are finally publicly established by law. Thus the human race can gradually be brought closer and closer to a constitution establishing world citizenship.<br />But to this perfection compare the inhospitable actions of the civilized and especially of the commercial states of our part of the world. The injustice which they show to lands and peoples they visit (which is equivalent to conquering them) is carried by them to terrifying lengths. America, the lands inhabited by the Negro, the Spice Islands, the Cape, etc., were at the time of their discovery considered by these civilized intruders as lands without owners, for they counted the inhabitants as nothing. In East India (Hindustan), under the pretense of establishing economic undertakings, they brought in foreign soldiers and used them to oppress the natives, excited widespread wars among the various states, spread famine, rebellion, perfidy, and the whole litany of evils which afflict mankind.<br />China <a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm#fn9#fn9">9</a> and Japan (Nippon), who have had experience with such guests, have wisely refused them entry, the former permitting their approach to their shores but not their entry, while the latter permit this approach to only one European people, the Dutch, but treat them like prisoners, not allowing them any communication with the inhabitants. The worst of this (or, to speak with the moralist, the best) is that all these outrages profit them nothing, since all these commercial ventures stand on the verge of collapse, and the Sugar Islands, that place of the most refined and cruel slavery, produces no real revenue except indirectly, only serving a not very praiseworthy purpose of furnishing sailors for war fleets and thus for the conduct of war in Europe. This service is rendered to powers which make a great show of their piety, and, while they drink injustice like water, they regard themselves as the elect in point of orthodoxy.<br />Since the narrower or wider community of the peoples of the earth has developed so far that a violation of rights in one place is felt throughout the world, the idea of a law of world citizenship is no high-flown or exaggerated notion. It is a supplement to the unwritten code of the civil and international law, indispensable for the maintenance of the public human rights and hence also of perpetual peace. One cannot flatter oneself into believing one can approach this peace except under the condition outlined here.<br /><br />Footnotes<br /><a name="fn1"></a>1. A hereditary kingdom is not a state which can be inherited by another state, but the right to govern it can be inherited by another physical person. The state thereby acquires a ruler, but he, as a ruler (i.e., as one already possessing another realm), does not acquire the state.<br /><a name="fn2">2.</a> It has not without cause hitherto been doubted whether besides the commands (leges praeceptivae) and prohibitions (leges prohibitivae) there could also be permissive laws (leges permissivae) of pure reason. For laws as such contain a principle of objective practical necessity, while permission implies a principle of the practical contingency of certain actions. Hence a law of permission would imply constraint to an action to do that to which no one can be constrained. If the object of the law has the same meaning in both cases, this is a contradiction. But in permissive law, which is in question here, the prohibition refers only to the future mode of acquisition of a right (e.g., by succession), while the permission annuls this prohibition only with reference to the present possession. This possession, though only putative, may be held to be just (possessio putative) in the transition from the state of nature to a civil state, by virtue of a permissive law included under natural law, even though it is [strictly] illegal. But, as soon as it is recognized as illegal in the state of nature, a similar mode of acquisition in the subsequent civil state (after this transition has occurred) is forbidden, and this right to continuing possession would not hold if such a presumptive acquisition had taken place in the civil state. For in this case it would be an infringement which would have to cease as soon as its illegality was discovered.<br />I have wished only to call the attention of the teachers of natural law to the concept of a lex permissive, which systematic reason affords, particularly since in civil (statute) law use is often made of it. But in the ordinary use of it, there is this difference: prohibitive law stands alone, while permission is not introduced into it as a limiting condition (as it should be) but counted among the exceptions to it. Then it is said, "This or that is forbidden, except Nos. 1, 2, 3," and so on indefinitely. These exceptions are added to the law only as an afterthought required by our groping around among cases as they arise, and not by any principle. Otherwise the conditions would have had to be introduced into the formula of the prohibition, and in this way it would itself have become a permissive law. It is, therefore, unfortunate that the subtle question proposed by the wise and acute Count von Windischgrätz was never answered and soon consigned to oblivion, because it insisted on the point here discussed. For the possibility of a formula similar to those of mathematics is the only legitimate criterion of a consistent legislation, and without it the so-called ius certum must always remain a pious wish. Otherwise we shall have merely general laws (which apply to a great number of cases), but no universal laws (which apply to all cases) as the concept of law seems to requires.<br /><a name="fn3">3.</a> We ordinarily assume that no one may act inimically toward another except when he has been actively injured by the other. This is quite correct if both are under civil law, for, by entering into such a state, they afford each other the requisite security through the sovereign which has power over both. Man (or the people) in the state of nature deprives me of this security and injures me, if he is near me, by this mere status of his, even though he does not injure me actively (facto); he does so by the lawlessness of his condition (statu iniusto) which constantly threatens me. Therefore, I can compel him either to enter with me into a state of civil law or to remove himself from my neighborhood. The postulate which is basic to all the following articles is: All men who can reciprocally influence each other must stand under some civil constitution.<br />Every juridical constitution which concerns the person who stands under it is one of the following: (1) The constitution conforming to the civil law of men in a nation (ius civitatis).<br />(2) The constitution conforming to the law of nations in their relation to one another (ius gentium).<br />(3) The constitution conforming to the law of world citizenship, so far as men and states are considered as citizens of a universal state of men, in their external mutual relationships (ius cosmopoliticum).<br />This division is not arbitrary, being necessary in relation to the idea of perpetual peace. For if only one state were related to another by physical influence and were yet in a state of nature, war would necessarily follow, and our purpose here is precisely to free ourselves of war.<br /><a name="fn4">4.</a> Juridical (and hence) external freedom cannot be defined, as is usual, by the privilege of doing anything one wills so long as he does not injure another. For what is a privilege? It is the possibility of an action so far as one does not injure anyone by it. Then the definition would read: Freedom is the possibility of those actions by which one does no one an injury. One does another no injury (he may do as he pleases) only if he does another no injury--an empty tautology. Rather, my external (juridical) freedom is to be defined as follows: It is the privilege to lend obedience to no external laws except those to which I could have given consent. Similarly, external (juridical) equality in a state is that relationship among the citizens in which no one can lawfully bind another without at the same time subjecting himself to the law by which he also can be bound. No definition of juridical dependence is needed, as this already lies in the concept of a state's constitution as such.<br />The validity of these inborn rights, which are inalienable and belong necessarily to humanity, is raised to an even higher level by the principle of the juridical relation of man to higher beings, for, if he believes in them, he regards himself by the same principles as a citizen of a supersensuous world. For in what concerns my freedom, I have no obligation with respect to divine law, which can be acknowledged by my reason alone, except in so far as I could have given my consent to it. Indeed, it is only through the law of freedom of my own reason that I frame a concept of the divine will. With regard to the most sublime reason in the world that I can think of, with the exception of God--say, the great Aeon--when I do my duty in my post as he does in his, there is no reason under the law of equality why obedience to duty should fall only to me and the right to command only to him. The reason why this principle of equality does not pertain to our relation to God (as the principle of freedom does) is that this Being is the only one to which the concept of duty does not apply.<br />But with respect to the right of equality of all citizens as subjects, the question of whether a hereditary nobility may be tolerated turns upon the answer to the question as to whether the pre-eminent rank granted by the state to one citizen over another ought to precede merit or follow it. Now it is obvious that, if rank is associated with birth, it is uncertain whether merit (political skill and integrity) will also follow; hence it would be as if a favorite without any merit were given command. The general will of the people would never agree to this in the original contract, which is the principle of all law, for a nobleman is not necessarily a noble man. With regard to the nobility of office (as we might call the rank of the higher magistracy) which one must earn by merit, this rank does not belong to the person as his property; it belongs to his post, and equality is not thereby infringed, because when a man quits his office he renounces the rank it confers and re-enters into the class of his fellows.<br /><a name="fn5">5.</a> The lofty epithets of "the Lord's anointed...... the executor of the divine will on earth," and "the vicar of God," which have been lavished on sovereigns, have been frequently censured as crude and intoxicating flatteries. But this seems to me without good reason. Far from inspiring a monarch with pride, they should rather render him humble, providing he possesses some intelligence (which we must assume). They should make him reflect that he has taken an office too great for man, an office which is the holiest God has ordained on earth, to be the trustee of the rights of men, and that he must always stand in dread of having in some way injured this "apple of God's eye."<br /><a name="fn6">6.</a> Mallet du Pan, in his pompous but empty and hollow language, pretends to have become convinced, after long experience, of the truth of Pope's well-known saying:<br />"For forms of government let fools contest:Whate'er is best administered, is best."<br />If that means that the best-administered state is the state that is best administered, he has, to make use of Swift's expression, "cracked a nut to come at a maggot." But if it means that the best-administered state also has the best mode of government, i.e., the best constitution, then it is thoroughly wrong, for examples of good governments prove nothing about the form of government. Whoever reigned better than a Titus and a Marcus Aurelius? Yet one was succeeded by a Domitian and the other by a Commodus. This could never have happened under a good constitution, for their unworthiness for this post was known early enough and also the power of the ruler was sufficient to have excluded them.<br /><a name="fn7"></a>7. A Bulgarian prince gave the following answer to the Greek emperor who good-naturedly suggested that they settle their difference by a duel: "A smith who has tongs won't pluck the glowing iron from the fire with his bare hands."<br /><a name="fn8">8.</a> It would not ill become a people that has just terminated a war to decree, besides a day of thanksgiving, a day of fasting in order to ask heaven, in the name of the state, for forgiveness for the great iniquity which the human race still goes on to perpetuate in refusing to submit to a lawful constitution in their relation to other peoples, preferring, from pride in their independence, to make use of the barbarous means of war even though they are not able to attain what is sought, namely, the rights of a single state. The thanksgiving for victory won during the war, the hymns which are sung to the God of Hosts (in good Israelitic manner), stand in equally sharp contrast to the moral idea of the Father of Men. For they not only show a sad enough indifference to the way in which nations seek their rights, but in addition express a joy in having annihilated a multitude of men or their happiness.<br /><a name="fn9">9.</a>To call this great empire by the name it gives itself, namely "China" and not "Sina" or anything like that, we have only to refer to [A.] Georgi, Alphabetum Tibetanum, pp. 651-54, especially note b. According to the note of Professor [Johann Eberhard] Fischer of Petersburg, there is no definite word used in that country as its name; the most usual word is "Kin," i.e., gold (which the Tibetans call "Ser"). Accordingly, the emperor is called "the king of gold," that is, king of the most splendid country in the world. In the empire itself, this word may be pronounced Chin, while because of the 'guttural sound the Italian missionaries may have called it Kin.--It is clear that what the Romans called the "Land of Seres" was China; the silk, however, was sent to Europe across Greater Tibet (through Lesser Tibet, Bukhara, Persia, and then on).<br />This suggests many reflections concerning the antiquity of this wonderful state, in comparison with that of Hindustan at the time of its union with Tibet and thence with Japan. We see, on the contrary, that the name "Sina" or "Tshina," said to have been used by the neighbors of the country, suggests nothing.<br />Perhaps we can also explain the very ancient but never well-known intercourse of Europe with Tibet by considering the shout, ('Konx Ompax'), of the hierophants in the Eleusinian mysteries, as we learn from Hysichius (cf. Travels of the Young Anacharsis, Part V, p. 447 ff.). For, according to Georgi, op. cit., the word Concoia means God, which has a striking resemblance to Konx. Pah-cio (ibid., 520), which the Greeks may well have pronounced pax, means the promulgator legis, divinity pervading the whole of nature (also called Cencresi, p. 177). Om, however, which La Croze translates as benedictus ("blessed"), when applied to divinity perhaps means "the beatified" (p. 507). P. Franz Orazio often asked the Lamas of Tibet what they understood by "God" (Concoia) and always got the answer, "It is the assembly of saints" (i.e., the assembly of the blessed ones who, according to the doctrine of rebirth, finally, after many wanderings through bodies of all kinds, have returned to God, or Burchane; that is to say, they are transmigrated souls, beings to be worshiped, p. 223). That mysterious expression Konx Ompax may well mean "the holy" (Konx), the blessed (Om), the wise (Pax), the supreme being pervading the world (nature personified). Its use in the Greek mysteries may indicate monotheism among the epopts in contrast to the polytheism of the people (though Orazio scented atheism there). How that mysterious word came to the Greeks via Tibet can perhaps be explained in this way; and the early traffic of Europe with China, also through Tibet, and perhaps earlier than communication with Hindustan, is made probable.<br /><br />FIRST SUPPLEMENT<br />OF THE GUARANTEE FOR PERPETUAL PEACE<br /><br />The guarantee of perpetual peace is nothing less than that great artist, nature (natura daedala rerum). In her mechanical course we see that her aim is to produce a harmony among men, against their will and indeed through their discord. As a necessity working according to laws we do not know, we call it destiny. But, considering its design in world history, we call it "providence," inasmuch as we discern in it the profound wisdom of a higher cause which predetermines the course of nature and directs it to the objective final end of the human race.<a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/firstsup.htm#fn1#fn1">1</a> We do not observe or infer this providence in the cunning contrivances of nature, but, as in questions of the relation of the form of things to ends in general, we can and must supply it from our own minds in order to conceive of its possibility by analogy to actions of human art. The idea of the relationship and harmony between these actions and the end which reason directly assigns to us is transcendent from a theoretical point of view; from a practical standpoint, with respect, for example, to the ideal of perpetual peace, the concept is dogmatic and its reality is well established, and thus the mechanism of nature may be employed to that end. The use of the word "nature" is more fitting to the limits of human reason and more modest than an expression indicating a providence unknown to us. This is especially true when we are dealing with questions of theory and not of religion, as at present, for human reason in questions of the relation of effects to their causes must remain within the limits of possible experience. On the other hand, the use of the word "providence" here intimates the possession of wings like those of Icarus, conducting us toward the secret of its unfathomable purpose.<br />Before we more narrowly define the guarantee which nature gives, it is necessary to examine the situation in which she has placed her actors on her vast stage, a situation which finally assures peace among them. Then we shall see how she accomplishes the latter. Her preparatory arrangements are:<br />1. In every region of the world she has made it possible for men to live.<br />2. By war she has driven them even into the most inhospitable regions in order to populate them. 3. By the same means, she has forced them into more or less lawful relations with each other.<br />That in the cold wastes by the Arctic Ocean the moss grows which the reindeer digs from the snow in order to make itself the prey or the conveyance of the Ostyak or Samoyed; or that the saline sandy deserts are inhabited by the camel which appears created as it were in order that they might not go unused--that is already wonderful. Still clearer is the end when we see how besides the furry animals of the Arctic there are also the seal, the walrus, and the whale which afford the inhabitants food from their flesh and warmth from their blubber. But the care of nature excites the greatest wonder when we see how she brings wood (though the inhabitants do not know whence it comes) to these barren climates, without which they would have neither canoes, weapons, nor huts, and when we see how these natives are so occupied with their war against the animals that they live in peace with each other--but what drove them there was presumably nothing else than war.<br />The first instrument of war among the animals which man learned to tame and to domesticate was the horse (for the elephant belongs to later times, to the luxury of already established states). The art of cultivating certain types of plants (grain) whose original characteristics we do not know, and the increase and improvement of fruits by transplantation and grafting (in Europe perhaps only the crab apple and the wild pear), could arise only under conditions prevailing in already established states where property was secure. Before this could take place, it was necessary that men who had first subsisted in anarchic freedom by hunting,<a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/firstsup.htm#fn2#fn2">2</a> fishing, and sheepherding should have been forced into an agricultural life. Then salt and iron were discovered. These were perhaps the first articles of commerce for the various peoples and were sought far and wide; in this way a peaceful traffic among nations was established, and thus understanding, conventions, and peaceable relations were established among the most distant peoples.<br />As nature saw to it. that men could live everywhere in the world, she also despotically willed that they should do so, even against their inclination and without this ought being based on a concept of duty to which they were bound by a moral law. She chose war as the means to this end. So we see peoples whose common language shows that they have a common origin. For instance, the Samoyeds on the Arctic Ocean and a people with a similar language a thousand miles away in the Altaian Mountains are separated by a Mongolian people adept at horsemanship and hence at war; the latter drove the former into the most inhospitable arctic regions where they certainly would not have spread of their own accord.<a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/firstsup.htm#fn3#fn3">3</a> Again, it is the same with the Finns who in the most northerly part of Europe are called Lapps; Goths and Sarmatians have separated them from the Hungarians to whom they are related in language. What can have driven the Eskimos, a race entirely distinct from all others in America and perhaps descended from primeval European adventurers, so far into the North, or the Pescherais as far south as Tierra del Fuego, if it were not war which nature uses to populate the whole earth? War itself requires no special motive but appears to be engrafted on human nature; it passes even for something noble, to which the love of glory impels men quite apart from any selfish urges. Thus among the American savages, just as much as among those of Europe during the age of chivalry, military valor is held to be of great worth in itself, not only during war (which is natural) but in order that there should be war. Often war is waged only in order to show valor; thus an inner dignity is ascribed to war itself, and even some philosophers have praised it as an ennoblement of humanity, forgetting the pronouncement of the Greek who said, "War is an evil inasmuch as it produces more wicked men than it takes away." So much for the measures nature takes to lead the human race, considered as a class of animals, to her own end.<br />Now we come to the question concerning that which is most essential in the design of perpetual peace: What has nature done with regard to this end which man's own reason makes his duty? That is, what has nature done to favor man's moral purpose, and how has she guaranteed (by compulsion but without prejudice to his freedom) that he shall do that which he ought to but does not do under the laws of freedom? This question refers to all three phases of public law, namely, civil law, the law of nations, and the law of world citizenship. If I say of nature that she wills that this or that occur, I do not mean that she imposes a duty on us to do it, for this can be done only by free practical reason; rather I mean that she herself does it, whether we will or not (fata volentem ducunt, nolentem trahunt ["Fates lead the willing, drive the unwilling" (Seneca Epist. mor. XVIII.)]<br />1. Even if a people were not forced by internal discord to submit to public laws, war would compel them to do so, for we have already seen that nature has placed each people near another which presses upon it, and against this it must form itself into a state in order to defend itself. Now the republican constitution is the only one entirely fitting to the rights of man. But it is the most difficult to establish and even harder to preserve, so that many say a republic would have to be a nation of angels, because men with their selfish inclinations are not capable of a constitution of such sublime form. But precisely with these inclinations nature comes to the aid of the general will established on reason, which is revered even though impotent in practice. Thus it is only a question of a good organization of the state (which does lie in man's power), whereby the powers of each selfish inclination are so arranged in opposition that one moderates or destroys the ruinous effect of the other. The consequence for reason is the same as if none of them existed, and man is forced to be a good citizen even if not a morally good person.<br />The problem of organizing a state, however hard it may seem, can be solved even for a race of devils, if only they are intelligent. The problem is: "Given a multitude of rational beings requiring universal laws for their preservation, but each of whom is secretly inclined to exempt himself from them, to establish a constitution in such a way that, although their private intentions conflict, they check each other, with the result that their public conduct is the same as if they had no such intentions."<br />A problem like this must be capable of solution; it does not require that we know how to attain the moral improvement of men but only that we should know the mechanism of nature in order to use it on men, organizing the conflict of the hostile intentions present in a people in such a way that they must compel themselves to submit to coercive laws. Thus a state of peace is established in which laws have force. We can see, even in actual states, which are far from perfectly organized, that in their foreign relations they approach that which the idea of right prescribes. This is so in spite of the fact that the intrinsic element of morality is certainly not the cause of it. (A good constitution is not to be expected from morality, but, conversely, a good moral condition of a people is to be expected only under a good constitution.) Instead of genuine morality, the mechanism of nature brings it to pass through selfish inclinations, which naturally conflict outwardly but which can be used by reason as a means for its own end, the sovereignty of law, and, as concerns the state, for promoting and securing internal and external peace.<br />This, then, is the truth of the matter: Nature inexorably wills that the right should finally triumph. What we neglect to do comes about by itself, though with great inconveniences to us. "If you bend the reed too much, you break it; and he who attempts too much attempts nothing" (Bouterwek).<br />2. The idea of international law presupposes the separate existence of many independent but neighboring states. Although this condition is itself a state of war (unless a federative union prevents the outbreak of hostilities), this is rationally preferable to the amalgamation of states under one superior power, as this would end in one universal monarchy, and laws always lose in vigor what government gains in extent; hence a soulless despotism falls into anarchy after stifling the seeds of the good. Nevertheless, every state, or its ruler, desires to establish lasting peace in this way, aspiring if possible to rule the whole world. But nature wills otherwise., She employs two means to separate peoples and to prevent them from mixing: differences of language and of religion.<a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/firstsup.htm#fn4#fn4">4</a> These differences involve a tendency to mutual hatred and pretexts for war, but the progress of civilization and men's gradual approach to- greater harmony in their principles finally leads to peaceful agreement. This is not like that peace which despotism (in the burial ground of freedom) produces through a weakening of all powers; it is, on the contrary, produced and maintained by their equilibrium in liveliest competition.<br />3. Just as nature wisely separates nations, which the will of every state, sanctioned by the principles of international law, would gladly unite by artifice or force, nations which could not have secured themselves against violence and war by means of the law of world citizenship unite because of mutual interest. The spirit of commerce, which is incompatible with war, sooner or later gains the upper hand in every state. As the power of money is perhaps the most dependable of all the powers (means) included under the state power, states see themselves forced, without any moral urge, to promote honorable peace and by mediation to prevent war wherever it threatens to break out. They do so exactly as if they stood in perpetual alliances, for great offensive alliances are in the nature of the case rare and even less often successful.<br />In this manner nature guarantees perpetual peace by the mechanism of human passions. Certainly she does not do so with sufficient certainty for us to predict the future in any theoretical sense, but adequately from a practical point of view, making it our duty to work toward this end, which is not just a chimerical one.<br /><br />FOOTNOTES TO THE FIRST SUPPLEMENT<br />1. In the mechanism of nature, to which man belongs as, a sensuous being, a form is exhibited which is basic to its existence; we can conceive of this form only as dependent upon the end to which the Author of the world has previously destined it. This predetermination we call "divine providence" generally, and so far as it is exercised at the beginning of the world we call it "founding providence" (Providentia conditrix; semel iussit, semper parent--Augustine).["Providence is a founder; once she orders, they always obey."] As maintaining nature in its course by universal laws of design, it is called "ruling providence" (providentia gubernatrix); as directing nature to ends not foreseen by man and only conjectured from the actual result, it is called "guiding providence" (providentia directrix). With respect to single events as divine ends, it is no longer called "providence" but "dispensation" (directio extraordinaria). But since "divine dispensation" indicates miracles, even if the events themselves are not called such, it is a foolish pretension of man to wish to interpret them as such, since it is absurd to infer from a single event to a particular principle of the efficient cause, namely, that this event is an end and not merely a mechanical corollary of another end wholly unknown to us. However pious and humble such talk may be, it is full of self conceit. The division of providence, considered not formally but materially, i.e., with respect to objects in the world to which it is directed, into either general or particular providence, is false and self-contradictory. (This division appears, for instance, in the statement that providence cares for the preservation of the species but leaves individuals to chance.) It is contradictory because it is called universal in its purpose, and therefore no single thing can be excluded from it. Presumably, therefore, a formal distinction is intended, according to the way in which providence seeks its ends. This is the distinction between the ordinary and the special ways of providence. (Under the former we may cite the annual dying-out and rebirth of nature with the changes of the season; under the latter, the transport of wood by ocean currents to arctic lands where it cannot grow, yet where it is needed by the inhabitants who could not live without it.) Although we can very well explain the physico-mechanical cause of these extraordinary cases (e.g., by reference to the wooded banks of rivers in temperate lands, the failing of trees into the rivers, and then their being carried along by the Gulf Stream), we must not overlook the teleological cause, which intimates the foresight of a wisdom commanding over nature.<br />The concept of intervention or concurrence (concursus) in producing an effect in the world of sense must be given up, though it is quite usual in the schools. For to try to pair the disparate (gryphes iungere equis [Griffins shall mate with mares."-An allusion to Virgil, Eclogue Vill.]), and to let that which is itself the perfect cause of events in the world supplement its own predetermining providence in the course of the world (which would therefore have to have been inadequate), is self-contradictory. We fall into this self-contradiction, for example, when we say that next to God it was the physician who cured the ill, as if God had been his helper. For causa solitaria non iuvat; God is the author of the physician and all his medicines, and if we insist on ascending to the highest but theoretically inconceivable first cause, the effect must- be ascribed entirely to Him. Or we can ascribe it entirely to the physician, so far as we consider the occurrence as explicable in a chain of causes under the order of nature.<br />But, besides being self-contradictory, such a mode of thought brings an end to all definite principles in judging an effect. In a morally practical point of view, however, which is directed exclusively to the supersensuous, the concept of the divine concursus is quite suitable and even necessary. We find this, for instance, in the belief that God will compensate for our own lack of justice, provided -our intention was genuine; that He will do so by means that are inconceivable to us, and that therefore we should not relent in our endeavor after the good. But it is self-evident that no one should try to explain a good action (as an event in the world) as a result of this concursus, for this would be a vain theoretical knowledge of the supersensuous and therefore absurd.<br />2. Among all modes of life there is undoubtedly none more opposed to a civilized constitution than that of hunting, because families which must dwell separately soon become strangers and, scattered in extensive forests, also enemies, since each needs a great deal of space for obtaining food and clothing. The Noachic ban on blood (Genesis 9:4-6) (which was imposed by the baptized Jews as a condition on the later Christians who were converted from heathenism, though in a different connection--see The Acts 15:20; 21:25) seems to have been originally nothing more than a prohibition against the hunting life, because here raw flesh must often have been eaten; when the latter was forbidden, so also was the former.<br />3. One could ask: If nature willed that these icy coasts should not remain uninhabited, what would become of the inhabitants if nature ever failed (as might be expected) to bring driftwood to them? For it is reasonable to believe that, in the progress of civilization, the occupants of the temperate zone would make better use of the wood along rivers than simply to let it fall into the water and be carried to the sea. I answer: If nature compels them to peace, the dwellers along the Ob, the Yenisei, or the Lena will bring it to them, exchanging it for animal products in which the sea around the Arctic coasts abounds.<br />4. Difference of religion--a singular expression! It is precisely as if one spoke of different moralities. There may very well be different kinds of historical faiths attached to different means employed in the promotion of religion, and they belong merely in the field of learned investigation. Similarly there may be different religious texts (Zendavesta, the Veda, the Koran, etc.), but such differences do not exist in religion, there being only one religion valid for all men and in all ages. These can, therefore, be nothing else than accidental vehicles of religion, thus changing with times and places.<br /><br />SECOND SUPPLEMENT<br />SECRET ARTICLE FOR PERPETUAL PEACE<br /><br />A secret article in contracts under public law is objectively, i.e., from the standpoint of its content, a contradiction. Subjectively, however, a secret clause can be present in them, because the persons who dictate it might find it compromising to their dignity to declare openly that they are its authors.<br />The only article of this kind is contained in the statement: "The opinions of philosophers on the conditions of the possibility of public peace shall be consulted by those states armed for war."<br />But it appears humiliating to the legislative authority of a state, to whom we must naturally attribute the utmost wisdom, to seek instruction from subjects (the philosophers) on principles of conduct toward other states. It is nevertheless very advisable to do so. Therefore, the state tacitly and secretly invites them to give their opinions, that is, the state will let them publicly and freely talk about the general maxims of warfare and of the establishment of peace (for they will do that of themselves, provided they are not forbidden to do so). It does not require a particular convention among states to see that this is done, since their agreement on this point lies in an obligation already established by universal human reason which is morally legislative.<br />I do not mean that the state should give the principles of philosophers any preference over the decisions of lawyers (the representatives of the state power); I only ask that they be given a hearing. The lawyer, who has made not only the scales of right but also the sword of justice his symbol, generally uses the latter not merely to keep back all foreign influences from the former, but, if the scale does not sink the way he wishes, he also throws the sword into it (vae victis), a practice to which he often has the greatest temptation because he is not also a philosopher, even in morality. His office is only to apply positive laws, not to inquire whether they might not need improvement. The administrative function, which is the lower one in his faculty, he counts as the higher because it is invested with power (as is the case also with the other faculties). The philosophical faculty occupies a very low rank against this allied power. Thus it is said of philosophy, for example, that she is the handmaiden to theology, and the other faculties claim as much. But one does not see distinctly whether she precedes her mistress with a flambeau or follows bearing her train.<br />That kings should philosophize or philosophers become kings is not to be expected. Nor is it to be wished, since the possession of power inevitably corrupts the untrammeled judgment of reason. But kings or kinglike peoples which rule themselves under laws of equality should not suffer the class of philosophers to disappear or to be silent, but should let them speak openly. This is indispensable to the enlightenment of the business of government, and, since the class of philosophers is by nature incapable of plotting and lobbying, it is above suspicion of being made up of propagandists.<br /><br />APPENDIX I<br />ON THE OPPOSITION BETWEEN MORALITY AND POLITICS WITH RESPECT TO PERPETUAL PEACE<br /><br />Taken objectively, morality is in itself practical, being the totality of unconditionally mandatory laws according to which we ought to act. It would obviously be absurd, after granting authority to the concept of duty, to pretend that we cannot do our duty, for in that case this concept would itself drop out of morality (ultra posse nemo obligatur). Consequently, there can be no conflict of politics, as a practical doctrine of right, with ethics, as a theoretical doctrine of right. That is to say, there is no conflict of practice with theory, unless by ethics we mean a general doctrine of prudence, which would be the same as a theory of the maxims for choosing the most fitting means to accomplish the purposes of self-interest. But to give this meaning to ethics is equivalent to denying that there is any such thing at all.<br />Politics says, "Be ye wise as serpents"; morality adds, as a limiting condition, "and guileless as doves." If these two injunctions are incompatible in a single command, then politics and morality are really in conflict; but if these two qualities ought always to be united, the thought of contrariety is absurd, and the question as to how the conflict between morals and politics is to be resolved cannot even be posed as a problem. Although the proposition, "Honesty is the best policy," implies a theory which practice unfortunately often refutes, the equally theoretical "Honesty is better than any policy" is beyond refutation and is indeed the indispensable condition of policy.<br />The tutelary divinity of morality yields not to Jupiter, for this tutelary divinity of force still is subject to destiny. That is, reason is not yet sufficiently enlightened to survey the entire series of predetermining causes, and such vision would be necessary for one to be able to foresee with certainty the happy or unhappy effects which follow human actions by the mechanism of nature (though we know enough to have hope that they will accord with our wishes). But what we have to do in order to remain in the path of duty (according to rules of wisdom) reason instructs us by her rules, and her teaching suffices for attaining the ultimate end.<br />Now the practical man, to whom morality is mere theory even though he concedes that it can and should be followed, ruthlessly renounces our fond hope [that it will be followed]. He does so because he pretends to have seen in advance that man, by his nature, will never will what is required for realizing the goal of perpetual peace. Certainly the will of each individual to live under a juridical constitution according to principles of freedom (i.e., the distributive unity of the will of all) is not sufficient to this end. That all together should will this condition (i.e., the collective unity of the united will)--the solution to this troublous problem--is also required. Thus a whole of civil society is formed. But since a uniting cause must supervene upon the variety of particular volitions in order to produce a common will from them, establishing this whole is something no one individual in the group can perform; hence in the practical execution of this idea we can count on nothing but force to establish the juridical condition, on the compulsion of which public law will later be established. We can scarcely hope to find in the legislator a moral intention sufficient to induce him to commit to the general will the establishment of a legal constitution after he has formed the nation from a horde of savages; therefore, we cannot but expect (in practice) to find in execution wide deviations from this idea (in theory).<br />It will then be said that he who once has power in his hands will not allow the people to prescribe laws for him; a state which once is able to stand under no external laws will not submit to the decision of other states how it should seek its rights against them; and one continent, which feels itself superior to another, even though the other does not interfere with it, will not neglect to increase its power by robbery or even conquest. Thus all theoretical plans of civil and international laws and laws of world citizenship vanish into empty and impractical ideas, while practice based on empirical principles of human nature, not blushing to draw its maxims from the usages of the world, can alone hope to find a sure ground for its political edifice.<br />If there is no freedom and no morality based on freedom, and everything which occurs or can occur happens by the mere mechanism of nature certainly politics (which is the art of using this mechanism for ruling men) is the whole of practical wisdom, and the concept of right is an empty thought. But if we find it necessary to connect the latter with politics, and even to raise it to a limiting condition thereon, the possibility of their being united must be conceded. I can easily conceive of a moral politician, i.e., one who so chooses political principles that they are consistent with those of morality; but I cannot conceive of a political moralist, one who forges a morality in such a way that it conforms to the statesman's advantage.<br />When a remediable defect is found in the constitution of the state or in its relations to others, the principle of the moral politician will be that it is a duty, especially of the rulers of the state, to inquire how it can be remedied as soon as possible in a way conforming to natural law as a model presented by reason; this he will do even if it costs self-sacrifice. But it would be absurd to demand that every defect be immediately and impetuously changed, since the disruption of the bonds of a civil society or a union of world citizens before a better constitution is ready to take its place is against all politics agreeing with morality. But it can be demanded that at least the maxim of the necessity of such a change should be taken to heart by those in power, so that they may continuously approach the goal of the constitution that is best under laws of right. A state may exercise a republican rule, even though by its present constitution it has a despotic sovereignty, until gradually the people becomes susceptible to the influence simply of the idea of the authority of law (as if it possessed physical power) and thus is found fit to be its own legislator (as its own legislation is originally established on law). If a violent revolution, engendered by a bad constitution, introduces by illegal means a more legal constitution, to lead the people back to the earlier constitution would not be permitted; but, while the revolution lasted, each person who openly or covertly shared in it would have justly incurred the punishment due to those who rebel. As to the external relations of states, a state cannot be expected to renounce its constitution even though it is a despotic one (which has the advantage of being stronger in relation to foreign enemies) so long as it is exposed to the danger of being swallowed up by other states. Thus even in the case of the intention to improve the constitution, postponement to a more propitious time may be permitted.<a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/append1.htm#fn1#fn1">1</a><br />It may be that despotizing moralists, in practice blundering, often violate rules of political prudence through measures they adopt or propose too precipitately; but experience will gradually retrieve them from their infringement of nature and lead them on to a better course. But the moralizing politician, by glossing over principles of politics which are opposed to the right with the pretext that human nature is not capable of the good as reason prescribes it, only makes reform impossible and perpetuates the violation of law.<br />Instead of possessing the practical science they boast of, these politicians have only practices; they flatter the power which is then ruling so as not to be remiss in their private advantage, and they sacrifice the nation and, possibly, the whole world. This is the way of all professional lawyers (not legislators) when they go into politics. Their task is not to reason too nicely about the legislation but to execute the momentary commands on the statute books; consequently, the legal constitution in force at any time is to them the best, but when it is amended from above, this amendment always seems best, too. Thus everything is preserved in its accustomed mechanical order. Their adroitness in fitting into all -circumstances gives them the illusion of being able to judge constitutional principles according to concepts of right (not empirically, but a priori). They make a great show of understanding men (which is certainly something to be expected of them, since they have to deal with so many) without understanding man and what can be made of him, for they lack the higher point of view of anthropological observation which is needed for this. If with these ideas they go into civil and international law, as reason prescribes it, they take this step in a spirit of chicanery, for they still follow their accustomed mechanical routine of despotically imposed coercive laws in a field where only concepts of reason can establish a legal compulsion according to the principles of freedom, under which alone a just and durable constitution is possible. In this field the pretended practical man thinks he can solve the problem of establishing such a constitution without the rational idea but solely from the experience he has had with what was previously the most lasting constitutions constitution which in many cases was opposed to the right.<br />The maxims which he makes use of (though he does not divulge them) are, roughly speaking, the following sophisms:<br />1. Fac et excusa. Seize every favorable opportunity for usurping the right of the state over its own people or over a neighboring people; the justification will be easier and more elegant ex post facto, and the power can be more easily glossed over, especially when the supreme power in the state is also the legislative authority which must be obeyed without argument. It is much more difficult to do the violence when one has first to wait upon the consideration of convincing arguments and to meet them with counterarguments. Boldness itself gives the appearance of inner conviction of the legitimacy of the deed, and the god of success is afterward the best advocate.<br />2. Si fecisti, nega. What you have committed, deny that it was your fault--for instance, that you have brought your people to despair and hence to rebellion. Rather assert that it was due to the obstinacy of your subjects; or, if you have conquered a neighboring nation, say that the fault lies in the nature of man, who, if not met by force, can be counted on to make use of it to conquer you.<br />3. Divide et impera. That is, if there are certain privileged persons in your nation who have chosen you as their chief (primus inter pares), set them at variance with one another and embroil them with the people. Show the latter visions of greater freedom, and all will soon depend on your untrammeled will. Or if it is foreign states that concern you, it is a pretty safe means to sow discord among them so that, by seeming to protect the weaker, you can conquer them one after another.<br />Certainly no one is now the dupe of these political maxims, for they are already universally known. Nor are they blushed at, as if their injustice were too glaring, for great powers blush only at the judgment of other great powers but not at that of the common masses. it is not that they are ashamed of revealing such principles (for all of them are in the same boat with respect to the morality of their maxims); they are ashamed only when these maxims fail, for they still have political honor which cannot be disputed--and this honor is the aggrandizement of their power by whatever means.<a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/append1.htm#fn2#fn2">2</a><br />All these twistings and turnings of an immoral doctrine of prudence in leading men from their natural state of war to a state of peace prove at least that men in both their private and their public relationships cannot reject the concept of right or trust themselves openly to establish politics merely on the artifices of prudence. Thus they do not refuse obedience to the concept of public law, which is especially manifest in international law; on the contrary, they give all due honor to it, even when they are inventing a hundred pretenses and subterfuges to escape from it in practice, imputing its authority, as the source and union of all laws, to crafty force.<br />Let us put an end to this sophism, if not to the injustice it protects, and force the false representatives of power to confess that they do not plead in favor of the right but in favor of might. This is revealed in the imperious tone they assume as if they themselves could command the right. Let us remove the delusion by which they and others are duped, and discover the supreme principle from which the intention to perpetual peace stems. Let us show that everything evil which stands in its way derives from the fact that the political moralist begins where the moral politician would correctly leave off, and that, since he thus subordinates principles to the end (putting the cart before the horse), he vitiates his own purpose of bringing politics into agreement with morality.<br />To make practical philosophy self-consistent, it is necessary, first, to decide the question: In problems of practical reason, must we begin from its material principles, i.e., the end as the object of choice? Or should we begin from the formal principles of pure reason, i.e., from the principle which is concerned solely with freedom in outer relations and which reads, "So act that you can will that your maxim could become a universal law, regardless of the end"?<br />Without doubt it is the latter which has precedence, for as a principle of law it has unconditional necessity. On the other hand, the former is obligatory only if we presuppose the empirical conditions of the proposed end, i.e., its practicability. Thus if this end (in this case, perpetual peace) is a duty, it must be derived from the formal principle of the maxims of external actions. The first principle, that of the political moralist, pertaining to civil and international law and the law of world citizenship, is merely a problem of technique (problema technicum); the second, as the problem of the moral politician to whom it is an ethical problem (problema morale), is far removed from the other in its method of leading toward perpetual peace, which is wished not merely as a material good but also as a condition issuing from an acknowledgment of duty.<br />For the solution of the former, the problem of political prudence, much knowledge of nature is required so that its mechanism may be employed toward the desired end; yet all this is uncertain in its results for perpetual peace, with whatever sphere of public law we,are concerned. It is uncertain, for example, whether the people are better kept in obedience and maintained in prosperity by severity or by the charm of distinctions which flatter their vanity, by the power of one or the union of various chiefs, or perhaps merely by a serving nobility or by the power of the people. History furnishes us with contradictory examples from all governments (with the exception of the truly republican, which can alone appeal to the mind of a moral politician). Still more uncertain is an international law allegedly erected on the statutes of ministries. It is, in fact, a word without meaning, resting as it does on compacts which, in the very act of being concluded, contain secret reservations for their violation.<br />On the other hand, the solution of the second problem, that of political wisdom, presses itself upon us, as it were; it is clear to everyone and puts to shame all affectation. It leads directly to the end, but, remembering discretion, it does not precipitately hasten to do so by force; rather, it continuously approaches it under the conditions offered by favorable circumstances.<br />Then it may be said, "Seek ye first the kingdom of pure practical reason and its righteousness, and your end (the blessing of perpetual peace) will necessarily follow." For it is the peculiarity of morals, especially with respect to its principles of public law and hence in relation to a politics known a priori, that the less it makes conduct depend on the proposed end, i.e., the intended material or moral advantage, the more it agrees with it in general. This is because it is the universal will given a priori (in a nation or in the relations among different nations) which determines the law among men, and if practice consistently follows it, this will can also, by the mechanism of nature, cause the desired result and make the concept of law effective. So, for instance, it is a principle of moral politics that a people should unite into a state according to juridical concepts of freedom and equality, and this principle is based not on prudence but on duty. Political moralists may argue as much as they wish about the natural mechanism of a mass of men forming a society, assuming a mechanism which would weaken those principles and vitiate their end; or they may seek to prove their assertions by examples of poorly organized constitutions of ancient and modern times (for instance, of democracies without representative systems). They deserve no hearing, particularly as such a pernicious theory may itself occasion the evil which it prophesies, throwing human beings into one class with all other living machines, differing from them only in their consciousness that they are not free, which makes them, in their own judgment, the most miserable of all beings in the world.<br />The true but somewhat boastful sentence which has become proverbial, Fiat iustitia, pereat mundus ("Let justice reign even if all the rascals in the world should perish from it"), is a stout principle of right which cuts asunder the whole tissue of artifice or force. But it should not be misunderstood as a permission to use one's own right with extreme rigor (which would conflict with ethical duty); it should be understood as the obligation of those in power not to limit or to extend anyone's right through sympathy or disfavor. This requires, first, an internal constitution of the state erected on pure principles of right, and, second, a convention of the state with other near or distant states (analogous to a universal state) for the legal settlement of their differences. This implies only that political maxims must not be derived from the welfare or happiness which a single state expects from obedience to them, and thus not from the end which one of them proposes for itself. That is, they must not be deduced from volition as the supreme yet empirical principle of political wisdom, but rather from the pure concept of the duty of right, from the ought whose principle is given a priori by pure reason, regardless of what the physical consequences may be. The world will by no means perish by a diminution in the number of evil men. Moral evil has the indiscerptible property of being opposed to and destructive of its own purposes (especially in the relationships between evil men); thus it gives place to the moral principle of the good, though only through a slow progress.<br />Thus objectively, or in theory, there is no conflict between morals and politics. Subjectively, however, in the selfish propensity of men (which should not be called "practice," as this would imply that it rested on rational maxims), this conflict will always remain. Indeed, it should remain, because it serves as a whetstone of virtue, whose true courage (by the principle, tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito [Yield not to evil, but go against the stronger" (Aeneid VI. 95).]) in the present case does not so much consist in defying with strong resolve evils and sacrifices which must be undertaken along with the conflict, but rather in detecting and conquering the crafty and far more dangerously deceitful and treasonable principle of evil in ourselves, which puts forward the weakness of human nature as justification for every transgression.<br />In fact, the political moralist may say: The ruler and people, or nation and nation, do each other no injustice when by violence or fraud they make war on each other, although they do commit injustice in general in that they refuse to respect the concept of right, which alone could establish perpetual peace. For since the one does transgress his duty against the other, who is likewise lawlessly disposed toward him, each gets what he deserves when they destroy each other. But enough of the race still remains to let this game continue into the remotest ages in order that posterity, some day, might take these perpetrators as a warning example. Hence providence is justified in the history of the world, for the moral principle in man is never extinguished, while with advancing civilization reason grows pragmatically in its capacity to realize ideas of law. But at the same time the culpability for the transgressions also grows. If we assume that humanity never will or can be improved, the only thing which a theodicy seems unable to justify is creation itself, the fact that a race of such corrupt beings ever was on earth. But the point of view necessary for such an assumption is far too high for us, and we cannot theoretically support our philosophical concepts of the supreme power which is inscrutable to us.<br />To such dubious consequences we are inevitably driven if we do not assume that pure principles of right have objective reality, i.e., that they may be applied, and that the people in a state and, further, states themselves in their mutual relations should act according to them, whatever objections empirical politics may raise. Thus true politics can never take a step without rendering homage to morality. Though politics by itself is a difficult art, its union with morality is no art at all, for this union cuts the knot which politics could not untie when they were in conflict. The rights of men must be held sacred, however much sacrifice it may cost the ruling power. One cannot compromise here and seek the middle course of a pragmatic conditional law between the morally right and the expedient. All politics must bend its knee before the right. But by this it can hope slowly to reach the stage where it will shine with an immortal glory.<br /><br />FOOTNOTES TO APPENDIX I<br />1. These are permissive laws of reason. Public law laden with injustice must be allowed to stand, either until everything is of itself ripe for complete reform or until this maturity has been brought about by peaceable means; for a legal constitution, even though it be right to only a low degree, is better than none at all, the anarchic condition which would result from precipitate reform. Political wisdom, therefore, will make it a duty to introduce reforms which accord with the ideal of public law. But even when nature herself produces revolutions, political wisdom will not employ them to legitimize still greater oppression. On the contrary, it will use them as a call of nature for fundamental reforms to produce a lawful constitution founded upon principles of freedom, for only such a constitution is durable.<br />2. Even if we doubt a certain wickedness in the nature of men who live together in a state, and instead plausibly cite lack of civilization, which is not yet sufficiently advanced, i.e., regard barbarism as the cause of those antilawful manifestations of their character, this viciousness is clearly and incontestably shown in the foreign relations of states. Within each state it is veiled by the compulsion of civil laws, because the inclination to violence between the citizens is fettered by the stronger power of the government. This relationship not only gives a moral veneer (causae non causae) to the whole but actually facilitates the development of the moral disposition to a direct respect for the law by placing a barrier against the outbreak of unlawful inclinations. Each person believes that he himself would hold the concept of law sacred and faithfully follow it provided he were sure that he could expect the same from others, and the government does in part assure him of this. Thereby a great step (though not yet a moral step) is taken toward morality, which is attachment to this concept of duty for its own sake and without regard to hope of a similar response from others. But since each one with his own good opinion of himself presupposes a malicious disposition on the part of all the others, they all pronounce the judgment that they in fact are all worth very little. We shall not discuss how this comes about, though it cannot be blamed on the nature of man as a free being. But since even respect for the concept of right (which man cannot absolutely refuse to respect) solemnly sanctions the theory that he has the capacity of conforming to it, everyone sees that he, for his part, must act according to it, however others may act.<br /><br />APPENDIX II<br />OF THE HARMONY WHICH THE TRANSCENDENTAL CONCEPT OF PUBLIC RIGHT ESTABLISHES BETWEEN MORALITY AND POLITICS<br /><br />If, like the teacher of law, I abstract from all the material of public law (i.e., abstract from the various empirically given relationships of men in the state or of states to each other), there remains only the form of publicity, the possibility of which is implied by every legal claim, since without it there can be no justice (which can only be conceived as publicly known) and thus no right, since it can be conferred only in accordance with justice. Every legal claim must be capable of publicity. Since it is easy to judge whether it is so in a particular case, i.e., whether it can be compatible with the principles of the agent, this gives an easily applied criterion found a priori in reason, by which the falsity (opposition to law) of the pretended claim (praetensio iuris) can, as it were, be immediately known by an experiment of pure reason.<br />Having set aside everything empirical in the concept of civil or international law (such as the wickedness in human nature which necessitates coercion), we can call the following proposition the transcendental formula of public law: "All actions relating to the right of other men are unjust if their maxim is not consistent with publicity."<br />This principle is to be regarded not merely as ethical (as belonging to the doctrine of virtue) but also as juridical (concerning the right of man). A maxim which I cannot divulge without defeating my own purpose must be kept secret if it is to succeed; and, if I cannot publicly avow it Without inevitably exciting universal opposition to my project, the necessary and universal opposition which can be foreseen a priori is due only to the injustice with which the maxim threatens everyone. This principle is, furthermore, only negative, i.e., it only serves for the recognition of what is not just to others. Like an axiom, it is indemonstrably certain and, as will be seen in the following examples of public law, easily applied.<br />1. In the law of the state (ius civitatis) or domestic law, there is a question which many hold to be difficult to answer, yet it is easily solved by the transcendental principle of publicity. The question is: "Is rebellion a legitimate means for a people to employ in throwing off the yoke of an alleged tyrant (non titulo, sed exercitio talis)?" The rights of the people are injured; no injustice befalls the tyrant when he is deposed. There can be no doubt on this point. Nevertheless, it is in the highest degree illegitimate for the subjects to seek their rights in this way. If they fail in the struggle and are then subjected to severest punishment, they cannot complain about injustice any more than the tyrant could if they had succeeded.<br />If one wishes to decide this question by a dogmatic deduction of legal grounds, there can be much arguing pro and con; only the transcendental principle of the publicity of public law can free us of this prolixity. According to this principle, a people would ask itself before the establishment of the civil contract whether it dare publish the maxim of its intention to revolt on occasion. It is clear that if, in the establishment of a constitution, the condition is made that the people may in certain cases employ force against its chief, the people would have to pretend to a legitimate power over him, and then he would not be the chief. Or if both are made the condition of the establishment of the state, no state would be possible, though to establish it was the purpose of the people. The illegitimacy of rebellion is thus clear from the fact that its maxim, if openly acknowledged, would make its own purpose impossible. Therefore, it would have to be kept secret.<br />This secrecy, however, is not incumbent upon the chief of the state. He can openly say that he will punish every rebellion with the death of the ringleaders, however much they may believe that he was the first to overstep the basic law; for when he knows he possesses irresistible power (which must be assumed to be the case in every civil constitution, because he who does not have enough power to protect the people against every other also does not have the right to command them), he need not fear vitiating his own purpose by publishing his maxims. If the revolt of the people succeeds, what has been said is still quite compatible with the fact that the chief, on retiring to the status of a subject, cannot begin a revolt for his restoration but need not fear being made to account for his earlier administration of the state.<br />2. We can speak of international law only under the presupposition of some law-governed condition, i.e., of the external condition under which right can really be awarded to man. For, being a public law, it contains in its very concept the public announcement of a general will which assigns to each his rights, and this status iuridicus must result from some compact which is not founded on laws of compulsion 'as in the case of the compact from which a single state arises). Rather, it must be founded on a free and enduring association, like the previously mentioned federation of states. For without there being some juridical condition, which actively binds together the different physical or moral persons, there can be only private law; this is the situation met with in the state of nature. Now here there is a conflict of politics with morality (regarding the latter as a science of right), and the criterion of publicity again finds an easy application in resolving it, though only if the compact between the states has been made with the purpose of preserving peace between them and other states, and not for conquest. The following cases of the antinomy between politics and morality occur (and they are stated with their solution).<br />a) "If one of these states has promised something to the other, such as aid, cession of some province, subsidies, and the like, and a case arises where the salvation of the state depends upon its being relieved of its promise, can it then consider itself in two roles: first as a sovereign (as it is responsible to no one in the state), and second as merely the highest official (who must give an account to the state)? From this dual capacity it would follow that in its latter role the state can relieve itself of what it has obliged itself to do in its former role." But if a state (or its chief) publicizes this maxim, others would naturally avoid entering an alliance with it, or ally themselves with others so as to resist such pretensions. This proves that politics with all its cunning would defeat its purpose by candor; therefore, that maxim must be illegitimate.<br />b) "If a neighboring power becomes formidable by its acquisitions (potentia tremenda), and thus causes anxiety, can one assume because it can oppress that it will? And does this give the lesser power, in union with others, a right to attack it without having.first been injured by it?" A state which made known that such was its maxim would produce the feared evil even more certainly and quickly, for the greater power would steal a march on the smaller. And the alliance of the smaller powers would be only a feeble reed against one who knew how to apply the maxim divide et impera. This maxim of political expediency, if made public, would necessarily defeat its own purpose, and hence it is illegitimate.<br />c) "If a smaller state is so situated as to break up the territory of a larger one, and continuous territory is necessary to the preservation of the larger, is the latter not justified in subjugating the smaller and incorporating it?" We easily see that the greater power cannot afford to let this maxim become known; otherwise the smaller states would very early unite, or other powers would dispute the prey, and thus publicity would render this maxim impracticable. This is a sign that it is illegitimate. It may be unjust to a very high degree, for a small object of injustice does not prevent the injustice from being very great.<br />3. I say nothing about the law of world citizenship, for its analogy with international law makes it a very simple matter to state and evaluate its maxims.<br />Thus in the principle of incompatibility between the maxims of international law and publicity we have a good distinguishing mark for recognizing the nonconformity of politics to morality (as a, science of right). Now we need to know the condition under which these maxims, agree with the law of nations, for we cannot infer conversely that the maxims which bear publicity are therefore just, since no one who has decidedly superior power needs to conceal his plans. The condition of the possibility of international law in general is this: a juridical condition must first exist. For without this there is no public law, since all law which one may think of outside of this, in the state of nature, is merely private law. We have seen that a federation of states which has for its sole purpose the maintenance of peace is the only juridical condition compatible with the freedom of the several states. Therefore the harmony of politics with morals is possible only in a federative alliance, and the latter is necessary and given a priori by the principle of right. Furthermore, all politics has for its juridical basis the establishment of this harmony to its greatest possible extent, and without this end all its sophisms are but folly and veiled injustice. This false politics outdoes the best Jesuit school in casuistry. It has reservatio mentalis, wording public compacts with such expressions as can on occasion be interpreted to one's own advantage (for example, it makes the distinction between status quo de fait and de droit). It has probabilism, attributing hostile intentions to others, or even making probabilities of their possible superior power into legal grounds for destroying other, peaceful states. Finally, it has the peccatum philosophicum (peccatillum, bagatelle), holding it to be only a trifle when a small state is swallowed up in order that a much larger one may thereby approach more nearly to an alleged greater good for the world as a whole. <a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant6.htm#fn1#fn1">1</a><br />The duplicity of politics in respect to morality, in using first one branch of it and then the other for its purposes, furthers these sophistic maxims. These branches are philanthropy and respect for the rights of men; and both are duty. The former is a conditional duty, while the latter is an unconditional and absolutely mandatory duty. One who wishes to give himself up to the sweet feeling of benevolence must make sure that he has not transgressed this absolute duty. Politics readily agrees with morality in its first branch (as ethics) in order to surrender the rights of men to their superiors. But with morality in the second branch (as a science of right), to which it must bend its knee, politics finds it advisable not to have any dealings, and rather denies it all reality, preferring to educe all duties to mere benevolence. This artifice of a secretive politics would soon be unmasked by philosophy through publication of its maxims, if they only dared to allow the philosopher to publish his maxims.<br />In this regard I propose another affirmative and transcendental principle of public law, the formula of which is:<br />"All maxims which stand in need of publicity in order not to fail their end, agree with politics and right combined."<br />For if they can attain their end only through publicity, they must accord with the public's universal end, happiness; and the proper task of politics is,to promote this, i.e., to make the public satisfied with its condition. If, however, this end is attainable only by means of publicity, i.e., by removing all distrust in the maxims of politics, the latter must conform to the rights of the public, for only in this is the union of the goals of all possible.<br />The further development and discussion of this principle I must postpone to another occasion. But that it is a transcendental formula is to be seen from the exclusion of all empirical conditions (of the doctrine of happiness) as material of the law, and from the reference it makes to the form of universal lawfulness.<br />If it is a duty to make real (even if only through approximation in endless progress) the state of public law, and if there is well-grounded hope that this can actually be done, then perpetual peace, as the condition that will follow what has erroneously been called "treaties of peace" (but which in reality are only armistices), is not an empty idea. As the times required for equal steps of progress become, we hope, shorter and shorter, perpetual peace is a problem which, gradually working out its own solution, steadily approaches its goal.<br /><br />FOOTNOTES TO APPENDIX II<br />1. The precedents for such maxims may be seen in Counselor Garve's treatise, On the Union of Morality with Politics (1788). This worthy scholar admits in the beginning that he is not able to solve the problem completely. But to approve of this union while admitting that one cannot meet all objections which may be raised against it seems to show more tolerance than is,,advisable toward those who are inclined to abuse it.coordinatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01483215435633115889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001519995842436212.post-19639875261524996742009-05-06T13:33:00.005+02:002009-05-06T14:22:04.800+02:00Dante and World Government<div align="center"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPDNNx59p6JHaJeiXmQaiEeyGM_iBn4Qr0QXCcBJE0r2UQintJfnIcomt4oQIgAioYmVufEYuvSDJldVK7ibKQ0pCZ7liNcX5nCVua1-PAPVaFRZMuhmyZAt_v8UqE9DMLTb-Ie9D9x14o/s1600-h/dante.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5332684783381373298" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 140px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPDNNx59p6JHaJeiXmQaiEeyGM_iBn4Qr0QXCcBJE0r2UQintJfnIcomt4oQIgAioYmVufEYuvSDJldVK7ibKQ0pCZ7liNcX5nCVua1-PAPVaFRZMuhmyZAt_v8UqE9DMLTb-Ie9D9x14o/s200/dante.jpg" border="0" /></a> <strong><em>De Monarchia</em></strong><br /></div><div align="center">by Dante Alighieri</div><br /><br /><div align="center">1308</div><br /><br /><p><br />Copyright information: The text is in the public domain.<br /><br /><a name="a_3341591"></a>THE MONARCHY BY DANTE ALIGHIERI<br /><br />BOOK I<br /><a name="a_3341659"></a>WHETHER TEMPORAL MONARCHY IS NECESSARY FOR THE WELL-BEING OF THE WORLD<br /><br />CHAPTER I<br /><br /><a name="a_3341661"></a>Introduction.<br />1.All men on whom the Higher Nature<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt023"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt023#lf1477_footnote_nt023">1</a> has stamped the love of truth should especially concern themselves in laboring for posterity, in order that future generations may be enriched by their efforts, as they themselves were made rich by the efforts of generations past. For that man who is imbued with public teachings, but cares not to contribute something to the public good, is far in arrears of his duty, let him be assured; he is, indeed, not “a tree planted by the rivers of water that bringeth forth his fruit in his season,”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt024"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt024#lf1477_footnote_nt024">2</a> but rather a destructive whirlpool, always engulfing, and never giving back what it has devoured. Often meditating with myself upon these things, lest I should some day be found guilty of the charge of the buried talent,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt025"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt025#lf1477_footnote_nt025">3</a> I desire for the public weal, not only to burgeon, but to bear fruit,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt026"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt026#lf1477_footnote_nt026">4</a> and to establish truths unattempted by others. For he who should demonstrate again a theorem of Euclid, who should attempt after Aristotle to set forth anew the nature of happiness, who should undertake after Cicero to defend old age a second time—what fruit would such a one yield? None, forsooth; his tedious superfluousness would merely occasion disgust.<br /><a name="a_3341663"></a>2. Now, inasmuch as among other abstruse and important truths, knowledge of temporal Monarchy is most important and most obscure, and inasmuch as the subject has been shunned by all because it has no direct relation to gain, therefore my purpose is to bring it out from its hiding-place, that I may both keep watch for the good of the world, and be the first to win the palm of so great a prize for my own glory.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt027"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt027#lf1477_footnote_nt027">5</a> Verily, I undertake a difficult task and one beyond my powers, but my trust is not so much in my own worth as in the light of the Giver “that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt028"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt028#lf1477_footnote_nt028">6</a><br /><br />CHAPTER II<br /><a name="a_3341665"></a>To what end does government exist among all men?<br /><a name="a_3341666"></a>1. First, we must ascertain what temporal Monarchy is in its idea, as I may say, and in its purpose. Temporal Monarchy, called also the Empire, we define as a single Principality extending over all peoples in time, or in those things and over those things which are measured by time.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt029"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt029#lf1477_footnote_nt029">1</a> Concerning it three main questions arise. First, we may ask and seek to prove whether it is necessary for the well-being of the world; secondly, whether the Roman people rightfully appropriated the office of Monarchy; and thirdly, whether the authority of Monarchy derives from God directly, or from another, a minister or vicar of God.<br /><a name="a_3341667"></a>2. But as every truth which is not a first principle is manifested by the truth of some first principle, it is necessary in every investigation to know the first principle to which we may return, in analysis, for the proof of all propositions which are subsequently assumed. And as the present treatise is an investigation, we must before all else search out a basic principle, on the validity of which will depend whatever follows.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt030"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt030#lf1477_footnote_nt030">2</a> Be it known, therefore, that certain things exist which are not at all subject to our control, and which we can merely speculate upon, but cannot cause to be or to do: such are mathematics, physics, and divinity. On the other hand, certain things exist which are subject to our control, and which are matter not only for speculation, but for execution.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt031"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt031#lf1477_footnote_nt031">3</a> In these things the action is not performed for the sake of the speculation, but the latter for the sake of the former, because in them action is the end. Since the matter under consideration is governmental,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt032"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt032#lf1477_footnote_nt032">4</a> nay, is the very source and first principle of right governments, and since everything governmental is subject to our control, it is clear that our present theme is primarily adapted for action rather than for speculation. Again, since the first principle and cause of all actions is their ultimate end,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt033"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt033#lf1477_footnote_nt033">5</a> and since the ultimate end first puts the agent in motion, it follows that the entire procedure of the means toward an end must derive from the end itself. For the manner of cutting wood to build a house will be other than that of cutting wood to build a ship. So if there exists an end for universal government among men, that end will be the basic principle through which all things to be proved hereafter may be demonstrated satisfactorily. But to believe that there is an end for this government and for that government, and that there is no single end common to all, would indeed be irrational.<br /><br />CHAPTER III<br /><a name="a_3341669"></a>To actualize the whole capacity of the possible intellect in speculation and action.<br /><a name="a_3341670"></a>1. We must now determine what is the end of human society as a whole, and having determined that, we shall have accomplished more than half of our labor, according to the Philosopher in his writings to Nicomachus.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt034"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt034#lf1477_footnote_nt034">1</a> In order to discern the point in question more clearly, observe that as Nature fashions the thumb for one purpose, the whole hand for another, then the arm for a purpose differing from both, and the entire man for one differing from all, so she creates for one end the individual, for another the family, for another the village, for still another end the city, for another the kingdom, and finally for an ultimate end, by means of His art which is Nature, the Eternal God brings into being the human race in its totality. And this last is what we are in search of as the directive first principle of our investigation.<br /><a name="a_3341671"></a>2. In beginning, then, let it be recognized that God and Nature make<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt035"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt035#lf1477_footnote_nt035">2</a> nothing in vain; but that whatever comes into being comes with a definite function. For, according to the intention of the creator, as creator, the ultimate end of a created being is not the being itself but its proper function.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt036"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt036#lf1477_footnote_nt036">3</a> Wherefore a proper function exists not for the sake of the being, but contrariwise. There is, then, some distinct function for which humanity as a whole is ordained, a function which neither an individual nor a household, neither a village, nor a city, nor a particular kingdom, has power to perform.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt037"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt037#lf1477_footnote_nt037">4</a> What this function is will be evident if we point out the distinctive capacity of humanity as a whole. I say, therefore, that no faculty shared by many things diverse in species is the differentiating characteristic of any one of them. For since the differentiating characteristic determines species, it would follow that one essence would be specific to many species, which is impossible. So the differentiating characteristic in man is not simple existence, for that is shared by the elements;<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt038"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt038#lf1477_footnote_nt038">5</a> nor existence in combination, for that is met with in minerals;<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt039"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt039#lf1477_footnote_nt039">6</a> nor existence animate, for that is found in plants;<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt040"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt040#lf1477_footnote_nt040">7</a> nor existence intelligent, for that is participated in by the brutes;<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt041"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt041#lf1477_footnote_nt041">8</a> but the characteristic competent to man alone, and to none other above or below him, is existence intelligent through the possible intellect.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt042"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt042#lf1477_footnote_nt042">9</a> Although other beings possess intellect, it is not intellect distinguished by potentiality, as is man’s. Such beings are intelligent species in a limited sense, and their existence is no other than the uninterrupted act of understanding;<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt043"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt043#lf1477_footnote_nt043">10</a> they would otherwise not be eternal. It is evident, therefore, that the differentiating characteristic of humanity is a distinctive capacity or power of intellect.<br /><a name="a_3341672"></a>3. And since this capacity as a whole cannot be reduced to action at one time through one man, or through any one of the societies discriminated above, multiplicity is necessary in the human race in order to actualize its capacity in entirety. Likewise multiplicity is necessary in creatable things in order to exercise continually the capacity of primal matter. Were it not so, we should be granting the existence of unactualized potentiality, which is impossible. With this belief Averroës<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt044"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt044#lf1477_footnote_nt044">11</a> accords in his commentary on the treatise concerning the Soul.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt045"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt045#lf1477_footnote_nt045">12</a> Further, the intellectual capacity of which I speak has reference not only to universal forms or species, but, by a sort of extension, to particular ones. Wherefore it is a common saying that the speculative intellect becomes by extension the practical, whose end is to do and to make. I speak of things to be done, which are controlled by political sagacity, and things to be made, which are controlled by art,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt046"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt046#lf1477_footnote_nt046">13</a> because they are all handmaids of speculation, that supreme end for which the Primal Good brought into being the human race.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt047"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt047#lf1477_footnote_nt047">14</a> From this now grows clear the saying in the Politics that “the vigorous in intellect naturally govern other men.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt048"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt048#lf1477_footnote_nt048">15</a><br /><br />CHAPTER IV<br /><a name="a_3341674"></a>To attain this end humanity requires universal peace.<br /><a name="a_3341675"></a>1. It has now been satisfactorily explained that the proper function of the human race, taken in the aggregate, is to actualize continually the entire capacity of the possible intellect, primarily in speculation, then, through its extension and for its sake, secondarily in action. And since it is true that whatever modifies a part modifies the whole, and that the individual man seated<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt049"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt049#lf1477_footnote_nt049">1</a> in quiet grows perfect in knowledge and wisdom,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt050"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt050#lf1477_footnote_nt050">2</a> it is plain that amid the calm and tranquillity of peace the human race accomplishes most freely and easily its given work. How nearly divine this function is revealed in the words, “Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt051"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt051#lf1477_footnote_nt051">3</a> Whence it is manifest that universal peace is the best of those things which are ordained for our beatitude. And hence to the shepherds sounded from on high the message not of riches, nor pleasures, nor honors, nor length of life, nor health, nor beauty; but the message of peace. For the heavenly host said, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men in whom he is well pleased.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt052"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt052#lf1477_footnote_nt052">4</a> Likewise, “Peace be unto you”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt053"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt053#lf1477_footnote_nt053">5</a> was the salutation of the Saviour of men. It befitted the supreme Saviour to utter the supreme salutation. It is evident to all that the disciples desired to preserve this custom; and Paul likewise in his words of greeting.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt054"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt054#lf1477_footnote_nt054">6</a><br /><a name="a_3341676"></a>2. From these things which have been expounded we perceive through what better, nay, through what best means the human race may fulfill its proper office. Consequently we perceive the nearest way through which may be reached that universal peace toward which all our efforts are directed as their ultimate end, and which is to be assumed as the basic principle of subsequent reasoning. This principle was necessary, we have said, as a predetermined formula, into which, as into a most manifest truth, must be resolved all things needing to be proved.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt055"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt055#lf1477_footnote_nt055">7</a><br /><br />CHAPTER V<br /><a name="a_3341678"></a>When several things are ordained for one end, one must rule and the others obey.<br /><a name="a_3341679"></a>1. Resuming what was said in the beginning, I repeat, there are three main questions asked and debated in regard to temporal Monarchy, which is more commonly termed the Empire, and it is my purpose to make inquiry concerning these in the order cited, according to the principle now enunciated. And so let the first question be whether temporal Monarchy is necessary for the well-being of the world. The necessity of temporal Monarchy can be gainsaid with no force of reason or authority, and can be proved by the most powerful and patent arguments, of which the first is taken on the testimony of the Philosopher in the Politics. There this venerable authority asserts that when several things are ordained for one end, one of them must regulate or rule, and the others submit to regulation or rule.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt056"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt056#lf1477_footnote_nt056">1</a> This, indeed, not only because of the author’s glorious name, but because of inductive reasoning, demands credence.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt057"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt057#lf1477_footnote_nt057">2</a><br /><a name="a_3341680"></a>2. If we consider the individual man, we shall see that this applies to him, for, when all his faculties are ordered for his happiness, the intellectual faculty itself is regulator and ruler of all others; in no way else can man attain to happiness. If we consider the household, whose end is to teach its members to live rightly, there is need for one called the pater-familias, or for some one holding his place, to direct and govern, according to the Philosopher when he says, “Every household is ruled by its eldest.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt058"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt058#lf1477_footnote_nt058">3</a> It is for him, as Homer says, to guide and make laws for those dwelling with him. From this arises the proverbial curse, “May you have an equal in your house.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt059"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt059#lf1477_footnote_nt059">4</a> If we consider the village, whose aim is adequate protection of persons and property, there is again needed for governing the rest either one chosen for them by another, or one risen to prëeminence from among themselves by their consent; otherwise, they not only obtain no mutual support, but sometimes the whole community is destroyed by many striving for first place. Again, if we consider the city, whose end is to insure comfort and sufficiency in life, there is need for undivided rule in rightly directed governments, and in those wrongly directed<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt060"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt060#lf1477_footnote_nt060">5</a> as well; else the end of civil life is missed, and the city ceases to be what it was. Finally, if we consider the individual kingdom, whose end is that of the city with greater promise of tranquillity, there must be one king to direct and govern. If not, not only the inhabitants of the kingdom fail of their end, but the kingdom lapses into ruin, in agreement with that word of infallible truth, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt061"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt061#lf1477_footnote_nt061">6</a> If, then, this is true of these instances, and of all things ordained for a single end,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt062"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt062#lf1477_footnote_nt062">7</a> it is true of the statement assumed above.<br /><a name="a_3341681"></a>3. We are now agreed that the whole human race is ordered for one end, as already shown. It is meet, therefore, that the leader and lord be one, and that he be called Monarch, or Emperor. Thus it becomes obvious that for the well-being of the world there is needed a Monarchy, or Empire.</p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER VI<br /><a name="a_3341683"></a>The order which is found in the parts of the human race should be found in the race as a whole.<br /><a name="a_3341684"></a>1. As the part is related to the whole,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt063"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt063#lf1477_footnote_nt063">1</a> so is the partial order related to the total order. The relation of the part to the whole is as to its end and supreme good, and so the relation of the partial order to the total order is as to its end and supreme good.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt064"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt064#lf1477_footnote_nt064">2</a> We see from this that the excellence of partial order does not exceed the excellence of total order, but rather the converse. A dual order is therefore discernible in the world, namely, the order of parts among themselves, and the order of parts with reference to a third entity which is not a part. For example, in the army there is an order among its divisions, and an order of the whole with reference to the general. The order of the parts with reference to the third entity is superior, for partial order has its end in total order, and exists for the latter’s sake. Wherefore, if the form of the order is discernible in the parts of the human aggregate, it should, by virtue of the previous syllogism, be much more discernible in the aggregate or totality, because total order or form of order is superior. Now, as is sufficiently manifest from what was said in the preceding chapter, it is discernible in all the units of the human race, and therefore must be or ought to be discernible in the totality itself. And so all parts which we have designated as included in kingdoms, and kingdoms themselves, should be ordered with reference to one Prince or Principality, that is, to one Monarch or Monarchy.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt065"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt065#lf1477_footnote_nt065">3</a> </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER VII<br /><a name="a_3341686"></a>The relation of kingdoms and nations to the monarch should be that of humanity to God.<br /><a name="a_3341687"></a>1. Further, mankind is a whole with relation to certain parts, and is a part with relation to a certain whole. It is a whole, of course, with relation to particular kingdoms and nations, as was shown above, and it is a part with relation to the whole universe, as is self-evident. Therefore, in the manner in which the constituent parts of collective humanity correspond to humanity as a whole, so, we say, collective humanity corresponds as a part to its larger whole. That the constituent parts of collective humanity correspond to humanity as a whole through the one only principle of submission to a single Prince, can be easily gathered from what has gone before. And therefore humanity corresponds to the universe itself, or to its Prince, who is God and Monarch,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt066"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt066#lf1477_footnote_nt066">1</a> simply through one only principle, namely, the submission to a single Prince. We conclude from this that Monarchy is necessary to the world for its well-being. </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER VIII<br /><a name="a_3341689"></a>Men are made in the image of God; but God is one.<br /><a name="a_3341690"></a>1. And everything is well, nay, best disposed which acts in accordance with the intention of the first agent, who is God. This is self-evident, save to such as deny that divine goodness attains the summit of perfection. It is of the intention of God that all things should represent the divine likeness in so far as their peculiar nature is able to receive it.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt067"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt067#lf1477_footnote_nt067">1</a> For this reason it was said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt068"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt068#lf1477_footnote_nt068">2</a> Although “in our image” cannot be said of things inferior to man, nevertheless, “after our likeness” can be said of all things, for the entire universe is nought else than a footprint of divine goodness. The human race, therefore, is ordered well, nay, is ordered for the best, when according to the utmost of its power it becomes like unto God.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt069"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt069#lf1477_footnote_nt069">3</a> But the human race is most like unto God when it is most one, for the principle of unity dwells in Him alone. Wherefore it is written, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt070"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt070#lf1477_footnote_nt070">4</a><br /><a name="a_3341691"></a>2. But the human race is most one when all are united together, a state which is manifestly impossible unless humanity as a whole becomes subject to one Prince, and consequently comes most into accordance with that divine intention which we showed at the beginning of this chapter is the good, nay, is the best disposition of mankind. </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER IX<br /><a name="a_3341693"></a>Men, as the sons of Heaven, should follow in the footprints of Heaven.<br /><a name="a_3341694"></a>1. Likewise, every son acts well and for the best when, as far as his individual nature permits, he follows in the footprints of a perfect father.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt071"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt071#lf1477_footnote_nt071">1</a> As “Man and the sun generate man,”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt072"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt072#lf1477_footnote_nt072">2</a> according to the second book of Natural Learning, the human race is the son of heaven, which is absolutely perfect in all its works. Therefore mankind acts for the best when it follows in the footprints of heaven, as far as its distinctive nature permits. Now, human reason apprehends most clearly through philosophy<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt073"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt073#lf1477_footnote_nt073">3</a> that the entire heaven in all its parts, its movements, and its motors, is controlled by a single motion, the primum mobile,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt074"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt074#lf1477_footnote_nt074">4</a> and by a single mover, God; then, if our syllogism is correct, the human race is best ordered when in all its movements and motors it is controlled by one Prince as by one mover, by one law as by one motion. On this account it is manifestly essential for the well-being of the world that there should exist a Monarchy or unified Principality, which men call the Empire. This truth Boethius sighed for in the words, “O race of men how blessed, did the love which rules the heavens rule likewise your minds!”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt075"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt075#lf1477_footnote_nt075">5</a> </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER X<br /><a name="a_3341696"></a>In order to settle all disputes a supreme judge is necessary.<br /><a name="a_3341697"></a>1. Wherever strife is a possibility, in that place must be judgment; otherwise imperfection would exist without its perfecting agent.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt076"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt076#lf1477_footnote_nt076">1</a> This could not be, for God and Nature are not wanting in necessary things.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt077"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt077#lf1477_footnote_nt077">2</a> It is self-evident that between any two princes, neither of whom owes allegiance to the other, controversy may arise either by their own fault or by the fault of their subjects. For such, judgment is necessary. And inasmuch as one owing no allegiance to the other can recognize no authority in him (for an equal cannot control an equal), there must be a third prince with more ample jurisdiction, who may govern both within the circle of his right. This prince will be or will not be a Monarch. If he is, our purpose is fulfilled; if not, he will again have a coequal beyond the circle of his jurisdiction, and again a third prince will be required. And thus either the process will be carried to infinity, which is impossible, or that primal and highest judge will be reached, by whose judgments all disputes are settled mediately or immediately. And this judge will be Monarch, or Emperor. Monarchy is therefore indispensable to the world, and this truth the Philosopher saw when he said, “Things have no desire to be wrongly ordered; inasmuch as a multitude of Princedoms is wrong, let there be one Prince.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt078"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt078#lf1477_footnote_nt078">3</a> </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER XI<br /><a name="a_3341699"></a>The world is best ordered when in it Justice is preëminent.<br /><a name="a_3341700"></a>1. Further, the world is disposed for the best when Justice reigns therein; wherefore, desiring to glorify that age which seemed to be dawning in his own day, Virgil sang in his Bucolics, “Now doth the Virgin return and the kingdoms of Saturn.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt079"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt079#lf1477_footnote_nt079">1</a> For they called Justice the Virgin, and called her also Astraea. The kingdoms of Saturn meant those happiest times which men named the Age of Gold. Justice is preëminent only under a Monarch; therefore, that the world may be disposed for the best, there is needed a Monarchy, or Empire.<br /><a name="a_3341701"></a>2. To make the assumption plain, it must be understood that Justice, considered in itself and in its distinctive nature, is a certain directness or rule of action avoiding the oblique on either side, and refusing the comparison of more or less in degree, as whiteness considered in the abstract.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt080"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt080#lf1477_footnote_nt080">2</a> Certain forms<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt081"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt081#lf1477_footnote_nt081">3</a> of this kind, though present in compounds, consist in themselves of simple and invariable essence, as the Master of the Six Principles<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt082"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt082#lf1477_footnote_nt082">4</a> rightly claims; yet such qualities admit the comparison of more or less in degree as regards the subjects<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt083"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt083#lf1477_footnote_nt083">5</a> in which they are mingled, when more or less of the qualities’ opposites are mixed therein. Therefore, when with Justice is intermixed a minimum of its opposite, both as to disposition and operation, there Justice reigns. Truly, then may be applied to her the words of the Philosopher: “Neither Hesperus, the star of evening, nor Lucifer, the star of morning, is so wonderfully fair.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt084"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt084#lf1477_footnote_nt084">6</a> Then, indeed, she is like to Phœbe beholding her brother across the circle of the heavens, from the purple of morn’s serene.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt085"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt085#lf1477_footnote_nt085">7</a> 3. Man’s disposition to Justice may meet opposition in the will;<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt086"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt086#lf1477_footnote_nt086">8</a> for when will is not wholly unstained by cupidity, even if Justice be present, she may not appear in the perfect splendor of her purity, having encountered a quality which resists her to some degree, be it never so little. So it is right to repulse those who attempt to impassion a judge. In its operation, man’s justice may meet opposition through want of power; for since Justice is a virtue involving other persons, how can one act according to its dictates without the power of allotting to each man what belongs to him?<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt087"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt087#lf1477_footnote_nt087">9</a> It is obvious from this that in proportion to the just man’s power will be the extent of his exercise of Justice.<br /><a name="a_3341703"></a>4. From our exposition we may proceed to argue thus: Justice is most effective in the world when present in the most willing and powerful man; only a Monarch is such a man; therefore Justice subsisting in a sole Monarch is the most effective in the world. This prosyllogism runs through the second figure<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt088"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt088#lf1477_footnote_nt088">10</a> with intrinsic negation, and is like this: All B is A; only C is A; therefore only C is B. That is, All B is A; nothing except C is A; therefore nothing except C is B.<br /><a name="a_3341704"></a>5. The former statement<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt089"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt089#lf1477_footnote_nt089">11</a> is apparent from the forerunning explanation; the latter, first, in regard to the will, second, in regard to the power, is unfolded thus. In regard to the will, it must first be noted that the worst enemy of Justice is cupidity, as Aristotle signifies in the fifth book to Nicomachus.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt090"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt090#lf1477_footnote_nt090">12</a> When cupidity is removed altogether, nothing remains inimical to Justice; hence, fearful of the influence of cupidity which easily distorts men’s minds, the Philosopher grew to believe that whatever can be determined by law should in no wise be relegated to a judge.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt091"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt091#lf1477_footnote_nt091">13</a> Cupidity is impossible when there is nothing to be desired, for passions cease to exist with the destruction of their objects. Since his jurisdiction is bounded only by the ocean,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt092"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt092#lf1477_footnote_nt092">14</a> there is nothing for a Monarch to desire. This is not true of the other princes, whose realms terminate in those of others, as does the King of Castile’s in that of the King of Aragon. So we conclude that among mortals the purest subject for the indwelling of Justice is the Monarch.<br /><a name="a_3341705"></a>6. Moreover, to the extent however small that cupidity clouds the mental attitude toward Justice, charity or right love clarifies and brightens it. In whomever, therefore, right love can be present to the highest degree, in him can Justice find the most effective place. Such is the Monarch, in whose person Justice is or may be most effective. That right love acts as we have said, may be shown in this way: avarice, scorning man’s competency,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt093"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt093#lf1477_footnote_nt093">15</a> seeks things beyond him; but charity, scorning all else, seeks God and man, and therefore the good of man. And since to live in peace is chief of man’s blessings, as we said before, and since this is most fully and easily accomplished by Justice, charity will make Justice thrive greatly; with her strength will the other grow strong.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt094"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt094#lf1477_footnote_nt094">16</a><br /><a name="a_3341706"></a>7. That right love should indwell in the Monarch more than in all men beside reveals itself thus: Everything loved is the more loved the nearer it is to him who loves; men are nearer to the Monarch than to other princes; therefore they are or ought to be most loved by him.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt095"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt095#lf1477_footnote_nt095">17</a> The first statement is obvious if we call to mind the nature of patients and agents; the second if we perceive that men approach other princes in their partial aspect, but a Monarch in their totality. And again, men approach other princes through the Monarch, and not conversely; and thus the guardianship of the world is primary and immediate with the Monarch, but with other princes it is mediate, deriving from the supreme care of the Monarch.<br /><a name="a_3341707"></a>8. Moreover, the more universal a cause, the more does it possess the nature of a cause, for the lower cause is one merely by virtue of the higher, as is patent from the treatise on Causes.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt096"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt096#lf1477_footnote_nt096">18</a> The more a cause is a cause, the more it loves its effect, for such love pursues its cause for its own sake. As we have said, other princes are causes merely by virtue of the Monarch; then among mortals he is the most universal cause of man’s well-being, and the good of man is loved by him above all others.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt097"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt097#lf1477_footnote_nt097">19</a><br /><a name="a_3341708"></a>9. Who doubts now that a Monarch is most powerfully equipped for the exercise of Justice?<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt098"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt098#lf1477_footnote_nt098">20</a> None save he who understands not the significance of the word, for a Monarch can have no enemies.<br /><a name="a_3341709"></a>10. The assumed proposition<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt099"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt099#lf1477_footnote_nt099">21</a> being therefore sufficiently explained, the conclusion is certain that Monarchy is indispensable for the best ordering of the world. </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER XII<br /><a name="a_3341711"></a>Humanity is ordered for the best when most free.<br /><a name="a_3341712"></a>1. If the principle of freedom is explained, it will be apparent that the human race is ordered for the best when it is most free. Observe, then, those words which are on the lips of many but in the minds of few, that the basic principle of our freedom is freedom of the will.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt100"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt100#lf1477_footnote_nt100">1</a> Men come even to the point of saying that free will is free judgment in matters of will, and they say true; but the import of their words is far from them, as from our logicians who work daily with certain propositions used as examples in books of logic; for instance, that “a triangle has three angles equaling two right angles.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt101"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt101#lf1477_footnote_nt101">2</a><br /><a name="a_3341713"></a>2. Judgment, I affirm, stands between apprehension and desire; for first a thing is apprehended; then the apprehension is adjudged good or bad; and finally he who so judges pursues or avoids it.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt102"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt102#lf1477_footnote_nt102">3</a> So if judgment entirely controls desire, and is hindered by it in no way, judgment is free; but if desire influences judgment by hindering it in some manner, judgment cannot be free, for it acts not of itself, but is dragged captive by another. Thus brutes cannot have free judgment, for their judgments are always hindered by appetite. And thus intellectual substances whose wills are immutable,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt103"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt103#lf1477_footnote_nt103">4</a> and disembodied souls<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt104"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt104#lf1477_footnote_nt104">5</a> who have departed in peace, do not lose freedom of the will by reason of this immutability, but retain it in greatest perfection and power.<br /><a name="a_3341714"></a>3. With this in mind we may understand that this freedom, or basic principle of our freedom, is, as I said, the greatest gift bestowed by God upon human nature, for through it we attain to joy here as men, and to blessedness there as gods.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt105"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt105#lf1477_footnote_nt105">6</a> If this is so, who will not admit that mankind is best ordered when able to use this principle most effectively? But the race is most free under a Monarch. Wherefore let us know that the Philosopher holds in his book concerning simple Being, that whatever exists for its own sake and not for the sake of another is free.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt106"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt106#lf1477_footnote_nt106">7</a> For whatever exists for the sake of another is conditioned by that other, as a road by its terminus. Only if a Monarch rules can the human race exist for its own sake; only if a Monarch rules can the crooked policies<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt107"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt107#lf1477_footnote_nt107">8</a> be straightened, namely democracies, oligarchies, and tyrannies which force mankind into slavery,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt108"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt108#lf1477_footnote_nt108">9</a> as he sees who goes among them, and under which kings, aristocrats called the best men, and zealots of popular liberty play at politics.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt109"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt109#lf1477_footnote_nt109">10</a> For since a Monarch loves men greatly, a point already touched upon, he desires all men to do good, which cannot be among players at crooked policies. Whence the Philosopher in his Politics says, “Under bad government the good man is a bad citizen; but under upright government ‘good man’ and ‘good citizen’ have the same meaning.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt110"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt110#lf1477_footnote_nt110">11</a> Upright governments have liberty as their aim, that men may live for themselves; not citizens for the sake of the consuls, nor a people for a king, but conversely, consuls for the sake of the citizens, and a king for his people.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt111"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt111#lf1477_footnote_nt111">12</a> As governments are not all established for the sake of laws, but laws for governments, so those living under the laws are not ordered for the sake of the legislator, but rather he for them, as the Philosopher maintains in what he has left us concerning the present matter.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt112"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt112#lf1477_footnote_nt112">13</a> Wherefore it is also evident that although consul or king may be lord of others with respect to means of governing, they are servants with respect to the end of governing; and without doubt the Monarch must be held the chief servant of all. Now it becomes clear that a Monarch is conditioned in the making of laws by his previously determined end. Therefore the human race existing under a Monarch is best ordered, and from this it follows that a Monarchy is essential to the well-being of the world. </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER XIII<br /><a name="a_3341716"></a>He who is best adapted for ruling is the best director of other men.<br /><a name="a_3341717"></a>1. He who is capable of the best qualification for ruling can best qualify others. In every action the chief intent of the agent, whether it act by necessity of nature or by choice, is to unfold its own likeness;<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt113"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt113#lf1477_footnote_nt113">1</a> whence it is that every agent, in so far as it acts in this way, delights in action. Since every existent thing desires its existence, and since an agent in action amplifies its existence to a certain extent, delight necessarily ensues, for delight is bound up in the thing desired.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt114"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt114#lf1477_footnote_nt114">2</a> Nothing can act, therefore, unless existing already as that which the thing acted upon is to become; and therefore the Philosopher states in his writings of simple Being: “Every reduction from potentiality to actuality is accomplished by an actuality of like kind;”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt115"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt115#lf1477_footnote_nt115">3</a> for if anything attempted to act under other conditions, it would try in vain. Thus may be destroyed the error of those men who believe by speaking good and doing evil they can inform others with life and character; and who forget that the hands of Jacob, though false witnesses, were more persuasive than his words, though true.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt116"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt116#lf1477_footnote_nt116">4</a> Hence the Philosopher to Nicomachus: “In matters of passion and action, words are less trustworthy than deeds.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt117"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt117#lf1477_footnote_nt117">5</a> And hence the message from heaven to the sinner David: “What hast thou to do to declare my statutes?”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt118"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt118#lf1477_footnote_nt118">6</a> As if it had said, “In vain thou speakest, being other than thy words.” From which we may gather that he who would best qualify others must himself be supremely qualified.<br /><a name="a_3341718"></a>2. That only a Monarch can be supremely qualified for ruling is thus proved. Everything is more easily and perfectly adapted to any state or activity as there is present in it less of opposition to such adaptation. So those who have never heard of philosophy come more easily to a comprehension of philosophic truth than those who have heard often thereof, but are imbued with false opinions. So Galen<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt119"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt119#lf1477_footnote_nt119">7</a> says with right: “Such men need double time for gaining knowledge.” Now, as was shown above, a Monarch can have no occasion for cupidity, or rather less occasion than any other men, even other princes,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt120"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt120#lf1477_footnote_nt120">8</a> and cupidity is the sole corrupter of judgment and hindrance to Justice; so the Monarch is capable of the highest degree of judgment and Justice, and is therefore perfectly qualified, or especially well qualified, to rule. Those two qualities are most befitting a maker and executor of the law, as that holiest of kings testifies by his petition to God for the attributes meet for a king and the son of a king, praying: “Give the king thy judgments, O God, and thy righteousness unto the king’s son.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt121"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt121#lf1477_footnote_nt121">9</a><br /><a name="a_3341719"></a>3. It was rightly assumed, then, that the Monarch alone is capable of supreme qualification to rule. Hence the Monarch is best able to direct others. Therefore it follows that for the best ordering of the world. Monarchy is necessary. </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER XIV<br /><a name="a_3341721"></a>What one agent can do is better done by one than by many.<br /><a name="a_3341722"></a>1. When it is possible to do a thing through one agent, it is better done through one than through more.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt122"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt122#lf1477_footnote_nt122">1</a> We prove it in this way: Let A be one agent able to accomplish a given end, and let A and B be two through whom the same thing can be accomplished. If the end accomplished through A and B can be accomplished through A alone, B is added uselessly, as nothing results from the addition of B which would not have resulted from A alone. Now inasmuch as every addition is idle and superfluous,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt123"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt123#lf1477_footnote_nt123">2</a> and every superfluity is displeasing to God and Nature, and everything displeasing to God and Nature is evil, as is self-evident; it follows not only that whatever can be done through one agent is better done through one than through more, but that whatever done through one is good, done through more becomes manifestly evil. Further, a thing is said to be better the nearer it approaches the best. Its end partakes of the character of the best. But what is done by one agent is nearer its end, and therefore better. That it is nearer its end we see thus: Let there be an end C to be reached by a single agent A, or by a dual agent A and B. Evidently the way from A through B to C is longer than from A straight to C. Now humanity can be ruled by one supreme Prince who is Monarch.<br /><a name="a_3341723"></a>2. But it must be noted well that when we assert that the human race is capable of being ruled by one supreme Prince, it is not to be understood that the petty decisions of every municipality can issue from him directly, for municipal laws do fail at times and have need of regulation, as the Philosopher shows in his commendation of equity<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt124"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt124#lf1477_footnote_nt124">3</a> in the fifth book to Nicomachus. Nations, kingdoms, and cities have individual conditions which must be governed by different laws. For law is the directive principle of life. The Scythians,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt125"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt125#lf1477_footnote_nt125">4</a> living beyond the seventh clime,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt126"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt126#lf1477_footnote_nt126">5</a> suffering great inequality of days and nights, and oppressed by a degree of cold almost intolerable, need laws other than the Garamantes,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt127"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt127#lf1477_footnote_nt127">6</a> dwelling under the equinoctial circle, who have their days always of equal length with their nights, and because of the unbearable heat of the air cannot endure the useless burden of clothing. But rather let it be understood that the human race will be governed by him in general matters pertaining to all peoples, and through him will be guided to peace by a government common to all. And this rule, or law, individual princes should receive from him, just as for any operative conclusion the practical intellect receives the major premise from the speculative intellect, adds thereto the minor premise peculiarly its own, and draws the conclusion for the particular operation. This government common to all not only may proceed from one; it must do so, that all confusion be removed from principles of universal import. Moses himself wrote in the law that he had done this; for when he had taken the chiefs of the children of Israel, he relinquished to them minor decisions, always reserving for himself those more important and of larger application; and in their tribes the chiefs made use of those of larger application according as they might be applied to each tribe.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt128"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt128#lf1477_footnote_nt128">7</a><br /><a name="a_3341724"></a>3. Therefore it is better that the human race should be ruled by one than by more, and that the one should be the Monarch who is a unique Prince. And if it is better, it is more acceptable to God, since God always wills what is better. And inasmuch as between two things, that which is better will be likewise best, between this rule by “one” and this rule by “more,” rule by “one” is acceptable to God not only in a comparative but in a superlative degree. Wherefore the human race is ordered for the best when ruled by one sovereign. And so Monarchy must exist for the welfare of the world. </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER XV<br /><a name="a_3341726"></a>In every sort of thing that is best which is most one.<br /><a name="a_3341727"></a>1. Likewise I affirm that being and unity and goodness exist seriatim according to the fifth mode of priority.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt129"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt129#lf1477_footnote_nt129">1</a> Being is naturally antecedent to unity, and unity to goodness; that which has completest being has completest unity and completest goodness. And as far as anything is from completest being, just so far is it from unity and also from goodness. That in every class of objects the best is the most unified, the Philosopher maintains in his treatise on simple Being.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt130"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt130#lf1477_footnote_nt130">2</a> From this it would seem that unity is the root of goodness, and multiplicity is the root of evil. Wherefore Pythagoras in his Correlations<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt131"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt131#lf1477_footnote_nt131">3</a> placed unity on the side of good and multiplicity on the side of evil, as appears in the first book on simple Being.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt132"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt132#lf1477_footnote_nt132">4</a> We can thus see that to sin is naught else than to despise unity, and to depart therefrom to multiplicity; which the Psalmist surely felt when he said, “By the fruit of their corn and wine and oil are they multiplied.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt133"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt133#lf1477_footnote_nt133">5</a><br /><a name="a_3341728"></a>2. Therefore it is established that every good thing is good because it subsists in unity. As concord is a good thing in itself, it must subsist in some unity as its proper root, and this proper root must appear if we consider the nature or meaning of concord. Now concord is the uniform movement of many wills; and unity of will, which we mean by uniform movement, is the root of concord, or rather concord itself. For just as we should call many clods concordant because all descend together toward the centre, and many flames concordant because they ascend together to the circumference, if they did this voluntarily, so we call many men concordant because they move together by their volition to one end formally present in their wills; while in the case of the clods is formally present the single attribute of gravity, and in the flames the single attribute of levity.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt134"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt134#lf1477_footnote_nt134">6</a> For power of willing is a certain potentiality, but the species of goodness which it apprehends is its form, which, like other forms, is a unity multiplied in itself according to the multiplicity of the receiving material, just as soul, number, and other forms subject to composition.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt135"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt135#lf1477_footnote_nt135">7</a><br /><a name="a_3341729"></a>3. These things being premised, we may argue as follows for the proposed exposition of the original assumption: All concord depends upon unity in wills; mankind at its best is a concord of a certain kind. For just as one man at his best in body and spirit is a concord of a certain kind,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt136"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt136#lf1477_footnote_nt136">8</a> and as a household, a city, and a kingdom is likewise a concord, so it is with mankind in its totality. Therefore the human race for its best disposition is dependent on unity in wills. But this state of concord is impossible unless one will dominates and guides all others into unity, for as the Philosopher teaches in the last book to Nicomachus, mortal wills need directing because of the alluring delights of youth.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt137"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt137#lf1477_footnote_nt137">9</a> Nor is this directing will a possibility unless there is one common Prince whose will may dominate and guide the wills of all others.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt138"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt138#lf1477_footnote_nt138">10</a> If the conclusions above are true, as they are, Monarchy is essential for the best disposition of mankind; and therefore for the well-being of the world Monarchy should exist therein. </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER XVI<br /><a name="a_3341731"></a>Christ willed to be born in the fullness of time when Augustus was Monarch.<br /><a name="a_3341732"></a>1. A phenomenon not to be forgotten attests the truth of all the arguments placed in order above, namely, that condition of mortals which the Son of God, when about to become man for the salvation of man, either awaited, or ordained at such time as He willed.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt139"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt139#lf1477_footnote_nt139">1</a> For if from the fall of our first parents, at which point of departure began all our error,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt140"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt140#lf1477_footnote_nt140">2</a> we survey the ordering of men and times, we shall find no perfect Monarchy, nor the world everywhere at peace, save under the divine Monarch Augustus.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt141"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt141#lf1477_footnote_nt141">3</a> That men were then blessed with the tranquillity of universal peace all historians testify, and all illustrious poets; this the writer of the gentleness of Christ<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt142"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt142#lf1477_footnote_nt142">4</a> felt it meet to confirm, and last of all Paul, who called that most happy condition “the fulness of the time.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt143"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt143#lf1477_footnote_nt143">5</a> Verily, time and all temporal things were full, for no ministry to our happiness lacked its minister. But what has been the condition of the world since that day the seamless robe<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt144"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt144#lf1477_footnote_nt144">6</a> first suffered mutilation by the claws of avarice, we can read—would that we could not also see! O human race! what tempests must need toss thee, what treasure be thrown into the sea, what shipwrecks must be endured,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt145"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt145#lf1477_footnote_nt145">7</a> so long as thou, like a beast of many heads,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt146"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt146#lf1477_footnote_nt146">8</a> strivest after diverse ends! Thou art sick in either intellect,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt147"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt147#lf1477_footnote_nt147">9</a> and sick likewise in thy affection. Thou healest not thy high understanding by argument irrefutable, nor thy lower by the countenance of experience. Nor dost thou heal thy affection by the sweetness of divine persuasion, when the voice of the Holy Spirit breathes upon thee, “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt148"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt148#lf1477_footnote_nt148">10</a> </p><br /><br /><p>BOOK II<br /><a name="a_3341734"></a>WHETHER THE ROMAN PEOPLE RIGHTFULLY APPROPRIATED THE OFFICE OF MONARCHY </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER I</p><br /><br /><p>Introduction.<br /><a name="a_3341737"></a>1. “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying, ‘Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their yoke from us.’ ”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt149"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt149#lf1477_footnote_nt149">1</a><br /><a name="a_3341738"></a>2. We are wont to marvel at any strange effect when we have never beheld the face of its cause,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt150"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt150#lf1477_footnote_nt150">2</a> and, when we have learned to know the cause, to look down with a sort of derision on those still lost in astonishment. I, in truth, at one time marveled that without resistance the Roman people had become sovereign throughout the earth; for, looking merely superficially at the matter, I believe they had obtained sovereignty not by right, but by force of arms alone.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt151"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt151#lf1477_footnote_nt151">3</a> However, after the eyes of my mind had pierced to the marrow thereof, and I had come to understand by most convincing tokens that Divine Providence had effected this thing, my wonder vanished, and in its place rises a certain derisive contempt when I hear the heathen raging against the preëminence of the Roman race; when I see people, as I was wont, imagining a vain thing; when, more than all, I find to my grief kings and princes concordant only in the error<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt152"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt152#lf1477_footnote_nt152">4</a> of taking counsel together against their Lord and His one Roman Prince. Wherefore, on behalf of this glorious people and of Caesar I exclaim, in derision that is also sorrow, with him who cried aloud on behalf of the Prince of heaven, “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed.”<br /><a name="a_3341739"></a>3. Yet lasting derision is not compatible with natural love, but as the summer sun, rising splendid above the scattered mists of morning, sheds abroad its beams, so love, dispelling its derision, would send forth an amending light.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt153"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt153#lf1477_footnote_nt153">5</a> To break asunder, then, the bonds of ignorance for those kings and princes, to prove the human race free from their yoke, I will exhort myself, as did that most holy prophet whom I follow, with the words that come in order after, “Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.”<br /><a name="a_3341740"></a>4. These two things will be done well enough if I proceed with the second part of my main proposition, and reveal the truth of the question now pending. For when it is proved that the Roman Empire existed by right, not only will the clouds of ignorance be cleared from the eyes of kings and princes who usurp to themselves public guidance, falsely believing that the Roman people had done so, but all mortals will know that they are free from the yoke of usurpers. Nor will the truth be revealed in the light of human reason alone, but also in the radiance of divine authority. And when these two unite together, heaven and earth must together give approval.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt154"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt154#lf1477_footnote_nt154">6</a> Resting, therefore, in that trust of which I have previously spoken,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt155"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt155#lf1477_footnote_nt155">7</a> and supported by the testimony of reason and authority, I enter upon the solution of the second question. </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER II<br /><a name="a_3341742"></a>What God wills in human society is to be held as right.<br /><a name="a_3341743"></a>1. Now that the truth of the first question has been investigated as adequately as the subject-matter permitted, the second question urges us to investigate its truth as to whether the Roman people appropriated the dignity of empire by Right. The starting-point of this investigation is that verity to which the arguments of the present inquiry may be referred as to their own first principle.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt156"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt156#lf1477_footnote_nt156">1</a><br /><a name="a_3341744"></a>2. It must be understood, therefore, that as art exists in a threefold degree, in the mind of the artist, in the instrument, and in the matter informed by the art,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt157"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt157#lf1477_footnote_nt157">2</a> so may Nature be looked upon as threefold. For Nature exists in the mind of the Primal Motor, who is God,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt158"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt158#lf1477_footnote_nt158">3</a> and then in heaven, as in the instrument through whose mediation the likeness of eternal goodness is unfolded on fluid matter.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt159"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt159#lf1477_footnote_nt159">4</a> When the artist is perfect, and his instrument without fault, any flaw that may appear in the form of the art can then be imputed to the matter only. Thus, since God is ultimate perfection, and since heaven, his instrument, suffers no defect in its required perfectness (as a philosophic study of heaven makes clear),<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt160"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt160#lf1477_footnote_nt160">5</a> it is evident that whatever flaw mars lesser things is a flaw in the subjected material,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt161"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt161#lf1477_footnote_nt161">6</a> and outside the intention of God working through Nature,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt162"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt162#lf1477_footnote_nt162">7</a> and of heaven; and that whatever good is in lesser things cannot come from the material itself, which exists only potentially, but must come first from the artist, God, and secondly from the instrument of divine art, heaven, which men generally call Nature.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt163"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt163#lf1477_footnote_nt163">8</a><br /><a name="a_3341745"></a>3. From these things it is plain that inasmuch as Right is good, it dwells primarily in the mind of God; and as according to the words, “What was made was in Him life,”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt164"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt164#lf1477_footnote_nt164">9</a> everything in the mind of God is God, and as God especially wills what is characteristic of Himself, it follows that God wills Right according as it is in Him. And since with God the will and the thing willed are the same, it follows further that the divine will is Right itself. And the further consequence of this is, that Right is nothing other than likeness to the divine will. Hence whatever is not consonant with divine will is not right, and whatever is consonant with divine will is right.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt165"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt165#lf1477_footnote_nt165">10</a> So to ask whether something is done with Right, although the words differ, is the same as to ask whether it is done according to the will of God. Let this therefore base our argument, that whatever God wills in human society must be accepted as right, true, and pure.<br /><a name="a_3341746"></a>4. Moreover, that should be remembered which the Philosopher teaches in the first book to Nicomachus, “Like certainty is not to be sought in every matter, but according as the nature of the subject admits it.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt166"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt166#lf1477_footnote_nt166">11</a> Wherefore our arguments will advance adequately under the principle established, if we investigate the Right of this great people through visible signs and the authority of the wise. The will of God is in itself an invisible attribute, but by means of things which are made the invisible attributes of God become perceptible to the intellect.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt167"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt167#lf1477_footnote_nt167">12</a> For, though a seal be hidden, the wax impressed therewith bears manifest evidence of the unseen signet;<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt168"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt168#lf1477_footnote_nt168">13</a> nor is it remarkable that the divine will must be sought in signs, for the human will, except to him who wills, is discerned no way else than in signs.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt169"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt169#lf1477_footnote_nt169">14</a> </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER III<br /><a name="a_3341748"></a>The Romans as the noblest people deserved precedence before all others.<br /><a name="a_3341749"></a>1. I say with regard to this question, that the Roman people by Right and not by usurpation took to itself over all mortals the office of Monarchy, which men call the Empire. This may first be proved thus: It was meet that the noblest people should have precedence over all others; the Roman people was the noblest;<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt170"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt170#lf1477_footnote_nt170">1</a> therefore it was meet that it should have precedence over all others. The major premise<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt171"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt171#lf1477_footnote_nt171">2</a> is demonstrable, for, since honor is the reward of virtue, and all precedence is honor, all precedence is a reward of virtue.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt172"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt172#lf1477_footnote_nt172">3</a> It is agreed that men are ennobled as virtues of their own or their ancestors make them worthy. Nobility is “virtue and ancient wealth,” according to the Philosopher in the Politics;<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt173"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt173#lf1477_footnote_nt173">4</a> but according to Juvenal, “Virtue is the one and only nobility of soul.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt174"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt174#lf1477_footnote_nt174">5</a> These two definitions grant two kinds of nobility, one’s own and that of one’s ancestors.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt175"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt175#lf1477_footnote_nt175">6</a><br /><a name="a_3341750"></a>2. By reason of the cause inherent in nobility the reward of precedence is befitting the noble. And as rewards should be commensurate with merits, in consonance with that saying of the Gospel, “With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again,”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt176"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt176#lf1477_footnote_nt176">7</a> the foremost rank should be to the noblest. As for the minor premise, the testimony of the ancients is convincing, since Virgil, our divine Poet,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt177"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt177#lf1477_footnote_nt177">8</a> throughout his Aeneid testifies in everlasting remembrance that the father of the Roman people was Aeneas, the famous king; and Titus Livius, illustrious writer of Roman deeds, confirms this testimony in the first part of his volume which begins with the capture of Troy.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt178"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt178#lf1477_footnote_nt178">9</a> So great was the nobleness of this man, our ancestor most invincible and most pious, nobleness not only of his own considerable virtue, but that of his progenitors and consorts, which was transferred to him by hereditary right, that I cannot unfold it in detail, “I can but trace the main outlines of truth.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt179"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt179#lf1477_footnote_nt179">10</a><br /><a name="a_3341751"></a>3. As to his personal nobility, hearken to our poet in the first book of the Aeneid, introducing Ilioneus with the plea, “Aeneas was our king, than whom none other was more just and pious, none other greater in war and arms.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt180"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt180#lf1477_footnote_nt180">11</a> Hearken to him again in the sixth, when, speaking of the dead Misenus, Hector’s attendant in war, who entered the service of Aeneas after Hector’s death, he says, Misenus “had followed no lesser fortunes.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt181"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt181#lf1477_footnote_nt181">12</a> This compares Aeneas with Hector, whom Homer<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt182"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt182#lf1477_footnote_nt182">13</a> honors above all men, as the Philosopher affirms in that part of the writings to Nicomachus on “types of conduct to be avoided.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt183"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt183#lf1477_footnote_nt183">14</a><br /><a name="a_3341752"></a>4. As to his hereditary nobility, it accrues to him from the three continents of the earth through his ancestors and his consorts.<br /><a name="a_3341753"></a>5. Asia ennobled him through his most immediate ancestors, Assaracus and those who had ruled over Phrygia, a region of Asia, as our poet records in these lines of the third book: “After it had seemed good to the gods to overturn the might of Asia and the race of Priam unmeriting their fate.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt184"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt184#lf1477_footnote_nt184">15</a> Europe ennobled him through Dardanus,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt185"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt185#lf1477_footnote_nt185">16</a> most ancient of his ancestors, and Africa through Electra, his most ancient ancestress, daughter of King Atlas of great renown. Concerning both of these facts our poet renders testimony in the eighth book, where Aeneas speaks thus to Evander: “Dardanus, the first founder of the city and father of Ilium, descended as the Greeks deem from Atlantian Electra,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt186"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt186#lf1477_footnote_nt186">17</a> came among the Teucrians. Electra was sprung from Atlas the mighty, who sustains the heavenly orbs upon his shoulders.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt187"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt187#lf1477_footnote_nt187">18</a><br /><a name="a_3341754"></a>6. The bard sings in the third book of Dardanus taking his origin from Europe, saying, “There is a place the Greeks have named Hesperia, an ancient country powerful in arms and fertile in soil, where dwell the Oenotrians. Rumor has it that later generations called the country Italy from the name of their leader. Here is our fatherland; from hence came Dardanus.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt188"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt188#lf1477_footnote_nt188">19</a> That Atlas came from Africa, the mountain is witness which there bears his name. This mountain Orosius<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt189"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt189#lf1477_footnote_nt189">20</a> locates in Africa in his description of the world, where he says, “Now its uttermost bound is Mt. Atlas and the Islands which they call the Fortunate.” “Its” refers to Africa, of which he was speaking.<br /><a name="a_3341755"></a>7. I find also that nobility accrued to Aeneas through marriage. His first wife Creusa, daughter of Priam, was from Asia, as may be gathered from the facts quoted above. And that she was his wife our poet implies in the third book, when Andromache thus questions Aeneas concerning his son Ascanius: “What of the boy Ascanius, he whom Creusa bore to thee while Troy was yet smoking? Lives he still? Breathes he the vital air?”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt190"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt190#lf1477_footnote_nt190">21</a> His second wife was Dido, queen and mother of the Carthaginians in Africa, of whom as Aeneas’ wife the poet sings in the fourth book: “Nor longer Dido dreams of secret love; she calls it marriage, hiding her sin beneath a name.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt191"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt191#lf1477_footnote_nt191">22</a> His third wife was Lavinia, mother alike of Albanians and Romans, daughter and also heir of King Latinus, if the testimony of our Poet be true in the last book, where he introduces Turnus conquered, supplicating Aeneas with this prayer: “Thou hast triumphed; and the Ausonians have beheld me vanquished lifting up my hands. Lavinia shall be thy wife.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt192"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt192#lf1477_footnote_nt192">23</a> This last consort was of Italy, most excellent region of Europe.<br /><a name="a_3341756"></a>8. With these facts pointed out in evidence of our minor premise, who is not sufficiently convinced that the father of the Roman race, and therefore the race itself, was the noblest under heaven? Or from whom will still be hidden divine predestination in the twofold meeting in one man of blood from every part of the world? </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER IV<br /><a name="a_3341758"></a>Because the Roman Empire was aided by miracles it was willed of God.<br /><a name="a_3341759"></a>1. Furthermore, whatever is brought to its perfection by the help of miracles is willed of God, and therefore comes to pass by Right. The truth of this is patent from what Thomas<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt193"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt193#lf1477_footnote_nt193">1</a> says in his third book against the Heathen: “A miracle is that which is done through divine agency beyond the commonly instituted order of things.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt194"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt194#lf1477_footnote_nt194">2</a> Here he proves that the working of miracles is competent to God alone, and he is corroborated by the word of Moses, that when the magicians of Pharaoh artfully used natural principles to bring forth lice and failed, they cried, “This is the finger of God.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt195"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt195#lf1477_footnote_nt195">3</a> If a miracle, then, is the immediate operation of the First Agent without the coöperation of secondary agents,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt196"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt196#lf1477_footnote_nt196">4</a> which Thomas himself proves clearly enough in the book just cited, then when portents are sent in favor of anything, it is wicked to deny that that thing comes to pass foreseen of God and well pleasing to Him. Hence piety accepts the contradictory, that the Roman Empire gained its perfection with the approval of miracles, that it was therefore willed of God, and consequently that it was and is by Right.<br /><a name="a_3341760"></a>2. And it is established through the testimony of illustrious authors that God revealed His will in miracles in order that the Roman Empire might be brought to completion. For Livy states in the first part of his work that when Numa Pompilius, second king of the Romans, was sacrificing according to the religious rite of the Gentiles, a shield fell from heaven into the chosen city of God.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt197"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt197#lf1477_footnote_nt197">5</a> Lucan recalls this miracle in the ninth book of the Pharsalia in describing the incredible violence which Libya suffers from the south wind, where he says, “It was thus, surely, that to Numa as he sacrificed dropped the shield which the chosen youth of the patricians bears upon his neck in solemn march; south wind or north wind had robbed the peoples wearing our shields.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt198"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt198#lf1477_footnote_nt198">6</a><br /><a name="a_3341761"></a>3. And when the Gauls, having taken the rest of the city, trusted in the darkness of night to move stealthily to the Capitol, which alone stood between them and utter annihilation of the Roman name, Livy and many other distinguished chroniclers agree that the guards were awakened to defend the Capitol from the approach of the Gauls by the warning cry of a goose, unseen there previously.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt199"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt199#lf1477_footnote_nt199">7</a> This was remembered by Virgil when he described the shield of Aeneas in the eighth book: “On the summit of the Tarpeian citadel, before the temple, Manlius stood guard and held the heights of the Capitol, while the newly builded palace of Romulus was rough with thatch. And here a silver goose flying through golden portals sang the presence of the Gauls on the very threshold.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt200"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt200#lf1477_footnote_nt200">8</a><br /><a name="a_3341762"></a>4. Also Livy tells among the gests of the Punic Wars that, when the nobility of Rome, overwhelmed by Hannibal, had sunk to such depths that nothing remained for the final destruction of the Roman power but the sacking of the city by the Carthaginians, a sudden and intolerable storm of hail made it impossible for the victors to follow up their triumph.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt201"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt201#lf1477_footnote_nt201">9</a><br /><a name="a_3341763"></a>5. Was not the flight of Cloelia a miracle? A woman, and captive during the siege of Porsenna, by the wonderful aid of God she rent her fetters asunder and swam the Tiber, as almost all historians<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt202"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt202#lf1477_footnote_nt202">10</a> of Rome’s affairs remember to that city’s glory. Truly it behooved Him so to do, who through eternity foresees all things in the beauty of order.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt203"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt203#lf1477_footnote_nt203">11</a> Invisible He wrought wonders in behalf of things seen, in order that when He should be made visible He might do likewise in behalf of things unseen.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt204"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt204#lf1477_footnote_nt204">12</a> </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER V<br /><a name="a_3341765"></a>The Roman people in subduing the world had in view the good of the state and therefore the end of Right.<br /><a name="a_3341766"></a>1. Whoever contemplates the good of the state contemplates the end of Right, as may be explained thus. Right<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt205"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt205#lf1477_footnote_nt205">1</a> is a real and personal relation of man to man, which maintained preserves society, and infringed upon destroys it.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt206"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt206#lf1477_footnote_nt206">2</a> That account in the Digests<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt207"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt207#lf1477_footnote_nt207">3</a> does not teach what the essence of Right is; it simply describes Right in terms of practice. If our definition truly comprehends what Right is and wherefore, and if the end of all society is the common good of the individuals associated, then the end of all Right must be the common good, and no Right is possible which does not contemplate the common good. Tully justly notes in the first book of the Rhetoric that “The laws should always be interpreted for the good of the state.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt208"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt208#lf1477_footnote_nt208">4</a> For if the laws are not directed for the benefit of those under the laws, they are laws merely in name, they cannot be laws in reality. Law ought to bind men together for general advantage. Wherefore Seneca<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt209"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt209#lf1477_footnote_nt209">5</a> says truly in his book on the Four Virtues, “Law is the bond of human society.” So it is clear that whoever contemplates the good of the state contemplates the end of Right. If, therefore, the Romans had in view the good of the state, the assertion is true that they had in view the end of Right.<br /><a name="a_3341767"></a>2. That in subduing the world the Roman people had in view the aforesaid good, their deeds declare. We behold them as a nation holy, pious, and full of glory, putting aside all avarice,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt210"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt210#lf1477_footnote_nt210">6</a> which is ever adverse to the general welfare, cherishing universal peace and liberty, and disregarding private profit to guard the public weal of humanity. Rightly was it written, then, that “The Roman Empire takes its rise in the fountain of pity.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt211"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt211#lf1477_footnote_nt211">7</a><br /><a name="a_3341768"></a>3. But inasmuch as external signs alone manifest to others the intention of all agents of free choice, and inasmuch as statements must be investigated according to the subject-matter, as we have said before, we shall have evidence enough on the present point if we bring forth indubitable proofs of the intention of the Roman people both in corporate assemblies and in individual persons.<br /><a name="a_3341769"></a>4. Concerning corporate assemblies, in which individuals seem in a measure bound to the state, the solitary authority of Cicero in the second book of Moral Duties is sufficient. “So long,” he says, “as the dominion of the Republic was upheld by benefits, not by injuries, war was waged in behalf either of allies or dominion, for a conclusion either beneficent or necessary. The Senate was a harbor of refuge for kings, peoples, and nations. Our magistrates and generals strove for praise in defending with equity and fidelity the provinces and the allies; so this government might rather have been called a defense than a dominion of the whole world.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt212"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt212#lf1477_footnote_nt212">8</a> So wrote Cicero.<br /><a name="a_3341770"></a>5. Of individual persons I shall speak briefly. Can we say they were not intent on the common weal who in sweat, in poverty, in exile, in deprivation of children, in loss of limbs, and even in the sacrifice of their lives, strove to augment the public good?<br /><a name="a_3341771"></a>6. Did not the renowned Cincinnatus leave to us a sacred example, when he freely chose the time to lay aside that dignity which, as Livy says, took him from the plough to make him dictator?<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt213"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt213#lf1477_footnote_nt213">9</a> After his victory, after his triumph, he gave back to the consuls the imperial sceptre, and voluntarily returned to toil at the plough handle behind his oxen. Cicero, disputing with Epicurus in his volume of the Chief Good, remembered and lauded this excellent action, saying, “And thus our ancestors took great Cincinnatus from the plough that he might become dictator.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt214"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt214#lf1477_footnote_nt214">10</a><br /><a name="a_3341772"></a>7. Did not Fabricius<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt215"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt215#lf1477_footnote_nt215">11</a> give us a lofty example of withstanding avarice, when, in the fidelity which held him to the Republic, though living in poverty he scorned with fitting words the great mass of proffered gold, repudiated, and refused it? Our poet has made the memory of this deed sure by singing in the sixth book of “Fabricius powerful in penury.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt216"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt216#lf1477_footnote_nt216">12</a><br /><a name="a_3341773"></a>8. Was not the example of Camillus memorable, valuing as he did laws above individual profit? According to Livy, while condemned to exile he liberated his harassed fatherland, restored to Rome what the Romans had been despoiled of in war,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt217"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt217#lf1477_footnote_nt217">13</a> and left the sacred city, though called back by the whole people; nor did he return thither until, by the authority of the senate, was sent to him his permit of repatriation.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt218"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt218#lf1477_footnote_nt218">14</a> And the poet commends this large-souled man in the sixth book, where he calls him “Camillus, the restorer of our ensigns.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt219"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt219#lf1477_footnote_nt219">15</a><br /><a name="a_3341774"></a>9. And did not Brutus first teach that the love of sons and of all others should be subordinated to the love of national liberty? When he was consul, Livy says, he delivered up to death his own sons for conspiring with the enemy.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt220"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt220#lf1477_footnote_nt220">16</a> In the sixth book our Poet revives the glory of this hero: “In behalf of beauteous liberty shall the father doom to death his own sons instigating new wars.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt221"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt221#lf1477_footnote_nt221">17</a><br /><a name="a_3341775"></a>10. Has not Mucius persuaded us that all things should be ventured for one’s country? He surprised the incautious Porsenna, but at the last his own hand, which had failed of its task, he watched as it burned, with a countenance one might wear who gazed upon an enemy in torture. To this Livy also bears testimony, marveling.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt222"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt222#lf1477_footnote_nt222">18</a><br /><a name="a_3341776"></a>11. Now we name those most sacred martyrs of the Decii, who dedicated their lives an offering for the public good, as Livy recounts, extolling them to the extent not of their worth but of his power.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt223"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt223#lf1477_footnote_nt223">19</a> And next that ineffable sacrifice of Marcus Cato, the most austere defender of true liberty.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt224"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt224#lf1477_footnote_nt224">20</a> Because of their country’s safety the darkness of death had no terror for the former two. The latter proved what liberty meant to him, when, in order that the love of freedom might blaze up in the world, he chose rather to depart from this life a free man than without freedom to abide therein. The lustre of all these names shines renewed in the words of Cicero in his writings of the chief Good. Here Tully says of the Decii: “When Publius Decius, chief of his house, a consul, devoted himself to liberty and charged at full speed into the Roman ranks, thought he at all of his own pleasure, when he should take it, and where? Or when, knowing he must die forthwith, he sought his death more ardently than Epicurus believed men should seek pleasure? Had his action not been justly lauded, his son would not in his fourth consulship have followed his example; nor afterwards his son’s son waging war against Pyrrhus<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt225"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt225#lf1477_footnote_nt225">21</a> have fallen in that battle, a consul, offering himself to the Republic the third sacrifice in uninterrupted succession.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt226"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt226#lf1477_footnote_nt226">22</a> And in the Moral Duties he said of Cato: “The cause of Marcus Cato was one with those who in Africa surrendered themselves to Caesar; and perchance with them it had been judged a crime had they taken their own lives, seeing that life was a lighter thing to them, and rules of conduct easier. But Cato, who had been endowed by nature with incredible seriousness, who strengthened this with unremitting constancy, and who persevered to the end in any resolution made or purpose undertaken, such a one must rather meet death than look upon the face of a tyrant.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt227"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt227#lf1477_footnote_nt227">23</a> </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER VI<br /><a name="a_3341778"></a>He who purposes Right proceeds according to Right.<br /><a name="a_3341779"></a>1. We have then demonstrated two things: one, that whoever purposes the good of the commonwealth purposes the end of Right; the other, that the Roman people in subduing the world purposed the public good. We may now further our argument in this wise: Whoever has in view the end of Right proceeds according to Right; the Roman people in subjecting the world to itself had in view the end of Right, as we plainly proved in the chapter above;<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt228"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt228#lf1477_footnote_nt228">1</a> therefore the Roman people in subjecting the world to itself acted with Right, and consequently appropriated with Right the dignity of Empire.<br /><a name="a_3341780"></a>2. That this conclusion may be reached by all manifest premises, it must be reached by the one that affirms that whoever purposes the end of Right proceeds according to Right. For clearness in this matter, notice that everything exists because of some end, otherwise it would be useless, which we have said before is not possible.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt229"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt229#lf1477_footnote_nt229">2</a> And just as every object exists for its proper end, so every end has its proper object whereof it is the end. Hence it cannot be that any two objects, in as far as they are two, each expressing its individuality, should have in view the same end, for the same untenable conclusion would follow that one or the other exists in vain. Since, as we have proved, there is a certain end of Right, to postulate that end is to postulate the Right, seeing it is the proper and intrinsic effect of Right. And since, as is clear by construction and destruction,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt230"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt230#lf1477_footnote_nt230">3</a> in any sequence an antecedent is impossible without its consequent (as “man” without “animal”), so it is impossible to attain a good condition of one’s members without health; and so it is impossible to seek the end of Right without Right as a means, for each thing has toward its end the relation of consequent to antecedent. Wherefore it is very obvious that he who has in view the end of Right must proceed by the right means. Nor is that objection valid which is generally drawn from the Philosopher’s words concerning “good counsel.” He says indeed, “There is a kind of false syllogism in which a true conclusion may be drawn by means of a false middle.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt231"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt231#lf1477_footnote_nt231">4</a> Now if a true conclusion is sometimes reached through false premises, it is by accident, because the true conclusion is conveyed in the words of the inference. Of itself the true never follows from the false, though symbols of truth may follow from symbols of falsehood.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt232"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt232#lf1477_footnote_nt232">5</a> And so it is in actions. Should a thief aid a poor man with stolen goods, he yet could not be said to be giving alms; rather is his action one which would have the form<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt233"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt233#lf1477_footnote_nt233">6</a> of alms had it been performed with the man’s own substance. Likewise with the end of Right. For if anything calling itself the end of Right be reached other than by means of Right, it would be the end of Right, that is, the common good, only as the offering made from ill-gotten gains is an alms. Since in this proposition we are considering the existent, not the apparent ends of Right, the objection is invalid. The point we are seeking is therefore established. </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER VII<br /><a name="a_3341782"></a>The Roman people were ordained for Empire by nature.<br /><a name="a_3341783"></a>1. What nature has ordained comes to pass by Right, for nature in her providence is not inferior to man in his; if she were, the effect would exceed the cause in goodness,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt234"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt234#lf1477_footnote_nt234">1</a> which cannot be. Now we know that in instituting corporate assemblies, not only is the relation of members among themselves taken into account, but also their capacities for exercising office. This is a consideration of the limit of Right in a public body or order, seeing that Right does not extend beyond the possible. Nature, then, in her ordinances does not fail of this provision, but clearly ordains things with reference to their capacities, and this reference is the foundation of Right on which things are based by nature.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt235"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt235#lf1477_footnote_nt235">2</a> From this it follows that natural order in things cannot come to pass without Right, since the foundation of Right is inseparably bound to the foundation of order.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt236"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt236#lf1477_footnote_nt236">3</a> The preservation of this order is therefore necessarily Right.<br /><a name="a_3341784"></a>2. The Roman people were by nature ordained for Empire, as may be proved in this wise.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt237"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt237#lf1477_footnote_nt237">4</a> Just as he would fail of perfection in his art who, intent upon the form alone, had no care for the means by which to attain to form; so would nature if, intent upon the single universal form of the Divine similitude,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt238"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt238#lf1477_footnote_nt238">5</a> she were to neglect the means thereto. But nature, being the work of the Divine Intelligence, lacks no element of perfection; therefore she has in view all media to the ultimate realization of her intent.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt239"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt239#lf1477_footnote_nt239">6</a><br /><a name="a_3341785"></a>3. As the human race, then, has an end, and this end is a means necessary to the universal end of nature, it follows that nature must have the means in view. Wherefore the Philosopher well demonstrates in the second book of Natural Learning that the action of nature is governed by its end.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt240"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt240#lf1477_footnote_nt240">7</a> And as nature cannot attain through one man an end necessitating a multiplicity of actions and a multitude of men in action, nature must produce many men ordained for diverse activities.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt241"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt241#lf1477_footnote_nt241">8</a> To this, beside the higher influence,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt242"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt242#lf1477_footnote_nt242">9</a> the virtues and properties of the lower sphere contribute much. Hence we find individual men and whole nations born apt for government, and others for subjection and service, according to the statement of the Philosopher in his writings concerning Politics; as he says, it is not only expedient that the latter should be governed, but it is just, although they be coerced thereto.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt243"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt243#lf1477_footnote_nt243">10</a><br /><a name="a_3341786"></a>4. If these things are true, there is no doubt but that nature set apart in the world a place and a people for universal sovereignty;<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt244"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt244#lf1477_footnote_nt244">11</a> otherwise she would be deficient in herself, which is impossible.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt245"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt245#lf1477_footnote_nt245">12</a> What was this place, and who this people, moreover, is sufficiently obvious in what has been said above, and in what shall be added further on. They were Rome and her citizens or people. On this subject our Poet has touched very subtly in his sixth book, where he brings forward Anchises prophesying in these words to Aeneas, father of the Romans: “Verily, that others shall beat out the breathing bronze more finely, I grant you; they shall carve the living feature in the marble, plead causes with more eloquence, and trace the movements of the heavens with a rod, and name the rising stars: thine, O Roman, be the care to rule the peoples with authority; be thy arts these, to teach men the way of peace, to show mercy to the subject, and to overcome the proud.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt246"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt246#lf1477_footnote_nt246">13</a> And the disposition of place he touches upon lightly in the fourth book, when he introduces Jupiter speaking of Aeneas to Mercury in this fashion: “Not such a one did his most beautiful mother promise to us, nor for this twice rescue him from Grecian arms; rather was he to be the man to govern Italy teeming with empire and tumultuous with war.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt247"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt247#lf1477_footnote_nt247">14</a> Proof enough has been given that the Romans were by nature ordained for sovereignty. Therefore the Roman people, in subjecting to itself the world, attained the Empire by Right. </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER VIII<br /><a name="a_3341788"></a>The decree of God showed that Empire belonged to the Roman people.<br /><a name="a_3341789"></a>1. For hunting down adequately the truth of our inquiry, it is essential to know that Divine judgment in human affairs is sometimes manifest to men, and sometimes hidden. And it may be manifested in two ways, namely, by reason and by faith.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt248"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt248#lf1477_footnote_nt248">1</a> To certain of the judgments of God human reason can climb on its own feet, as to this one, that a man should endanger himself for his country’s safety. For if a part should endanger itself for the safety of the whole, man, being a part of the state according to the Philosopher in his Politics, ought to endanger himself for the sake of his fatherland, as a less good for a better.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt249"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt249#lf1477_footnote_nt249">2</a> Hence the Philosopher to Nicomachus: “To act in behalf of one alone is admirable; but it is better and more nearly divine to act in behalf of nation and state.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt250"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt250#lf1477_footnote_nt250">3</a> And this is the judgment of God; in any other case human reason in its rectitude would not follow the intention of nature, which is impossible.<br /><a name="a_3341790"></a>2. But to certain of the judgments of God, to which human reason cannot climb on its own feet, it may be lifted by the aid of faith in those things which are related to us in the Holy Scriptures. Such is this one, that no man without faith can be saved, though he had never heard of Christ, and yet was perfect in moral and intellectual virtues, both in thought and act.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt251"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt251#lf1477_footnote_nt251">4</a> While human reason by itself cannot recognize this as just, aided by faith it can do so. It is written to the Hebrews: “Without faith it is impossible to please God.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt252"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt252#lf1477_footnote_nt252">5</a> And in Leviticus: “What man soever there be of the house of Israel that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat in the camp, or out of the camp, and bringeth it not to the door of the tabernacle, an offering unto the Lord, blood shall be imputed to that man.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt253"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt253#lf1477_footnote_nt253">6</a> The door of the tabernacle is a figure for Christ, who is the entrance-way to the eternal mansions,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt254"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt254#lf1477_footnote_nt254">7</a> as can be learned from the Gospel; the slaying of animals is a figure for human deeds.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt255"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt255#lf1477_footnote_nt255">8</a><br /><a name="a_3341791"></a>3. Now that judgment of God is hidden to which human reason cannot attain either by laws of nature or scripture, but to which it may sometimes attain by special grace. This grace is gained in various ways, at times by simple revelation, at times by revelation through the medium of judicial award. Simple revelation comes to pass in two ways, either as the spontaneous act of God, or as an answer to prayer. The spontaneous act of God may be expressed directly or by a sign. It was expressed directly, for instance, in the judgment against Saul revealed to Samuel;<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt256"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt256#lf1477_footnote_nt256">9</a> it was expressed by signs in the revelation to Pharaoh of God’s will concerning the liberation of the children of Israel.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt257"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt257#lf1477_footnote_nt257">10</a> It came as an answer to prayer, as he knew who said in Second Chronicles: “When we know not what we ought to do, this alone we have left, to raise our eyes to thee.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt258"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt258#lf1477_footnote_nt258">11</a><br /><a name="a_3341792"></a>4. Revelation through the medium of judicial award may be first by lot, and secondly by contest (certamen). Indeed, “to contend” (certare) is derived from “to make certain” (certum facere). That the judgment of God is revealed sometimes by lot is obvious from the substitution of Matthias in the Acts of the Apostles.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt259"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt259#lf1477_footnote_nt259">12</a><br /><a name="a_3341793"></a>5. And the judgment of God is made known by contests of two sorts—either the trial of strength between champions in duels,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt260"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt260#lf1477_footnote_nt260">13</a> or the struggle of many to come first to a mark, as in contests run by athletes for a prize. The first of these modes was represented among the Gentiles in the strife of Hercules and Antaeus, which Lucan recalls in the fourth book of the Pharsalia,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt261"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt261#lf1477_footnote_nt261">14</a> and Ovid in the ninth of the Metamorphoses.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt262"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt262#lf1477_footnote_nt262">15</a> The second was represented among them by Atalanta and Hippomenes, in the tenth book of the Metamorphoses.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt263"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt263#lf1477_footnote_nt263">16</a><br /><a name="a_3341794"></a>6. Likewise, the fact must not be disregarded that in the former of these two sorts of contests the combatants—for instance, champions in a duel—may impede each other without injustice, but in the latter they may not. Indeed, athletes must put no impediment in one another’s way, although our poet seems to think otherwise in his fifth book, when he causes Euryalus to be rewarded.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt264"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt264#lf1477_footnote_nt264">17</a> Tully, following the opinion of Chrysippus, does better to forbid this in the third book of Moral Duties, where he says: “Chrysippus, wise in this as in most matters, declares that ‘Whoever runs a race should endeavor with most strenuous effort to come off victor, but in no way should he trip up the one with whom he contends.’ ”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt265"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt265#lf1477_footnote_nt265">18</a><br /><a name="a_3341795"></a>7. From the distinction drawn in this chapter we may grant two effective modes by which the hidden decree of God is revealed: one, a contest of athletes; the other, a contest of champions. Both of these modes I will discuss in the chapter immediately following. </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER IX<br /><a name="a_3341797"></a>The Romans were victorious over all contestants for Empire.<br /><a name="a_3341798"></a>1. That people, then, which was victorious over all the contestants for Empire gained its victory by the decree of God. For as it is of deeper concern to God to adjust a universal contention than a particular one, and as even in particular contentions the decree of God is sought by the contestants, according to the familiar proverb, “To him whom God grants aught, let Peter give his blessing,”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt266"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt266#lf1477_footnote_nt266">1</a> therefore undoubtedly among the contestants for the Empire of the world, victory ensued from a decree of God. That among the rivals for world-Empire the Roman people came off victor will be clear if we consider the contestants and the prize or goal toward which they strove. This prize or goal was sovereign power over all mortals, or what we mean by Empire.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt267"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt267#lf1477_footnote_nt267">2</a> This was attained by none save by the Roman people, not only the first but the sole contestant to reach the goal contended for, as will be at once explained.<br /><a name="a_3341799"></a>2. The first man to pant after the prize was Ninus, king of the Assyrians, who, as Orosius records,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt268"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt268#lf1477_footnote_nt268">3</a> together with his consort Semiramis, through more than ninety years gave battle for world-supremacy, and subdued all Asia to himself; nevertheless, the western portion of the earth never became subject to him or his queen. Both of these Ovid commemorates in his fourth book in the story of Pyramus: “Semiramis<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt269"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt269#lf1477_footnote_nt269">4</a> girded the city with walls of burnt brick;” and below: “They are to meet at the tomb of Ninus, and hide beneath its shadow.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt270"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt270#lf1477_footnote_nt270">5</a><br /><a name="a_3341800"></a>3. Vesoges, king of Egypt, was the second to strain after this prize, but though he harassed the South and North of Asia, as Orosius narrates, he never achieved the first part of the world.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt271"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt271#lf1477_footnote_nt271">6</a> Nay, between umpires<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt272"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt272#lf1477_footnote_nt272">7</a> and goal, as it were, he was turned back from his rash undertaking by the Scythians.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt273"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt273#lf1477_footnote_nt273">8</a><br /><a name="a_3341801"></a>4. Next Cyrus, king of the Persians, undertook the same thing, but after destroying Babylon and transferring Babylonian sovereignty to the Persians, before he had tested his strength in western regions, he laid down his life and ambition at once before Tomyris, queen of the Scythians.<br /><a name="a_3341802"></a>5. Then after these Xerxes,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt274"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt274#lf1477_footnote_nt274">9</a> son of Darius and king among the Persians, invaded the world with so vast and mighty a multitude of nations that he spanned with a bridge between Sestos and Abydos that passage of the sea separating Asia from Europe. This astonishing work Lucan extols thus in the second book of the Pharsalia: “Such roads, fame signs, did haughty Xerxes build across the seas.” But at last miserably repulsed from his enterprise, he failed to reach his goal.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt275"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt275#lf1477_footnote_nt275">10</a><br /><a name="a_3341803"></a>6. Beside these and in later times, Alexander,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt276"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt276#lf1477_footnote_nt276">11</a> the Macedonian king, came nearest of all to the palm of Monarchy, through ambassadors forewarning the Romans to surrender. But, as Livy recounts, before their answer came, he fell as in the midst of a course in Egypt.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt277"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt277#lf1477_footnote_nt277">12</a> Of his tomb there Lucan renders testimony in the eighth book, in an invective against Ptolemy, king of Egypt: “Thou last offspring of the Lagaean line, swiftly to perish in thy degeneracy and yield the sceptre to thy incestuous sister, while for thee the Macedonian is guarded in the sacred cave.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt278"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt278#lf1477_footnote_nt278">13</a><br /><a name="a_3341804"></a>7. “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God,”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt279"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt279#lf1477_footnote_nt279">14</a> who will not pause in amazement before thee? For thou, when Alexander strove to entangle the feet of his Roman rival in the course, didst snatch him from the contest, lest his rashness wax more great.<br /><a name="a_3341805"></a>8. But that Rome gained the palm of so magnificent a prize is confirmed by many witnessings. Our Poet says in his first book: “Verily, with the passing of the years shall one day come from hence the Romans, rulers sprung of the blood of Teucer called again to life, who shall hold the sea and land in undivided sovereignty.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt280"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt280#lf1477_footnote_nt280">15</a> And Lucan in his first book: “The kingdom is apportioned by the sword, and the fortune of the mighty nation that is master over sea, over land, and over all the globe, suffers not two in command.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt281"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt281#lf1477_footnote_nt281">16</a> And Boethius in his second book speaks thus of the Prince of the Romans: “Nay, he was ruler of the peoples whom the sun looks on from the time he rises in the east until he hides his rays beneath the waves, and those whom the chilling northern wain o’errules, and those whom the southern gale burns with its dry blasts, as it beats the burning sands.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt282"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt282#lf1477_footnote_nt282">17</a> And Luke, the scribe of Christ, who speaketh all things true, offers the same testimony in the part of his writtings which says, “There went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt283"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt283#lf1477_footnote_nt283">18</a> From these words we can clearly see that the jurisdiction of the Romans embraced the whole world.<br /><a name="a_3341806"></a>9. It is proved by all these facts that the Romans were victorious among the contestants for world-Empire; therefore they were victorious by divine decree; and consequently they gained the Empire by divine decree, that is, they gained it with Right. </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER X<br /><a name="a_3341808"></a>That which is acquired by single combat is acquired with Right.<br /><a name="a_3341809"></a>1. Whatever is acquired by single combat is acquired with Right. For when human judgment fails, either because it is wrapped in the darkness of ignorance or because it has not the aid of a judge, then, lest judgment should remain forsaken, recourse must be had to Him who so loved her that, by the shedding of His own blood, He met her full demands in death. Hence the Psalm: “The righteous Lord loveth righteousness.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt284"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt284#lf1477_footnote_nt284">1</a> This end is accomplished when, with the free consent of the participants, in love and not in hatred of justice, the judgment of God is sought through a mutual trial of bodily and spiritual strength. Because it was first used in single combat of man to man, this trial of strength we call the duel.<br /><a name="a_3341810"></a>2. But always in quarrels threatening to become matters of war, every effort should be made to settle the dispute through conference, and only as a last resort through battle. Tully and Vegetius both advance this opinion, the former in Moral Duties,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt285"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt285#lf1477_footnote_nt285">2</a> and the latter in his book on The Art of War.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt286"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt286#lf1477_footnote_nt286">3</a> And as in medical treatment everything is tried before final recourse is had to the knife or fire, so when we have exhausted all other ways of obtaining judgment in a dispute, we may finally turn to this remedy by single combat, compelled thereto by the necessity of justice.<br /><a name="a_3341811"></a>3. There are obviously two fixed rules of single combat, one of which we have just now spoken, and another of which we made mention above, that not in hatred, nor in love, but in pure zeal for justice, the contestants or champions should enter the field by common consent. Touching this matter Tully well said: “Wars engaged in for the crown of Empire should be waged without bitterness.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt287"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt287#lf1477_footnote_nt287">4</a><br /><a name="a_3341812"></a>4. Provided that in single combat these rules are observed without which single combat ceases to be, and that men necessitated by justice and in zeal for justice meet by common consent, are they not met in the name of God? And if they are met in the name of God, is not God in the midst of them, as He Himself promises in the Gospel?<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt288"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt288#lf1477_footnote_nt288">5</a> And if God is present, is it not a sin to imagine that Justice<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt289"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt289#lf1477_footnote_nt289">6</a> can fail—Justice, which we have shown He so greatly loved? And if Justice cannot fail in single combat, is not that which is acquired by single combat acquired by Right?<br /><a name="a_3341813"></a>5. Even before the trumpet-call of the Gospel, the Gentiles recognized this truth, and sought judgment in the fortune of single combat. Pyrrhus, noble in the virtues as well as in the blood of the Aeacidae, answered nobly the legates of the Romans sent to him for redeeming their captives: “I demand no gold, nor shall you render me a price; we are not barterers in war, but fighters; with steel, not with gold, let each decide the issue of life. Whether Hera wills that you or I shall reign, or whatever fate may bring, let us determine by prowess. And at the same time know this: to those whose valor the fortunes of war has preserved, it is my will to grant liberty. Receive them as a gift.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt290"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt290#lf1477_footnote_nt290">7</a> So Pyrrhus spoke, referring by “Hera” to fortune, that agency which we more wisely and rightly name Divine Providence. Let combatants, then, forbear to settle disputes for a price, for that would not be a single combat, but a game of blood and injustice; nor would God then be present as arbiter, but rather that ancient enemy who had been persuader to the quarrel. And let those who desire to be champions, and not hucksters of blood and injustice, have ever before their eyes in entering the field that Pyrrhus who in fighting for Empire, as we have said, held gold in such contempt.<br /><a name="a_3341814"></a>6. If to contradict the truth thus manifested, the usual objection be raised concerning the inequality of men’s strength, it may be refuted by the instance of David’s victory over Goliath.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt291"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt291#lf1477_footnote_nt291">8</a> And if the Gentiles seek another instance, they may refute it by the victory of Hercules over Antaeus.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt292"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt292#lf1477_footnote_nt292">9</a> It is the height of folly, indeed, to fear that the strength which God confers may be weaker than that of a human antagonist.<br /><a name="a_3341815"></a>7. By this time it is demonstrated clearly enough that whatever is acquired by single combat is acquired with Right and Justice. </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER XI<br /><a name="a_3341817"></a>The single combats of the Roman people.<br /><a name="a_3341818"></a>1. That the Roman people acquired Empire by single combat is confirmed by witnesses worthy of belief. In citing witnesses, not only shall we prove this, but we shall show that, from the founding of the Roman Empire, the decision of all questions whatsoever was reached through contests of man to man.<br /><a name="a_3341819"></a>2. At the very outset, when contention arose in regard to the colonization of Italy by father Aeneas, who was first parent of the Roman people, and Turnus, king of the Rutilians, stood out against him; finally, as is sung in the last book of the Aeneid, both kings agreed to seek the good pleasure of God in a combat singly between themselves.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt293"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt293#lf1477_footnote_nt293">1</a> The closing verses of our Poet testify how great was the clemency of Aeneas, victor in the contest, and how as vanquisher he would have bestowed life and peace at one time on the vanquished, had he not espied on Turnus the belt stripped by him from Pallas slain.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt294"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt294#lf1477_footnote_nt294">2</a><br /><a name="a_3341820"></a>3. And when two peoples, the Romans and Albanians, had grown up in Italy from the same Trojan root, and when they had long striven for the ensign of the eagle, the household gods of the Trojans, and the honor of supreme command, at length with mutual consent they determined the question by a combat between the three Horatian and the three Curiatian brethren, in the view of the kings and people waiting anxiously on either side. The three champions of the Albanians and two of the Romans fell, and the victory went to the Romans, in the reign of Hostilius. And to this, which Livy narrates in detail in his first book,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt295"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt295#lf1477_footnote_nt295">3</a> Orosius also bears witness.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt296"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt296#lf1477_footnote_nt296">4</a><br /><a name="a_3341821"></a>4. Livy tells that they then strove for Empire with their neighbors, Sabines and Samnites, observing every rule of war, and preserving the characteristics of contests man to man, although the contestants were a multitude. During the struggle carried on in this wise with the Samnites, Fortune seemed, as it were, almost to repent of her undertaking. And this Lucan uses as an example in his second book, saying: “Or how many heaps of slain choked up the Colline Gate, what time the headship of the world and authority in earthly things were well-nigh transferred to other realms, and the Samnites overtopped the Caudine Forks with Roman dead.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt297"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt297#lf1477_footnote_nt297">5</a><br /><a name="a_3341822"></a>5. After these troubles with Italy were quieted, but the decree of God was not yet certain in regard to the Greeks and the Phoenicians aspiring to Empire, Fabricius for the Romans and Pyrrhus for the Greeks contended with a multitude of soldiery for the glory of sovereignty, and Rome was triumphant. Then Scipio<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt298"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt298#lf1477_footnote_nt298">6</a> for the Italians and Hannibal for the Africans did battle in the form of single combat, and Africa succumbed to Italy, as Livy and other writers of Roman affairs endeavor to show.<br /><a name="a_3341823"></a>6. Who is then so dull of wit he fails to see that this splendid people gained the crown of a world-wide realm by right of single combat? Verily, a Roman might say with the Apostle addressing Timothy, “There is laid up for me a crown of righteousness”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt299"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt299#lf1477_footnote_nt299">7</a> —that is to say, laid up in the eternal providence of God. Now let presumptuous jurists behold how far they stand beneath that watch-tower of reason whence the human mind looks out upon these principles, and let them be silent, content to give counsel and judgment according to the import of the law.<br /><a name="a_3341824"></a>7. And now the main proposition of the present book is proved, that the Roman people attained imperial power through single combat, and that therefore they attained it by Right.<br /><a name="a_3341825"></a>8. Thus far the argument has progressed through reason based chiefly on rational principles, but from now on it shall be re-demonstrated through the principles of Christian faith.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt300"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt300#lf1477_footnote_nt300">8</a> </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER XII<br /><a name="a_3341827"></a>Christ in being born proved that the authority of the Roman Empire was just.<br /><a name="a_3341828"></a>1. And especially those who call themselves zealots for the Christian faith<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt301"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt301#lf1477_footnote_nt301">1</a> have “raged” and “imagined vain things” against Roman dominion; they have no pity for the poor of Christ,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt302"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt302#lf1477_footnote_nt302">2</a> but defraud them in the church revenues, even stealing their patrimony daily, and render the Church destitute;<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt303"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt303#lf1477_footnote_nt303">3</a> pretending to Justice, they yet permit no executor of Justice to do his duty.<br /><a name="a_3341829"></a>2. Nor is this impoverishment accomplished without the judgment of God, for the church revenues are neither given to relieve the poor whose patrimony they are, nor are held with gratitude to the Empire which bestowed them. Let them return whence they came. They came justly, they return unjustly, for though they were rightly given, they are wrongfully held.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt304"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt304#lf1477_footnote_nt304">4</a> What should be said of such shepherds? What, if with the depletion of the Church’s substance the estates of relatives wax great?<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt305"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt305#lf1477_footnote_nt305">5</a> Belike it were better to follow out the argument and await our Saviour’s aid in pious silence.<br /><a name="a_3341830"></a>3. I affirm, therefore, that if the Roman Empire did not come to be with Right, Christ in His birth authorized an injustice. This consequent is false; therefore the contradictory of the antecedent is true, since contradictory propositions are of such a nature that the falseness of a statement argues for the truth of its opposite.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt306"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt306#lf1477_footnote_nt306">6</a><br /><a name="a_3341831"></a>4. The falsity of this consequent need not be proved to those of the faith; for he who is of the faith will concede its falsity; if he does not do so, he is not of the faith; and if he is not of the faith, this argument concerns him not.<br /><a name="a_3341832"></a>5. I demonstrate the consequent<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt307"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt307#lf1477_footnote_nt307">7</a> thus: Whoever of his own free will fulfills an edict urges its justice by so doing; and since deeds are more persuasive than words, as the Philosopher states in his last book to Nicomachus, he is more convincing than if his approbation were verbal.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt308"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt308#lf1477_footnote_nt308">8</a> Now Christ willed to be born of a Virgin Mother under an edict of Roman authority, according to the testimony of Luke,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt309"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt309#lf1477_footnote_nt309">9</a> his scribe, in order that the Son of Man, made man, might be numbered as a man in that unique census. This fulfilled the edict. It were perhaps more reverent to believe that the Divine Will caused the edict to go forth through Caesar, in order that God might number Himself among the society of mortals who had so many ages awaited His coming.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt310"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt310#lf1477_footnote_nt310">10</a><br /><a name="a_3341833"></a>6. So Christ in His action established as just the edict of Augustus, exerciser of Roman authority. Since to decree justly presupposes jurisdictional power, whoever confirms the justice of an edict confirms also the jurisdictional power whence it issued. Did this power not exist by Right, it would be unjust.<br /><a name="a_3341834"></a>7. And observe that the argument employed to disprove the consequent, though it holds to a certain degree, nevertheless, if reduced,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt311"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt311#lf1477_footnote_nt311">11</a> shows its force in the second figure,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt312"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt312#lf1477_footnote_nt312">12</a> just as the argument based on the assumption of the antecedent shows its force in the first figure. The reduction is made as follows: Every unjust thing is established unjustly; Christ established nothing unjustly; therefore Christ established no unjust thing. And thus by the assumption of the antecedent: Every unjust thing is established unjustly; Christ established an unjust thing; therefore Christ established things unjustly. </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER XIII<br /><a name="a_3341836"></a>Christ in dying confirmed the jurisdiction of the Roman Empire over all humanity.<br /><a name="a_3341837"></a>1. And if the Roman Empire did not exist by Right, the sin of Adam was not punished in Christ. This, however, is false; so the contradictory from which it follows is true. The falsity of the consequent is apparent in this. By the sin of Adam we are all sinners, according to the Apostle: “As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt313"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt313#lf1477_footnote_nt313">1</a> If satisfaction had not been given for this sin through the death of Christ, we, owing to our depraved nature, should still be children of wrath. But this is not so, for the Apostle speaks in Ephesians of the Father “having predestined us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the beloved, in whom we have redemption by His blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of His grace, wherein He has abounded toward us.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt314"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt314#lf1477_footnote_nt314">2</a> And Christ Himself, suffering in Himself the punishment, says in John, “It is finished.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt315"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt315#lf1477_footnote_nt315">3</a> And when a thing is finished, nothing remains to be done.<br /><a name="a_3341838"></a>2. For greater clearness, let it be understood that punishment is not simply penalty visited upon the doer of wrong, but penalty visited upon the doer of wrong by one having penal jurisdiction. Wherefore unless punishment is inflicted by a lawful judge, it is no punishment; rather must it be called a wrong. Hence the man of the Hebrews said to Moses, “Who made thee a judge over us?”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt316"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt316#lf1477_footnote_nt316">4</a> 3. If therefore Christ did not suffer under a lawful judge,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt317"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt317#lf1477_footnote_nt317">5</a> his penalty was not punishment. Lawful judge meant in that case one having jurisdiction over the entire human race, since all humanity was punished in the flesh of Christ, who, as the Prophet says, “hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt318"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt318#lf1477_footnote_nt318">6</a> And Tiberius Caesar, whose vicar was Pilate, would not have possessed jurisdiction over the entire human race had not the Roman Empire existed by Right. Herod, albeit as ignorant of what he did as Caiaphas<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt319"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt319#lf1477_footnote_nt319">7</a> of what truth he spake concerning the heavenly decree, for this reason sent Christ to be judged by Pilate, as Luke<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt320"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt320#lf1477_footnote_nt320">8</a> writes in his Gospel. For Herod was not an official of Tiberius under the ensign of the eagle or the Senate, but a king appointed by him to a particular kingdom, and governing it under the ensign of the kingdom committed to him.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt321"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt321#lf1477_footnote_nt321">9</a><br /><a name="a_3341840"></a>4. Wherefore let those who pretend they are sons of the Church cease to defame the Roman Empire, to which Christ the Bridegroom gave His sanction both at the beginning and at the close of His warfare. And now, I believe, it is sufficiently obvious that the Roman people appropriated the Empire of the world by Right.<br /><a name="a_3341841"></a>5. O people, how blessed hadst thou been, O Ausonia how glorious, had he who enfeebled thy sovereignty never been born, or never been deceived by the piety of his purpose!<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt322"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt322#lf1477_footnote_nt322">10</a> </p><br /><br /><p>BOOK III<br /><a name="a_3341843"></a>WHETHER THE AUTHORITY OF THE ROMAN MONARCH DERIVES FROM GOD IMMEDIATELY OR FROM SOME VICAR OF GOD </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER I </p><br /><br /><p>Introduction.<br /><a name="a_3341846"></a>1. “He has shut the lions’ mouths and they have not hurt me; inasmuch as before Him righteousness was found in me.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt323"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt323#lf1477_footnote_nt323">1</a> In beginning this work I proposed to investigate three questions as far as the subject-matter would allow. For the first two questions this has been done satisfactorily in the foregoing books, I believe. We must now consider the third, the truth of which may, however, be a cause of indignation against me, since it cannot be brought forth without causing certain men to blush. But since Truth<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt324"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt324#lf1477_footnote_nt324">2</a> from her immutable throne demands it; and Solomon entering his forest of Proverbs, and marking out his own conduct, entreats that we “meditate upon truth and abhor wickedness;”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt325"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt325#lf1477_footnote_nt325">3</a> and our teacher of morals, the Philosopher, admonishes us to sacrifice whatever is most precious for truth’s sake:<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt326"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt326#lf1477_footnote_nt326">4</a> therefore, gaining assurance from the words of Daniel, wherein the power of God is shown as a shield for defenders of truth, and “putting on the breast-plate of faith” according to the admonition of Paul,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt327"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt327#lf1477_footnote_nt327">5</a> in the warmth of that coal taken from the heavenly altar by one of the Seraphim and touched to the lips of Isaiah,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt328"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt328#lf1477_footnote_nt328">6</a> I will engage in the present conflict, and by the arm of Him who with His blood liberated us from the power of darkness,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt329"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt329#lf1477_footnote_nt329">7</a> I will cast the ungodly and the liar from the arena, while the world looks on. Wherefore should I fear, when the Spirit, coeternal with the Father and the Son, says by the mouth of David, “The righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance, he shall not be afraid of evil tidings”?<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt330"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt330#lf1477_footnote_nt330">8</a><br /><a name="a_3341847"></a>2. The question pending investigation, then, concerns two great luminaries,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt331"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt331#lf1477_footnote_nt331">9</a> the Roman Pontiff and the Roman Prince: and the point at issue is whether the authority of the Roman Monarch, who, as proved in the second book, is rightful Monarch of the world, derives from God directly, or from some vicar or minister of God, by whom I mean the successor of Peter, veritable keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven. </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER II<br /><a name="a_3341849"></a>God wills not that which is counter to the intention of nature.<br /><a name="a_3341850"></a>1. As in the previous questions, so in the present one, we must assume some principle for informing the arguments which are to reveal the truth. For of what avail is it to labor even in speaking truth, if one have no basic principle?<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt332"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt332#lf1477_footnote_nt332">1</a> And the principle is the sole root of the assumptions,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt333"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt333#lf1477_footnote_nt333">2</a> which are the mediums of proof.<br /><a name="a_3341851"></a>2. Let us set up, then, this indisputable truth, that whatever is repugnant to the intention of nature is contrary to the will of God. If this were not true, its contrary would not be false, that whatever is repugnant to the intention of nature is not contrary to the will of God. And if this is not false, its consequences are not false. For in necessary consequences a false consequent is impossible without a false antecedent.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt334"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt334#lf1477_footnote_nt334">3</a><br /><a name="a_3341852"></a>3. But “not contrary to the will of” means one of two things, “to will” or “not to will;” just as “not to hate” means either “to love” or “not to love;” for “not to love” does not mean “to hate,” neither does “not to will” mean “to be contrary to the will of,” as is self-evident. If these statements are not false, neither will it be false to assert that “God wills what He does not will,” than which no greater fallacy exists.<br /><a name="a_3341853"></a>4. I demonstrate as follows the verity of what has been said. That God wills an end for nature is manifest; otherwise the heavens would move to no purpose, which it is not possible to claim.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt335"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt335#lf1477_footnote_nt335">4</a> If God should will an obstruction to this end, He would also will an end for the obstruction, or He would will to no purpose. Now the end of an obstruction is that the thing obstructed may exist no longer, so it follows that God wills the end of nature to exist no longer, when we have already said that He wills it to exist.<br /><a name="a_3341854"></a>5. But if God did not will the obstruction to the end, it would follow from His not willing it that He cared nothing for the obstruction, whether it existed or not. Now he who cares nothing for the obstruction cares nothing for the end obstructed, and therefore has it not in his will, and what he has not in his will, he does not will. Hence if the end of nature can be impeded, and it can, it necessarily follows that God does not will an end of nature, and follows further, as before, that God wills what He does not will. That principle is therefore most true from the contradictory of which results such an absurdity.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt336"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt336#lf1477_footnote_nt336">5</a> </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER III<br /><a name="a_3341856"></a>Of the three classes of our opponents and the too great authority many ascribe to tradition.<br /><a name="a_3341857"></a>1. In entering on this third question,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt337"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt337#lf1477_footnote_nt337">1</a> let us bear in mind that the truth of the first<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt338"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt338#lf1477_footnote_nt338">2</a> was made manifest in order to abolish ignorance rather than contention. But the investigation of the second<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt339"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt339#lf1477_footnote_nt339">3</a> had reference alike to ignorance and contention. Indeed, we are ignorant of many things concerning which we do not contend: the geometrician does not know the square of the circle,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt340"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt340#lf1477_footnote_nt340">4</a> but he does not contend about it; the theologian does not know the number of the angels,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt341"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt341#lf1477_footnote_nt341">5</a> but he renders it no cause for quarrel; the Egyptian knows naught of the civilization of Scythia, but does not therefore make the civilization a source of strife.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt342"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt342#lf1477_footnote_nt342">6</a><br /><a name="a_3341858"></a>2. Now the truth of the third question has to do with so keen a contention that, whereas ignorance generally causes the discord, here the discord causes ignorance. For it always happens to men who will things before rationally considering them that, their desire being evil, they put behind them the light of reason; as blind men they are led about by their desire, and stubbornly deny their blindness.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt343"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt343#lf1477_footnote_nt343">7</a> Whence it often occurs not only that falsehood has her own patrimony, but that many men going out from her boundaries run through strange camps, where, neither understanding nor being understood at all, they provoke some to wrath, some to disdain, and not a few to laughter.<br /><a name="a_3341859"></a>3. Three classes of men struggle hardest against the truth which we would establish.<br /><a name="a_3341860"></a>4. First the Chief Pontiff, Vicar of our Lord Jesus Christ and successor to Peter, he to whom we should render not what is due to Christ but what is due to Peter, he, perchance in his zeal for the keys, together with some pastors of Christian flocks, and others moved solely, I believe, by their zeal for Mother Church, contradict the truth I am about to declare. They contradict it, perchance, from zeal, I repeat, not from pride.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt344"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt344#lf1477_footnote_nt344">8</a><br /><a name="a_3341861"></a>5. But others in their inveterate cupidity have quenched the light of reason, and call themselves sons of the Church, although they are of their father the devil.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt345"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt345#lf1477_footnote_nt345">9</a> Not only do they arouse controversy in regard to this question, but, despising the very name of the most sacred Princehood, impudently deny the first principles of this and the previous questions.<br /><a name="a_3341862"></a>6. The third class, called Decretalists,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt346"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt346#lf1477_footnote_nt346">10</a> utterly ignorant and unregardful of Theology and Philosophy, depending entirely on the Decretals (which, I grant, are deserving of veneration), and I presume trusting in the ultimate supremacy of these, derogate from the imperial power. Nor is it to be wondered at, for I have heard one of them aver and insolently maintain that ecclesiastical traditions are the foundation of faith. Let those dispel this error of thought from mortal minds whom the world doubts not to have believed in Christ, the Son of God, ere ecclesiastical traditions were, believed in Him either to come, or present, or having already suffered,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt347"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt347#lf1477_footnote_nt347">11</a> and believing hoped, and hoping burned with love, and burning with love were made co-heirs with Him.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt348"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt348#lf1477_footnote_nt348">12</a><br /><a name="a_3341863"></a>7. And that such mistaken thinkers may be wholly shut out from the present discussion, it must be observed that some of the Scriptures take precedence of the Church, some are equivalent to the Church, and some subordinate to it.<br /><a name="a_3341864"></a>8. Those taking precedence of the Church are the Old and New Testaments, which, as the Prophet says, “were commanded for ever,”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt349"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt349#lf1477_footnote_nt349">13</a> and to which the Church refers in saying to the Bridegroom, “Draw me after thee.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt350"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt350#lf1477_footnote_nt350">14</a><br /><a name="a_3341865"></a>9. Equivalent to the Church are those Councils so worthy of reverence, and in the midst of which no believer doubts the presence of Christ; for we have, according to Matthew’s testimony, the words spoken to His disciples at His ascension into heaven: “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt351"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt351#lf1477_footnote_nt351">15</a> In addition, there are the writings of the Doctors, Augustine,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt352"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt352#lf1477_footnote_nt352">16</a> and others, and whosoever doubts the aid of the Holy Spirit therein has never seen their fruits, or if he has seen, has never tasted them.<br /><a name="a_3341866"></a>10. Subordinate to the Church are the traditions called Decretals, which, while they must be revered for their apostolic authority, must nevertheless be held unquestionably inferior to the fundamental Scriptures, seeing that Christ rebuked the priests for not so doing. When they had inquired, “Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt353"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt353#lf1477_footnote_nt353">17</a> (for they had omitted the washing of hands) Christ answered, as Matthew testifies, “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” Here the inferiority of tradition is clearly implied.<br /><a name="a_3341867"></a>11. If, as we believe, traditions of the Church are subordinate to the Church, authority necessarily accrues not to the Church through traditions, but to traditions through the Church. And I repeat, those who have faith in traditions alone are excluded from this discussion. For they who would hunt down this truth must start in their search from those writings whence the authority of the Church emanates.<br /><a name="a_3341868"></a>12. Others must likewise be excluded who, decked in the plumage of ravens, boast themselves white sheep of the Master’s flock. In order to carry out their crimes, these sons of impiety defile their mother, banish their brethren, and scorn judgments brought against them. Why should reason be sought in behalf of these whose passions prevent them from understanding our basic principle?<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt354"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt354#lf1477_footnote_nt354">18</a><br /><a name="a_3341869"></a>13. There remains, then, the controversy with those only who, led by a certain zeal for their Mother the Church, are blind to the truth we are seeking. And with them, confident in that reverence which a loyal and loving son owes to father and mother, to Christ and the Church, to the Shepherd and all who profess the Christian religion, I enter in this book into combat for the preservation of truth. </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER IV<br /><a name="a_3341871"></a>The opponents’ argument adduced from the sun and moon.<br /><a name="a_3341872"></a>1. Those men to whom the entire subsequent discussion is directed assert that the authority of the Empire depends on the authority of the Church, just as the inferior artisan depends on the architect.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt355"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt355#lf1477_footnote_nt355">1</a> They are drawn to this by divers opposing arguments, some of which they take from Holy Scripture, and some from certain acts performed by the Chief Pontiff, and by the Emperor himself; and they endeavor to make their conviction reasonable.<br /><a name="a_3341873"></a>2. For, first, they maintain that according to Genesis God made two mighty luminaries, a greater and a less, the former to hold supremacy by day and the latter by night.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt356"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt356#lf1477_footnote_nt356">2</a> These they interpret allegorically to be the two rulers<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt357"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt357#lf1477_footnote_nt357">3</a> —spiritual and temporal. Whence they argue that as the lesser luminary, the moon, has no light but that gained from the sun, so the temporal ruler has no authority but that gained from the spiritual ruler.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt358"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt358#lf1477_footnote_nt358">4</a><br /><a name="a_3341874"></a>3. Let it be noted for the refutation of this and their other arguments that, as the Philosopher holds in his writings on Sophistry, “the destruction of an argument is the exposure of error.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt359"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt359#lf1477_footnote_nt359">5</a> And because error can occur in both the matter and the form of an argument, a two-fold fallacy is possible—that arising from a false assumption, and that from a failure to syllogize. The two objections brought by the Philosopher against Parmenides and Melissus were: “They accept what is false, and syllogize incorrectly.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt360"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt360#lf1477_footnote_nt360">6</a> “False” I use here with large significance, embracing the improbable, which in matters of probability becomes the false element. He who would destroy a conclusion where there is error in the form of the argument must show a failure to comply with the rules of syllogizing. Where the error is material, he must show that an assumption has been made, either false in itself, or false in relation to something else. Absolute falsity may be destroyed by destroying the assumption, relative falsity by distinction of meanings.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt361"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt361#lf1477_footnote_nt361">7</a><br /><a name="a_3341875"></a>4. Granting this, let us observe, in order to comprehend more clearly the fallacy of this and other arguments, that with regard to mystical interpretation a twofold error may arise, either by seeking one where it is not, or by explaining it other than it ought to be.<br /><a name="a_3341876"></a>5. Of the first error Augustine says in The City of God: “Not all deeds recounted should be thought to have special significance, because for the sake of significant things insignificant details are interwoven. The plowshare by itself cuts the land into furrows, but that this may be accomplished the other parts of the plow are needed.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt362"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt362#lf1477_footnote_nt362">8</a><br /><a name="a_3341877"></a>6. Of the second error he speaks in his Christian Doctrine, saying that the man who attempts to find in the Scriptures other things than the writer’s meaning “is deceived as one who abandons a certain road, only by a long detour to reach the goal whither the road led directly.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt363"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt363#lf1477_footnote_nt363">9</a> And he adds, “Such a man should be shown that a habit of leaving his path may lead him into cross-roads and tortuous ways.” Then he gives the reason why this error should be avoided in the Scriptures, saying, “Shake the authority of the divine writings, and you shake all faith.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt364"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt364#lf1477_footnote_nt364">10</a> However, I believe that when such errors are due to ignorance they should be pardoned after correction has been carefully administered, just as he should be pardoned who is terrified at a supposed lion in the clouds. But when such errors are due to design, the erring one should be treated like tyrants who never apply public laws for the general welfare, but endeavor to turn them to individual profit.<br /><a name="a_3341878"></a>7. O unparalleled crime, though committed but in dreams, of turning into evil the intention of the Eternal Spirit! Such a sin would not be against Moses, or David, or Job, or Matthew, or Paul, but against the Holy Spirit that speaketh in them. For although the writers of the divine word are many, the dictator of the word is one, even God, who has deigned to make known his purpose to us through divers pens.<br /><a name="a_3341879"></a>8. From these prefatory remarks I proceed to refute the above assumption that the two luminaries of the world typify its two ruling powers. The whole force of their argument lies in the interpretation; but this we can prove indefensible in two ways. First, since these ruling powers are as it were accidents necessitated by man himself, God would seem to have used a distorted order in creating first accidents, and then the subject necessitating them. It is absurd to speak thus of God, but it is evident from the Word<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt365"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt365#lf1477_footnote_nt365">11</a> that the two lights were created on the fourth day, and man on the sixth.<br /><a name="a_3341880"></a>9. Secondly, the two ruling powers exist as the directors of men toward certain ends, as will be shown further on; but had man remained in the state of innocence in which God made him, he would have required no such direction. These ruling powers are therefore remedies against the infirmity of sin. Since on the fourth day man not only was not a sinner, but was not even existent, the creation of a remedy would have been purposeless, which is contrary to divine goodness. Foolish indeed would be the physician who should make ready a plaster for the future abscess of a man not yet born. Therefore it cannot be asserted that God made the two ruling powers on the fourth day; and consequently the meaning of Moses cannot have been what it is supposed to be.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt366"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt366#lf1477_footnote_nt366">12</a><br /><a name="a_3341881"></a>10. Also, in order to be tolerant, we may refute this fallacy by distinction. Refutation by distinction deals more gently with an adversary, for it shows him to be not absolutely wrong, as does refutation by destruction. I say, then, that although the moon may have abundant light only as she receives it from the sun, it does not follow on that account that the moon herself owes her existence to the sun. It must be recognized that the essence of the moon, her strength, and her function are not one and the same thing. Neither in her essence, her strength, nor her function taken absolutely, does the moon owe her existence to the sun, for her movement is impelled by her own motor and her influence by her own rays.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt367"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt367#lf1477_footnote_nt367">13</a> Besides, she has a certain light of her own, as is shown in eclipse. It is in order to fulfill her function better and more potently that she borrows from the sun abundance of light, and works thereby more efficaciously.<br /><a name="a_3341882"></a>11. In like manner, I say, the temporal power receives from the spiritual neither its existence, nor its strength, which is its authority, nor even its function taken absolutely. But well for her does she receive therefrom, through the light of grace which the benediction of the Chief Pontiff sheds upon it in heaven and on earth, strength to fulfill her function more perfectly.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt368"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt368#lf1477_footnote_nt368">14</a> So the argument was at fault in form, because the predicate of the conclusion is not a term of the major premise, as is evident. The syllogism runs thus: The moon receives light from the sun, which is the spiritual power; the temporal ruling power is the moon; therefore the temporal receives authority from the spiritual. They introduce “light” as the term of the major, but “authority” as predicate of the conclusion, which two things we have seen to be diverse in subject and significance. </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER V<br /><a name="a_3341884"></a>Argument from the precedence of Levi over Judah.<br /><a name="a_3341885"></a>1. They also abstract an argument from the word of Moses, declaring that in Levi and Judah sprang from Jacob’s loins the types of these two sovereignties, the one being father of the priesthood, and the other father of temporal rulers.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt369"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt369#lf1477_footnote_nt369">1</a> From this they argue: The relation of Levi to Judah is that of the Church to the Empire; Levi preceded Judah in birth according to Scripture; therefore the Church precedes the Empire in authority.<br /><a name="a_3341886"></a>2. Refutation is here easy, for I might as before overthrow by positive denial the assertion that Levi and Judah, the sons of Jacob, typified these sovereignties; but I will concede that point. When, however, they proceed to infer from their argument that as Levi had precedence in birth, so has the Church in authority, I repeat that the predicate of the conclusion is not the term of the major premise, for the one is “authority” and the other “birth,” things different in subject and meaning. There is an error, therefore, in the form of the syllogism, which is as follows: A precedes B in C; D is related to E as A is to B; therefore D precedes E in F. But F and C are dissimilar.<br /><a name="a_3341887"></a>3. If they become insistent, saying that F follows from C (that is, “authority” from “birth”), and that in an inference a consequent may replace an antecedent (as “animal” might replace “man”), I answer that it is untrue. Many are older in years who have no precedence in authority, but are superseded by their juniors; for instance, when bishops are younger than their arch-presbyters. And so the insistence is misplaced, for they have named as cause that which is none. </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER VI<br /><a name="a_3341889"></a>Argument from the election and deposition of Saul by Samuel.<br /><a name="a_3341890"></a>1. Moreover, they take from the first book of Kings the election and deposition of Saul, and declare that, according to the text, Saul, an enthroned king, was dethroned by Samuel executing God’s command as His Vicar.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt370"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt370#lf1477_footnote_nt370">1</a> And they reason from this that as the Vicar of God then had authority to give temporal power, to take it away, and to transfer it to another, so now God’s Vicar, High Priest of the Church Universal, has like authority to bestow, to withdraw,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt371"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt371#lf1477_footnote_nt371">2</a> and even to consign to another the sceptre of temporal dominion. From this would follow undoubtedly, as they claim, that the Empire is a derived power.<br /><a name="a_3341891"></a>2. But to destroy the premise that Samuel was Vicar of God, we need only reply that he was not Vicar; he acted merely as a special envoy for this commission, or as a messenger bringing an express command from his Lord. This is evident from the fact that what God bade him, that alone he did and that alone recounted.<br /><a name="a_3341892"></a>3. Wherefore let it be understood that it is one thing to be a vicar, and another to be a messenger or minister; as it is one thing to be a doctor, and another to be an interpreter.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt372"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt372#lf1477_footnote_nt372">3</a> Now a vicar is one to whom has been assigned jurisdiction according to law or to his arbitrary judgment; and so within the boundaries of the jurisdiction assigned to him he may determine legally or arbitrarily matters of which his lord has no knowledge.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt373"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt373#lf1477_footnote_nt373">4</a> But an envoy, in so far as he is an envoy, cannot do so, for as the hammer operates only through the strength of the smith, so the envoy acts only through the will of the person who delegates him.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt374"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt374#lf1477_footnote_nt374">5</a> Nor does it follow, though God did this when Samuel was His envoy, that the Vicar of God can do it. For through His angels God has achieved, is achieving, and will achieve, many things which the Vicar of God, the successor of Peter, was powerless to do.<br /><a name="a_3341893"></a>4. Their argument is constructed from the whole to the part like this: Man can hear and see; therefore the eye can hear and see. However, it would hold negatively: Man cannot fly; therefore the arms of man cannot fly. And in the same way, according to the belief of Agathon,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt375"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt375#lf1477_footnote_nt375">6</a> God cannot through a messenger undo what has been done; therefore His Vicar is unable to do so. </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER VII<br /><a name="a_3341895"></a>Argument from the oblation of the Magi.<br /><a name="a_3341896"></a>1. From the book of Matthew they also cite the oblation of the Magi, claiming that Christ accepted both frankincense and gold, in order to signify that He was Lord and Governor of the spiritual and temporal domains.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt376"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt376#lf1477_footnote_nt376">1</a> They draw as inference from this that the Vicar of Christ is lord and governor of these realms, and consequently has authority over both.<br /><a name="a_3341897"></a>2. In answering this I grant the text of Matthew and their interpretation, but the inference they try to draw from it is false through deficiency in the terms. Their syllogism is this: God is Lord of the spiritual and temporal domains; the Pope is the Vicar of God; therefore he is lord of the spiritual and temporal domains. While each proposition is true, the middle term is changed to admit four terms to the argument, thereby impairing the syllogistic form. This is plain from the writings on Syllogizing considered simply.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt377"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt377#lf1477_footnote_nt377">2</a> For one term is “God,” the subject of the major premise, and the other term is “Vicar of God,” the predicate of the minor.<br /><a name="a_3341898"></a>3. And if any one insists on the equivalence of God and Vicar, his insistence is useless, for no vicar, divine or human, can be coördinate with His authority, as is easily seen. And we know that the successor of Peter is not coequal with divine power, at least not in the operation of nature. He could not by virtue of the office committed to him make earth rise up, or fire fall.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt378"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt378#lf1477_footnote_nt378">3</a> It is impossible that God should have intrusted all things to him, for God was in no way able to delegate the power of creation or of baptism, as is plainly proved despite the contrary statement of the Master<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt379"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt379#lf1477_footnote_nt379">4</a> in his fourth book.<br /><a name="a_3341899"></a>4. We know, too, that a man’s deputy, in so far as he is a deputy, is not of coördinate power with him, because no one can bestow what does not belong to him. Princely authority belongs to a prince only for his employment, since no prince can authorize himself; he has power to receive and to reject it, but no power to create it in another, seeing that the creation of a prince is not effected by a prince. If this is true, it is evident that no prince can substitute for himself a regent equal in all things to himself. Wherefore the protest is of no avail. </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER VIII<br /><a name="a_3341901"></a>Argument from the prerogative of the keys consigned to Peter.<br /><a name="a_3341902"></a>1. From the same gospel they quote the saying of Christ to Peter, “Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt380"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt380#lf1477_footnote_nt380">1</a> and understand this saying to refer alike to all the Apostles, according to the text of Matthew and John.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt381"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt381#lf1477_footnote_nt381">2</a> They reason from this that the successor of Peter has been granted of God power to bind and loose all things, and then infer that he has power to loose the laws and decrees of the Empire, and to bind the laws and decrees of the temporal kingdom. Were this true, their inference would be correct.<br /><a name="a_3341903"></a>2. But we must reply to it by making a distinction against the major premise of the syllogism which they employ. Their syllogism is this: Peter had power to bind and loose all things; the successor of Peter has like power with him; therefore the successor of Peter has power to loose and bind all things. From this they infer that he has power to loose and bind the laws and decrees of the Empire.<br /><a name="a_3341904"></a>3. I concede the minor premise, but the major only with distinction. Wherefore I say that “all,” the symbol of the universal, which is implied in “whatsoever,” is never distributed beyond the scope of the distributed term. When I say, “All animals run,” the distribution of “all” comprehends whatever comes under the genus “animal.” But when I say, “All men run,” the symbol of the universal only refers to whatever comes under the term “man.” And when I say, “All grammarians run,” the distribution is narrowed still further.<br /><a name="a_3341905"></a>4. Therefore we must always determine what it is over which the symbol of the universal is distributed; then, from the recognized nature and scope of the distributed term, will be easily apparent the extent of the distribution. Now, were “whatsoever” to be understood absolutely when it is said, “Whatsoever thou shalt bind,” he would certainly have the power they claim; nay, he would have even greater power, he would be able to loose a wife from her husband, and, while the man still lived, bind her to another—a thing he can in no wise do. He would be able to absolve me, while impenitent—a thing which God himself cannot do.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt382"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt382#lf1477_footnote_nt382">3</a><br /><a name="a_3341906"></a>5. So it is evident that the distribution of the term under discussion is to be taken, not absolutely, but relatively to something else. A consideration of the concession to which the distribution is subjoined will make manifest this related something. Christ said to Peter, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven;” that is, I will make thee doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven. Then he adds, “and whatsoever,” that is, “everything which,” and He means thereby, “Everything which pertains to that office thou shalt have power to bind and loose.” And thus the symbol of the universal which is implied in “whatsoever” is limited in its distribution to the prerogative of the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Understood thus, the proposition is true, but understood absolutely, it is obviously not. Therefore I conclude that although the successor of Peter has authority to bind and loose in accordance with the requirements of the prerogative granted to Peter, it does not follow, as they claim, that he has authority to bind and loose the decrees or statutes of Empire, unless they prove that this also belongs to the office of the keys. But we shall demonstrate farther on that the contrary is true. </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER IX<br /><a name="a_3341908"></a>Argument from the two swords.<br /><a name="a_3341909"></a>1. They quote also the words in Luke which Peter addressed to Christ, saying, “Behold, here are two swords,”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt383"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt383#lf1477_footnote_nt383">1</a> and they assert that the two ruling powers were predicted by those two swords, and because Peter declared they were “where he was,” that is, “with him,” they conclude that according to authority these two ruling powers abide with Peter’s successor.<br /><a name="a_3341910"></a>2. To refute this we must show the falsity of the interpretation on which the argument is based. Their assertion that the two swords which Peter designated signify the two ruling powers before spoken of, we deny outright, because such an answer would have been at variance with Christ’s meaning, and because Peter replied in haste, as usual, with regard to the mere external significance of things.<br /><a name="a_3341911"></a>3. A consideration of the words preceding it and of the cause of the words will show that such an answer would have been inconsistent with Christ’s meaning. Let it be called to mind that this response was made on the day of the feast, which Luke mentions earlier, saying, “Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt384"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt384#lf1477_footnote_nt384">2</a> At this feast Christ had already foretold His impending passion, in which He must be parted from His disciples. Let it be remembered also that when these words were uttered, all the twelve disciples were together; wherefore a little after the words just quoted Luke says, “And when the hour was come, He sat down, and the twelve Apostles with him.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt385"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt385#lf1477_footnote_nt385">3</a> Continuing the discourse from this place he reaches the words, “When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything?”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt386"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt386#lf1477_footnote_nt386">4</a> And they answered, “Nothing.” Then said He unto them, “But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” The meaning of Christ is clear enough here. He did not say, “Buy or procure two swords,” but “twelve;” for it was in order that each of the twelve disciples might have one that He said to them, “He that hath no sword, let him buy one.” And He spake thus to forewarn them of the persecution and contempt the future should bring, as though he would say, “While I was with you ye were welcomed, now shall ye be turned away. It behooves you, therefore, to prepare for yourselves those things which before I denied to you, but for which there is present need.” If Peter’s reply to these words had carried the meaning ascribed to it, the meaning would have been at variance with that of Christ, and Christ would have censured Him, as he did oftentimes, for his witless answers. However, He did not do so, but assented, saying to him, “It is enough,”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt387"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt387#lf1477_footnote_nt387">5</a> meaning, “I speak because of necessity; but if each cannot have a sword, two will suffice.”<br /><a name="a_3341912"></a>4. And that Peter usually spoke of the external significance of things is shown in his quick and unthinking presumption, impelled, I believe, not only by the sincerity of his faith, but by the purity and simplicity of his nature. To this characteristic presumption all those who write of Christ bear witness.<br /><a name="a_3341913"></a>5. First, Matthew records that when Jesus had inquired of the disciples: “Whom say ye that I am?” before all the others Peter replied, “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.” He also records that when Christ was telling His disciples how He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things, Peter took Him and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.” Then Christ, turning to him, said in reproof, “Get thee behind me, Satan.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt388"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt388#lf1477_footnote_nt388">6</a> Matthew also writes that on the Mount of Transfiguration, in the presence of Christ, Moses, and Elias, and the two sons of Zebedee, Peter said, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles, one for thee, one for Moses, and one for Elias.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt389"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt389#lf1477_footnote_nt389">7</a> Matthew further writes that when the disciples were on the ship in the night, and Christ walked on the water, Peter said, “Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt390"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt390#lf1477_footnote_nt390">8</a> And that when Christ predicted how all His disciples should be offended because of Him, Peter answered, “Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt391"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt391#lf1477_footnote_nt391">9</a> And afterwards, “Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee.” And this statement Mark<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt392"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt392#lf1477_footnote_nt392">10</a> confirms, while Luke writes that, just before the words we have quoted concerning the swords, Peter had said to Christ, “Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison and to death.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt393"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt393#lf1477_footnote_nt393">11</a><br /><a name="a_3341914"></a>6. John tells of him, that when Christ desired to wash his feet, Peter asked, “Lord, dost thou wash my feet?” and then said, “Thou shalt never wash my feet.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt394"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt394#lf1477_footnote_nt394">12</a> He further relates how Peter smote with his sword the servant of the High Priest, an account in which the four Evangelists agree.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt395"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt395#lf1477_footnote_nt395">13</a> And John tells how when Peter came to the sepulchre and saw the other disciples lingering at the door, he entered in straightway;<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt396"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt396#lf1477_footnote_nt396">14</a> and again when after the resurrection Jesus stood on the shore and Peter “heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher’s coat unto him (for he was naked), and did cast himself into the sea.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt397"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt397#lf1477_footnote_nt397">15</a> Lastly, he recounts that when Peter saw John, he said to Jesus, “Lord, and what shall this man do?”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt398"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt398#lf1477_footnote_nt398">16</a><br /><a name="a_3341915"></a>7. It is a source of joy to have summed up this evidence of our Head Shepherd,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt399"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt399#lf1477_footnote_nt399">17</a> in praise of his singleness of purpose. From all this it is obvious that when he spoke of the two swords, his answer to Christ was unambiguous in meaning.<br /><a name="a_3341916"></a>8. Even if the words of Christ and Peter are to be accepted typically, they cannot be interpreted in the sense these men claim, but rather as referring to the sword concerning which Matthew writes: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father,”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt400"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt400#lf1477_footnote_nt400">18</a> and what follows. This He accomplished in word and deed, wherefore Luke tells Theophilus of all “that Jesus began to do and teach.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt401"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt401#lf1477_footnote_nt401">19</a> Such was the sword Christ enjoined them to buy, and Peter made answer that already they had two with them. As we have shown, they were ready for words and for works to bring to pass those things which Christ proclaimed He had come to do by the sword. </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER X<br /><a name="a_3341918"></a>Argument from the donation of Constantine.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt402"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt402#lf1477_footnote_nt402">1</a><br /><a name="a_3341919"></a>1. In addition, some persons affirm that the Emperor Constantine, healed of leprosy by the intercession of Sylvester, then the Supreme Pontiff,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt403"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt403#lf1477_footnote_nt403">2</a> gave to the Church the very seat of Empire, Rome, together with many imperial dignities.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt404"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt404#lf1477_footnote_nt404">3</a> Wherefore they argue that no one has power to assume these dignities except he receives them from the Church, to whom it is asserted they belong. And from this it would fairly follow, as they desire, that one authority is dependent on the other.<br /><a name="a_3341920"></a>2. So having stated and refuted the arguments which seemed to be rooted in divine communications, it now remains to set forth and disprove those rooted in Roman deeds and human reason. We have just spoken of the first of these, whose syllogism runs thus: Those things which belong to the Church no one can rightly possess, unless granted them by the Church; and this we concede. The ruling power of Rome belongs to the Church; therefore no one can rightly possess it unless granted it by the Church. And the minor premise they prove by the facts mentioned above concerning Constantine.<br /><a name="a_3341921"></a>3. This minor premise, then, I deny. Their proof is no proof, for Constantine had not the power to alienate the imperial dignity, nor had the Church power to receive it. Their insistent objection to what I say can be met thus. No one is free to do through an office assigned him anything contrary to the office, for thereby the same thing, in virtue of being the same, would be contrary to itself, which is impossible. But to divide the Empire would be contrary to the office assigned the Emperor, for as is easily seen from the first book of the treatise, his office is to hold the human race subject to one will in all things. Therefore, division of his Empire is not allowed an Emperor. If, as they claim, certain dignities were alienated by Constantine from the Empire and ceded to the power of the Church, the “seamless coat”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt405"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt405#lf1477_footnote_nt405">4</a> would have been rent, which even they had not dared to mutilate who with their spears pierced Christ, the very God. Moreover, as the Church has its own foundation, so has the Empire its own. The foundation of the Church is Christ, as the Apostle writes to the Corinthians: “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt406"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt406#lf1477_footnote_nt406">5</a> He is the rock on which the Church is founded,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt407"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt407#lf1477_footnote_nt407">6</a> but the foundation of the Empire is human Right. Now I say that as the Church cannot act contrary to its foundation, but must be supported thereby, according to that verse of the Canticles: “Who is she that cometh up from the desert, abounding in delights, leaning on her beloved?”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt408"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt408#lf1477_footnote_nt408">7</a> so the Empire cannot act in conflict with human Right. Therefore the Empire may not destroy itself, for, should it do so, it would act in conflict with human Right. Inasmuch as the Empire consists in the indivisibility of universal Monarchy, and inasmuch as an apportionment of the Empire would destroy it, it is evident that division is not allowed to him who discharges imperial duty.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt409"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt409#lf1477_footnote_nt409">8</a> And it is proved, from what has been previously said, that to destroy the Empire would be contrary to human Right.<br /><a name="a_3341922"></a>4. Besides, every jurisdiction exists prior to its judge, since the judge is ordained for the jurisdiction, and not conversely. As the Empire is a jurisdiction embracing in its circuit the administration of justice in all temporal things, so it is prior to its judge, who is Emperor; and the Emperor is ordained for it, and not conversely. Clearly the Emperor, as Emperor, cannot alter the Empire, for from it he receives his being and state. So I say, either he was Emperor when he made the concession they speak of to the Church, or he was not. If he was not, it is plain that he had no power to grant anything with regard to the Empire. And if he was, then as Emperor he could not have done this, for the concession would have narrowed his jurisdiction.<br /><a name="a_3341923"></a>5. Further, if one Emperor has power to cut away one bit from the jurisdiction of the Empire, another may do the same for like reason. And since temporal jurisdiction is finite, and every finite thing may be consumed by finite losses, the possibility of annihilating primal jurisdiction would follow. But this is inconceivable.<br /><a name="a_3341924"></a>6. And since he who confers a thing has the relation of agent, and he on whom it is conferred the relation of patient, according to the Philosopher in the fourth book to Nicomachus, then in order for a grant to be legal, proper qualification is essential not only in the giver, but in the recipient.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt410"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt410#lf1477_footnote_nt410">9</a> Indeed, it seems that the acts of agents exist potentially in a properly qualified patient. But the Church was utterly disqualified for receiving temporal power by the express prohibitive command in Matthew: “Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey,” etc.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt411"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt411#lf1477_footnote_nt411">10</a> For although we learn from Luke<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt412"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt412#lf1477_footnote_nt412">11</a> of the mitigation of this order regarding certain things, yet I am unable to find that sanction was given the Church to possess gold and silver, subsequent to the prohibition. Wherefore if the Church had not power to receive, even had Constantine power to bestow, temporal authority, the action would nevertheless be impossible, because of the disqualification of the patient. It is demonstrated, then, that neither could the Church accept by way of possession, nor could Constantine confer by way of alienation. However, the Emperor did have power to depute to the protectorship of the Church a patrimony and other things, as long as his supreme command, the unity of which suffers no impairment, remained unchanged. And the Vicar of God had power to receive such things, not for possession, but for distribution on behalf of the Church of its fruits to the poor of Christ.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt413"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt413#lf1477_footnote_nt413">12</a> We are not ignorant that thus the Apostles did. </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER XI<br /><a name="a_3341926"></a>Argument from the summoning of Charles the Great by Pope Hadrian.<br /><a name="a_3341927"></a>1. Still further, our opponents say that Pope Hadrian called<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt414"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt414#lf1477_footnote_nt414">1</a> Charles the Great<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt415"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt415#lf1477_footnote_nt415">2</a> to the aid of himself and the Church, because of oppression by the Lombards<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt416"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt416#lf1477_footnote_nt416">3</a> in the reign of Desiderius their king, and that from the Pope Charles received the dignity of Empire, notwithstanding the fact that Michael<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt417"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt417#lf1477_footnote_nt417">4</a> held imperial sway at Constantinople. Wherefore they declare that after Charles all Roman Emperors were advocates of the Church, and must be called to office by the Church. From this would follow the relationship between the Church and Empire which they desire to prove.<br /><a name="a_3341928"></a>2. To refute this argument, I answer that their premise in it is a mere nullity, for usurpation of right does not create a right. If it did, the same method would show the dependency of ecclesiastical authority on the Empire, after the Emperor Otto restored Pope Leo, and deposed Benedict, sending him in exile to Saxony.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt418"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt418#lf1477_footnote_nt418">5</a> </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER XII<br /><a name="a_3341930"></a>Argument from reason.<br /><a name="a_3341931"></a>1. Their argument from reason, however, is this. They lay down the principle advanced in the tenth book of the First Philosophy, that “all things of one genus are reducible to a type which is the standard of measurement for all within the genus.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt419"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt419#lf1477_footnote_nt419">1</a> Since all men are of one genus, they ought to be reducible to a type as a standard for all others. And since the Supreme Pontiff and the Emperor are men, they must therefore, if our conclusion is true, be reducible to one man. And since the Pope cannot be subordinated to another, it remains for the Emperor and all others to be subordinated to the Pope as their measure and rule; whence results the conclusion they desire.<br /><a name="a_3341932"></a>2. That this reasoning may be invalidated, I agree that their statement is true that all things of one genus ought to be reduced to some one member of that genus as a standard of measurement. Likewise is it true that all men are of one genus. Also is true their conclusion drawn from these that all men ought to be subordinated to one standard for the genus. But when from this conclusion they draw the further inference concerning Pope and Emperor, they deceive themselves with the fallacy of accidental attributes.<br /><a name="a_3341933"></a>3. To make this evident, be it known that it is one thing to be a man and another thing to be a Pope. And just so it is one thing to be a man and another thing to be an Emperor, as it is one thing to be a man and another to be a father or master. Man is man because of his substantial form, which is the determinant of his species and genus, and which places him under the category of substance.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt420"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt420#lf1477_footnote_nt420">2</a> But a father is such because of an accidental form, that of relation, which is the determinant of a certain species and genus, and which places him under the category of relation. Otherwise everything would be reduced to the category of substance, since no accidental form exists in itself, apart from the basis of underlying substance. But this is false. Therefore since the Pope and Emperor are what they are because of certain relations, the former through the Papacy, a relation in the province of fatherhood, and the latter through the Empire, a relation in the province of government, it is manifest that the Pope and the Emperor, in so far as they are such, must have place under the category of relation, and consequently must be subordinated to something in that genus.<br /><a name="a_3341934"></a>4. Whence, I repeat, they are to be measured by one standard in so far as they are men, and by another in so far as they are Pope and Emperor. Now, in so far as they are men, they have to be measured by the best man (whoever he may be<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt421"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt421#lf1477_footnote_nt421">3</a> ), that is, by him who is the standard and ideal of all men, and who has the most perfect unity among his kind, as we may learn from the last book to Nicomachus.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt422"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt422#lf1477_footnote_nt422">4</a> But in as far as they are relative, it is evident that one must be measured by the other, if one is subordinate; or they must unite in a common species from the nature of their relation; or they must be measured by a third something as their common ground of unity. But it cannot be maintained that one is subordinate to the other; that is, it is false to predicate one of the other, to call the Emperor the Pope, or to call the Pope the Emperor. Nor is it possible to maintain that they unite in a common species, for the relation of Pope, as such, is other than the relation of Emperor as Emperor. Therefore they must be measured by something beyond themselves in which they shall find a ground of unity.<br /><a name="a_3341935"></a>5. At this point it must be understood that as relation stands to relation, so stands related thing to related thing. Hence if the Papacy and Empire, being relations of authority,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt423"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt423#lf1477_footnote_nt423">5</a> must be measured with regard to the supreme authority from which they and their characteristic differences are derived, the Pope and Emperor, being relative, must be referred to some unity wherein may be found the supreme authority without these characteristic differences. And this will be either God Himself, in whom every relation is universally united, or in some substance inferior to God, in whom is found a supreme authority differentiated and derived from His perfect supremacy. And so it is evident that the Pope and Emperor, as men, are to be measured by one standard, but as Pope and Emperor by another. And this demonstration is from the argument according to reason. </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER XIII<br /><a name="a_3341937"></a>The authority of the Church is not the source of Imperial authority.<br /><a name="a_3341938"></a>1. Now that we have stated and rejected the errors on which those chiefly rely who declare that the authority of the Roman Prince is dependent on the Roman Pontiff, we must return and demonstrate the truth of that third question, which we propounded for discussion at the beginning. The truth will be evident enough if it can be shown, under the principle of inquiry agreed upon, that Imperial authority derives immediately from the summit of all being, which is God. And this will be shown, whether we prove that Imperial authority does not derive from that of the Church (for the dispute concerns no other authority), or whether we simply prove that it derives immediately from God.<br /><a name="a_3341939"></a>2. That ecclesiastical authority is not the source of Imperial authority is thus verified. A thing non-existent or devoid of active force cannot be the cause of active force in a thing possessing that quality in full measure. But before the Church existed, or while it lacked power to act, the Empire had active force in full measure. Hence the Church is the source neither of acting power nor of authority in the Empire, where power to act and authority are identical. Let A be the Church, B the Empire, and C the power or authority of the Empire. If, A being non-existent, C is in B, the cause of C’s relation to B cannot be A, since it is impossible that an effect should exist prior to its cause. Moreover, if, A being inoperative, C is in B, the cause of C’s relation to B cannot be A, since it is indispensable for the production of effect that the cause should be in operation previously, especially the efficient cause which we are considering here.<br /><a name="a_3341940"></a>3. The major premise of this demonstration is intelligible from its terms; the minor is confirmed by Christ and the Church. Christ attests it, as we said before, in His birth and death. The Church attests it in Paul’s declaration to Festus in the Acts of the Apostles: “I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged;”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt424"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt424#lf1477_footnote_nt424">1</a> and in the admonition of God’s angel to Paul a little later: “Fear not, Paul; thou must be brought before Caesar;”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt425"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt425#lf1477_footnote_nt425">2</a> and again still later in Paul’s words to the Jews dwelling in Italy: “And when the Jews spake against it, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had aught to accuse my nation of,” but “that I might deliver my soul from death.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt426"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt426#lf1477_footnote_nt426">3</a> If Caesar had not already possessed the right to judge temporal matters, Christ would not have implied that he did, the angel would not have uttered such words, nor would he who said, “I desire to depart and be with Christ,”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt427"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt427#lf1477_footnote_nt427">4</a> have appealed to an unqualified judge.<br /><a name="a_3341941"></a>4. And if Constantine had no authority over the resources of the Church, that which he transferred to her from the Empire could not have been so transferred with Right, and the Church would be utilizing an unrighteous gift. But God desires that offerings be spotless, according to the text of Leviticus: “No meat offering, which ye shall bring unto the Lord, shall be made with leaven;”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt428"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt428#lf1477_footnote_nt428">5</a> and this command, though it seem to concern givers, refers nevertheless to recipients. For it is folly to believe that God desires that to be accepted which He forbids to be given. Indeed, in the same book is the command to the Levites: “Contaminate not your souls, nor touch anything of theirs, lest ye be unclean.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt429"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt429#lf1477_footnote_nt429">6</a> But it is highly improper to say that the Church uses unrighteously the patrimony deputed to her, therefore what followed from such a saying is false. </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER XIV<br /><a name="a_3341943"></a>The Church received power of transference neither from God, from herself, nor from any Emperor.<br /><a name="a_3341944"></a>1. Besides, if the Church has power to confer authority on the Roman Prince, she would have it either from God, or from herself, or from some Emperor, or from the unanimous consent of mankind, or at least, from the consent of the most influential. There is no other least crevice through which the power could have diffused itself into the Church. But from none of these has it come to her, and therefore the aforesaid power is not hers at all.<br /><a name="a_3341945"></a>2. Here is the proof that it has come from none of these sources. If she had received it from God, it would have been by divine or natural law, for what is received from nature is received from God, though the converse is not true. But this ecclesiastical right came not by natural law, for nature imposes no law save for her own effects, and inadequacy is not possible to God where He brings something into being without secondary agents.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt430"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt430#lf1477_footnote_nt430">1</a> Since the Church is an effect not of nature, but of God, who said, “Upon this rock I will build my Church,”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt431"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt431#lf1477_footnote_nt431">2</a> and in another place, “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do,”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt432"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt432#lf1477_footnote_nt432">3</a> it is indisputable that nature gave not this law to the Church.<br /><a name="a_3341946"></a>3. Neither did this power come by divine law; for in the bosom of the two Testaments, wherein is embodied every divine law, I am unable to discover any command for the early or later priesthood to have care or solicitude in temporal things. Nay, I find rather that the early priests were released from such care by precept, as in the words God spake to Moses;<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt433"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt433#lf1477_footnote_nt433">4</a> and the same of later priests as in the words of Christ to His disciples.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt434"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt434#lf1477_footnote_nt434">5</a> Nor would it have been possible to have been thus released, if the authority of temporal power originated with the priesthood; for at least anxiety concerning right provision would be with them in conferring authority, and then continual precaution, lest the authorized might deviate from the path of rectitude.<br /><a name="a_3341947"></a>4. Also, that this power came not from the Church is easily seen. Nothing can give what it does not possess, so everything must be in act what it intends to do, as is held in the treatise on simple Being.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt435"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt435#lf1477_footnote_nt435">6</a> But if the Church gave to herself that power, it was not hers before she gave it, and she thus would have given herself that which she did not possess, which cannot be.<br /><a name="a_3341948"></a>5. That the power came not from some Emperor is sufficiently explained by what has gone before.<br /><a name="a_3341949"></a>6. And, indeed, who doubts that it came not from the unanimous consent of men, or from that of the most influential? Not only all the people of Asia and Africa, but even the greater part of those inhabiting Europe, are averse to her. Truly, it is bootless to adduce proofs in matters perfectly evident. </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER XV<br /><a name="a_3341951"></a>The prerogative of conferring authority upon the Empire is contrary to the nature of the Church.<br /><a name="a_3341952"></a>1. Again, that which is contrary to the nature of anything is not numbered among its peculiar powers, since the powers of anything correspond to its nature for the attainment of its end.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt436"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt436#lf1477_footnote_nt436">1</a> But the power to confer authority over the kingdom of our mortal life is contrary to the nature of the Church, and is therefore not numbered among her prerogatives.<br /><a name="a_3341953"></a>2. To prove the minor premise, it must be known that the nature of the Church is the informing principle of the Church. For though the word “nature” may be used of material and form, yet it is used more properly of form, as is shown in the book on Natural Learning.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt437"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt437#lf1477_footnote_nt437">2</a> But the form of the Church is naught else than the life of Christ as it is comprised in His teachings and in His deeds. Truly, His life was the ideal and exemplar of the Church militant, particularly of its pastors, and more than all of its Head Shepherd, whose duty it is to feed His sheep and lambs. Hence, when in the Gospel of John He bequeathed to men the informing principle of His life, He said, “I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt438"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt438#lf1477_footnote_nt438">3</a> And especially, as we learn from the same Gospel, when He said to Peter, after He had conferred upon Him the function of shepherd, “Peter, follow me.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt439"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt439#lf1477_footnote_nt439">4</a> But before Pilate, Christ disclaimed any ruling power of a temporal kind, saying, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from hence.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt440"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt440#lf1477_footnote_nt440">5</a><br /><a name="a_3341954"></a>3. This must not be understood to imply that Christ, who is God, is not Lord of the temporal kingdom, seeing that the Psalmist says, “The sea is his, and he made it: and his hands formed the dry land;”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt441"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt441#lf1477_footnote_nt441">6</a> but rather to mean that, as exemplar of the Church, He had not charge of this kingdom. Similarly, if a golden seal were to say, “I am not the standard for any class of objects,” it would not speak truly, in so far as it is gold, the standard of all metals. It would speak truly only in so far as it is a particular stamp, capable of being received by impression.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt442"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt442#lf1477_footnote_nt442">7</a><br /><a name="a_3341955"></a>4. Therefore it is the formal principle of the Church to declare and to believe Christ’s saying. To declare and to believe the opposite is manifestly contrary to the formal principle, or, what is the same thing, to the nature of the Church. We may gather from this that the prerogative to grant authority to the temporal domain is contrary to the nature of the Church, for contrariety in thought or in saying follows from contrariety in the thing spoken or thought. Just so truth or falsity in speech originates from the existence or non-existence of a thing, as the teaching of the Categories<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt443"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt443#lf1477_footnote_nt443">8</a> shows us. Through the above arguments, leading to an absurdity, has it been sufficiently demonstrated that the authority of Empire is not at all dependent upon the Church. </p><br /><br /><p>CHAPTER XVI<br /><a name="a_3341957"></a>The authority of the Empire derives from God directly.<br /><a name="a_3341958"></a>1. Although by the method of reduction to absurdity it has been shown in the foregoing chapter that the authority of Empire has not its source in the Chief Pontiff, yet it has not been fully proved, save by an inference, that its immediate source is God, seeing that if the authority does not depend on the Vicar of God, we conclude that it depends on God Himself. For a perfect demonstration of the proposition we must prove directly that the Emperor, or Monarch, of the world has immediate relationship to the Prince of the universe, who is God.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt444"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt444#lf1477_footnote_nt444">1</a><br /><a name="a_3341959"></a>2. In order to realize this, it must be understood that man alone of all beings holds the middle place between corruptibility and incorruptibility, and is therefore rightly compared by philosophers to the horizon which lies between the two hemispheres.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt445"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt445#lf1477_footnote_nt445">2</a> Man may be considered with regard to either of his essential parts, body or soul.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt446"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt446#lf1477_footnote_nt446">3</a> If considered in regard to the body alone, he is perishable; if in regard to the soul alone, he is imperishable. So the Philosopher spoke well of its incorruptibility when he said in the second book on the Soul, “And this only can be separated as a thing eternal from that which perishes.”<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt447"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt447#lf1477_footnote_nt447">4</a><br /><a name="a_3341960"></a>3. If man holds a middle place between the perishable and imperishable, then, inasmuch as every mean shares the nature of the extremes, man must share both natures.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt448"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt448#lf1477_footnote_nt448">5</a> And inasmuch as every nature is ordained for a certain ultimate end, it follows that there exists for man a two-fold end, in order that as he alone of all beings partakes of the perishable and the imperishable, so he alone of all beings should be ordained for two ultimate ends. One end is for that in him which is perishable, the other for that which is imperishable.<br /><a name="a_3341961"></a>4. Ineffable Providence has thus designed two ends to be contemplated of man: first, the happiness of this life, which consists in the activity of his natural powers,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt449"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt449#lf1477_footnote_nt449">6</a> and is prefigured by the terrestrial Paradise;<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt450"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt450#lf1477_footnote_nt450">7</a> and then the blessedness of life everlasting, which consists in the enjoyment of the countenance of God, to which man’s natural powers may not attain unless aided by divine light, and which may be symbolized by the celestial Paradise.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt451"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt451#lf1477_footnote_nt451">8</a><br /><a name="a_3341962"></a>5. To these states of blessedness, just as to diverse conclusions, man must come by diverse means. To the former we come by the teachings of philosophy, obeying them by acting in conformity with the moral and intellectual virtues;<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt452"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt452#lf1477_footnote_nt452">9</a> to the latter through spiritual teachings which transcend human reason, and which we obey by acting in conformity with the theological virtues, Faith, Hope, and Charity.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt453"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt453#lf1477_footnote_nt453">10</a> Now the former end and means are made known to us by human reason, which the philosophers have wholly explained to us; and the latter by the Holy Spirit, which has revealed to us supernatural but essential truth through the Prophets and Sacred Writers, through Jesus Christ, the coeternal Son of God, and through His disciples.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt454"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt454#lf1477_footnote_nt454">11</a> Nevertheless, human passion would cast all these behind, were not men, like horses astray in their brutishness, held to the road by bit and rein.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt455"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt455#lf1477_footnote_nt455">12</a><br /><a name="a_3341963"></a>6. Wherefore a twofold directive agent was necessary to man, in accordance with the twofold end; the Supreme Pontiff to lead the human race to life eternal by means of revelation,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt456"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt456#lf1477_footnote_nt456">13</a> and the Emperor to guide it to temporal felicity by means of philosophic instruction.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt457"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt457#lf1477_footnote_nt457">14</a> And since none or few—and these with exceeding difficulty—could attain this port, were not the waves of seductive desire calmed, and mankind made free to rest in the tranquillity of peace, therefore this is the goal which he whom we call the guardian of the earth and Roman Prince should most urgently seek; then would it be possible for life on this mortal threshing-floor<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt458"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt458#lf1477_footnote_nt458">15</a> to pass in freedom and peace. The order of the world follows the order inherent in the revolution of the heavens. To attain this order it is necessary that instruction productive of liberality and peace should be applied by the guardian of the realm, in due place and time, as dispensed by Him who is the ever present Watcher of the whole order of the heavens. And He alone foreordained this order, that by it in His providence He might link together all things, each in its own place.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt459"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt459#lf1477_footnote_nt459">16</a><br /><a name="a_3341964"></a>7. If this is so, and there is none higher than He, only God elects and only God confirms. Whence we may further conclude that neither those who are now, nor those who in any way whatsoever have been, called Electors,<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt460"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt460#lf1477_footnote_nt460">17</a> have the right to be so called; rather should they be entitled heralds of divine providence. Whence it is that those in whom is vested the dignity of proclamation suffer dissension among themselves at times, when, all or part of them being shadowed by the clouds of passion, they discern not the face of God’s dispensation.<br /><a name="a_3341965"></a>8. It is established, then, that the authority of temporal Monarchy descends without mediation from the fountain of universal authority. And this fountain, one in its purity of source, flows into multifarious channels out of the abundance of its excellence.<br /><a name="a_3341966"></a>9. Methinks I have now approached close enough to the goal I had set myself, for I have taken the kernels of truth from the husks of falsehood, in that question which asked whether the office of Monarchy was essential to the welfare of the world, and in the next which made inquiry whether the Roman people rightfully appropriated the Empire, and in the last which sought whether the authority of the Monarch derived from God immediately, or from some other. But the truth of this final question must not be restricted to mean that the Roman Prince shall not be subject in some degree to the Roman Pontiff, for felicity that is mortal is ordered in a measure after felicity that is immortal. Wherefore let Caesar honor Peter as a first-born son should honor his father, so that, refulgent with the light of paternal grace, he may illumine with greater radiance the earthly sphere over which he has been set by Him who alone is Ruler of all things spiritual and temporal.<a name="c_lf1477_footnote_nt461"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#lf1477_footnote_nt461#lf1477_footnote_nt461">18</a> </p><br /><br /><p>Footnotes from H. O. Houghton & Co. edition<br /><a name="a_3341970"></a>Cambridge, Mass., U. S. A. </p><br /><br /><p>Fair use statement: This material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit. </p><br /><br /><p><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt002#c_lf1477_footnote_nt002">[1. ]</a> See Professor Cook’s list of the passages, and references to Aristotle, in Mod. Lang. Notes 15 (1900). 256 (511, 512).<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt003"></a><a name="a_3341972"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt003#c_lf1477_footnote_nt003">[1. ]</a>Conv. 2. 4. 1.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt004"></a><a name="a_3341973"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt004#c_lf1477_footnote_nt004">[1. ]</a>De Mon. 1. 4.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt005"></a><a name="a_3341974"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt005#c_lf1477_footnote_nt005">[1. ]</a>Par. 6. 103.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt006"></a><a name="a_3341975"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt006#c_lf1477_footnote_nt006">[1. ]</a>Purg. 5. 61.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt007"></a><a name="a_3341976"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt007#c_lf1477_footnote_nt007">[1. ]</a>Earliest Lives of Dante, tr. James R. Smith, p. 69.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt008"></a><a name="a_3341977"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt008#c_lf1477_footnote_nt008">[1. ]</a> See lib. 9, cap. 136; tr. Napier’s Florentine History, bk. 1, ch. 16; also Dinsmore, Aids to the Study of Dante, p. 61.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt009"></a><a name="a_3341978"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt009#c_lf1477_footnote_nt009">[1. ]</a> Scartazzini, A Companion to Dante, pp. 318 ff.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt010"></a><a name="a_3341979"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt010#c_lf1477_footnote_nt010">[1. ]</a> Latham, Letters 5, 6, 7.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt011"></a><a name="a_3341980"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt011#c_lf1477_footnote_nt011">[2. ]</a>De Mon. 2. 3.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt012"></a><a name="a_3341981"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt012#c_lf1477_footnote_nt012">[3. ]</a>Conv. 4. 3.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt013"></a><a name="a_3341982"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt013#c_lf1477_footnote_nt013">[1. ]</a>Par. 16. 1 ff.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt014"></a><a name="a_3341983"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt014#c_lf1477_footnote_nt014">[1. ]</a>De Mon. 1. 12. 3.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt015"></a><a name="a_3341984"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt015#c_lf1477_footnote_nt015">[2. ]</a>Par. 2. 58 ff.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt016"></a><a name="a_3341985"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt016#c_lf1477_footnote_nt016">[3. ]</a>Conv. 2. 14.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt017"></a><a name="a_3341986"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt017#c_lf1477_footnote_nt017">[1. ]</a>Conv. 4. 3. 3.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt018"></a><a name="a_3341987"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt018#c_lf1477_footnote_nt018">[1. ]</a>Letter 5. 2. 3.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt019"></a><a name="a_3341988"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt019#c_lf1477_footnote_nt019">[2. ]</a> Albert died May 1, 1308. Henry was elected November 27, 1308; entered Italy, October, 1311; received the iron crown of the Lombards at Milan on Epiphany, 1311; Dante’s letter to him April 16, 1311; died at Buonconvento, August 24, 1313.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt020"></a><a name="a_3341989"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt020#c_lf1477_footnote_nt020">[1. ]</a> Lowell has translated this:—<br />The rights of Monarchy, the Heavens, the Stream of Fire, the Pit,<br />In vision seen, I sang as far as to the fates seemed fit;<br />But since my soul, an alien here, hath flown to nobler wars,<br />And, happier now, hath gone to seek its Maker ’mid the stars,<br />Here am I, Dante, shut, exiled from the ancestral shore,<br />Whom Florence, the of all least-loving mother, bore.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt021"></a><a name="a_3341990"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt021#c_lf1477_footnote_nt021">[1. ]</a> Bryce, chap. 15.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt022"></a><a name="a_3341991"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt022#c_lf1477_footnote_nt022">[1. ]</a>The Teachings of Dante, p. 56.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt023"></a><a name="a_3341992"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt023#c_lf1477_footnote_nt023">[1. ]</a> God is “miglior natura” in Purg. 16. 79: “To a greater power and a better nature, ye are free subjects.”<br />Par. 10. 28: “The greatest minister of nature, that stamps the world with the goodness of heaven.”<br />Par. 13. 79: “But if the burning love disposes and stamps the clear view of the prime virtue, all perfection is there acquired.”<br />Cf. S. T. 1. 66. 3; De Trinit. 3. 4.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt024"></a><a name="a_3341993"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt024#c_lf1477_footnote_nt024">[2. ]</a>Ps. 1. 3.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt025"></a><a name="a_3341994"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt025#c_lf1477_footnote_nt025">[3. ]</a>Matt. 25. 25.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt026"></a><a name="a_3341995"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt026#c_lf1477_footnote_nt026">[4. ]</a>Num. 17. 8.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt027"></a><a name="a_3341996"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt027#c_lf1477_footnote_nt027">[5. ]</a>1 Cor. 9. 24; cf. Phil. 3. 14.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt028"></a><a name="a_3341997"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt028#c_lf1477_footnote_nt028">[6. ]</a>James 1. 5. In Conv. 1. 8. 2 God is called the “Universal Benefactor.”<br />Conv. 3. 7. 2: “The Primal Goodness sendeth His bounties unto all things in an affluence.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt029"></a><a name="a_3341998"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt029#c_lf1477_footnote_nt029">[1. ]</a>Conv. 4. 4. 1: “Wherefore, in order to put an end to these wars and their causes, the whole earth should be under a monarchy, that is, should be a single principality under one prince, who, possessing everything, and therefore incapable of further desire, would keep the kings content within the limits of their kingdoms, so that peace should abide among them.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt030"></a><a name="a_3341999"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt030#c_lf1477_footnote_nt030">[2. ]</a> Each book of the De Mon. is likewise founded on the rock of a basic principle. See 2. 2; 3. 2.<br />Conv. 4. 15. 7: “The third infirmity in the minds of men is caused by levity of nature; for many have so light a fancy, that they fly from one thing to another in their reasoning, and before they have finished their syllogism have formed a conclusion, and from that conclusion have flown to another, and think they are arguing most subtly, while they have no principle to start from, and see nothing in their imagination that is really there.”<br />Par. 2. 124: “Regard me well, how I am going through this topic to the truth thou desirest.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt031"></a><a name="a_3342000"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt031#c_lf1477_footnote_nt031">[3. ]</a>Conv. 4. 9. 2: “There are things which it [the reason] only considers and does not originate, . . . such as natural and supernatural things, i. e. laws and mathematics; and actions which it considers and performs by its own proper act, which are called rational, such as the arts of speech; and actions which it considers and executes in material outside of itself, as in the mechanical arts.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt032"></a><a name="a_3342001"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt032#c_lf1477_footnote_nt032">[4. ]</a> “The word politia may be used either for a general form of government, such as monarchy or democracy; or for a concrete organ of government, such as some specific monarchy; or for some function of government as exercised by such an organ, i. e. the actual governing done by the monarch; or for the ideal goal and purpose of government, i. e. the right ordering of a state.” Wicksteed. It has seemed best to translate this oft-recurring word in its various forms by “government,” “governmental,” etc.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt033"></a><a name="a_3342002"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt033#c_lf1477_footnote_nt033">[5. ]</a> The identification of cause and end, or effect, is complete in Letter 11. 33: “When the Source or First, which is God, hath been found, there is nothing to be sought beyond (since He is the Alpha and Omega, which is the Beginning and the End).” See note 1, De Mon. 1. 13. For this notion of cause and effect see also Arist. Metaphys. 1, and De Causis.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt034"></a><a name="a_3342003"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt034#c_lf1477_footnote_nt034">[1. ]</a>Eth. 1. 7. 21: “For the principle seems to be more than half the whole.” Dante almost without exception refers to Aristotle as “the Philosopher.” In Conv. 3. 5. 5 he is “That glorious Philosopher to whom Nature has most completely revealed her secrets;” “The master of human reason,” Conv. 4. 2. 7; “That master of philosophers,” Conv. 4. 8. 5; “The master of those who know,” Inf. 4. 131. For Dante’s relation to Aristotle see Moore, Studies in Dante, Vol. 1. pp. 92-156. For the translations of Aristotle which he used, l. c. pp. 305-318. Throughout the De Mon. the Ethics are called “the writings to Nicomachus,” a title given them because they had been addressed by the philosopher to his son of that name.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt035"></a><a name="a_3342004"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt035#c_lf1477_footnote_nt035">[2. ]</a>De Caelo 1. 4. Dante uses a singular verb with two coördinate subjects, thus, “Deus et natura facit.” So infra, 1. 11. 1.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt036"></a><a name="a_3342005"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt036#c_lf1477_footnote_nt036">[3. ]</a>Conv. 3. 15. 4: “Nature would have made it in vain, because it would have been created without any end.”<br />Par. 8. 97: “The Good which sets in revolution and contents all the realm thou art scaling makes its foresight to be virtue in these great bodies. And not only the natures are foreseen in this mind which is of itself perfect, but they together with their preservation. Wherefore whatsoever this bow discharges falls disposed to a foreseen end, just as a thing aimed right upon its mark. If this were not so, the heaven where thou journeyest would so produce its effects that they would not be an artist’s works, but ruins. And this cannot be, if the intellects which move these stars are not maimed and maimed the First, in that He has not perfected them. . . . I see it is impossible for nature, in that which is necessary, to fail.”<br />Cf. De Mon. 2. 7. 1; 3. 15. 1; 1. 10. 1.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt037"></a><a name="a_3342006"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt037#c_lf1477_footnote_nt037">[4. ]</a>Pol. 1. 2. 5-8.<br />Conv. 4. 4. 1: “The radical foundation of imperial majesty according to the truth is the necessity of human society, which is ordained to one end, that is a happy life; to which no one is capable of attaining without the aid of others, because man has many needs, which one person alone is unable to satisfy.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt038"></a><a name="a_3342007"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt038#c_lf1477_footnote_nt038">[5. ]</a>Conv. 3. 3. 1: “Simple bodies, the elements, have a natural love for their own place; wherefore earth always falls toward the centre, and fire is drawn toward the circumference above.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt039"></a><a name="a_3342008"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt039#c_lf1477_footnote_nt039">[6. ]</a>Conv. 3. 3. 2: “The primary composed bodies, such as minerals.” Cf. Par. 7. 124: “I see the air, and I see the fire, the earth, and the water and all their combinations come to destruction and endure but a little.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt040"></a><a name="a_3342009"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt040#c_lf1477_footnote_nt040">[7. ]</a>Conv. 3. 3. 3: “Plants, which are the first of animate things.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt041"></a><a name="a_3342010"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt041#c_lf1477_footnote_nt041">[8. ]</a>Conv. 3. 2. 3: “The sensitive soul is found without the rational, as in beasts and birds and fishes.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt042"></a><a name="a_3342011"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt042#c_lf1477_footnote_nt042">[9. ]</a> For the origin of the idea see De Anima 3; Metaphys. 12; Ethics 1. 7. 12: “The work of man is an energy of soul according to reason. Man’s chief good is an energy of soul according to virtue.” For the mediaeval explanation, S. T. 1. 154. 4, and 1. 79. 1, 2, 10.<br />“Intellectus possibilis” or “passibilis,” and “intellectus agens,” that is, the passive, apprehending intellect, and the active intelligence, are the two intellects of man. Cf. De Mon. 1. 16. The emphasis here is on the fact that at no given time is the potentiality of man’s intellect realized.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt043"></a><a name="a_3342012"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt043#c_lf1477_footnote_nt043">[10. ]</a> Dante discusses the hierarchies, Conv. 2. 5, 6, and Par. 28, 29. Cf. S. T. 1. 54-59. Conv. 2. 5. 1: “These are substances separate from matter, that is intelligences, whom the common people call angels;” l. c. 2. 5. 3: “Their intellect is one and perpetual;” 4. 19. 2: “Human nobility, as far as the variety of its fruits is considered, excels that of the angels, although the angelic may be more divine in its unity.” That is, while the angelic nature is an uninterrupted realization of the knowledge of which each order of these beings is capable, man always approximates through a variety of ways to the knowledge that is his heritage.<br />Par. 29. 70: “But whereas on earth through your schools it is taught that the angelic nature is such as understands and remembers and wills, . . . the truth is there below confused.” Dante’s actus or formus is typified in angelic natures, his materia or potentia in matter, while both form and matter are found in created things.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt044"></a><a name="a_3342013"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt044#c_lf1477_footnote_nt044">[11. ]</a> Averroës was an Arabian philosopher of the twelfth century, and author of the famous commentary upon Aristotle here alluded to. He is mentioned in Conv. 4. 13. 3, and placed among the great thinkers in Limbo, Inf. 4. 144.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt045"></a><a name="a_3342014"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt045#c_lf1477_footnote_nt045">[12. ]</a> “Ad libr. tertium Ed. Venet. 1552, p. 164.” Witte.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt046"></a><a name="a_3342015"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt046#c_lf1477_footnote_nt046">[13. ]</a>Metaphys. 1. 1: “An art comes into being when, out of many conceptions of experience, one universal opinion is evolved with respect to similar cases.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt047"></a><a name="a_3342016"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt047#c_lf1477_footnote_nt047">[14. ]</a>Conv. 3. 15. 2: “In this gaze or contemplation alone is human perfection to be gained, that is, the perfection of the reason, on which, as on its most important part, all our being depends; and all our other actions, feelings, nourishment—all exist for it alone, and it exists for itself and not for others.” L. c. 4. 4. 1: “Peace should abide among them, . . . which done, man lives happily, for which end he was born.” L. c. 4. 17. 16: “We must know that we can have two kinds of happiness in this life, according to two different ways, one good, one best, which lead us thereto; one is the active life, and the other the contemplative.” L. c. 4. 22. 5-10: “The use of the mind is double, that is, practical and speculative, and both are delightful; although that of contemplation is most so. . . . Its practical use is to act through us virtuously, that is, righteously by temperance, fortitude, and justice; the speculative is not to operate actively in us, but to consider the works of God and of nature; and the one and the other make up our beatitude and supreme happiness.”<br />Purg. 27. 93, Dante dreams of Leah and Rachael, who typify the contemplative and active life; “to see satisfies her, but me to work.”<br />Purg. 28 realizes the dream of the active life in the person of Matilda, and Purg. 30 that of the contemplative in the person of Beatrice. It is for abandoning the contemplative life, and “following false images of good,” that Beatrice reproves Dante, Purg. 30. 131.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt048"></a><a name="a_3342017"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt048#c_lf1477_footnote_nt048">[15. ]</a>Pol. 1. 2. 2: “By nature too some beings command, and others obey, for the sake of mutual safety; for a being endowed with discernment and forethought is by nature the superior and governor.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt049"></a><a name="a_3342018"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt049#c_lf1477_footnote_nt049">[1. ]</a> “Sedendo et quiescendo.” Dante often used the figure of the seated person to portray the life of contemplation.<br />S. T. 2-2. 182. 2: “Contemplative life consists in a certain stillness and rest according to the text, ‘Be still, and know that I am God,’ ” Ps. 46. 10. Also S. T. 1-2. 3. 4, 5.<br />Conv. 4. 17. 16: “And Mary . . . sitting at the feet of Christ, took no heed to the service of the house. . . . For if we explain this morally, our Lord wished thereby to show us that the contemplative life is the best, although the active life is good.” L. c. 1. 1. 4: “Blessed are the few that are seated at the table where the bread of the angels is eaten.”<br />Purg. 27. 105: “My sister Rachel never is drawn from her mirror, and sits all day.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt050"></a><a name="a_3342019"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt050#c_lf1477_footnote_nt050">[2. ]</a>Eccles. 38. 25 (Vulg.): “The wisdom of a learned man cometh by opportunity of leisure; and he that hath little business shall become wise.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt051"></a><a name="a_3342020"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt051#c_lf1477_footnote_nt051">[3. ]</a>Ps. 8. 6; cf. Heb. 2. 7. Quoted Conv. 4. 19. 3.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt052"></a><a name="a_3342021"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt052#c_lf1477_footnote_nt052">[4. ]</a>Luke 2. 14.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt053"></a><a name="a_3342022"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt053#c_lf1477_footnote_nt053">[5. ]</a>Luke 24. 36; John 20. 21, 26.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt054"></a><a name="a_3342023"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt054#c_lf1477_footnote_nt054">[6. ]</a>Rom. 1. 7.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt055"></a><a name="a_3342024"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt055#c_lf1477_footnote_nt055">[7. ]</a> Some of Dante’s most eloquent exhortations in prose and some of the most perfect music of his verse are touching that peace which he knew should make man happy on earth and blessed in heaven, that peace which he went to seek “from world to world,” and which he found at last in complete obedience to the will of God.<br />Purg. 3. 74: Virgil conjures the spirits “By that peace which I think is awaited by you all.”<br />Purg. 5. 61: Dante here tells of “that peace, which makes me, following the feet of a guide thus fashioned, seek it from world to world.”<br />Purg. 10. 34: “The angel that came on earth with the decree of the many years wept-for peace . . . opened Heaven from its long interdict.”<br />Purg. 11. 7: “Let the peace of thy kingdom come to us.”<br />Purg. 21. 13: “My brethren, God give you peace,” is the greeting of Statius.<br />Purg. 28. 91: “The highest Good, which does only its own pleasure, made the man good and for good, and gave him this place for an earnest to him of eternal peace.”<br />Purg. 30. 7: “That truthful folk . . . turned them to the car as to their peace.”<br />Par. 2. 112: “Within the heaven of the divine peace revolves a body in whose virtue lies the being of all that is contained in it.”<br />Par. 3. 85: “In His will is our peace.”<br />Par. 27. 8: “A life complete of joy and peace.”<br />Par. 30. 100: “Light is there on high, which makes visible the Creator to that creation which only in seeing Him has its peace.”<br />Par. 31. 110: St. Bernard “in this world by contemplation tasted of that peace.”<br />Par. 33. 1: “Virgin Mother . . . in thy womb was rekindled the Love, through whose warmth in the eternal peace this flower has thus sprung.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt056"></a><a name="a_3342025"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt056#c_lf1477_footnote_nt056">[1. ]</a>Pol. 1. 5. 3: “Whatsoever is composed of many parts, which together make up one whole, . . . shows the marks of some one thing governing and another thing governed.”<br />Conv. 4. 4. 2: “And with these reasons we may compare the words of the Philosopher, when he says in the Politics that when many things are ordained for one purpose, one of them should be governor or ruler, and all others should be governed or ruled.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt057"></a><a name="a_3342026"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt057#c_lf1477_footnote_nt057">[2. ]</a> For Dante’s idea of the deference due to authority, philosophical and imperial, see Conv. 4. 8. 9.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt058"></a><a name="a_3342027"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt058#c_lf1477_footnote_nt058">[3. ]</a>Pol. 1. 2. 6.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt059"></a><a name="a_3342028"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt059#c_lf1477_footnote_nt059">[4. ]</a> Homer, Od. 9. 114, quoted by Arist. Pol. 1. 2. 6.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt060"></a><a name="a_3342029"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt060#c_lf1477_footnote_nt060">[5. ]</a> “Politia obliqua.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt061"></a><a name="a_3342030"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt061#c_lf1477_footnote_nt061">[6. ]</a>Luke 11. 17.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt062"></a><a name="a_3342031"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt062#c_lf1477_footnote_nt062">[7. ]</a>Conv. 4. 4. 2: “Even as we see a ship, where her divers duties and their divers purposes are ordained for one end, that is, to bring her by a safe course to the desired haven, where, as each officer performs his own duty with regard to the proper end, so there is one person who considers all these, and adapts them all to the final end, and this one is the pilot whose voice all must obey. And this we see in religious bodies, and in armies, and in all things, which, as we have said, are ordained for some one purpose.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt063"></a><a name="a_3342032"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt063#c_lf1477_footnote_nt063">[1. ]</a>Conv. 4. 29. 5: “Every whole is made up of its parts, . . . and what is said of a part, in the same way may be said of a whole.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt064"></a><a name="a_3342033"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt064#c_lf1477_footnote_nt064">[2. ]</a>Par. 1. 103: “All things whatsoever have an order among themselves; and this is form, which makes the universe in the likeness of God. Here the created beings on high see the traces of eternal goodness, which is the end whereunto the rule aforesaid has been made.”<br />Par. 10. 3: “The first and unspeakable Goodness made all that revolves in mind or in place with such order that he who observes this cannot be without tasting of Him.”<br />Par. 29. 31: “Order and structure were concrete in the substances.”<br />Cf. De Mon. 2. 7. 1, and note 3.<br />S. T. 1. 47. 3: “Ipse ordo in rebus sic a Deo creatis existens unitatem mundi manifestat. Mundus enim iste unus dicitur unitate ordinis, secundum quod quaedam ad alia ordinantur. Quaecumque autem sunt a Deo, ordinem habent ad invicem et ad ipsum Deum.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt065"></a><a name="a_3342034"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt065#c_lf1477_footnote_nt065">[3. ]</a>Conv. 4. 4. 1: “The whole earth should be under one prince, who . . . would keep the kings content within the limits of their kingdoms, so that peace should abide among them, wherein the cities should repose, and in this repose the neighbors should love one another, and in this love the families should supply all their wants; which done, man lives happily; for which end he was born.” Conv. 4. 4. 2: “And this office, for reason of its excellence, is called Empire, without any qualification, because it is the government of all governments. And so he who holds the office is called emperor, because he is a law to all and must be obeyed by all, and all others take their force and authority from him. And thus it is evident that the imperial majesty and authority is the highest in human society.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt066"></a><a name="a_3342035"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt066#c_lf1477_footnote_nt066">[1. ]</a> Dante applies to the Deity the names denoting governmental supremacy, not only in the De Mon. but elsewhere. See Conv. 2. 6. 1; 2. 16. 6; “Imperadore dell’ universo;” also Emperor, Inf. 1. 124; Par. 12. 40, etc.; De Mon. 3. 16. 1.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt067"></a><a name="a_3342036"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt067#c_lf1477_footnote_nt067">[1. ]</a>Conv. 3. 14. 1: “The sun . . . sending his rays here below, makes all things to resemble his own brightness, as far as they, of their own nature, are capable of receiving light. Thus . . . God brings this love to His own likeness, in so far as it is possible for it to resemble Him.”<br />Par. 1. 104: “Form . . . makes the universe in the likeness of God.” Cf. De Mon. 2. 2. 2, and note 3. <a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt068#c_lf1477_footnote_nt068">[2. ]</a>Gen. 1. 26. Used in Conv. 4. 12. 6: “God is the source of our soul and has made it like unto Himself (as it is written, ‘Let us make man in our image and likeness’).”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt069"></a><a name="a_3342038"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt069#c_lf1477_footnote_nt069">[3. ]</a>Eth. 10. 8. 13: “The energy of the deity, as it surpasses all others in blessedness, must be contemplative: and therefore, of human energies, that which is nearest allied to this must be the happiest.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt070"></a><a name="a_3342039"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt070#c_lf1477_footnote_nt070">[4. ]</a>Deut. 6. 4.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt071"></a><a name="a_3342040"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt071#c_lf1477_footnote_nt071">[1. ]</a>Conv. 4. 24. 8: “All children look more closely to the paternal footprints than any others.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt072"></a><a name="a_3342041"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt072#c_lf1477_footnote_nt072">[2. ]</a>Phys. 2. 2: “Homo hominem generat ex materia et sol,” Witte quotes from an old Latin version. Dante quotes three times in De Mon. from De Naturali Auditu, as he calls the Physics of Aristotle. Cf. infra, 2. 7. 3; 3. 15. 2.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt073"></a><a name="a_3342042"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt073#c_lf1477_footnote_nt073">[3. ]</a>Inf. 11. 97: “Philosophy . . . to whoso looks narrowly on her, notes, not in one place only, how nature takes her course from the understanding of God, and from His workmanship; and if thou well observe thy Physics, thou wilt find after not many pages, that your workmanship, as far as it can, follows her as the learner does the master, so that your workmanship is as it were second in descent from God.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt074"></a><a name="a_3342043"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt074#c_lf1477_footnote_nt074">[4. ]</a> The “primum mobile” is the ninth heaven, and the source of motion in the other eight movable heavens. The heavens are treated of in Conv. 2. 3-6; the “primum mobile” in 2. 4. 1: “The fervent longing of all its parts to be united to those of this tenth and most divine heaven, makes it revolve with so much desire that its velocity is almost incomprehensible.” Dante’s theory of motion is to some extent explained in Letter 11. 26: “Everything that moveth hath some defect, and hath not its whole being complete in itself.”<br />Conv. 2. 15. 5: “The said heaven directs by its movements the daily revolution of all the others, by which they all daily receive and transmit here below the virtue of all their parts.”<br />Par. 27. 106: “The nature of the world that holds the centre quiet, and moves all else around, begins hence as from its starting-point. And this heaven has no other Where than in the mind of God, in which is kindled the love that turns it and the virtue that it showers down. Light and love comprehend it with one circle, as it does the rest; and of that girth He only who girt it is the intelligence. Its movement is not marked out by any other, the others are measured by it.” Cf. Par. 1. 76, where God is called “Love who orderest the heavens,” and De Mon. 2. 2. 3 note.<br />Par. 28. 70: “The one which sweeps along with it the universe sublime.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt075"></a><a name="a_3342044"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt075#c_lf1477_footnote_nt075">[5. ]</a>De Cons. Philos. 2. Metr. 8. ll. 28-30. See pp. 282-288 of Moore’s Studies, Vol. 1, for an account of Dante’s relation to Boethius, one of his “favorite authors.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt076"></a><a name="a_3342045"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt076#c_lf1477_footnote_nt076">[1. ]</a> “Sine proprio perfectivo.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt077"></a><a name="a_3342046"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt077#c_lf1477_footnote_nt077">[2. ]</a>De Anima 3. 9. This idea Dante often repeats. See infra, 2. 7. 2, and 3. 15. 1.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt078"></a><a name="a_3342047"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt078#c_lf1477_footnote_nt078">[3. ]</a>Metaphys. 11. 10, at the end. Moore points out the original source as Homer, Il. 2. 204.<br />Par. 20. 76: “Such seemed to me the image of the imprint of the eternal pleasure, according to its desire for which each thing becomes what sort it is.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt079"></a><a name="a_3342048"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt079#c_lf1477_footnote_nt079">[1. ]</a>Ecl. 4. 6. Statius in his eulogy of Virgil, Purg. 22. 70, paraphrases this passage of the Fourth Eclogue: “The world renews itself; Justice returns, and the first age of man; and a new progeny descends from Heaven.” Use is made of the same in Letter 7. 1.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt080"></a><a name="a_3342049"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt080#c_lf1477_footnote_nt080">[2. ]</a> One of the books of the Convito, which was never written, was to have been devoted to this “moral virtue.” Conv. 1. 12. 4: “Of this subject I shall treat fully in the fourteenth book.” So Dante affirms again, l. c. 4. 27. 5: “Justice will be treated of in the last book but one of this volume.” The word “justitia,” used in the De Mon. according to the definition here of “regula sive rectitudo,” is employed elsewhere by Dante with varying meanings, ranging even to a synonym of perfect goodness and God Himself.<br />Conv. 4. 17. 13: “The eleventh [moral virtue] is Justice, which disposes us to love and practice righteousness in all things.”<br />Inf. 29. 56: “Justice that cannot err” punishes those in hell. In Purg. 19. 77 the sufferings endured “both hope and justice make less hard.” Again in Purg. 16. 71, it is “Justice to have for good joy, and for evil woe.”<br />Par. 4. 67: “That our justice should appear unjust in the eyes of mortals is argument of faith and pertains not to heretic depravity.”<br />Par. 6. 103: “Let the Ghibellines . . . work their arts under another ensign, for he ever follows that amiss who separates justice and it.” L. c. 121: “The living justice makes our affection sweet within us, so that it can never be wrested to any unrighteousness.”<br />Par. 18. 115: “O sweet star, what manner and what number of what gems showed me that our justice is an effect of the heaven wherein thou art set.” In this same canto Dante sees the motto of the empire, 90 ff., “Diligite justitiam . . . qui judicatis terram,” in the words which open the Book of Wisdom. For Thomas Aquinas on Justice, see S. T. 2-2. 57. 1, 58. 1.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt081"></a><a name="a_3342050"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt081#c_lf1477_footnote_nt081">[3. ]</a> Forms may be substantial or accidental; substantial, when they give things being or essence; accidental, when they give things qualities or attributes. Whiteness is an accidental form which is intrinsically absolute. More or less whiteness is only possible when some other accidental form is mixed with it. Cf. infra, par. 3.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt082"></a><a name="a_3342051"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt082#c_lf1477_footnote_nt082">[4. ]</a> Gilbertus Porretanus was a scholastic logician, a theologian, and Bishop of Poitiers, a pupil of Bernard of Chartres and of Anselm of Laon. His chief logical work was De Sex Principiis, and it gave him the name by which Dante designates him. A criticism of the ten Aristotelian Categories, it drew a distinction between the first four (formae inhaerentes), substance, quality, quantity, and relation, and the other six (formae assistentes), and it became one of the most popular works in the schools.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt083"></a><a name="a_3342052"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt083#c_lf1477_footnote_nt083">[5. ]</a> Dante uses “subject” to mean either an entity or an underlying element.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt084"></a><a name="a_3342053"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt084#c_lf1477_footnote_nt084">[6. ]</a>Eth. 5. 1. 12.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt085"></a><a name="a_3342054"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt085#c_lf1477_footnote_nt085">[7. ]</a> The sun and moon are again referred to in this way, Par. 29. 1: “When both the children of Latona, brooded over by the Ram and Scales, together make of the horizon a belt.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt086"></a><a name="a_3342055"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt086#c_lf1477_footnote_nt086">[8. ]</a>Par. 15. 1: Into “a benign will . . . is dissolved always the love which inspires righteously, as evil concupiscence is unto the unjust will.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt087"></a><a name="a_3342056"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt087#c_lf1477_footnote_nt087">[9. ]</a>Eth. 5. 1. 15, 17, 20.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt088"></a><a name="a_3342057"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt088#c_lf1477_footnote_nt088">[10. ]</a>Analyt. Prior. 1. 5. The second figure is characterized by having the common term (A in this case) in the predicate, both in the major and minor premise, and by having one premise positive and one negative.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt089"></a><a name="a_3342058"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt089#c_lf1477_footnote_nt089">[11. ]</a> That is, Justice is most powerful in the world when present in the most powerful and willing subject.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt090"></a><a name="a_3342059"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt090#c_lf1477_footnote_nt090">[12. ]</a>Eth. 5. 2. 5.<br />Covetousness, cupidity, or avarice, the desire for other than that which is the intention of God, Dante makes the root of every wrong. Individual self-seeking destroys the form, or order, of the universe. It is related to the evil of multiplicity treated of in De Mon. 1. 15. Those guilty of avarice were punished in the fourth circle of Inferno, canto 7; Simoniacs in the eighth circle, Malebolge, canto 19; and usurers just above in the seventh circle, Inf. 17.<br />Inf. 12. 49: “O blind covetousness! O foolish wrath! that dost so spur us in our short life, and afterward in the life eternal dost in such evil wise steep us!” Purg. 19. 121; 22. 23, 34.<br />Purg. 20. 82: “O avarice, what canst thou do more with us, since thou hast so drawn my race to thee that it cares not for its own flesh!”<br />Par. 27. 121-124: “O covetousness, which dost so whelm mortals under thee that none has power to draw his eyes forth of thy waves! Well flowers in men their wills; but the rain unbroken turns to sloes the true plums.”<br />Par. 30. 138: Henry came before his time to Italy because “The blind covetousness which bewitches you has made you like the child who is dying of hunger and drives away his nurse.”<br />For further reference to cupidity, see note, Aquinas Ethicus, Vol. 2. p. 396. Rickaby.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt091"></a><a name="a_3342060"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt091#c_lf1477_footnote_nt091">[13. ]</a>Rhetoric 1. 1. 7. Conv. 4. 4. 1: “The whole earth . . . should be under one prince, . . . possessing everything, and therefore incapable of further desire.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt092"></a><a name="a_3342061"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt092#c_lf1477_footnote_nt092">[14. ]</a>Aen. 1. 287: “Imperium Oceano, famam qui terminet astris.”<br />In the letter to Henry VII, Letter 5. 3, the idea is amplified: “The power of the Romans is limited neither by the confines of Italy, nor by the shores of three-horned Europe. For although through violence its dominions may have been narrowed on all sides, none the less, since it extends to the waves of Amphitrite by inviolable right, it barely deigns to be girded round about by the ineffectual billows of the ocean. For to us it was written: ‘Of illustrious origin shall Trojan Caesar be born: his empire shall end with the ocean, his fame with the stars.’ ”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt093"></a><a name="a_3342062"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt093#c_lf1477_footnote_nt093">[15. ]</a> “Perseitate hominum.” Witte instances the same word, Ockham, Quatuor Libros Senten. 1. 2. 4: “Omnis propositio, in qua praedicatur passio de suo subiecto cum nomine perseitatis, esset falsa, quodest absurdum.” Ducange defines it thus: “Perseitas hominum = facultas per se subsistandi.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt094"></a><a name="a_3342063"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt094#c_lf1477_footnote_nt094">[16. ]</a>Purg. 15. 71: “In proportion as charity extends, increases upon it the eternal goodness.”<br />Par. 3. 43: “Our charity locks not its doors upon a just wish.” L. c. 70: “A virtue of charity sets at rest our will, which makes us wish that only which we have.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt095"></a><a name="a_3342064"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt095#c_lf1477_footnote_nt095">[17. ]</a>Conv. 1. 12. 2: “Proximity and goodness are the causes that engender love.”<br />Conv. 3. 10. 1: “The closer the thing desired comes to him who desires it, the greater the desire is.”<br />Purg. 27. 109: “And already, through the brightness before the light, which arises the more grateful to pilgrims, as on their return they lodge less far away.”<br />More, Utopia: “The king . . . should love his people, and be loved of them; . . . he should live among them, govern them gently.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt096"></a><a name="a_3342065"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt096#c_lf1477_footnote_nt096">[18. ]</a>De Causis, Lect. 1. This pseudo-Aristotelian treatise, probably of Arabic origin, was regarded with great reverence in the Middle Ages, and commentaries were written upon it by Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, and Aegidius Romanus. Prantl, Geschichte der Logik im Abendlande, Vol. 3. pp. 8-10.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt097"></a><a name="a_3342066"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt097#c_lf1477_footnote_nt097">[19. ]</a>Conv. 4. 4. 3: “Before the coming of the aforesaid officer [the emperor] no one had at heart the good of all.” Cf. l. c. 4. 5. 3.<br />Utopia: “A prince ought to take more care of his people’s happiness than of his own, as a shepherd is to take more care of his flock than of himself.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt098"></a><a name="a_3342067"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt098#c_lf1477_footnote_nt098">[20. ]</a> In Par. 18 occurs what Butler calls the “apotheosis of the personified empire,” and there its relation to justice is made plain. See note 2 in the present chapter of De Mon.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt099"></a><a name="a_3342068"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt099#c_lf1477_footnote_nt099">[21. ]</a> That “Justice is preëminent only under a Monarch.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt100"></a><a name="a_3342069"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt100#c_lf1477_footnote_nt100">[1. ]</a> Freedom of the will is discussed in Par. 5. 19 ff.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt101"></a><a name="a_3342070"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt101#c_lf1477_footnote_nt101">[2. ]</a> Moore says that this thought is repeated more than twenty times in Aristotle, e. g. Analyt. Prior. 2. 21; Magna Moral. 1. 1: “It would be absurd if a man wishing to prove that the angles of a triangle were equal to two right angles assumed that the soul is immortal.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt102"></a><a name="a_3342071"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt102#c_lf1477_footnote_nt102">[3. ]</a>Conv. 1. 12. 4: “Although all virtue is lovable in man, that is most so which is most peculiarly human; and this is justice which belongs only to the reason or intellect, that is, the will.”<br />Conv. 4. 9. 3: “There are actions . . . which our reason considers as within the province of the will, such as to offend or to help; . . . and these are entirely under the control of our will, and therefore from them are we called good or wicked, because they are all our own.”<br />Conv. 4. 18. 1: “All the moral virtues come from one principle, which is a good and habitual choice.”<br />Purg. 18. 19: “The mind which is created ready to love is quick to move to everything which pleases it so soon as by the pleasure it is aroused to action. Your apprehensive power draws an intention from an essence which speaks true, and displays it within you, so that it makes the mind turn to that.”<br />Par. 13. 118: “It occurs that oftentimes the current opinion swerves in a false direction, and afterwards the desire binds the understanding.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt103"></a><a name="a_3342072"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt103#c_lf1477_footnote_nt103">[4. ]</a> Cf. supra, 1. 3. 2, and note 10. Conv. 2. 6. 7: “These motive powers guide by their thought alone the revolutions over which each one presides.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt104"></a><a name="a_3342073"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt104#c_lf1477_footnote_nt104">[5. ]</a>Conv. 2. 9. 3: “The soul . . . having left it [the body], it endures forever in a nature more than human.”<br />Conv. 2. 1. 4: “The soul, in forsaking its sins, becomes holy and free in its powers.” So Virgil assures Dante when he has reached the Earthly Paradise, Purg. 27. 140: “Await no more my word or my sign; free, right, and sound is thy judgment, and it were a fault not to act according to its thought, wherefore, thee over thyself I crown and mitre.”<br />And of children, Par. 32. 40: “Spirits set free before that they had true power of choice.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt105"></a><a name="a_3342074"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt105#c_lf1477_footnote_nt105">[6. ]</a>Purg. 18. 55: “Man knows not whence comes the understanding of the first cognitions, and the affection of the first objects of appetite, for they are in you, as in the bee the desire of making its honey; and this first volition admits not desert of praise or blame. Now, whereas about this every other gathers itself, there is innate in you the faculty which counsels, and which should hold the threshold of assent. This is the principle whereto occasion of desert in you is attracted, according as it gathers up and winnows out good or guilty love. They who in reasoning have gone to the foundation have taken note of that innate liberty, wherefore they have left morality to the world. Whence let us lay down that of necessity arises every love which kindles itself in you; of keeping it in check the power is in you. The noble faculty Beatrice understands for free will.”<br />Par. 5. 19: “The greatest gift which God of His bounty made in creating, and the most conformed to His goodness, and that which He most values, was the freedom of the will, wherewith the creatures that have intelligence all, and they only, were and are endowed.” Giuliani says that some MSS. add to these lines of the De Mon., “sicut in Paradiso comediae jam dixi.” Whatever scribe originally inserted them found their pronounced relationship to Par. 5. 19.<br />See also S. T. 1. 59. 3: “Only that which has intellect can act by free judgment; . . . wherever intellect is, there is judgment.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt106"></a><a name="a_3342075"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt106#c_lf1477_footnote_nt106">[7. ]</a>Metaphys. 1. 2. This treatise Dante calls de simpliciter Ente, here and 1. 13. 1; 1. 15. 1; 3. 14. 4, but Prima Philosophia in 3. 12. 1.<br />Conv. 3. 14. 3: “The noble and intellectual soul, free in her special power, which is reason; . . . and the Philosopher says in the first of the Metaphysics, that that thing is free which exists for itself and not for another.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt107"></a><a name="a_3342076"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt107#c_lf1477_footnote_nt107">[8. ]</a> “Crooked policies;” in the Latin, “politiae obliquae.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt108"></a><a name="a_3342077"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt108#c_lf1477_footnote_nt108">[9. ]</a> Reference to political servitude is common in Dante, e. g. Purg. 6. 76: “Ah Italy! thou slave, hostel of woe!”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt109"></a><a name="a_3342078"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt109#c_lf1477_footnote_nt109">[10. ]</a> In Pol. 3. 7. 2-5, we find: “A tyranny is a monarchy where the good of one man only is the object of government, an oligarchy considers only the rich, and a democracy only the poor, but no one of them has the common good of all in view.”<br />The word “politizant,” occurring here, Witte defines as “regnare et civitati praeesse.” Wicksteed translates it “have a real policy.” I find that Milton used an Anglicized form of the word in his Reformation in England, 2: “Let me not for fear of a scarecrow, or else through hatred to be reformed, stand hankering and politizing, when God with spread hands testifies to us.” So I translate the word “play at politics.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt110"></a><a name="a_3342079"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt110#c_lf1477_footnote_nt110">[11. ]</a>Pol. 3. 4. 3, 4.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt111"></a><a name="a_3342080"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt111#c_lf1477_footnote_nt111">[12. ]</a> “It is impossible to conceive a people without a prince, but not a prince without a people.” In his essay on Dante Lowell quotes this saying of Calvin’s.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt112"></a><a name="a_3342081"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt112#c_lf1477_footnote_nt112">[13. ]</a>Pol. 4. 1. 9.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt113"></a><a name="a_3342082"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt113#c_lf1477_footnote_nt113">[1. ]</a>Conv. 3. 2. 2: “Each effect contains something of the nature of its cause.” L. c. 3. 14. 1: “For the virtue of one thing to descend upon another, that other thing must be brought to the first one’s likeness; as we see plainly in all natural agencies, whose descending upon passive things brings them to resemble those agencies in so far as they are capable of so doing.” So in Conv. 4. 22. 4. And see note 5, De Mon. 1. 2.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt114"></a><a name="a_3342083"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt114#c_lf1477_footnote_nt114">[2. ]</a>Conv. 2. 9. 2: “Every cause loves its effect.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt115"></a><a name="a_3342084"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt115#c_lf1477_footnote_nt115">[3. ]</a>Metaphys. 8. 8. See Par. 29. 34: “Pure potency held the lowest place; in the midst clasped potency with act such a withe as never is untwisted.” S. T. 1. 54-59; 1-2. 3. 2. Also note 10, De Mon. 1. 3.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt116"></a><a name="a_3342085"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt116#c_lf1477_footnote_nt116">[4. ]</a>Gen. 27. 22: “The voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau.” Cf. De Mon. 2. 12. 5.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt117"></a><a name="a_3342086"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt117#c_lf1477_footnote_nt117">[5. ]</a>Eth. 10. 1. 3: “Arguments about matters of feeling and action are less convincing than facts.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt118"></a><a name="a_3342087"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt118#c_lf1477_footnote_nt118">[6. ]</a>Ps. 50. 16. Note that the “sinner” may yet be “holiest of kings” in the following paragraph. See article on David, Toynbee’s Dante Dictionary.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt119"></a><a name="a_3342088"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt119#c_lf1477_footnote_nt119">[7. ]</a> Claudius Galen (130-200 ad), the celebrated physician of Pergamum in Asia, was up to the sixteenth century the most famous physician of antiquity with the exception of Hippocrates. Some eighty-three treatises, medical and philosophical, written by him are still extant. See Inf. 4. 143. The quotation about the difficulty of unlearning false knowledge is from De Cognoscendis Animi Morbis, c. 10.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt120"></a><a name="a_3342089"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt120#c_lf1477_footnote_nt120">[8. ]</a>De Mon. 1. 11. 5.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt121"></a><a name="a_3342090"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt121#c_lf1477_footnote_nt121">[9. ]</a>Ps. 72. 1. Par. 13. 94: “I have not so spoken that thou canst not well see that he was a king who asked wisdom, to the end that he might be a competent king.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt122"></a><a name="a_3342091"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt122#c_lf1477_footnote_nt122">[1. ]</a> Moore shows that the basic idea of this chapter is found in many places in Aristotle: De Part. Anim. 3. 4; Phys. 7. 6, etc. This idea reappears in Quaestio de Aqua et Terra 13. 34 (Oxford ed.): “Quia quod potest fieri per unum, melius est quod fiat per unum quam per plura.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt123"></a><a name="a_3342092"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt123#c_lf1477_footnote_nt123">[2. ]</a> Another common Aristotelian notion. See De Caelo 1. 4; De Gen. Anim. 2. 6.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt124"></a><a name="a_3342093"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt124#c_lf1477_footnote_nt124">[3. ]</a> “Equity.” Dante writes ἐπιείχειαν—one of the Greek words that found their way into mediaeval translations of Aristotle, and were “cruelly mauled by the scribes,” says Wicksteed. The reference is to Eth. 5. 10: “And this is the nature of the equitable, that it is the correction of law, wherever it is defective owing to its universality.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt125"></a><a name="a_3342094"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt125#c_lf1477_footnote_nt125">[4. ]</a> The Scythians were vaguely understood to be the nomad tribes north of the Black Sea and the Caspian. Dante speaks of them again, De Mon. 2. 9. 3; 3. 3. 1.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt126"></a><a name="a_3342095"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt126#c_lf1477_footnote_nt126">[5. ]</a> Ptolemy’s κλίματα or climates were belts of the earth’s surface, divided by lines parallel to the equator. The length of day determined the position of each terrestrial climate, each having half an hour more than the preceding one. The seven climates of the northern hemisphere are described by Alfraganus in his Elementa Astronomica. The system of climates developed into that of the present parallels of latitude. Our word “climate” came from the application of a place name to the temperature of the region. See Toynbee’s Dict. s. v. “Garamantes.” Cf. Conv. 3. 5. 8.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt127"></a><a name="a_3342096"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt127#c_lf1477_footnote_nt127">[6. ]</a> The tribes south of the Great Desert were known as the Garamantes. See Lucan, Phar. 4. 334; 9. 369. In Conv. 3. 5. 8 they are described as men “who go almost always naked.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt128"></a><a name="a_3342097"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt128#c_lf1477_footnote_nt128">[7. ]</a>Exod. 18. 17-26; Deut. 1. 10-18. Moses as lawgiver is frequently quoted in this treatise on Monarchy: 2. 4. 1; 2. 13. 2; 3. 5. 1, etc. Moses is honored together with Samuel and John in Par. 4. 29 as those who “have most part in God.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt129"></a><a name="a_3342098"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt129#c_lf1477_footnote_nt129">[1. ]</a> “Priority” translates the Latin word prius. See Arist. Categ. 12. Moore. Conv. 3. 2. 2: “The first of all things is being, and before it is nothing.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt130"></a><a name="a_3342099"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt130#c_lf1477_footnote_nt130">[2. ]</a>Metaphys. 1. 5.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt131"></a><a name="a_3342100"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt131#c_lf1477_footnote_nt131">[3. ]</a> The central thought in the Pythagorean philosophy is number, it being the principle and essence of everything. The theory of opposites gave rise to the Pythagorean συστοιχία, parallel tables, or correlations:—<br />1.<br />Limited.<br />Unlimited.<br />2.<br />Odd.<br />Even.<br />3.<br />Unity.<br />Plurality.<br />4.<br />Right.<br />Left.<br />5.<br />Masculine.<br />Feminine.<br />6.<br />Rest.<br />Motion.<br />7.<br />Straight.<br />Crooked.<br />8.<br />Light.<br />Darkness.<br />9.<br />Good.<br />Evil.<br />10.<br />Square.<br />Oblong.<br />See the article on Pythagoras in Toynbee, Studies, pp. 87-96. Conv. 3. 11. 2: “In the time of Numa Pompilius . . . there lived a most noble philosopher, called Pythagoras.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt132"></a><a name="a_3342101"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt132#c_lf1477_footnote_nt132">[4. ]</a>Metaphys. as in note 2. Cf. Conv. 2. 14. 10: “Pythagoras . . . puts odd and even as the principles of natural things, considering all things as number.”<br />The unity of goodness is one of the cardinal points in Dante’s philosophy. It is his theory of form and his theory of justice. So the poet of the Divine Comedy makes God in the Empyrean visualized unity, as Satan in Hell is visualized multiplicity. Par. 28. 16: “I saw a point which radiated light so keen that the sight which it fires must needs close itself. . . . From that point depends the heaven and all nature.”<br />Par. 33. 85: “I saw how there enters, bound with love in one volume, that which is distributed through the universe; substance and accident and their fashion, as though fused together in such wise that that which I tell of is one single light. The universal form of this knot I believe I saw.” See Inf. 34. 37 for the description of Satan.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt133"></a><a name="a_3342102"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt133#c_lf1477_footnote_nt133">[5. ]</a>Ps. 4. 7.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt134"></a><a name="a_3342103"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt134#c_lf1477_footnote_nt134">[6. ]</a>Eth. 2. 1. 2: “The stone which by nature goes downward could never be accustomed to go upward, . . . nor could fire be accustomed to burn downward.”<br />Conv. 3. 3. 1: “Everything . . . has its special love; as simple bodies have a natural love for their own place; wherefore earth always falls toward the centre, and fire is drawn toward the circumference above.”<br />Inf. 32. 73: “We were going toward the centre, to which all gravity is collected.” L. c. 34. 110: “The point to the which from every part the weights are drawn.”<br />Purg. 18. 28: “As the fire moves on high, by reason of its form, so . . . the mind seized enters into desire, which is a motion of the spirit.” Also Purg. 32. 109.<br />Par. 1. 115: “This bears away the fire toward the moon; this is the motive power in the hearts of men; this binds the earth together and makes it one.” Cf. Par. 1. 133, 141; 4. 77; 23. 42.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt135"></a><a name="a_3342104"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt135#c_lf1477_footnote_nt135">[7. ]</a> The species of good which anything apprehends is its form, that principle which makes it what it is. In this case the volitional power of willing is the material or matter, while the species or sort of goodness which is the end of the volition is the form. So it makes no difference how many people will, so long as they will the same thing, for the form is then the same, if the material is various.<br />The composite character of the soul is treated Conv. 3. 2. 3, where it is shown to have three powers, vegetable, sensitive, and rational according to Arist. De Caelo 2. See Purg. 25. 74.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt136"></a><a name="a_3342105"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt136#c_lf1477_footnote_nt136">[8. ]</a>Conv. 3. 8. 1: “Of all the works of Divine wisdom, man is the most wonderful, considering how Divine power has united three natures under one form, and how subtly harmonized must his body be with that form.”<br />Conv. 3. 15. 5: “The beauty of the body results from the proper ordering of its members.”<br />Conv. 4. 25. 7: “The proper ordering of our members produces a pleasure of I know not what wonderful harmony.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt137"></a><a name="a_3342106"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt137#c_lf1477_footnote_nt137">[9. ]</a>Eth. 10. 9. 8: “To live temperately and patiently is not pleasant to the majority, and especially to the young.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt138"></a><a name="a_3342107"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt138#c_lf1477_footnote_nt138">[10. ]</a>Conv. 4. 9. 3: “We may almost say of the Emperor, wishing to represent his office by a figure, that he is the rider of human will. And it is very evident how wildly this horse goes over the field without a rider.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt139"></a><a name="a_3342108"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt139#c_lf1477_footnote_nt139">[1. ]</a> For the outline of the argument in this chapter see Orosius, Hist. 6. 22. 5.<br />Conv. 4. 5. 2: “The immeasurable Divine Goodness, wishing to bring back to Itself the human creature, which by the sin of the transgression of the first man had become separated from God and unlike Him, it was decreed . . . that the Son of God should descend to earth to bring about this reunion. And since at His . . . coming it behoved not only the heavens, but the earth, to be in the best condition, and the best condition of the earth is under a monarchy . . . therefore Divine Providence ordained the people and the city wherein this should be fulfilled, that is, Rome the glorious.” De Mon. Book 2 is devoted to this subject of Rome’s foreordination.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt140"></a><a name="a_3342109"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt140#c_lf1477_footnote_nt140">[2. ]</a> The result of Adam’s sin Matilda touches on in her discourse with Dante on the nature of the terrestrial Paradise, Purg. 28. 91: “The highest Good, which does only its own pleasure, made the man good and for good, and gave him this place for an earnest to him of eternal peace. Through his own default he abode here little time; through his own default he changed to weeping and toil honest laughter and sweet mirth.”<br />Par. 7. 26: “For not enduring to the faculty that wills any curb for its own advantage, that man who was never born, in damning himself, damned all his progeny.” See De Mon. 2. 13. 1, and notes.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt141"></a><a name="a_3342110"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt141#c_lf1477_footnote_nt141">[3. ]</a> In the image symbolic of human history, Inf. 14. 94 ff., Dante identifies the golden age with the reign of Augustus. Line 112: “Every part beside the gold is burst with a cleft which drips tears.”<br />Par. 6. 55: “Hard upon that time when the heaven wholly willed to bring back the world to its tranquil order, Caesar by the will of Rome bare it. . . . It laid the world in such a peace that Janus had his shrine locked up.”<br />Conv. 4. 5. 3: “Nor ever was, nor ever will be, this world so perfectly disposed as then. . . . Universal peace reigned, which never was before nor ever will be again, because the ship of human society sped over a smooth sea straight to its destined port.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt142"></a><a name="a_3342111"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt142#c_lf1477_footnote_nt142">[4. ]</a>Luke 2. 1, 14.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt143"></a><a name="a_3342112"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt143#c_lf1477_footnote_nt143">[5. ]</a>Gal. 4. 4: “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.” Cf. Eph. 1. 10.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt144"></a><a name="a_3342113"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt144#c_lf1477_footnote_nt144">[6. ]</a>John 19. 23: “Now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.” Dante uses the figure here to denote the undivided empire. The papal party used the same figure in their arguments to denote undivided ecclesiastical authority. De Mon. 3. 10. 4.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt145"></a><a name="a_3342114"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt145#c_lf1477_footnote_nt145">[7. ]</a> This figure of the ship of human society is found in Conv. 4. 5. 3 (see note 3 of the present chapter), Purg. 6. 77: “Ah, Italy . . . ship without a pilot in a great tempest,” etc.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt146"></a><a name="a_3342115"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt146#c_lf1477_footnote_nt146">[8. ]</a> This mixed metaphor of Dante’s, “dum bellua multo-rum capitum factum,” is a further illustration of the evil of multiplicity and lack of concord in men’s wills. Cf. De Mon. 1. 15. 1, and note. Beside the evil of many discordant wills, there is reference to the evils that may be included under the term “bestial.” See Conv. 4. 5. 3: “Vile beasts that pasture in the shape of men.” See especially Inf., cantos 12-17. Also note 14, De Mon. 2. 3.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt147"></a><a name="a_3342116"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt147#c_lf1477_footnote_nt147">[9. ]</a> The two intellects were the possible or apprehensive intellect, and the active intelligence. Cf. De Mon. 1. 3. 2. To these two powers Dante adds that of affection.<br />Purg. 18. 55: “Man knows not whence comes the understanding of the first cognitions, and the affection of the first objects of appetite.”<br />Par. 1. 120: “Creatures . . . that have intellect and love.”<br />Par. 6. 122; 13. 120; 15. 43: “When the bow of his ardent affection was so slackened that his speech descended towards the mark of our understanding, the first thing that was by me understood was, ‘Blessed be Thou, threefold and one.’ ” L. c. 15. 73: “The affection and the thought when as the first Equality appeared to you, became of one weight for each of you.”<br />The two intellects and the affection are the threefold means given to man by which he may arrive at the unity which is goodness in completeness, and there may see and know God. This suggests the means by which Dante achieves his vision in the Divine Comedy—Virgil, Beatrice, and St. Bernard.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt148"></a><a name="a_3342117"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt148#c_lf1477_footnote_nt148">[10. ]</a>Ps. 133. 1.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt149"></a><a name="a_3342118"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt149#c_lf1477_footnote_nt149">[1. ]</a>Ps. 2. 1-3. Cf. Acts 4. 25-27. The same language of the Psalm is used in Letter 6. 2: “To the infamous Florentines within the city.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt150"></a><a name="a_3342119"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt150#c_lf1477_footnote_nt150">[2. ]</a>Conv. 4. 25. 4: “The sight of great and wonderful things . . . make those that perceive them desire to know them.”<br />Purg. 28. 90: “I will tell how by its cause proceeds that which makes thee wonder; and I will purge away the cloud which smites.”<br />Par. 1. 83: “The strangeness of the sound and the great light kindled in me a desire for their cause never before felt with such keenness.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt151"></a><a name="a_3342120"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt151#c_lf1477_footnote_nt151">[3. ]</a>Conv. 4. 4. 3: “Some may demur, saying . . . the Roman power was not acquired by reason, nor by decree of a universal convention, but by force.”<br />Conv. 4. 4. 5: “Force was not the active cause; . . . not force but law, and that Divine, was the beginning of the Roman Empire.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt152"></a><a name="a_3342121"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt152#c_lf1477_footnote_nt152">[4. ]</a> Reading “in hoc vitio” (in the error) and “unico suo” (His one) with Moore and Witte, rather than “in hos unico” and “uncto suo” with Giuliani. See Toynbee, Dante Studies, p. 302, for his interesting support of Giuliani’s reading and its bearing on the date of the De Mon. If, as he believes, “uncto” definitely refers to Henry VII as the Lord’s “anointed,” there would be strong reason for dating the treatise at a time shortly after Henry’s coming to Italy.<br />The whole of par. 2 is interesting for the information it contains concerning the change of political opinion that came upon Dante at some time in his life and made him one of the most enthusiastic and idealistic of Ghibellines, so idealistic indeed that in Purg. 27. 69 Cacciaguida rightly prophesies of the poet, “It shall be honorable to thee to have made thee a party by thyself.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt153"></a><a name="a_3342122"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt153#c_lf1477_footnote_nt153">[5. ]</a> This figure is found again Conv. 2. 14. 3: “Labor of study and strife of doubt . . . are dissipated almost like little morning clouds before the face of the sun.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt154"></a><a name="a_3342123"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt154#c_lf1477_footnote_nt154">[6. ]</a>Par. 25. 2: “The sacred poem to which both heaven and earth have set a hand.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt155"></a><a name="a_3342124"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt155#c_lf1477_footnote_nt155">[7. ]</a>De Mon. 1. 1. 2.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt156"></a><a name="a_3342125"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt156#c_lf1477_footnote_nt156">[1. ]</a>De Mon. 1. 2. 2; 3. 2. 1.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt157"></a><a name="a_3342126"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt157#c_lf1477_footnote_nt157">[2. ]</a>Gen. Anim. 5. 8. Conv. 3. 6. 2: “Motive Powers . . . cause . . . all general forms.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt158"></a><a name="a_3342127"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt158#c_lf1477_footnote_nt158">[3. ]</a>Letter 5. 8: “From the motion of the heavens we should know the Motor and His will.”<br />Par. 2. 131: “The heaven which so many lights make fair, from the deep mind of Him who revolves it takes the image.” L. c. 30. 107; 33. 145: “The Love which moves the sun and all the stars.”<br />Cf. De Mon. all of chapter 1. 8, and note 1.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt159"></a><a name="a_3342128"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt159#c_lf1477_footnote_nt159">[4. ]</a> “In fluitantem materiam.”<br />Par. 29. 22: “Form and matter in conjunction and in purity came forth to an existence which had no erring, as from a three-stringed bow three arrows.” Cf. De Mon. 1. 3. 2, and note 10.<br />S. T. 1. 46. 2: “The angels are pure form; form conjoined with matter appears in the visible creation; pure matter is not perceivable by the senses, but must be held to exist, and to have been created.” Also S. T. 1. 105. 4.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt160"></a><a name="a_3342129"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt160#c_lf1477_footnote_nt160">[5. ]</a>Inf. 11. 97: “Philosophy . . . notes . . . how nature takes her course from the understanding of God, and from His workmanship.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt161"></a><a name="a_3342130"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt161#c_lf1477_footnote_nt161">[6. ]</a>Conv. 3. 6. 2: “And if this perfect form, copied and individualized, be not perfect, it is from no defect in the example, but in the matter of which the individual is made.”<br />Par. 1. 127: “Form many times accords not with the intention of the art, because the matter is deaf to respond.”<br />Par. 13. 67: “The wax of these and that which moulds it stands not in one manner, and therefore under the seal of the Idea more and less thereafter shines through.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt162"></a><a name="a_3342131"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt162#c_lf1477_footnote_nt162">[7. ]</a> “Praeter intentionem Dei naturantis et caeli.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt163"></a><a name="a_3342132"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt163#c_lf1477_footnote_nt163">[8. ]</a> For the mediaeval account of creation and the part of the heavens therein see S. T. 1. 66. 1-3; 1. 110. 2; 1. 115. 3-6. Cf. Bacon, Nov. Org. 1. 66.<br />Conv. 4. 9. 1: “Universal Nature . . . has jurisdiction as far as the whole world extends.”<br />James 1. 17: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt164"></a><a name="a_3342133"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt164#c_lf1477_footnote_nt164">[9. ]</a>John 1. 3, 4: “Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est. In ipso vita erat, et vita erat lux hominum.” Moore says that Augustine twice quotes from these verses as Dante does here; “Quod factum est, in ipso vita erat.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt165"></a><a name="a_3342134"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt165#c_lf1477_footnote_nt165">[10. ]</a>Par. 32. 61: “The King through whom this realm rests in so great love and in so great delight that no will dares aught beyond, creating all the minds in the joy of His countenance, as His own pleasure endows with grace diversely.”<br />Par. 19. 86: “The primary Will, which is of itself good, never has moved from itself, that is the highest Good.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt166"></a><a name="a_3342135"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt166#c_lf1477_footnote_nt166">[11. ]</a>Eth. 1. 7. 18. Used again in Conv. 4. 13. 3: “And in the first of the Ethics he says that ‘the educated man demands certainty of knowledge about things, in so far as their nature admits of certainty.’ ”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt167"></a><a name="a_3342136"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt167#c_lf1477_footnote_nt167">[12. ]</a>Rom. 1. 20: “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.”<br />Conv. 3. 12. 3: “It is convenient to treat of things not perceptible by the senses by means of things perceptible.” See also Conv. 4. 10. 3; 4. 16. 7; 4. 22. 6: “The intellect . . . cannot have its perfect use (which is to behold God, who is Supreme Intelligence) except in so far as the Intellect considers Him, and beholds Him in His effects.” L. c. 3. 8. 8: “All things which so overcome our intellect that we cannot see what they are, it is most fitting to treat by their effects.”<br />Letter 5. 8: “Through those things which have been created by God the human creature sees the invisible things with the eyes of the intellect; and if from things better known those less known are evident to us, in like manner it concerns human apprehension that from the motion of the heavens we should know the Motor and His will.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt168"></a><a name="a_3342137"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt168#c_lf1477_footnote_nt168">[13. ]</a> The following are the more important of the many examples of Dante’s use of the figure regarding the wax and seal. Conv. 1. 8. 7: “Utility stamps upon the memory the image of the gift, which is the nutriment of friendship, and the better the gift the stronger this impression is.”<br />Conv. 2. 10. 5: “If wax had the sentiment of fear, it would be more afraid to come under the rays of the sun than stone would; because its nature makes it susceptible of a more powerful impression therefrom.”<br />Inf. 11. 49: “The smallest circle stamps with its seal Sodom and Cahors.”<br />Purg. 10. 45: “And she upon her action this speech imprinted—Ecce ancilla Dei! as aptly as a figure is made on wax by a seal.”<br />Purg. 18. 39: “Not every seal is good, even though good be the wax.”<br />Purg. 25. 95: “Here the neighboring air puts itself in that form which the soul that has remained by its virtue stamps upon it.”<br />Purg. 33. 79: “As wax by a seal, which changes not the figure impressed, so is my brain now stamped by you.”<br />Par. 1. 41: The sun “to its own fashion moulds and seals the wax of the world.”<br />Par. 2. 130: “And the heaven which so many lights make fair, from the mind of Him who revolves it takes the image, and makes thereof a seal.”<br />Par. 7. 69: “That which from It immediately distils has no end thereafter, because when It seals, Its impress is unmoved.”<br />Par. 8. 128: “The nature of the spheres . . . is seal to the mortal wax.”<br />Par. 13. 67 ff. See note 6 of this chapter.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt169"></a><a name="a_3342138"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt169#c_lf1477_footnote_nt169">[14. ]</a>Conv. 4. 5. 1: “It is no wonder if Divine Providence, which transcends all human and angelic perception, often proceeds in a way mysterious to us; since it often happens that human actions have for men themselves a hidden meaning.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt170"></a><a name="a_3342139"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt170#c_lf1477_footnote_nt170">[1. ]</a>Conv. 4. 4. 4: “And because a nature more gentle in governing, more powerful in maintaining, and more subtle in acquiring, than that of the Latin people there never was and never will be, . . . therefore God elected them for this office.” The nobility of Rome has special consideration Conv. 4. 5; Par. 6. 19, 20.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt171"></a><a name="a_3342140"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt171#c_lf1477_footnote_nt171">[2. ]</a> “Adsumpta,” the major premise. In paragraphs 2 and 8 the word “subadsumpta” is used for minor premise.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt172"></a><a name="a_3342141"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt172#c_lf1477_footnote_nt172">[3. ]</a>Eth. 4. 3. 15.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt173"></a><a name="a_3342142"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt173#c_lf1477_footnote_nt173">[4. ]</a>Pol. 4. 8. 9. So we find in Conv. 4, Canz. 3. 2: “This very false opinion among men, that one is wont to call him noble who can say, ‘I was the son or grandson of a truly noble man,’ though he himself were worthless.” In Conv. 4. 7 hereditary nobility is proved to be a thing impossible.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt174"></a><a name="a_3342143"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt174#c_lf1477_footnote_nt174">[5. ]</a> Juvenal, Sat. 8. 20. Cf. Conv. 4. 29. 4, where the satire is discussed at some length. Dante speaks again of Juvenal in Purg. 22. 13. His relation to Dante is considered by Moore, Vol. 1, in Studies, pp. 255-258.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt175"></a><a name="a_3342144"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt175#c_lf1477_footnote_nt175">[6. ]</a> All of Book 4 in the Convito is given up to an exposition of the nature of nobility, according to the definition of Juvenal rather than that of Aristotle.<br />Canz. 3. 6: “Nobility exists where Virtue dwells, not Virtue where she is.” Conv. 4. 18. 1: “All the virtues . . . proceed from nobility as an effect from its cause.”<br />Par. 16. 1: “O small nobility of blood that is ours.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt176"></a><a name="a_3342145"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt176#c_lf1477_footnote_nt176">[7. ]</a>Matt. 7. 2.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt177"></a><a name="a_3342146"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt177#c_lf1477_footnote_nt177">[8. ]</a> “Divinus poeta nostra,” or “poeta nostra,” as Virgil is called throughout the De Mon., is but one of the numberless evidences of the affection and reverence Dante felt for the Latin poet. Most beautiful is the well-known tribute in Inf. 1. 79:<br />“O degli altri poeti onore e lume,<br />Vagliami il lungo studio e il grande amore,<br />Che m’ ha fatto cercar lo tuo volume.<br />Tu sei lo mio maestro e il mio autore:<br />Tu sei solo colui, da cui io tolsi<br />Lo bello stile, che m’ ha fatto onore.”<br />For Virgil’s place and influence in the Middle Ages see Comparetti, Virgil in the Middle Ages; Sellar, Virgil; and Moore, Studies, Vol. 1. pp. 166-197.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt178"></a><a name="a_3342147"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt178#c_lf1477_footnote_nt178">[9. ]</a> Livy 1. 1. As will be seen later in the De Mon., Dante uses Livy freely as an historical authority. Moore writes of Dante’s relation to the Roman historian in Studies, Vol. 1. pp. 273-278. <a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt179#c_lf1477_footnote_nt179">[10. ]</a>Aen. 1. 342: “Sed summa sequar vestigia rerum.” All modern editions have “fastigia” for “vestigia.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt180"></a><a name="a_3342149"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt180#c_lf1477_footnote_nt180">[11. ]</a>Aen. 1. 544.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt181"></a><a name="a_3342150"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt181#c_lf1477_footnote_nt181">[12. ]</a>Aen. 6. 170. For the death of Misenus see Conv. 4. 26. 6.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt182"></a><a name="a_3342151"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt182#c_lf1477_footnote_nt182">[13. ]</a> Homer, Il. 24. 259, quoted Eth. 7. 1. 1. Three different times Dante uses these Homeric lines: in the Vita Nuova, § 2; in Conv. 4. 20. 2: “There are men most noble and divine . . . Aristotle proves in the seventh of the Ethics by the text of Homer the poet;” and in the passage of the De Mon. here being considered.<br />In regard to Dante’s knowledge of Homer see Moore, Studies, Vol. 1. pp. 164-166; Toynbee, Studies, pp. 204-215.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt183"></a><a name="a_3342152"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt183#c_lf1477_footnote_nt183">[14. ]</a> In Inf. 11. 79-83 Virgil asks, “Hast thou no memory of those words with which the Ethics handle the three dispositions which Heaven brooks not,—incontinence, malice, and mad beastliness?”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt184"></a><a name="a_3342153"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt184#c_lf1477_footnote_nt184">[15. ]</a>Aen. 3. 1.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt185"></a><a name="a_3342154"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt185#c_lf1477_footnote_nt185">[16. ]</a> Dardanus was son of Jupiter and Electra of Arcadia, founder of the city Dardania in Troas, and ancestor of the royal line of Troy. Cf. Conv. 4. 14. 9.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt186"></a><a name="a_3342155"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt186#c_lf1477_footnote_nt186">[17. ]</a> “Electra, ut Graii perhibent, Atlantide cretus.” Dante inserted an “et” before “Atlantide,” thereby blurring the sense. Moore was the first editor to correct the error. See Toynbee, Studies, p. 280.<br />Inf. 4. 121: “I saw Electra with many companions, among whom I was aware of Hector and Aeneas; . . . and I saw King Latinus, who was sitting with Lavinia his daughter.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt187"></a><a name="a_3342156"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt187#c_lf1477_footnote_nt187">[18. ]</a>Aen. 8. 134-137.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt188"></a><a name="a_3342157"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt188#c_lf1477_footnote_nt188">[19. ]</a>Aen. 3. 163-167.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt189"></a><a name="a_3342158"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt189#c_lf1477_footnote_nt189">[20. ]</a> The fourth-century historian, Paulus Orosius, wrote the Historiae Adversum Paganos, one of the chief historical and geographical authorities of the mediaeval centuries, and the source of many of Dante’s statements regarding these two subjects. See Toynbee, Studies, pp. 121-136, and Moore, Studies, Vol. 1. pp. 279-282. The reference here is to Hist. 1. 2. 11.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt190"></a><a name="a_3342159"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt190#c_lf1477_footnote_nt190">[21. ]</a>Aen. 3. 339-340. From the latter line, “quem tibi iam Troja peperit fumante Creusa,” modern editors omit the last three words as spurious.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt191"></a><a name="a_3342160"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt191#c_lf1477_footnote_nt191">[22. ]</a>Aen. 4. 171-172.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt192"></a><a name="a_3342161"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt192#c_lf1477_footnote_nt192">[23. ]</a>Aen. 12. 936-937. In Par. 6. 3 Aeneas is called “the ancient who carried off Lavinia.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt193"></a><a name="a_3342162"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt193#c_lf1477_footnote_nt193">[1. ]</a> Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 ad), the greatest of Dominicans, the pupil of Albertus Magnus, the friend of St. Bonaventura, and the author of the Summa Theologica, Contra Gentiles, and many other works. Moore points out the extent of Dante’s debt to him in Studies, Vol. 1. pp. 311-318. The treatise Contra Gentiles here quoted was written to prove that Christian theology is the “sum and crown of all science.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt194"></a><a name="a_3342163"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt194#c_lf1477_footnote_nt194">[2. ]</a>Conv. 3. 7. 8: “The very foundation of our faith is in the miracles done by Him who was crucified, who created our reason and willed it to be less than His power.” L. c. 3. 14. 5: “Every miracle may be reasonable to a higher intellect.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt195"></a><a name="a_3342164"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt195#c_lf1477_footnote_nt195">[3. ]</a>Exod. 8. 19.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt196"></a><a name="a_3342165"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt196#c_lf1477_footnote_nt196">[4. ]</a>Letter 5. 8: “If there is time to survey the affairs of the worlds even to the triumph of Octavian, we shall see that some of them have completely transcended the heights of human valor, and that God has worked somewhat through men, just as through the medium of the new heavens.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt197"></a><a name="a_3342166"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt197#c_lf1477_footnote_nt197">[5. ]</a> Liv. 1. 20. 4; 5. 52. 7.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt198"></a><a name="a_3342167"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt198#c_lf1477_footnote_nt198">[6. ]</a> Lucan, Phar. 9. 477. Lucan, to whom Dante is indebted “for a considerable amount of poetic material of different kinds,” and Dante’s relation to him, is discussed by Moore, Studies, Vol. 1. pp. 228-242. It is strange that Dante in this place cites as an instance of supernatural intervention a story which Lucan explains so rationally.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt199"></a><a name="a_3342168"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt199#c_lf1477_footnote_nt199">[7. ]</a> Liv. 5. 47. So in Conv. 4. 5. 4: “And did not God put forth His hand when the Gauls, having taken all Rome, stole into the Capitol by night, and only the voice of a goose made it known?”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt200"></a><a name="a_3342169"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt200#c_lf1477_footnote_nt200">[8. ]</a>Aen. 8. 652-656.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt201"></a><a name="a_3342170"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt201#c_lf1477_footnote_nt201">[9. ]</a> Liv. 26. 11; Oros. 4. 17.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt202"></a><a name="a_3342171"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt202#c_lf1477_footnote_nt202">[10. ]</a> Liv. 2. 13; Oros. 2. 5; Aurel. Victor, De Viris Illust. c. 13.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt203"></a><a name="a_3342172"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt203#c_lf1477_footnote_nt203">[11. ]</a>Par. 8. 97: “The Good which sets in revolution and contents all the realm which thou art scaling, makes its foresight to be virtue in these great bodies.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt204"></a><a name="a_3342173"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt204#c_lf1477_footnote_nt204">[12. ]</a> That is, before the birth of Christ the invisible God worked for the visible things of the world. Later, Christ, the visible God, worked for the invisible things of heaven. Cf. the argument at the end of De Mon. 2. 2.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt205"></a><a name="a_3342174"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt205#c_lf1477_footnote_nt205">[1. ]</a> “Jus” is not adequately translated by “right,” for Dante makes the word include what we mean by justice, law, and at times duty.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt206"></a><a name="a_3342175"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt206#c_lf1477_footnote_nt206">[2. ]</a>Eth. 5. 6 concerns itself with political justice or right, the justice which should be practiced by men in society toward one another.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt207"></a><a name="a_3342176"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt207#c_lf1477_footnote_nt207">[3. ]</a> The Digests of the Roman law were originally drawn up by Justinian. The “descriptio” or account spoken of here is mentioned in Conv. 4. 9. 3: “It was written at the beginning of the old Digests, ‘The written law is the art of goodness and equity.’ ” The reference may be found in the Dig. de Justitia et Jure 1. 1: “Jus est a justitia appellatum: nam ut eleganter Celsus definit, jus est ars boni et aequi.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt208"></a><a name="a_3342177"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt208#c_lf1477_footnote_nt208">[4. ]</a>De Invent. 1. 38. 68.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt209"></a><a name="a_3342178"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt209#c_lf1477_footnote_nt209">[5. ]</a> Seneca is not the author of De Quatuor Virtutibus, but Martin, abbot of Dumiens and Bishop of Braga, who wrote in the latter part of the sixth century two works, De Remediis Fortuitorum and Formula Honestae Vitae sive Quatuor Virtutibus Cardinalibus. In the latter book, c. 4, is the reference: “Justitia non nostra constitutio sed divina lex est, et vinculum societatis humanae.” Cf. Conv. 3. 8. 5, where “the book of the Four Cardinal Virtues” is again used as authority.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt210"></a><a name="a_3342179"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt210#c_lf1477_footnote_nt210">[6. ]</a> See note 12 of De Mon. 1. 11.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt211"></a><a name="a_3342180"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt211#c_lf1477_footnote_nt211">[7. ]</a> The same sentiment is found in Letter 5. 3: “He is Caesar, and his majesty flows from the font of pity.” The source of this quotation has recently been ascertained by Toynbee to be the Legend of St. Sylvester in the Legenda Aurea of Jacobus de Voragine (Archbishop of Genoa, 1292-1298). See Toynbee, Studies, p. 297. Dr. Albert S. Cook suggests comparison with the Dies Irae of Thomas of Celano, l. 24: “Salva me, fons pietatis.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt212"></a><a name="a_3342181"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt212#c_lf1477_footnote_nt212">[8. ]</a>De Off. 2. 8. 26, 27. From this work of Cicero’s Dante quotes again in the last paragraph of this chapter and in De Mon. 2. 8. 7; 2. 10. 2. It is to the same book Dante owes the idea of sins of violence and sins of fraud as distinguished Inf. 11. 22-60. For an account of Dante’s obligation to Cicero, see Moore, Studies, Vol. 1. pp. 258-273.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt213"></a><a name="a_3342182"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt213#c_lf1477_footnote_nt213">[9. ]</a> Liv. 3. 26, 29; Oros. 2. 12. 8. In Conv. 4. 5. 4 the examples of Roman nobility are almost exactly the same as here, though cited in a different order. Moore calls attention to the similarity of this account, and that of Conv. 4. 5. 4, with Augustine’s De Civ. Dei 5. 18. See also Par. 6. 46 for the names of illustrious Romans cited by Justinian as names worthy of being remembered.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt214"></a><a name="a_3342183"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt214#c_lf1477_footnote_nt214">[10. ]</a>De Fin. 2. 4. 12. This Ciceronian work Dante always calls De Fine Bonorum. The philosophy of Epicurus is considered by Dante, Conv. 4. 6. 6.<br />Inf. 10. 14: “In this part have their burial place with Epicurus all his followers, who make the soul dead with the body.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt215"></a><a name="a_3342184"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt215#c_lf1477_footnote_nt215">[11. ]</a> For Fabricius see De Mon. 2. 12, and Purg. 20. 25: “O good Fabricius, thou wouldst rather virtue with poverty than to possess great riches with crime.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt216"></a><a name="a_3342185"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt216#c_lf1477_footnote_nt216">[12. ]</a>Aen. 6. 844.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt217"></a><a name="a_3342186"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt217#c_lf1477_footnote_nt217">[13. ]</a> That is, what the Gauls had taken from them.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt218"></a><a name="a_3342187"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt218#c_lf1477_footnote_nt218">[14. ]</a> Liv. 5. 32 and 43.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt219"></a><a name="a_3342188"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt219#c_lf1477_footnote_nt219">[15. ]</a>Aen. 6. 825.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt220"></a><a name="a_3342189"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt220#c_lf1477_footnote_nt220">[16. ]</a> Liv. 2. 5; Oros. 2. 5; Valerius Maximus, Memorab. 5. 8. 1; Aurel. Victor, De Viris Illust. c. 10. Brutus is referred to as the man who in Conv. 4. 5. 4 “condemned his own son to death for love of the public welfare.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt221"></a><a name="a_3342190"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt221#c_lf1477_footnote_nt221">[17. ]</a>Aen. 6. 820.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt222"></a><a name="a_3342191"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt222#c_lf1477_footnote_nt222">[18. ]</a> Liv. 2. 12; Val. Max. 5. 12. Mucius has mention, Conv. 4. 5. 4, and Par. 4. 84: “Mucius stern to his own hand; . . . so stout a will is too rare.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt223"></a><a name="a_3342192"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt223#c_lf1477_footnote_nt223">[19. ]</a> Liv. 8. 9; 10. 28, 29; Val. Max. 1. 3; 5. 6; Aurel. Victor 26, 27. These men have a place, Conv. 4. 5. 4, and Par. 6. 47: “Decii and Fabii had the fame which I with good-will embalm.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt224"></a><a name="a_3342193"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt224#c_lf1477_footnote_nt224">[20. ]</a> Cato of Utica, great-grandson of Cato the Censor. Dante’s reverence for this man found expression in many ways. He is made guardian of the gate of Purgatory, and type of the soul liberated from sin by annihilation of the body. See Purg. 1 and 2. In Purg. 1. 73 Virgil recommends Dante to Cato thus: “He goes seeking freedom, which is so dear, as he knows who for it renounces life.”<br />Conv. 4. 5. 4: “O most sacred heart of Cato, who will presume to speak of thee? Certainly nothing greater than silence can be said of thee.” See also Conv. 3. 5. 8; 4. 6. 5; 4. 27. 2; 4. 28. 2.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt225"></a><a name="a_3342194"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt225#c_lf1477_footnote_nt225">[21. ]</a> Pyrrhus is mentioned Par. 6. 44, etc. Cf. De Mon. 2. 10. 5.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt226"></a><a name="a_3342195"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt226#c_lf1477_footnote_nt226">[22. ]</a>De Fin. 2. 19. 61.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt227"></a><a name="a_3342196"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt227#c_lf1477_footnote_nt227">[23. ]</a>De Off. 1. 31. 112.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt228"></a><a name="a_3342197"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt228#c_lf1477_footnote_nt228">[1. ]</a> See chapter 5.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt229"></a><a name="a_3342198"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt229#c_lf1477_footnote_nt229">[2. ]</a>De Mon. 1. 3, note 3.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt230"></a><a name="a_3342199"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt230#c_lf1477_footnote_nt230">[3. ]</a> “Construendo et destruendo.” The first of these logical terms designates a refutation which proceeds from the antecedent to the consequent; the second, one that proceeds from the consequent to the antecedent.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt231"></a><a name="a_3342200"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt231#c_lf1477_footnote_nt231">[4. ]</a>Eth. 6. 9. 5. For “good counsel” Dante uses the word “eubalia,” i. e. εὐβουλία.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt232"></a><a name="a_3342201"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt232#c_lf1477_footnote_nt232">[5. ]</a> “Signa tamen veri bene sequuntur ex signis, quae sunt signa falsi.” “Signa” I take to mean “words;” Dante would say that words may be ambiguous, but not the ideas that they stand for.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt233"></a><a name="a_3342202"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt233#c_lf1477_footnote_nt233">[6. ]</a> No line in the De Mon. shows better the change in usage that has been undergone by this word “form,” and how, from meaning the vitalizing, internal principle of a thing, it has come to be the symbol of externality.<br />Conv. 4. 27. 7 makes use of the thief again for demonstrative purposes.<br />Par. 5. 33: “Thou art desiring to make a good work of a bad gain.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt234"></a><a name="a_3342203"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt234#c_lf1477_footnote_nt234">[1. ]</a>Conv. 2. 5. 4: “No effect is greater than its cause; because the cause cannot give what it does not possess. Whence, seeing that the Divine Intelligence is the cause of all things, and above all of human intelligence, the human cannot exceed the Divine.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt235"></a><a name="a_3342204"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt235#c_lf1477_footnote_nt235">[2. ]</a>Conv. 3. 15. 4: “The natural desire of everything is regulated according to the capacity of the thing desiring; otherwise it would oppose itself, which is impossible, and nature would have made it in vain, which is also impossible.” Cf. De Mon. 1. 3, notes 2 and 3.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt236"></a><a name="a_3342205"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt236#c_lf1477_footnote_nt236">[3. ]</a>Par. 1. 103: “All things whatsoever have an order among themselves; and that is form, which makes the universe in the likeness of God.” Cf. De Mon. 1. 6, and notes.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt237"></a><a name="a_3342206"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt237#c_lf1477_footnote_nt237">[4. ]</a> See Conv. 4. 4. 4, and 4. 5, all the chapter.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt238"></a><a name="a_3342207"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt238#c_lf1477_footnote_nt238">[5. ]</a> See De Mon. 1. 8.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt239"></a><a name="a_3342208"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt239#c_lf1477_footnote_nt239">[6. ]</a>De Mon. 1. 3, notes 2 and 3; 2. 7, note 2. Also Par. 8. 97 ff., and Conv. 4. 24. 7: “Bountiful nature . . . never fails to provide all necessary things.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt240"></a><a name="a_3342209"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt240#c_lf1477_footnote_nt240">[7. ]</a>Phys. 2. 2.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt241"></a><a name="a_3342210"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt241#c_lf1477_footnote_nt241">[8. ]</a>Par. 8. 122: “It behooves that divers must be the roots of the effects in you; wherefore one is born Xerxes, another Melchisedec, and another he who flying through the air lost his son. . . . A nature begotten would always make its course like its begetter, if the divine foresight were not stronger.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt242"></a><a name="a_3342211"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt242#c_lf1477_footnote_nt242">[9. ]</a>Conv. 4. 21. 2: “The soul . . . as soon as produced, receives from the motive power of heaven its possible intellect, which creates potentially in itself all universal forms as they exist in its producer.”<br />Purg. 30. 109: “By coöperation of the mighty wheels which direct every seed to some end according as the stars accompany.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt243"></a><a name="a_3342212"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt243#c_lf1477_footnote_nt243">[10. ]</a>Pol. 1. 5. 11.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt244"></a><a name="a_3342213"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt244#c_lf1477_footnote_nt244">[11. ]</a>Inf. 2. 20: “He [Aeneas] was in the empyrean heaven chosen for father of Rome our parent and of her empire, both which, if one say the truth, were established for the holy place where sits the successor of the sovereign Peter.”<br />Conv. 4. 5. 2; 4. 5. 5: “A special origin and special growth, thought out and ordained by God, was that of the holy city. And certainly I am of the firm opinion that the stones which form her walls are worthy of reverence; and the ground on which she stands is worthy beyond all that has been preached and proved by men.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt245"></a><a name="a_3342214"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt245#c_lf1477_footnote_nt245">[12. ]</a> Note 6 above.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt246"></a><a name="a_3342215"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt246#c_lf1477_footnote_nt246">[13. ]</a>Aen. 6. 847 ff.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt247"></a><a name="a_3342216"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt247#c_lf1477_footnote_nt247">[14. ]</a>Aen. 4. 227 ff.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt248"></a><a name="a_3342217"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt248#c_lf1477_footnote_nt248">[1. ]</a> Dante in various places dwells on the two means of knowledge given to man. Conv. 4. 9 concerns itself with the functions of reason. In Par. 24 St. Peter questions Dante as to the nature of faith, of its matter, and he calls it “This precious jewel whereon every virtue is founded.” In one aspect the Divine Comedy may be interpreted as the picture of a man climbing by the help of reason and faith to a sight and knowledge of God. Reason and faith; Virgil and Beatrice; philosophy and theology. Cf. De Mon. 3. 16. 5.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt249"></a><a name="a_3342218"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt249#c_lf1477_footnote_nt249">[2. ]</a>Pol. 1. 2. 14.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt250"></a><a name="a_3342219"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt250#c_lf1477_footnote_nt250">[3. ]</a>Eth. 1. 2. 8: “To discover the good of an individual is satisfactory, but to discover that of a state or a nation is more noble and divine.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt251"></a><a name="a_3342220"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt251#c_lf1477_footnote_nt251">[4. ]</a>Par. 4. 67: “That our justice should appear unjust in the eyes of mortals is argument of faith, and pertains not to heretic pravity.”<br />Par. 19. 70: “A man is born on the banks of the Indus, and none is there to talk of Christ, nor to read, nor to write; and all his volitions and acts are good, so far as human reason sees, without sin in life or in converse. He dies unbaptized and without fault; where is this justice which condemns him?”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt252"></a><a name="a_3342221"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt252#c_lf1477_footnote_nt252">[5. ]</a>Heb. 11. 6.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt253"></a><a name="a_3342222"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt253#c_lf1477_footnote_nt253">[6. ]</a>Lev. 17. 3, 4.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt254"></a><a name="a_3342223"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt254#c_lf1477_footnote_nt254">[7. ]</a>John 10. 7, 9: “I am the door of the sheep.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt255"></a><a name="a_3342224"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt255#c_lf1477_footnote_nt255">[8. ]</a> Witte quotes from Isidore: “With a moral significance, we sacrifice a calf, when we overcome pride of the flesh; a lamb, when we correct irrational impulses; a kid, when we conquer lust; a dove, when we preserve purity of morals; unleavened bread, ‘when we keep the feast, not in the leaven of malice, but in the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.’ ”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt256"></a><a name="a_3342225"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt256#c_lf1477_footnote_nt256">[9. ]</a>1 Sam. 15. 10, 11.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt257"></a><a name="a_3342226"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt257#c_lf1477_footnote_nt257">[10. ]</a>Exod. 7. 9.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt258"></a><a name="a_3342227"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt258#c_lf1477_footnote_nt258">[11. ]</a>2 Chron. 20. 12 (Vulg.).<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt259"></a><a name="a_3342228"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt259#c_lf1477_footnote_nt259">[12. ]</a>Acts 1. 23-26.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt260"></a><a name="a_3342229"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt260#c_lf1477_footnote_nt260">[13. ]</a> The word “duellum” is translated by Wicksteed as “ordeal,” and by Church as “duel.” To prevent misunderstanding, I have thought best to translate the word by “single combat,” or “combat man to man,” in almost every case.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt261"></a><a name="a_3342230"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt261#c_lf1477_footnote_nt261">[14. ]</a> Lucan, Phar. 4. 609 ff.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt262"></a><a name="a_3342231"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt262#c_lf1477_footnote_nt262">[15. ]</a> Ovid, Met. 9. 183. The Metamorphoses are generally called by Dante as here, de Rerum Transmutatione. For Ovidian references in Dante see Moore, Studies, Vol. 1. pp. 206-228.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt263"></a><a name="a_3342232"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt263#c_lf1477_footnote_nt263">[16. ]</a>Met. 10. 560.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt264"></a><a name="a_3342233"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt264#c_lf1477_footnote_nt264">[17. ]</a>Aen. 5. 335 ff.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt265"></a><a name="a_3342234"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt265#c_lf1477_footnote_nt265">[18. ]</a>De Off. 3. 10. 42.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt266"></a><a name="a_3342235"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt266#c_lf1477_footnote_nt266">[1. ]</a> “The saying expresses the Ghibelline view of the relation of the Empire to the Pope; it may have originated with the coronation of Charles the Great.” Church.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt267"></a><a name="a_3342236"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt267#c_lf1477_footnote_nt267">[2. ]</a>De Mon. 1. 2. 1.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt268"></a><a name="a_3342237"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt268#c_lf1477_footnote_nt268">[3. ]</a> Oros. Hist. 1. 4. 1, 4.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt269"></a><a name="a_3342238"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt269#c_lf1477_footnote_nt269">[4. ]</a>Inf. 5. 58: “She is Semiramis, of whom we read that she succeeded to Ninus and was his wife. She held the land which the Sultan rules.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt270"></a><a name="a_3342239"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt270#c_lf1477_footnote_nt270">[5. ]</a>Met. 4. 58, 88.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt271"></a><a name="a_3342240"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt271#c_lf1477_footnote_nt271">[6. ]</a> Oros. Hist. 1. 14. 1-3.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt272"></a><a name="a_3342241"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt272#c_lf1477_footnote_nt272">[7. ]</a> “Athlothetas” were the judges or umpires in the Greek games, whose seats were opposite to the goal at the side of the stadium. See Smith’s Dict. of Antiquities. Aristotle in the Ethics, 1. 4. 5, says: “Plato also proposes doubt . . . whether the right way is from principles or to principles; just as in the course from the starting-post to the goal, or the contrary.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt273"></a><a name="a_3342242"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt273#c_lf1477_footnote_nt273">[8. ]</a>De Mon. 1. 14. 2; 2. 9. 4; 3. 3. 1.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt274"></a><a name="a_3342243"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt274#c_lf1477_footnote_nt274">[9. ]</a>Purg. 28. 71: “Hellespont, there where Xerxes passed, a bridle still to all pride of men.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt275"></a><a name="a_3342244"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt275#c_lf1477_footnote_nt275">[10. ]</a>Phar. 2. 672.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt276"></a><a name="a_3342245"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt276#c_lf1477_footnote_nt276">[11. ]</a> Dante puts Alexander among the tyrants and murderers in the river Phlegethon, Inf. 12. 107. In Inf. 14. 31 the flakes of fire fall “As Alexander, in those hot parts of India, saw falling upon his host flames unbroken even to the ground.” In Conv. 4. 11. 7 Dante seems to esteem him highly, at least in one regard: “And who has not Alexander still at heart, because of his royal beneficence?”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt277"></a><a name="a_3342246"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt277#c_lf1477_footnote_nt277">[12. ]</a> This reference to Livy is an error on Dante’s part, for the Roman historian nowhere recounts this story of the ambassadors or of the conqueror’s death. Livy says (9. 18. 3) of Alexander and the Romans: “Quem ne fama quidem illis notum arbitror fuisse.” Toynbee solved the problem of the origin of the ambassador story by tracing it to the Chronicle of Bishop Otto of Freising. See Toynbee, Studies, pp. 290 ff. Of Dante’s belief concerning the place of Alexander’s death Moore says: “This error probably arose from the confusion of Babylon in Assyria with Babylon (i. e. old Cairo) in Egypt. As Dante probably knew (1) that Alexander died at Babylon, and (2) that he was buried (according to Lucan) in Egypt, he might naturally have inferred that his death occurred at the Egyptian Babylon.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt278"></a><a name="a_3342247"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt278#c_lf1477_footnote_nt278">[13. ]</a>Phar. 8. 692.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt279"></a><a name="a_3342248"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt279#c_lf1477_footnote_nt279">[14. ]</a>Rom. 11. 33. This verse is again quoted Conv. 4. 21. 3.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt280"></a><a name="a_3342249"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt280#c_lf1477_footnote_nt280">[15. ]</a>Aen. 1. 234.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt281"></a><a name="a_3342250"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt281#c_lf1477_footnote_nt281">[16. ]</a>Phar. 1. 109, 111.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt282"></a><a name="a_3342251"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt282#c_lf1477_footnote_nt282">[17. ]</a>De Consol. Phil. 2, Metr. 6. 8-13 (Temple Classics trans.).<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt283"></a><a name="a_3342252"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt283#c_lf1477_footnote_nt283">[18. ]</a>Luke 2. 1. This reference is used in the letter to King Henry, Letter 7. 3; Conv. 4. 5; De Mon. 2. 12. 5.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt284"></a><a name="a_3342253"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt284#c_lf1477_footnote_nt284">[1. ]</a>Ps. 11. 7 (Vulg. 10. 8).<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt285"></a><a name="a_3342254"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt285#c_lf1477_footnote_nt285">[2. ]</a>De Off. 1. 11. 34.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt286"></a><a name="a_3342255"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt286#c_lf1477_footnote_nt286">[3. ]</a> Vegetius, De Re Militari 3. 9. This book on the Art of War is a compilation from many sources, dedicated by its author, of whom nothing is known, to Emperor Valentinian II (375-392). Dante refers to it but this once. This fact, together with Moore’s discovery that the context does not bear out the application of the quotation in question, has led Moore to conclude that Dante knew of Vegetius only through a mediaeval handbook or Florilegium. See Moore, Studies, Vol. 1. p. 297.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt287"></a><a name="a_3342256"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt287#c_lf1477_footnote_nt287">[4. ]</a>De Off. 1. 12. 38. Church calls attention to the fact that Cicero’s word is “Imperii gloria,” not “corona.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt288"></a><a name="a_3342257"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt288#c_lf1477_footnote_nt288">[5. ]</a>Matt. 18. 20.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt289"></a><a name="a_3342258"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt289#c_lf1477_footnote_nt289">[6. ]</a>De Mon. 1. 11.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt290"></a><a name="a_3342259"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt290#c_lf1477_footnote_nt290">[7. ]</a> These lines are from Ennius, quoted De Off. 1. 12. 38.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt291"></a><a name="a_3342260"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt291#c_lf1477_footnote_nt291">[8. ]</a>1 Sam. 17. In Letter 7. 6 Dante addresses Henry as a second David come to overthrow a new Goliath.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt292"></a><a name="a_3342261"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt292#c_lf1477_footnote_nt292">[9. ]</a> Hercules and Antaeus, used as an example in De Mon. 2. 8. 5. In Inf. 31. 132: “The hands whence Hercules once felt a mighty constraint.” The story of the combat is told in detail in Conv. 3. 3. 7.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt293"></a><a name="a_3342262"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt293#c_lf1477_footnote_nt293">[1. ]</a>Aen. 12. 942.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt294"></a><a name="a_3342263"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt294#c_lf1477_footnote_nt294">[2. ]</a>Aen. 12. 948. Par. 6. 35: “Pallas died to give a kingdom to the Roman ensign,” seeing that his death was the real cause of Turnus’ death.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt295"></a><a name="a_3342264"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt295#c_lf1477_footnote_nt295">[3. ]</a> Liv. 1. 24, 25.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt296"></a><a name="a_3342265"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt296#c_lf1477_footnote_nt296">[4. ]</a> Oros. 2. 4. 9.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt297"></a><a name="a_3342266"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt297#c_lf1477_footnote_nt297">[5. ]</a>Phar. 2. 135-138: “Romanaque Samnis ultra Caudinas superavit vulnera furcas.” Modern editions have “speravit” or “spiravit” instead of “superavit.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt298"></a><a name="a_3342267"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt298#c_lf1477_footnote_nt298">[6. ]</a>Par. 27. 61: “The Providence on high, which with Scipio guarded for Rome the glory of the world.”<br />Par. 6. 49: “It [the ensign] brought to earth the pride of the Arabs, who in Hannibal’s train passed the Alpine cliffs. . . . Under it in their youth triumphed Scipio and Pompey. . . . Afterward, hard upon the time when the heaven wholly willed to bring back the world to its tranquil order, Caesar by the will of Rome bare it.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt299"></a><a name="a_3342268"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt299#c_lf1477_footnote_nt299">[7. ]</a>2 Tim. 4. 8.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt300"></a><a name="a_3342269"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt300#c_lf1477_footnote_nt300">[8. ]</a>De Mon. 2. 8. 1. For the chapter as a whole read as its best commentaries Par. 6 (Justinian to Dante) and Conv. 4. 5.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt301"></a><a name="a_3342270"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt301#c_lf1477_footnote_nt301">[1. ]</a> Witte points out that these same men are referred to in Purg. 6. 91: “Ah, folk that ought to have been at prayer, and to let Caesar sit in the saddle.” They are the clergy who wrongly wish a controlling hand in the world of temporal things. In this chapter Dante is again making use of the language of Ps. 2. 1, and calling attention once more to the opening argument of Book 2.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt302"></a><a name="a_3342271"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt302#c_lf1477_footnote_nt302">[2. ]</a>Conv. 4. 27. 4: “Those which do belong to your profession . . . take a tenth part and give it to God, that is, to those miserable ones to whom Divine favor alone remains.”<br />Par. 12. 93: “Not the tithes which belong to God’s poor.”<br />Par. 22. 82: “Whatsoever the Church guards belongs all to the folk who ask in God’s name.” Cf. De Mon. 3. 10. 6.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt303"></a><a name="a_3342272"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt303#c_lf1477_footnote_nt303">[3. ]</a> Cupidity in the Church, as in men’s minds (De Mon. 1. 11. 5), was the source and root of evil. Inf. 1. 49 uses as the figure of Avarice, or the Church grasping for temporal domain, a “she-wolf, that with all ravenings looked fraught in its leanness, and has already made much people wretched.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt304"></a><a name="a_3342273"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt304#c_lf1477_footnote_nt304">[4. ]</a> The donation of Constantine is meant. See De Mon. 3. 10. Par. 20. 56, the eagle speaks of Constantine’s gift as “a good intention which bare ill fruit.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt305"></a><a name="a_3342274"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt305#c_lf1477_footnote_nt305">[5. ]</a> This was more true of Boniface VIII than of any other Pope, for he furthered the interests of his family and friends by all means in his power. Milman says of him in his Latin Christianity, Bk. 11, ch. 7: “Of all the Roman Pontiffs, Boniface left the darkest name for craft, arrogance, ambition, even for avarice and cruelty.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt306"></a><a name="a_3342275"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt306#c_lf1477_footnote_nt306">[6. ]</a>Par. 6. 21: “All contradictories are both false and true.” That is, one is false and the other true, for contradictories are pairs of propositions so related to each other that both cannot be false. Wicksteed further explains that “They are of the form either of ‘All A is B’ and ‘Some A is not B,’ or ‘No A is B’ and ‘Some A is B.’ These four terms were usually arranged at the corners of a square in the logic books.<br />All A is B<br />No A is B<br />Some A is B<br />Some A is not B.<br />The contradictories are at opposite ends of the diameters, the source of the phrase ‘diametrically opposed.’ ”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt307"></a><a name="a_3342276"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt307#c_lf1477_footnote_nt307">[7. ]</a> That is, “Christ in his birth authorized an injustice.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt308"></a><a name="a_3342277"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt308#c_lf1477_footnote_nt308">[8. ]</a>Eth. 10. 1. 3. Cf. De Mon. 1. 13. 1. So also Thomas Aquinas says, “Concerning human actions and passions words are to be trusted less than deeds.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt309"></a><a name="a_3342278"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt309#c_lf1477_footnote_nt309">[9. ]</a>Luke 2. 1.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt310"></a><a name="a_3342279"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt310#c_lf1477_footnote_nt310">[10. ]</a>Purg. 10. 34: “The angel that came on earth with the decree of the many years wept-for peace . . . opened heaven from its long interdict.”<br />Par. 26 contains the computation of time from the fall to the redemption. Cf. l. 118: “From that place whence thy Lady moved Virgil, for four thousand three hundred and two revolutions of the sun did I long for this assembly, and I saw him return to all the stars of his road nine hundred and thirty times whiles that I was upon earth.” According to this, Adam makes the number of years 5232 from creation to crucifixion.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt311"></a><a name="a_3342280"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt311#c_lf1477_footnote_nt311">[11. ]</a> That is, to a syllogism.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt312"></a><a name="a_3342281"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt312#c_lf1477_footnote_nt312">[12. ]</a> The second figure has the middle term for predicate in both premises.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt313"></a><a name="a_3342282"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt313#c_lf1477_footnote_nt313">[1. ]</a>Rom. 5. 12. In De Mon. 1. 16 Dante dates “all our errors” from the fall of Adam. In Par. 7 Beatrice explains to Dante the nature of human redemption. Cf. l. 85: “Your nature, when it all sinned in its seed, was removed from these dignities as from Paradise; nor could it recover them, . . . by any way without passing through some one of these roads; either that God alone of his clemency should have put away, or that man should have made satisfaction for his folly.”<br />Purg. 32. 37. Here in the vision of the Church and the Empire Dante symbolizes the fall and redemption of man, the errors of avarice in the Church, and the universal jurisdiction of Monarchy. “I heard all murmur ‘Adam,’ then they circled a plant despoiled of flowers and of leafage too on every branch. Its foliage, which spreads the wider as it is the higher up, would be wondered at for height by the Indians in their forests. ‘Blessed art thou, Grifon, that thou tearest not with thy beak of this wood sweet to the taste, since ill was the belly griped therefrom.’ ” As Plumptre remarks, the apostrophe to the grifon is the thought developed in the second book of De Mon.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt314"></a><a name="a_3342283"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt314#c_lf1477_footnote_nt314">[2. ]</a>Eph. 1. 5-8.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt315"></a><a name="a_3342284"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt315#c_lf1477_footnote_nt315">[3. ]</a> The work of redeeming the human race is finished. John 19. 30.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt316"></a><a name="a_3342285"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt316#c_lf1477_footnote_nt316">[4. ]</a>Exod. 2. 14.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt317"></a><a name="a_3342286"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt317#c_lf1477_footnote_nt317">[5. ]</a> “Sub ordine judice.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt318"></a><a name="a_3342287"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt318#c_lf1477_footnote_nt318">[6. ]</a>Is. 53. 4. Quoted Letter 6. 6.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt319"></a><a name="a_3342288"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt319#c_lf1477_footnote_nt319">[7. ]</a>John 18. 14: “Now Caiaphas was he which gave counsel to the Jews that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt320"></a><a name="a_3342289"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt320#c_lf1477_footnote_nt320">[8. ]</a>Luke 23. 11.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt321"></a><a name="a_3342290"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt321#c_lf1477_footnote_nt321">[9. ]</a> Pilate was the real Roman regent. Cf. Par. 6. 86, where Tiberius is called “the third Caesar,” and read all the canto for Justinian’s account of the Roman Empire.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt322"></a><a name="a_3342291"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt322#c_lf1477_footnote_nt322">[10. ]</a> That Constantine’s purpose was high Dante always insisted on. See De Mon. 2. 12. 1; and 3. 10 and notes. Par. 20. 58: “Now knows he how the ill, deduced from his good work, is not harmful to him, albeit that the world be thereby destroyed.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt323"></a><a name="a_3342292"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt323#c_lf1477_footnote_nt323">[1. ]</a>Dan. 6. 22. The word “righteousness” is the Latin “justitia,” which in chapters 11, 12, etc., of Book 1 was translated “justice.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt324"></a><a name="a_3342293"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt324#c_lf1477_footnote_nt324">[2. ]</a> Note that it was love of truth that started Dante on his task in De Mon. 1. 1.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt325"></a><a name="a_3342294"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt325#c_lf1477_footnote_nt325">[3. ]</a>Prov. 8. 7. Dante’s idea here expressed does not exactly coincide with that in the verse cited, which runs: “For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt326"></a><a name="a_3342295"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt326#c_lf1477_footnote_nt326">[4. ]</a>Eth. 1. 6. 1: “For the preservation of truth . . . we should even do away with private feelings, especially as we are philosophers; for both being dear to us, it is a sacred duty to prefer truth.”<br />In Letter 9. 5, to the Italian Cardinals, Dante says again: “I have the authority of the Master Philosopher, who, in treating of all morality, taught that truth is to be preferred beyond any friend whatsoever.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt327"></a><a name="a_3342296"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt327#c_lf1477_footnote_nt327">[5. ]</a>1 Thess. 5. 8.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt328"></a><a name="a_3342297"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt328#c_lf1477_footnote_nt328">[6. ]</a>Is. 6. 6, 7.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt329"></a><a name="a_3342298"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt329#c_lf1477_footnote_nt329">[7. ]</a>Col. 1. 13, 14.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt330"></a><a name="a_3342299"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt330#c_lf1477_footnote_nt330">[8. ]</a>Ps. 112. 6, 7. Much the same idea is in Par. 17. 118: “If I am a timid friend to the truth, I fear to lose life among those who will call this time ancient.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt331"></a><a name="a_3342300"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt331#c_lf1477_footnote_nt331">[9. ]</a>De Mon. 3. 4 takes up in detail the argument of the sun and moon.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt332"></a><a name="a_3342301"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt332#c_lf1477_footnote_nt332">[1. ]</a>De Mon. 1. 2. 2; 2. 2. 1.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt333"></a><a name="a_3342302"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt333#c_lf1477_footnote_nt333">[2. ]</a> “Assumptions” are the major and minor premises.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt334"></a><a name="a_3342303"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt334#c_lf1477_footnote_nt334">[3. ]</a>Anal. Pr. 2. 2.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt335"></a><a name="a_3342304"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt335#c_lf1477_footnote_nt335">[4. ]</a> Dante proves this point De Mon. 1. 3. 2; 1. 10. 1; 2. 7. 2, 3; and 3. 15. 1. See also the quotations in the notes to these paragraphs. Dante expresses the idea most clearly, perhaps, in Par. 1. 109: “In that order which I say have all natures their propension, through divers lots, more or less near to their origin; whereby they move to divers ports through the sea of being, and each with instinct given to it to bear it.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt336"></a><a name="a_3342305"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt336#c_lf1477_footnote_nt336">[5. ]</a> Miss Hillard notes the use of proof by reduction to absurdity, Conv. 2. 9. 4.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt337"></a><a name="a_3342306"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt337#c_lf1477_footnote_nt337">[1. ]</a> “Whether the authority of the Roman Monarchy derives from God immediately, or from some vicar of God.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt338"></a><a name="a_3342307"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt338#c_lf1477_footnote_nt338">[2. ]</a> “Whether temporal Monarchy is necessary for the well-being of the world.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt339"></a><a name="a_3342308"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt339#c_lf1477_footnote_nt339">[3. ]</a> “Whether the Roman people rightfully appropriated the office of Monarchy.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt340"></a><a name="a_3342309"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt340#c_lf1477_footnote_nt340">[4. ]</a>Conv. 2. 14. 12: “The circle by reason of its arc cannot be exactly squared.”<br />Par. 33. 133: “As is the geometer who applies himself wholly in order to measure the circle, and finds not by thinking that principle whereof he is in want, such was I.”<br />In 1761 Lambert proved that the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter was incommensurable. Lindemann has since demonstrated that this ratio was transcendental, and that the quadrature of the circle by means of the rule and compass only is impossible.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt341"></a><a name="a_3342310"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt341#c_lf1477_footnote_nt341">[5. ]</a> The number of the angels Dante discusses in Conv. 2. 6, concluding in chapter 2. 6. 2: “It is proved to us that these creatures exist in immense numbers; because His Spouse and Secretary, the Holy Church . . . says, believes, and preaches that these most noble creatures are almost innumerable; and she divides them into three hierarchies.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt342"></a><a name="a_3342311"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt342#c_lf1477_footnote_nt342">[6. ]</a>Eth. 3. 3. 6: “About things eternal no man deliberates, as about the world, or the diagonal and the side of a square, that they are incommensurable, . . . nor about things accidental, as the finding of a treasure, nor yet about everything human, as no Lacedaemonian deliberates how the Scythians might be best governed.” Moore thinks that Dante’s substitution of “Egyptian” for “Lacedaemonian” was merely a slip of memory.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt343"></a><a name="a_3342312"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt343#c_lf1477_footnote_nt343">[7. ]</a>Purg. 18. 16: “Direct toward me the keen eyes of thy understanding, and the error will be manifest to thee of the blind who make themselves leaders.” So wickedness to Dante was largely a matter of ignorance, of blindness, of inability to understand. With sight and comprehension of good came right action.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt344"></a><a name="a_3342313"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt344#c_lf1477_footnote_nt344">[8. ]</a> Dante even in his moments of greatest indignation had only reverence for the papal office. Inf. 19. 100: “Were it not that still forbids it to me my reverence for the supreme keys which thou heldest in the glad life, I would use words yet more grievous;” so he says to Pope Nicolas placed among the simoniacs in Malebolge. And of the persecution of Boniface VIII, whom Dante hated above all men, he writes Purg. 20. 86: “I see the fleur-de-lys enter into Alagna, and in his Vicar Christ himself made captive. I see Him being mocked a second time, I see the vinegar and the gall renewed, and Him between live thieves put to death. I see the new Pilate so cruel that that sates him not, but without decree he bears into the temple his greedy sails.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt345"></a><a name="a_3342314"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt345#c_lf1477_footnote_nt345">[9. ]</a>John 8. 44: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.” For cupidity as the greatest of human sins, see De Mon. 2. 12. 1; 1. 11. 5, and note 12. The worst form of cupidity was simony, trafficking in spiritual matters, shown forth in Inf. 19. 1 ff.: “O Simon Magus! O unhappy followers! because the things of God, which ought to be spouses, and yet in your greed make to commit whoredom for gold and for silver—now it is meet that for you the trumpet sound, seeing that in the third pit ye are stationed.”<br />Letter 9. 7 To the Italian Cardinals: “Every one has taken Cupidity to wife, even as ye have,—Cupidity, who is never, like Charity, the mother of Piety and Equity, but always of Impiety and Iniquity. Ah, most holy Mother, Bride of Christ, what sons dost thou bear of water and of the spirit to shame thee! Neither Charity nor Justice, but the daughters of the horse-leech have become thy daughters-in-law, and all save the Bishop of Luni attest what kind of sons they have brought to thee. Thy Gregory lies among the cobwebs; Ambrose lies on the neglected shelves of the clergy; Augustine lies forgotten; Dionysius, Damascenus, and Bede have been thrown aside; and I know not what Speculum, Innocent, and he of Ostia preach. Wherefore is this? They sought God as their end and best good; these run after riches and benefices.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt346"></a><a name="a_3342315"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt346#c_lf1477_footnote_nt346">[10. ]</a> Two of these men are named Par. 12. 83, Henry of Susa, Archbishop of Embrun and Cardinal of Ostia, and Thaddeus of Bologna. In Letter 9. 7, quoted in the note preceding, the Speculum of Guglielmo Durante, Innocent III, and the Cardinal of Ostia make another list.<br />The Decretals were those papal decrees which form the groundwork of the ecclesiastical law. The most important compilation was issued by Gregory IX in 1234. The Code of the Papal Decretals was promulgated as the statute law of Christendom, the authority of which was superior to all secular law. See Toynbee, Dict. s. v. Decretali; Hallam, Middle Ages, Ch. 8, part 2.<br />Par. 9. 133: “For this the Gospel and the great Doctors are deserted, and study is given to the Decretals alone, as appears on their margins.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt347"></a><a name="a_3342316"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt347#c_lf1477_footnote_nt347">[11. ]</a>Par. 20. 103: “They issued not from their bodies as thou deemest Gentiles, but Christians, in firm faith, he of the Feet that should suffer, he of them having suffered.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt348"></a><a name="a_3342317"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt348#c_lf1477_footnote_nt348">[12. ]</a>Rom. 8. 16, 17.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt349"></a><a name="a_3342318"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt349#c_lf1477_footnote_nt349">[13. ]</a>Ps. 111. 9. This is a rather strained interpretation of “He hath sent redemption unto his people; he hath commanded his covenant for ever.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt350"></a><a name="a_3342319"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt350#c_lf1477_footnote_nt350">[14. ]</a> Cant. 1. 4. Dante, as was customary in his times, interprets the Canticles allegorically as applying to the Church.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt351"></a><a name="a_3342320"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt351#c_lf1477_footnote_nt351">[15. ]</a>Matt. 28. 20.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt352"></a><a name="a_3342321"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt352#c_lf1477_footnote_nt352">[16. ]</a> St. Augustine (354-430). Dante quotes in the next chapter from two of his works, De Civitate Dei and De Doctrina Christiana. The ideals of Augustine in the former treatise and those of Dante in the De Mon. are very similar. For his relation to Dante see Moore, Studies, Vol. 1. pp. 291-294. Augustine is honored with a seat in the Celestial Rose by St. Francis and St. Benedict Par. 32. 35. For further mention of him see note 9, above.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt353"></a><a name="a_3342322"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt353#c_lf1477_footnote_nt353">[17. ]</a>Matt. 15. 2, 3.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt354"></a><a name="a_3342323"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt354#c_lf1477_footnote_nt354">[18. ]</a>Phys. 1. 2. “Cupiditas” is the word I have this time translated “passions.” Cf. Purg. 19. 121: “As avarice extinguished our love toward every good, whence labor was lost, so justice here holds us straitly bound.” See also note 9, above.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt355"></a><a name="a_3342324"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt355#c_lf1477_footnote_nt355">[1. ]</a>Metaphys. 1. 1: “We reckon the chief artificers in each case to be entitled to more dignity, and to the reputation of superior knowledge, and to be more wise than the handicraftsmen, because the former are acquainted with the causes of things that are being constructed, whereas the latter produce things as certain inanimate things do, . . . unconsciously.” Bryce dates the successful claim of the papacy to rule in temporal matters to Gregory VII (1073-1086).<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt356"></a><a name="a_3342325"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt356#c_lf1477_footnote_nt356">[2. ]</a>Gen. 1. 15, 16.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt357"></a><a name="a_3342326"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt357#c_lf1477_footnote_nt357">[3. ]</a> “Dua regimina”—two guiding or governing powers. Bryce, Holy Roman Empire, c. 15: “The analogy between the lights of heaven and the potentates of earth is one which mediaeval writers are very fond of. It seems to have originated with Gregory VII” (1073-1086).<br />“Two lights, the sun and the moon, illumine the globe; two powers, the papal and the royal, govern it; but as the moon receives her light from the more brilliant star, so kings reign by the chief of the Church who comes from God,” are the words of Innocent IV (1243-1254).<br />Bryce speaks in the chapter cited above of a curious seal of the Emperor Otto IV (1208-1212), figured in J. M. Heineccius’ De veteribus Germanorum atque aliarum nationum sigillis, on which the sun and moon are represented over the head of the Emperor: “There seems to be no reason why we should not take the device as typifying the accord of the spiritual and temporal powers which was brought about at the accession of Otto, the Guelfic leader, and the favored candidate of Pope Innocent III.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt358"></a><a name="a_3342327"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt358#c_lf1477_footnote_nt358">[4. ]</a> Dante’s real view, that the spiritual and temporal rulers are coördinate but different, is expressed De Mon. 3. 16. 6. Again in Purg. 16. 106 is the idea in more figurative language: “Rome, that made the good world, was wont to have two suns, that showed the one and the other road, both of the world and of God. The one has put out the other, and the sword is joined with the crook; and the one and the other together of very necessity it behoves that they go ill.”<br />Letter 6. 2 (To the Florentines) has the following figure: “Why, then, such a foolish supposition being disposed of, do ye, deserting legitimate government, seek new Babylonians to found new kingdoms, in order that the Florentine may be one policy and the Roman another? Why may it not please you to envy the apostolic monarchy likewise? that if Delia is to have a twin in heaven, the Delian One may also?”<br />After the death of Henry VII and Clement V Dante wrote in Letter 9. 10: “Rome, that city now deprived of both its luminaries.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt359"></a><a name="a_3342328"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt359#c_lf1477_footnote_nt359">[5. ]</a>Soph. Elenc. 18.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt360"></a><a name="a_3342329"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt360#c_lf1477_footnote_nt360">[6. ]</a>Phys. 1. 3. Parmenides was a Greek philosopher, born at Elea in Italy circ. 513 bc, founder of the Eleatic School of philosophy, in which he was succeeded by Zeno. Melissus of Samos was one of his followers. These two false reasoners serve for illustration again in Par. 13. 122: “He returns not the same as he sets out, who fishes for the truth and has not the art; and of this are to the world open proofs Parmenides, Melissus, and Bryson.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt361"></a><a name="a_3342330"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt361#c_lf1477_footnote_nt361">[7. ]</a> “Distinction” marks out two possible meanings in a proposition; one, the sense in which it must be understood to make it true; the other, the sense in which it must be understood in order to support a given conclusion.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt362"></a><a name="a_3342331"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt362#c_lf1477_footnote_nt362">[8. ]</a>De Civit. Dei 16. 2.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt363"></a><a name="a_3342332"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt363#c_lf1477_footnote_nt363">[9. ]</a>De Doctr. Christ. 1. 36. Here Dante departs from our present reading of Augustine’s text by using the words “per gyrum” instead of “per agrum.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt364"></a><a name="a_3342333"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt364#c_lf1477_footnote_nt364">[10. ]</a>L. c. 37.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt365"></a><a name="a_3342334"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt365#c_lf1477_footnote_nt365">[11. ]</a> “Litera,” Witte says, was a solemn word used for “text,” especially in referring to sacred writings, during the Middle Ages.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt366"></a><a name="a_3342335"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt366#c_lf1477_footnote_nt366">[12. ]</a> “Man restored to the state of Eden would not need ecclesiastical any more than he would need imperial guidance or authority. Hence Virgil ‘crowns and mitres’ Dante at the entrance of the Garden of Eden, Purg. 27, 42. It follows that Beatrice, whose ministrations begin here, may be Revelation, but cannot be Ecclesiastical Authority.” Wicksteed.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt367"></a><a name="a_3342336"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt367#c_lf1477_footnote_nt367">[13. ]</a> The heaven of the moon was the first of the ten Dantean heavens. It is described Conv. 2. 3-7, and Par. 2-5. Nine of these were the so-called moving heavens, each having for its motor a certain order of spiritual creature. Conv. 2. 6. 5: “Wherefore it is reasonable to believe that the motive powers of the Heaven of the Moon are of the order of Angels.”<br />Conv. 2. 6. 7: “These motive powers guide by their thought alone the revolutions over which each one presides.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt368"></a><a name="a_3342337"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt368#c_lf1477_footnote_nt368">[14. ]</a>De Mon. 3. 16. 9, and note.<br />The apostolic benediction even of Clement V, whom Dante punishes among the simoniacs in Inf. 19, is thus spoken of, Letter 5. 10: “This is he whom Peter, the vicar of God, admonishes us to honor; whom Clement, now the successor of Peter, illuminates with the light of the apostolic benediction, in order that where the spiritual ray does not suffice, the splendor of the lesser light may illumine.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt369"></a><a name="a_3342338"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt369#c_lf1477_footnote_nt369">[1. ]</a>Gen. 29. 34, 35. Reference is made to the sons of Levi as men of churchly and not secular authority Purg. 16. 127. Marco Lombardo is speaking to Dante: “Say from this day forth that the Church of Rome, through confounding of herself two governments, falls in the mire, and befouls herself and her burden.” “O my Marco,” said I, “thou reasonest well; and now I perceive why the sons of Levi were exempted from the heritage.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt370"></a><a name="a_3342339"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt370#c_lf1477_footnote_nt370">[1. ]</a>1 Sam. 10. 1, Samuel anoints Saul; 15. 23, he deposes him; 15. 28, he transfers the authority of ruler “to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt371"></a><a name="a_3342340"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt371#c_lf1477_footnote_nt371">[2. ]</a>Decretals of Gregory, 2. 13. 2: “The Pope has power to depose the Emperor for legitimate causes.” Boniface VIII not only deposed Philip the Fair, but offered the French crown to Emperor Albert I.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt372"></a><a name="a_3342341"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt372#c_lf1477_footnote_nt372">[3. ]</a> “Sicut aliud est esse doctorem, aliud esse interpretem.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt373"></a><a name="a_3342342"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt373#c_lf1477_footnote_nt373">[4. ]</a> Witte quotes from the Decretals of Gregory IX, 1. 28. 5: “A vicar can do whatever pertains to the jurisdiction of him in whose stead he acts.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt374"></a><a name="a_3342343"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt374#c_lf1477_footnote_nt374">[5. ]</a>Gen. Anim. 5. 8. The figure is again used Par. 2. 128: “The movement and virtue of the holy circles, as from the smith the craft of the hammer, must needs from the blessed movers have their breath.”<br />Conv. 4. 23. 2: “The fire and the hammer are efficient causes of the knife, although the principal cause is the smith.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt375"></a><a name="a_3342344"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt375#c_lf1477_footnote_nt375">[6. ]</a>Eth. 6. 2. 6: “But what is past does not admit of being undone; therefore Agathon rightly says, ‘Of this alone even God is deprived, the power of making things that are past never to have been.’ ”<br />Agathon is mentioned as being one of the Greek poets in Limbo Purg. 22. 107. Historically, nothing is known of this poet except his friendship with Socrates, Plato, and Euripides, and the references to him in Aristotle’s Poetics and Rhetoric.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt376"></a><a name="a_3342345"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt376#c_lf1477_footnote_nt376">[1. ]</a>Matt. 2. 11.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt377"></a><a name="a_3342346"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt377#c_lf1477_footnote_nt377">[2. ]</a>Anal. Pr. 1. 25.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt378"></a><a name="a_3342347"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt378#c_lf1477_footnote_nt378">[3. ]</a>Eth. 2. 1. 2. This thought is used by Dante, De Mon. 1. 15. 2, and the words from Aristotle are given in note 6 to that paragraph.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt379"></a><a name="a_3342348"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt379#c_lf1477_footnote_nt379">[4. ]</a> Peter Lombard (1100-1164), whom Dante places among the great doctors in the Heaven of the Sun Par. 10. 107. This reference is to his Libri Sententiarum 4. 5. 2, 3: “Christ gave to his servants the administering of baptism, but the power he retained for himself, which had he so wished he could have given them; . . . but he did not wish to, lest a servant should put his hope in a servant.” As Wicksteed remarks, Dante does not believe in the deputing of ministry without power.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt380"></a><a name="a_3342349"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt380#c_lf1477_footnote_nt380">[1. ]</a>Matt. 16. 19: “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”<br />This argument from the keys of Peter is set forth by Thomas Aquinas, De Regimine Principium 3. 10; S. T. 3, Suppl. Q. 17; in the Decretals of Gregory IX 1. 33. 6; 2. 1. 13. Dante’s reverence for the pontifical office can never be questioned even in the expression of sentiments the most Ghibelline. De Mon. 2. 3. 4, and note 8. The main references in the Comedy that show his attitude toward the successors of Peter are:—<br />Inf. 19. 90-101: “My reverence for the supreme keys . . .”<br />Inf. 27. 103: “I have power to lock and unlock Heaven as thou knowest; since two are the keys which my forerunner held not dear.” These are words put into the mouth of Boniface VIII.<br />The two keys which Statius held from Peter in his office as guardian of the gate of Purgatory are described Purg. 9. 117 ff.<br />Par. 23. 136: “Here triumphs, under the high Son of God, and of Mary, for his victory, . . . he who holds the keys of such glory.”<br />Par. 24. 34: “O eternal light of the great man to whom our Lord left the keys, which He bore below, of this wondrous joy.”<br />Par. 27. 46: “It was not our intention . . . that the keys which were granted to me should become a device on a banner to fight against men baptized.” So Peter rebukes the wickedness of the Church and its officials.<br />Par. 32. 124: “On the right behold that ancient Father of Holy Church to whom Christ entrusted the keys of this lovely flower.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt381"></a><a name="a_3342350"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt381#c_lf1477_footnote_nt381">[2. ]</a>Matt. 18. 18; John 20. 23.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt382"></a><a name="a_3342351"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt382#c_lf1477_footnote_nt382">[3. ]</a>Rom. 7. 3. Inf. 27. 118: “Absolved he cannot be, who does not repent; nor is it possible to repent and to will at the same time, by reason of the contradiction which agrees not in it.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt383"></a><a name="a_3342352"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt383#c_lf1477_footnote_nt383">[1. ]</a>Luke 22. 38. This was one of the most popular arguments in mediaeval writers for the supremacy of the Church. In the bull “Unam Sanctam” Boniface VIII says: “We are taught by the words of the gospel to recognize that two swords are in the power of this man, that is, the spiritual and temporal. For when the apostles said, ‘Here are two swords,’ the Lord did not respond, ‘It is too much,’ but, ‘It is enough.’ Both are in the power of the Church: the one the spiritual, to be used by the Church, the other the material, for the Church; the former that of priests, the latter that of kings and soldiers, to be wielded at the command and by the sufferance of the priest. One sword must be under the other, the temporal under the spiritual. . . . The spiritual instituted the temporal power, and judges whether that power is well exercised. . . . We therefore assert, define, and pronounce that it is necessary to salvation to believe that every human being is subject to the Pontiff of Rome.”<br />Generally with Dante the sword typifies Empire. Purg. 16. 109: “The sword is joined with the crook.” Par. 8. 145: “But ye wrest to religion such an one as shall have been born to be girt with the sword, and ye make him a king who is a man of sermons.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt384"></a><a name="a_3342353"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt384#c_lf1477_footnote_nt384">[2. ]</a>Luke 22. 7.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt385"></a><a name="a_3342354"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt385#c_lf1477_footnote_nt385">[3. ]</a>Luke 22. 14.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt386"></a><a name="a_3342355"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt386#c_lf1477_footnote_nt386">[4. ]</a>Luke 22. 35, 36.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt387"></a><a name="a_3342356"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt387#c_lf1477_footnote_nt387">[5. ]</a>Luke 22. 38.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt388"></a><a name="a_3342357"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt388#c_lf1477_footnote_nt388">[6. ]</a>Matt. 16. 15, 16, 21, 22, 23.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt389"></a><a name="a_3342358"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt389#c_lf1477_footnote_nt389">[7. ]</a>Matt. 17. 4.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt390"></a><a name="a_3342359"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt390#c_lf1477_footnote_nt390">[8. ]</a>Matt. 14. 28. Peter’s faith on this occasion is the subject of praise again in Par. 24. 34: “O eternal light of the great man to whom our Lord left the keys, which he bore below, of this wondrous joy, try this man concerning points easy and hard as pleases thee, about the faith by which thou didst go upon the sea.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt391"></a><a name="a_3342360"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt391#c_lf1477_footnote_nt391">[9. ]</a>Matt. 26. 33, 35.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt392"></a><a name="a_3342361"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt392#c_lf1477_footnote_nt392">[10. ]</a>Mark 14. 29.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt393"></a><a name="a_3342362"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt393#c_lf1477_footnote_nt393">[11. ]</a>Luke 22. 33.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt394"></a><a name="a_3342363"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt394#c_lf1477_footnote_nt394">[12. ]</a>John 13. 6, 8.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt395"></a><a name="a_3342364"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt395#c_lf1477_footnote_nt395">[13. ]</a>John 18. 10; Matt. 26. 51; Mark 14. 47; Luke 22. 50.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt396"></a><a name="a_3342365"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt396#c_lf1477_footnote_nt396">[14. ]</a>John 20. 5, 6. Dante’s second reference to this incident is in Par. 24. 125: “O holy father, O spirit who seest that which thou so believest, that thou didst outdo younger feet toward the sepulchre.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt397"></a><a name="a_3342366"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt397#c_lf1477_footnote_nt397">[15. ]</a>John 21. 7.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt398"></a><a name="a_3342367"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt398#c_lf1477_footnote_nt398">[16. ]</a>John 21. 21.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt399"></a><a name="a_3342368"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt399#c_lf1477_footnote_nt399">[17. ]</a> “Head Shepherd” is in the Latin “Archimandrita.” St. Francis is given this name Par. 11. 99: “The holy desire of this head shepherd of his flock was crowned with a second diadem by the eternal spirit through Honorius.” And in Letter 9. 6 Dante calls the unfaithful officers of the Church, “Archimandrites throughout the world in name alone.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt400"></a><a name="a_3342369"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt400#c_lf1477_footnote_nt400">[18. ]</a>Matt. 10. 34, 35.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt401"></a><a name="a_3342370"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt401#c_lf1477_footnote_nt401">[19. ]</a>Acts 1. 1.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt402"></a><a name="a_3342371"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt402#c_lf1477_footnote_nt402">[1. ]</a> Near the end of the eighth century the decretals and donation of Constantine were forged, documents which purported that when that Emperor removed his capital to Byzantium, 324 ad, he left Rome in order to give to the Church temporal sway in the western world. That this donation was a forgery was not discovered until 1440 by Laurentinus Valla. See Gibbon, vol. 6. 49 (notes 68-76), the Milman-Smith edition. It is scarcely necessary to add that Dante had firm faith in the genuineness of the donation.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt403"></a><a name="a_3342372"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt403#c_lf1477_footnote_nt403">[2. ]</a>Inf. 27. 94: “Constantine sought Sylvester within Soracte to heal him of his leprosy.” This legend Butler thinks Dante took from Brunetto, Trésor, Bk. 1, Pt. 2, c. 87, but Toynbee traces it to the Legenda Aurea of Jacobus de Voragine. See Toynbee, Studies, p. 297. Cf. De Regim. Princ. 3. 16.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt404"></a><a name="a_3342373"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt404#c_lf1477_footnote_nt404">[3. ]</a> The donation is mentioned De Mon. 2. 12. 2; 2. 13. 5; 3. 13. 4.<br />Inf. 19. 115: “Ah, Constantine, of how great ill was mother, not thy conversion, but the dowry which the first rich pope got from thee.”<br />In the vision of Church and Empire, Purg. 32, the worldly wealth of the papacy is thus described l. 124: “Next from thence, whence it had before come, I saw the eagle come down into the ark of the car, and leave it feathered with itself;” line 136: “That which remained, like ground alive with herbage, covered itself again with feathers, offered haply with sound and benign intention, and was covered again.”<br />The eagle describes Constantine Par. 20. 55: “The second who follows, with the laws and with me, under a good intention which bore ill fruit, to give way to the Pastor, made himself a Greek. Now knows he how the ill deduced from his good work is not harmful to him, albeit that the world be thereby destroyed.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt405"></a><a name="a_3342374"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt405#c_lf1477_footnote_nt405">[4. ]</a>John 19. 23, 24, 34. The seamless robe is again used as the type of undivided monarchy De Mon. 1. 16, and note 6.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt406"></a><a name="a_3342375"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt406#c_lf1477_footnote_nt406">[5. ]</a>1 Cor. 3. 11.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt407"></a><a name="a_3342376"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt407#c_lf1477_footnote_nt407">[6. ]</a>Matt. 16. 18.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt408"></a><a name="a_3342377"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt408#c_lf1477_footnote_nt408">[7. ]</a>Can. 8. 5 (Vulg.). The English version has not the words “deliciis effluens,” “abounding in delights.” Dante quotes the verse, as here, in Conv. 2. 6. 2, as definitely signifying the Church.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt409"></a><a name="a_3342378"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt409#c_lf1477_footnote_nt409">[8. ]</a> Witte refers to Engelbertus Admonteus, De Ortu et Fine Rom. Imp. 18: “It was not permitted that the Emperor Hadrian or Jovinian should surrender the imperial boundaries, . . . nor has it been, nor will it be permitted to any Emperor, because then would it fall from the name and dignity of Augustus, which means that the Empire should be augmented and not diminished.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt410"></a><a name="a_3342379"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt410#c_lf1477_footnote_nt410">[9. ]</a>Eth. 4. 1. 8: “The liberal man will give for the sake of the honorable, and will give properly, for he will give to proper objects, in proper quantities, at proper times.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt411"></a><a name="a_3342380"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt411#c_lf1477_footnote_nt411">[10. ]</a>Matt. 10. 9.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt412"></a><a name="a_3342381"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt412#c_lf1477_footnote_nt412">[11. ]</a>Luke 9. 3; 10. 4.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt413"></a><a name="a_3342382"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt413#c_lf1477_footnote_nt413">[12. ]</a>De Mon. 2. 12. 1, and note 2.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt414"></a><a name="a_3342383"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt414#c_lf1477_footnote_nt414">[1. ]</a> “Advocavit” in the original, and closely related to “advocati” in the following sentence, the “advocates” or “those called.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt415"></a><a name="a_3342384"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt415#c_lf1477_footnote_nt415">[2. ]</a> Charlemagne became king of the Frankish people in 771; petitioned for aid against the Lombards by Pope Hadrian, he defeated Desiderius in 774, and became king of the Lombards; he was made Emperor of the West by Pope Leo III on Christmas Day, 800. Pope Hadrian did not give Charlemagne the imperial dignity. Dante places Charlemagne among the defenders of the faith in the Heaven of Mars Par. 18. 43.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt416"></a><a name="a_3342385"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt416#c_lf1477_footnote_nt416">[3. ]</a>Par. 6. 94: “And when the Lombard tooth bit the Holy Church, under its wings great Charles conquering succoured her.” Cf. De Regim. Princ. 10. 10, 18.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt417"></a><a name="a_3342386"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt417#c_lf1477_footnote_nt417">[4. ]</a> Michael I reigned in Constantinople from 811 to 813. The ruler at the time of Charlemagne was the Empress Irene (797-802).<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt418"></a><a name="a_3342387"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt418#c_lf1477_footnote_nt418">[5. ]</a> Otto I was Emperor 962-973. In 963 the Roman synod elected his nominee for the papacy, but in the following year, while the Emperor was absent from Rome, they deposed Leo III and put Benedict V in the chair. On Otto’s return in 964, he sent Benedict to Hamburg and reinstated Leo.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt419"></a><a name="a_3342388"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt419#c_lf1477_footnote_nt419">[1. ]</a>Metaphys. 10. 1. In Conv. 1. 1. 1, as here, Dante calls the Metaphysics the First Philosophy.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt420"></a><a name="a_3342389"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt420#c_lf1477_footnote_nt420">[2. ]</a> The two main categories are those of substance and accident. Under accident are the sub-categories of relation, position, quality, etc. In the category of substance, Pope and Emperor are measurable by the same standard. In the category of accident, they are in the same sub-genus of relation, and in different but coördinate species of the sub-genus. So in the category of accident they are not measurable by the same standard. In the text Dante uses the word “praedicamentum” for category, and in De Mon. 3. 15. 4 he calls Aristotle’s Categories by that name.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt421"></a><a name="a_3342390"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt421#c_lf1477_footnote_nt421">[3. ]</a> Then the best man might be other than the Pope or Emperor.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt422"></a><a name="a_3342391"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt422#c_lf1477_footnote_nt422">[4. ]</a>Eth. 10. 5. 10: “Excellence and the good man, so far forth as he is good, are the measure of everything.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt423"></a><a name="a_3342392"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt423#c_lf1477_footnote_nt423">[5. ]</a> “Quum sint relationes superpositionis.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt424"></a><a name="a_3342393"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt424#c_lf1477_footnote_nt424">[1. ]</a>Acts 25. 10.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt425"></a><a name="a_3342394"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt425#c_lf1477_footnote_nt425">[2. ]</a>Acts 27. 24.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt426"></a><a name="a_3342395"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt426#c_lf1477_footnote_nt426">[3. ]</a>Acts 28. 19.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt427"></a><a name="a_3342396"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt427#c_lf1477_footnote_nt427">[4. ]</a>Phil. 1. 23.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt428"></a><a name="a_3342397"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt428#c_lf1477_footnote_nt428">[5. ]</a>Lev. 2. 11.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt429"></a><a name="a_3342398"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt429#c_lf1477_footnote_nt429">[6. ]</a>Lev. 11. 43.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt430"></a><a name="a_3342399"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt430#c_lf1477_footnote_nt430">[1. ]</a> Dante seems to imply that things brought to pass through nature are brought to pass through a secondary agent.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt431"></a><a name="a_3342400"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt431#c_lf1477_footnote_nt431">[2. ]</a>Matt. 16. 18.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt432"></a><a name="a_3342401"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt432#c_lf1477_footnote_nt432">[3. ]</a>John 17. 4.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt433"></a><a name="a_3342402"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt433#c_lf1477_footnote_nt433">[4. ]</a>Num. 18. 20: “And the Lord spake unto Aaron, Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt thou have any part among them. I am thy part and thine inheritance among the children of Israel.”<br />Purg. 16. 131: “The sons of Levi were exempted from the heritage.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt434"></a><a name="a_3342403"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt434#c_lf1477_footnote_nt434">[5. ]</a>Matt. 10. 9: “Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses;” Mark 6. 8; Luke 9. 3; 10. 4; 22. 35.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt435"></a><a name="a_3342404"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt435#c_lf1477_footnote_nt435">[6. ]</a>Metaphys. 8. 8. The priority of energy or activity to capacity or potentiality is discussed here at length.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt436"></a><a name="a_3342405"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt436#c_lf1477_footnote_nt436">[1. ]</a>Phys. 7. 3. Conv. 3. 15. 4: “The natural desire of everything is regulated according to the capacity of the thing desiring; otherwise it would oppose itself, which is impossible, and nature would have made it in vain, which is also impossible.” De Mon. 1. 3. 1; 1. 10. 1; 2. 7. 2, repeat the same idea.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt437"></a><a name="a_3342406"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt437#c_lf1477_footnote_nt437">[2. ]</a>Phys. 2. 1: “Form is nature.”<br />Metaphys. 6. 7. 4: “From art are generated those things of whatsoever there is a form in the soul. But I mean by form the essence or very nature of a thing.” L. c. 6. 9: “Art is form.” S. T. 1-2. 94. 3: “Every being is naturally inclined to an activity befitting itself, according to its form.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt438"></a><a name="a_3342407"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt438#c_lf1477_footnote_nt438">[3. ]</a>John 13. 15.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt439"></a><a name="a_3342408"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt439#c_lf1477_footnote_nt439">[4. ]</a>John 21. 19.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt440"></a><a name="a_3342409"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt440#c_lf1477_footnote_nt440">[5. ]</a>John 18. 36.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt441"></a><a name="a_3342410"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt441#c_lf1477_footnote_nt441">[6. ]</a>Ps. 95. 5.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt442"></a><a name="a_3342411"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt442#c_lf1477_footnote_nt442">[7. ]</a>De Mon. 2. 3, notes 6 and 13.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt443"></a><a name="a_3342412"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt443#c_lf1477_footnote_nt443">[8. ]</a>Categ. c. 12. De Mon. 3. 12, note 2.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt444"></a><a name="a_3342413"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt444#c_lf1477_footnote_nt444">[1. ]</a>De Mon. 1. 7. 1. Purg. 32. 100: “Here thou shalt be a little time a woodman, and with me shalt thou be without end, a citizen of that Rome whereof Christ is a Roman.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt445"></a><a name="a_3342414"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt445#c_lf1477_footnote_nt445">[2. ]</a>De Causis, Lect. 2: “Generated intelligence comprehends both nature and the horizon of nature, that is to say the soul, for it is above nature.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt446"></a><a name="a_3342415"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt446#c_lf1477_footnote_nt446">[3. ]</a> The nature and origin of the human soul is discussed Conv. 4. 21. In Purg. 25 Statius discourses on generation and the soul, and its attributes find due place there. Other references are:—<br />Conv. 4. 21. 2: “We must know that man is composed of soul and body; but of the soul is that nobility . . . which is as the seed of the Divine virtue.”<br />Par. 7. 139: “The soul of every brute and of the plants, being endued by complexion with potency, draws in the ray and the movement of the holy lights. But your life the highest Goodness inspires.”<br />So Thomas Aquinas, S. T. 1. 76. 4. 4: “The soul is the substantial form of man;” so also l. c. 1-2. 94. 3: “The proper form of man is his rational soul.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt447"></a><a name="a_3342416"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt447#c_lf1477_footnote_nt447">[4. ]</a>De Anima 2. 2. 21.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt448"></a><a name="a_3342417"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt448#c_lf1477_footnote_nt448">[5. ]</a>De Part. Anim. 3. 1.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt449"></a><a name="a_3342418"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt449#c_lf1477_footnote_nt449">[6. ]</a>Conv. 3. 15. 5: “Felicity . . . is action according to virtue, in the perfect life.” So Aristotle says in Eth. 1. 13. 1: “Happiness is a certain energy of the soul according to perfect goodness.” Dante uses this definition again Conv. 4. 17. 14.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt450"></a><a name="a_3342419"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt450#c_lf1477_footnote_nt450">[7. ]</a>Purg. 28-33 describes the terrestrial Paradise and its place in the order of the universe.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt451"></a><a name="a_3342420"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt451#c_lf1477_footnote_nt451">[8. ]</a> The whole of the Paradiso develops the gradual revelation of God’s self to man. For Dante’s valuation of the active and speculative life, see De Mon. 1. 3. 3, and note 14; 1. 4, and note 1. See Conv. 2. 5, many parts of Conv. 3, and Conv. 4. 21, 22, 23.<br />Conv. 4. 22. 5: “The use of the mind is double, that is, practical and speculative. . . . Its practical use is to act through us virtuously, that is, righteously, by temperance, fortitude, and justice; the speculative is not to operate actively in us, but to consider the works of God and nature; and the one and the other use make up our beatitude.”<br />Conv. 4. 22. 9: “In our contemplation God is always in advance of us; nor can we ever attain to Him here, who is our supreme beatitude.”<br />Conv. 4. 22. 10: “Our beatitude . . . we may first find imperfectly in the active life, that is, in the exercise of the moral virtues, and then almost perfectly in the contemplative life, that is, in the exercise of the intellectual virtues.”<br />S. T. 1. 2. 3. 8: “The last and perfect happiness of man cannot be other than in the vision of the Divine Essence.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt452"></a><a name="a_3342421"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt452#c_lf1477_footnote_nt452">[9. ]</a>Conv. 4. 17 treats of the twelve moral virtues, which include the cardinal,—fortitude, temperance, liberality, munificence, magnanimity, love of honor, meekness, affability, truth, discretion, justice, and prudence.<br />Canz. 3. 5: “All virtues take their rise from one sole root—that primal virtue, which makes mankind blest in acting it—which is the elective habit.”<br />The cardinal virtues were the active virtues, as the theological were the contemplative. So Purg. 31. 107: “Before that Beatrice descended to the world were we ordained to her for handmaids.” And in Purg. 29. 130 the cardinal virtues are on the left of the symbolic car.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt453"></a><a name="a_3342422"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt453#c_lf1477_footnote_nt453">[10. ]</a> The theological virtues are called in Purg. 7. 34, “the three holy virtues.” Purg. 31. 111: “The three beyond who look more deeply.” They are on the right of the car in Purg. 29. 121: “Three ladies, whirling on the right wheel’s side, came dancing, the one so red that hardly would she have been marked with fire; the second was as if her flesh and bones had been made out of emerald; the third appeared snow but lately driven.”<br />Thomas Aquinas discusses the cardinal virtues S. T. 1-2. 61; the theological virtues S. T. 1-2. 62.<br />Conv. 3. 14. 5: “We believe that every miracle may be reasonable to a higher intellect, and therefore possible. Whence our precious faith has its origin, from which comes the hope of things desired, but not seen; and from this are born the works of charity. By which three virtues we ascend to philosophize in that celestial Athens, where Stoics, and Peripatetics, and Epicureans, by the art of Eternal Truth, harmoniously concur in one desire.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt454"></a><a name="a_3342423"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt454#c_lf1477_footnote_nt454">[11. ]</a>De Mon. 2. 8, and note 1; De Mon. 3. 16. 6.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt455"></a><a name="a_3342424"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt455#c_lf1477_footnote_nt455">[12. ]</a> This figure, which compares man to a horse needing bit and spur to keep him in his road and under control of his rider, is almost as much a favorite with Dante as that of the wax and seal. He must have found it originally in Ps. 32. 9: “Be ye not as the horse or as the mule, which have no understanding: whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest they come near unto thee.” The most important uses of this metaphor are as follows:—<br />Conv. 4. 9. 3: “The Emperor . . . is the rider of human will, and it is very evident how wildly this horse goes over the field without a rider.”<br />Conv. 4. 26. 4: “This appetite . . . should obey the reason, which guides it with curb and spur.”<br />Purg. 6. 88: “What boots it that Justinian should have put thy bit in order again, if the saddle is empty?”<br />Purg. 13. 40: “This circle scourges the sin of envy, and therefore are the lashes of the scourge wielded by love. The rein will have to be of the contrary sound.”<br />Purg. 14. 143: “That was the hard bit which ought to hold the man within his bound.”<br />Purg. 16. 94: “It behoved to lay down laws for a bit; it behoved to have a king who should discern of the true city at least the tower.”<br />Purg. 20. 55: “I found so fast within my hands the rein of government of the kingdom, and such power of new acquirement, and so full of friends, that to the widowed crown was the head of my son promoted.” The words are Hugh Capet’s. L. c. 22. 19; 25. 119: “Through this place needs one to keep the rein tight on the eyes, because for a little cause one might go astray.” L. c. 28. 71: “The Hellespont, . . . a bridle still to pride of men.”<br />Purg. 33. 141: “The bridle of my art lets me go no further.”<br />Par. 7. 26: “For not enduring to the faculty that wills any curb, for its own advantage, that man who was never born, in damning himself, damned all his progeny.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt456"></a><a name="a_3342425"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt456#c_lf1477_footnote_nt456">[13. ]</a>Par. 5. 76: “Ye have the old and new Testament, and the Pastor of the Church who guides you; let this suffice you to your salvation.” See De Mon. 3. 16. 5, and note 9.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt457"></a><a name="a_3342426"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt457#c_lf1477_footnote_nt457">[14. ]</a> From the philosophic nature of the Convito and the Comedy it is impossible to indicate here even the most important sections devoted to philosophy, classical or mediaeval. Conv. 3. 11. 2 defines philosophy as “No other than a friendship for knowledge; wherefore any one might be called a philosopher, according to that natural love which inspires all men with a desire for knowledge.” L. c. 3. 11. 3: “Philosophy has for subject the understanding, and for form an almost divine love for the intelligible.” L. c. 3. 12. 4: “Philosophy is a loving use of Wisdom; which exists above all in God, because in Him is supreme Wisdom, and supreme Love, and supreme Power, which cannot exist elsewhere, except as it proceeds from Him.”<br />In Conv. 4. 6. 9 relations are established between philosophic and imperial authority. “When joined together they are most useful and most full of power. . . . Unite the philosophical and the imperial authority to rule well and perfectly.”<br />Philosophy is, Purg. 6. 45, “A light betwixt the truth and understanding.”<br />Purg. 18. 46: “All that reason has seen I can tell thee.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt458"></a><a name="a_3342427"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt458#c_lf1477_footnote_nt458">[15. ]</a> “In ainola ista mortalium.” The same word is used in the Italian form, “aiuola,” in Par. 22. 151 and 27. 86.<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt459"></a><a name="a_3342428"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt459#c_lf1477_footnote_nt459">[16. ]</a>De Consol. Phil. 3. 9: “All things Thou dost produce after the Divine Exemplar, Thou the most beautiful, carrying in thy mind the beautiful world.”<br />This idea of God’s foresight and the foreordination of all things in the universe is found repeatedly in all Dante’s writings. See quotations in notes to De Mon. 1. 6.<br />Inf. 7. 72: “He, whose knowledge transcends all, made the heavens, and gave them their guide.”<br />Par. 18. 118: “The Mind wherein thy motion and thy virtue have their origin.”<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt460"></a><a name="a_3342429"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt460#c_lf1477_footnote_nt460">[17. ]</a> “In the Holy Roman Empire the college of lay and ecclesiastical princes in whom the right of choosing the King of the Romans was vested. With the extinction of the Carolingian line, after the breaking up of the Empire of Charles the Great, the kingship in Germany became elective, the right of election residing in certain of the great feudatories, though just in whom or on what grounds is not clear from the early mediaeval accounts. An electoral body is vaguely mentioned in chronicles of 1152, 1198, and 1230, but there is no clear indication as to who composed the body. . . . The electoral college was first clearly defined in 1356 in the Golden Bull, a constitution for the Holy Roman Empire, issued by Emperor Charles IV. This document prescribed the exact form and manner of election of the ‘King of the Romans and future Emperor.’ Seven electors are there named, each holding some hereditary office in the Imperial court. (1) Archbishop of Mainz, as Archchancellor of the Holy Roman Empire for Germany; (2) Archbishop of Cologne, as Archchancellor for Italy; (3) Archbishop of Treves, as Archchancellor for the Gallic Provinces and Arles; (4) King of Bohemia, Arch-Cupbearer; (5) Count Palatine of the Rhine, Arch-Steward; (6) Duke of Saxony, Arch-Marshal; (7) Margrave of Brandenburg, Arch-Chamberlain. It seems that the electors had no legal powers beyond that of election, and though the German princes held that an election by the German electors held for the Holy Roman Empire, the popes contended that they alone as Vicars of God could bestow the Imperial dignity.”—New International Encyc. See also Bryce, Holy Roman Empire, c. 14; Hallam, Middle Ages, chap. 8, part 2; Turner, Germanic Constitution (New York, 1888); the Golden Bull is translated in Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages (London, 1892).<br /><a name="lf1477_footnote_nt461"></a><a name="a_3342430"></a><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&layout=html#c_lf1477_footnote_nt461#c_lf1477_footnote_nt461">[18. ]</a> This harmonious rule of two powers by the acknowledgment of filial relationship between Pope and Emperor, by recognition of the differing character of their functions, is prayed for by Dante in many parts of the Convito and Comedy, and is stated most briefly and forcibly in Purg. 16. 107: “Rome, that made the good world, was wont to have two suns, that showed the one and the other road, both of the world and of God.”<br />The close of the Letter to the Princes and Peoples of Italy is strangely like the close of the De Monarchia. Proclaiming Henry VII as the rightful Emperor, Dante writes: “This is he whom Peter, the Vicar of God, admonishes us to honor; whom Clement, now the successor of Peter, illuminates with the light of the apostolic benediction, in order that where the spiritual ray does not suffice, the splendor of the lesser light may illumine.’ ”The dual organization of Church and Empire is also set forth in symbolic fashion in Inf. 14. 102 ff., and in Dante’s vision Purg. 32.</p><br /><br /><p></p>coordinatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01483215435633115889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001519995842436212.post-74319048870258568772009-05-06T12:05:00.008+02:002009-05-22T12:54:59.603+02:00The Anatomy of Peace<div align="left">THE ANATOMY OF PEACE<br />BY<br />EMERY REVES<br /><br />CHAPTER I<br />A COPERNICAN WORLD<br /><br />NOTHING can distort the true picture of conditions and events in this world more than to regard one's own country as the center of the universe, and to view all things solely in their relationship to this fixed point. It is inevitable that such a method of observation should create an entirely false perspective. Yet this is the only method admitted and used by the seventy or eighty national governments of our world, by our legislators and diplomats, by our press and radio. All the conclusions, principles and policies of the peoples are necessarily drawn from the warped picture of the world obtained by so primitive a method of observation. Within such a contorted system of assumed fixed points, it is easy to demonstrate that the view taken from each point corresponds to reality. If we admit and apply this method, the viewpoint of every single nation appears indisputably correct and wholly justified. But we arrive at a hopelessly confused and grotesque over-all picture of the world. Let us see how international events between the two world wars look from some of the major national vantage points. The United States of America, faithful to the Monroe Doctrine and to its traditions of aloofness from Europe, did not want to enter the first World War. But the Germans were sinking American ships, violating American rights and threatening American interests. So in 1917, the United States was forced to go to war in defense of American rights. They went into battle determined to fight the war to end all war, and to "make the world safe for democracy." They fought bravely and spent lavishly. Their intervention decided the outcome of the struggle in favor of the Allies. But as soon as the shooting was over, the major Allied powers—Britain, France, Italy and Japan—betrayed the common cause. They were unwilling to base the peace on Wilson's ideals. They signed secret treaties between themselves. They did not want a just peace. They wanted to annex territories, islands, bases; they wanted to impose high reparation payments on the defeated countries and other measures of vengeance. America, disgusted by the quarrels and selfishness of the other nations and disillusioned by the old game of power politics, retired from the European hornet's nest, after having been abused, outsmarted and double-crossed by her former associates. America wanted only to be allowed to mind her own business, to build up the wealth and happiness of her own citizens. The foreign nations—who would have been crushed without American intervention and who were saved by America—even defaulted on their war debts and refused to repay the loans America had made to them in their hour of danger. So even financial and economic relations with the European powers had to be reduced to a minimum and American capital had to be protected by prohibiting loans to defaulting foreigners. American policy was fully justified by the ensuing events. Clouds were again gathering in Europe, Military dictatorships were arising in many countries, a race of armaments had started, violence broke out and the whole continent was on the verge of another great war—more of the old European quarrels and power politics. Naturally, it was of primary interest to the United States to keep out of these senseless internecine old-world fights. The supreme duty of the American government to its people was to maintain strict neutrality toward the warring nations across the ocean. Thanks to the weakness of the appeasement policy and the blindness of Britain, France and Soviet Russia, the totalitarian powers sueceeded in conquering the entire European continent. German troops occupied the whole Atlantic seacoast from Norway to Equatorial Africa. Simultaneously, the Japanese succeeded in conquering the entire Chinese coastline, menacing the American-controlled Philippine Islands. Incredible and unbelievable as it was, no one could fail to see that the European and Asiatic military powers, known as the Axis, were planning the conquest of North and South America. In sheer self-defense, America was obliged to transform herself into the arsenal of democracy, producing weapons for the British and Russians to fight the Germans. Then, on a day which will "live in infamy" the Japanese Empire launched an unprovoked aggression against peace-loving America and, together with Germany and Italy, declared war upon her. Once forced into the war, the nation arose as one man. In a short time, it became obvious that once again the United States was saving the civilized Western world. Events have demonstrated that disarmament and disinterestedness cannot protect America from foreign aggression. Therefore, peace in the world can be preserved only if the United States maintains a large army, the biggest navy and the biggest air force in the world, and secures bases at all strategic points commanding the approaches to the Western Hemisphere. How do these same twenty years look from the fixed point of the British Isles? In 1914, Britain went to the defense of Belgium, France and Russia. It was impossible for her to stand by while militarist Germany was marching to occupy and control the Channel coast. Britain could not permit Germany to obtain European hegemony and to become the dominating industrial and military power on the Continent, menacing the lifelines of the British Empire and threatening to reduce the British Isles to starvation and poverty. When, at the cost of tremendous efforts and the lives of more than one million of her sons, Britain, together with her allies, won victory, she naturally wanted to see German military might eliminated once and for all from the path of the British Empire. It was only just that the German fleet be destroyed, that German colonies be annexed and that Germany be made to pay reparations. Unfortunately, the isolationists in America stabbed Wilson in the back and the United States deserted her allies, England remained alone to face the European problem. Without the United States and without the Dominions, she could not give the guarantees France demanded and had to be careful lest after victory over Germany, France should take the place of the defeated Reich and become an overwhelmingly dominating military power on the Continent. As the French went berserk, refusing to disarm and occupying the Ruhr, England had to become the moderator in Europe and to continue the traditional balance-of-power policy that had been successful for so many centuries. Bolshevik Russia, after the failure of military intervention supported by the Allies, succeeded in stabilizing a Communist regime, and through the Third Internationale and the various Communist parties in Europe, threatened the entire Continent with revolution. Germany, suffering under the consequences of defeat and French intransigence, with six million unemployed, was particularly susceptible to revolutionary turmoil. It was of paramount importance for European peace that German economy be restored and stabilized. Mussolini had succeeded in re-establishing order in Italy and the growing strength of the National Socialist movement in Germany seemed to stem the tide of Bolshevism. But Great Britain's economic problems were becoming aggravated. The Americans erected high tariff walls and refused to import British goods, thus making it impossible for Great Britain to repay her war debts. She was forced to give up her traditional free trade policy and to enter into a preference system with the Dominions. Italian and German intentions by this time began to alarm France and the smaller countries of Europe. Two camps began to crystallize, one trying to preserve the status quo of the Treaty of Versailles, the other seeking revisions favorable to them. Then as now peace was England's paramount interest and her natural role was to be the mediator between the two factions, to attempt as many revisions as possible by peaceful means so as to check the dynamism of the dictatorships, and to prevent an outbreak of hostilities at any cost. When Italy embarked upon her unfortunate military operation in Ethiopia, England championed the principles of the League. Sanctions were voted and imposed upon the aggressor by more than fifty nations under British leadership. It was a most alarming factor that France, frightened by growing German power and in the hope of obtaining Italian assistance against Germany in Europe, gave Italy a free hand in Ethiopia. So the League was sabotaged by France. Italy could not be stopped except by intervention of the British fleet, which would have meant risking a major war and had to be avoided. Shortly after the Italian conquest of Ethiopia, Germany reoccupied the Rhineland. France, in her first reaction, wanted to march, but England prevented a military clash between the two major continental powers. For the pacification of Europe, an agreement was made with Germany granting her a new fleet, thirty-five per cent of the British tonnage. Thereafter, Germany and Italy formed a military alliance and provoked a civil war in Spain to try out new weapons and new methods of warfare, and to establish a regime friendly to them. This incident created a highly charged atmosphere all over Europe. Russians were actually fighting German and Italian forces on Spanish soil. Only by pursuing the strictest policy of non-intervention and exercising the utmost patience was England able to prevent France from intervening and spreading the fight all over the Continent. In the face of these threatening events, England succeeded in strengthening her ties with France. Unhappily, still further sacrifices had to be made to prevent a war, which England could not risk, as she was almost completely unprepared. Other adjustments of the territorial status of Europe had to be considered. At Munich, British diplomacy was taxed to the utmost to obtain the transfer of German inhabited Czechoslovak territories to the Reich without a violent conflict. Once again England had saved the peace. But after Munich, it was apparent that Germany had made up her mind to conquer Europe, England had to begin rearming and to look around for allies. Belgium and Holland, jealous of their neutrality, did not admit military discussions, but the alliance with France was strengthened, alliances with Poland and Rumania were signed and every effort was made to reach an understanding with the Soviet Union. The Poles, however, stubbornly refused to permit Russian troops passage across Polish territory in case of war and in the middle of negotiations in Moscow, a diplomatic bomb exploded. Russia, betraying her Western democratic friends, had signed a nonaggression pact with Nazi Germany. That gave Germany the green light to attack Poland. All this happened within a few days and England, honoring her pledged word, declared war upon Germany. It was impossible for Britain to bring military help to the Poles in time and Poland was defeated in a few weeks. British troops, however, were sent to France, the best-equipped army ever to cross the Channel. They, along with French soldiers, took their posts at the Belgian and German frontiers and waited for the German attack, believing the defense system they and their allies held to be impregnable. But Hider, instead of opening an offensive against the Allies, attacked the peaceful and undefended neutral countries of Denmark and Norway. Britain immediately sent an expeditionary force to Narvik, which fought gallantly but which had to withdraw before overwhelming enemy forces supported by land-based planes. Shortly thereafter, the Germans made a frontal attack against the west, occupying neutral Holland and Belgium in a few days. They turned the Maginot line and cracked the French defenses. The King of Belgium surrendered. Only some of the British troops could be evacuated from Dunkirk and other ports of France, All the equipment of the British Expeditionary Force was lost. France, inadequately equipped and undermined by Nazi propaganda, betrayed her British ally by refusing to continue the fight on the side of the British Commonwealth in the Mediterranean and in Africa, and capitulated to Germany. The whole Continent was in German hands and England stood alone. The situation seemed hopeless. England was without defenses. The Luftwaffe began to bomb London and British industrial centers. Italy began to move against Egypt and Suez. Both the mother country and the lifeline of the empire in the Middle East were in mortal danger. Britain could have saved her empire had she accepted German hegemony in Europe, but she preferred to fight all alone, even if she had to fight on her beaches, on her hills and in her villages. Along with the sacrifice of tens of thousands of civilians, she won the Battle of Britain, fought off the Luftwaffe with a few fighter planes, fought the German submarines singlehanded, mobilized her entire population and dispatched everything she could to the Near East to stem Mussolini's advancing armies. For more than a year, Britain alone defended the cause of democracy. Neither the Soviet Union nor the United States was prepared to enter the war on her side. Only when Germany actually attacked Russia and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and invaded the Philippines did Russia and the United States join forces with the British Commonwealth to achieve final victory. From the point of view of France, the picture looked like this: In 1914, France suffered the second German invasion within half a century. The entire north and east of France were devastated and only by tremendous bloodshed and the sacrifice of a million and a half of her sons could France defend her soil. With the help of the Allies, Germany was finally defeated. The supreme thought in the mind of every Frenchman was to be secure against another German aggression. France felt strongly that as the bastion of Western democracy she was entitled to security, to prevent her soil becoming the permanent battlefield of Teutonic aggression. To obviate the constant threat of Germans on the west bank of the Rhine, France demanded the Rhine as the new Franco-German border. Further, she demanded that Germany be demilitarized and forced to make reparation for the damage caused to France. At the peace conferences, however, she was abandoned by the United States and even to some extent by England and was obliged to accept a compromise. After having yielded to Anglo-American pressure she asked the United States and Britain to guarantee her eastern frontiers against German revenge. They refused. With a population much smaller than Germany, with a stationary birth rate in the face of Germany's increasing population, France had to rely on her own aimed strength and on what alliances she could make with the newly created, smaller states east and south of Germany. When the Reich began to sabotage reparation payments, France, standing oil her rights, occupied the Ruhr, but was not supported by her allies. After America had withdrawn from Europe into isolation, France did her utmost to support the League of Nations and, with her smaller allies, suggested a mutual assistance pact within the League —the Geneva Protocol. Britain refused to commit herself. France found a substitute in the Locarno agreements which at least guaranteed security in the West. From the threat of reborn German militarism in the form of Nazism, she vainly sought protection from England and finally turned to Italy whose interest regarding the prevention of the Austrian Anschluss was identical with that of France. But Italy abused France's gesture and attacked Ethiopia, in violation of her obligations to the League. France was in a desperate position between the League and Mussolini; and in the end lost the friendship of Italy to uphold the League. When the Germans remilitarized the Rhineland, France was alarmed and called upon her partners in the Locarno Pact, but they turned a deaf ear and she had to accept the German fait accomflu Feeling abandoned and growing weaker in the face of rapidly increasing German military power, France sought an alliance with Russia but was hindered by Poland who, although allied with France, would not give Russian troops permission to march through Polish territory. When Germany and Italy fomented and supported the Franco military revolution against the Spanish Republic, it was obviously a move to encircle France. This maneuver foreboded grave events. France wanted to intervene on the republican side and thus prevent Franco, supported by Hider and Mussolini, from coming to power. But England opposed such a move. So the French Republic had to stand by and watch a hostile Fascist power being established by her enemies on her third land frontier. She had staked everything on her friendship with Britain. When it was obvious that Germany had become the dominating military and industrial power in Europe and that none of the other great powers, neither the United States nor Britain nor Russia, realized the imminence of danger, many Frenchmen felt that to oppose German might singlehanded was a suicidal policy, that the French must resign themselves to German supremacy in Europe and accept the position of a secondary power on the Continent. France's internal stability was greatly imperilled by a violent cleavage between capital and labor, and differences of opinion between those who advocated a French policy of collaboration with England and Russia and those who sought an arrangement with Germany. In spite of these difficulties, France kept faith with her British ally and continued to follow her lead. She accepted Munich, sacrificing Czechoslovakia, her most faithful friend on the Continent. Her armies were mobilized several times to be in readiness at critical moments. And when even Russia abandoned her, signing a treaty with Germany, and Hider attacked Poland, France fulfilled her obligation toward her Polish ally, despite the difficulties and disappointments created by the pro-German Polish policy of the previous years. France declared war on Germany, mobilized six million men and exposed herself to the inrush of Nazi military might. She urged Britain to send strong forces across the Channel but England sent only two or three hundred thousand men and when the Germans attacked in the west, France had to carry the burden of fighting practically alone. The King of Belgium laid down arms. The entire British Expeditionary Force was encircled and pushed into the sea at Dunkirk. The German Panzer divisions swept across all the northern departments of France with overwhelming force. In this critical moment, Italy stabbed France in the back and declared war. The military situation was hopeless. France appealed to America for help which was refused. The British withdrew, betraying their alliance with France in her darkest hour. There was no alternative but to accept the bitter humiliation of defeat and surrender, hoping for a miracle of resurrection and trying to accommodate France to the new order in Europe, to ease the suffering of her people. For four years, the French endured German occupation and helplessly watched the Nazis looting the country. They organized a heroic resistance movement both inside and outside France and four years later, after America had been forced into the war by Germany and Japan, when the Anglo-American troops landed on French beaches, French resistance forces from outside came with them, and French resistance armies within the country arose, liberating their cities and villages, and contributing considerably to the Allied victory. The image of these same events during the same period appeared to the German people as follows: For more than four years from 1914 to 1918 the German armies fought a coalition of almost the entire world, which had refused Germany the place under the sun her growing population required. In spite of their numerical superiority, the Allies never defeated the German armies in battle but they did succeed in blinding a section of the German people with promises of a just peace so that pacifists, socialists, democrats and Jews at home revolted and stabbed the German armies in the back. At Versailles, Germany was unjustly accused of having been responsible for the war. The Allies imposed upon her a treaty based on this lie which meant the dismemberment and enslavement of the German people. Nevertheless, Germany signed this shameful treaty and did her utmost to fulfil its terms and to re-establish a friendly relationship with her former enemies, believing in their promises to disarm. Germany herself was disarmed and her people toiled in utmost poverty and misery to fulfil their obligations toward the victors. On a pretext, France occupied the Ruhr, Germany s center of industrial production, establishing a regime of terror to enforce the unfulfillable clauses of the treaty. German economic life was disrupted and the country was plunged into an inflation which destroyed all the savings of the German population. Yet Germany accepted the Locarno treaties, guaranteeing once and for all her western frontiers, and entered the League. Germany signed the Kellogg Pact and outlawed war as an instrument of national policy. She insisted that the other parties keep their promises to disarm but they refused to do so. The chains of the Versailles Treaty became unbearable. The Allied powers refused to give Germany equality, a fair share in world trade, colonies and markets in central and southern Europe. Unemployment grew and misery reached unprecedented depths. Communism was spreading and it looked as if Germany would disintegrate, the German people be enslaved forever. During these desperate years, a savior arose who filled the German people with new hope, rallied them to his banner and promised work, bread, progress, strength for resurrection. The German people, by their own will power, liberated themselves from the chains of the Versailles Treaty, restored their own sovereignty by remilitarizing the German Rhineland. As the Allied powers re fused to disarm and broke their own pledges, Ger many regarded the military clauses of the treaty as null and void and began to assert her own dignity anc to rearm. It was impossible for sixty-five million people to live in such a small and poor country. They needed living space if peace was to he preserved. The separation of German Austria from the Reich was ended and the German peoples were at last united. The new Germany gave work to everybody, spread wealth and happiness in the land and created a prosperity, a period of building and construction, unprecedented in German history. The German nation could not tolerate the spreading of Bolshevism in Europe and at great sacrifice helped the Spanish people to exterminate this Asiatic threat. As Germany arose from her defeat and was again a great, independent power, she could no longer admit the intolerable oppression and persecution of her blood brethren in Czechoslovakia. Relying on the righteousness of her cause, she claimed incorporation of the Sudeten German territories in the Reich which the former enemies of Germany were made to accept without force. But the enemies of peace had learned nothing. The Poles refused to stop oppressing and torturing German minorities and to allow their return to the German Reich. So Germany, to protect and defend her peoples, was forced to act. To prove her pacific intentions, she signed a treaty of nonaggression with Soviet Russia and liberated the lost German territories in the East. England and France, who for a long time were jealously watching Germany's resurrection, took advantage of her pacification of the East and declared war on the Reich without any provocation and with the clear intention of once again destroying and enslaving the German people. Germany had no quarrel with her western neighbors. So, although the Western world was fully mobilized and menaced German soil, Germany did not undertake any action but waited in the hope of a reasonable settlement with England and France. A few months later, however, it was obvious that England was planning to violate Danish and Norwegian neutrality in order to outflank German defenses from the north. The Wehrmacht had to intervene and protect the neutrality of Denmark and Norway. Shortly thereafter, British invasion of Belgium and Holland and the outflanking of the Westwall was threatening. No more time could be wasted. Germany had to strike in self-defense. The Wehrmacht attacked and in a few days achieved the greatest military victory of all times. Belgium and Holland were occupied, the British pushed back into the sea and France was brought to capitulation. In Compi&gne, the Fuehrer avenged once and for all the German humiliation of 1918. Again Germany appealed to England to save the peace of the world, guaranteeing the integrity of the British Empire in exchange for British recognition of German Lehensraum in Europe. Britain stubbornly refused and began to bomb German cities in violation of civilized warfare. Germany was forced to retaliate. She had to strike at British harbors and military targets and to stop deliveries of arms to England by torpedoing British convoys. The Anti-Comintern Pact, which united the anti-Bolshevik forces of the new order, and the German-Russian nonaggression pact, kept peace in the East. But intelligence reports made it more and more obvious that Soviet Russia was using the Russo-German pact merely to gain time and was secretly arming to the utmost of her ability. Russia was making preparations for an attack on Germany at a moment most convenient for her. Naturally, Germany could not expose herself to such mortal danger. She had to forestall Bolshevik treachery. With a lightning decision— characteristic of the intuition of the Fuehrer—Germany, in self-defense, struck at her foe. Her armies marched against the Soviet Union in order to prevent Bolshevik aggression and to destroy the Red Army, the greatest threat to European civilization. . . . And from the vantage point of Moscow, the same quarter century appeared in this light: In 1917, the Russian people succeeded in overthrowing the autocratic dynasty which had oppressed and enslaved them for centuries, and established a socialist people's republic The capitalist powers, the allies of czarist Russia, intervened militarily. America, England, France, Poland, sent troops into Russia to destroy the new republic and to re-establish the old regime of exploitation. The rapidly organized Red Army fought heroically, defeated the invaders and liberated the Russian soil. However, the young Soviet forces were not yet strong enough to push the armies of the capitalist imperialists back to the pre-war frontier and so the Soviet government, in order to secure peace the quickest possible way, accepted a settlement which meant a loss of Russia's Baltic and western provinces. In spite of this settlement imposed on the Russian people, the hostility of the outside world toward the socialist experiment of the Soviet Union continued. Russia finally emerged from her involuntary isolation after five years by signing a treaty in Rapallo with the other prostrate power, Germany. Russia needed machinery, tools, engineers, to build up her industries and to raise the material conditions of her peoples, and Germany was prepared to do business with her. The Soviet Union bought everything for cash and paid in gold, so very soon England and America also began to sell their products in exchange for Russian gold. But the U.S.S.R. did not succeed in breaking the political hostility of the capitalist world. It became more and more obvious that the success of the Communist economic system aroused great apprehensions abroad and that the capitalist, imperialist countries would attack and destroy the Soviet Union at the earliest opportunity. All the neighboring countries— Finland, the Baltic States, Poland, Rumania, Turkey, the British Empire, Japan—were openly defying the Soviet Union and following an anti-Soviet policy. So Russia had to postpone her great plan to produce consumer goods in mass quantities and was forced by circumstances to build up key industries in order to construct factories for armament production, and to organize a land army and an air force of huge proportions to defend the Union. The more powerful the U.S.S.R. became, the more resentment and animosity grew in capitalist countries. The friends of the Soviet people, the Communists, were persecuted everywhere. A new type of military imperialism, Fascism, was seizing power in one country after the other, intent upon destroying socialist Russia. When Fascism came into power in Germany and mobilized the great German industrial potential for war against Russia, the Soviet government tried to come to an agreement with the Western democratic nations who were also threatened by the growing German militarism. The Soviet Union entered the League of Nations and worked with all her might for the establishment of a system of collective security, for a system of alliances of the peace-loving nations, to make peace indivisible and to check aggression collectively whenever and wherever it started. Soon a Fascist aggression occurred. Italy attacked Ethiopia, But all the powers hesitated, temporized and appeased the aggressor, leaving Russia isolated in her fight for collective security. For several years, the Soviet Union passionately continued trying to organize the world for peace, advocating co-operation of the democratic, socialist and Communist forces in all countries to keep Fascism from spreading and to prevent aggression. America was inaccessible. England and France clearly did not want to align themselves formally with Soviet Russia against the Fascist forces. It became increasingly apparent that they would welcome a Fascist attack on the Soviet Union, that they would like to see the German people and their satellites engaged with the Soviet people in a long and bloody struggle. The Soviet government, desiring peace and knowing how disastrous such a war would be for the Soviet people, watched these maneuvers and manifestations of ill will with growing apprehension. They did their utmost to persuade the Western democracies of the suicidal short-sightedness of their policy. Finally, when Munich came and Britain and France, without even consulting the Soviet Union, sacrificed Czechoslovakia on the altar of appeasement, and permitted the destruction of the most valuable military link between Russia and the West, the situation became acute. A decision had to be made. Britain and France were invited to Moscow for conferences, but they sent only third-rate negotiators, affronting the Soviet government. Those negotiations left no doubt that even then, the Western powers did not desire wholehearted collaboration with Russia. They accepted the point of view of the Polish Fascists who refused to grant the Red Army permission to advance to the Polish-German border to organize common defenses. Then and there, it was clear that the arrangement suggested to the Soviet Union by the Western powers had no practical meaning and that it would inevitably result in a clash between the German and Russian armies with terrible bloodshed and serious consequences for the Soviet Union. To prevent such a catastrophe, the Soviet government had to make a decision. A radical change had to be made in past policy. They accepted a German proposal for a nonaggression pact which guaranteed the Soviet frontiers and peace, at least for a certain time, between the German Reich and the U.S.S.R. After signing the pact, the German armies attacked Poland. The Polish armies—on which the Western powers had wanted to base their entire Eastern defenses—collapsed in a few days. The Polish state ceased to exist. To prevent the Nazi militarists from reaching the Soviet borders, Red Army units reoccupied the lands inhabited by Ukrainians and White Russians which had been stolen from them by Poland during the revolution when the Soviet Union was weak. Through this act of foresight the German armies were stopped at a safe distance from the heart of Russia, and the Anti-Comintern Pact, the alliance between Germany, Japan and their satellites, against the Soviet Union was neutralized. Shortly after, Soviet diplomacy was justified when Germany attacked the West, defeating the French and British armies, and established Nazi hegemony over the entire European Continent, except the Soviet Union. One year later, the German Fascists unmasked their aggressive imperialism. Hider violated his pact with Moscow and attacked the Soviet Union. By that time, however, the Russian armies were in readiness and defense industries were working to full capacity far behind the front lines. As a result of German aggression against the Soviet Union, the U.S.S.R. became the ally of the British Empire and later, of the United States. All these tragic events prove how correct was Russia's foreign policy, how justified her admonitions to the democratic world in the pre-war years. But they also show that the U.S.S.R. must constantly be alert and prepared in the face of intrigues and aggressions of any of the foreign countries. In a world of hostile powers, the Soviet Union will have to maneuver between them and accept the alliances of those who will align themselves with her against the power or powers which represent the most imminent danger to the Soviet motherland. The dramatic and strange events between the two world wars could be just as well described from the point of view of any other nation, large or small. From Tokyo or Warsaw, from Riga or Rome, from Prague or Budapest, each picture will be entirely different and, from the fixed national point of observation, it will always be indisputably and unchallengeably correct. And the citizens of every country will be at all times convinced—and rightly so—of the infallibility of their views and the objectivity of their conclusions. It is surely obvious that agreement, or common understanding, between different nations, basing their relations on such a primitive method of judgment, is an absolute impossibility. A picture of the world pieced together like a mosaic from its various national components is a picture that never and under no circumstances can have any relation to reality, unless we deny that such a thing as reality exists. The world and history cannot be as they appear to the different nations, unless we disavow objectivity, reason and scientific methods of research. But if we believe that man is, to a certain degree, different from the animal and that he is endowed with a capacity for phenomenological thinking, then the time has come to realize that our inherited method of observation in political and social matters is childishly primitive, hopelessly inadequate and thoroughly wrong. If we want to try to create at least the beginning of orderly relations between nations, we must try to arrive at a more scientific, more objective method of observation, without which we shall never be able to see social and political problems as they really are, nor to perceive their incidence. And without a correct diagnosis of the disease, there is no hope for a cure. Our political and social thinking today is passing through a revolutionary era very much the same as were astronomy and abstract science during the Renaissance. For more than fourteen centuries, the geocentric theory of the universe, formulated and laid down by Ptolemy in the second century A.D. in Alexandria, was paramount in the scientific world. According to this theory—as explained in Ptolemy's famous Almagest, the culmination of Greek astronomy—the earth was the center of the universe around which revolved the sun, the moon and all the stars. No matter how primitive such a conception of the universe appears to us today, it remained unchallenged and unchallengeable for fourteen hundred years. All possible experimentation and observation before the sixteenth century A.D. confirmed the Ptolemaic system as a rock of indisputable scientific truth. Strangely enough, Greek scientists several centuries before Ptolemy had a concept of the universe far more advanced and nearer to our modern knowledge. As far back as the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras visualized the earth and the universe as being spherical in shape. One of his later disciples, Aristarchus of Samos, in the third century B.C., in his hypothesis deposed the earth as the center of the universe, and declared it to he a "planet," like the many other celestial bodies. This system, called the Pythagorean system, plainly anticipated the Copernican hypothesis nineteen centuries later. It was probably not completely developed by Pythagoras himself, hut it had been known several hundred years before Ptolemy, Yet for almost two thousands years following the first insight into the real construction and functioning of the universe, people were convinced that all the celestial bodies revolved around the earth, which was the fixed center of the universe. The geocentric system worked perfectly as long as it could solve all the problems which presented themselves under the then existing methods of observation. Ptolemy himself appears to have sensed and suspected the transitory character of his system, as in his Syntaods he laid down the general principle that in seeking to explain phenomena, we should adopt the simplest possible hypothesis, provided it is not contradicted in any important respect Toy observation. The geocentric theory of Ptolemy was perfectly in harmony with the religious dogma concerning the story of the creation of the universe as told in the Bible and it became the doctrine approved by the Church. But in fifteenth century Italy, under the light of new learning and observation and under the impetus of the revolt against the dictatorship of accepted philosophical and scientific doctrines, there came a radical change. Several thinkers, particularly one Dominico Maria Novara, denounced the Ptolemaic system and began spreading "Pythagorean opinions"—as they were called—about the universe. Around 1500, these old, yet revolutionary ideas, attracted and deeply interested young Copernicus while he was studying at the universities of Bologna and Padua. So new circumstances, new methods of observation, new needs, led to the birth of the Copernican system, one of the most gigantic steps of scientific progress in human history. Through the Copernican system, man's outlook on the universe changed fundamentally. In this new concept, the earth itself rotated. It was no longer a stable point. Our globe, just like the other planets, revolved in space around the sun and the new theory of planetary movement was founded on the principle of relativity of motion. This heliocentric theory of Copernicus was by no means perfect. It solved many problems the Ptolemaic system could not solve, but certain outstanding anomalies compromised its harmonious working. It is also well known that for- thirty-five years Copernicus did not dare publicly proclaim his discovery. When he finally decided to publish it (in the year of his death) he called his theory "Hypothesis" to forestall the wradi of the Church and public opinion. The later experience of Galileo proved how justified were the fears of Copernicus. The heliocentric theory was not only condemned by the church authorities as heresy; it was rejected by the greatest astronomers and other scientists of the time. Indeed, it was impossible to prove Copernicus' hypothesis by the then existing methods of observation. Only later, through the work of Kepler and Galileo, was the heliocentric theory put on a solid scientific foundation. At its inception, the Copernican system was nothing more than a daring speculation. But it opened a new world, pointed out the road to science and prompted new and more refined methods of observation which finally led to general acceptance of the revolutionary but correct outlook on the universe. During the first half of the twentieth century, in so far as our political, social and economic thinking is concerned, we find ourselves in the same dead-end road as Copernicus during the Jubilee of 1500, We are living in a geocentric world of nation-states. We look upon economic, social and political problems as "national" problems. No matter in which country we live, the center of our political universe is our own nation. In our outlook, the immovable point around which all the other nations, all the problems and events outside our nation, the rest of the world, supposedly rotate, is—our nation. This is our basic and fundamental dogma. According to this nation-centric conception of world affairs, we can solve political, economic and social problems within our nation, the fixed, immutable center, in one way—through law and government. And in the circumambient world around us, in our relations with the peoples of other nations, these same problems should be treated by other means—by "policy" and "diplomacy." According to this nation-centric conception of world affairs, the political, social and economic relations between man and man living within a sovereign national unit, and these very same relationships between man and man living in separate sovereign national units are qualitatively different and require two qualitatively different methods of handling. For many centuries such an approach was unchallenged and unchallengeable. It served to solve current problems in a satisfactory way and the existing methods of production, distribution, of communications and of interchange among the nations did not necessitate nor justify the formulation and acceptance of a different outlook. But the scientific and technological developments achieved by the industrial revolution in one century have brought about in our political outlook and in our approach to political and social phenomena a change as inevitable and imperative as the Renaissance brought about in our philosophical outlook. The developments creating that need are revolutionary and without parallel in human history. In one century, the population of this earth has been more than trebled. Since the very beginning of recorded history, for ten thousand years, communication was based on animal power. During the American and French revolutions, transportation was scarcely faster than it had been under the Pharaohs, at the time of Buddha or of the Incas. And then, after a static aeon of ten thousand years, transportation changed within a single short century from animal power to the steam and electric railroad, the internal combustion automobile and the six hundred-mile-per-hour jet propulsion plane. After thousands of years of primitive, rural existence in which all human beings, with few exceptions, were exhausted from producing with their own hands just enough food, clothing and shelter for sheer survival, in less than one century the population of the entire Western world has become consumers of mass-production commodities. The change created by industrialism is so revolutionary, so profound, that it is without parallel in the history of any civilization. Despite Spengler, it is unique. In this new and as yet unexplored era we find ourselves completely helpless, equipped with the inadequate, primitive political and social notions inherited from the pre-industrialized world. Slowly we are coming to realize that none of our accepted theories is satisfactory to cope with the disturbing and complex problems of today. We realize that although we can have all the machinery we need, we cannot solve the problems of production. We realize that in spite of the far-flung and tremendous scope of transportation, we cannot prevent famine and starvation in many places, while there is abundance elsewhere on the earth. We realize that although hundreds of millions are desperately in need of food and industrial products, we cannot prevent mass unemployment. We realize that even though we have mined more gold than ever before, we cannot stabilize currency. We realize that while every modern country needs raw materials that other countries have, and produces goods which other countries need, we have been unable to organize a satisfactory method of exchange- We realize that although the overwhelming majority of all people hate violence and long to live in peace, we cannot prevent recurrent and increasingly devastating world wars. We knew that armaments must lead to wars between nations, but we have learned the bitter truth that disarmament also leads to war. In this confusion and chaos in which civilized nations are struggling with utter helplessness, we are bound to arrive at the inevitable conclusion that the cause of this hopelessness and helplessness lies not in the outer world but in ourselves. Not in the problems we have to solve but in the hypotheses with which we approach their solutions. Our political and social conceptions are Ptolemaic, The world in which we live is Copernican. Our Ptolemaic political conceptions in a Copernican industrial world are bankrupt. Latest observations on ever-changing conditions have made our Ptolemaic approach utterly ridiculous and out-of-date. We still believe, in each one of the seventy or eighty sovereign states, that our "nation" is the immovable center around which the whole world revolves. There is not the slightest hope that we can possibly solve any of the vital problems of our generation until we rise above dogmatic nation-centric conceptions and realize that, in order to understand the political, economic and social problems of this highly integrated and industrialized world, we have to shift our standpoint and see all the nations and national matters in motion, in their interrelated functions, rotating according to the same laws without any fixed points created by our own imagination for our own convenience.</div><div align="left"></div><div align="left">PART ONE</div><div align="left"></div><div align="left">CHAPTER II</div><div align="left">FAILURE OF CAPITALISM</div><div align="left"></div><div align="left">IN THE present turmoil of international relations, we hear nation accusing nation in a most peculiar way, the voice of each lifted against the others. Fascist countries assert that democracy and Communism are one and the same thing, that democracy is only a political corollary of Communism, that a democratic system of government must lead to Bolshevism. Communists insist that democracy and Fascism are one and the same thing, that both are capitalist, that under both, private capital exploits the workers, that Fascism is the latest and highest form of capitalism, nothing but a device of reactionaries to destroy socialism. Democratic countries emphasize more and more frequently that Fascism and Communism are one and the same thing, that both are totalitarian dictatorships oppressing the peoples by means of a ruthless police, destroying all liberties and reducing the individual to the status of a serf. A grain of truth can be found in each of these triangular cross-charges. But actually, each expresses a superficial and worthless point of view. Mankind is engaged in an unprecedented life and death struggle, in a world-wide civil war waged around these social, political and economic conceptions. If it is to survive, these vital issues must be clarified, these conflicting notions must be separated and defined objectively. Individualist capitalism, the system of free enterprise and free competition, was the dominant economic philosophy at the birth of industrialism. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, when the industrial revolution began, the liberating political revolutions of the late eighteenth century had been consolidated, their aims achieved. Democratic nation-states, republics and constitutional monarchies, were firmly established in the Western world. It was only natural that the political ideals which had triumphed should also become the prevailing basic principles of the economists, manufacturers and traders of the early industrial age. Free enterprise, free trade and free competition were the obvious economic corollary of political liberty. On the basis of these principles, Adam Smith, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill constructed a system of economic laws, a doctrine unchallengeable in the abstract even today. But there is a fundamental difference between political freedom as embodied in English common law and proclaimed by the encyclopedists of the French Revolution and the fathers of American Independence—and economic freedom as understood by the classical economists of the early nineteenth century. The founders of modern political democracy understood that freedom in human society is relative, and that freedom in the absolute is bound to lead to anarchy, to violence—to the exact opposite of freedom. They realized that the freedom for which man had been struggling for five thousand years, means in practice only the proper regulation of the interdependence of individuals within a society. They saw that human freedom can be created only by limiting the free exercise of human impulses through generally applied compulsion—in other words, by law. Freedom is an ideal that appeals to everyone. The only trouble is that one's own longing for freedom is somewhat upset by a similar longing for freedom in others. What slightly complicates the eternal problem of freedom is the not quite negligible fact that hundreds of millions of human beings are dominated by the same subjective desire—freedom—the full exercise of which by every one of the hundreds of millions of individuals would necessarily impinge upon the freedom of all others. So it was obvious to the makers of modern democratic constitutions that freedom can be granted to an individual only to the extent that the freedom of action of one individual does not infringe upon the freedom of action of other individuals. Individual freedom, as granted by the constitutions of all modern democracies to the citizens, is clearly defined by law as a series of compulsions imposed upon all individuals by the community—the state. The economists of laissez-faire, however, failed to conceive freedom in its only possible form—in the form of a synthesis between freedom of action, and the prohibition of such actions as might impair or destroy the freedom of others. Freedom in economic affairs, according to their theory, was absolute, unlimited and unrestrained. They had a nebulous notion about the necessity of protecting the economic freedom of man from infringement by the actions of others, but compared with the clear principles regarding freedom in human society which guided the authors of the modern democratic constitutions, theirs were extremely primitive. They fought against monopoly tendencies, knowing that these would strangle competition. But their stand against restricting competition among laborers was based on the same argument, i.e., that such restrictions would destroy freedom of competition between workers, that what is today called "collective bargaining" on the part of organized workers would be unfair to non-organized labor, to the consumers, and would produce unemployment They did not realize that trade unionism was the specific reaction to the total lack of norms regulating the relationship between employer and employee, to the unregulated, absolute freedom on the labor market which was gradually destroying the freedom of the wage earners. Absolute, unlimited and unrestrained freedom of action could bring about "freedom" in this world only if absolute equality in every respect existed between individuals, if an order could be established which everyone would consider just and if it were possible to preserve such order in static form forever—or at least for a long period of time. It is evident that such absolute equality among men does not and never can exist. Economic conditions, like life itself, are in a permanent state of flux, and so after a short time, absolute economic freedom, like absolute freedom in any other field, created a situation in which many, if not the majority of people, were in fact deprived of freedom. An economic order could rightly be called a system of absolute free enterprise based on absolute freedom of competition if inheritance did not exist; if, at the death of each individual, all the tools, all the means of production and wealth he had accumulated during his lifetime were destroyed or taken by the state, so as to give each person complete equality of opportunity. As such a thing is not likely to come to pass, freedom of enterprise and freedom of opportunity can at best be relative. Theoretically, complete freedom of competition in economic life is thinkable only if each person starts from scratch. The moment capital, business organization, tools, patents and other assets accumulated by successful individuals during their activity in the field of free competition, are transferred to other individuals, who thus start with a great advantage over many others of their generation, absolute freedom of competition loses its meaning. In such a situation, if complete tyranny by a few economic dynasties is to be prevented and a relative degree of freedom in economic life is to be maintained, a certain amount of regulation by law is imperative and unavoidable. In human society it is difficult to challenge the righteousness and justification of the claim for leadership and privileged positions of those who are more capable, more diligent, more intelligent, more thrifty. But it became hard for the masses to accept justification of the claim for leadership and privileged positions of second or third generations who inherited fortunes and capital from their parents, thus starting upon free enterprise in economic life under conditions so favorable that free competition became a method of perpetuating economic inequalities. We cannot very well call the order existing today in the United States, the British Commonwealth and in other capitalist countries a "system of free enterprise" when many industries are monopolized to an extent which makes it absolutely impossible to start new ventures in those fields or to compete with those industries. Consequently, within two or three decades, modern industrialism has created not only hitherto undreamed-of wealth for the economically stronger and more fit, as well as for their descendants, but it has also created poverty, frustration, dependency and lack of freedom, bitterly resented by those millions who lost their chance to become independent and whose labor is now a mere commodity. This situation naturally created reactions, and finally modern socialism. Socialism teaches that private capitalism necessarily leads to monopoly—to a greater concentration of capital in the hands of the few, to economic dismemberment and to the pauperization of the laboring masses. The conception of class warfare between capitalists and proletariat was construed and the salvation of the Western industrial world was seen to lie in the expropriation of the exploiters, in the abolition of the profit motive and in the nationalization of all means of production. For nearly a century now this class warfare has been going on in all Western countries, despite the fact that the entire controversy is based on a misconception. It is not because capital is controlled by individuals and private corporations that the private capitalist system of free enterprise failed. It failed because in the economic field, "freedom" was regarded as an absolute instead of a functional concept, a human ideal in constant need of adjustment and regulation by law, and of institutions for its defense and safeguard. In absolute form, freedom of one man means the serfdom of the other. Obviously such a state of affairs cannot be a human ideal and cannot be called "freedom." After a period of fabulous wealth for a few and increasing poverty for many, some people recognized the danger of the trend and tried to bridge the abyss separating the capitalist and proletarian classes by accepting trade-unionism, introducing labor legislation, social security, inheritance taxes and other measures to overcome the most blatant injustices arising from absolute freedom in economic life. Experience with social legislation unquestionably demonstrates that in this direction lies the solution of the social problem. If freedom in economic life is to have meaning, we must create a system of regulations and norms within which free enterprise, free initiative and freedom of economic activity can exist without destroying the freedom of enterprise, free initiative and free economic activity of others. This principle cannot work realistically except by establishing institutions capable of giving expression to constantly changing conditions and of creating law. The scope and limits of free enterprise are just as relative as are those of any other freedom in human society. It was not so long ago that raising armies came within the scope of private enterprise. Just as modern capitalist states own a few industrial enterprises, the state—the king—also had an army. But the king could not wage war without the support and collaboration of his great landowners, just as modern democratic states cannot wage war without the support and collaboration of the great industrial enterprises. And just as governments today call upon private industrialists to produce guns, planes and ships for them, in other days powerful knights were called upon to raise armed battalions and to take command over them. It is not so long since the champions of absolute free enterprise hotly defended their sacred right to raise and possess armies. Who today would defend that right and assume that private enterprise includes the right of the big landowner or the big employer to raise and command armies? Who today would regard state monopoly of conscription and of maintaining armed forces as an infringement upon the system of free enterprise? Or is the Duke of Atholl, who still enjoys the privilege of maintaining a private army in Scotland, the only remnant of the system of free enterprise in the Western world? The fact that at certain stages, evolution demands the transfer of certain human activities from the individual to the collectivity does not mean the end of individualism. It means, rather, that the interest of the community and the freedom of its members are better served if certain activities vitally concerning all are under the control of the community. From a dogmatic viewpoint of absolute individual free enterprise, it is difficult to speak of freedom of enterprise in America or in England, when no landowner, no banker, no industrialist, is free to raise armies and fight under his individual banner, for his own house, for his own interests, for his own independence. The state monopoly of conscription, of raising and maintaining armed forces, is such a far-reaching infringement upon absolute individual liberty and the system of absolute freedom of enterprise, that it outranks completely the limitations upon free enterprise arising from trade-unionism or social legislation. Yet, after a hard and long fight between the defenders of free military enterprise and the community, that issue has been settled so that today, no one, not even the most adventurous industrial robber baron, believes that his individual freedom of action has been destroyed and that he is living in a Communist society just because he is no longer free to invest capital in a private army. Our civic life is based entirely on the fundamental doctrine that maximum individual freedom results from the prohibition of the free exercise of such human actions as would infringe upon the freedom of action of others. This is the meaning of political freedom. It is also the meaning of economic freedom. The first conflict between false theory and reality in the industrial age—the anarchic situation created by the erroneous conception of freedom in economic life—might have been solved, after many unnecessary struggles, by a rapprochement between capitalist and socialist doctrines through social legislation, as it has been very nearly solved in small, progressive countries like Sweden, Denmark and Norway. But an even greater barrier to free industrial development, a dominating force in our civilization, has created a much more violent conflict which threatens to destroy all the positive achievements of the past two centuries. This conflict is the clash between industrialism and political nationalism. Modern industrial economy, in order to progress, needs freedom of exchange and transportation even more than it needs freedom of individual initiative and competition. The purpose of mechanized industrial economy is maximum production of consumer goods. This entails the utmost rationalization of production processes, widespread division of labor, plant location on the economically most favorable geographic sites, free supplies of raw materials from all over the earth and free distribution of finished products to all world markets. These conditions essential to industrial development were recognized at the beginning of the industrial age; and free trade became the natural policy of the first great industrial power, England, where abolition of the tariffs on agricultural products—the remnants of the mercantile age—was urged and complete freedom in international trading advocated. But by the time free trade had established England's leadership in industrial production and world trade, the eighteenth century nation-state system had already crystallized as a rigid political structure. People in the Western world had begun to think in national terms, pledging allegiance to their nation-states, their national symbols and ideals above everything else. And these young nation-states—the United States, Germany, France—looked with envy upon England's growing wealth created by her industrial power and export trade. They began to feel that free trade was a very profitable policy indeed for the economically strongest nation and that, under the existing freedom of economic exchange they themselves had very little chance to build up industries at home, capable of competing with British manufacturers. They wanted to produce within their own national borders as much as possible of what they needed, and in addition, a substantial volume of commodities for export. To create a national industry became more important to them than to carry on the free trade system, even if such a change of policy meant higher prices at home. Each felt that, as a national unit, it would have more "freedom" if it put legal restrictions on the freedom of trade of the stronger producer nations. So, championed by Alexander Hamilton and Friedrich List, a new theory of industrial protection was born and national tariff barriers were erected under the protection of which national industries came into being in the United States, in Germany and in various other countries. From that moment, the system of free individualist economy—a most promising departure—was halted, disrupted and strangled. Since the middle of the nineteenth century, it has been meaningless to talk of a free economy. The reality consists of a system of warring national economies guided primarily by political and not economic interests and considerations. For a relatively short time—about half a century— this misalliance between industrialism and nationalism could be overlooked because in the politically divided world a few nations were large enough for industrialism to continue to develop. For a time sufficient open spaces provided conditions that enabled the relative wealth of the United States and of the colonial powers of Great Britain, France, Germany, Holland and Belgium to be created. All of these nations were engaged in desperate competition during the entire nineteenth century, seeking to bring under their own national sovereignty territories large enough to supply their industrial machinery with raw materials and markets of their own. This development finally reached a saturation point. Once there were no more territories to discover, once the possibility of annexing virgin lands ceased, these divided national industrial states got into violent collisions with each other, starting a new type of conflict, creating more and more chaotic conditions throughout the world. Within narrow national boundaries fortified by artificial tariff walls, economic freedom became a farce. The impossibility of exchanging freely, of producing where production was economically most rational, of supplying the markets where a demand for commodities existed, accelerated and made more acute the periodical crises within the system of national economies, bringing about unemployment and misery in the midst of plenty. What we usually call world economics, international trade, has today little, if anything, to do with economics or trade. They are in fact economic warfare, trade warfare. The dominating motive of all economic activity outside existing national boundaries is not trade, is not production, is not consumption, is not even profit, but a determination to strengthen by all means the economic power of the nation-states. Within the political strait-jacket of the nation-states, national economies could function only through artificial stimulants which, after a brief flurry, made the position even worse. Capitalists, who originally thought that they profited most by the system of free enterprise began to seek to eliminate competition, the very foundation of the capitalist system. Artificial structures, trusts and cartels, were erected to control competition and to circumvent the iron laws of supply and demand on the free market. They thought they saw salvation in economic planning, fixing in advance quality, quantity and rate of production to avoid overproduction and to keep prices high. On the other hand, the workers, whose sufferings increased under this system of anarchic economy, rejected the very idea of private capital and free enterprise, organized trade unions to obtain higher wages through collective bargaining and formed political parties to influence legislation and control governments. On all sides today in the Western world voices are raised accusing managers of trusts and cartels as well as the leaders of labor parties and trade unions of destroying individual freedom. The cry is that planned economy, whether controlled by capitalist cartels or socialist labor parties, inevitably leads to dictatorship and destruction of democracy. This is unquestionably true. Both cartels and labor unions have been driving the great industrial democracies of the Western world toward more government control and less individual freedom. But the strange thing is that none of these champions of absolute individual and economic liberty have taken the trouble to analyze the crisis through which the world is passing. None of them have tried to determine the underlying causes of the trend, nor the forces which are driving us toward ever-increasing power for the state. They assert it is the leaders of cartels with their fear of competition, and the socialists with their collectivist ideology, who cause this trend. Some are even so blind as to declare that no "objective facts" make inevitable our march toward complete state control. Only wrong ideas, only human stupidity, they say are responsible for the present situation which has come about because people "believe" in false prophets and in the heresies of economic planning, collectivism and government control. Economic freedom and the system of free enterprise have been driven into bankruptcy by the primitive, erroneous notion of unregulated freedom and by political nationalism, by the nation-state structure. Except for a limited period after the birth of industrialism, free economy has never really existed. The political credo of nationalism undermined and destroyed it before it could develop. The primacy of national interests in every country forces governments and peoples toward economic self-sufficiency, toward preparedness for war, toward more economic planning and direction, which means the transfer of more and more authority from individuals to the central government. The political structure of the nation-states is in violent and absolute opposition to the needs of an economic system of free enterprise. In final analysis, all obstacles to free economy arising in the democratic countries derive from it To all practical purposes it is today a waste of time to search for the laws of economic life. In a world of national industrialism, it is the gun that regulates production, trade and consumption. There is no higher law to govern economy in a world of sovereign nation-states. Monopolistic tendencies, socialism, collectivism are merely reactions, attempts to cure the most urgent symptoms of the crisis created by the clash between industrialism and nationalism. Developments in every single nation-state have run parallel, albeit with varying rapidity, toward the domination of the individual by the state, first in his economic and then automatically in his political life. From this evolution over the past fifty years, it is clear that individual capitalism, within the limited boundaries of nation-states at the present stage of industrial development, cannot operate without causing anarchic conditions that force governments to intervene and take control of the economic process in the interest of the nation. The advantages of a free economic system, higher living standards, greater wealth, better housing, better education, more leisure are unquestionable. But it remains a fact that they mean much less to the blind citizen-serfs of the nation-states, than their nationalist passions. People willingly and enthusiastically renounce the enjoyment of freedom and wealth, if only they can continue to indulge in slavish submission to and abject worship of their nation-state and its symbols. The individual system of free enterprise within the limits of nation-states can neither flourish nor develop. In all countries it has led to more and more power for the state, to a totalitarian form of government and the destruction of individual liberty. Prohibitive tariff walls, monopolies, cartels, control of government by trusts and private interests, dumping, poverty, slums, unemployment and many other products of the system of absolute free enterprise are surely not freedom, or freedom has no meaning.<br /><br />CHAPTER III<br />FAILURE OF SOCIALISM<br /><br />AFTER decades of unrest, struggle and attempted jfjL revolutions, in 1917 one great country at last became the scene of a large-scale socialist experiment Russia. Contrary to the predictions of Marx, Communism first succeeded in establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat, not in the most advanced industrial country but in one of the most backward. This alone, in such contradiction to the Marxist timetable and theories, should have sufficed to arouse immediate suspicion as to the socialist quality of the Russian Revolution. Later developments have proved, and history will undoubtedly record the events of 1917 to be not so much a socialist revolution, as the Great Russian National Revolution, coming a hundred and fifty years after the national revolutions of the Western countries and creating not socialism but something quite different The slogans and the symbols that germinated the revolution are losing their meaning and importance in the light of more significant historic facts. In 1917, the main revolutionary force of the world was Communism, which unquestionably gave impetus to the violent overthrow of the old regime, czarism and capitalism alike. But the revolution did not establish economic equality and social justice, the aim of its originators. It brought about something quite different No doubt Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin and the other theorists and initiators of the Russian Bolshevik revolution were idealists who sincerely believed in a Marxist collectivist society. They were convinced that once "ownership" of land and means of production were expropriated and transferred from private individuals and corporations to the collectivity, represented by the state, social equality would be achieved and a new, prosperous and happy society created. They resorted to terror only as a temporary measure to remove the parasites of the old regime. The dictatorship of the proletariat was to be merely a period of transition, as Marx taught, during which the expropriation of private capital and its transfer to the state was necessary, but would be abolished automatically as soon as the operation was completed and a classless society created. A few years after the revolution, it became obvious, even to the Soviet leaders, that absolute economic and social equality are incompatible with the very nature of man, "that private initiative is essential to progress and that a certain amount of property is an inevitable corollary to the conception of human liberty. A series of reforms were introduced to differentiate income and social position, which in a few years led to gradations in wealth, power and influence as pronounced as in any capitalist country. One thing about the Soviet system, however, was indisputable. It worked. In an economic system controlled entirely by the collectivity, the agricultural output was raised; coal, iron and gold were mined in ever-increasing quantities; huge factories, dams and railroads were built; steel, aluminium and textiles were produced; tractors, cars and airplanes were manufactured. The complete failure of the Comintern ideal of world revolution as propagated by Trotsky, Zinoviev and the old guard of Lenin's disciples, strengthened the position of those who believed that the Soviet Union would perish if it entered into conflict with other nations, that it must be prepared to resist foreign aggression, that the Soviet peoples must concentrate on increasing the industrial strength of the U.S.S.R. rather than on spreading revolution. For two decades the Russian people worked with all their energy and devotion to lay the foundation of a great industrial power and to produce the arms and munitions necessary to defend the sacred soil of their country against attack. But in spite of the fabulous production figures of Russian heavy industry, the standard of living of the great masses of the Russian people remained stagnant. Although they have expanded their system of transportation and opened up wide, undeveloped spaces for settlement, their standard of living has remained extremely low. It does not detract one iota from the achievements of the Russian people to state that almost none of the social ideals of Marx and Lenin have been achieved in the Soviet Union through the dictatorship of the proletariat. The workers are living under material conditions less favorable than those in the Western democracies. Individual liberty is nonexistent Although all natural resources and tools are collective property, the relationship between management and worker is in principle the same as in England or America—in practice, worse. Soviet labor unions are instruments of the state and can do little toward improving working conditions for their members. In any dispute, the management is just another instrument of the same state. Most of the workers are tied to the factory or mine or land where they work, and have no freedom of movement if dissatisfied with the existing surroundings and conditions. In a short span of twenty years, after the complete elimination of all upper and middle classes, a new ruling class has crystallized. A Red Army general, a high government official, a successful engineer or a famous writer, painter or orchestra conductor is just as far above the great masses of labor as in the most capitalist country. Developments during the first twenty-five years of the first Communist state run surprisingly parallel to the evolution of capitalist democratic countries. In a state of permanent international distrust, under constant fear of foreign aggression, in perpetual danger of destruction by outside forces, under pressure of the political nation-state structure of the world, the first and foremost endeavor of the Soviet peoples was to strengthen the power of the centralized Soviet state. The survival, at all costs of the national state—the U.S.S.R.—is the dominant doctrine of the Stalin regime. It did not take long for the original internationalism in Communist philosophy to fade away and disappear, to give way to National Communism. Since Stalin's victory over Trotsky, the Soviet government has been building up the industrial and military power of the U.S.S.R., forging the heterogeneous elements of that huge country into one great national unit, arousing and exalting the group instincts of nationalism, to a point that has made it possible for the Soviet government to ask their people for any sacrifice to defend and strengthen the Soviet state. The nationalist passions of all the heterogeneous peoples forming the Soviet Union were aroused and inflamed by the same oratory, the same slogans, the same flags, music, uniforms, as in capitalist countries. To build up the power of the nation-state, the people had to give up all hope of a better material life for a long time to come. The production of consumer goods was kept to a minimum to concentrate the entire productive power of the nation on the manufacture of war material and reserves. It is useless to express opinions on the righteousness or unrighteousness of this turn. It is a historical fact June, 1941, proved how necessary it was. Stalingrad proved how successful. This change of course in economic policy created much dissent among the peasant and working masses. But this smoldering opposition was ruthlessly extinguished by the central administration which, under growing internal opposition on one side and the growing external pressure created by the deteriorating international situation on the other, became every day more dictatorial, more tyrannical. The aspirations of . the Russian people to a greater degree of individual freedom and political democracy, so manifest during the first decade of the Soviet Union, were slowly strangled, and in the late 1930 it was clear that from a political point of view the Soviet state was developing not toward democracy but toward absolute state control, toward complete and totalitarian domination of society by an autocratic state administration. Communist economy is based on two completely unreal and fictitious conceptions. The first is the overemphasized importance attached to "ownership" of tools and means of production. The development of industrialism in capitalist countries clearly shows that, as mass production becomes more complex, ownership of tools and means of production becomes more diffused and anonymous, is more widely scattered among thousands and hundreds of thousands of shareholders who have practically no control over the actual handling of their property. When a private enterprise is owned by a great number of people, it is managed more or less as a socialist or state-owned enterprise. As regards actual manage meant and the relationship between owners and employees, there is no difference whatever between the American or British railroad companies owned by private capital, and the Scandinavian, German, Italian or Soviet railroads, owned by the state. The employees of the Bell Telephone Company, a private enterprise in America, stand in exactly the same position toward the ownership of the invested capital as do the employees of the British, French and Soviet telephone companies, owned by the state. Twenty-five years of "Communist" regime in Russia have conclusively demonstrated that recognition of private property is almost indispensable to a smoothly working economic system. A man with initiative and imagination, or one who works hard and is thrifty, is bound to possess more wealth and achieve a higher position than the average worker who merely carries out orders, who has no personal initiative, who world no more than he can help and who spends everything he earns. After twenty-five years of "Communist" economy, the range of incomes in Soviet Russia is just as great, if not greater, than the range of incomes in capitalist countries. With this similarity, almost identity, of actual conditions and developments between the Soviet Union and the countries of private enterprise, it matters little to the worker who "owns" the plants and machines. For all practical purposes, it is irrelevant. At the present stage of industrialism there is little or no difference in the situation of the worker employed in the Magnitogorsk Works owned by the Soviet state, or the worker employed by private -enterprises like Imperial Chemicals or General Motors. There is no reason why creative minds like Edison, Ford, Citroen or Siemens should be prevented from building up and 'owning" great industrial properties, although it may be dangerous to the community and detrimental to society if they remain the private property of second or third generation non-constructive heirs. But ;with rising inheritance taxes, this problem has virtually been solved in' most countries. It is only a small step from where death duties stand in England today, for instance, to the complete abolition of the right of inheritance of capital. And this step may quite possibly be taken in a none-too-distant future. Already a great industrial enterprise created by one individual is usually transformed during his lifetime into a corporation of widespread anonymous ownership under a separate management. The second fallacy of Communism is that the main ^f6blem of economy is distribution. The sad truth is that if today we could divide total annual world production equally among the members of the entire human race, the result would be—poverty. If we divided all incomes equally among all men, the general standard of living would scarcely be above that of a Chinese coolie. In spite of our pride in the "miraculous" industrial achievements of the United States, England, Germany and Russia, our production lags miserably behind existing scientific and technical potentialities. That nationalism and the nation-state represent insurmountable barriers to the development of an individualist capitalist economic system—the system of free enterprise—should be apparent by now to everybody. High tariff walls, export subsidies, exchange manipulations, dumping, cartels, the artificial creation of industries through government financing, etc., have completely distorted the free play of economic forces as understood by the classical theorists of the early nineteenth century. The all-important trend of our age is to strengthen the nation-state. In the presence of constant threats emanating from other nation-states, the people of each nation have been forced to centralize more and more power in their national governments. But the similarity, indeed, the exact identity of the development of a socialist economic system within a nation-state, with the development of the capitalist system under the same conditions, is still not fully understood. To point out a few anomalies existing between fact and theory may throw light on the subject. According to Karl Marx, the state is the result of the breaking up of society into irreconcilable, antagonistic classes. Friedrich Engels explains in his Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State that the state arises when and where class antagonisms cannot be objectively reconciled. And, as Lenin put it, the existence of the state proves that class antagonisms are irreconcilable. So, according to the Marxist theory, the state is an organ of class domination, an organ of oppression of one class by the other; "its aim is the creation of 'order' which legalizes and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the collisions between the classes," In his State and Revolution, Lenin arrives at the conclusion that "the state could neither arise nor maintain itself if a reconciliation of classes were possible." And from here, only one step is necessary to arrive at the conclusion expressed by Engels in his AntiDiihring, that once the proletariat seizes state power and transforms the means of production into state property, "it puts an end to all class differences and class antagonisms, it puts an end also to the state as the state. .. . As soon as there is no longer any class of society to be held in subjection; as soon as, along with class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the former anarchy of production, the collisions and excesses arising from these have also been abolished, there is nothing more to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is 110 longer necessary . . . government over persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not 'abolished,' it withers away" This theory of the state and of its "withering away" after a socialist revolution is one of the main arguments in the writings of Lenin, who regarded it as a fundamental doctrine of Communism. He develops the thesis that the bourgeois state, whether monarchic or republican, absolute or democratic, is "a special repressive force" which can be demolished only by violent revolution. But once the dictatorship of the proletariat has abolished classes, the state will "become dormant." To quote Lenin from his State and Revolution: "The bourgeois state can only be put an end to by a revolution. The state in general . . . can only -wither away!' Or, otherwise expressed by Lenin: 'The replacement of the bourgeois by the proletarian state is impossible without a violent revolution. The abolition of the proletarian state, i.e., of all states, is only possible through withering away," In his 'Poverty of Philosophy Marx writes that once the working class replaces the old bourgeois society "by an association which excludes classes and their antagonism . . . there will no longer be any real political power, for political power is precisely the official expression of the class antagonism within bourgeois society." In criticizing previous bourgeois revolutions, in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Marx roundly criticizes the parliamentary republics for centralizing and strengthening the resources of government "All revolutions [he writes] brought this machine to greater perfection, instead of breaking it up." This thought is developed in the Communist Manifesto and Lenin gives it clear expression when he says in State and Revolution that: "All revolutions which have taken place up to the present have helped to perfect the state machinery, whereas it must be shattered, broken to pieces • . •" These lessons 'lead us to the conclusion that the proletariat cannot overthrow the bourgeoisie without first conquering political power, without obtaining political rule, without transforming the state into the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and that this proletarian state will begin to wither away immediately after its victory, because in a society without class antagonisms, the state is unnecessary and impossible." Before digging further into the "scientific" conclusions and predictions of Marx, Engels and Lenin about the nature of the state and its automatic and immediate "withering away" after its conquest by the proletariat, let us pause for a moment to compare these prophecies with the realities of the Soviet state, with what it has become after a quarter of a century of existence. Lenin said: 'The centralized state power peculiar to bourgeois society came into being in the period of the fall of absolutism. Two institutions are especially characteristic of this state machinery: bureaucracy and the standing army." What would be the reactions of Lenin's comrades in the Politburo if he were able to make this statement in Moscow twenty years after his death? Thundering against "those Philistines who have brought socialism to the unheard of disgrace of justifying and embellishing the imperialist war by applying to it the term of 'national defense'"—Lenin proclaims: "Bureaucracy and the standing army constitute a 'parasite'... a parasite born of the internal antagonisms which tear that society asunder, but essentially a parasite 'clogging every pore' of existence." What would he the reaction of the Soviet leaders if Lenin should arise from his mausoleum and make that speech in the Red Square today? And what would the marshals of the Red Army and the high dignitaries of Soviet diplomacy say if, twenty years after his death, in talking about the role of state power in Communist society, Lenin were to repeat that it "can he reduced to such simple operations of registration, filing and checking that they will be quite within the reach of every literate person, and it will be possible to perform them for 'workingman's wages' which circumstance can (and must) strip those functions of every shadow of privilege, of every appearance of 'official grandeur.' " And what would the families of Lenin's comrades of the revolutionary days of 1917 think if, remembering the events of 1936 and 1937, they reread the statement Lenin made at the time of the revolution: "We set ourselves the ultimate aim of destroying the state, i.e., every organized and systematic violence, every use of violence against man in general." The contradictions are even more striking if we turn to the writings of the founders of Communism and their views concerning the role of law and the relationship of the individual to the state. In State and Revolution Lenin wrote: "Only in Communist society when the resistance of the capitalists has been completely broken, when the capitalists have disappeared, when there are no classes • . . only then the state ceases to exist and it becomes possible to speak of freedom . . . only then will democracy itself begin to wither away due to the simple fact that, free from capitalist slavery, from the untold horrors, savagery, absurdities and infamies of capitalist exploitation, people will gradually become accustomed to the observance of the elementary rules of social life that have been known for centuries and repeated for thousands of years in all school books; they will become accustomed to observing them without force, without compulsion, without subordination, without the special apparatus for compulsion which is called the state."' A few more short quotations from Lenin are necessary to a comparison of socialist theory and socialist reality. "Communism renders the state absolutely unnecessary, for there is no one to be suppressed—no one in the sense of a class, in the sense of a systematic struggle with a definite section of the population." 'While the state exists there is no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no state." 'The more complete the democracy, the nearer the moment when it begins to be unnecessary." And to the question as to how the state, standing army, bureaucracy and compulsion will "wither away" in a Communist system through the dictatorship of the proletariat, Lenin answers with the dogmatism of a high priest: 'We do not know how quickly and in what succession, but we know that they will wither away. With their withering away, the state will also wither away." These doctrines might have been taught two thousand years ago, in some primitive rural community.But it is somewhat astonishing to hear them put forth in the second decade of the twentieth century. The theory that the state is created by the struggle between the capitalist and proletariat classes and that, once the capitalist class is done away with, state machinery would be unnecessary and would therefore disappear, is in total contradiction to existing facts and to the teachings of history. Of course, conflict between groups within a given society necessitates the creation of law and the use of force by the community to prevent violence between the two conflicting groups. But it is difficult to understand how otherwise scientifically trained minds could make the assertion that class struggle alone is the source of the state and that the only purpose of the state is to perpetuate the domination of one class by another. Law and coercion in society are necessitated by thousands and thousands of conflicts arising within a given society between individuals and groups of individuals in innumerable fields, among which, in modern times, one is unquestionably the class struggle. The state is not a diabolic device invented by a ruling class to oppress another class. It is the product of historical evolution. From ancient times, when magicians and priests in primitive tribes proclaimed and enforced the first rules of human conduct, up to the establishment of British constitutional monarchy, the republican constitution of the United States, the constitution of the Soviet Union, all history of civilization passing upward through families, tribes, villages, cities, provinces, principalities, kingdoms, republics, empires, commonwealths and modern nation-states, the one fundamental and invariable motive of this evolution has been that human beings, taken individually or in any given division of groups, whether vertical or horizontal, whether racial, linguistic, religious or national, are constantly in conflict with each other and that, in order to prevent these permanent and manifold clashes of interest from degenerating into violence, certain rules are necessary, certain restrictions and limitations on human impulses must be imposed and an authority established to represent the community with the right and the power to enforce such regulations and restrictions on the members of that community. The Ten Commandments given to Moses on Mount Sinai, the writing of the Koran by Mohammed, the commands of Darius and Genghis Khan, are identical in purpose with the laws enacted by Parliament in London, Congress in Washington and the Supreme Soviet in Moscow. The differences are only changes in form throughout one long historical evolution. All these rules and regulations of human conduct, in no matter what form laid down, were devised to enable men to live together in a given society. Who should have decisive influence in formulating these rules, what should be their content, to whom they should apply, how and by whom they should be carried out, how should they be changed, by whom and how their creation and application controlled— these have been the eternal questions of man as a member of society and on these questions political struggles have centered for thousands of years and will center for thousands of years to come. During the past fifty years we have been passing through a stage in this long development where modern industrialism has created a conflict between those who own or manage industrial enterprises and those who function as wage earners in that system. The conflict between the capitalist class and the proletariat is doubtless deep and acute, and a solution to this problem must be found. But to say that in our age this is the only conflict between groups of men and that, with the resolving of that conflict, the state as such can or will disappear since it will become "unnecessary" is an altogether fantastic and unrealistic conclusion. In 1917, in the midst of the first World War, Lenin wrote in his preface to the first edition of State and Revolution: "The foremost countries are being converted—we speak here of their 'rear'—into military convict labor prisons for the workers." How right Lenin was in pointing out that as a result of international wars, states are becoming "convict labor prisons." But how wrong he was in attributing this to class struggle. In all the Marxist analysis of the state and of the development of tie state toward more and more bureaucratic and militaristic institutions, there is not one word about the real cause of this development— nationalism. There is not one word about the fact that the nation-states are in conflict with each other, a conflict which is bound to find expression in recurrent wars. There is not one word that these wars between national units are caused, not by the internal structure of the economic and social system within these individual nation-states but by the fact that they are independent, sovereign units whose relationship is unregulated. In saying that after establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the Communist system o£ economy, the "state will wither away" and that in a "classless" society, coercive law and the use of force will not be necessary, because once everyone is a "worker," the people will acquire the "habit" of behaving in society so that the state machinery will not be necessary—Maix the theorist and Lenin the realist show themselves to be greater Utopians than the early socialists they so mercilessly lashed with their powerful didactic minds. The belief that institutions can change human nature is indeed the dominant feature of all Utopias. Social and political institutions are the result of human behavior, the product of man. Periodically they become obsolete and require improvement or even radical reform, not to change human nature, but to make it possible for men to live together, with their existing and unchangeable characteristics, in changed circumstances. Lenin's assertion that freedom will exist only when the state has been abolished, is another dialectic distortion, a superficial observation and a most erroneous conclusion. It proves that he had no understanding of the real meaning of freedom. Far from being the result of the abolition of the state, freedom in human society is exclusively the product of the state. It is indeed unthinkable without the state. There is no freedom in the jungle. Freedom does not exist among animals, except the freedom of the beast of prey, the freedom of the strong to devour the weak. Freedom as an ideal is essentially a human ideal. It is the exact opposite of the freedom of the tiger and the shark. Human freedom is freedom from being killed, robbed, cheated, oppressed, tortured and exploited by the stronger. It means protection of the individual against innumerable dangers. Experience demonstrates that during all our history, there has been one method and one method alone to approach that ideal. The method is: Law. Human freedom is created by law and can exist only within a legal order, never without or beyond it. Naturally, through changing conditions and economic and technical developments, new situations constantly arise in which certain individuals or groups of individuals find that their freedom is menaced by newly arisen circumstances or insufficiently protected by existing laws. In all such cases, the law must be revised and amended. New restrictions, new laws create additional freedoms. The required new freedom, made necessary by new conditions, results from the promulgation of new laws, by the granting of new, additional protection to the individuals by the community. Freedom is in no way created by the abolition of the source of such protection. Twenty-five years after the creation of the first Communist state based on the principles of Marx, Engels and Lenin, the Soviet Union has developed into the greatest nation-state on earth, with an all-powerful bureaucracy, the largest standing army in the world, a unique police force controlling and supervising the activities of every Soviet citizen, a new social hierarchy with exceptional rewards and privileges for those in leading positions in the state, the army, the party or industry, with incomes a hundred times or more higher for the privileged few titan for the average wage earner. The Soviet people may say that it is unjust to blame the Communist regime for having developed into a strong, centralized state with a powerful army and bureaucracy. They may say that this was necessary, because the Soviet Union was surrounded by hostile capitalist states which forced them to change their original program and policy for more democracy and higher standards of living, into a policy of armaments and preparedness for national defense. Precisely. But in this inevitable process, the fact that the U.S.S.R. was Communist and the other countries were capitalist is totally irrelevant. England and Germany were both capitalist when they went to war. Nor was the United States Communist when it was attacked by Japan. The one major cause of the development of the Soviet Union into a powerful centralized state and not into a "withering away" of that state, is that there were other sovereign power units in existence outside tie U.S.S.R. and that as long as there are several sovereign power units, several national sovereignties, they are bound to conflict, no matter what their internal economic or social systems. And irrespective of their internal economic and social systems, these units, under the threat of conflict, are irresistibly driven to strengthen their own national power. It would have been extremely interesting to watch Communist society develop in Soviet Russia without any outside pressure, in a complete absence of interference and disturbance from outside forces. But on this earth it is impossible to create laboratory conditions for social experiments. The world as it is, is the only place where social experiments can be carried out. To state that Russia's tremendous development in the first twenty-five years of the Soviet regime has virtually nothing to do with socialism and Communism is not to be interpreted as disparaging the positive achievements of the Soviet government and the Russian people during this quarter century. The strides made in industrialization, production, education, organization, science and the arts, have been fabulous indeed. Rut in this respect, Russia has done nothing unique. The very same progress had already been achieved in many capitalist countries and with democratic political institutions. What the Soviet regime has demonstrated is the important fact that in spite of skepticism and hostility in capitalist countries, a Communist economy can create heavy industry, build huge mechanized factories, produce armaments and organize a powerful centralized state just as well as any capitalist country. The rapid adaptation o£ the Soviet Union to the existing world order is a most striking phenomenon. During the second World War, at all international meetings called to discuss the shape of a new world organization, the representatives of the Soviet Union have been defending exactly the same position—that of unrestricted national sovereignty—as did Lodge, Johnson and Borah in the United States Senate at the end of the first World War. The most stubborn of American isolationist Senators of 1919 would undoubtedly agree heartily with the views advocated a quarter century later by the country which claims to be and is regarded as the most revolutionary and "international" of all the countries. Soviet foreign policy developed along exactly the same lines as that of any other major power—a policy of alliances and spheres of influence, resorting to expediency and compromise in weak situations, unilateral decisions and expansion after military victories. The Soviet Union even puts its diplomats into uniform with no stint of gold lace. In the third decade of its existence, the Soviet government is clearly pursuing power politics, the same power politics as czarist Russia or any other great country pursued when able to do so, no matter what its internal regime. They are playing the game even better. As a result of the profound upheaval in the Russian social structure and re-stratification that follows every revolution, a great number of first-class talents in every field emerged from Russia's immense human reservoir. The nationalist Soviet statesmen, diplomats and generals are patently more talented than the statesmen, diplomats and generals in other countries engaged in the international struggle for national supremacy. It is apparent that the political and military leadership of the U.S.S.R. is much more astute, shrewd and cunning—and consequently more successful—than that of the older democratic countries where military and political preferment are not easily obtainable by merit alone. However, all these assets held by Soviet Russia have nothing to do with socialism or Communism. They are the achievements of a first generation of vigorous, self-made men and the results of a national revolution. The same upsurge took place after radical changes in the history of the United States, France, . England and many other countries. Some people are convinced that nationalism in Soviet Russia—which has been in the ascendant since the death of Lenin and has become so manifest during the second World War—is nothing but a means, a new technique of Stalin to spread Communism and to bring to pass Lenin's original dream: world revolution. History will most probably be of just the opposite opinion. Long before the first centenary of the Soviet Union, it will be apparent that Communism was but a means to the end, to the great end of nationalism. The tremendous achievement of the first twenty-five years of the Soviet regime was the creation of a centralized, powerful nationalist state. Under Lenin and for several years after his death, the Soviet regime was not at all what it is today. There was a great deal of individual freedom, there were open and public discussions, criticism of the government and of the party in the press and on the platforms. Not until later did the system develop into a totalitarian state with an all-powerful police force, the suppression of free speech, free criticism and all individual liberty. The development of the Soviet Union into a totalitarian dictatorship has run parallel with the awakening and growth of nationalism and the strengthening of the nation-state. The first few years of the Soviet regime proved that socialism is not incompatible with political freedoms. It was the influence and pressure of nationalism that forced the regime to evolve into a totalitarian dictatorship. And in travelling the road toward the totalitarian state, the Soviet regime destroyed not only political freedom but also the principles of socialist society as they were understood and proclaimed by Lenin and his associates in 1917. Since the 1920^, Communism has been diminishing in importance and nationalism has been growing by leaps and bounds. During these first twenty-five years, the Communist Internationale, in spite of innumerable attempts, failed to spread the influence of Moscow abroad. But the totalitarian Soviet nation-state succeeded. Even the many Communist parties in foreign countries, unquestionably inspired by Moscow, have given up their fight for the socialization of their countries and become merely the instruments of Soviet Russia's nationalist policy, adopting in each country an attitude dictated not by the necessity of fostering Communism, but by the necessity of strengthening the international position of the Soviet Union as a nation-state. In the second World War, the Communists in every country have become more nationalist than any monarchists, landowners or industrialists anywhere. They have provided the vanguard of "patriotic" forces in every country. The passionate debates, the international strife existing between the protagonists of capitalism and socialism, seem of secondary importance if we take into consideration the following undeniable facts: a. A state-controlled economy can build factories and produce commodities just as well as a system of free enterprise. b. Ownership of capital, tools and means of production does not appreciably affect either the economic or the social structure of a state. c. Under both capitalism and socialism ownership tends to become impersonal. d. In both systems, employed, salaried management is the real master of the economic machinery. e» Socialism per se does not raise the material standard of the workers nor does it secure for them a higher degree of political and economic freedom. f. Economic and political security and freedom depend upon specific social legislation which can be and in varied degrees has been evolved both in capitalist and in socialist countries. g. Socialism cannot prevent international conflicts any more than can capitalism. h. Under the present political structure of the world, both capitalism and socialism are dominated by nationalism and actively support the institution of the nation-state, i. The permanent state of distrust and fear between nation-states and the recurring armed conflicts between them have the same effects on capitalist and on socialist economy, neither being able to develop under the constant threat of war. In view of these facts, there seems to be no place for dogmatism in connection with the dispute between capitalism and socialism. Both proclaim their aim to be an economy of rational mass production, full exploitation of modern technological and scientific methods to raise the material and cultural standards of the masses. Which system can best accomplish this task should be decided by experience, not by cracking each other's skulls in a senseless class warfare. If certain people—like the Slavs—through their century-old traditions, have an inclination toward collective ownership of farm lands, pastures or modern industrial plants and prefer a socialist system, and if other peoples—like the Latins and Anglo-Saxons—through their century-old traditions and inclinations, prefer an individualist and private ownership economy, there is not the slightest reason why these different methods should not be able to coexist and co-operate with each other. To concentrate on differences of opinion and habit, and to believe that this is the field on which will be fought the great battles of the twentieth century, is an unfortunate confusion of issues. We can continue this class struggle for decades. [t may even be that one of the two classes will defeat and dominate the other. But whether we continue this internecine strife forever or whether one system achieves victory over the other, the solution of the problem of the twentieth century will not be advanced a single step. This analysis of trends in the Soviet Union is in no way intended to be anti-Communist or anti-Russian, just as the analyses of similar trends in the United States, Great Britain and other capitalist-democratic countries are not intended to be anti-capitalist, anti-American, anti-British or anti-anything. The conclusions are not directed against any nation, any social system, any economic order. Far from it, they seek to prove the irrelevancy and complete uselessness of class accusations and how superficial is criticism based on the belief that any economic system as such is capable of solving the issues with which we have to deal Our endeavor is to demonstrate that it is the political status quo—the existing system of sovereign nation-states, accepted and upheld today by capitalists and socialists, individualists and collectivists, all national and religious groups alike—that constitutes the insurmountable obstacle to all progress, to all social and economic efforts, that bars all human progress on any lines. The conflict between our static, inherited political institutions and the realities of economic and social dynamism is the real issue to which we must address ourselves. The underlying thesis of Marxist historical materialism, that history is nothing but a class struggle moved solely or preponderantly by the profit motive, the economic self-interest of the dominating classes, is an oversimplification which pays undue tribute to human intelligence and reason. It would be extremely easy to solve social problems if the motor of human action were such a clearly definable, materialist driving force. The trouble is that man is not such a reasonable creature. History is molded by much more volcanic, much more primitive forces, much more difficult to control and to deal with than the economic self-interest of individuals or classes. The real powers of historical evolution have always been and are today more than ever, transcendental emotions, tribal instincts, beliefs, faith, fear, hatred and superstition. And Marxism, in spite of its scientific aspirations, has merely created another set of emotional feais, superstitions and taboos which have become a very strong force in the present world convulsion, but which is only one of many such emotional forces at work today. It might advance a dispassionate approach to the sterile and now century-old controversy, if the champions of capitalism and socialism would realize that they are fighting each other within a hermetically sealed conveyance. The fight for a better seat, for a broader view, for a little more comfort is rather meaningless, as they are being carried by it relentlessly toward the same terminus. The vehicle is nationalism. The terminus is totalitarianism.<br /><br />CHAPTER IV<br />FAILURE OF RELIGION<br /><br />THE wholesale murder, torture, persecution and oppression we are witnessing in the middle of the twentieth century proves the complete bankruptcy of Christianity as a civilizing force, its failure as an instrument to tame instinctive human passions and to transform man from an animal into a rational social being. The revival of barbarism and the wholesale practice of mass murder all over the world cannot be regarded as the work of a few godless, sadistic Gestapo men and some fanatic believers in Shintoism. It is being practiced by many churchgoing men of many nationalities. Millions of innocent people have been murdered in cold blood, tens of millions have been robbed, deported and enslaved by Christians, descendants of families belonging for centuries to the Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic and Protestant churches. Cruelties, horrible and inhuman beyond imagination, have been committed by countless men, not only German and Japanese, but Spanish, Italian, Polish, Rumanian, Hungarian, French, Serbian, Croatian and Russian. And these deeds, surpassing in ferocity and bloodthirstiness anything hitherto recorded in Western history, have been tolerated, and therefore tacitly admitted, by each and every organized Christian religion. There is no intention here to accuse or to pass judgment upon any of the organized religions for tolerating these outbreaks of prehistoric, atavistic animalism in man. But the very fact that such a radical reversion has occurred proves the utter inadequacy of the methods followed by the Christian religions to influence and mold human character and to make man follow, not his own brutal instincts but something in the nature of moral principles. It cannot be denied that Christianity has failed to penetrate the soul of man, to take root in human character. It has succeeded only in creating a fragile veneer of ethical conduct, a thin crust of civilization which has been blasted away and blown to pieces by the volcanic social eruptions of the twentieth century. For a certain time there was some justification for the belief that the Judaeo-Christian principles were triumphing through their effective ritualism and the mystical presentation of their dogmas, which filled simple, primitive men with enough awe and fear to induce them to follow the teachings of Christianity, . not because they understood them and wanted them but because they feared the Uncertain and the Unknown. But today, since modern science has destroyed or made ridiculous most of the age-old superstition? and venerated symbols—the necessary and useful media for the propagation of ideals centuries ago— the ideals alone are powerless to direct and regulate human conduct in society. We have to recognize that the Ten Commandments, the moral teachings of the prophets, of Christ, the evangelists and the Apostles, cannot be made a reality in this world of enlightenment, science, technical progress and communications by using methods devised centuries ago by the founders of religions, according to the circumstances of their time—methods which are wholly ineffective today. It in no way derogates from the great work and the good intentions of the religions, nor is it anything to be ashamed of if we realize and admit that man, to be transformed from the beast he is to a responsible member of a civilized society, needs methods more effective than prayer, sermons and ritual. Man can become a conscious and constructive social being only if society imposes upon him certain principles in the form of a legal order. History demonstrates indisputably that there is only one method to make man accept moral principles and standards of social conduct. That method is: Law. Peace among men and a civilized society—which are one and the same thing—are imaginable only within a legal order equipped with institutions to give effect to principles and norms in the form of law, with adequate power to apply those laws and to enforce them with equal vigor against all who violate them. This self-evident truth—supported by the entire history of mankind—can hardly be the subject of debate any longer. Just as prayer, sermons and ritual are inadequate to impose upon mankind a social conduct based on principles, so pledges, declarations and promises are inadequate to achieve the same purpose. Throughout the entire history of all known civilizations, only one method has ever succeeded in creating a social order within which man had security from murder, larceny, cheating and other crimes, and had freedom to think, to speak and to worship. That method is Law. And integrated social relations regulated by law— which is peace—have been possible only within social units of indivisible sovereignty, with one single source of law, irrespective of the size, territory, population, race, religion and degree of complexity of such social units. It has never been possible between such sovereign social units, even if they were composed of populations of the same race, the same religion, the same language, the same culture, the same degree of civilization. The failure of Christianity as a civilizing force of society is an incalculable tragedy. Two thousand years is time enough to judge the efficacy of a method, no matter how valuable the doctrine. During these twenty centuries, it has seemed at times that Christianity had at last succeeded in taming the beast in man, in controlling and directing destructive human impulses and characteristics. But since the Christian churches have deviated from their universal mission and have evolved into national organizations supporting the pagan, tribal instincts of nationalism everywhere, we see how weak was the hold of Christianity upon the Western world. For worldly interests they have abandoned their moral teachings and have capitulated before the volcanic instincts of men, who are bound to destroy each other, unless restricted by universal law. What was divine and civilizing in Christianity was its monotheism, its universalism. The doctrine which teaches that all men are created equal in the sight of God and are ruled by one God, with one law over all men, was the one really revolutionary idea in human history. Unfortunately, organized Christianity developed into a more and more dogmatic, totalitarian hierarchy and the reaction to it led first to schism, then to widespread sectarianism. Thus the ideal of universal law has degenerated on one side into more and more centralized absolutism, and on the other into more and more widely separated sects and denominations. At the moment modern nations began to crystallize and national feeling in the Western world began to prevail over Christian feeling, the Christian churches, already divided among themselves, split into a number of new sects, each supporting the rising ideal of the nation. Nationalism soon became identified with Christianity and in every country nationalist policy was recognized as Christian policy, in opposition to liberal and socialist tendencies. Since the abandonment of universalism by the Christian churches—Catholic as well as Protestant— they have diverged from the original fundamental doctrine of Christianity to which they adhere no longer except in name. In thousands of churches today, Catholic priests and Protestant preachers of all denominations are praying for the glory of their own nationals and for the downfall of others, even if they belong to the same church. This is indeed in violent contradiction to the highest religious ideal mankind ever produced—universal Christianity. A universal moral principle is neither universal nor moral, nor is it a principle if it is valid only within segregated groups of people. 'Thou shalt not kill" cannot mean that it is a crime to kill a man of one's own nationality, but that it is a virtue—to be blessed by all Christian churches—to kill a man of the same faith, who happens to be technically the citizen or subject of another nation-state. Such an interpretation of universal moral principles is revolting. The same development can be observed in the second great monotheistic creed, in Islam. The great unity which had been maintained by the Koran for so many centuries among peoples of different stock, from the Atlas to the Himalaya Mountains, has been visibly splitting up into nationalist groups within which allegiance to the new nationalist ideal is more powerful than loyalty to the old universal teachings of Mohammed. There is Pan-Turkism or Pan-Turanism, aimed at the union of all branches of the Turkish race living in the region extending from the Dardanelles to the Tigris and Euphrates, To the south, the rising Pan-Arab movement is advocating the federation of all the Arab tribes into one nation. Farther to the east—in India—the believers in Islam are inflamed by a strong Indian national feeling, expressed in the slogan: "I am an Indian first, a Muslim afterwards." And among the Mohammedan populations of the Soviet Union there burns a passionate Soviet nationalism. Not only Christianity and Islam with their vast numbers of believers are being completely absorbed and dominated by neo-pagan nationalism. Even the originators of monotheism, even the Jews, have forgotten the fundamental teaching of their religion: universalism. They seem no longer to remember that the One and Almighty God first revealed Himself to them because He chose them for a special mission, to spread the doctrine of the oneness of the Supreme Lawgiver, the universal validity of monotheism among the people of the world. They too, just like the followers of other monotheistic creeds, have become abject idolaters of the new polytheism—nationalism. With glowing passion they desire nothing more than to worship their own national idol, to have their own nation-state. No amount of persecution and suffering can justify such abandonment of a world mission, such total desertion of universalism for nationalism, another name for the very tribalism which is the origin of all their misfortunes and miseries. It is of utmost importance for the future of mankind to realize the apostasy and failure of all three of the monotheistic world religions and their domination by disruptive and destructive nationalism, as without the deep influence of the monotheistic outlook of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, human freedom in society—democracy—could never have been instituted and cannot survive. Democracy, political freedom, the political rights of the individual, the equality of man before the law— all the things we have in mind when talking about democracy—are the products of Greek philosophy and Judaeo-Christian ethics. Democracy and political independence as we conceive them today are essentially the fruits of Western civilization. The roots of democratic ideals, of course, are much deeper. Village communities in India were run on a democratic basis centuries before the Greek cities. Meng-tse in China expressed views similar to Jefferson's long before the Christian Era. But the organization of powerful nations in centralized democratic states is something entirely new in human history, and it is the product of universal monotheism. For Aristotle a democratic state was not conceivable with more than ten thousand inhabitants. Fifteen centuries of Judaeo-Christian-Islamic teaching about man created in the image of God, about the equality of man before God, were needed to forge the ideology of modern political democracy. The free thinkers of the eighteenth century, who were among the pioneers of modern political democracy, revolted, not against the moral teaching of monotheism, but against the immoral practices and superstitions of the churches as national, human institutions. In fact, those free thinkers, in spite of the anathema cast upon them by the organized churches, were the most faithful disciples of the monotheistic conception since the prophets of Israel and the Apostles of Christ There have been and there are other civilizations. Among them the two most important are the Chinese and the Indian. But those great Asiatic civilizations are based on religious ideals, on notions of the relationship of man to man and man to God, entirely different from ours. Neither the Chinese nor the Indian peoples have ever had, nor have they ever yearned for the political and social system we in the Occident call democracy. To us, there is something wrong and unjust about inequality and poverty. Our political struggles and aspirations tend to limit, if not abolish, social injustice, to create more goods and a more equitable distribution of wealth. Having made men more or less equal before the law and given them equal political rights, we seek to equalize their material conditions also. At least, that is the motivating ideal, however far we may be from achieving it. In India, China, Japan—throughout the Orient where more than half the human race lives—inequalities are not regarded as a social injustice. Indeed, their whole system of religious thought is a direct justification of poverty, social inequality and the caste system. How could democracy exist among the believers in Shintoism, which teaches that the earthly rulers themselves are gods? A creed having countless gods, in which every household deifies its ancestors, in which the greater gods preside over the empire and the lesser gods over towns and hamlets and which teaches that the emperor, an absolute monarch, is a god himself and the direct descendant of the sun-goddess, obviously precludes any reforms in the inherited structure of that society. In even more striking contrast to democratic society are the great Asiatic religions, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Hinduism. These creeds, in which hundreds of millions of people dogmatically believe, are simultaneously religious and social institutions. Their two basic doctrines are: 1. A polytheistic pantheism, with an endless number of gods. 2,. Metempsychosis, the transmigration of souls 01 reincarnation. The entire social fabric of six to eight hundred million people is woven from these doctrines which dominate the everyday life and validate the morality of nearly half the human race. For them only one reality exists—Brahma—an absolute, all embracing spirit, the original cause and ultimate goal of all individual souls. This faith teaches that the soul is immortal, that each soul goes through endless reincarnations, and that no one can change, or has even the right to seek a change in his present condition of existence. Any desire for betterment in earthly conditions is a sin. Only through piety can a man strive to improve his lot, not in the present life but in future incarnations. The unbelievable poverty, abject misery and sub-animal existence of the sixty million untouchables in India, for instance, cannot be altered, since they are believed to be suffering in this life the just punishment for sins committed in previous incarnations. Such a creed naturally goes hand in hand with gross superstitions, the worship of hosts of goblins, ghosts, spirits, demons and mystic objects of every kind. Approximately four-fifths of the people of southern India, while commonly acknowledging the spiritual guidance of the Brahmans, worship local village deities with animal sacrifices and primitive rites. The entire social structure reflects these religious ideas. One of the cardinal principles of society is racialism, the preservation and purity of descent. It is an aristocratic, not an egalitarian society. According to the prevailing religious principles, the society recognizes, utilizes and explains the inequalities of individuals and groups of individuals without making any attempt to remedy them. It would be an affront to the great Asiatic peoples to criticize their traditions and their faith. Nothing is more remote from our intentions. But an analysis of the relationship between religious doctrines and principles of society demonstrates that the form of society at which the Western world is aiming is closely connected with the basic teachings of monotheism. Without its influence, modern democracy is unthinkable. It is therefore of vital importance, from the point of view of the future of democratic institutions, human liberty and further progress of Western civilization, that the monotheistic religions recognize the incompatibility of nationalism with their basic doctrine, and the mortal danger presented to our immediate future by national disintegration and national sectarianism in the Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Greek Orthodox and Islamic religions. Today, nearly two centuries after Thomas Paine wrote The Age of Reason, his utterance is more to the point than ever: "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit" Human society can be saved only by universalism. Unless the Christian churches return to this central doctrine of their religion and make it the central doctrine of their practice, they will vanish before the irresistible power of a new religion of universalism, which is bound to arise from the ruin and suffering caused by the impending collapse of the era of nationalism.<br /><br />CHAPTER V<br />ROAD TO FASCISM<br /><br />FREE enterprise, individualist and capitalist, was wrecked on the rock of nationalism. In the abstract, its principles, as propounded by Adam Smith, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, are as correct today as they were at the beginning of industrialism. We see now that such a system of absolute economic freedom never existed—nor could ever exist—except within relatively wide national boundaries, at an early stage of industrial expansion and then only for a short time. It was tried in England at the beginning of the nineteenth century, but its free development was soon obstructed by the United States, Germany and other countries whose nationalism induced them to establish tariff barriers to create a national industry for their home markets and to enable themselves to compete with British industry on the world market. From the very moment the first tariff barriers were imposed on industrial products, we could no longer speak of a system of free enterprise and free economy. Since that time, now more than a century ago, economic principles and economic necessities have been clashing with our political beliefs and fighting a losing battle. No matter how rational were the classic arguments of liberal economists, their doctrines were powerless in the face of irrational and transcendental nationalist passions. To national governments—and to the great majority of the peoples—it seemed more important to build up and maintain national industries, no matter how uneconomically they functioned, than to allow their people access to the best and cheapest commodities on the market. For a certain time tariff barriers did help certain nations to increase their wealth and raise their living standards. Large national compartments, the United States, the British Empire, even the French and German Empires, progressed rapidly and nationalist advocates of tariff barriers were perfectly justified in pointing out that this progress was the result of the protective walls erected around their nation-states. Within a few decades a point was reached at which there was hardly a country whose economy could develop further based entirely on national territories and populations. The greatest industrial powers lacked raw materials, which they were forced to purchase abroad, and were unable to consume their entire production at home. Once this saturation point in the internal development of national economies was reached and interchange with the economies of other closed national systems became inevitable, the ensuing conflict between political and economic interests threw the entire economy of the world out of gear. Unemployment surged up and the nation-states, after having intervened in the free movement of goods and services, were now forced to interfere with the free movement of peoples, with migration. This solved no problem at all The social schism resulting from the so-called system of free enterprise—which nation-states never allowed to be free—began to dominate the political scene and socialism was born. Although Marx and Engels made the socialist parties international, strangely enough, "nationalization," and not "mtemationalization', of the means of production was pursued. Obviously, the "internationalism" of the Socialist Internationale was only a tactical move, a mere label. The actual programs of the socialist parties have always been national. They advocated national solutions of the economic problem through transfer of ownership from private individuals to the nation-states. The evolution of Western civilization in the past hundred years is best characterized by this struggle between the liberal and conservative elements upholding the ideals of free enterprise and private ownership of tools and means of production, and the socialist and Communist elements working toward state ownership of instruments of production. Today it is clear to all—the First, Second and Third Internationales notwithstanding—that the outlook of both groups has always been and still is national. Both believe solutions of the economic and social problems to be possible and desirable on a national basis within the framework of the present nation-state structure as established in the eighteenth century, before the "birth of industrialism. Today we can survey with some degree of historical perspective the growth of both systems: the individualist system of free enterprise in Western states and the socialist-Communist system of collectivism in the Soviet Union. In both, such observation reveals the same trend toward ever-increasing nationalist state machinery and ever-growing pressure on the individual by control, regulation and infringement of his personal liberty. In all capitalist countries the conflict between industrialism and nationalism led to higher and higher tariffs, to more and more government control of production and distribution by means of export and import regulations, quotas, taxation, supervision, direct control and active direction. Growing tension resulting from demographic pressure and economic necessity led more and more of the industrial countries to embark upon a policy of expansion, first by the conquest of foreign markets through dumping and other artificial export subventions, then by open military aggression. The incredibly rapid development of world communications brought all the industrial powers in contact with each other, making conflicts insoluble and wars inevitable. This constant danger of attack from outside forces tremendously accelerated the already existing tendency to concentrate more and more power in the hands of centralized national governments. Within the nation-states the conflict between eighteenth century doctrines of political democracy and early nineteenth century doctrines of free economic enterprise became even more acute after the first World War, which left all the underlying problems unsolved. In some countries where the pressure was greatest, it led to open repudiation of democratic and liberal political principles and to the establishment of a new creed, which made of necessity a virtue and proclaimed the state as the highest ultimate goal of human society, in absolute denial of the eighteenth century democratic conceptions. The fact that the conclusions of abstract reasoning and the results of empirical observation coincide is of great help in the correct diagnosis and interpretation of the present world crisis, its causes and its symptoms. We have seen the irresistible sequence of events which, during the past decades, has led all industrial countries, both capitalist and Communist, toward the all-powerful nation-state, in almost total contradiction to their proclaimed principles. Developments during the first part of the twentieth century demonstrate conclusively the fallacy of the Marxist belief that capitalism is bound automatically to be transformed into Communism, that Communism is the natural product and the final result of capitalism. During the critical twenty-five years between 1917 and 1942, not one single democratic capitalist country has become Communist nor has one adopted government ownership of all means of production. Not one single event has occurred to prove this Marxist doctrine, despite the tremendous efforts of Communist parties all over the world to conquer power and despite the deadly fears of the capitalists that they would do so. Only in Russia has the Communist system been established, by means of revolution. Now Russia had never been a capitalist, democratic society. It had always been feudal, agricultural, illiterate, a backward conglomeration of peoples ruled by an autocratic dynasty. From the very moment of the Communist revolution—which was in complete opposition to the scientific previsions of Marx, who said Communism would grow out of capitalism and be established first in the most highly industrialized countries—from that very moment the same phenomena occurred as in capitalist countries, the same development, the same transformation, the same irresistible drive .toward centralized bureaucratic state administration. During those very same twenty-five years, however, about two dozen capitalist, democratic countries became—Fascist Empirical observation would indicate that the "natural product" of capitalism is not Communism but Fascism. And it seems equally clear that Communism, under certain circumstances now prevailing, moves in the same direction. The alternative therefore appears not to he "Communism or Fascism," as was popularly believed between 1920 and 1940. Historical events during those twenty years and political facts irrefutably demonstrate that: 1. Not one capitalist, democratic country became Communist. 2. A number of capitalist, democratic countries evolved through parallel processes, toward Fascism. 3. The only existing Communist country was dominated by the same forces and also evolved into a totalitarian, Fascist state. History will not describe socialism as having replaced or followed capitalism. Most certainly both will be recorded as parallel phenomena, expressions of one and the same era Socialism could not establish itself until capitalism had first begun closely to resemble socialism, until socialism itself had begun to look a good deal like capitalism. It was the transformation of capitalism into a system of economic planning, of cartels, trusts, tariffs, subsidies and other regulations, and of interference by the central political authority that paved the way for socialism. And it was the transformation of socialism from a rigid, egalitarian doctrine into an hierarchical conception with differentiations of functions and income that made socialism a workable reality. Today it is useless to contrast the two systems, as there are many socialist features in the most capitalist countries, just as there are many capitalist features in the most socialist country. The only conclusion we can draw from these facts is that capitalism and socialism are parallel phenomena intimately blended everywhere; that Communism does not grow out of capitalism; that it can establish itself only by revolution; that within the existing nation-state structure both have a tendency—at the present stage of industrialism—to develop into centralized, bureaucratic and totalitarian regimes. Simultaneously with this development, a new political philosophy and movement arose—Fascism—proclaiming as an ideal, as a positive aim of policy, the very social order toward which all countries were actually developing. This new Fascist movement, so diametrically opposed to all the fundamental principles of Christianity, socialism and democracy, spread like wildfire around the whole globe. What is the historic meaning of Fascism? We cannot answer this question without freeing ourselves from emotional prejudice. It makes for hopeless confusion to allow the terms applied to the major forces of our time to degenerate into fetish words with which to slur each other. We shall get nowhere by calling anyone who is not himself an enterpriser and who expresses doubts as to the wisdom of the political, economic and financial policies of the capitalist countries—a Communist; or by calling anyone who dares to remark that Soviet Russia is not quite a perfect Garden of Eden, or that Stalin and his government may not always and in all cases be a hundred per cent right—a Fascist. Emotional outbursts and name-calling cannot help in an effort to analyze and discuss the dominating currents of our time. We must stop believing that Fascism is the political instrument of a few gangsters lusting for power. It is also impossible to explain Fascism by social cleavage alone, by class warfare. The liberals say that Fascism is the result of socialism, that socialist doctrines regarding economic planning, public control of production, distribution, etc., lead straight to state domination, totalitarian dictatorship, Fascism. But there must be a difference between socialism and Fascism. Otherwise Fascist governments, after assuming power, would not immediately dissolve trade unions and labor parties, destroy all the liberties of the workers and persecute all who called themselves socialists or who desire to advance the interests of the working class. Socialists say that Fascism is an instrument of capitalism, that it is the highest form of capitalism, that its purpose is to oppress the working classes and to prevent their emancipation through labor unions and socialism. This is an equally shallow point of view. The socialists cannot deny that of their own free will millions of factory workers supported and voted for Hitler, Mussolini and other Fascist dictators, that many trade unions and syndicates joined Fascist regimes and that many socialist leaders became members of Fascist governments. In face of Fascism the cleavage in proletariat ranks is just as wide as in any other section of society. Certainly elements of both capitalism and socialism are to be found in Fascism. But its historical and sociological meaning are altogether different and much more significant. If we try to determine the meaning of democracy, socialism and Fascism, it becomes apparent that under the pressure resulting from the nation-state structure of the world and because of the ravaging wars inherent in this structure, both the democracies and the Soviet Union axe bound to evolve toward Fascism. Among the three great powers opposing the Fascist camp in this second World War, the Soviet Union, of course, most closely approaches the ideal of totalitarianism, the ideal of a Fascist state, although Soviet citizens would vigorously deny such an allegation. But this confusion of terms is merely the result of a lack of definition. It is a game of words. There is a story about Huey Long which, whether true or not, is extremely symptomatic of our age. When the Louisiana demagogue was asked whether he believed that the United States would become Fascist, he answered: "Surely. But we shall call it anti-Fascism," In spite of the innumerable speeches and treatises attempting to define the phenomenon of Fascism— more exactly totalitarianism—it is, even after it has conquered half the world, a nebulous notion, a rather mystical conception. The best definition of Fascism is still the article "Vascismo" written by Benito Mussolini in the Enciclopedia Itdiancu The ideology and the doctrinal foundation of Fascism are admittedly a reaction to developments of the past two centuries. According to Mussolini: "Fascism is a spiritual conception, born of the general reaction of this century against the sluggish and materialist positivism of the eighteenth century." It is also a reaction to the age of reason in the political field. "Fascism is a religious conception in which man appears in his inherent relationship to a superior law, to an objective Will, which transcends the particular individual and elevates him as a conscious member of a spiritual society." To induce man—confused and disillusioned by the insecurity resulting from the bankruptcy of democratic individualism in an age of conflicting nation-states—to renounce his individuality and accept complete subordination to the state in exchange for security, Mussolini surrounded the Fascist idea with a great deal of mysticism and sophism. 'The world in the sense of Fascism is not the materialistic world it superficially appears to be, in which man is an individual distinct from all the others, standing alone, governed by a law of nature which instinctively mates him live a life of egoistic and momentary self-satisfaction. The man of Fascism is an individual who is the expression of nation and country, the expression of the moral law that binds together tie people and generations in one tradition and in one mission, which does away with the instinct of a narrow life of short-lived pleasure, to establish a sense of duty toward a superior life, free from the limits of time and space: a life in which the individual, through self-abnegation, through sacrifice of his own particular interests, even through death, realizes all that spiritual existence in which lies his value as a man." And to justify complete political and economic enslavement of the individual, he proclaims: 'The individual in the Fascist State is not nullified, rather he is multiplied, just as in a regiment one soldier is not diminished hut multiplied by the number of his comrades . . . Outside history, man is non-existent. For that reason, fascism is against all the individualist abstractions based on eighteenth century materialism; it is also against all Utopias and Jacobin innovations. Fascism does not believe in the possibility of 'happiness' on earth, as was the desire expressed in the economic literature of the 1700's. . . ." But underlying all this dialectic and emotional justification, Fascism has one single purpose, one single thesis, one single philosophy, which is mirrored throughout Mussolini's long expose defining the doctrine of Fascism. "Liberalism denied the state in the interest of the individual; Fascism reaffirms the state as the true embodiment of the individual . . ." "Anti-individualist, the Fascist conception is for the state. It is for the individual only insofar as he coincides with the state, that is with the consciousness and universal will of man in his historical existence .. ." There can be "no individuals outside the state, nor any groups (political parties, associations, trade unions, classes) . . ." "For the Fascist, everything is in the state, nothing human or spiritual exists, and even less anything of value exists outside the state. In this sense, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist state, the synthesis and unity of all values, interprets, develops and lends potency to the whole life of the people. . . ." "It is not the nation which creates the state. . . . On the contrary, the nation is created by the state, which gives the people, conscious of their own moral unity, a will, and therefore a real existence . . ." "For Fascism the state is an absolute, before which individuals and groups are relative. Individuals and groups are 'thinkable' only insofar as they are within die state . . ." "The state, in fact, as the universal ethical will is the creator of right . .." These categoric declarations make it clear that Fascism is not an economic conception. It is essentially a politico-social doctrine. Its aim is the absolute, untrammelled, totalitarian domination of the nation-state with complete regulation of individual life, the reduction of the individual to serfdom. But this totalitarian, Fascist state can operate in principle just as well in capitalist economy, with private enterprise and private ownership of capital, as it can function in a socialist system of economy with centralized state planning and state ownership of capital. Fascism is not a reaction to capitalism nor is it a reaction to socialism. It is a reaction to democratic individualism, in no matter what economic form, under certain specific political conditions. Totalitarian Fascism clearly represents a suppression of the social and economic conflict within the nation-states by bestowing absolute supremacy on the nation-state—the real cause of the crisis—to the detriment of free industrial development—which alone could remedy it. The strait-jacket of nationalism and the nation-state tends to paralyze political liberty and economic freedom. In the gradual disintegration we have witnessed during the first half of the twentieth century, within one nation-state after the other, a stage was reached in which it appeared imperative for survival of the state to throw overboard the already challenged and distrusted ideals of individualism and democracy, and to establish a clear-cut dictatorship, on the pretext that complete state domination was the only solution to internal chaos and political fratricide. The real conflict of our age is not between individualism and collectivism, nor between capitalism and Communism, but between industrialism and nationalism. In recent history and in our own lifetime we have seen that both capitalism and socialism lead to state domination—to totalitarian Fascism. From this empirical phenomenon, we must draw the conclusions we should have reached a long time ago by rational analysis, that Fascism has nothing to do with the form of the economic system—capitalism or socialism—but with its content: industrialism. We cannot maintain industrial progress within the nation-state structure without arriving at complete state domination and the destruction of political democracy and individual liberty—without arriving at Fascism. To what purpose is all this mistrust, hatred and fighting between socialists and capitalists, accusing each other of totalitarianism, oppression and exploitation? The truth is that both are becoming Fascist and totalitarian. It is high time to realize this and to start the common fight for human liberty and welfare, against the common and real enemy—the nation-state. Both camps are more or less hypnotized by the Fascist reasoning that there can be no individual freedom without "freedom" of the state. Consequently, since the democratic machinery created to express the sovereignty of the people gets out of control as a result of internal crises within the nation-states and government becomes unstable, the view is advanced that the sovereignty of the people is best expressed by the totalitarian state. Indeed, according to Fascist theory, the power of the state is the only criterion of national sovereignty. In this conception, the needs of modern industrialism are completely subjugated to the dictates of an all-powerful nationalism. Many people have thought, and still believe, that Fascism is the antithesis of or a reaction to Communism. Many democracies on their road to dictatorship have passionately debated whether they were heading toward Communism or Fascism. People in democracies, who are trying to mate up their minds whether the danger lies in Communism or in Fascism are dreaming of a freedom of decision they do not possess. There is no choice. We are moving straight toward Fascism. To a large extent, we are already there. Even should a Communist revolution succeed in one country or another, it would change nothing in our progress toward totalitarianism. The Communist countries, should there be more of them, would soon join the throng led by the irresistible Pied Piper: the sovereign nation-state. Prevailing theories about the antagonism of Communism and Fascism are utterly fallacious. As fallacious is the point of view that Fascism is the antithesis of or reaction to democratic capitalism. The truth is that neither individualist capitalism nor collective socialism can work within the nation-state structure. Both are marching straight toward totalitarian Fascism. Both are creating Fascism under certain specific conditions, conditions which are activated by nationalism and the nation-state. If we limit ourselves to a choice between national capitalism, national socialism or national Communism, it matters little which we choose. If it is to be "national" it will in any case be totalitarian Fascism. In the last analysis, modem Fascism would seem therefore, to be the inescapable result of the conflict between industrialism and nationalism at their saturation point within the framework of a sovereign nation-state, irrespective of whether the economic system is capitalist or socialist.<br /><br />PART TWO<br /><br />CHAPTER VI<br />NATION-FEUDALISM<br /><br />CONDITIONS prevailing today in human society show striking parallels with conditions after the reign of Charlemagne and the Carlovingians, the era between the tenth and thirteenth centuries, when the system of political feudalism had been stabilized and was flourishing. When the centralized rule of the known Western world collapsed with the fall of the Roman Empire, and the Church was not sufficiently strong and well organized to replace the Pax Romana with an equally efficient centralized secular order, the lives and property of the people were stripped of the necessary protection against uprisings of the poverty-stricken, landless peasants or against sudden attacks by invaders from the neighboring lands. From this chaotic stage of Western evolution emerged feudalism, created and set into motion as a political system by the desire of the masses for protection and security. The landless freeman and the small landowner went to the most powerful lord of the land in the neighborhood and asked for shelter and support in exchange for which they offered their services. The subjects submitted themselves and their lands —if they had any—to the baron, and received from him food and shelter in peacetime and equipment in war, for which they tilled the soil, paid taxes and fought battles. Although later the lords of the land were all vassals of the long—who became the symbol of unity— sovereign power was, for all practical purposes, vested in the individual barons. The administration of the land and of the law, of armed force and of finance were almost entirely in their hands. Feudalism differed greatly in the various parts of Europe, but certain of its features were identical everywhere. These were: 1. The vassal-lord relationship. 2. Loyalty and mutual obligation, protection and service, binding together all the ranks of each separate feudal social unit. 3. Contractual relations of lord and tenant, determining all individual and collective rights, forming the foundation of all law. 4. Financial sovereignty of the feudal lord, with the power to tax his subjects and in some cases to coin money. 5. The juridical sovereignty of the feudal lord. His courts were the public courts, and revenue from all fines went to him. 6. The military sovereignty of the feudal lord. AH subjects on tie lands of the lord owed him military service, were obliged to take up arms whenever he called upon them. The feudal landlord was also the commander of the troops composed of his subjects. 7. Each feudal baron had his symbol, emblem, flag, etc., to which all subjects living on his lands owed obeisance and allegiance. The relations between commoner and feudal landlord as demonstrated by these principles are almost the same as the relations existing today between nation-states and their citizens. The foundation of feudal relationship was not only land. A great many other services and privileges were integrated in the system. The feudal lord conferred public offices, various sources of revenue, the right to collect tolls, to operate a mill, etc., to some of his subjects, in return for which the subject became a vassal of the lord. He swore an oath of fealty binding him to the obligations of service and allegiance he had assumed. With such a contract he received ceremonial investiture from his lord. These ceremonies establishing the relations between vassal and lord were almost identical with the process of naturalization in modern nation-states. During the centuries of political feudalism, the actual government of the kings, the central power, was most rudimentary and primitive. Little, if any, direct relation existed between individual subjects and the central government of the king. Real power was vested in the feudal baron who was the actual ruler. He alone had control and power over the individuals. The system, however, soon began to show its in adequacies. Within one large estate the lord of the land could provide his subjects with protection. But identical social units were developing in the same way on all sides, with corresponding power and rights vested in the neighboring barons. Hundreds, thousands of feudal lords obtained sovereign rights over their lands and over their subjects. The relations between the lords and their subjects were established by custom and regulated by law, but the relationships between the neighboring lords of the land were unregulated except by family ties, friendships, pledges and agreements between them. Naturally, jealousies and rivalries soon flared up among the individual lords, who more and more frequently called upon their subjects to take up arms and fight the subjects of a neighboring lord to protect their own sovereignty, their lands, their influence. As intercommunications developed and increased, as populations grew and interchange between feudal units was intensified, the conflicts between these units increased in frequency and violence. Each feudal knight looked upon the power and influence of his neighbors with fear, distrust and suspicion. There was no way to obtain security against attack other than to defeat one's neighbor in battle, conquer his lands, incorporate his subjects, thereby raising one's own power and widening one's own sphere of influence. This evolution culminated in complete chaos with almost permanent fights between the various sovereign feudal units. It took a long time for the subjects to realize that the contracts they had entered into with the feudal barons to obtain security and protection had brought them instead permanent wars, insecurity, misery and death. Finally, however, they found that their salvation could be achieved only by destroying the power of the feudal landlords and establishing and supporting a government to stand above the quarrelling and warring barons, a government that would possess enough strength to create and enforce laws standing above feudal interests, and that would establish direct relations between the subjects and the central government, eliminating the intermediary feudal sovereignties. So they rallied around the kings, who became strong enough to impose a superior legal order. Feudalism, a political system which dominated the world for five long centuries, finally began to disintegrate at the end of the thirteenth century, the moment better means of intercommunication and the growth of common ideas made wider centralization possible. Under the impact of these new conditions, the subjects turned against the sovereign feudal governments and established central governments under the sovereignty of the king, ending once and for all the interminable quarrels and fights between the intermediary social units which enslaved the population in the interest and for the maintenance of the sovereign power of the lords of the land. What does this long and painful history of medieval society have to do with our problem in the twentieth century? Man in society is constantly seeking security and freedom. This is a fundamental instinct. Both security and freedom are the products of law. Since history began to be written, the human race has struggled for the best forms and methods to achieve a social order within which man can have both freedom and security. The historical evolution of human society proves that these human ideals are best achieved if tie individual is in direct relationship with a supreme, central, universal source of law. Twice in the history of Western civilization this truth, which seems axiomatic, has found institutional expression: in the monotheistic religions and in democracy. The fundamental doctrine of the Jewish, Christian and Mohammedan religions is monotheism, the oneness of God—the Supreme Lawgiver—the basic belief that before God, every man is equal. This doctrine, the rock upon which modern Western civilization is built, destroyed the polytheism of primitive human society. It destroyed the many different, selfish and inimical gods who, in the early stages of history, incited mankind to war and to destroy each other for the simple reason that every minor group of men had a different god whom they worshiped and who gave them law. The establishment of a single universal God as the Supreme Being and unique source of authority over mankind, and the attribution of His direct relationship to every man on earth, revealed for the first time the only lawmaking system upon which peaceful human society can be built. At the time this elementary thesis of society was revealed and proclaimed, technical and material conditions were far too primitive to permit its application and effective realization in the known world. In religion, the doctrine slowly conquered the faith of man and became the dominating creed of the modern world. However, it could not assert itself as a political doctrine of a society that continued to develop along pre-Christian lines. In the eighteenth century, political conditions at last induced the fathers of modern democracy to open a crusade to destroy the sovereignty of the many kings and rulers who oppressed and enslaved the people. This crusade led to the formulation and proclamation of the basic principle that sovereignty in human society resides in the community. This principle, the very foundation of democracy, represents the political corollary of monotheism. Its triumph meant the acceptance by society of the thesis that there can be only one supreme sovereign source of law—the will of the community—and that, under this sovereign law guaranteeing security and freedom to man in society, every man is to be regarded as equal. It is one of the great tragedies of history that the recognition and proclamation of this principle came a century too early. When it became the dominating doctrine, the universality of sovereignty, the universality of law, the indivisibility of the sovereignty of the community as the supreme source of democratic law, was not yet feasible or technically possible. The world was still too big, it could not yet be centrally controlled, it was still an exclusively agricultural planet with economic conditions scarcely different from those of antiquity. So a substitute presented itself which permitted the new doctrine of democratic sovereignty to find immediate practical expression. This substitute was the nation. An intermediary between the individual and the universal conception of democratic society, the sovereignty of the community, had to be established in order to make the organization of society on a democratic basis immediately realizable. In the eighteenth century, society could not possibly be organized universally. Consequently, democracy could not be organized according to its fundamentally universal principles. It had to be organized nationally. For a long time the problem seemed to have been satisfactorily solved and citizens and subjects of the modern democratic nation-states enjoyed a hitherto unknown degree of freedom, security and welfare. Relations between the nation-state and its citizens were stabilized, according to which the state guaranteed protection, security, law and order, in exchange for which the citizens pledged exclusive allegiance to their national state and agreed to accept its laws, to pay taxes and to go to battle when national interests required the supreme sacrifice. The national organization of democracy worked perfectly well—for a while. But soon, under the impetus of technical, scientific and economic developments, and the tremendous increase of intercommunication, interchange of ideas, populations and production, the various sovereign national units were brought into close contact with each other. Just as in the medieval age, these contacts between the sovereign national units—the relationships of which were unregulated—created frictions and conflicts. Today we find ourselves in the same social convulsion and political chaos that human society was passing through at the end of the thirteenth century. Far from enjoying freedom, far from obtaining the expected security and protection from their nation-states, the citizens are constantly exposed to oppression, violence and destruction. The multiplicity o£ the conflicting sovereign units in our society destroys every vestige of the freedom, protection and security originally promised and granted to the individual by the nation-states at their inception in the eighteenth century. In the middle of the twentieth century, we are living in an era of absolute political feudalism in which the nation-states have assumed exactly the same roles as were assumed by the feudal barons a thousand years ago. Feudalism created serfdom, not because the supreme source of law was an individual or a family, but because in a given territory there were many individuals and families exercising sovereign power and because these various sovereign units were not brought under a higher, all-embracing law. The fact that men were living in a society composed of a multiplicity of scattered and disintegrated sovereignties, led feudalism into a series of conflagrations which caused the utter misery and starvation of the peoples and the ultimate self-destruction of the system. The fact that today we are not ruled by barons and counts but by institutions created by national constitutions, loses its significance when the multiplicity of such scattered sovereign institutions divides mankind into separate sovereign units. This arbitrary and artificial segregation of human society compels nation-states to act in exactly the same way toward their subjects and toward their neighbors that feudal lords of the land acted under similar conditions to uphold their symbols and institutions, their power and influence, which were for them absolute, ultimate ends. There is nothing kings, emperors or tyrants ever did to their subjects that nation-states are not doing today. Tyranny does not mean the rule of a king, emperor, dictator or despot. It is to live under a system of law in the creation of which the individual does not participate. In the nation-state system, we are unable to participate in the creation of law in any part of human society beyond our own country. It is, therefore, a self-delusion to say that Americans, Englishmen or Frenchmen are "free people."' They can be attacked by other nations and forced into war at any time. They are living in a state of fear and insecurity just as great as under tyrants who interfered with their liberties at will. Absolute monarchy was anti-democratic and tyrannical, not because it was wicked or malevolent, but because it identified the interests of the king with the interests of the people over whom he ruled and because it acted solely to safeguard its particular interests. This is exactly the position of the present-day nation-states. Guided exclusively by their own national interests, disregarding completely the interests of their fellow states and having sovereign power in their respective countries, the nation-states have become anti-democratic and have re-established the absolutism our forefathers destroyed when it was personified by kings. If we take human society as a whole—which in relation to technological reality is smaller today than the society over which the Carlovingian kings ruled —we have to admit that we are living in a society without public law. The legislation of the various nation-states dividing humanity into a number of closed and separated units has all the characteristics of the private law of the medieval dukes, counts and barons, which usurped public law for so many centuries, creating immeasurable bloodshed and misery for all who lived under this multiplicity of distinct systems of law. This system of nation-feudalism has plunged the world into unprecedented barbarism, and destroyed almost all individual rights and human liberties secured with so much toil and blood by our forefathers. Modern nation-feudalism has erased, except in name, every moral doctrine of Christianity. There is not the slightest hope that we can change the course into which we are rapidly being driven by the conflicting nation-states so long as we recognize them as the supreme and final expression of the sovereignty of the people. At ever-increasing speed we shall be hurled toward greater insecurity, greater destruction, greater hatred, greater barbarism, greater misery, until we resolve to destroy the political system of nation-feudalism and establish a social order based on the sovereignty of the community, as conceived by the founders of democracy and as it applies to the realities of today. This necessitates the realization and acceptance of the following axioms: i. Individual freedom and individual security in modern society are the product of democratically created and democratically executed law. 2. All individuals must be directly related to the institutions expressing the sovereignty of the community. 3. Any intermediary organizations with attributes of sovereignty standing between individuals and the institutions of the sovereignty of the community (cities, provinces, churches, nations or any other units) destroy the rights of the individual, the sovereignty of the community and, consequently, destroy democracy itself.<br /><br />CHAPTER VII<br />WHAT IS WAR?<br /><br />IT IS commonly taken for granted that we can never abolish wax between nations, because war is in the nature of man. It is even more widely accepted that war has innumerable causes and that to try to abolish all of them would be a hopeless task. We must refuse to accept such apparently true but basically deceptive statements, if we would avoid becoming the helpless victims of superstition. No one knows just what "human nature" is. Nor is this a relevant question. Assuming or even admitting that certain evils are part of "human nature," this does not mean that we should sit passively and refuse to investigate the conditions which cause the evils to become deadly and the possibility of avoiding their devastating effects. Since man began to think about life and himself, it has been generally accepted that appendicitis and gallstones were in the nature of man. Indeed, they are. But after thousands of years, during which men died from these fatal evils of "human nature," some people had the courage to take a knife and cut open the diseased part to see what was happening. Appendicitis and gallstones continue to be "in the nature of man." But now man does not necessarily die from them. Superficially, it looks as though wars have been waged for a great variety of reasons. The struggle for food and mere survival among primitive tribes, feuds between families and dynasties, quarrels between cities and provinces, religious fanaticism, rival commercial interests, antagonistic social ideals, the race for colonies, economic competition and many other forces have exploded in fatal and devastating wars. Since time immemorial, among primitive people, families, clans and tribes have fought, enslaved and exterminated each other for food, shelter, women, pastures, hunting grounds. Each group had a "religion," a demon, a totem, a god, or several of each, whose divine and supreme will was interpreted "by priests, medicine men and magicians, and who protected them from the dangers and depredations of other clans; inspired and incited them to war upon and to annihilate their neighbors. Life at that stage of society was no different from the life of fish in the deep and beasts in the jungle. Later, at a higher level of civilization, we see larger setdements and city communities fighting and warring with each other, Nineveh, Babylon, Troy, Cnossos, Athens, Sparta, Rome, Carthage and many other similar rival setdements continuously battled, until all of them were finally destroyed. Under the inspiration and leadership of dynamic personalities, powerful clans and races set out upon wars of conquest so that they might rule over new lands and subjects in safety and wealth. Tiglath Pileser, Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, Alexander, Attila, Genghis Khan and other conquerors in history waged large-scale wars to subdue the world as it was known to them. For centuries after the fall of Rome, European society was rocked by endless clashes and battles among thousands of feudal barons. After the consolidation of the three world religions originating in Judaism—Catholicism, Islamism and Protestantism—a long series of wars were fought by the followers of these expanding and conflicting faiths. Kings, princes and knights took part in crusades to defend and spread their own creeds, to destroy and exterminate the believers in the other creeds. The great wars fought by Constantine, Charles V, Suleiman, Philip II, Gustavus Adolphus and other mighty rulers of the Middle Ages were mostly attempts to unify the Western world under one religion. Following the collapse of the feudal system, with the development of craftsmanship, trade and shipping, a middle class of modern bourgeois citizenry emerged and began to crystallize. The field of conflict again shifted, and wars were fought by great commercial centers, Venice, Florence, Augsburg, Hamburg, Amsterdam, Ghent, Danzig and other city units, which impressed their own citizens and hired mercenaries. Then another series of wars were waged by absolute monarchs in the interest of their dynasties, to widen the domains of the great royal houses. The Hapsburg, Bourbon, Wittelsbach, Romanoff and Stuart monarchies and dozens of minor dynasties led their subjects into battle to defend and extend their power and rule. A different type of war was waged between smaller kingdoms and principalities to obtain supremacy within a particular system of monarchy, such as the wars between England and Scotland; Saxony, Bavaria and Prussia; Tuscany, Piedmont and Parma; Burgundy, Touraine and Normandy. And finally, the creation of modern nation-states at the end of the eighteenth century has brought about a series of gigantic conflicts between whole conscripted nations, culminating in the first and second world wars. Looking back over history, war appears a hundred-headed hydra. As soon as the peacemakers chop off one head, new ones immediately appear on the monster. Yet, if we analyze what seem to be the manifold causes of past wars, it is not difficult to observe a thread of continuity running through these strange historical phenomena. Why did cities once wage wars against each other and why do municipalities no longer fight each other with weapons today? Why, at certain times, have great landowner barons warred with each other and why have they now ceased that practice? Why did the various churches plunge their adherents into armed warfare and why today are they able to worship side by side without shooting each other? Why did Scotland and England, Saxony and Prussia, Parma and Tuscany, at a certain period in their history, go to battle against each other and why have they ceased fighting today? A careful study of human history reveals that the assumption that war is inherent in human nature— and therefore eternal—is shallow and faulty, that it is only a superficial impression. Far from being inexplicable or inevitable, we can invariably determine the situations that predispose to war, and the conditions which lead to war. The real cause of all wars has always been the same. They have occurred with the mathematical regularity of a natural law at clearly determined moments as the result of clearly definable conditions. If we try to detect the mechanism visibly in operation, the single cause ever-present at the outbreak of each and every conflict known to human history, if we attempt to reduce the seemingly innumerable causes of war to a common denominator, two clear and unmistakable observations emerge. i. Wars between groups of men forming social units always take place when these units—tribes, dynasties, churches, cities, nations—exercise unrestricted sovereign power. 2. Wars between these social units cease the moment sovereign power is transferred from them to a larger or higher unit. From these observations we can deduce a social law with the characteristics of an axiom that applies to and explains each and every war in the history of all time. War takes place whenever and wherever non-integrated social units of equal sovereignty come into contact. War between given social units of equal sovereignty is the permanent symptom of each successive phase of civilization. Wars always ceased when a higher unit established its own sovereignty, absorbing the sovereignties of the conflicting smaller social groups. After such transfers of sovereignty, a period of peace followed, which lasted only until the new social units came into contact. Then a new series of wars began. The causes and reasons alleged by history to have brought about these conflicts are irrelevant, as they continued to exist long after the wars had ceased. Cities and provinces continue to compete with each other. Religious convictions are just as different today as they were during the religious wars. The only thing that did change was the institutionalization of sovereignty, the transfer of sovereignty from one type of social unit to another and a higher one. Just as there is one and only one cause for wars between men on this earth, so history shows that peace —not peace in an absolute and Utopian sense, but concrete peace between given social groups warring with each other at given times—has always been established in one way and only in one way. Peace between fighting groups of men was never possible and wars succeeded one another until some sovereignty, some sovereign source of law, some sovereign power was set up over and above the clashing social units, integrating the warring units into a higher sovereignty. Once the mechanics and the fundamental causes of wars—of all wars—are realized, the futility and childishness of the passionate debates about armament and disarmament must be apparent to all. If human society were organized so that relations between groups and units in contact were regulated by democratically controlled law and legal institutions, then modern science could go ahead, devise and produce the most devastating weapons, and there would be no war. But if we allow sovereign rights to reside in the separate units and groups without regulating their relations by law, then we can prohibit every weapon, even a penknife, and people will beat out each other's brains with clubs. It is tragic to witness the utter blindness and ignorance of our governments and political leaders in regard to this all-important and vital problem of the world. Voices are now being raised in the United States and in Great Britain demanding compulsory military service and the maintenance of extensive armaments in peacetime. The argument is that if in 1939 the United States and Great Britain had been armed, Germany and Japan would never have dared to start a war. The Western democracies must not be caught unprepared again. If conscription is introduced and America and England have large armed forces ready to fight at a moment's notice, no other power will dare attack them, and they will not be forced into war. That sounds logical. But what about France, the Soviet Union, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and the other countries which always had conscription and large standing armies? Did this save them from war? After 1919, the peacemakers were obsessed by the idea that armaments lead to wars, that a sine qua non for world peace is the general limitation and reduction of armaments on sea, land and in the air. Disarmament completely dominated international thought for fifteen years after the signature of the Covenant. Tremendous amounts of propaganda were poured into the public ear by printed and spoken word, to the effect that "armament manufacturers" were the real culprits responsible for wars, that no nation should build battleships bigger than thirty-five thousand tons, that the caliber of guns should be reduced, submarine and gas warfare prohibited, military service shortened, and so forth.These views found the democratic victors receptive and persuaded them to disarm to a large extent. But naturally they were without effect on the vanquished who sought revenge and a revision of the status quo by force. The outbreak of the second World War proved conclusively the complete fallacy and uselessness of seeking peace between nations through disarmament Now our leaders are preaching the exact opposite. We are told today that only powerful armaments can maintain peace, that the democratic and so-called peace-loving nations must maintain omnipotent national navies, air forces and mechanized armies, that we must control strategic military bases spread around the globe, if we would prevent aggression and maintain peace. This idea, the idea of maintaining peace by armaments, is just as complete a fallacy as the idea of maintaining peace through disarmament. Technical equipment, arms, have as much to do with peace as frogs with the weather. Conscription and large armies are just as incapable of maintaining peace as no conscription and disarmament The problem of peace is a social and political problem, not a technical one. War is never the disease itself. War is a reaction to a disease of society, the symptom of disease. It is just like fever in the human body. We shall never be able to prevent all wars in advance, because it is impossible to foresee future differentiations of human society, exactly where divisions and splits of society will take place. In the twenty-fifth century perhaps the great conflict will be between the orange growers and the believers in Taoism. We do not know. What we do know is that war is the result of contact between non-integrated sovereign units, whether such units be families, tribes, villages, estates, cities, provinces, dynasties, religions, classes, nations, regions or continents. We also know that today, the conflict is between the scattered units of nation-states. During the past hundred years, all major wars have been waged between nations. This division among men is the only condition which, in our age, can create—and undoubtedly will create—other wars. The task therefore is to prevent wars between the nations—international wars. Logical thinking and historical empiricism agree that there is a way to solve this problem and prevent wars between the nations once and for all. But with equal clarity they also reveal that there is one way and one way alone to achieve this end: The integration of the scattered conflicting national sovereignties into one unified, higher sovereignty, capable of creating a legal order within which all peoples may enjoy equal security, equal obligations and equal rights under law.<br /><br />CHAPTER VIII<br />THE HISTORICAL MEANING OF SOVEREIGNTY<br /><br />THE fundamental problem of peace is the problem of sovereignty. The welfare, the happiness, the very existence of a miner in Pennsylvania, Wales, Lorraine or the Don Basin, a farmer in the Ukraine, the Argentine, the American Middle West or the Chinese rice fields—the very existence of every individual or family in every country of the five continents depends upon the correct interpretation and application of sovereignty. This is not a theoretical debate but a question more vital than wages, prices, taxes, food or any other major issue of immediate interest to the common man everywhere, because in the final analysis, the solution of all the everyday problems of two thousand million human beings depends upon the solution of the central problem of war. And whether we are to have war or peace and progress depends upon whether we can create proper institutions to insure the security of the peoples. Schopenhauer pointed out that health is a negative feeling of which we are never aware, while pain produces a positive sensation. If we cut our little finger, we concentrate on that completely dominating pain, excluding from our consciousness the many other parts of our body which remain uninjured and healthy.This observation has also been proved true in other fields of human activity—certainly in the field of social science. Great social and political structures and revolutionary ideas are usually born in times of crisis. The very fact that today there is so much talk of sovereignty—a word that was hardly mentioned in political discussions a decade or two ago—proves the existence of a sore spot in the body politic. It leaves no doubt that something is wrong with sovereignty, that the present interpretation of this notion is passing through a crisis and that clarification, restatement and reinterpretation are necessary. In discussing this most intricate problem, it is essential to make a clear distinction between its two entirely different aspects. The first is scientific: a realization of exactly what sovereignty is, what it meant historically during the various phases of human development, and what it means in a democracy in the middle of the twentieth century. The second—which we must eliminate from consideration while searching for definitions and principles is: What would the people be capable of understanding, and what would they accept politically right now? In our endeavor to arrive at a clear definition and correct interpretation of democratic sovereignty, we must not be deterred by the argument that the quest is futile because the people are nationalist and would resist any changes in the present political construction of the world. Such an outlook—a sort of government by polls of public opinion—is not democracy, but its caricature.New ideas always take shape within a small group of men whose task it is to spread them and get them accepted by the people When Pasteur discovered that contagious diseases were caused by living organisms and explained how such diseases could be cured, almost everybody, including the overwhelming majority of doctors, laughed at him. At the time Hertz and Marconi declared that sound and signals could be transmitted around the world by radio waves, a public opinion poll would certainly have shown that ninety-nine per cent of the people believed such a thing impossible and for all purposes, impractical Those who, at the time of the Thirty Years' War, declared that it was possible for Catholics and Protestants to worship in freedom according to their beliefs and to live together peacefully under law, were regarded as dreamers and most impractical men. Democracy does not mean that governments have to ask the people their opinions on complicated issues and then carry them out. It is essentially a form of society within which the conception of new ideas, their diffusion in view of their acceptance by the majority, the fight for leadership, is open to everybody. The first problem, therefore, is that those who, for one reason or another, are in a position to influence public opinion and events should know the exact meaning of the words they are using and clearly define the ideas they are advocating. The first step toward realism is the clarification of principles.It seems one of the absurdities of our unhappy generation that hopeless Utopians who live entirely in the past and are incapable of visualizing the future otherwise than as a projection of the past, call themselves realists and practical men and deride any attempt at rational thinking as "idealism," What does this word "sovereignty" mean? By now most people must realize that human beings are exceptionally perverted and ferocious creatures, capable of murdering, torturing, persecuting and exploiting each other more ruthlessly than any other species in this world. At a very early stage of human society, it was discovered that before we could live together, in a family, in a tribe, it was necessary to impose certain restraints upon our natural impulses, to forbid certain things we like to do, and to compel us to do certain things we do not like to do. The day the first legal imposition of a compulsion was forced upon a community was the greatest day in history. That day, freedom was born. How did this happen? Human nature is such that man does not accept rules unless they are imposed upon him by constituted authority. The first absolute authority was God. So it was necessary to make people believe that the required rules and regulations were the express commands of God. They were proclaimed with all the magic at their command by priests, who had direct access to God and who knew how to proclaimHis will, amid so much thunder and lightning that the people were frightened into accepting them. Here we have the first sovereign authority—the first source of law—a supernatural symbol. Later on as human society developed and law and order grew, it was necessary to separate that which was Caesar's from that which was God's. During that long period of history when peoples were ruled by the divine right of absolute monarchs, chiefs, emperors and kings, to maintain their authority and lawmaking power, to make people recognize them as the supreme source of law, the rulers linked themselves as closely as possible with religion and proclaimed that they derived their power from God. The monarchs ruling by divine right were called sovereigns and their lawgiving capacity was designated as "sovereign." Between the Renaissance and the eighteenth century, as a result of the revival of learning and new methods of rational and scientific thinking, a revolutionary social ideal took shape and found fertile soil among the masses suffering under absolutism. This revolutionary ideal was the principle that no individual, no family, no dynasty, could any longer be regarded as sovereign, that the sovereign lawgiving authority was the people and that "sovereignty resides in the community." This revolutionary principle led to the great popular uprisings of the eighteenth century, to the establishment of the American and French republics, and to the "king reigns but does not rule" parliamentary system in England and many other countries.The ideal of national sovereignty and national independence springs from long eras of monarchy and colonization. At its inception, it was a great forward step and an incentive to human progress. The American Declaration of Independence, the French Revolution, following on the development of representative institutions in England, were an enormous incentive to other peoples to fight for their own sovereignty and independence. The climax of this evolution was reached in the peace treaties of 1919, when more nations than ever before became completely sovereign and independent. Twenty years late all those proud national sovereignties lay trampled in the dust and today more people than ever before in modem history are enslaved and plunged into misery. Why did this happen? It happened because the political system established in 1919, an apotheosis of eighteenth century ideals, was an anachronism, and in total contradiction to things as they are in the twentieth century. The great ideals of national sovereignty, independence, nationality as the basis of states, were wonderful achievements in the eighteenth century, in a world which was so vast before the industrial revolution had begun. The democratic form of government adopted by the great Western powers brought about a century of wealth, a spiritual, scientific and material progress unique in history. But nothing is eternal in this world, and we are again in the throes of a crisis which demands reinterpretation of the foundations of OUT social life. Our present conception of national sovereignty shows how an ideal once realized, can be distorted in the span of a single century. According to the eighteenth century French philosophers, the most articulate among the founders of modern democracy, the democratic conception of sovereignty meant the transfer of sovereign rights from one man, the king; to all men, the people. In the democratic sense, sovereignty resided in the community. By "community" they meant the totality of people. It was quite clear that no individual or groups of individuals could exercise sovereign rights unless derived from the sovereignty of the community. We must try to visualize the world as it was in the eighteenth century. The industrial revolution had not even begun. The stagecoach was the fastest means of transportation. Everybody lived a rural life and any territory of one hundred thousand or even ten thousand square miles was an entirely self-sufficient and self-supporting unit. Under such conditions, the widest horizon of the forebears of democracy was—the Nation. When they proclaimed the sovereignty of the nation, they meant the sovereignty of the community; they meant sovereignty to have the broadest possible basis. Today, a hundred and fifty years later, when we can fly around the globe in less time than it took to go from Boston to New York, from London to Glasgow or from Paris to Marseille, the situation is completely different. As the world is organized today, sovereignty does not reside in the community, but is exercised in an absolute form by groups of individuals we call nations. This is in total contradiction to the original democratic conception of sovereignty. Today, sovereignty has far too narrow a basis; it no longer has the power it should and was meant to have. The word is the same. The conception it expresses is the same. But the surroundings have changed. The conditions of the world have changed. And this changed situation calls for corresponding changes in the interpretation of this basic principle, if we desire to preserve this, the only foundation of democratic society yet discovered. The great change brought about by the technical and industrial achievements of the nineteenth century is that the nation, which in the eighteenth century was the broadest imaginable basis of sovereignty, today is far too narrow a basis. The seeds of the twentieth century crisis began to germinate almost immediately after the establishment of the modern democratic nation-states. Quite independently of the organization of the nation-states and the political conceptions of eighteenth century democracy, almost at the same time something happened which was destined to become an equally strong movement and an equally powerful factor of human progress. That something was: Industrialism. These two dominating currents of our age, nationalism and industrialism, are in constant and inevitable conflict with each other. Industrialism tends to embrace the whole globe within its sphere of activity. Modern industrial mass production needs raw materials from all over the earth, and seeks markets in every corner of the world. It strives to achieve its purposes irrespective of any political, geographic, racial, religious, linguistic or national barriers. Nationalism, on the other hand, tends to divide this world into smaller and smaller compartments and to segregate the human race into smaller and smaller independent groups. For about a century it was possible for these conflicting currents to flow side by side. The political constitution of the eighteenth century nation-state structure of the world had some compartments large enough for industrialism to develop. But since the beginning of this century these two forces have clashed with titanic violence. It is this collision between our political life and our economic and technological life that is the cause of the twentieth century crisis with which we have been struggling since 1914, as helpless as guinea pigs. The meaning of this convulsion is clear. The political framework of our world with its seventy or eighty sovereign nation-states is an insurmountable obstacle to free industrial progress, to individual liberty and to social security. Either we understand this problem and create a political framework in this world within which industrialism, individual liberties and peaceful human relationship are possible or we dogmatically refuse to change the foundation of our obsolete political structure. We can remain as we are. It is perfectly possible. But if this is our choice, then democracy is finished and we are hound to march with increasing speed toward totalitarianism. The first step toward ending the present chaos is to overcome the tremendous emotional obstacle which prevents us from realizing and admitting that the ideal of sovereign nation-states, with all its great record of success during the nineteenth century, is today the cause of all the immeasurable suffering and misery of this world. We are living in complete anarchy, because in a small world, interrelated in every other respect, there are seventy or eighty separate sources of law—seventy or eighty sovereignties. The situation is identical with that period of history when feudal lords of the land had absolute sovereign power over their fiefs and spent their lives fighting and killing each other, until the over-all rulers, the Icings, imposed a higher sovereignty upon them, based on a broader framework. Within such a broader framework, the knights continued to envy and to dislike each other. But they were obliged to envy and dislike each other—peacefully. Our present system of national sovereignty is in absolute contradiction to the original democratic conception of sovereignty, which meant—and still means —sovereignty of the community. Why is it so urgently necessary to revive this notion and to re-establish the democratic conception of sovereignty of the community, which means authority of the people, standing above any individual or any group of individuals? We all reject the monstrous totalitarian conception that the state is the absolute ultimate goal, with supreme power over its citizens, that the individual is merely the abject slave of the Moloch—state. We accept the democratic conception that the state, created by the people, exists only to protect them and maintain law and order, safeguarding their lives and liberty. The significant thing about the present crisis is that the nation-states, even the most powerful, even the United States of America, Great Britain and the Soviet Union, are no longer strong enough, no longer powerful enough to fulfil the purpose for which they were created. They cannot prevent disasters like the first and second world wars. They cannot protect their peoples against the devastation of international war. However sincerely the American, British and Russian governments sought to keep out of this war, they were forced into it in spite of themselves. Millions of their citizens have died, hundreds of billions of dollars of their national wealth have been wasted, for sheer survival. They had to fight for their lives. If the sovereignty of the United States of America, the sovereignty of Great Britain and the sovereignty of the Soviet Union do not suffice to protect their citizens, then we need not even talk about the fiction of sovereignty in Latvia, Luxembourg or Rumania. To put it plainly, the ideal of the nation-state is bankrupt. The nation-state is impotent to prevent foreign aggression, it no longer serves as the supreme institution capable of protecting its people against war and all the miseries and misfortunes that war brings.The second World War has finally demonstrated that not a single one of the existing nations, even the most powerful, is economically self-sufficient These indisputable facts prove that our present conception of national sovereignty is obsolete and pregnant with deadly danger to us all. The inescapable economic and technical realities of our age make it imperative to re-examine and reinterpret the notion of sovereignty and to create sovereign institutions based on the community, according to the original democratic conception. Sovereignty of the people must stand above the nations so that under it each nation may be equal, just as each individual is equal under the law in a civilized state. The question is not one of "surrendering" national sovereignty. The problem is not negative and does not involve giving up something we already have. The problem is positive—creating something we lack, something we have never had, but that we imperatively need. The creation of institutions with universal sovereign power is merely another phase of the same process in the development of human history—the extension of law and order into another field of human association which heretofore has remained unregulated and in anarchy. A few centuries ago, many cities held full sovereign rights. Later some portion of municipal sovereignty was transferred to provinces. Then to larger units and finally, at the end of the eighteenth century, to the nation-states. In the United States of America today, the problems of fire prevention, water supply, street cleaning and other similar matters are under municipal authority. The construction of roads, marital legislation, education, legislation regarding industrial and commercial enterprises, and endless other issues are under state sovereignty. And finally, problems affecting the United States Army, Navy, foreign policy, currency and other matters, are under Federal sovereignty. The development is crystal clear. As human progress continues, conditions require an ever-broader basis for sovereignty, for absolute power, to fulfil its purpose: the protection of the people. New Yorkers are citizens of the city of New York, of the state of New York and of the United States of America. But they are also citizens of the world. Their lives, their security, their liberties are protected in a very wide field by the sovereign authority which resides in the people, who have delegated its exercise partly to the city of New York, partly to the state of New York and partly to the Federal government of the United States of America. The situation as to the delegation of sovereign power by the people to authorities on different levels is the same in all democratic countries. Just as in the United States, so in Great Britain, France, Switzerland and in the other countries, the sovereign peoples have delegated parts of their sovereignties to municipalities, boroughs, counties, departments, cantons and national state institutions. But during the past three decades, we have learned that these highest sovereign units created by the people—the nation-states—are not strong enough, are not sovereign enough, to protect them against international war, against attack by a foreign power over which existing sovereignties have no control whatever. If the state of New York enacted economic or social legislation that reacted harmfully on economic and lahor conditions in Connecticut, and no higher sovereignty existed, such an act on the part of the sovereign state of New York could not be prevented by the sovereign state of Connecticut, except by war. But a higher sovereignty—the Federal sovereignty —exists, and under it the state of New York and the state of Connecticut are equal. This higher sovereignty alone protects the people against such danger. The same dangers would exist in the relations of counties in England, departments in France and cantons in Switzerland, without higher sovereign national authority. Democratic sovereignty of the people can be correctly expressed and effectively instituted only if local affairs are handled by local government, national affairs by national government, and international, world affairs, by international, world government Only if the people, in whom rests all sovereign power, delegate parts of their sovereignty to institutions created for and capable of dealing with specific problems, can we say that we have a democratic form of government. Only through such separation of sovereignties, through the organization of independent institutions, deriving their authority from the sovereignty of the community, can we have a social order in which men may live in peace with each other, endowed with equal rights and equal obligations before law. Only in a world order based on such separation of sovereignties can individual freedom be real. Such separation of sovereignties, such gradation of governmental functions, has proved to be the only real, enduring instrument of democracy in any country. It is irrelevant whether the delegation of sovereignty proceeds from local government to national government, as in the United States, or from national government to local government, as in Great Britain. Whether the delegation of sovereignty develops historically one way or the other, does not modify the fact that democracy needs separation of sovereignties and separate institutions to deal with affairs on different levels, adequately to express the sovereignty of the community. Existing anarchy in international relations, due to absolute national sovereignty, must be superseded by universal statutory law, enacted by a duly elected legislative body. Such universal law must take the place of the utterly fallacious, ineffectual and precarious rule of unenforceable treaty obligations entered into by sovereign nation-states and disregarded by them whenever it suits their purpose. The conception of sovereignty is not an end but a means to an end. It is an instrument necessary to create law and order in the relations of men. Sovereignty finds expression in institutions, but in itself, is not and never can be identical with any institution.Institutions derive their sovereignty from where sovereignty resides. In ancient times, in religion, in absolute monarchies—from God. In democracies— from the people. If our inherited institutions, established in the past, are no longer capable of maintaining law and order and protecting us, then their claims to sovereignty, their insistence upon sovereign power jeopardizes our very lives and liberty, the well-being of society to which we belong, and the sovereignty of,.. "we, the people." Institutions—churches, dynasties, municipalities, kingdoms, nation-states—can be recognized to exercise sovereign power and to incarnate sovereign rights only so long as they are able to solve concrete and tangible problems, to fulfil the purposes for which they were created. To identify sovereign institutions with sovereignty itself, to assume that sovereign rights must eternally reside in any specific institution—today the nation-state—to believe that the nation-state is the expression of sovereignty, is pure totalitarianism, the greatest foe of democracy, the greatest political and social heresy imaginable, ranking with the making of graven images of God and their identification with God Himself in the Christian religion. The nation-states were originally instituted and received their power from their peoples to carry out clearly defined tasks, i.e., to protect their citizens, to guarantee security to their peoples, to maintain law and order. The moment established institutions fail to keep abreast of conditions in society and are unable to maintain peace, they become a source of great danger and must be reformed if violent social convulsions and wars are to be averted. Through such reform and transformation of obsolete and ineffective human institutions into more adequate and more powerful institutions adapted to realities, nothing whatsoever is "sacrificed" or "surrendered." Quite certainly not sovereignty. Such a reform does not require the abolition of nations and national boundaries. Within each nation-state, we still have state lines, county demarcations, city limits, boundaries of our home lots or of houses and apartments. Families have names of their own different from those of other families. We like, protect and defend our own families more than other families. We love our homes, pay allegiance to our own communities, our country-sides, our provinces. But sovereign power is not vested in these units which divide us. Sovereign power is vested in the state, which unites us. Those who talk of "surrendering" the sovereignty of the United States, of Great Britain, France or of any other democratic country, simply do not understand the meaning of "sovereignty." A democratic state cannot "surrender" sovereignty, for the simple reason that It is not sovereign. Only a totalitarian or Fascist state is sovereign. A democratic state is sovereign only to the extent to which sovereignty is delegated to it by those in whom, under the democratic concept, sovereignty is vested—the people.The real source of sovereign power cannot be emphasized too strongly and must never be lost sight of if we would understand the political problem we face. It is the people who create governments and not—as the Fascists say—governments that make nations. The nation-states as they were set up in the eighteenth century, and as they are organized in the democracies today, are nothing but the instruments of the sovereign people, created for the specific purpose of achieving certain objectives. Should the people realize and come to the conclusion that in certain fields they would be better protected by delegating part of their sovereignty to bodies other than the nation-states, then nothing would be "surrendered." Rather something would be created for the better protection of the lives and liberties of all peoples. Sovereignty would continue to reside in the people in accordance with the original conception of democracy, but institutions would be created to give realistic and effective expression to the democratic sovereignty of the people in place of the inefficient and tyrannical institutions of the nation-states. The people would "surrender" their sovereignty only if sovereign power to create law were abandoned to an arbitrary authority or a lawless power. But to transfer certain aspects of our sovereign rights from national legislative, judiciary and executive bodies to equally democratically elected and democratically controlled universal legislative, judiciary and executive bodies in order to create, apply and execute law for the regulation of human relationships in the international field—in a field where such law has never existed—is not "surrender" but acquisition. It is an exchange of a phantom asset, the product of unfulfilled and unfulfillable promises, for a real and tangible asset<br /><br />CHAPTER IX<br />TREATY OR LAW<br /><br />AT any time since the Tower of Babel utter confusion has reigned in this world, it is today— confusion created by discussion of the why and wherefore of the second World War and of the conditions and possibilities of peace. Thousands of books and articles have been published and speeches made about the all-important problem confronting us: how to establish a world order that will prevent another global war. All the planners of lasting peace believe that theirs is the magic formula; that they can make something work which never has worked; that after the failure of thousands of peace treaties they can draft one that will prevent war. What caused these world wars? Again and again we must raise this question to see clearly the anatomy of peace, because only by accurate diagnosis can we find a cure and arrive at a healthier international life. I As an explanation of the second World War, no reasonable man can accept Hitler or Mussolini, or Fascism, or totalitarianism, or Japanese militarism, or French corruption, or Bolshevism, or British appeasement, or American isolationism. These and many other explanations are easily accessible sand piles in which to bury our heads like ostriches; they are convenient self-justifications for our delusion that we are the innocent victims of circumstances and of the malice and mischief of others. They tell nothing at all of the why and wherefore of the second World War. That war came because our social institutions and principles—as we inherited them and as we worship them today—are in total contradiction to economic, technical and scientific realities of the twentieth century in which we live. Our democratic national constitutions, the result of slow ideological development, of a long and laborious upward struggle, with much shedding of blood, and revolutions not a few, were drawn up by our forebears who lived under primitive, rural conditions. The laws and institutions they created were determined by the conditions in which they lived. The institutions established and the standards set by our eighteenth century forebears opened up a century of unprecedented progress and prosperity. More can hardly be expected from human institutions. Conditions that have arisen since the birth of this century, however, have made it impossible for those institutions to control and channel the torrent of events, the force and scope of which could not be foreseen at the time national institutions were created. Our leading statesmen and political thinkers, puzzled by the events of the first half of the twentieth century and unable to understand the essence of peace, seek to escape responsibility by taking refuge in such nebulous assertions as: 'It is impossible to foresee what the situation will be in twenty years . . . " or 'We cannot at this time prescribe rules of conduct for future behavior. . , ." Consequently, they argue, let us seek a "temporary" solution, a "provisional" settlement for a "cooling-off period," for a "transitional" period, after which—"we shall see. . . ." Looking back five thousand years, it can be seen that every decade, every year, every day, has always been a "transitional period." Human history is nothing but an endless chain of "transitions." Transition is the only permanent thing on this earth. In human affairs the temporary is the perpetual. The problem of peace is not to create a permanent status quo. It is to pass through these endless changes and transitions by methods other than violence. We have always been able to solve the problem of peace within sovereign groups of men. We have never been able to solve this very same problem of peace between sovereign groups of men, today between nations. The reason is obvious. Trying to solve international problems by diplomacy or foreign policy, through alliances or the balance of power, is like attempting to cure cancer with aspirin. We could not have a peaceful society in any country if it were based on the idea that the Jones or the Smith family should enter into an agreement with the Al Capone family or Jack the Ripper family, pledging peaceful relationship among themselves.Peace in a society means that relations among the members of the society are regulated by law, that there is a democratically controlled machinery of lawmaking, of jurisdiction, and that to carry out these laws the community has the right to use force, a right which is denied to the individual members of that community. Peace is order based on law. There is no other imaginable definition. Any other conception of peace is sheer Utopia. Each time a war is fought, it is followed by endless debate on the kind of peace treaty that will be made. Hundreds of suggestions are advanced, but no matter what kind of treaty is signed, the next war is inevitable. Why? Because the content of a treaty is irrelevant—the treaty idea itself is at fault We have had thousands and thousands of peace treaties in the history c£ mankind. None of them has survived for more than a few years. None of them could prevent the next war, for the simple reason that human nature, which cannot be changed, is such that conflicts are inevitable as long as sovereign power resides in individual members or groups of members of society, and not in society itself. Quite certainly peace is not a utopia. The only question is, what kind of peace? If we seek peace between x sovereign units, based on treaty agreements, then peace is an impossibility and it is childish even to think of it But if we conceive peace correctly, as order based on law, then peace is a practical proposition that can be realized just as well between the nation-states as it has been realized so often in the past among states, provinces, cities, principalities and other units. Whether we are to have peace or continually recurring war depends on a very simple proposition. It depends upon whether we want to base international relations on treaties or on law. If the second World War is again followed by another treaty or covenant, the next war may be taken for granted. If we have little foresight, and decide to make that fundamental and revolutionary change in human history, to try to introduce law into the regulation of international relations, then and not until then shall we approach an order which may be called "peace." The reason for this is not difficult to understand. The essence of life is constant change, perpetual development. Up to now, peace between nations has always been a static conception. We have always tried to determine some sort of status quo, to seal it meticulously in a treaty, and to make any change in that status quo impossible except through war^ This is a grotesque misconception of peace. After having tried it a few thousand times, it may be wise to remember what Francis Bacon said three centuries ago, that "it would be an unsound fancy and self-contradictory to expect that things which have never yet been done can be done except by means which have never yet been tried" Human society and human evolution, a dynamic phenomenon par excellence, can never be mastered by static means. Treaties are essentially static instruments. Law is essentially a dynamic instrument Wherever we have applied the method of law to regulate human relationship, it has resulted in peace. Wherever we have applied treaties to regulate human relationship, it has inevitably led to war. If we continue to refuse to recognize the essence of peace and believe that it is a negative state of affairs which can be 'lasting," which can be "kept" for a long time without changes, which can be "enforced" by any means, then the problem of peace will be solved only after we solve the much easier problems of the quadrature of the circle, perpetual motion and how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. But if we realize that peace is not a status quo, that it can never be a negative or a static conception, but that it is a method, a method of dealing with human affairs, a method of adapting institutions to the uninterrupted flow of change created by the permanent, inexorable dynamism of life, then the problem of peace is clearly definable and perfectly solvable. Indeed, it has been solved many times in many fields. Policy, diplomacy, treaties, are static, nation-centric conceptions. The only way to control and canalize dynamic social realities is the proved flexible method of law. Clear recognition of the distinction between the two methods of regulating human relations is of utmost importance in determining the direction we wish to take. The method of treaties and the method of law are qualitatively different and can never converge. We can never arrive at a legal order by means of treaties. If our goal is a society based on law, then it is imperative to start afresh. T h e confusion existing in this field is alarming. Many government officials and political writers, in discussing national sovereignty, argue that every time a nation signs a treaty with another nation and undertakes certain obligations, it surrenders parts of its sovereignty. This is an absolute fallacy. T h e signing of treaties by national governments, far from limiting or restricting their sovereignty, is the very criterion of national sovereignty. A strange paradox lies embedded in the dogmatic minds of our statesmen and political thinkers. It is the traditional belief, inherited from the past and entirely dominating their outlook and actions, that there are two different ways of maintaining peace between men. The one—universally recognized and applied within national, sovereign units, is—Law, Order, Government. The other, so far used between sovereign national units, is Policy, Diplomacy, Treaties. This is a mental aberration, an utterly warped picture of the problem. Peace can never be achieved by two such totally contradictory methods for the simple reason that peace is actually identical with one of those two methods. Peace is law. It is order. It is government. "Policy" and "diplomacy" not only may lead to war, but cannot fail to do so because they are actually identical with war.The use of force—the act of compulsion and killing—is irrelevant in defining peace and war. It cannot be the criterion of one or the other because force is inherent in both states of society. The application of force by a government within an established social order does not create xvar. It strengthens and supports the established legal order, therefore strengthens and supports peace. On the other hand, force used as an instrument of policy and diplomacy between social units without previously established law is identical with war. That peace between sovereign nations can ever be achieved by policy or diplomacy—no matter what policy and what diplomacy—whether or not force is at their disposal, is a mirage. "Peaceful policy," "peaceful diplomacy," are terms of absolute incompatibility. In the world of reality, the methods of policy and diplomacy between sovereign social units are identical with war and can never be anything else. Several thousand years of social evolution have crystallized this axiom concerning any human society: Peace among men can only be achieved by a legal order, by a sovereign source of law, a democratically controlled government with independent executive, legislative and judiciary bodies. A legal order is a plan laid down by the common consent of men to make their individual lives, their families and nations secure. Of all the methods hitherto tried, this alone has proved capable of developing and carrying out changes in human relations without violence. The other method, the method tried and tried again to keep peace between sovereign units of any type and any size, the method dogmatically and stubbornly adhered to by our national governments, has invariably failed at all times, in all places and under all circumstances. To believe that we can maintain peace among men living in separated, sovereign national units, by the method of diplomacy and policy, without government, without the creation of sovereign lawmaking, independent judiciary and executive institutions expressing the sovereignty of the people and equally binding on all, is a mere dream. To try to prevent war by the use of policy is like trying to extinguish fire with a flame thrower. Agreements and treaties between national governments of equal sovereignty can never last because such agreements and treaties are the products of mistrust and fear. Never of principles. Diplomacy, like military strategy, consists of hoodwinking, tricking and outwitting the other party. In every other field of human activity, if someone succeeds in making his opponent believe the exact opposite of his real intentions we call this man a liar, a deceiver, a cheat. In military life he is regarded as an outstanding tactical genius and becomes a general. In diplomacy, he is looked upon as a great statesman and he is called Your Excellency. Law is the only foundation upon which social life in modern society can exist. We cannot rely on men's promises not to murder, on their pledges not to steal, on their undertakings not to cheat. That is why we have to have laws and courts and police, with duties and functions clearly defined in advance. We all recognize that when we talk of individual freedom, we mean a synthesis of freedom and compulsion, as quite obviously freedom is a relative notion which depends not only upon the extent to which we are free to act as we please, but equally upon the extent to which the free actions of others affect us. It is extraordinary that despite recognition from time immemorial of this elementary and self-evident truth, we still ignore the essence of individual and group interdependence in the relations of nations, in international life. In international relations we still talk about the "independence" of nations in absolute form, believing that a nation is independent only if it has absolute sovereignty to do whatever it wants, to sign treaties with other sovereign powers and to "decide" upon war and peace. We categorically reject any regulation of that national sovereignty on the ground that this would destroy national independence. In the past we have tried to regulate the relations of nations on the basis of pledges, promises and treaty obligations. We have seen that this did not work. It is not surprising that such a structure always broke down. The extraordinary thing is that it worked between recurrent wars even for the briefest space. The old system crumbled because a peaceful collaboration of independent sovereign nations based on mutual treaty obligations is an impossibility—like some acrobatic feat no trapeze artist could perform. The independence of a nation, just like that of an individual, does not rest solely on its freedom of action, but equally on the degree to which the freedom of action of other nations may infringe upon its own independence. Independence of nations, therefore, does not mean that each nation should be free to choose the form of government it wishes; it means that relations between nations must be regulated by law. Our task is not to devise a status quo—no matter how just—but to proclaim fundamental principles, and on their basis to set in motion machinery for the creation of law. If world society is again based on treaties, then no change in the established status quo is possible without war. Only if we base international relations on law— just as we base on law the relations of individuals and groups within organized society—can we hope that the constant and inevitable evolution essential to life will be brought about by peaceful methods within that legal order. The dogma of "national sovereignty," which is supposed to overawe us, has no relevance in this connection. In either case—whether we stay on a treaty basis or set up a legal order—sovereignty is vested in the people. The difference is that in the treaty system sovereignty of the people is not exercised in sufficiently effective form because each sovereign nation-state has power over a limited area only, without any possibility of control over other sovereign nations seeking changes in the existing status quo; whereas in a world based on law, changes in international relations could for the first time be carried out without violence—by legally instituted procedure. Any treaty—the best or the worst—will bring another war. History offers hundreds of instances to bear out this assertion and not a single exception to disprove it. We cannot prevent crime. For thousands of years we have tried to do so in our social life and we still have murderers and thieves and kidnapers. But what we have been able to achieve is to define quite clearly what we mean by crime, to establish a certain system of laws with coercive force; to establish independent courts to apply these laws and to establish police, prisons and punitive measures to give effect to the decisions of courts of law. This is the only thing we can realistically hope to achieve in our international life. But this we can achieve if we agree upon the proper diagnosis of this world crisis and if we realize that when we talk about international peace we mean exactly the same thing as when we talk about keeping the peace within a nation—in other words, order based on law.<br /><br />CHAPTER X<br />SUPER-STATE AND THE INDIVIDUAL<br /><br />OUR modern industrial world, nation-states are not only the greatest obstacle to world peace. More and more they are the destroyers of the most cherished individual liberties in a democracy.We have seen: i. That in all stages of history, social units of equal sovereignty in contact inescapably get into conflict and war. 2. That a phase of human history marked by a series of clashes between a particular type of equal sovereign units comes to a close when sovereign power is transferred from the conflicting groups to a higher unit. 3. That a transitory period of relative peace follows each such transfer of sovereignty. 4. That a new cycle of wars begins as soon as the new units of equal sovereignty come into contact with each other. These cycles of peace and war in human society through transfers of sovereignty from existing, conflicting social units to higher units, run parallel with the development of individual human freedom. Whenever, through human effort—evolution or revolution—individual freedom in varying degrees was achieved and granted within existing social units, these liberties flourished only until the social units in which they were established came into contact with other units of equal sovereignty. Once such contacts became effective they inevitably resulted in friction and conflict between the units, and they inevitably led to the limitation, restriction and finally, to the destruction of individual freedom, in the interest of the presumed security and the power of the social unit as a whole. This development can be observed in the history of primitive tribes, of the Greek and Renaissance city-states, of mighty empires, of world religions, of great economic enterprises and of modern nation-states. The present trend toward strengthening central government power to the detriment of individual liberty within the modern nation-states is a trend identical with this evolution during many phases of history in all parts of the world. It is a permanent phenomenon in human development. Contacts between social units create competition, arouse jealousies, foster conflicts and lead to violent clashes which, in turn, react by creating a tendency toward centralized power and crushing individual liberty in every sovereign unit within this sphere of contact. In this era so prodigiously prolific of secret weapon and political slogans, another concept has been launched by the enemies of progress, a concept destined to become the object of passionate debate. This term is: super-state. It sounds terrifying. All men of healthy instincts are supposed to react in unison: We will have none of it! Any attempt to establish a legal order beyond the boundaries of the present nation-states is to be discredited and defeated by the rhetorical question: "Do you want to live in a super-state?" What is a super-state? Is a super-state a state of vast dimensions? Or is it a state with an overlarge population? Or is it a too-powerful state? Since the beginning of thought, writings about the nature and the problems of the state in human society would fill whole libraries. In this century-old search for the truth about the state, two conceptions have crystallized. One is the theory that the state is an end in itself, the purpose of society, the ultimate goal. Individuals have to obey the dictates of the state, submit to the state's rules and laws, with no right of participation in their creation. Without the state the individual cannot even exist. This conception of the state found expression in autocratic kingdoms and empires throughout history. Since the destruction of most of the absolute monarchies, it has returned in our age in the form of Fascism, Nazism, the dictatorship of a single party or military caste. The other conception of the state—the democratic conception—sees the ultimate goal in the individual. According to the democratic theory of the state, the individual has certain inalienable rights, sovereignty resides in the community, and the State is created by the people who delegate their sovereignty to state institutions for the purpose of protecting them—their lives, their liberties, their properties—and for maintaining law and order within the community. Our ideal is the democratic state. The state we want to live in is one which can guarantee us maximum individual liberty, maximum freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly; maximum freedom of communication, enjoyment of scientific progress and material wealth. We want the state to restrict and control these individual freedoms only to the extent to which innumerable free individual actions interfere with each other and male necessary regulation of the interdependence of individuals within a society—a legal order. Throughout the whole nineteenth century, such has been the development of the great democratic nations toward greater wealth and more individual freedom. But this development reached its zenith at the beginning of the twentieth century, when industrial progress began to overflow and undermine the structure of the eighteenth century nation-state. In order to reinforce the structure, in every one of the nation-state units, artificial measures had to be taken on a scale that could only be undertaken by governments, A development started which, in the greater part of the world, led to the complete destruction of all individual liberty. In some countries like Germany, Italy and Spain, this change was undertaken openly and purposely by suppressing individual liberty, and by proclaiming the principle that salvation lies in the all-powerful totalitarian nation-state endowed with the right to dispose of the very lives of its citizens. In other countries, like the United States, Great Britain, France, the development has been slow, gradual and against our will. We have continued to uphold democratic ideology but little by little we have given up more and more of our individual liberty to strengthen our respective nation-states. It is immaterial which parties were in power and were instrumental in bringing about these changes. Right and Left, conservative, liberal, socialist, capitalist and Communist forces evolved in the same direction. It is wide of the mark to blame any government or any political party for the growing centralization of state administration. The trend is irresistible. Any other governments or parties in power would have been forced to take the same measures in their struggle against involvement in foreign wars with other nation-states and in their fight against violent social conflicts at home. Under the double threat of imminent and inescapable war, as pressure from outside, and growing social conflicts, economic crises and unemployment, as pressure from inside, it was and is imperative for each nation to strengthen its state by instituting or expanding military service, by accepting higher and higher taxation, by admitting more and more interference of the state in the everyday life of the individual. This trend seems the logical result of the present conflict between the body politic and the body economic in our nation-states. In a world which industry and science have transformed into a single huge entity, our political ideologies and superstitions are hindering growth and movement. Violent conflicts between nations are the inevitable consequence of an ineffective and inadequate organization of relations between the nations, and we shall never be able to escape another and another world war so long as we do not recognize the elementary principles and mechanics of any society. It is a strange paradox that at any suggestion of a world-wide legal order which could guarantee mankind freedom from war for many generations to come, and consequently individual liberty, all the worshipers of the present nation-states snipe: "Super-state!" The reality is that the present nation-state has become a super-state. It is this nation-state which today is making serfs of its citizens. It is this state which, to protect its particular vested interests, takes away the earnings of the people and wastes them on munitions in the constant fear of being attacked and destroyed by some other nation-state. It is this state which, by forcing passports and visas upon us, does not allow us to move freely. It is this state, wherever it exists, which by keeping prices high through artificial regulations and tariffs, believing that every state must be economically self-supporting, does not permit its citizens to enjoy the fruits of modern science and technology. It is this state which interferes more and more with our everyday life and tends to prescribe every minute of our existence. This is the "super-state"! It is not a future nightmare or a proposal we cars freely accept or reject. We are living within it, in the middle of the twentieth century. We are entirely within its orbit, whether in America, in England, in Russia or Argentina, in Portugal or Turkey. And we shall become more and more subject to this all-powerful super-state if our supreme goal is to maintain the nation-state structure of the world. Under the constant threat of foreign war and under the boiling pressure of economic problems, insolvable on a national basis, we are forced to relinquish our liberties, one after the other, to the nation-state because in final analysis our tribalism, our "in-group drive," our nationalism, is stronger than our love of freedom or our economic self-interest. At the present stage of industrialism, the nation-states can maintain themselves in one way alone: by becoming super-states. The super-state which we all dread and abhor cannot he qualified by the territory over which it extends or by the number of citizens over which it has authority. The criterion of a super-state can be only the degree to which it interferes with individual liberties, the degree of collective control it imposes on its citizens. The Italy of Mussolini in 1925 was much more a "super-state" than the United States of Coolidge, although the latter was twenty-five times larger. Tiny Latvia, under the dictatorship of Ulmanis, was much more a "super-state" than the Commonwealth of Australia, covering a whole continent. We cannot have democracy in a world of interdependent, sovereign nation-states, because democracy means the sovereignty of the people. The nation-state structure strangulates and exterminates the sovereignty of the people, that sovereignty which, instead of being vested in institutions of the community, is vested in sixty or seventy separate sets of sovereign nation-state institutions. In such a system, the sovereignty of each group tends to cancel out the sovereignty of the others, as no institution of any one group can ever be sovereign enough to protect its people against the infringements and dangers emanating from the fifty-nine or sixty-nine different sets of institutions in the other sovereign groups. Absolute national sovereignty, as incarnated by our national governments, could operate satisfactorily only in a condition of complete isolation. Once a situation exists in which several sovereign nation-states are in contact with each other, their inevitably growing interdependence, their ever-closer relations completely modify the picture. In a world of sixty or seventy sovereign nation-states, the real sovereign power of a nation to determine—independently from influences radiating from other sovereign nation-states—its own course and its own actions is reduced to a minimum. The tendency within such an interdependent system is to reduce to zero, to cancel completely and to annul any real sovereignty or self-determination of the conflicting national units. At the present stage of industrial development, there can be no freedom under the system of sovereign nation-states. This system is in conflict with fundamental democratic principles and jeopardizes all our cherished individual freedoms. As the sovereign nation-states cannot prevent war, and as war is becoming an indescribable calamity of ever-longer duration, we are periodically called upon to sacrifice everything for sheer survival. We cannot say that our individual freedom is guaranteed if every twenty years all our families are torn apart and we are forced to go forth to kill or be Med. We cannot say that our welfare and economic freedom are guaranteed when every twenty years we have to stop production of consumer goods and waste all our energies and resources in the manufacture of the tools of war. We cannot say that we have freedom of speech and the press when every twenty years conditions force censorship upon us. We cannot say that private property is guaranteed if every twenty years gigantic public debts and inflation destroy our savings. Defenders of national sovereignty will argue that all these restrictions and suppressions of individual liberty are emergency measures, necessitated by the exigencies of war and cannot be regarded as normal. Of course, they are emergency measures. But as the nation-state structure, far from being able to prevent war, is the only and ultimate cause of the recurrent international wars, and as the aftermath of each of these international wars is simultaneously the prelude to the next violent clash between the nations, eighty or ninety per cent of our lives are spent in times of "emergency," Under existing conditions, periods of emergency are the "normal" and not the "abnormal" If we want to stick to the obsolete conception of nation-states, which cannot prevent wars, we shall have to pay for worshiping this false goddess with the sacrifice of all our individual liberties, for the protection of which, ironically, the sovereign nation-states were created. World wars such as have been twice inflicted on this generation cause such major catastrophes, are so horribly costly in human life and material wealth that before all else we must solve this central problem and establish freedom from fear. It is a foregone conclusion that unless we do this we cannot have and shall not have any of the other freedoms. Within a nation-state, as within a cage, freedom of action, individual aspirations, become a mockery. It is all the more important to recognize the primordial necessity of a universal, political and legal order because there is not the slightest possibility that we can solve any one of our economic or social problems in a world divided into scores of hermetically sealed national compartments. The interrelationship and interdependence of the nations are so evident and so compelling that whatever happens in one country immediately and directly affects the internal life of all the other countries. It is pathetic to watch the great laboring masses of common men aspire to better conditions, higher wages, better education, more leisure, better housing, more medical care and social security, while they struggle under the most appalling conditions. There can be no question that these are the real problems of the overwhelming majority of men and women and it is perfectly comprehensible that the ambitions and desires of hundreds of millions are focused on these issues. Yet, the very fact that these problems are everywhere regarded as national matters, problems which can be solved by national governments through national institutions, makes these aspirations unattainable dreams. In themselves, they are within the reach of reality. Scientific and technological progress have brought them to our very door. For a fraction of the time, money, thought and labor wasted on international wars, social and economic conditions could be transformed beyond recognition. But under the certain threat of recurrent wars, all these social aspirations of the people are being indefinitely postponed. Even if in one country or other legislation to this effect is enacted, it will be crushed and buried by the next global war, like mountain huts by an avalanche. Full employment within the compartmented political structure of sovereign nation-states is either a myth or Fascism. Economic life can develop on a scale to provide work and goods for all only within a world order in which the permanent threat of war between sovereign nation-states is eliminated, and the incentive to strengthen the nation-states provided by the constant fear of being attacked and destroyed is replaced by the security that a legal order alone creates. Social and economic problems are essentially problems of a Copernican world, insolvable with nation-centric, Ptolemaic means. National leaders seriously declare in one breath that we must maintain untrammelled national sovereignty, but that we must have free trade between the nations. Free trade without free migration is an economic absurdity, a mathematical impossibility. But the nation-states, like feudal knights, are chaining their subjects to the soil of their homeland, refusing them that most elementary of freedoms, the freedom of movement. The interference of the nation-states in this field of human liberty is identical with the absolute rule of the feudal landowners over their serfs. The system of passports, visas, exit permits, immigration quotas, is incompatible with free economic exchange. Were it possible to assign to nations the economic roles they must play, like casting a theatrical production, the problem of international trade would be simple. If Spain could be persuaded to concentrate on growing oranges, Brazil on producing coffee, the Argentine on raising beef, France on manufacturing luxuries, Great Britain on weaving textiles and the United States on making automobiles, it would be relatively easy to persuade people of the advantages of a free and unhampered exchange of products between the nation-states. But the economic roles thus allotted to the nations are not equally important or equally profitable from a political point of view, and therefore each national unit naturally tends to produce everything possible at home. There is not the slightest chance that the United States will ever stop producing grain and meat so that Canada and the Argentine may freely export their grain and meat products to the United States. Nor will Great Britain and France ever agree to stop building ships and motorcars so that United States shipyards and industrial plants may freely sell their products all over the world. Once a certain number of closed national units are in existence, each producing a certain amount of almost every commodity, and once each sovereign nation is dominated by the idea of strengthening its national economic machinery, freedom of exchange between these units becomes impossible without the stronger producer nation dominating the weaker. Free trade between such divided national economies would inevitably cause shutdowns in a great number of industries in many of the countries and would make it impossible for several countries, working under less favorable conditions, to sell their agricultural products. Such a calamity—brought about by the sudden abolition of tariff walls between the sovereign nation-states could be remedied only if the masses, as they became unemployed in certain parts of the world, were free to migrate to those places where the freedom of competition resulting from the abolition of tariffs, would create prosperity and new opportunities for employment and investment in specific fields. If the nations maintained the existing restrictions on migration, abolition of protective tariffs would bring about conditions in many nations which no sovereign nation-state could nor indeed ever would accept and sanction. The Malthusian superstition regarding immigration that exists in all the nations of the world is so strong today that it is impossible to imagine the sovereign nation-states easing their rigid policies aimed at prohibiting immigration. The fallacy that immigration above all creates pressure on the labor market, lower wages and unemployment is so deep-rooted; the failure of the still under-populated new countries to realize that, on the contrary, wealth is created by man is so striking, that freedom of migration between sovereign nation-states is politically unrealizable. Without it, freedom of trade between sovereign nation-states is unimaginable. Free trade cannot function between sovereign units. To have free trade between larger territories, we must first eliminate the obstacle of political frontiers dividing the peoples. Another conditio sine qua rum of a free world economy—which alone can produce under present-day conditions enough wealth to secure economic freedom—is a stable currency. It is a truism that a well-functioning, highly rationalized and integrated economy requires a stable standard of exchange. But this elementary problem has never been satisfactorily solved and can never be solved within the political nation-state framework. Without a stable and generally accepted standard, no national economy could have developed as it actually did. And no further progress in international economy is thinkable without a universally accepted, stable standard of exchange. Every few years, the entire system of international trade gets out of gear because of some difficulty in the peculiarly constructed world monetary system. Currency is a jealously guarded attribute of nation?! sovereignty and each nation-state insists upon having its own national currency and determining its value as it pleases, by internal, national, sovereign decision. So it is a terrible and constantly recurring problem how to "stabilize" the exchange rates between the United States and France, between England and Spain, between each and any of the national sovereign economic units. But it is no problem at all to keep the currency in permanent relationship between Michigan and South Carolina, between Cornwall and Oxfordshire. The reason is very simple. One single currency is in circulation. Economists and statesmen say that such a solution could never be applied between nations because their living standards are not on the same level and rich countries would suffer from any monetary union. This economic commonplace hardly stands examination. The difference in wealth between nations is no greater than the difference in living standards between the South Carolina tobacco fanners and the Detroit industrialists in the United States, the Breton fishermen and the Parisians in France, or between rich and poor regions to be found inside any nation. The fact is that, just as unified national currency was necessary to facilitate the development of national economies up to their present level, so a unified world currency is the indispensable condition for further development of world economy from the present stage on. "International monetary agreements," "stabilization funds," "international banks," "international clearing houses," "international barter arrangements" can never create stability of exchange rates. If we maintain scores of different national currencies, each an instrument of sovereign national policy, no amount of banking acrobatics can ever keep them balanced, as each sovereign nation will at all times regard its own national economic interests as more important than the necessity of international monetary stability. The complicated machinery of world economy, world-wide production, world-wide use of raw materials, distribution on the world markets, demands a stable standard of exchange that only a single world currency can provide. As long as it is the sovereign attribute of sixty or seventy social units to cheat each other by selling a hundred yards of cloth in exchange for fifty pairs of shoes and then, by a national sovereign decision, to reduce the length of the yard from three feet to two feet, there is no hope for freedom in world economic exchange. No matter how it hurts our most cherished dogmas, we have to realize that in our industrialized world, the greatest threat to individual liberty is the ever-growing power of the national super-state. As a direct result of national sovereignty, we are living today in the worst kind of dependency and slavery. The rights of the individual and human liberty, won at such a cost at the end of the eighteenth century through the overthrow of personal absolutism, are more or less lost again. They are on the way to being completely lost to the new tyrant, the nation-state. The fight for liberty—if it is liberty we want—will have to be fought anew, from the very beginning. But this time it will be infinitely harder than it was two centuries ago. Now we have to destroy, not men and families but tremendously strong, mechanized, sacrosanct, totalitarian institutions. Those who will fight for the lost freedom of man will be persecuted by the nation-states more ruthlessly and cruelly than were our forefathers by the absolute monarchs.<br /><br />PART THREE<br /><br />CHAPTER XI<br />FALLACY OF INTERNATIONALISM<br /><br />ONE of the dominant conceptions of political thought is more abused, more discredited, more prostituted, than "internationalism." Internationalism is such a useless word. It is disliked by the great majority of peoples and compromised by its association with the Catholic church, socialism, big business, Communism, Jewry, cartels, Freemasonry, Fascism, pacifism, armament industry and other movements and organizations opposed one and all by the majority of the human race. Also it is an utterly misleading term. It may prove a blessing that internationalism has been compromised in so many aspects. From its inception, internationalism has been an entirely erroneous notion. It has retarded political and social progress by half a century. Rather early in the industrial age, people of various classes and professions within the various nation-states began to feel restrained and hindered by their national barriers. Efforts were made to try to overcome these barriers, by establishing contacts and working out common programs, common movements, common organizations between groups with similar interests in different countries. For a certain time these organizations no doubt strengthened the position and influence of those who took part in them. But far from overcoming the difficulties which induced their creation, such international organizations stabilized and perpetuated the conditions responsible for the difficulties. Internationalism means exactly what it says. It expresses: Inter-Nationalism. It does not and never has opposed nationalism and the evil effects of the nation-state structure. It merely tries to alleviate particular symptoms of our sick world without treating the disease itself. Paradox it may be— but nothing has added more to the strength of national institutions, nothing has fanned nationalism more than internationalism. The founders of modern socialism assumed that the working classes—ruthlessly exploited, as they believed, by the capitalist states—could feel no loyalty toward their particular nations. The interests of the laboring masses in every country were thought to lie in opposing and combating capitalist states. Consequently, the proletariat was organized on an international basis, in the belief that the loyalty and allegiance of the workers would be the exclusive appanage of the internationally organized Socialist party. But neither the First nor the Second nor the Third Internationale saw that allegiance and loyalty to a nation-state has little, if anything, to do with the economic and social position of the individuals in that state. They made no attempt to weaken or destroy the nation-state as such. Their aim was to overthrow the capitalist class and transfer political power to the proletariat within each nation-state. They thought that such independent, heterogeneous national revolutions taking place in many countries through co-ordinated action, either simultaneously or following each other, would solve the social problem, abolish war between nations, create world peace. It was soon obvious that these "international" working class organizations changed nothing in the worldwide trend toward nationalism. All working organs of the Internationales were composed of "delegates" from all the various nations, from socialist parties whose task was to defend the interests of their own national groups and among whom serious differences of opinion existed at all times. The moment organized socialist workers in the various countries had to choose between loyalty to their comrades in the internationally organized class warfare within nations, and loyalty to their compatriots in the nationally organized warfare between nations, they invariably chose the latter. Never in any country did organized labor withdraw its support from the nation-state in waging war against another nation-state, even though the latter had a laboring class with the same resentments, the same ideals and the same aims as its own. Through a fundamental contradiction in its program, modern socialism is particularly to blame for strengthening nationalism and for the inevitable consequence: international war. The contradiction lies in the discrepancy between the socialist political ideal of internationalism and the socialist economic ideal of nationalization of the means of production.It is difficult to understand how, during an entire century, and particularly in the face of the events of the first part of the twentieth century, not one of the socialist or Communist leaders called the attention of his followers to the fact that nationalization of the land and of industries cannot be reconciled with the political ideal they call "internationalism." The greater the extent of nationalization, the more power is vested in the nation-state, the more impregnable becomes nationalism. The stronger the nation-states, the more inevitable and the more imminent is the danger of conflict between them. The coexistence of three score and ten odd sovereign nation-states with all economic power in the hands of each nation-state is unthinkable without frequent and violent conflicts. Wars between nations—or the threat of such wars— lead to restrictions of individual rights, to longer working hours, lower living standards, freezing of wages, outlawing of strikes, reduction of consumption, conscription, regimentation—in short, to everything labor is supposed to be fighting. The socialist and Communist parties must realize that through their program of "nationalization" they have done more to strengthen and buttress the modern totalitarian nation-states than have the aristocracy or any feudal or capitalist ruling class. This tragedy is the result of acting emotionally on first impulses, without thinking the problem through. The workers of the world' must realize that through their misconception and through their self-deluding ideal of internationalism, they are preventing the realization of their ideals of peace and betterment of economic and social conditions.By advocating nationalization, the socialists originally had in mind, of course, collectivization, the transfer of certain property rights from individuals to the community. During the first half of the nineteenth century, the concept of the nation was almost identical with the ideal of the community, and the confusion of the two at that time is understandable. But at the present stage of industrial development, in the middle of the twentieth century, nothing is more remote from the ideal of the community than the nations. They have shrunk into tightly sealed compartments obstructing any community expression. From the point of view of the community, national and private interests differ scarcely at all. Both are particular interests. "Nationalization" today no longer means collectivism but its opposite. Human collectivity, at the present stage of evolution, is without institutions and consequently without reality. If socialists and Communists believe that tools and means of production or indeed anything, should belong to the community, they must first give reality to the ideal of community before the transfer of any kind of authority to that community can have meaning. Confusing the nation-state with the community is a most dangerous error, as today nation-states are the mortal enemies of the ideal of human community, far more than any landowner, industrialist or private corporation. The same misconception prevails among socialists as to economic planning. They believe that the present anarchic conditions of production guided exclusively by the profit motive can be remedied by economic planning. They would have production guided not by motives of immediate profit, but by the long-range needs of the consuming masses. That for smoother and more efficient functioning the economic process in its present stage needs a certain amount of guidance and directives emanating from authorities higher than the individual manufacturers, can no longer be disputed if we understand the laws regulating all social activities, including economic activity. But the realization of this necessity is an altogether different thing from the assertion that national governments should control such economic planning. In theory, it is conceivable that the economic life of each nation might be controlled and planned as minutely as possible by government authorities. But if such planning is regarded as a national problem; if all plans and regulations are undertaken by national governments, applicable only to their own national populations; and if there are seventy-odd independent systems of planning devised by the sovereign nation-states in their own particular interest, the result can only be confusion, clash of interests, conflict, war— the exact opposite of planning. In the middle of the twentieth century, we see that industrial workers, organized in socialist and Communist parties, are tie most intransigent nationalists, the staunchest supporters of their respective nation-states. Without even mentioning Soviet Russia, where identification of the Communist party with the Soviet state explains to some extent the nationalist fervor of Soviet labor, the organized industrial workers in the United States, Great Britain, France and other democratic countries represent forces demanding higher and higher tariff barriers; restriction if not prevention of immigration; racial discrimination and a series of measures that are clearly reactionary, in which they go hand in hand with their national governments. In any relationship between national units, they totally disregard the interests of their fellow workers living in other nation-states. Internationalism among the capitalist forces was exactly similar in its development Industrialists, bankers, traders, also began to feel hampered by the barriers of nation-states and began to form organizations reaching beyond national boundaries. By and large, they succeeded in arriving at agreements which excluded competition in their respective domestic markets, in fixing minimum prices and in regulating competition on the world market Most of these measures were naturally detrimental to consumers the world over. But their greatest drawback was that they failed to solve satisfactorily or for any length of time the problems they were supposed to solve. Far from leading to a reconciliation of divergent national interests, such international financial and cartel agreements served only to intensify nationalism among industrialists and bankers, all anxious to strengthen their own positions as national units, against other national units. The national contingents of these international producing and financing corporate bodies became completely identified with the interests of their nation-state and in every country governments were backing them by economic policies designed to strengthen the national representatives in these international economic organizations. The direct results of these attempts to internationalize big business led to an acceleration of economic nationalism, higher tariffs, irrational subsidies, currency manipulations, and all the other devices of government control repugnant to the principles of free enterprise. All these attempts by private interests and political forces to overcome the obstacles arising from the rigid framework of the nation-states were utterly futile. After the ravages of the first World War, the representatives of the nation-states, the national governments themselves, felt that something had to be done to bridge the constantly widening abyss between nations, and to prevent a repetition of such devastating wars between them. From this necessity, the Covenant of the League of Nations was born, drafted mainly by Woodrow Wilson, Colonel House, Lord Cecil and Lion Bourgeois. According to the Covenant, peace was supposed to be maintained through regular meetings and discussions of representatives of sovereign nation-states having equal rights in an Assembly of all nations and in a Council, comprised of representatives of the great powers, as permanent members, and a limited number of smaller powers elected as temporary members by the Assembly. No decision was possible over the veto of any nation. Unanimity was necessary to apply any effective measure. Any national government could withdraw from the League the moment it did not like the atmosphere. The spirit of the Covenant was as irreproachable as the bylaws of an exclusive London club, open to gentlemen only. But it was somewhat remote from reality. The League had some success in non-political fields. It did excellent research work, and even settled minor political clashes between small nations. But never in its entire history was the League able to settle a conflict in which one of the major powers was involved. After a few short years, the construction began to totter and crack. When Japan, Germany and Italy withdrew, it was obvious that the political value of the League of Nations, its ability to maintain peace between the nations, was equal to zero. It is useless, to argue what would have happened if. . . . If the United States had joined the League. . . . If Great Britain and the U.S.A. had sent their navies into Japanese waters in 1931. . . . If France, England and other European powers had marched into Germany when Hitler repudiated the Locarno Pact and occupied the Rhineland. . . . If Britain and France had closed the Suez Canal and had used force to prevent Italian aggression in Ethiopia. . . . If the members of the League had gone to the defense of Austrian independence. . . . And many more 'if s ' . . . The historical fact remains that never on any occasion was the League of Nations capable of acting when action would have involved the use of force against any of the leading military powers. To say that this was not the fault of the League, that it was the fault of the powers who would not support the League, makes no sense. The League was, after all, nothing more than the aggregate of the nations that composed it. The League of Nations failed because it was based on the false notion of inter-nationalism, on the idea that peace between national units, between sovereign nation-states, can be maintained merely by bringing their representatives together to debate their differences, without making fundamental changes in their relations to each other. Since the foundation of the League of Nations, events have moved with fatal rapidity into the second phase of the twentieth century world catastrophe, which occurred on September 1, 1939, exactly as if the League had not existed. It is not too much to assume that the rhythm of this series of inexorable events was even accelerated by the existence of the League, because the frequent meetings of representatives of the sovereign nation-states served only to intensify their mutual distrust and suspicion. Besides the functioning of the League, between the two world wars we have witnessed innumerable international conferences, composed of the representatives of national governments, on political, military and economic matters. AH of them failed, although for a short time one or two of them gave the illusion of success. But even these exceptions, widely publicized as successes, were nothing more than pious expressions of vague and unreal hope, like the Kellogg Pact that was certainly not worth the travelling expenses of the national delegates. In spite of these experiences, in spite of the immeasurable misery and suffering of this universal catastrophe caused by the clash of national units, our governments and political parties, supported by the vast majority of a misled, gullible and unenlightened public, have nothing better to offer than a repetition of what has been proved and proved again a total fallacy: peace and the prevention of war by treaty arrangements between sovereign nation-states. With the one sole exception—when in a moment of despair in June, 1940, Winston Churchill suggested union between Great Britain and France—all the utterances and declarations of our governments and political leaders of all parties demonstrate that they are incapable or unwilling to contemplate anything except such an inter-national organization. All the political manifestations during World War II—the Atlantic Charter, the United Nations declaration, the Moscow agreements, the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, the Teheran and Yalta communiques, the San Francisco Charter—underline, specify and emphasize that whatever may be done is to be done and will be done between sovereign nation-states. The world outlook expressed by the word "internationalism" embodies the greatest misconception and the gravest error of our generation. Inevitably it will continue to fortify the nation-state structure, at a time in history when our only salvation and chance to progress lies in weakening and finally destroying that framework. Any artificial setup to overcome difficulties by "bringing together," by "mutual understanding between" the delegates of nation-states is not only bound to fail but will unnecessarily prolong the agony of our obsolete, moribund political system. To realize clearly the implications of internationalism, we must bear in mind the meaning of nationalism. In this our day and generation, nationalism dominates democracy, socialism, liberalism, Christianity, capitalism, Fascism, politics, religion, economics, monarchies and republics. Nationalism is the soda water that mixes with all the other drinks and makes them sparkle. Nationalism is a herd instinct. It is one of many manifestations of that tribal instinct which is one of the deepest and most constant characteristics of man as a social creature. It is a collective inferiority complex, that gives comforting reactions to individual fear, loneliness, weakness, inability, insecurity, helplessness, seeking refuge in exaggerated consciousness " and pride of belonging to a certain group of people. This urge, today called nationalism, has been virulent at all times and in every civilization, manifesting itself in many different ways. The origin and quality of this transcendental mass emotion are probably unchangeable, but the object toward which it directs itself has undergone manifold and radical transformations throughout history. In the long evolution of human society, the "in-group drive" was transferred from the family to the tribe, village, city, province, religion, dynasty—up to the modern nations. The object is always different But the emotional herd instinct itself remains the same. And it constantly causes conflict between the various units until the object of the "in-group drive" is integrated into a larger, broader group. According to the democratic conception, the nation is the totality of the population living within one state bound together by common ideals. The nation is, therefore, an elastic concept. During the past centuries, it has constantly changed and grown and the allegiance of peoples has changed and grown with it People from Massachusetts and people from Georgia did not feel the same "nationalism" in 1850 that they feel today. Englishmen and Scotsmen owed allegiance to different states and symbols before 1707. So changed the "nationalism" of the Piedmontese and the Tuscans, the Burgundians and the Gascons. The Uzbeks were not always Russian nationalists and the Saxons did not always fight side by side with, the Prussians. Nationalism, like any other group emotion, can be directed toward a different object without changing the quality or intensity of the emotion. But at no time in history and upon no occasion was it possible to reconcile and to maintain peace between distinct and conflicting groups of men driven by the same emotions. Inter-nationalism countenances nationalism. It implies that the various nationalisms can be bridged. It recognizes as supreme the sovereign nation-state institutions and prevents the integration of peoples into a supra-national society. We have played long enough with the toy of internationalism. The problem we are facing is not a problem between nationalisms. It is the problem of a crisis in human society caused by nationalism, and which consequently nationalism or inter-nationalism can never solve. What is needed is—universalism. A creed and a movement clearly proclaiming that its purpose is to create peace by a legal order between men beyond and above the existing nation-state structure.<br /><br />CHAPTER XII<br />FALLACY OF SELF-DETERMINATION OF NATIONS<br /><br />DURING the second World War, Wilson has often been blamed for a series of grave errors of procedure, for not handling the situation properly after the first World War. Others, defending Wilson, say that the League of Nations failed, not because of any mistake Wilson made, but because the nations composing the League did not live up to the obligations they assumed. Those who criticize Wilson's actions say that he made a great mistake in not taking a representative committee of American Senators with him to the peace conference in Paris. Had leading members of the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate participated in the negotiations preceding the Versailles Treaty, the Senate would have ratified the Covenant. Had America become a member of the League, the argument continues, the second World War would never have broken out By taking to Paris a delegation with only one Republican, who was neither a Senator nor prominent in the party, Wilson offended the Senate and the Republican party, with the result that the treaty was not ratified. To avoid a repetition of that tragedy, this time representatives of both parties in the Senate should participate in drafting the new world organization. Wilson is also blamed for having insisted upon the inclusion of the Covenant of the League in the Treaty of Versailles. So the conclusion was drawn that this time we should set up the world organization separately from the peace arrangements. Wilson insisted on the equality of nations, members of the League. As that principle did not work, we are now to have a league dominated by the great powers, who actually are responsible for keeping the peace. Wilson insisted that the coalition created by the war, the Allied and Associated Powers, be dissolved after the cessation of hostilities and that the new League take over the settlement of all further problems and disputes, including the application of the peace treaties. That method having failed, the grand alliance created by the war is to be maintained and the proposed world organization to have nothing to do with the peace settlement or with the conditions imposed upon the defeated enemy countries. Wilson insisted upon general disarmament As that program proved ineffective to maintain peace, this time the great powers are to remain armed to prevent any further aggression and protect the peace. Wilson insisted on immediate settlement after the cessation of hostilities. Now we are to postpone political, territorial and economic decisions and make special transitional arrangements before we discuss "final" settlements. Thus goes the dispute. Arguments and more arguments are adduced, blaming the failure of Wilson on the opposition of "bad men," on the secret treaties of the Allies, on the mistake he made by going to Europe personally, on the fact that he took principles and no plans to Paris, on his stubbornness in dealing with the Senate between February 14 and March 13, 1919, when he was back in Washington, and so forth. All these arguments criticizing Wilson's acts and policies are entirely superficial. None of them even approaches the core of the problem. Having reversed our policy and applied methods and procedures the exact opposite of Wilson's methods and procedures, without changing the fundamentals of our approach to the problem, the result will be exactly the same. Granted that the new covenant for a world league was almost unanimously accepted by the United States Senate; now if we made a just peace with the enemies of the United Nations; if we maintained the grand alliance to enforce the post-war settlements; if we created a world organization of all "peace-loving" nations with the United States and the U.S.S.R. participating; if the great military powers maintained heavy armaments to prevent "aggressions"; if the great powers were charged by the proposed world organization to maintain and enforce peace with their armed might—in brief, if we followed a procedure diametrically opposed to the procedure of 1919, the result would be the same: another world war in a short time. We shall never learn the lessons of the swift and complete collapse of the 1919 world order, if we confine ourselves to formal and superficial discussions of method and policy. Less wide of the mark, though altogether fallacious, is the view that the League and the world order of 1919 crumbled, not because of any errors committed in 1919 nor because of any weakness of the League, but because the nations refused to fulfil their Covenant and failed to act at critical moments as they had promised and were supposed to act. So at the end of the second World War, we find statesmen asserting that the 1919 world structure failed because the ideals and principles of Wilson were abandoned. According to them, there was nothing whatever wrong with the underlying principles upon which that order was erected. The historic fact is that the second World War came about, not because Wilson's doctrines were not carried out, but because they were! If we wish to avert further disappointments and another major catastrophe, we must try to understand the essential errors and fundamental fallacies of Wilson's ideas. Although there are a few indications that Wilson did aim at the establishment of a "sovereignty of mankind," his ideas as laid down in the Fourteen Points, Four Principles, Four Ends, Five Particulars and finally in the Covenant of the League, all point most distinctly in an opposite direction. The basic thought of Wilson was that every nation and every people is entitled to self-government, political independence and self-determination and that a league of independent and sovereign nations should guarantee the independence and sovereignty of each and every nation. In the eighteenth century this would have been a feasible conception. But in the twentieth century such an oversimplified and superficial solution was bound to lead to total anarchy in international relations. This conception clearly demonstrates that Wilson, his associates in the creation of the 1919 world order and all the millions who today seek solutions along the same lines, are unable to clarify the confusion in their minds as to elementary social and political principles. Self-determination of the nations is a Ptolemaic conception. Self-determination is an anachronism. It asserts the sacred right of every nation to do as it pleases within its own frontiers, no matter how monstrous or how harmful to the rest of the world. It asserts that every aggregation of peoples has a sacred right to split itself into smaller and ever smaller units, each sovereign in its own corner. It assumes that the extension of economic or political influence through ever-larger units along centralized interdependent lines is, in itself, unjust Because this ideal once held good—in a larger, simpler, less integrated world—it has a terrific emotional appeal. It can be used and is being used by more and more politicians, writers, agitators, in slogans calling for the "end of imperialism," the "abolition of the colonial system," "independence" for this and that racial or territorial group. The present world chaos did not come upon us because this or that nation had not yet achieved total political independence. It will not be relieved in the slightest by creating more sovereign units or by dismembering interdependent aggregations like the British Empire that have shown a capacity for economic and political advancement On the contrary, the disease now ravaging our globe would be intensified, since it is in large measure the direct result of the myth of total political independence in a world of total economic and social interdependence. If the world is to be made a tolerable place to live in, if we are to obtain surcease from war, we must forget our emotional attachment to the eighteenth century ideal of absolute nationalism. Under modern conditions it can only breed want, fear, war and slavery. The truth is that the passion for national independence is a leftover from a dead past. This passion has destroyed the freedom of many nations. No period in history saw the organization of so many independent states as that following the war of 1919. Within two decades nationalism has devoured its children—all those new nations were conquered and enslaved, along with a lot of old nations. It was, let us hope, the last desperate expression of an ideal made obsolete by new conditions, the last catastrophic attempt to squeeze the world into a political pattern that had lost its relevance. Quite certainly, independence is a deep-rooted political ideal of every group of men, be it family, religion, association or nation. If there were only one single nation on earth, the independence of its people could very well be achieved by its right to self-determination, by its right to choose the form of government and the social and economic order it desired, by its right to absolute sovereignty. Such absolute national self-determination might still guarantee independence if in all the world there were only two or three self-sufficient nations, separated from each other by wide spaces, having no close political, economic or cultural contact with each other. But once there are many nations whose territories are cheek by jowl, who have extensive cultural and religious ties and interdependent economic systems, who are in permanent relations by the exchange of goods, services and persons, then the ideal of self-determination—of each nation having the absolute right to choose the form of government, the economic and social systems it wishes, of each having the right to untrammelled national sovereignty—becomes a totally different proposition. The behavior of each self-determined national unit is no longer the exclusive concern of the inhabitants of that unit. It becomes equally the concern of the inhabitants of other units. What the sovereign state of one self-determined nation may consider to the interest and welfare of its own people, may be detrimental to the interests and welfare of other nations. Whatever counter-measures the other self-determined sovereign nations may take to defend the interests of their respective nationals, equally affect the peoples of all other national sovereign units. This interplay of action and reaction of the various sovereign states completely defeats the purpose for which the sovereign nation-states were created, if that purpose was to safeguard the freedom, independence and self-determination of their peoples. They are no longer sovereign in their decisions and courses of action. To a very large extent they are obliged to act the way they do hy circumstances existing in other sovereign units, and are unable to protect and guarantee the independence of their populations. Innumerable examples can be cited to prove that, although maintaining the fiction of independence and sovereignty, no present-day nation-state is independent and sovereign in its decisions. Instead, each has become tie shuttlecock of decisions and actions taken by other nation-states. The United States of America, so unwilling to yield one iota of its national sovereignty, categorically refusing to grant the right to any world organization to interfere with the sovereign privilege of Congress to decide upon war and peace, was in 1941 forced into war by a decision made exclusively by the Imperial War Council in Tokyo. To insist that the declaration of war by Congress following the attack on Pearl Harbor was a "sovereign act" is the most naive kind of hair-splitting.Nor was the entrance of the Soviet Union into the second World War decided by the sovereign authorities of the U.S.S.R. War was forced upon the Soviet Union by a sovereign decision made in Berlin. The failure of national sovereignty to express self-determination and independence is just as great in the economic field, where every new production method, every new tariff system, every new monetary measure, compels other nation-states to take countermeasures which it would be childish to describe as sovereign acts on the part of the seventy-odd sovereign, self-determined nation-states. The problem, far from being new and insoluble, is as old as life itself. Families are entirely free to do many things they want to do. They can cook what they like. They can furnish their home as they please. They can educate their children as they see fit But in a Christian country no man can marry three women at the same time, no man living in an apartment house can set fire to his dwelling, keep a giant crocodile as a pet or hide a murderer in his flat. If a person does these or similar things, he is arrested and punished. Is he a free man or is he not? Clearly, he is absolutely free to do everything he wants in all matters which concern himself and his family alone. But he is not free to interfere with the freedom and safety of others. His freedom of action is not absolute. It is limited by law. Some things he can do only according to established regulations, others he is forbidden to do altogether. The problems created by the ideal of self-determination of nations are exactly the same as the problems created by the freedom of individuals or families. Each nation can and should remain entirely free to do just as it pleases in local and cultural affairs, or in matters where their actions are of purely local and internal consequence and can have no effect upon the freedom of others. But self-determination of a nation in military matters, in the fields of economic and foreign affairs, where the behavior of each nation immediately and directly influences the freedom and safety of all the other nations, creates a situation in which self-determination is neutralized and destroyed. There is nothing wrong with the ideal of self-determination. But there is something very wrong indeed with the ideal of "self-determination of nations." This concept means that the population of this small world is to be divided into eighty or a hundred artificial units, based on such arbitrary and irrational criteria as race, nationality, historical antecedents, etc. This concept would have us believe that the democratic ideal of self-determination can be guaranteed and safeguarded by granting people the right of self-determination within their national groups, without giving corporate expression of self-determination to the aggregate of the groups. Such a system can preserve self-determination of the people only so long as their national units can live an isolated life. Since the nations today are in contact, with their economic and political lives closely interwoven, their independence needs higher forms of expression, stronger institutions for defense. In absolute interpretation, the many self-determined national units cancel out each other's self-determination. What was the use of the "self-determination of Lithuania" when self-determined Poland occupied Vilna? And what was the use of "Polish self-determination" when self-determined Germany destroyed Poland? Unquestionably, self-determination of nations does not guarantee freedom and independence to a people, because it has no power to prevent the effects of actions committed by other self-determined nations. If we regard the freedom and self-determination of peoples as our ideal, we must do our utmost to avoid repeating the mistakes of 1919 and realize that self-determination of nations" is today the insurmountable obstacle to "self-determination of the people" Nobody realized the dangers of the predominating forces of our age better and sooner than Winston Churchill. In an article, published in the United States in February, 1930, he wrote: 'The Treaty of Versailles represents the apotheosis of nationalism. The slogan of self-determination has been carried into practical effect. The Treaties of Versailles and Trianon, whatever their faults, were deliberately designed to be a consummation of that national feeling which grew out of the ruins of despotism, whether benevolent or otherwise, just as despotism grew out of the ruins of feudalism. AR the inherent life thirst of liberalism in this sphere has been given full play. Europe is organized as it never was before, upon a purely nationalistic basis. But what are the results? Nationalism throughout Europe.for all its unconquerable explosive force, has already found and will find its victorious realization at once unsatisfying and uncomfortable. More than any otter world movement, it is fated to find victory bitter. It is a religion whose field of proselytizing is strictly limited and when it has conquered its own narrow world, it is debarred, if it has no larger aim, by its own dogmas from seeking new worlds to conquer." And, after a brilliant analysis of the fallacy of a world order based on absolute national sovereignty, and on the ideal of national self-determination, Churchill concluded, in 1930: "No one can suppose that this is going to last" It did not last. But the emotional hold of these eighteenth century nationalist ideals are all-powerful in the minds of our national statesmen. A decade later, the same Winston Churchill, as Prime Minister and the unforgettable and unchallenged leader of the democratic forces against totalitarianism, proclaimed the very same principles of consummated nationalism and self-determination as the foundation upon which the coming world order was once again to be built—the very principles which ten years before he so correctly recognized as futile and their victory unsatisfying and bitter. The aggregation of acts in every possible combination and permutation—the product of the self-determination of all sovereign nation-states—creates an inextricable network of effects and counter-effects, within which the ideal of independence becomes ridiculous. In a small interrelated and interdependent world, it is obvious that the ideals of independence and self-determination are relative notions. Independence and self-determination can exist in fact only as an optimum, can be achieved only through the regulation of the interrelations of the self-determined sovereign units. The Polish people would have been independent and would have Lad self-determination to a much higher degree than was actually assured them by the sovereign Polish Republic, had certain attributes of Polish national sovereignty been limited, restricted and integrated into a higher sovereign institution, provided that the sovereignty of the German state had been equally limited, restricted and integrated. The first criterion of independence and self-determination is the ability to guarantee freedom against aggression and destruction by outside forces. Today the institutions of the sovereign nation-state are patently incapable of fulfilling that task. The Covenant of the League of Nations was based entirely on the principles of national sovereignty, of national self-determination, on the right of every nation to do as it pleased within the boundaries of its national state. The Covenant was built upon the assumption that peace between such sovereign nation-states could be maintained by providing a place for the representatives of these sovereign units to meet and discuss their relationship, and the machinery to handle the problems arising between them. This was a purely formal and unrealistic conception which did not even recognize the existence of the crucial problem of human society that must be solved, the evident and apparent causes that lead to conflicts and to wars between the nations. With such complete lack of understanding of the nature of international conflicts, with such basically erroneous notions as to the essence of group relationship, Wilsonism and its creation, the League, was bound to fail, no matter what policies, what procedure, what tactics, were pursued by its founders, no matter what attitudes were adopted by its member states. CHAPTER XIIIFALLACY OF COLLECTIVE SECURITY FOR some thousands of years we have been struggling for peace. That we have never reached our goal does not prove that peace is unattainable. But it does prove that the means and methods by which we have tried to achieve it are inadequate. In 1919, completely misunderstanding the forces of his time and the meaning of the crisis which he was called upon to solve, Woodrow Wilson rejuvenated all the eighteenth century conceptions of 11ationalism. The order created after the first World War was the apotheosis of nationalism, of national sovereignty, of self-determination of nations, of the right of each nationality to its own sovereign state. For twenty years the world agonized in the strait-jacket of this rigid structure which prevented organic integration of the nations, led to higher and higher tariffs, to mistrust, unemployment, hatred, misery, dictatorships, armaments and—the second World War. It would seem that all these horrible events might have shaken the blind confidence in those outdated and deadly dogmas, and that the people who have to lead the nations through this holocaust might at least have searched for the real causes of the crisis and for the path that could lead us out of it. The tragic fact, however, is that we are neither heading nor thinking in a new direction. Those in power have no time and no incentive to think. And those who think have no power whatsoever. ' All the documents and pronouncements of the governments of the United Nations prove that they have nothing else in mind than a return to the old policies that failed so completely. It is a strangely topsy-turvy world in which all governments, statesmen, diplomats, politicians and party leaders are ardent protagonists of theories and conceptions so evidently at variance with the realities of our time. During the second World War the documents in which are crystallized the thoughts of the United Nations are the Atlantic Charter, the United Nations Declaration, the Moscow, Teheran and Yalta agreements, the Dumbarton Oaks proposals and the San Francisco Charter. When the Atlantic Charter was first proclaimed, the democratic world was thrilled to the marrow. That thrill derived more from the event itself than from the contents of the proclamation. After a series of Brenner Pass meetings between Hitler and Mussolini, each the prelude to further Axis triumphs, the high-seas meeting between Roosevelt and Churchill was novel and dramatic; it held the promise of triumphs for the enemies of the Axis, Does the Atlantic Charter—does the world view implicit in that document—offer a new approach to the solution of international problems? The underlying idea of the Atlantic Charter is expressed in its third paragraph: 'They (the President of the United States and the British Prime Minister) respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them," That is the charter of the first World War. That is a reiteration of the old doctrine of self-determination, upon which we built the world of 1919 that crumbled so miserably and so quietly. The Atlantic Charter again proclaimed the right of every nation to choose the form of government it desires— or the form imposed upon it by a ruthless minority. It bowed abjectly before the fetish of "national sovereignty" with all that it implies: unlimited terror and organization for aggression within any nation so inclined; non-intervention in military epidemics until too late; blind isolationism and neutrality in a world made small by science and interdependent by industry. The Atlantic Charter, for all its fine intentions, is an anachronism. If applied it would divide the world into more and yet more nations, each of them independent of the others, unlimited in its sovereign right to do mischief. It recognized the right of any country to he as undemocratic and totalitarian as it pleases, a law unto itself. It failed to recognize and to implement larger sovereignties that transcend national sovereignties, human rights that take precedence over national rights. Self-determination is no guarantee of independence. The sad fate of the small nations set up at Versailles proves that. Even before their freedom was finally wiped out by the rampant and self-determined nationalism of Nazi Germany, they could maintain the illusion of independence only by accepting the patronage and protection of one of the more powerful nations: Independence in its absolute form produces only fear, mistrust, conflict, slavery—because it penalizes pacific nations and gives the right of way to aggressors and troublemakers among countries. The third paragraph of the Atlantic Charter, in one terse phrase, enshrines the tragic misunderstanding of our generation. We all assume it to be true that freedom and independence are the inalienable rights of man, and we are seeking to create institutions to guarantee and safeguard those rights. In the eighteenth century our forebears found those guarantees and safeguards in the principle of national sovereignty, in the institutions of the sovereign nation-state, controlled by the people, and in the rights of all peoples to self-determination, to choose the form of government, the structure of their political and economic system within the territorial boundaries of their state, to do so of their own free "will without foreign interference. These concepts and these institutions, in their absolute form, were perfectly capable of expressing and protecting national independence as long as contact between the established national units was either nonexistent, unnecessary or loose. Since modern industrialism, science and communications have shrunk this planet of ours into a sixty-hour flying trip, and will continue to shrink it further; since no nation, not even the mightiest, is economically self-sufficient; since industry seeks to gain markets all over the world and can develop only within a framework where exchange and free communication are possible, these eighteenth century concepts, as expressed in the treaties of 1919 and in the Atlantic Charter, create in their absolute form, conditions similar to a society in which individuals may act as they please, without any limitations on their impulses, without any consideration as to the effect of their actions on other members of that society. In their absolute form, the principles upon which the Atlantic Charter is based lead straight to anarchy in international life. If this present trend cannot be reversed, we are heading toward nationalism more frenzied and delirious than ever. If we cling to the principle of self-determination of nations, we shall have to face the claims of the innumerable nationalities in Europe, Asia, even in Africa, to have sovereign states of their own. The principle of "self-determination of nations" is a primitive and oversimplified expression of the concept of national independence. It is designed to work in laboratory conditions. Present-day realities, however, produce too many interferences to make possible the application of such a hypothetical formula without recurrent explosions. The right of one man is the fruit of the obligations of all men. In social life, this is self-evident. No organized society is conceivable without a codification of the rights and duties of all members of that society. Now, irresistible and inexorable events force us to organize the relations of nations. In international life, however, we refuse to acknowledge this fundamental principle of society, and insist that a workable world order be built upon a Bill of Rights without a Bill of Duties. We fail to recognize that what made the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of the Rights of Man possible were the Ten Commandments. The Atlantic Charter, far from explaining the causes of this world catastrophe and indicating the road to real freedom and independence, again lured mankind toward the mirage of peace, toward a belief that we can have peace and all our cherished democratic ideals if only we give every nation complete self-determination and "the right to choose its own form of government." The ideals of group independence and group self-determination have degenerated into an idol which must be destroyed in our minds if we ever want to see again exactly what that ideal really means. In the Atlantic Charter as well as in all the other documents and pronouncements relating to a future world organization, there lies an implication that is a dangerous fallacy. This is the widespread and generally accepted notion about the nature and causes of aggression. Aggression is popularly considered the root of all international evils, the cause of all wars. This fundamentally erroneous premise logically leads to the equally erroneous conclusion that the task of peacemakers is to suppress aggression. The idea of setting up inter-national machinery with no other purpose than to "prevent aggression" —to "keep the peace"—as the slogan goes, not only misses the point completely, but indeed may become the source of grave consequences. Peace is conceivable only as a social order having the machinery necessary to carry out all the organic changes and modifications in human society that may at any time be required by the natural and uninterrupted development of that society. Such an order of never-ending reform is the only alternative to recurrent outbreaks of violence. This only known alternative is the Rule of Law. If there were no national legal order, then violence between the individuals, religions, parties, classes and other groups within a given nation would be inevitable. Violence under such conditions is an absolutely natural phenomenon, indispensable, unavoidable, even desirable for carrying out changes required by permanently evolving human society. We know that so long as we believe in peace between sovereign nations and endeavor to maintain an established status quo between these nations (no matter what status quo) we shall have wars. If, on top of this policy, which failed as often as it was tried in the past, we are going to create an international "security organization" to "prevent aggressions" or to stamp out aggression by force when it does occur, then we shall have created, certainly not peace but higher pressure on a society that is simmering, stronger obstacles to the irresistible torrent of events, which are bound to cause more and more violent eruptions, because in such an order change without violence is exceptional, if not impossible. To condemn aggression irrespective of the conditions within which it takes place is a superficial truism which can never solve a problem of such complexity. We can never have peace and security by aiming at negative, static conceptions, like "preventing aggressions." If we want to live a more civilized life, we shall simply have to go through the painful labor of setting up "a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair," proclaiming principles and fighting for them. At one time, there were seven Saxon kingdoms in England eternally waging wars against each other. Then a foreigner, a conqueror from Normandy, crossed the Channel, invaded the island and unified the bickering, quarrelling, warring Saxon tribes. By no imaginable moral standard was this a justifiable act in the eyes of those who lived on the island. It was clearly a case of brutal, unprovoked aggression. But was it evil? Was the unification of the English kingdoms, although brought about by a foreign conqueror, wrong? The conquest of the American West was unquestionably another case of brutal, unprovoked aggression. But was this opening of the American continent, this unification by aggressive methods, evil? The planners of future peace should beware of their fundamental illusion: that they can create an order to last forever. No one can put this world into a strait-jacket. No one can design an order and freeze it into permanent shape. It is against the nature of things to create a system of national boundaries and alliances, of economic organization, and then command history to stand still; to consider anyone who attempts to change this order an "aggressor." When the essence of life is perpetual change, adherence to worn-out forms and static conceptions must lead to explosions, wars and revolutions. Static structures, too weak and rigid to withstand the storms of events, will be blown away like a house of cards. Here is the fundamental fallacy of the idea of collective security, based on treaty agreements between sovereign nations, which seems to be the one and only dogma upon which this generation can visualize a world order. All the peace treaties ever signed, all the alliances ever concluded on this planet, the Covenant of the League of Nations, the United Nations Organization, the principles of collective security, are identical in their fundamental conception. They all arbitrarily divide the world into a number of sovereign social units, create a status quo, and try to prevent any changes in the established order except by unanimous consent, which makes no sense; or by force, which makes war. The Covenant of the League, the Dumbarton Oaks and San Francisco documents, the notion of collective security, are all static, Ptolemaic conceptions. They are anti-dynamic and consequently represent only barriers to peace, to life itself. They all seek solutions on a basis which—if it existed—would leave no problems to be solved. Collective security without collective sovereignty is meaningless. The insecurity of the individual as well as of groups of individuals is the direct result of the nonexistence of law to govern their relations. Allowing sovereign sources of law to reside, not in the community but in the eighty-odd separate nation-states forming that community; attempting to make their coexistence peaceful, not by establishing institutions with sovereign power to create law binding all members of the collectivity but by agreements and treaties between the divided sovereign units, can never, under any condition, create security for that collectivity. Only a legal order can bring security. Consequently, without constitutional institutions to express the sovereignty of the community and to create law for the collectivity, there can be no security for that collectivity. The debate among the representatives of the nations in drafting the charter of a world organization was exclusively limited to formalities and technicalities which have absolutely no bearing upon peace and the future of mankind. All the representatives of national governments are in full agreement in rejecting the only foundation upon which a peaceful international order could be constructed.One of the technicalities is the question of voting within a council of sovereign nations. According to the Covenant of the League, in case of an "aggression" by any sovereign member state of the League, sanctions could be taken only by unanimous consent Naturally, this made the functioning of the inadequate League machinery—which under no conditions could have prevented major wars—utterly illusory. No sovereign nation-state will ever freely admit that it is an aggressor, nor of its own free will, will it submit to sanctions imposed by other sovereign nations. So whenever a nation was accused by the League of aggression or threatened with sanctions, it merely tendered its resignation and left the party. The accusing nations behaved just as hypocritically. When the consequences of such collective action were to be faced and decisions carried out against the offending nations, all the other sovereign members of the League followed the private interests of their individual nation-states. The use of force against any major power was unthinkable. That meant war. This tragi-comic game will be repeated again and again, so long as we believe that a league or a council of sovereign nation-states can, under any circumstances, maintain peace among its members. In a society without any system of law, no individual would ever trust a judge, a jury or a court even if composed of the most eminent and selfless of his fellows. No individual would ever freely submit his personal freedom and fortunes to the judgment of any group of men composed of members with no higher authority than his own. No individual would ever submit of his free will, without defending himself by all means at his disposal, to interference in his life by a force, if the actions of that force had not previously been delineated and defined. Individual members of a society are prepared to submit to one thing alone. To Law. They are ready to submit to social institutions only insofar as those institutions are the instruments of Law. Such law is nonexistent in our inter-national life. It never did exist in inter-national relations. It has been excluded from the League of Nations and from the United Nations Organization. Under these circumstances, there can be no peace between nations. To base "peace" on unanimous decisions of a certain number of sovereign national governments—in the present day, on the unanimous decisions of the five greatest military powers—means indulging in a daydream. It is an Alice-in-Wonderland adventure. And in seriously proposing such an organization and assuring the peoples of the earth that the five greatest military powers will—by common consent and unanimous decision—act in concert, our present leaders, our governments and diplomats are guilty of monstrous hypocrisy or else of naive far greater even than Alice showed in her adventures in dreamland. History proves beyond doubt that any real danger to world peace always emanates from one of the major military powers. It is to be expected that in every situation threatening the existing order, one of the major powers will be seriously involved. It is clear that the major power will not cast its vote in any inter-national council against its own interests. Consequently, in no major crisis will unanimous vote in the security council be obtainable. Whenever such conflicts arise, as they are bound to arise, the only course open to the others will be to close their eyes and let the events of Manchuria, Austria, Ethiopia, Spain and Czechoslovakia repeat themselves—or go to war. But even if the nations be prepared to accept majority decisions within such a world council, the problem would remain unsolved. Majority decisions in a council of sovereign nations would be wholly unrealistic. If in a given situation, three of the major powers voted for a certain military intervention, while the other two voted against such a measure, these two powers could scarcely be pictured taking up arms and undertaking military action contrary to what they regard as their own national interests, and contrary to their votes. So the whole debate on unanimous vote versus majority vote on issues arising in a security council of a world organization is irrelevant because in neither case could a decision on an issue involving a great power be enforced without precipitating a major war. The conclusion to be drawn is this: The fundamental problem of regulating the relations between great powers without the permanent danger of major wars cannot be solved so long as absolute sovereign power continues to reside in the nation-states. Unless their sovereign institutions are integrated into higher institutions expressing directly the sovereignty of the community, unless the relations of their peoples are regulated by law, violent conflicts between national units are inevitable. This is not prophecy, not even an opinion, but an observable and irrefutable axiom of human society. Just as a council of delegates and representatives of fifty sovereign cities, defending the interests of their respective municipalities, could never create a united nation, a national legal order, peaceful relations between the citizens of the fifty cities, security and freedom of the individuals living within each sovereign municipality—so the representatives and delegates of fifty sovereign nations meeting in a council and defending their own national interests, will never arrive at a satisfactory solution and settlement of any problem concerning the interrelations of the sovereign national units. Just as peace, freedom and equality of the citizens of a nation require within their state specific institutions and authorities separate from and standing above municipal or local authorities, and the direct delegation of sovereign power by the people to these higher, national, government authorities—so peace, freedom and equality of men on this earth, between the nation-states, require specific institutions, authorities separate from and standing above national authorities, as well as the direct delegation of sovereign power by the people to these higher world government authorities, to deal with those problems of human relations that reach beyond the national state structure. None of the projects and plans of a world organization even considers a direct relationship between the "international" organization and the individual. In all these proposed and debated structures, the determining factor continues unchanged to be the nation-state. All power, all decision, all action, all source of law, continues to rest with national governments. The individual remains the serf of the nation-states. The proposed society as contemplated by our governments, is clearly a society of the modern feudal lords, the nation-states, who are desperately trying to preserve their accumulated and abused privileges and power to the detriment of the peoples they oppress. In the major countries, particularly in the United States, people are heatedly debating whether their representatives in the proposed world security council should have power to act of their own volition regarding the application of force in case of an international conflict or whether they should refer back to their governments or to their legislative bodies for final approval. The underlying point of the controversy against those who would not yield one iota of the rights and privileges of inherited institutions is that if the representative of the United States or of any other country in the world council is not empowered to use armed force against a nation declared to be an aggressor, but is obliged to wait upon the deliberations of his government or legislative body at home, weeks or months may be lost and this delay may paralyze the international machinery. But if the delegates do have full power to order the armed contingent of their countries to enter into action against an aggressor, then the international organization will be strong enough to enforce peace.This issue is seriously debated by members of governments, by legislators, editors, columnists and radio commentators, as being the crucial issue on which war or peace in the future depends. It is at once apparent that the controversy is of the shallowest, that the alternative put before us is purely formal. Whether we resolve to take this course or the other, whether the representatives of the five great powers in the security council are empowered to engage the armed forces of their countries in action or whether before such decisions the situation must be debated in Congress or Parliament makes absolutely no difference. The course of events will not be changed by any of the suggested procedures, because the fundamental problem of war and peace has no relationship whatsoever to these procedures. Whether the application of force is an act of war or a police action depends upon one single criterion: whether or not the force is being used to execute the judgment of a court, applying established law in a concrete case. If force is used without previously enacted law, defining clearly the principles of human conduct and the norms determining such conduct, then the use of force is arbitrary, an act of violence, war—whether the decision to resort to it be made by a national representative as a member of an inter-national council, by a national legislative assembly, or even by national referendum. In the charter of the new world organization, there is no provision for the creation of law regulating the relations of the nations. On the contrary, it is clearly stated that sovereign power to create law is tie exclusive appanage of the individual nation-states, and that the international organization is an association of such sovereign nation-states. There being no law to define human conduct in inter-national relations, any use of force is arbitrary, unjustified, an act of war. Such an international organizaition may succeed in unimportant issues when force can be used by a major power or by a combination of powers against a weak and small nation. It is bound to fail whenever such use of force has to be resorted to by one power or group of powers against another power or group of powers with equal or approximately equal military strength. The application of force against a great power by a small nation in case the great power commits the aggression is, above, unthinkable and need not be discussed. Such a state of affairs has absolutely nothing to do with the functioning of a police force in society. Such an organization as was the League and as the new international organization drafted at Dumbarton Oaks and San Francisco does not differ in any except external and formal aspects from the state of affairs that has always and at all times existed, without a league or any world organization. Sovereign source of law remains scattered in many units. This always meant and, by the very force of things must always mean, violent conflict between these sovereign units, no matter what their relations, as long as sovereign power continues to reside in each separate unit Peace between the conflicting units is possible only if their relations are regulated by a higher sovereign authority embracing all of them. Once this is recognized, once developments are under way for the creation of law in international relations, then the use of force follows automatically, since real law implies its application by force. But without previously enacted laws for international conduct, any proposal to use force is immoral and dangerous in the highest degree. It is an unforgivably false conception to believe that force without the pre-existence of law can maintain peace and prevent war, if the decision as to its application rests in the individual sovereign nation-states forming the inter-national society, no matter which department of the sovereign nation-states may be endowed with that power. The tremendous volume of irresponsible talk on this most delicate problem has warped the judgment even of the most illustrious leaders of the United Nations. In a speech made on October 21, 1944, President Roosevelt, warmly advocating the Dumbarton Oaks agreements, made the following statement: "The council of the United Nations must have the power to act quickly and decisively to keep the peace by force if necessary. I live in a small town. I always think in small town terms. But this goes in small towns everywhere. A policeman would not be a very effective policeman if, when he saw a felon break into a house, he had to go to the Town Hall and call a town meeting to issue a warrant before the felon could be arrested. It is clear that, if the world organization is to have any reality at all, our American rep representative must be endowed in advance by the people themselves, by constitutional means through their representatives in Congress with authority to act" To compare the role of a policeman in a small town with the use of force as suggested by the Dumbarton Oaks documents reveals a complete misunderstanding of the fundamental principles involved. The policeman in a small town is endowed with the power to arrest a felon by previously promulgated laws created by the sovereign legislative body of the society he serves. He is the instrument of a legal order and acts under authority of established law. The "police force" suggested by the Dumbarton Oaks proposals is not the executive organ of a society having an established legal order based on the sovereignty of that society, but the armed contingents o£ the sovereign nation-states, the sovereign units composing a society, which itself remains completely without sovereign authority. The Dumbarton Oaks proposals do not contain any suggestions for the creation of law standing above and binding together the individual members of the international society. They do not propose international courts to apply laws, nor could these hypothetical courts function, lacking the laws to apply. And they do not propose police forces to execute such judgments, responsible to the society itself, nor could such hypothetical force be a police force without courts to render judgment according to law. In a world society organized on the basis of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, it may well be that the man to do the arresting would be not the policeman but the felon himself. This is precisely the problem. The police force, as conceived at Dumbarton Oaks, is no different from the legions of the Roman Empire or the armies of the Holy Alliance. They would be armed forces of sovereign powers or power groups and instruments of particular interests. To revive the old League of Nations or to create a United Nations council on a similar basis (composed of representatives of sovereign nation-states), is an extremely simple proposition, although many people become emotional in debating the role of great powers and small powers in such a council. The "idealists" plead for equality between great powers and small nations in the world organization, the "realists" want to give a preponderant role to the great powers, who under any circumstances would have to assume responsibility for checking aggression. The realists who welcome the resurrection of the League of Nations under another name, with dentures in it they say "with teeth") arrive at the peculiar conclusion that since no great power would accept military action against itself without resistance, the use of force is practicable only against small nations. So what they really say is that the use of force against a small nation can preserve peace, but force could not be applied against a great power because that would provoke war. According to them, the use of force against a small nation is qualitatively different from the use of force against a great power because in the first instance force brings peace, whereas in the second it brings war. The hair-raising hypocrisy of mankind is truly astonishing. What this theory amounts to is that the theft of a loaf of bread by a poor man is an illegal act to be prosecuted, but the fraud of a millionaire banker must remain beyond the authority of law. The assertion that the use of force against a small nation is "police power" whereas the same coercion against a great nation is not "police power" but war, is mere abracadabra. It is the result of muddled thinking, of ignorance of the meaning of the words and terms employed. It is not an attempt to shape policy according to principles; it is an attempt to justify an immoral and intolerable policy by elevating it to the level of a principle. Force is police power when it is used to carry out the law, whether directed against a small or a great power, whether against a weak, miserable vagrant sleeping on a park bench or a strong, organized gang armed with guns who can shoot bade at the police. And force is not police power when it is not used to carry out law—even if it is applied by the unanimous consent of all the powers of the world against the smallest and weakest. This great power versus small power controversy may go on forever, as it has all the characteristics of a meaningless issue that can be endlessly debated by an avalanche of words hiding particular interests and subjective feelings.From the moral point of view, it is hard indeed to choose between great powers and small nations. All great powers behave like gangsters. And all small nations behave like prostitutes. They must. Under present conditions (not unlike those of the wild West), each great power mistrusts the others, must be permanently armed, keep his gun loaded and within easy reach to shoot it out with the others, if he wants to survive and keep his position. And the smaller powers who have no guns and who would never dare shoot it out with one of the big fellows, must go with those who promise them most, and in return for this protection, do whatever is demanded of them. In the face of these realities, an organization of such sovereign nations, whether on an equal or an unequal footing, could never prevent another war. It is idealism raised to the nth degree of naivet6 to believe otherwise. Such a council of sovereign units could prevent another war only if it could change human nature and make it act and react differently from the way it has been acting and reacting throughout the ages. The national interests of the powers, large and small, do not run parallel, just as the selfish interests of individuals do not run parallel. If we want to remain on a sovereign nation-state basis, then the only chance of a somewhat longer period without war is to keep the sovereign nation-states as far apart as possible, to reduce contact between them to a minimum and not to bring them together in one organization where the conflict of their interests will only be intensified.Such superficial formalities have been debated for several decades now, the world running around in circles like a dog chasing its own tail, without even a glimpse of reality. The era of parchment treaties signed by the representatives of "peace-loving nations" or "high contracting powers" is gone, like the age of powdered wigs. As long as our purpose is to establish peace between sovereign nations, it is wholly irrelevant whether the sovereign national governments maintain relations by the exchange of ambassadors, by dispatching notes to each other via short-wave or pigeon post, or by sending representatives to meet in an assembly or around a council table, with representatives of other equally sovereign nations. These are merely differences in method and procedure. None of them even touches the core of the problem created by the interdependence of a given number of social groups with equal, sovereign attributes. It seems that the first and last maxim of national governments in quest of peace is "All measures short of law." As peace is identical with law, it is not difficult to realize why we are no nearer our goal than we have been for centuries. It is a mysterious characteristic of human nature that we are prepared to spend anything, to sacrifice everything, to give all we have and are when we wage war, and that we are never prepared to take more than an "initial step," make more than a "first beginning," adopt more than "minimum measures," when we seek to organize peace. When will our religions, our poets and our national leaders give up the lie that death is more heroic than life?The events of the first half of the twentieth century and all the national, political, ideological and economic forces at work today make it inexcusable for us to continue to delude ourselves, to continue to listen to false prophets, no matter how good their intentions, who preach that we may have peace merely by patching up outworn systems and revising archaic doctrines that have always led and will continue to lead to war. When events and realities conflict with established principles, we must not always think that such events and realities are in "violation" of the principles. Often, the established principles are as false as Ptolemy's astronomical principles and can be rectified only by giving up quixotic ideas and adapting principles to realities as did Copernicus.<br /><br />CHAPTER XIV<br />THE MELEE<br /><br />THE mob has no ruler more potent than superstition." Observing the human race running amok against their own interests today, exposing their own families, their own cities, their own people and their own countries to destruction, one must sadly admit the correctness of these words of Curtius.No ultramodern composer could produce shriller dissonance, more chaotic atonality, greater cacophony, than the public discussion raging on the surface of the real problem. This debate upon the future world order presents nothing but credulity and sterility on one side and on the other nothing but destructiveness and sterility. Credulity is not faith. Destructive criticism brings neither revolution nor progress. Let us examine some of the more popular arguments raised against the rule of law among the peoples. In any democratic world organization having power to create law, China would have three times as many representatives as the United States, India ten times as many as Great Britain, Russia five times as many as France. Would the United States, Great Britain, France and tie other smaller democratic countries be willing to enter into such a scheme? Population figures are held up, like a scarecrow, to frighten us away from our objective. No Chinese or Indian ever sought representation in any international organization on the basis of population. This very question was hotly debated whenever and wherever representative government was established. In the United States of America, although the population of the state of New York 13 122 times larger than that of Nevada, they both send two Senators to Washington. Even in the House of Representatives, the state of New York elects only forty-five times as many representatives as Nevada, a third of what it should, according to population figures. It is natural that in any universal organization created today, representation should be determined by actual responsibilities and according to effective power, industrial potential, degree of education. Various proved methods exist and can be applied to work out this purely technical question. The very raising of this question shows how little the problem is understood. Under the present system of absolute national sovereignty 130 million Americans, 45 million Britons and not quite 40 million Frenchmen are each faced with about two billion other peoples, whose actions and policies they cannot control or influence in any crisis anyway, except by means of war. Under a system of universal law, within a universal legal order, America, Great Britain, France and every other individual nation would, for the first time in history, have legal power to influence the actions of other nations constituting more than ninety per cent of mankind and could have a voice in shaping the behavior of other peoples in their own best interests— without war. There is not the slightest danger that, in a world of realities, within a legal order, China with her numerical superiority in population could outvote the United States of America, as long as the real power relationship between the two, countries is as it prevails today. But, at some future date, should China become industrialized to an equal extent with America, should China be able to produce three times more consumer goods, build up and maintain a mechanized army, navy and air force three times greater than the United States, then naturally and under any circumstances, power and influence would shift automatically from the United States to China. If a universal legal order is functioning when such an eventuality occurs, then the change will take place peacefully, without violence, by legal adjustments, by shifting of votes and influence. If there is no universal legal order, then a China three times more powerful will attack, defeat and conquer the United States. Realities can never be circumvented by sleight of hand. Our choice in adapting our society to existing and changing realities is merely between law and violence. We never have a choice between change and immobility. Another objection is that should an international police force be established entirely independently of the nation-states and under the sole authority of a world government body, it would have to be larger than the armed forces of any one nation-state. Would the United States, would the Soviet Union, would Great Britain be willing to see an international armed force greater than their own? This question also misses the point. In the past and present scheme of things, the combined armed forces of the other nations—those of the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, etc.— were always considerably larger than the armed forces of the United States. The totality of armed forces of all the nations has always been unquestionably greater than those of any independent sovereign nation. And sovereign nations have had absolutely no control over this overwhelming military superiority of the other nations. Only through the establishment of a universal force to maintain law and order and to prevent violence between nations, would the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain and any other country, for the first time in history have direct authority over the armed forces of other nations, be in a position to exert influence over them and have a voice in their use. Objections of this sort to the creation of an international legal order are endless. They all run along the same line. All are based on the misconception of national sovereignty, holding to the misguided notion that by establishing a universal legal order we give up something instead of creating something. They are blind to the fact that it is under the existing system of absolute national sovereignty that the peoples are living under a sword of Damocles, subjected to dire dangers against which they seek effective and permanent protection. Few people feel that they have "surrendered" their freedom in allowing the policeman on the street corner to carry the gun. Of course, in the jungle or on the American frontier a hundred years ago, nobody could safely have given up his gun. But life without a gun in a society having a legal order is infinitely more secure than life with any number of guns in 3 society without a legal order. Many people assert that any world-wide social organization is bound to fail because nations are fundamentally disinterested in other nations and are unwilling to participate in other peoples' affairs. This superficial idea lies at the roots of any policy of neutrality or isolationism. Isolationism is a most natural impulse. Every individual, every family, every nation, once having reached a certain position, a certain degree of satisfaction, wants to "be left alone" and "not to be disturbed" by strangers or outsiders. This natural drive is the root of conservatism. It has existed at all times in all powerful countries and in all wealthy classes. It is not a national but a social characteristic. It exists in every country, wherever men live together in groups. The grandparents of the most stubborn isolationists of Missouri and Wisconsin were pioneers, explorers, adventurers, who went out into foreign lands, exterminated the native inhabitants, took possession of their lands and settled there. If ever in human history there was an act of unprovoked aggression, of unlawful intervention it was the American conquest of the West. Three generations later, the descendants of these expansionists and interventionists have become conservative isolationists. There is nothing wrong with isolationism. But there is something very wrong indeed with what today is called the "isolationist policy": the policy of Lodge, Borah, Johnson and Wheeler, who thought that the American people could live a secure isolated life through what they called "isolationist policy," They presumed that America could mind its own business, be left alone and might pursue the American way of life, if only the Federal government of the United States maintained its untrammelled national sovereignty and if the sovereign Federal government kept away from any foreign entanglement and commitment. Within tie span of a single generation, two world wars into which the United States has been dragged against the will of its people prove conclusively the bankruptcy of such a policy. It also proves the failure of "splendid isolation" in England and of neutrality in Holland, Belgium and many other countries. The reasons are apparent. Where can an individual live an isolated life? Certainly not in physical isolation in a tropical jungle. There he has to be on guard day and night to preserve his life and to fight beasts and savages ready to prey on him. A man can live an isolated life much more easily in a civilized city where his security is guaranteed, where there is a legal order, where laws, courts and police watch over his physical existence and individual rights. Quite certainly no nation can safely live its own isolated life in the jungle of the present world. The alternative is not "isolation" or "intervention in the affairs of other nations." If this were the case, and if non-intervention in foreign affairs could protect people from foreign wars, then isolationism would unquestionably be the soundest policy. But the alternative is a different one. It is "isolationism" or "the prevention of intervention by other nations in one's own affairs." For instance, it seems elementary that the first condition to safeguard the rights of the American people to live their own way of life, is security against foreign attack, the certainty that German submarines cannot sink American ships and that Japan cannot attack American territories by surprise. The policy advocated by the exponents of isolationism and neutrality is the policy least apt to achieve such security from foreign aggression or intervention. Only a constitutional organization regulating the relations between nations by law and strong enough to protect the nations against foreign attacks would permit the people to "be left alone," to "mind their own business" and to pursue their own way of life, as is desired not only by isolationists but by the overwhelming majority of all peoples. Perhaps long-range robot bombs and radio-propelled heavy bombers will open the eyes of those who have always made their political principles dependent on geographic distance. Certain people are fearful of broadening the powers of government, asking whom we could possibly trust to decide upon issues so vast and vital. Such fears are very well founded indeed. Upon careful examination of our contemporaries, it does seem that there is no one to whom we could blindly entrust any important public office. If people in the late eighteenth century could have discussed the vast powers embodied today in the office of the President of the United States of America or that of the Prime Minister of Great Britain, they would probably have decided that such offices should not be created, as no man would be trustworthy or able to hold them. But we have learned that the question of leaders is of secondary importance. In a well-organized and smoothly functioning democratic society, where the duties and responsibilities of offices are clearly defined, a great number of men capable of serving as high officials are always available. There is no need to worry about who would be members of a world parliament, a world court or a world executive. Once the proper, democratically controlled machinery is established, we can safely resort to the old-fashioned method of electing ordinary, fallible, mortal men to office. Any political system in which the fate of the people depends upon the wisdom or short-sightedness of leaders is fundamentally wrong. Great statesmen are so rare, and among the few born such an infinitesimal number ever get to power, that we cannot rely upon leaders of genius. We must resign ourselves to being governed by mediocre men. Our salvation lies not in the wisdom of leaders but in the wisdom of laws. But how are the suggested transformations in the political construction of the world possible, when the loyalty and allegiance of all peoples go entirely to their nation, their country, their national flag? How in 1940 could Winston Churchill have stopped the tide of Nazi conquest and aroused the English people without appealing to their national pride—their loyalty to king and country? Certainly he could not have done it. But neither would it have been possible for Adolf Hider to have aroused the German people and to have driven them toward brutal aggression and conquest without appealing to their national pride and loyalty to their Reich and flag.Nationalism undoubtedly helped to defend England and to inspire the heroic underground resistance against German conquest in France, Poland, Norway and other Nazi-occupied countries. But these beneficial effects of nationalism are similar to the effect of an antitoxin. Because the diphtheria bacillus is necessary to prepare the serum to fight diphtheria, this does not justify calling the virus itself beneficial or useful. At the present stage of bacteriology, the best we can do to cure diphtheria is to use its virus for the preparation of an antitoxin. But it would be much better to destroy and exterminate the causes of diphtheria, even if, at the same time, we destroyed the agent to cure the disease. Many times in history we have seen how easy it is to change allegiances and loyalties. Within a few short years, a mixture of every nationality in the world created the American nation and, in the second World War, the grandchildren of German immigrants have been the leading military commanders of the United States armies against Germany. We cannot expect loyalty to an institution that does not exist The institution must be created before we can demand loyalty to it There is no reason to doubt that once universal institutions are established which bring people security, peace, wealth, which unite them in common ideals and common interests, the loyalty of the peoples, toclay claimed by the inefficient institution of the nation-state, will infallibly turn to them. Real patriotism, real love of one's own country, has no relationship whatsoever to the fetishism of the sovereign nation-states. Real patriotism can have hut one single purpose: to protect one's own country, one's own people, from the devastation of war. As war is the direct result of the nation-state structure, and as modern aerial and mechanized warfare indiscriminately destroys women, children, cities and farms, the nation-state is Enemy No. 1 of patriotism. Once larger units are established as sovereign social units, there is no reason why nationalism, in its original conception of patriotism, could not and should not continue to flourish. Real patriotism actually needs the protection of law. As soon as people realize that in fact the nation-state institution destroys their countries, devastates their provinces and murders their kinsmen, true patriots will revolt against that institution, a threat to everything they love. Nothing is more incompatible with true patriotism than the present nation-state structure of the world and its inevitable consequences. "If, in despotic statecraft, the supreme and essential mastery be to hoodwink the subjects, and to mask the fear, which keeps them down, with the specious garb of religion, so that men may fight as bravely for slavery as for safety, and count it not shame but highest honor to risk their blood and their lives for the vainglory of a tyrant; yet in a free state no more mischievous expedient could be planned or attempted. Wholly repugnant to the general freedom are such devices as enthralling men's minds with prejudice, forcing their judgment, or employing any of the weapons of quasi-religious sedition; indeed, such seditions only spring up, when law enters the domain of speculative thought, and opinions are put on trial and condemned on the same footing as crimes, while those who defend and follow them are sacrificed, not to public safety, but to their opponents' hatred and cruelty." These lines from Spinoza's Tractatus Theohgico Politicus strikingly characterize the tragedy of our generation, with its noble patriotism degenerated into blind veneration of the nation-state idol. Nothing can destroy the nationalist fetishes, prejudices and superstitions except the explosive power of common sense and rational thinking. Only a struggle in our minds can prevent further struggles on the battlefields. The main reason advanced by our present government officials, legislators and political philosophers for continuing the nation-state structure, with all its disastrous consequences, is that people are "different." We are told that people cannot form a political entity until they are first "united in spirit," that it is impossible to shift loyalties and allegiances from national to supra-national objectives, that Latins and Anglo-Saxons, Slavs and Germans, and the many other racial, linguistic and national groups cannot be merged into a unified organization or placed under a common law. These arguments, reiterated only too often by the most prominent representatives of the nation-states, are the shallowest of all contemporary sophisms. Of course people are different. If they were or could be "united in spirit," we would need no legal order, no state organization at all. It is precisely the differences between men, the profound differences of character, mentality, creed, language, traditions and ideals, which originally necessitated the introduction of law and a legal order in human society. The assertion that the manifold differences existing in the human race prevent the creation of universal law and order is in flagrant contradiction to facts and to past and present realities. Poles and Russians, Hungarians and Rumanians, Serbs and Bulgars, have disliked and distrusted each other and have been waging wars in Europe against each other for centuries. But these very same Poles and Russians, Hungarians and Rumanians, Serbs and Bulgars, once having left their countries and settled in the United States of America, cease fighting and are perfectly capable of living and working side by side without waging wars against each other. Why is this? The biological, racial, religious, historic, temperamental and character differences between them remain exactly the same. The change in one factor alone produced the miracle. In Europe, sovereign power is vested in these nationalities and in their nation-states. In the United States of America, sovereign power resides, not in any one of these nationalities, but stands above them in the Union, under which individuals, irrespective of existing differences between them, are equal before the law. The Germans and the French have distrusted and disliked each other and waged wars against each other for centuries. If any two peoples are different, they are indeed two different peoples. Their language, mentalities, ideals, methods of thinking, ways of life, present great contrasts. If any two nations would seem incapable of unity, they are Germany and France. And yet, situated between the powerful French and German nation-states—whose citizens have been warring with each other throughout their history—live about one million Frenchmen, as Gallic as any in the French Republic, and nearly three million Germans, as Germanic as any in the Reich, who have been living side by side in peace for long centuries while their kinsmen in the neighboring French and German states have periodically conquered and destroyed each other. The biological, racial, religious, cultural and mental differences between the inhabitants of Geneva and Lausanne, on the one side, and Bern, Zurich and Saint-Gall on the other, are exactly the same as are the biological, racial, religious, cultural and mental differences between the inhabitants of Paris, Bordeaux and Marseille on the one side, and Berlin, Munich and Dresden on the other. Only one difference exists. The French people in France and the German people in Germany live in sovereign nation-states where sovereignty is vested respectively in the French nation and in the German nation. In Switzerland, sovereignty is vested, not in the French nationality nor in the German nationality, but in the union of body, under which citizens belonging to either nationality enjoy equal protection, equal rights and equal obligations.It seems, therefore, crystal-clear that friction, conflicts and wars between people are caused, not by their national, racial, religious, social and cultural differences, but by the single fact that these differences are galvanized in separate sovereignties which have no way to settle the conflicts resulting from their differences except through violent clashes. Conflicts created by these very same differences within the human race can be solved without violent clashes and wars whenever and wherever sovereignty resides, not in but above the conflicting units. That mankind will ever be "united in spirit" or in interests is an utterly meaningless contention. It is not even desirable that such uniformity of mankind should ever be achieved. Uniformity would mean the end of culture and civilization. The belief that the world can be united by a single movement—a religion, a language, a political creed, an economic system—has been predominant in tie minds of fanatics all through history. It has been tried and tried again and has invariably failed. No conception is more erroneous than to believe that man must first be united in religion, culture, political outlook, economic methods, before he can be politically united in a state, a federation or any unified legal order. Any attempt to impose one single cultural, religious, economic or philosophical conception upon all mankind is preposterous and implies an aggressive and totalitarian world outlook. The wide diversity among men and groups of men in the fields of philosophy, art, religion, language, political and economic methods, constitutes the very essence of culture. These differences not only should be cherished but must be protected in every possible way. All through history, however, such differences have always been self-destructive when the different groups enjoyed absolute sovereignty and were not protected by a higher source of law, A universal legal order, so badly needed by the world today, far from endangering in any way these cultural differences, is the condition for the maintenance and continuous thriving of such differences. Without union, either the Scots would have exterminated the English or the English would have exterminated the Scots, just as the Romans destroyed Carthage and the Huns destroyed Rome. Within the United Kingdom, the Scots are more Scottish in their traditions and character, and the English are more English in theirs, than they ever were before that union when they were killing each other. Another fallacy is that two different economic systems, two different conceptions of economic order, such as Communism in Soviet Russia and capitalism in the West, cannot be integrated within one system of law, within one society. In France, England, Switzerland and Holland, the telephone, telegraph, electric light services and many other economic operations are conducted on a communist basis, owned by the state or other communal collectivities, just as in the Soviet Union, and are not private enterprises as in the U.S.A. On the other hand, textile, chemical, machine tool and other factories in these very same countries axe privately owned as in the U.S.A. and not owned by the government as in the U.S.S.R. How can collectively and privately owned enterprises coexist in one state, under one system of law? Very well indeed, as the example of England, France, Switzerland and Holland prove. Even in the United States, the most completely capitalist-individualist country, we see government created and government-owned enterprises operating smoothly and advantageously side by side with private enterprises, as the Tennessee Valley Administration and many other public works demonstrate. And should the people of the United States some day decide that the Federal government take over telephone service from the Bell Telephone Company, telegraph service from Western Union, railroads from the many individual private companies, this would in no way endanger or interfere with private ownership and privately managed industries in other fields. Different economic conceptions, different economic systems, can perfectly well coexist within one political and social system, under one sovereignty. In fact, the only way they can coexist peacefully is within one legal system. The widespread belief that any unified legal order between the Soviet Union and the Western democracies is impossible because of the fundamental differences in their economic systems, is no more valid than the century-old prejudice that Catholics and Protestants could not live peacefully in the same community. What makes the Communist economy of Soviet Russia "dangerous" to the West, and what makes the capitalist system of the Western countries "dangerous" to the U.S.S.R. is not the difference in their economic systems but the fact that these different economic systems are incorporated in different sovereign states and are separate sovereignties. It is the Soviet nation-state that is a threat to the West and it is the Western nation-states that are a menace to the Soviet Union. Not because of hostile intentions, hut because of their very existence as sovereign units. Conflicts between these sovereign nation-states are inevitable, not because of differences in their economic methods and in their economic systems, but because of the non-integrated sovereign power of the divided social units. In every document, agreement, charter or communique they issue, our statesmen stubbornly persist in declaring that they want peace by safeguarding and guaranteeing "the sovereign equality of all nations." They are unable to realize the contradiction inherent in this eternally repeated, meaningless slogan. The coexistence of social groups with equal sovereign power is precisely the condition of war, the very condition that can never, under any circumstances, bring peace. Far from being an obstacle to a unified legal order, the differences between the Russian and Western economic systems mate an over-all, unified, sovereign legal order imperative if we want to prevent a violent clash between them. One thing is certain. No number of joint declarations of good will, military alliances, mutual non-aggression pacts, divisions of spheres of influence, conferences between the leaders, banquets, toasts and fireworks, will ever prevent the impending and inevitable clash between sovereign social units. The major and most widespread argument against the establishment of inter-national law is that it "just cannot be." There is no gainsaying the logic and the practical demand for such a world order, but it "just cannot be. . . ." No debate is possible with this class of eternal skeptics. They bring to mind an old story. According to legend, Pythagoras, after his discovery that the sum of the angles of any triangle is equal to two right angles, out of gratitude to the gods sacrificed one hundred oxen. Since that time, all oxen become pani-stricken and low in fear when anything new is in sight. All those nationalist forces which, in 1919, fought against Wilson's League, after having witnessed its inefficacy during two decades, now fervently advocate its restoration in the form of another organization composed of sovereign nations. The argument of those who want a repetition of this historic failure is indeed strange. They say: 1. Our purpose is to prevent a third world war. 2. Any measure proposed which would involve delegation of parts of the sovereignty of the peoples to democratically controlled bodies higher than the nation-states is impractical because: 3. Such proposals would not be accepted by the present governments of the nation-states.The persistent opposition to reason and logic in political matters from those who have no other argument but "practicality" is the most vulgar manifestation of human mind and behavior. It would never be tolerated if the conduct of human affairs were based on principles and guided by reason. If our purpose is to prevent another world war, then the practicality or impracticality of a proposed method can be judged only in relation to the object sought: Can it or can it not prevent another world war? It is nonsense and illogical to say that a method proposed to prevent another world war is impractical because of a third element in this peculiar logical construction, namely: because it will not be accepted by the national governments now holding power. If our purpose is to devise methods acceptable to the existing governments of the nation-states, there can be no disputing that only methods acceptable to these national governments are to be regarded as practical. But then let us be frank and say that such is our purpose. Let us not continue to mislead the public by saying that such methods will prevent a third world war. They will not. What is the meaning of the word "practical" in political affairs? Is it something that is actually happening, which is actually being done in our lifetime? In this case, nothing is more practical than war. Misery is practical, suffering is practical, lolling, deportation, oppression, persecution, starvation are essentially practical. It would seem that our endeavor should be to eliminate these practices from society. They are inseparably linked with the nation-state structure of society, of which they are the direct outcome. How is it possible to measure the practicality or impracticality of an ideal, of a doctrine, of a program aimed at eradicating these evils, by whether or not they are acceptable to the very same institutions from which emanate the evils we seek to destroy? Those who cannot understand the fundamental difference between a universal legal order and a league or a council usually urge us to be "practical." If the people and the governments are not ready or willing to accept more than a council composed of sovereign nation-states, then let us at least take that, runs the argument. Let us make a first step, a beginning. It is most reasonable to start by taking a "first step," The trouble with league-council proposals, however, is that a league or a council does not initiate anything. It is not a first step. It is a continuation. A continuation of error, of a fatally bad and disastrous policy. It is a negative step. It is a step away from our goal. If we want peace between the nations, then a council of sovereign nations takes us backwards. A council of sovereign nations artificially prolongs the life of the nation-state structure and in consequence is a step toward war. The "practical men" who preach that a world organization of sovereign nation-states is a realistic approach to our problem are the finest specimens of those eternal political reactionaries Disraeli once defined: "A practical man is a man who practices the errors of his forefathers." The innumerable international conferences, which are held almost every month, are nothing but the epileptic convulsions of the incurably infirm system of nation-states. Every few weeks a new crisis arises in which "public opinion" childishly clamors for another meeting of the leaders, expecting a miracle— an agreement between the national governments that would cure the disease. Every time, they get an empty, insignificant "communique" that poultices the immediate pain for a while, but within a month Or less, another issue becomes acute, for which no remedy is known except another conference. All these meetings of representatives of sovereign national governments are bound to be futile, as they take place on a level altogether different from where the real problem lies. Within such a council of sovereign nation-states, no other course is possible than that which has been followed in the past And we know that non-intervention in international conflicts always and necessarily means positive intervention on the side of the stronger belligerent to the detriment of the weaker. We know that the policy of "balance of power" can maintain peace between nations only so long as power is not in "balance. Only as long as one nation or one group of nations has supremacy over the other. In such a system, as soon as power between the two opposing groups is really "in balance," war is imminent and inevitable. And we also know that the policy of spheres of influence is bound to develop into a policy which seeks influence in the spheres of others. It is in the light of these facts that one can judge the value of the new term which is supposed to have a devastating effect upon those who have had enough of living under constant threat of being murdered, robbed, persecuted and oppressed by the nation-states and who would like to live a civilized life in peace under law. The term is: "Perfectionism." Anyone who does not believe in the "first step theory" of the United Nations Organization is branded a "perfectionist." And "perfectionism," of course, is the most dangerous of all political vices. No one knows when a universal legal order will be achieved and no doubt all who are striving toward that ideal would be perfectly satisfied with a modest "first step"—toward it. But the fact is that our governments have not even indicated an intention ever to take a first step in that direction. A man wanting to go from New York to Rio de Janeiro, who discovers after leaving the harbor that he has been taken on a boat headed for Southampton, cannot find much consolation in learning that the boat will make a "first stop" at Cherbourg. He is being taken in an opposite direction to that which he wishes. Is it dangerous perfectionism if he insists that it is not to Cherbourg but to Rio de Janeiro that he wants to go? War is the result of unregulated contact between power units.Regionalism will only accelerate the tempo of war. If we organize sovereign nation-states in regional groups, then all nations of a region will be in contact with all nations in the other regions, and if relations between the regions remain on a basis of regional or national sovereignty then we shall have war. Did the German Reich, the regional federation of the German states, bring peace? Has the regional federation of England, Scotland and Wales, or that of the forty-eight American states protected their peoples from war? Most assuredly, these regional federations stopped once and for all the wars that had raged between the once sovereign units that had merged to become a federation. Since their union, the peoples of the newly formed regional sovereign federations no longer needed to go into battle against each other. But together, as a regional unit, they continued to be exposed to war, for the identical reason that had caused wars among themselves, before their federation. Irrespective of the federations of regional groups, there continued to exist several sovereign power units with which the regional federations were not integrated and with which they remained in contact. Today, the interdependence of all the nations on this small planet is so complete that federations of regions—although they would end wars within the federated regions—cannot possibly protect the peoples from violent conflicts between the different federations, if each regional unit remains sovereign unto itself and if the relations of these sovereign regional units continue to be regulated, not by law but by the old, fallacious methods of diplomacy, foreign policy and representation in an inter-national or inter-regional council. The problem is not how to bring together nations which are neighbors, which are of similar heritage and which like each other. The problem is how to make possible the peaceful coexistence of peoples who are different and who dislike each other. Those who can find no argument against the logical and urgent necessity of transforming the institutions of national sovereignty into institutions capable of creating and maintaining law, not only within nations but also between them, and yet are reluctant or unwilling to accept responsibility, seek escape in the argument that the time is not yet ripe for such reforms. Perhaps in five hundred years. . . . Perhaps in one hundred years Perhaps during the next generation—they waver. But not we and not now. The truth is that ever since the beginning of the twentieth century these reforms have been overdue. If we used our brains for the purpose for which they were created—for thinking—and if we let our actions be guided by principles arrived at by rational thinking, these changes in our society would have been carried out before the events of 1914. The outbreak of the first World War was the clearly visible symptom that this opportunity had been missed and that the crisis resulting from the clash between realities and institutions was entering an acute stage. The series of violent upheavals and concussions which, following the first World War, for the first time in history simultaneously engulfed the entire globe in an ever-increasing crescendo, culminating in the unparalleled explosions of the second World War, are symptoms which show, more clearly than any man could describe, the inadequacy, inefficiency and senility of the institutions by which we allow ourselves to be governed. The same Winston Churchill who, when the darkest hour was over and the Battle of Britain won, subscribed to the Atlantic Charter and all the other documents and declarations that are leading us astray and strengthening the nation-state structure for the next war, once performed an act of statesmanship which makes any excuse for taking the wrong course now seem perfectly ridiculous. In the hour of gravest peril, when Hider's hordes were victoriously trampling the soil of France, on the very eve of French capitulation, on June 16, 1940, the British Ambassador to France handed the following draft declaration to the French government: At this most fateful moment in the history of the modern world, the Governments of the United Kingdom and the French Republic make this declaration of indissoluble union and unyielding resolution in then: common defence of justice and freedom against subjection to a system which reduces mankind to a life of robots and slaves. The two Governments declare that France and Great Britain shall no longer be two nations but one Franco-British Union. The constitution of the Union will provide for joint organs of defence, foreign, financial and economic policies. Every citizen of France mil enjoy immediate citizenship of Great Britain, every British subject will become a citizen of France,Both countries will share responsibility for the repair of the devastation of war, wherever it occurs in their territories, and the resources of both shall be equally, and as one, applied to that purpose. During the war there shall be a single war Cabinet, and all the forces of Britain and France, whether on land, sea or in the air, will be placed under its direction. It will govern from wherever it best can. The two Parliaments will be formally associated. The nations of the British Empire are already forming new armies. France will keep her available forces in the field, on the sea, and in the air. The Union appeals to the United States to fortify the economic resources of the Allies and to bring her powerful material aid to the common cause. The Union will concentrate its whole energy against the power of the enemy no matter where the battle may be. And thus we shall conquer. This proposal of union between France and Great Britain embodies the fundamental principles of future society, as opposed to the principles of the past expressed in the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Atlantic Charter, the Dumbarton Oaks and San Francisco documents. And it was a concrete, official proposal made by the British government, presided over by Winston Churchill, to the government of the French Republic. Of course, it came at a hopelessly inopportune moment. France had already received a death blow from the German Army. The Third Republic was disintegrating. A few hours later it died. In view of this historic event, how can it be said that "the time is not yet ripe" for measures which were actually and officially proposed by the British government to the French government, as the only salvation in a desperate extremity? Is it too much to expect that people Who, at the point of death and when it is too late, are willing to take the remedy, will make use of that very same remedy when still in possession of their full senses and when there is still time for it to be effective? Or must we become resigned and admit that Plato was right in saying that "human beings never make laws; it is the accidents and catastrophes of all kinds, happening in every conceivable way, that make the laws for us"? The institution of the sovereign nation-state has been dead now for several decades. We cannot revive it by refusing to bury the corpse. There are a number of people holding high government office or chairs in universities who understand perfectly the underlying problem of peace but who indulge in the puerile excuse that "the time is not yet ripe." History never asks rulers and representatives of an existing regime when they will consent to institute the reforms made necessary by progress. Those who have succeeded, rarely see the need for change nor of what it will consist. Often in the past, reforms that seemed imminent were delayed for centuries; on the other hand, reforms regarded as Utopian became realities overnight. The great majority of the living never realize the fundamental changes taking place during their lifetime. How can we expect from our governments and from the self-appointed interpreters of public opinion in universities, in radio or in the press, any greater insight into what is going on today than was shown by their predecessors in other similarly revolutionary eras? Those who can visualize the realities of tomorrow only in things and beliefs already existing today will never be able to solve our problem, will never be capable of searching for principles nor of shaping the future according to the principles of tomorrow. Anatole France tells this wise and profound story in Sur La Pierre Blanche: In the days of Nero, in the prosperous Greek city of Corinth, the Roman proconsul Gallion, was discussing the future of the world with some of his Roman and Greek friends, statesmen and scientists. They all agreed that nobody believed any longer in the old gods, neither in Egyptian, nor Babylonian, nor Greek, nor Roman gods. The question was raised: What will be the new religion? Who will succeed Jupiter? The distinguished and cultured gathering spiritedly debated the chances of about a dozen new gods, when the delightful conversation was interrupted by a noisy quarrel between a strange, haggard Jew—one Saul or Paul of Tarsus—and a rabbi of the synagogue who accused Paul of revolutionizing the existing law. After the unpleasant incident, Gallion and his friends spent a few moments discussing the queer and ridiculous faith that this Paul was spreading, the teaching of an obscure Jewish prophet called Chrestus, or Cherestus, who had caused so much trouble to another Roman proconsul in Judea. One of the guests jokingly wondered if this Chrestus might not succeed Jupiter. The idea greatly amused everyone. They unanimously agreed that this would be absurd indeed. The chances were all in favor of Hercules. . . .<br /><br />CHAPTER XV<br />LAW . . . CONQUEST<br />Our Laws and Statutes are inherited From generation to generation, And spread slowly from place to place Like a disease that has no end. Reason to folly, blessings to curses Turn. Woe be to us Heirs of all the Past, For to our Birthrights, bom with us, No one gives heed! . . . No one, alas! (GOETHE: Faust)<br /><br />THE problem of our twentieth century crisis, seemingly so vastly complex and inextricable with its hundreds of national, territorial, religious, social, economic, political and cultural riddles, can be reduced to a few simple propositions. 1. From the teachings of history we have learned that conflicts and wars between social units are inevitable whenever and wherever groups of men with equal sovereignty come into contact. 2. Whenever and wherever social units in any field, regardless of size and character, have come into contact and the resulting friction has led to war, we have learned that these conflicts have always ceased after some part of the sovereignty of the warring units was transferred to a higher social unit able to create legal order, a government authority under which the previously warring groups became equal members of a broader society and within which conflicts between groups could be controlled and eradicated by legal means without the use of force. 3. From the experience thus gained we know that within any given group of individuals in contact and communication with each other, conflict is inevitable whenever and wherever sovereign power resides in the individual members or groups of members of society, and not in society itself. 4. We further know that, irrespective of the immediate and apparent causes of conflict among warring groups, these causes ceased producing wars and violent conflicts only through the establishment of a legal order, only when the social groups in conflict were subjected to a superior system of law, and that, in all cases and at all times, the effect of such a superior system of law has been the cessation of the use of violence among the previously warring groups. 5. Knowing that wars between non-integrated social groups in contact are inevitable, that the coexistence of non-integrated sovereign social groups always and in all cases has led to wars, we must realize that peace among men, among individuals, or among groups of individuals in any sphere, is the result of legal order. Peace is identical with the existence of law. . 6. As the twentieth century crisis is a world-wide clash between the social units of sovereign nation-states, the problem of peace in our time is the establishment of a legal order to regulate relations among men, beyond and above the nation-states. This requires transferring parts of the sovereign authority of the existing warring national institutions to universal institutions capable of creating law and order in human relations beyond and above the nation-states. These propositions are merely the reduction into elementary formulas of one long line of events in our history. The task before us is nothing unique. It is one step further in the same direction, the next step in our evolution. That conditions in our present society mate it imperative for us to undertake this step without further delay should by now be clear to everybody. Within a single generation, two world wars have ravaged mankind, interfered with peaceful progress and disrupted the free, democratic way of life of the entire Western world. In spite of the desire of the overwhelming majority of the peoples to live and work in peace, we have been unable to escape war. For more than three decades, we have been witnessing an unprecedented decay and downfall of our civilization. To wage this stupendous struggle, we have had to submit to a hitherto unknown degree of privation, persecution, degradation, suffering, and have been forced to change drastically our civilized way of life. The great majority of the entire human race has been subjected to regimentation, dictation, fear, serfdom. Considering this world-shaking catastrophe which directly affects every home and every individual, We believe that the progress of science and industry have rendered national authorities powerless to safeguard the people against armed aggression or to prevent devastating wars. We believe that peace in any country of the world cannot be maintained without the existence of an effective universal government organization to prevent crime in the inter-national field. We believe that independence of a nation does not mean untrammelled and unrestricted freedom to do whatever it wants, and that real independence can be created only if no nation is free to attack another, to drag it into war, and to cause such devastating loss of life and wealth as has been wrought twice in our lifetime. We believe that security of a nation, just as security of an individual, means the co-operation of all to secure the rights of each. We believe that the relations between nations, just as the relations between individuals in a community, can be peaceful only if based upon and regulated by Law. We believe that the only way to prevent future world wars is through regulation of the interrelationship of nations, not by unenforceable treaty obligations, which sovereign nations will always disregard, but by an enforceable legal order, binding all nations, giving all nationals equal rights under the established law, and imposing equal obligations upon each. We believe that peace and security can be established and assured only if we, the sovereign people, who, for our own safety and well-being have delegated parts of our sovereignty to cities to handle our municipal affairs, to departments, counties, provinces, cantons or states to take care of departmental, county, provincial, cantonal or state issues, to our national governments to attend to our national problems—to protect ourselves against the danger of inter-national wars, now delegate part of our respective sovereignty to bodies capable of creating and applying Law in inter-national relations. We believe that we can protect ourselves against inter-national wars only through the establishment of constitutional life in world affairs, and that such universal Law must be created in conformity with the democratic process, by freely elected and responsible representatives. Creation, application and execution of the Law must be rigorously controlled by the democratic process. We believe that only a world-wide legal order can insure freedom from fear, and make possible the unhindered development of economic energies for the achievement of freedom from want. We believe that the natural and inalienable rights of man must prevail. Under twentieth century realities they can be preserved only if they are protected by Law against destruction from outside forces. How can these propositions be translated into institutions and become the driving force of political reality? Nothing is more futile than to work out detailed plans and prepare drafts for a constitutional document of a world government. It would be a simple matter for a competent individual or group of people to sit down and work out scores of plans in all detail and in all variety. Within a few days one could produce twenty constitutional drafts, each completely different from the others, each equally plausible. Such procedure would only hinder progress. Nothing is more open to criticism than a constitution, unless it be the draft of a constitution. If at the very inception of democracy, before the democratic nation-states had been created in the eighteenth century, a specific draft of a democratic constitution had been identified with democracy itself, and put forward for general approval and acceptance, we should never have had a democratic nation-state anywhere in the world. History does not work that way. The founders of democracy were much wiser and more politic. They first formulated a small number of fundamental principles regarded as self-evident and basic for a democratic society. These principles succeeded in arousing the vision and inflaming the enthusiasm of the peoples who, on the basis of these fundamental principles, empowered their representatives to translate them into reality and create the machinery necessary for a permanent legal order, representing the triumph of these principles. The constitutions, the fundamental laws of the new democratic order, were debated after, not before the acceptance of the elementary principles and the mandate given by the people to their representatives for the realization of those principles. So today we see democracy expressed in systems of great variety in detail, but nonetheless, deriving from identical principles. Democracy in the United States is different from British democracy, French democracy is different from the Dutch, and Swiss democracy has institutions differing greatly from Swedish democracy. In spite of their differences in detail, they are all workable forms of democracy, expressing the same fundamental social conception, the sovereignty of the people as understood a hundred and fifty years ago. Regarding the creation of universal democratic legal order, we have not yet reached the stage of conception. We have not yet formulated the principles. We have not yet set the standards. To put the problem before national governments would be a hopeless enterprise, doomed to failure before even starting. The representatives of the sovereign nation-states are incapable of acting and thinking otherwise than according to their nation-centric conceptions. As such a universal problem cannot be solved along national lines, certainly and naturally they would destroy any plan, any draft, of a universal legal order. Our national statesmen and legislators, by virtue of their education, mentality and outlook, are completely insensitive to the nature of the reform required. Besides, many high priests of the nation-state cult look upon international war as an admirable instrument of advancement toward wealth, fame, distinction and immortality.Waging war is the easiest thing in the world. It is a business which has a clearly defined, primitive aim—to destroy the adversary—and is based on simple arithmetic and strategy, easy to learn. To manage an enterprise in which one can spend unlimited amounts of money regardless of income, produce goods irrespective of markets, monopolize newspaper space and radio time for self-advertisement, enjoy dictatorial powers over lives and property, establish an artificial, ad hoc hierarchy and a high command that suppresses all criticism, seize all means of production and communication, creates a situation which ought to satisfy the caesarmania of any child. Many of our ministers, generals, diplomats, scientists, engineers, poets and manufacturers—consciously or unconsciously—just adore wars. At no other time is it so easy to achieve success, so easy to obtain the applause and servile adulation of the rabble. All these people, while constantly paying pious tribute to "peace," are solidly entrenched in the hierarchy of the nation-state, and will defend to the last the fetishes, taboos and superstitions of a society with such unparalleled opportunities for them. From men who are personal beneficiaries of the old system—incapable of independent thinking and victims of the scandalous method of teaching history in all the civilized countries—we cannot expect constructive ideas, much less constructive measures. We must therefore begin at the beginning. And the beginning is the Word. This should in no way be discouraging. In this modern world of ours, with mass-circulation newspapers, motion pictures and radio, capable of reaching the entire civilized population of the earth, a decade is ample time for a movement to bring to triumph the principles of universal law, if such a movement is guided by men who have learned from the churches and the political parties how to propagate ideas and how to build up a dynamic organization behind an idea. The crisis of the twentieth century conclusively demonstrates that democracy and industrialism can no longer coexist in a nation-state. If we insist upon maintaining the nation-state framework and want to continue with industrial progress, we are bound to arrive at totalitarian Fascism. If we believe that a free, democratic way of life is what we want, and that an intensification of industrialism and mass production is what we need, then we must remove the barrier blocking the road to that goal, and replace the archaic nation-state structure with a universal legal order in which development toward political and economic freedom and wealth can become a reality. If we are determined to maintain the nation-state framework and at the same time endeavor to preserve democracy, we shall be forced to give up industrial progress, reduce populations and return to a rural way of life. As this Rousseau-like dream of a return to nature is unthinkable, it can be excluded. The alternative for the future of modem society is: totalitarianism within the nation-state framework under treaty arrangements, or democracy under universal law, under government. But for that government to be democratic, there must first be a government. The longing for security within the nation-state structure is the most dangerous of all collective drives. In the small, interdependent world of today, there are only two ways for a nation to achieve security. Law . •. Conquest. As the nation-state structure excludes a legal order embracing men living in different sovereign units, the drive for security directly produces the drive for conquest. The drive for security is the major cause of imperialism. This has never been admitted by the representatives of those powers who have actually travelled that road. It is amusing to hear tie anti-imperialist diatribes of the representatives of the two most virulently imperialist nations of the middle twentieth century— U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. Both nations are persuaded that they are anti-imperialist and that what they want is nothing but security. To understand this paradox, it is most enlightening to reread the history of the growth of the Roman Empire. Nobody in Rome wanted an empire, nobody wanted war, nobody was an imperialist. They merely liked and valued their own civilization, their higher culture and standard of living, and were anxious to preserve their own way of life. The dominating conception was as "isolationist" as that of any mid-western Senator in Washington or central Russian Commissar in Moscow. The Romans wanted only to he left alone, to enjoy their higher living standards, their superior civilization. But unfortunately, the barbarians on their frontiers did not leave them alone and always made trouble for them in one way or another. So their deep desire for security forced the Romans to go beyond their frontiers, to eliminate immediate dangers and to push their frontiers farther away from Rome to protect themselves. This desire for security led them finally to conquer virtually all of the then known world and to subjugate other peoples, until internal decay and new, stronger outside forces finally destroyed the whole structure. This is the real story of most of the great empires of world history. It is also the story of the British Empire, which has been built up by the desire for security of British commercial investments and interests scattered all over the world, of growing British industrialism, which was essential to the survival of the British Isles. Today this very same force is the driving element behind the policy of the Soviet Union and the United States. Both are deeply convinced of the superiority of their own values and standards and the primacy of their own civilizations. They have vast territories and are not in need of expansion per se. Their sincere desire is to he left alone, to live peacefully and to be able to continue to live their own way of life. But the globe is shrinking, steppes and oceans are no longer safe frontiers, and other nations are not willing to let them do what they want. Outside forces constantly threaten and occasionally attack them. Therefore, to achieve security they feel obliged to build up huge armed forces, to defeat and conquer their immediate enemies and to push ahead t their ramparts, their defense positions, their bases, their spheres of influence, farther and farther. At the end of the second World War, we are seeing American forces annexing islands and other bases thousands of miles away from the American mainland for reasons of security. And we are seeing the Soviet frontiers pushed forward from the Arctic to the Mediterranean and from Europe to the Far East, also for defensive reasons. It is no use accusing the Soviet or the American governments of imperialism. They sincerely believe that these measures are purely security measures. Just as sincerely they are convinced that superior armed force in the hands of any other nation would be dangerous to peace, but a guarantee of peace and a benefit for all in their own possession. And they are equally sincere in believing that the dissemination of their own political doctrines in other nations, the acceptance by other nations of their own political and economic conceptions, would strengthen peace and would be beneficial to all. All these unmistakable symptoms of present-day realities indicate that if we insist upon remaining on the old road of national sovereignty, the drive for security, inherent in all nations, will push us toward more violent clashes between the nation-states, compared to which the first and second world wars will appear as child's play. After the liquidation of the second World War, there remain only three powers capable of creating and maintaining armed forces in the modern sense: three empires. The small and medium-sized nations will inescapably have to become satellites of one of these three dominating industrial and military powerssome incurable dreamers among our statesmen seriously believe that such a triangular power structure of our world is possible—even desirable. Actually, it is the mathematical formula for the next, probably the last phase of the struggle for the conquest of the world. In spite of the endlessly repeated anti-imperialist catch phrases of the representatives of the great powers, every economic and technological reality of our epoch, every dynamic force in the world today, every law of history and logic, indicates that we are on the verge of a period of empire building—of aggregations more powerful and more centralized than ever before. There is no virtue in relying on obsolete slogans and ignoring the forces that today are pushing mankind toward a more organized control of this earth. It would be wiser to recognize these realities and to guide the torrent into democratic channels. If we leave the concept of sovereign nationalities enshrined as the test of "freedom" the contradiction between this fiction and the physical facts will only cause greater explosions. Unless interdependence, and hence the need for the centralized rule of law—for the freedom which comes from equality before the law among nations as among individuals—is recognized, we shall suffer further and more devastating wars among the United States, Great Britain, Soviet Russia and whatever other nation-states retain any sizable power, in every possible combination. As in an elimination contest, one of these or a combination will achieve by force that unified control made mandatory by the times we live in. Of course, it will be a strictly anti-imperialist imperialism, a kind of very anti-Fascist Fascism. Intervention will always take place in the name of non-intervention, oppression will be called protection and vassalage will be established by solemnly assuring the conquered nation its right to choose the form of government it wants. There is something angelic in the simplicity and credulity of professional statesmen. What the two camps destined to wage the coming struggle for conquest of the world are going to say about each other's political intentions, social and economic systems, how they will explain to others and justify to themselves the causes of the war— fought, naturally, in sheer self-defense and for self-preservation by both sides—will be sentimental claptrap. Pure doggerel. . . . It will have not the slightest relation to facts. In spite of frequent repetitions and parallels, there exist a great number of unique phenomena in human nature from the beginning of history until our days, until the exploration of the Arctic and Antarctic, people have discovered new continents, new lands, new islands. But this seemingly permanent characteristic of past history is now at an end. The era of geographic discovery is closed. It is almost certain that we know every corner of this globe and that no new lands await the arrival of adventurous navigators. For the first time since man's history has been recorded, we possess oui entire globe. Until and unless we are able to communicate with another planet, the theater of human history will be limited to geographically determined, constant and known dimensions. With this unique and radical change in our geographical and political outlook, expansion, growth, conquest and colonization are no longer possible in virgin territories, but only at each other's expense. During the past five centuries, competition in conquest was possible without necessarily encroaching upon the possessions of other powers, through discovery and annexation of new lands, with occasional naval encounters or local armed skirmishes to discourage a competitor. This period of history is now over. National security, the urge for conquest, can be satisfied only by subjugating and appropriating territories and possessions of other nations, thereby destroying their security. Until today throughout its entire history, the world was too vast to be conquered by a single man or a single power. Technical means have always lagged behind the objective. The world was always too large to be conquered entirely, even by the greatest force.The planet was too elastic, it seemed to grow constantly. Alexander, Caesar, Genghis Khan, the Spaniards, the English, Napoleon—all failed. They all conquered a large part of the world, hut never the entire world. Now only, for the first time in history, the conquest of the world by a single power is a geographic, technical and military possibility. The world cannot grow any more, it is a known quantity. As discoveries ended, the growth of the world was suddenly brought to a standstill. Technical developments rapidly caught up and made the globe smaller and smaller. Today the world is completely engulfed by modern industrialism. From a technical and military point of view, the world of today is considerably smaller than was the territory held by any one of the major empires of the past centuries. It is infinitely easier and quicker for the United States to wage war in the Far East than it was for Caesar to do so in Anglia or Egypt. Modern science has made war a highly mechanized art which can be mastered only by the major industrial powers. Only three of these are left. And any one of the three, by defeating the other two, would conquer and rule the world. For the first time in human history, one power can conquer and rule the world. Indeed but for the industrial potential of the United States, Hitler might have done it! Developments may take a different turn. But technically and militarily, it is a definite possibility.And politically, it is a definite probability if no legal order is created to satisfy the instinctive desire of peoples for security. A decision upon this crucial issue will probably be reached before the end of the twentieth century. To put it bluntly, the meaning of the crisis of the twentieth century is that this planet must to some degree be brought under unified control. Our task, our duty, is to attempt to institute this unified control in a democratic way by first proclaiming its principles, and to achieve it by persuasion and with the least possible bloodshed. If we fail to accomplish this, we can be certain that the iron law of history will compel us to wage more and more wars, with more and more powerful weapons, against more and more powerful groups, until unified control is finally attained through conquest. Political unification of the world by conquest is expensive, painful, bloody. The goal could be achieved so much more easily if it were not for that eternal saboteur of progress—human blindness. But if it is impossible to cure that blindness and if mankind is unable to face its destiny and to determine by reason and insight the course of our immediate future, if our nationalist dogmatism will not permit us to undertake the organization of a universal legal order, then at least, let us try not to prolong the agony of a decaying, dying system of society. If we cannot attain to universalism and create union by common consent and democratic methods as a result of rational thinking—then rather than retard the process, let us precipitate unification by conquest. It serves no reasonable purpose to prolong the death throes of our decrepit institutions and to postpone inevitable events only to make the changes more painful and more costly in blood and suffering. It would be better to have done with this operation as quickly as possible so that the fight for the re-conquest of lost human liberties can start within the universal state without too much loss of time. The era of inter-national wars will end, just as everything human ends. It will come to an end with the establishment of universal law to regulate human relationship, either by union or by—conquest. The modem Bastille is the nation-state, no matter whether the jailers are conservative, liberal or socialist. That symbol of our enslavement must be destroyed if we ever want to be free again. The great revolution for the liberation of man has to be fought all over again. Nothing characterizes the intellectual poverty and the creative sterility of our generation more than the fact that Communism is regarded as the most revolutionary force of the time. Exactly what is revolutionary in Communism? Revolution does not mean merely to fight an existing order, a system, parties and men actually in power. It does not mean merely to shoot or to use violence to overthrow a regime. The 'have nots" will always fight the "haves"; those who are without influence will always oppose the powerful. But that is not revolution. Revolution means the clear recognition of the roots of the evils of society at any given moment, the concentration of all forces to exterminate these roots, and to replace a sick society hy a new social order that no longer produces the causes of the evils of the previous regime. Communism—today an ultranationalist force— does not recognize and does not combat the ultimate source of the misery of our age: the institution of the sovereign nation-state. Bureaucracy, militarism, war, unemployment, poverty, persecution, oppression—all that Communism attributes to capitalism—are in reality products and effects of the nation-state structure of the world. In the middle of the twentieth century, no movement can be regarded as revolutionary that does not concentrate its action and its might on eradicating that tyrannical institution which, for its own self-perpetuation and self-glorification, transforms men into murderers and slaves. An essential characteristic of every really revolutionary movement in history is that it breaks down barriers and creates more human freedom. Often this was done by violence, bloodshed, terror. But these are not characteristics of revolutions. Movements producing violence, bloodshed and terror are not revolutionary, if they do not aim at creating more freedom. If they actually create less freedom, they are counterrevolutionary, reactionary, even if they apply revolutionary slogans and tactics and produce violence, bloodshed and terror. Communism, as its doctrine was formulated in the early part of the nineteenth century and as it is practiced by the Stalin regime in the Soviet Union, has absolutely nothing revolutionary in the real sense of the word. The doctrine ignored the real problem. And the practice, far from solving it, has created one of the most formidable Bastilles of the ancien regime, against which must be concentrated all the truly progressive and revolutionary forces of the middle twentieth century. That our generation has not yet produced a creed and a movement more radical and revolutionary than the creed and movement which were considered radical and revolutionary in the time of Victoria, Napoleon III and Bismarck, is a fact this generation should feel deeply ashamed of. We must search for the truth about peace and its possibilities, regardless of whether certain dogmas and fetishes now cherished permit or do not permit its immediate realization. We must understand quite clearly what peace is and how a peaceful order can be set up. Then it will be up to the people to decide whether they want it or not. But we can no longer afford to believe in false conceptions, in Utopias, in miracles. We can no longer afford to believe that a piece of paper, or even parchment, called a treaty and signed by the representatives of groups of people enjoying absolute sovereignty, can ever secure peace for any considerable period, no matter what the content of the treaty may be. History, like botany and zoology, teaches us the inescapable and immutable law of nature, which applies to everything living, including human society. There is either growth or decay. There is no such thing as immutability, there is nothing static in this world of ours. The only historical meaning, the only usefulness that can be conceded to a league of nations, or indeed to any organization of nation-states with equal sovereignty, is to illustrate that Utopian structures based on "good will," "lasting friendship," "unity of purpose," "common interest" or on any similar fiction cannot work. The Confederation of the thirteen American states, with each state jealously guarding its full and untrammelled sovereignty, was historically justified only by the proof it gave that it could not work, that the peaceful coexistence of the peoples of the thirteen states and the guarantee of their individual security lay in the Union. But after all the catastrophic events that followed the foundation of the League of Nations, is it really necessary to create another league—a hotbed for coming global wars—to prove that it cannot work? Are not the first and second world wars enough "experience"? Do we really need a third global war to understand the anatomy of peace and to see what causes war in human society and how it can be prevented? Let us be clear about one thing. A league of sovereign nation-states is not a step, neither the first step nor the ninety-ninth, toward peace. Peace is law. The San Francisco league is the pitiful miscarriage of the second World War. We shall have to organize peace independently of the Unholy Alliance stillborn in San Francisco or else we shall delude ourselves by believing in a miracle, until the inevitable march of events into another and greater holocaust teaches us that equal and sovereign power units can never, under any circumstances, under any conditions, coexist peacefully. After dissecting the body of human society and seeing clearly the anatomy of peace, one is compelled to cry out in desperation: Must we blindly and helplessly endure the coming Armageddon between the surviving giant nation-states to endow the world with a constitution? After a disastrous half a century of anti-rationalism, guided by mysticism, transcendental emotions and so-called intuition, we must return to the lost road of rationalism, if we want to prevent complete destruction of our civilization. The task is by no means easy. The deceptions caused by rationalism are real and understandable. Yet, to try to escape the complexities of life revealed to us by reason by seeking refuge in irrationalism and to let our actions be determined by superstitions, dogmas and intuition, is sheer suicide. We must resign ourselves to the fact that there is no other fate for us than to climb the long, hard, steep and stony road guided by the only thing that makes us different from animals: reason. We cannot be held back by certain traditions regarded as sacred. After all, what is tradition? Sometimes we have to follow it for a century. Sometimes we have to create it to be followed by another century. Sovereignty of the community and regulation of the interdependence of peoples in society by universal law are the two central pillars upon which the cathedral of democracy rests. If we want to build this cathedral and live as free men in security, let us bear in mind the profound words of Francis Bacon in his Novum Organum: It is idle to expect any great advancement in sciences from the super-inducing and engrafting of new things upon old. We must "begin anew from the very foundation, unless we would revolve forever in a circle with mean and contemptible progress. It would be mean and contemptible progress indeed and we should be revolving in a circle if, instead of beginning to construct the new world society based on universal law, we again try to super-induce and engraft another league or council of sovereign nations upon the old.<br /><br />POSTSCRIPT<br /><br />A FEW weeks after the publication of this book the first atomic bomb exploded over the city of Hiroshima. It ended the second World War. But it was an end that brought no joy or relief. It brought instead fear of atomic war. T h a t the year 1945 of the Christian era produced the atomic bomb for military purposes and the San Francisco Charter for political purposes, is a paradox for historians of the future to ponder. On every hand, suggestions are made to "outlaw," "abolish," "control" or "keep secret" this incredibly destructive force. As a result of several months' debate among scientists, statesmen, industrialists and commentators, the following facts would seem to be agreed upon: 1. At present and in the immediate future no reliable defense against atomic destruction can be foreseen. 2,. Within a very few years, several nations will produce atomic bombs. 3. T h e atomic bomb is merely the destructive side of nuclear physics and research in the use of atomic energy for constructive industrial purposes can and should be unrelentingly pursued.4. International control of atomic research or of the production of atomic bombs is impractical because: a. In capitalist countries such control is contrary to the practices and habits of free competitive enterprise, b. In totalitarian countries such control would be unreliable. c. Only if the nation-states grant each other complete freedom of industrial and military espionage (which is hardly conceivable) could such control be effective. d. So long as the danger of war between nation-states exists, some if not all governments will try to prevent international bodies on which potential enemy states are represented, from inspecting and supervising their laboratories and industries. Each great power will always do its utmost to lead in military science. Atom bomb production in remote parts of the American West, in Siberia, in the Sahara, in Patagonia, in underground factories anywhere, can never be effectively controlled, if, in spite of pledges, the governments of the respective nation-states decide on secrecy. Any effective control or inspection of armaments and research presupposes the sincere and wholehearted collaboration of the governments of the nation-states. If this were possible, there would be no danger of war and no need for any control. The future cannot he based on a hypothetical assumption, the actual cause of our difficulty. Once we recognize the impossibility, or at least the insurmountable difficulty of effective international control of scientific research and industrial production, the question arises: Is such control necessary or even desirable? Nobody in the United States is afraid of atomic bombs or rockets produced within the sovereign nation-state of the United States of America. Nor is any Soviet citizen afraid of atomic bombs or other devastating weapons produced within the sovereign nation-state of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. But the people of the United States feel that atomic bombs produced in the Soviet Union represent a potential danger to them, and the Soviet people feel the same way about atomic bombs produced in the United States. What does this mean? It means that no atomic bomb, no weapon that the genius of man can conceive is dangerous in itself. Weapons only become "dangerous" when they are in the hands of sovereign states other than one's own. It follows that the ultimate source of danger is not atomic energy but the sovereign nation-state. The problem is not technical, it is purely political. The problem of preventing an atomic war is the problem of preventing War, no more, no less. Once war breaks out and nations are fighting fen: their existence, they will use every conceivable weapon to achieve victory. The release of atomic energy and the horrible nightmare of atomic war has greatly intensified the debate on world government. Many people have changed their minds overnight, declaring the San Francisco Charter outdated and inadequate to cope with the problem created by the atomic bomb- Of course, this revolutionary discovery in nuclear physics changed nothing of the necessity, imperative now for several decades, to organize human society under universal law. But it unquestionably dramatized and made it appear more urgent to the complacent millions who needed an atomic explosion to wake them. This new physical fact has changed nothing in the situation this book deals with. Although written and published before the explosion in Hiroshima, nothing in it would have been said differently had it been written after August 6, 1945. There is only one method that can create security against destruction by the atomic bomb. This is the same method that gives the states of New York and California (non-producers of the atomic bomb) security against being erased from the surface of the earth by the states of Tennessee and New Mexico (producers of the atomic bomb). This security is real. It is the security given by a common sovereign order of law. Outside of that, any security is but an illusion. Many of the scientists who released atomic energy, frightened by the consequences of this new force, warn us of the dangers that will result if several sovereign states possess atomic weapons, and urge control of it by the United Nations Security Council. But what is the United Nations Security Council, except "several sovereign states"? What is the reality of the Security Council beyond the reality of the sovereign nation-states that compose it? What matters it if the American Secretary of State, the Soviet Foreign Commissar and His Majesty's Foreign Secretary meet as members of the United Nations Security Council or outside that organization in a "Conference of Foreign Ministers"? In either case they are but the sworn representatives of three conflicting sovereign nation-states; in either case the final decisions rest with Washington, London and Moscow. These representatives can only arrive at agreements or treaties and are without power to create law applicable to the individuals of their respective nation-states. Many of those who realize the inadequacy of the San Francisco organization feel that the people must not be disillusioned, that their faith in the organization must not be destroyed. If that faith is not justified, it must be destroyed. It is criminal to mislead the people and teach them to rely on a false hope. The pathetic defenders argue that the U N O is all we have and we should be practical and start from what we have. A reasonable suggestion. It is scarcely possible to start from anywhere except from where we are. If a man has measles, no matter what he plans to do, he must start with the measles. But this does not mean that measles is an asset, a welcome condition, and that he could not do things better without measles. The mere fact of having something does not automatically mate it valuable. The San Francisco Charter is a multilateral treaty. That and nothing else. Each party to it can withdraw the moment it desires, and war alone can force the member states to fulfil their obligations under the treaty. For several thousand years man has given innumerable chances to treaty structures between sovereign power units to demonstrate that they can prevent war. With the possibility of atomic war facing us, we cannot risk reliance upon a method that has failed miserably hundreds of times and never succeeded once. A realization that this method can never prevent war is the first condition of peace. Law and only law can bring peace among men; treaties never can. We can never arrive at a legal order by amending a treaty structure. To realize the task before us, the heated debates of Hamilton, Madison and Jay in Philadelphia should be read and reread in every home and every school. They demonstrated that the Articles of Confederation (based on the same principles as the United Nations Organization) could not prevent war between the states, that amendment of these articles could not solve the problem, that the Articles of Confederation had to be discarded and a new constitution created and adopted, establishing an overall federal government with power to legislate, apply and execute law on individuals in the United States. That was the only remedy then and it is the only remedy now. Such criticism of the United Nations Organization may shock people who have been persuaded that the UNO is an instrument for maintaining peace. The San Francisco league is not a first step toward a universal legal order. To change from a treaty basis to law is one step, one operation, and it is impossible to break it into parts or fractions. This decision has to be made and the operation carried out at one time. There is no "first step" toward world government. World government is the first step. Some remark patronizingly: "But this is idealism. Let us be realistic, let us make the San Francisco organization work," What is idealism? And what is realism? Is it realistic to believe that treaties—which have been tried again and again and have always failed—will now miraculously work? And is it idealistic to believe that law—which has always succeeded wherever and whenever it was applied—will continue to work? Every time our Foreign Ministers or the heads of our governments meet and decide not to decide, hurry to postpone, and commit themselves to no commitments, the official heralds proclaim jubilantly to the universe: 'This is a hopeful beginning," "This is a first step in the right direction." We are always beginning. „ . . We never continue, never carry on, complete or conclude. We never take a second step or—God forbid—a third step. Our international life is composed of an unending sequence of beginnings that don't begin, of first steps that lead nowhere. When are we going to tire of this game? It is of utmost importance to look at these things in their proper perspective. We must reject the exhortations of reactionaries who say: "Of course, world government is the ultimate goal. But we can't get it now. We must proceed slowly, step by step." World government is not an "ultimate goal" hut an immediate necessity. In fact, it has been overdue since 1914. The convulsions of the past decades are the clear symptoms of a dead and decaying political system. The ultimate goal of our efforts must be the solution of our economic and social problems. What two thousand million men and women really want on this wretched earth is enough food, better housing, clothing, medical care and education, more enjoyment of culture and a little leisure. These are the real goals of human society, the aspirations of ordinary men and women everywhere. All of us could have these things. But we cannot have any of them if every ten or twenty years we allow ourselves to be driven by our institutions to slaughter each other and to destroy each others wealth. A world-wide system of government is merely the primary condition to achieving these practical and essential social and economic aims. It is in no way a remote goal. Whether the change from treaty structure to a legal order takes place independently of the United Nations Organization or within it is irrelevant. To amend the San Francisco Charter—if that is the road we choose —we will have to rewrite it so drastically to get what we need that nothing of the document will remain except the two opening words: "Chapter One." The change has to come about in our minds, in our outlook. Once we know what we want, it makes no difference whether the reform is carried out on top of the Eiffel Tower, in the bleachers of the Yankee Stadium, or on the floor of the United Nations Assembly. The stumbling block to transforming the San Francisco league into a governmental institution is the charters basic conception expressed in the first phrase of the first chapter: "Members are the states," This makes the charter a multilateral treaty. No amendment of the text can alter that fact until the very foundation is changed to the effect that the institution will have direct relationship, not with states but with individuals. But—argue the defenders of the charter—the preamble says, "We, the people . . . "Suppose someone publishes a proclamation opening, "I, the Emperor of China . . ." Would this make him the Emperor of China? Such an action would more probably land him in a lunatic asylum than on the throne of China. ' We , the people . . . "these symbolic words of democratic government—do not belong in the San Francisco Charter. Their use in the preamble is in total contradiction to everything else in it, and only historians will be able to decide whether they were used from lack of knowledge or lack of honesty. The simple truth requires that 'We , the people . . ." in the preamble of the charter be accurately read: 'We, the High Contracting Powers . . . " The most vulgar of all objections, of course, is the meaningless assertion made by so many "public figures": "The people are not yet ready for world federation." One can only wonder how they know. Have they themselves ever advocated world federation? Do they themselves believe in it? Have they ever tried to explain to the people what makes war and what is the mechanism of peace in human society? And, after having understood the problem, have the people rejected the solution and decided they did not want peace by law and government but preferred war by national sovereignty? Until this happens, no one has the right to pretend he knows what the people are ready for. Ideals always seem premature—until they become obsolete. Everybody has a perfect right to say that he does not believe in federal world government and does not want it. But without having faith in it and without having tried it, nobody has the right to preclude the decision of the people. Certain statesmen say that it is criminal to talk about the possibility of a war between the Russian and Anglo-American spheres. This is a matter of opinion. I believe it is criminal not to talk about it. Nobody ever saved the life of a sick person by refusing to diagnose the disease or to attempt to cure it. The people of the world must understand the forces driving them toward the coming holocaust. It has nothing whatever to do with Communism or capitalism, with individualism or collectivism. It is the inevitable conflict between non-integrated sovereignties in contact. We could put a Communist in the White House or establish the purest Jeffersonian democracy in Russia and the situation would be the same. Unless an overall world government organization can be established in time by persuasion and consent, no diplomatic magic will prevent the explosion. Drifting toward a perfectly evitable cataclysm is unworthy of reasonable men. Hundreds of millions of civilized human beings, good-humored, music- and dance-loving, industrious working people who could peacefully collaborate and enjoy life within one sovereignty, as the chained slaves of their respective sovereign nation-states, guided by fear and superstition, are being hoodwinked and bullied into senseless war. No amount of negotiating, of "good will" or wishful thinking will change this course. Only a clear realization by the people as to what is driving them into that conflict can bring about its eradication and cure. What chance have we to create a world government before the next war? Not much. Suppose we do make the problem clear to the democratic peoples—is it likely that Soviet Russia would accept a suggestion to enter into a common government organization with us? I believe the answer to be no. Is it possible? Perhaps. But the alternative—another world war resulting in the destruction of all individual liberties and in the rule of a totalitarian state, either ours or Russia's—is a prospect that leaves no room for hesitation as to the action we must undertake. If war, horrible war, between the two groups of sovereign nations dominated by the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. has to be fought, at least let it be civil war. Let us not go to battle for bases, territories, prestige, boundaries. Let us at least fight for an ideal. The end of such a struggle ought automatically to end international wars and bring victory for world federation. The reality we most constantly keep in mind in striving for peace is clearly expressed by Alexander Hamilton in his Federalist No. 6: "To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties, situated in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages." History demonstrates how right Hamilton was and how wrong were those "first steppers" who thought that the American people could prosper and live in peace under a loose confederation of sovereign states. How can we reach our goal? Five stages are clearly visible on the road from idea to realization. 1. The first step is the conception of the idea, the proclamation of principles, the formulation of the doctrine. 2. The doctrine must be spread in the same way Christianity, democracy and every other successful doctrine has been diffused. 3. Once all of us understand the problem, once we realize what creates peace in human society and know we want it, our next task is to elect representatives, delegating to them the power to put into practice the new principles. 4. It is for these elected delegates—who by then will have received the mandate from the people to organize world government for preventing wars between the nation-states—to debate programs, to fight out details and to arrive at solutions. Such solutions will naturally be compromises; they wall probably be far from perfect, but we cannot expect paradise on this earth. 5. Once this first constitutional step is taken, developments will start in the right direction. But the foundation will by then have been laid, and a great number of solutions will be more or less workable. Passionate debates on programs and details before the will of the people is clearly expressed as to the goal will only create obstacles and they are likely to destroy the ideal before its birth. Two per cent of the money and effort spent for research and production of the atomic bomb would be sufficient to carry out an educational movement that would make clear to the people what the virus of war is and how peace can be attained in human society. Undoubtedly, if the inhabitants of Mars or another planet suddenly descended upon the earth and threatened to conquer us, all the nations of our small world would immediately get together. We would forget all our ridiculous inter-national quarrels and would willingly and gladly place ourselves under one rule of law for sheer survival. Axe we certain that the unleashing and national use of atomic energy, the apocalypse of an atomic world war, is not an equal threat to our civilization and to mankind, imperatively requiring us to rise above our outdated inter-national conflicts and to organize human society politically so that an atomic world war could be checked? We have very little time to prevent the next war and to stop our drifting toward totalitarianism. We have to get to work at once. Every citizen who believes in law and government in inter-national relations must persuade ten other citizens of the same belief, and urge each to persuade, on his behalf, ten more. The nuclear physicists have explained that atomic energy is released by what is called a chain reaction. One atom is split. The released particles split other atoms and so on. The force of ideas always explodes in the form of such a chain reaction. We must persuade as many newspapers as possible to adopt the federal outlook as their editorial policy. This principle must also be constantly disseminated on the radio and in films. We must get this problem discussed in groups, meetings and on platforms. Universalism and the imperative need for universal law must resound in all houses of God. The universal outlook of political and social matters must be taught in all schools. We should elect nobody to public office who has not pledged himself in advance to work wholeheartedly to prevent the next war by the establishment of peace through law and government. An irresistible popular demand must be made articulate in every country as soon as possible. And when in two or more countries the people have clearly expressed their will, the process of federation must start. Naturally the ideal solution would be if all the people of the world were persuaded simultaneously. But such a course is unlikely. The process must start at the earliest possible moment, even with a minimum of two countries, because no argument can compare with the overwhelming persuasive power of events. There can be no question that once the process of inter-national integration starts, its attraction will be so great that more and more nations will join until finally, by the force of events, we shall arrive at a federal world government. If we ourselves sincerely want a world-wide legal order and wholeheartedly begin work on the problem of creating governmental institutions which would permit different national groups to continue to shape their own religious, cultural, social and economic lives the way they choose and which would protect them by force of law from interference of others in their local and national matters, we have no reason to assume that Russia will stubbornly refuse to participate. If, under any conditions, she does not want to join, then let this be her decision. But let us not make our own actions dependent upon the hypothetical behavior of someone else. With such lack of faith, with such lack of courage, no progress is possible. We must be as much perfectionists in our pursuit of peace as Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin were perfectionists in their pursuit of victory in war. They did not say: "Let us build a few hundred planes, let us win a first little battle and then be content with it and wait." They raised standards and when they proclaimed that we wanted complete, total victory, unconditional surrender in the shortest possible time, hundreds of millions of us followed enthusiastically. When we wanted the atomic bomb, we did not say it was "impossible," "impractical," "unrealistic," we did not say that "the people are not ready for it" We said we want it, we need it, and we have to have it. And we went all out for it with the utmost perfectionism. We constructed entire new cities, used two hundred thousand workers, spent two billion dollars and telescoped into three or four years the work of half a century. The result of this perfectionism was a perfect result. The "impossible" became reality, the "impractical" exploded over Hiroshima and the "unrealistic" brought what we wanted: Victory. No human problem has ever been solved by any method other than perfectionism. In every field of human effort we aim at perfection. We want the best car, the finest radio set, the very best medical care. We admire the world's champion prize-fighter and best football player. We pay homage to the best painter and pianist. We award the highest decoration to our greatest war heroes. It is the fundamental drive in Western man to aim at the maximum, not the minimum. We want perfection. We do not always achieve it, but we proudly announce that perfection is what we want. Yet, when we are faced with the problem of peace, perfection becomes a smear word. We cannot achieve peace—a much more arduous and an even more heroic undertaking than war—if all of a sudden we become modest and satisfied with what is complacently accepted as a "first step" and if, disregarding all the past, we indulge in the hopeless hope that something can now work which Hamilton rightly said would be to "disregard the uniform course of human events." We shall never have peace if we do not have the courage to understand what it is, if we do not want to pay the price it costs and if, instead of working for its realization with the utmost determination, we are so cowardly as to resign ourselves smugly to an inherited, unworkable system enslaving us all. We must clarify principles among ourselves and arrive at axiomatic definitions as to what causes war and what creates peace in human society. Once we agree on these principles, the absolutely indispensable condition of their spreading and materialization is our own unshakable faith in them. How things have actually happened on this earth no man has ever realized or experienced, just as no one can realize or experience the moment of birth or the moment of death, nor the moment even of awakening or falling asleep. Such transitions take place imperceptibly and we cannot foresee them or visualize them with exactness. Pascal said that opinion is the real ruler of the world. And in starting our great fight for a better world, we must be guided by the wisdom of Sun-YatSen: The difficulty is to know, to understand; with understanding, action is easy. Therefore the problem is: How willing are we to fight for the dissemination in schools, churches, meetings, the press, the movies and on the radio, of a new faith, a new political outlook, which cannot take practical shape until enough people understand it, believe in it and want it?</div>coordinatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01483215435633115889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001519995842436212.post-88196792738795263472009-05-05T15:29:00.003+02:002009-05-06T08:21:07.482+02:00Ô République universelle!<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkoHYR-NGOOqRqjk2UpUcN7CypDnyPOyp8FUU7Uf_V31Eo25TEDz1ifhCG6kjyiSazcP4NI3b_-EOdkIV6RrHUVGB-s4jmAxSUThRJvKq4_7ARauucxyUhC8zW-c-aEfXl4TjkPnMSlHgb/s1600-h/Victor-Hugo.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5332332284730657330" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 138px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkoHYR-NGOOqRqjk2UpUcN7CypDnyPOyp8FUU7Uf_V31Eo25TEDz1ifhCG6kjyiSazcP4NI3b_-EOdkIV6RrHUVGB-s4jmAxSUThRJvKq4_7ARauucxyUhC8zW-c-aEfXl4TjkPnMSlHgb/s200/Victor-Hugo.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><div align="center"><br /><strong><em>LUX</em></strong></div><br /><br /><div align="center"></div><br /><br /><div align="center">par <strong>Victor Hugo</strong></div><br /><br /><div align="center">Jersey, septembre 1853</div><br /><br /><div align="left"><br /></div><div align="left"></div><div align="left">I<br /><br />Temps futurs ! vision sublime !<br />Les peuples sont hors de l'abîme.<br />Le désert morne est traversé.<br />Après les sables, la pelouse ;<br />Et la terre est comme une épouse,<br />Et l'homme est comme un fiancé !<br /><br />Dès à présent l'œil qui s'élève<br />Voit distinctement ce beau rêve<br />Qui sera le réel un jour ;<br />Car Dieu dénouera toute chaîne,<br />Car le passé se nomme haine<br />Et l'avenir s'appelle amour !<br /><br />Dès à présent dans nos misères<br />Germe l'hymen des peuples frères ;<br />Volant sur nos sombres rameaux,<br />Comme un frelon que l'aube éveille,<br />Le progrès, ténébreuse abeille,<br />Fait du bonheur avec nos maux.<br /><br />Oh ! voyez ! la nuit se dissipe ;<br />Sur le monde qui s'émancipe,<br />Oubliant Césars et Capets,<br />Et sur les nations nubiles,<br />S'ouvrent dans l'azur, immobiles,<br />Les vastes ailes de la paix !<br /><br />Ô libre France enfin surgie !<br />Ô robe blanche après l'orgie !<br />Ô triomphe après les douleurs !<br />Le travail bruit dans les forges,<br />Le ciel rit, et les rouges-gorges<br />Chantent dans l'aubépine en fleurs !<br /><br />La rouille mord les hallebardes.<br />De vos canons, de vos bombardes,<br />Il ne reste pas un morceau<br />Qui soit assez grand, capitaines,<br />Pour qu'on puisse prendre aux fontaines<br />De quoi faire boire un oiseau.<br /><br />Les rancunes sont effacées ;<br />Tous les cœurs, toutes les pensées,<br />Qu'anime le même dessein,<br />Ne font plus qu'un faisceau superbe ;<br />Dieu prend pour lier cette gerbe<br />La vieille corde du tocsin.<br /><br />Au fond des cieux un point scintille ;<br />Regardez, il grandit, il brille,<br />Il approche, énorme et vermeil.<br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Ô République universelle !<br />Tu n'es encor que l'étincelle,<br />Demain tu seras le soleil !</span></em></strong><br /><br />II<br /><br />Fêtes dans les cités, fêtes dans les campagnes !<br />Les cieux n'ont plus d'enfers, les lois n'ont plus de bagnes.<br />Où donc est l'échafaud ? ce monstre a disparu.<br />Tout renaît. Le bonheur de chacun est accru<br />De la félicité des nations entières.<br />Plus de soldats l'épée au poing, plus de frontières,<br />Plus de fisc, plus de glaive ayant forme de croix.<br />L'Europe en rougissant dit : - quoi ! j'avais des rois !<br />Et l'Amérique dit : - quoi ! j'avais des esclaves !<br />Science, art, poésie, ont dissous les entraves<br />De tout le genre humain. Où sont les maux soufferts ?...<br />Les libres pieds de l'homme ont oublié les fers<br />Tout l'univers n'est plus qu'une famille unie.<br />Le saint labeur de tous se fond en harmonie ;<br />Et la Société, qui d'hymnes retentit,<br />Accueille avec transport l'effort du plus petit ;<br />L'ouvrage du plus humble au fond de sa chaumière<br />Emeut l'immense peuple heureux dans la lumière ;<br />Toute l'humanité, dans sa splendide ampleur,<br />Sent le don que lui fait le moindre travailleur ;<br />Ainsi les verts sapins, vainqueurs des avalanches,<br />Les grands chênes remplis de feuilles et de branches,<br />Les vieux cèdres touffus, plus durs que le granit,<br />Quand la fauvette en mai vient y faire son nid,<br />Tressaillent dans leur force et leur hauteur superbe,<br />Tout joyeux qu'un oiseau leur apporte un brin d'herbe.<br /><br />Radieux avenir. Essor universel !<br />Epanouissement de l'homme sous le ciel !<br /><br />III<br /><br />Ô proscrits ! hommes de l'épreuve,<br />Mes compagnons vaillants et doux,<br />Bien des fois, assis près du fleuve,<br />J'ai chanté ce chant parmi vous ;<br /><br />Bien des fois, quand vous m'entendîtes,<br />Plusieurs m'ont dit : « Perds ton espoir.<br />Nous serions des races maudites,<br />Le ciel ne serait pas plus noir !<br /><br />Que veut dire cette inclémence ?<br />Quoi ! le juste a le châtiment !<br />La vertu s'étonne et commence<br />A regarder Dieu fixement.<br /><br />Dieu se dérobe et nous échappe.<br />Quoi donc ! l'iniquité prévaut !<br />Le crime, voyant où Dieu frappe,<br />Rit d'un rire impie et dévot.<br /><br />Nous ne comprenons pas ses voies.<br />Comment ce Dieu des nations<br />Fera-t-il sortir tant de joies<br />De tant de désolations ?<br /><br />Ses desseins nous semblent contraires<br />A l'espoir qui luit dans tes yeux... »<br />- Mais qui donc, ô proscrits, mes frères,<br />Comprend le grand mystérieux ?<br /><br />Qui donc a traversé l'espace,<br />La terre, l'eau, l'air et le feu,<br />Et l'étendue où l'esprit passe ?<br />Qui donc peut dire : « J'ai vu Dieu !<br /><br />J' ai vu Jéhovah ! je le nomme !<br />Tout à l'heure il me réchauffait,<br />Je sais comment il a fait l'homme,<br />Comment il fait tout ce qu'il fait !<br /><br />J'ai vu cette main inconnue<br />Qui lâche en s'ouvrant l'âpre hiver,<br />Et les tonnerres dans la nue,<br />Et les tempêtes sur la mer,<br /><br />Tendre et ployer la nuit livide ;<br />Mettre une âme dans l'embryon ;<br />Appuyer dans l'ombre du vide<br />Le pôle du septentrion ;<br /><br />Amener l'heure où tout arrive ;<br />Faire au banquet du roi fêté<br />Entrer la mort, ce noir convive,<br />Qui vient sans qu'on l'ait invité ;<br /><br />Créer l'araignée et sa toile,<br />Peindre la fleur, mûrir le fruit,<br />Et sans perdre une seule étoile<br />Mener tous les astres la nuit ;<br /><br />Arrêter la vague à la rive ;<br />Parfumer de roses l'été ;<br />Verser le temps comme une eau vive<br />Des urnes de l'éternité ;<br /><br />D'un souffle. avec ses feux sans nombre,<br />Faire, dans toute sa hauteur,<br />Frissonner le firmament sombre<br />Comme la tente d'un pasteur ;<br /><br />Attacher les globes aux sphères<br />Par mille invisibles liens ; ...<br />Toutes ces choses sont très-claires,<br />Je sais comment il fait ! j'en viens ! »<br /><br />Qui peut dire cela ? personne.<br />Nuit sur nos cœurs ! nuit sur nos yeux !<br />L'homme est un vain clairon qui sonne.<br />Dieu seul parle aux axes des cieux.<br /><br />IV<br /><br />Ne doutons pas ! croyons ! la fin, c'est le mystère.<br />Attendons. Des Nérons comme de la panthère,<br />Dieu sait briser la dent.<br />Dieu nous essaie, amis. Ayons foi, soyons calmes,<br />Et marchons. Ô désert ! s'il fait croître des palmes,<br />C'est dans ton sable ardent !<br /><br />Parce qu'il ne fait pas son œuvre tout de suite,<br />Qu'il livre Rome au prêtre et Jésus au jésuite,<br />Et les bons au méchant,<br />Nous désespérerions ! de lui ! du juste immense !<br />Non ! non ! lui seul connaît le nom de la semence<br />Qui germe dans son champ.<br /><br />Ne possède-t-il pas toute la certitude ?<br />Dieu ne remplit-il pas ce monde, notre étude,<br />Du Nadir au Zénith ?<br />Notre sagesse auprès de la sienne est démence ;<br />Et n'est-ce pas à lui que la clarté commence,<br />Et que l'ombre finit ?<br /><br />Ne voit-il pas ramper les hydres sur leurs ventres ?<br />Ne regarde-t-il pas jusqu'au fond de leurs antres<br />Atlas et Pélion ?<br />Ne connaît-il pas l'heure où la cigogne émigre ?<br />Sait-il pas ton entrée et ta sortie, ô tigre,<br />Et ton antre, ô lion ?<br /><br />Hirondelle, réponds, aigle à l'aile sonore,<br />Parle, avez-vous des nids que l'Étemel ignore ?<br />Ô cerf, quand l'as-tu fui ?<br />Renard, ne vois-tu pas ses yeux dans la broussaille ?<br />Loup, quand tu sens la nuit une herbe qui tressaille,<br />Ne dis-tu pas : c'est lui !<br /><br />Puisqu'il sait tout cela, puisqu'il peut toute chose,<br />Que ses doigts font jaillir les effets de la cause<br />Comme un noyau d'un fruit,<br />Puisqu'il peut mettre un ver dans les pommes de l'arbre,<br />Et faire disperser les colonnes de marbre<br />Par le vent de la nuit ;<br /><br />Puisqu'il bat l'océan pareil au bœuf qui beugle,<br />Puisqu'il est le voyant et que l'homme est l'aveugle,<br />Puisqu'il est le milieu,<br />Puisque son bras nous porte, et puisque à son passage<br />La comète frissonne ainsi qu'en une cage<br />Tremble une étoupe en feu ;<br /><br />Puisque l'obscure nuit le connaît, puisque l'ombre<br />Le voit, quand il lui plaît, sauver la nef qui sombre,<br />Comment douterions-nous,<br />Nous qui, fermes et purs, fiers dans nos agonies,<br />Sommes debout devant toutes les tyrannies,<br />Pour lui seul, à genoux !<br /><br />D'ailleurs pensons. Nos jours sont des jours d'amertume,<br />Mais quand nous étendons les bras dans cette brume,<br />Nous sentons une main ;<br />Quand nous marchons, courbés, dans l'ombre du martyre,<br />Nous entendons quelqu'un derrière nous nous dire :<br />C'est ici le chemin.<br /><br />Ô proscrits, l'avenir est aux peuples ! Paix, gloire,<br />Liberté, reviendront sur des chars de victoire<br />Aux foudroyants essieux ;<br />Ce crime qui triomphe est fumée et mensonge ;<br />Voilà ce que je puis affirmer, moi qui songe<br />L'œil fixé sur les cieux !<br /><br />Les césars sont plus fiers que les vagues marines.<br />Mais Dieu dit : - Je mettrai ma boucle en leurs narines,<br />Et dans leur bouche un mors,<br />Et je les traînerai, qu'on cède ou bien qu'on lutte,<br />Eux et leurs histrions et leurs joueurs de flûte,<br />Dans l'ombre où sont les morts !<br /><br />Dieu dit ; et le granit que foulait leur semelle<br />S'écroule, et les voilà disparus pêle-mêle<br />Dans leurs prospérités !<br />Aquilon ! aquilon ! qui viens battre nos portes,<br />Oh ! dis-nous, si c'est toi, souffle, qui les emportes,<br />Où les as-tu jetés ?<br /><br />V<br /><br />Bannis ! bannis ! bannis ! c'est là la destinée.<br />Ce qu'apporta le flux sera dans la journée<br />Repris par le reflux.<br />Les jours mauvais fuiront sans qu'on sache leur nombre,<br />Et les peuples joyeux et se penchant sur l'ombre,<br />Diront : cela n'est plus !<br /><br />Les temps heureux luiront, non pour la seule France,<br />Mais pour tous. On verra, dans cette délivrance,<br />Funeste au seul passé,<br />Toute l'humanité chanter, de fleurs couverte,<br />Comme un maître qui rentre en sa maison déserte,<br />Dont on l'avait chassé.<br /><br />Les tyrans s'éteindront comme des météores.<br />Et, comme s'il naissait de la nuit deux aurores<br />Dans le même ciel bleu,<br />Nous vous verrons sortir de ce gouffre où nous sommes,<br />Mêlant vos deux rayons, fraternité des hommes,<br />Paternité de Dieu !<br /><br />Oui, je vous le déclare, oui, je vous le répète,<br />Car le clairon redit ce que dit la trompette,<br />Tout sera paix et jour !<br />Liberté ! plus de serf et plus de prolétaire !<br />O sourire d'en haut ! ô du ciel pour la terre<br />Majestueux amour !<br /><br />L'arbre saint du Progrès, autrefois chimérique,<br />Croîtra, couvrant l'Europe et couvrant l'Amérique,<br />Sur le passé détruit,<br />Et, laissant l'Ether pur luire à travers ses branches,<br />Le jour, apparaîtra plein de colombes blanches,<br />Plein d'étoiles, la nuit.<br /><br />Et nous qui serons morts, morts dans l'exil peut-être,<br />Martyrs saignants, pendant que les hommes, sans maître,<br />Vivront, plus fiers, plus beaux,<br />Sous ce grand arbre, amour des cieux qu'il avoisine,<br />Nous nous réveillerons pour baiser sa racine<br />Au fond de nos tombeaux ! </div>coordinatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01483215435633115889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001519995842436212.post-28540040901618472912009-05-05T15:14:00.004+02:002009-05-06T08:25:08.272+02:00A Parliament of Man Poetry<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhp-gj3nhfaUjRCGZ5Nx3q1VcXHP0ksP5kYAV_oAYzTWCYT8h1LvMmnqSZV2LMMSWVJxxBgJMRRVQyMXtDbi57N3B955FLpcGkMcFibhsOVKrWsubVfLd4DZaNtR8611VhWdyZ35RmX1qBJ/s1600-h/Lord-Tennyson-1809-1892.png"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5332329017805854082" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 144px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhp-gj3nhfaUjRCGZ5Nx3q1VcXHP0ksP5kYAV_oAYzTWCYT8h1LvMmnqSZV2LMMSWVJxxBgJMRRVQyMXtDbi57N3B955FLpcGkMcFibhsOVKrWsubVfLd4DZaNtR8611VhWdyZ35RmX1qBJ/s200/Lord-Tennyson-1809-1892.png" border="0" /></a><br /><div align="center"><strong>Locksley Hall</strong><br /><br />Alfred Lord Tennyson (1809-1892)</div><div align="left"><br /><br /><a href="http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/2161.html#1#1">1</a> Comrades, leave me here a little, while as yet 't is early morn:<br />2 Leave me here, and when you want me, sound upon the bugle-horn.<br /><br />3'T is the place, and all around it, as of old, the curlews call,</div><br /><div align="left"><a href="http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/2161.html#4#4">4</a>Dreary gleams about the moorland flying over Locksley Hall;<br /><br />5Locksley Hall, that in the distance overlooks the sandy tracts,<br />6And the hollow ocean-ridges roaring into cataracts.<br /><br />7Many a night from yonder ivied casement, ere I went to rest,<br /><a href="http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/2161.html#8#8">8</a>Did I look on great Orion sloping slowly to the West.<br /><br /><a href="http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/2161.html#9#9">9</a>Many a night I saw the Pleiads, rising thro' the mellow shade,<br />10Glitter like a swarm of fire-flies tangled in a silver braid.<br /><br />11Here about the beach I wander'd, nourishing a youth sublime<br />12With the fairy tales of science, and the long result of Time;<br /><br />13When the centuries behind me like a fruitful land reposed;<br />14When I clung to all the present for the promise that it closed:<br /><br />15When I dipt into the future far as human eye could see;<br />16Saw the Vision of the world and all the wonder that would be.--<br /><br />17In the Spring a fuller crimson comes upon the robin's breast;<br />18In the Spring the wanton lapwing gets himself another crest;<br /><br />19In the Spring a livelier iris changes on the burnish'd dove;<br />20In the Spring a young man's fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love.<br /><br />21Then her cheek was pale and thinner than should be for one so young,<br />22And her eyes on all my motions with a mute observance hung.<br /><br />23And I said, "My cousin Amy, speak, and speak the truth to me,<br />24Trust me, cousin, all the current of my being sets to thee."<br /><br />25On her pallid cheek and forehead came a colour and a light,<br />26As I have seen the rosy red flushing in the northern night.<br /><br />27And she turn'd--her bosom shaken with a sudden storm of sighs--<br />28All the spirit deeply dawning in the dark of hazel eyes--<br /><br />29Saying, "I have hid my feelings, fearing they should do me wrong";<br />30Saying, "Dost thou love me, cousin?" weeping, "I have loved thee long."<br /><br />31Love took up the glass of Time, and turn'd it in his glowing hands;<br />32Every moment, lightly shaken, ran itself in golden sands.<br /><br />33Love took up the harp of Life, and smote on all the chords with might;<br />34Smote the chord of Self, that, trembling, pass'd in music out of sight.<br /><br />35Many a morning on the moorland did we hear the copses ring,<br />36And her whisper throng'd my pulses with the fulness of the Spring.<br /><br />37Many an evening by the waters did we watch the stately ships,<br />38And our spirits rush'd together at the touching of the lips.<br /><br />39O my cousin, shallow-hearted! O my Amy, mine no more!<br />40O the dreary, dreary moorland! O the barren, barren shore!<br /><br />41Falser than all fancy fathoms, falser than all songs have sung,<br />42Puppet to a father's threat, and servile to a shrewish tongue!<br /><br />43Is it well to wish thee happy?--having known me--to decline<br />44On a range of lower feelings and a narrower heart than mine!<br /><br />45Yet it shall be; thou shalt lower to his level day by day,<br />46What is fine within thee growing coarse to sympathize with clay.<br /><br />47As the husband is, the wife is: thou art mated with a clown,<br />48And the grossness of his nature will have weight to drag thee down.<br /><br />49He will hold thee, when his passion shall have spent its novel force,<br />50Something better than his dog, a little dearer than his horse.<br /><br />51What is this? his eyes are heavy; think not they are glazed with wine.<br />52Go to him, it is thy duty, kiss him, take his hand in thine.<br /><br />53It may be my lord is weary, that his brain is overwrought:<br />54Soothe him with thy finer fancies, touch him with thy lighter thought.<br /><br />55He will answer to the purpose, easy things to understand--<br />56Better thou wert dead before me, tho' I slew thee with my hand!<br /><br />57Better thou and I were lying, hidden from the heart's disgrace,<br />58Roll'd in one another's arms, and silent in a last embrace.<br /><br />59Cursed be the social wants that sin against the strength of youth!<br />60Cursed be the social lies that warp us from the living truth!<br /><br />61Cursed be the sickly forms that err from honest Nature's rule!<br />62Cursed be the gold that gilds the straiten'd forehead of the fool!<br /><br />63Well--'t is well that I should bluster!--Hadst thou less unworthy proved--<br />64Would to God--for I had loved thee more than ever wife was loved.<br /><br />65Am I mad, that I should cherish that which bears but bitter fruit?<br />66I will pluck it from my bosom, tho' my heart be at the root.<br /><br />67Never, tho' my mortal summers to such length of years should come<br />68As the many-winter'd crow that leads the clanging rookery home.<br /><br />69Where is comfort? in division of the records of the mind?<br />70Can I part her from herself, and love her, as I knew her, kind?<br /><br />71I remember one that perish'd; sweetly did she speak and move;<br />72Such a one do I remember, whom to look at was to love.<br /><br />73Can I think of her as dead, and love her for the love she bore?<br />74No--she never loved me truly; love is love for evermore.<br /><br /><a href="http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/2161.html#75#75">75</a>Comfort? comfort scorn'd of devils! this is truth the poet sings,<br />76That a sorrow's crown of sorrow is remembering happier things.<br /><br />77Drug thy memories, lest thou learn it, lest thy heart be put to proof,<br />78In the dead unhappy night, and when the rain is on the roof.<br /><br />79Like a dog, he hunts in dreams, and thou art staring at the wall,<br />80Where the dying night-lamp flickers, and the shadows rise and fall.<br /><br />81Then a hand shall pass before thee, pointing to his drunken sleep,<br />82To thy widow'd marriage-pillows, to the tears that thou wilt weep.<br /><br />83Thou shalt hear the "Never, never," whisper'd by the phantom years,<br />84And a song from out the distance in the ringing of thine ears;<br /><br />85And an eye shall vex thee, looking ancient kindness on thy pain.<br />86Turn thee, turn thee on thy pillow; get thee to thy rest again.<br /><br />87Nay, but Nature brings thee solace; for a tender voice will cry.<br />88'T is a purer life than thine, a lip to drain thy trouble dry.<br /><br />89Baby lips will laugh me down; my latest rival brings thee rest.<br />90Baby fingers, waxen touches, press me from the mother's breast.<br /><br />91O, the child too clothes the father with a dearness not his due.<br />92Half is thine and half is his: it will be worthy of the two.<br /><br />93O, I see thee old and formal, fitted to thy petty part,<br />94With a little hoard of maxims preaching down a daughter's heart.<br /><br />95"They were dangerous guides the feelings--she herself was not exempt--<br />96Truly, she herself had suffer'd"--Perish in thy self-contempt!<br /><br />97Overlive it--lower yet--be happy! wherefore should I care?<br />98I myself must mix with action, lest I wither by despair.<br /><br />99What is that which I should turn to, lighting upon days like these?<br />100Every door is barr'd with gold, and opens but to golden keys.<br /><br />101Every gate is throng'd with suitors, all the markets overflow.<br />102I have but an angry fancy; what is that which I should do?<br /><br />103I had been content to perish, falling on the foeman's ground,<br />104When the ranks are roll'd in vapour, and the winds are laid with sound.<br /><br />105But the jingling of the guinea helps the hurt that Honour feels,<br />106And the nations do but murmur, snarling at each other's heels.<br /><br />107Can I but relive in sadness? I will turn that earlier page.<br />108Hide me from my deep emotion, O thou wondrous Mother-Age!<br /><br />109Make me feel the wild pulsation that I felt before the strife,<br />110When I heard my days before me, and the tumult of my life;<br /><br />111Yearning for the large excitement that the coming years would yield,<br />112Eager-hearted as a boy when first he leaves his father's field,<br /><br />113And at night along the dusky highway near and nearer drawn,<br />114Sees in heaven the light of London flaring like a dreary dawn;<br /><br />115And his spirit leaps within him to be gone before him then,<br />116Underneath the light he looks at, in among the throngs of men:<br /><br />117Men, my brothers, men the workers, ever reaping something new:<br />118That which they have done but earnest of the things that they shall do:<br /><br />119For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,<br />120Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;<br /><br /><a href="http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/2161.html#121#121">121</a>Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails,<br />122Pilots of the purple twilight dropping down with costly bales;<br /><br />123Heard the heavens fill with shouting, and there rain'd a ghastly dew<br />124From the nations' airy navies grappling in the central blue;<br /><br />125Far along the world-wide whisper of the south-wind rushing warm,<br />126With the standards of the peoples plunging thro' the thunder-storm;<br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">127Till the war-drum throbb'd no longer, and the battle-flags were furl'd<br />128In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world.</span></strong><br /><br />129There the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in awe,<br />130And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law.<br /><br />131So I triumph'd ere my passion sweeping thro' me left me dry,<br />132Left me with the palsied heart, and left me with the jaundiced eye;<br /><br />133Eye, to which all order festers, all things here are out of joint:<br />134Science moves, but slowly, slowly, creeping on from point to point:<br /><br />135Slowly comes a hungry people, as a lion, creeping nigher,<br />136Glares at one that nods and winks behind a slowly-dying fire.<br /><br />137Yet I doubt not thro' the ages one increasing purpose runs,<br />138And the thoughts of men are widen'd with the process of the suns.<br /><br />139What is that to him that reaps not harvest of his youthful joys,<br />140Tho' the deep heart of existence beat for ever like a boy's?<br /><br />141Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers, and I linger on the shore,<br />142And the individual withers, and the world is more and more.<br /><br />143Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers, and he bears a laden breast,<br />144Full of sad experience, moving toward the stillness of his rest.<br /><br />145Hark, my merry comrades call me, sounding on the bugle-horn,<br />146They to whom my foolish passion were a target for their scorn:<br /><br />147Shall it not be scorn to me to harp on such a moulder'd string?<br />148I am shamed thro' all my nature to have loved so slight a thing.<br /><br />149Weakness to be wroth with weakness! woman's pleasure, woman's pain--<br />150Nature made them blinder motions bounded in a shallower brain:<br /><br />151Woman is the lesser man, and all thy passions, match'd with mine,<br />152Are as moonlight unto sunlight, and as water unto wine--<br /><br />153Here at least, where nature sickens, nothing. Ah, for some retreat<br />154Deep in yonder shining Orient, where my life began to beat;<br /><br /><a href="http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/2161.html#155#155">155</a>Where in wild Mahratta-battle fell my father evil-starr'd,--<br />156I was left a trampled orphan, and a selfish uncle's ward.<br /><br />157Or to burst all links of habit--there to wander far away,<br />158On from island unto island at the gateways of the day.<br /><br />159Larger constellations burning, mellow moons and happy skies,<br />160Breadths of tropic shade and palms in cluster, knots of Paradise.<br /><br />161Never comes the trader, never floats an European flag,<br />162Slides the bird o'er lustrous woodland, swings the trailer from the crag;<br /><br />163Droops the heavy-blossom'd bower, hangs the heavy-fruited tree--<br />164Summer isles of Eden lying in dark-purple spheres of sea.<br /><br />165There methinks would be enjoyment more than in this march of mind,<br />166In the steamship, in the railway, in the thoughts that shake mankind.<br /><br />167There the passions cramp'd no longer shall have scope and breathing space;<br />168I will take some savage woman, she shall rear my dusky race.<br /><br />169Iron-jointed, supple-sinew'd, they shall dive, and they shall run,<br />170Catch the wild goat by the hair, and hurl their lances in the sun;<br /><br />171Whistle back the parrot's call, and leap the rainbows of the brooks,<br />172Not with blinded eyesight poring over miserable books--<br /><br />173Fool, again the dream, the fancy! but I know my words are wild,<br />174But I count the gray barbarian lower than the Christian child.<br /><br />175I, to herd with narrow foreheads, vacant of our glorious gains,<br />176Like a beast with lower pleasures, like a beast with lower pains!<br /><br />177Mated with a squalid savage--what to me were sun or clime?<br />178I the heir of all the ages, in the foremost files of time--<br /><br />179I that rather held it better men should perish one by one,<br /><a href="http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/2161.html#180#180">180</a>Than that earth should stand at gaze like Joshua's moon in Ajalon!<br /><br />181Not in vain the distance beacons. Forward, forward let us range,<br /><a href="http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/2161.html#182#182">182</a>Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change.<br /><br />183Thro' the shadow of the globe we sweep into the younger day;<br /><a href="http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/2161.html#184#184">184</a>Better fifty years of Europe than a cycle of Cathay.<br /><br />185Mother-Age (for mine I knew not) help me as when life begun:<br />186Rift the hills, and roll the waters, flash the lightnings, weigh the Sun.<br /><br />187O, I see the crescent promise of my spirit hath not set.<br />188Ancient founts of inspiration well thro' all my fancy yet.<br /><br />189Howsoever these things be, a long farewell to Locksley Hall!<br />190Now for me the woods may wither, now for me the roof-tree fall.<br /><br />191Comes a vapour from the margin, blackening over heath and holt,<br />192Cramming all the blast before it, in its breast a thunderbolt.<br /><br />193Let it fall on Locksley Hall, with rain or hail, or fire or snow;<br />194For the mighty wind arises, roaring seaward, and I go.<br />Notes<br /><a name="1">1</a>] First published in 1842, it was begun as early as 1830. "Locksley Hall is an imaginary place (tho' the coast is Lincolnshire) .... The whole poem represents young life, its good side, its deficiencies, and its yearnings. Mr. Hallam said to me that the English people liked verse in trochaics, so I wrote the poem in this metre" (Tennyson). (The metre is actually the old "fifteener" line of fifteen syllables.)<br /><a name="4">4</a>] dreary gleams: gleams of light in the mist are referred to, not the curlews.<br /><a name="8">8</a>] Orion: a conspicuous winter constellation.<br /><a name="9">9</a>] the Pleiads: a group of stars in Taurus.<br /><a name="75">75</a>] poet sings. Dante in his Inferno, V, 121-123, says, "There is no greater grief than to remember happy times when misery is at hand."<br /><a name="121">121</a>] argosies: merchant ships.<br /><a name="155">155</a>] Mahratta-battle: The Mahrattas are a people of India with whom the English were at war on various occasions from 1799 to 1818.<br /><a name="180">180</a>] moon in Ajalon: see Joshua 10: 12-13.<br /><a name="182">182</a>] grooves of change: When I went by the first train from Liverpool to Manchester (1830), I thought that the wheels ran in a groove. It was black night and there was such a vast crowd round the train at the station that we could not see the wheels. Then I made this line" (Tennyson).<br /><a name="184">184</a>] Cathay: China.<br />Online text copyright © 2005, Ian Lancashire for the Department of English, University of Toronto.Published by the Web Development Group, Information Technology Services, University of Toronto Libraries. Original text: Alfred lord Tennyson, Poems (Boston: W. D. Ticknor, 1842). PR 5550 E42a Victoria College Library (Toronto). Alfred lord Tennyson, Works (London: Macmillan, 1891). tenn T366 A1 1891a Fisher Rare Book Library (Toronto).First publication date: 1842 </div>coordinatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01483215435633115889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001519995842436212.post-87381502190849883442009-05-05T09:10:00.003+02:002009-05-05T15:11:45.564+02:00A North Atlantic Democratic Union?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpbySFG5nNp4Vyd_HwDDgSe3wl12hwGxEzW_D8s0x3rQnpmkBXBrc-sAYe97EQbVcUYTKcAoS_doYwRDJ2_d5RBmlkT5FhyphenhyphenkoJb51wu-EVGjRp-tH4meLBnrRFwNjqkGqHiVNzNiT8Hi09/s1600-h/streit+time.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5332237711464523650" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 149px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpbySFG5nNp4Vyd_HwDDgSe3wl12hwGxEzW_D8s0x3rQnpmkBXBrc-sAYe97EQbVcUYTKcAoS_doYwRDJ2_d5RBmlkT5FhyphenhyphenkoJb51wu-EVGjRp-tH4meLBnrRFwNjqkGqHiVNzNiT8Hi09/s200/streit+time.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><div align="center"><strong><em>UNION NOW</em><br /></strong>A Proposal for a Federal Union of the Democracies of the North Atlantic</div><div align="center"><br />By<br /><strong>Clarence K. Streit</strong></div><br /><br /><div align="center"><br />For the Great Republic, For the Principle It Lives By and Keeps Alive, For Man's Vast Future. —Lincoln</div><div align="left"></div><div align="center"><br />HARPER & BROTHERS PUBLISHERS<br />New York 1939 London<br /></div><div align="left">This book was first made public in 3 Cooper Foundation lectures at Swarthmore College.</div><div align="left"><br />To the Memory of Emma Kirshman, My Mother<br />And to all those for whom she spoke when with two sons away in the war she wrote:<br />Surely some great good will come out of so much suffering... Our home is broken and empty, but I am not without hope. Some day you will return improved by this awful experience, for by experiences we grow bigger and get a deeper insight in life and its mysteries.<br /></div><div align="center"><strong>Foreword</strong></div><div align="left"><br />Today the problem of securing individual freedom, democracy, peace and prosperity is a problem in organizing world government, and to that problem this book brings a fresh solution backed by fresh analysis. Its essence may be found in the first chapter. This may lead some to assume that in writing this book I began with this chapter, too. The opposite occurred. The first chapter was written last. The conclusions it expresses are not to be taken as a thesis which the book was written to prove. Instead I have drawn them from it and have sought for the reader's convenience to say at the start as concisely as I could the essence — not the summary — of what I have to say.<br /></div><div align="left">I have drawn these conclusions from much more than this book, in fact from all my experience. They have grown in me since youth — "this is what I have learnt from America" — and especially since the war, particularly during the period since 1920 which I have spent working as an American newspaper correspondent in a score of countries of the Old and New Worlds, and more particularly since 1929. This last period I have spent reporting mainly from Geneva and Basle the efforts of mankind to solve the problem of living together less precariously and meanly, to organize and apply world government and law. I have followed these efforts day in and out for more than 3,000 days; I would give in this book not my experiences but what I have learned from them. </div><div align="left"><br />In writing this book, however, I was unable to begin with the gist of what experience had taught me. I had first to write this book through four times, not to mention revisions. When I began it in 1933 as a newspaper article most of these convictions were as vague and formless as the old prospector's conviction, "There's gold in them thar hills!" I count the writing and rewriting of this book as no small part of my experience. It was the part of finding the mother lode amid the rocks and fool's gold, of digging down to it, of separating it from the quartz, of reducing "them thar hills" down to a form where the man in the street might recognize the gold in them, and of blazing a trail back. I could not find my gold as nuggets of pure logic nor by the divining rod of mysticism.</div><div align="left"><br />In reporting what I have found I have followed broadly the American rules of my profession which require the reporter to pick out, boil down and tell at the start in the order of importance the essentials he has to tell. My method may be criticized as journalistic, but the quantity of speeches and documents and volumes I have had to wade through in my daily newspaper work in order to find the essentials their authors had to say has convinced me that the ideal for the presentation of all serious thought is the ideal that American news reporters seek, far from it though we fall. In a world so full and with a life so short as ours it seems to me to be highly in the interest of everyone — layman or expert — to get and give his essentials in every field as quickly as the dangers of oversimplifying permit. Since everyone reads much more than he writes and has far more to learn than teach, it seems to me that this journalistic method is to the general advantage — though it does make the writer's work much harder. Certainly I have encountered the difficulty that Pascal expressed long ago: "The last thing that we find in making a book is to know what we must put first."</div><div align="left"><br />And having mentioned one of my difficulties, I would mention too that I have enjoyed the enduring advantage of my wife's unending help and firm faith, and generous encouragement from a number of friends at times when I most needed it.</div><div align="left"><br /><strong>October 14, 1938</strong>. C. K. S.</div><div align="left"><br /><strong>Introduction by de Tocqueville</strong><br />Among the new things that drew my attention during my sojourn in the United States none struck me so strongly as the equality of conditions ... The more I studied American society the more I saw the equality of conditions as the generating fact from which each detail descended ... Then I turned my thoughts to our hemisphere, and it seemed to me that I distinguished something similar to the spectacle the new world offered ...<br />A great democratic revolution is at work among us. Some hope still to stop it. Others judge it to be irresistible because it seems to them the most continuous, ancient and permanent fact known to history ...<br />The crusades and the English wars decimated the nobles and divided their lands, the institution of the communes introduced democratic liberty in the bosom of feudal monarchy; the discovery of firearms equalized the villain and the noble on the battlefield; the printing press offered equal resources to their intelligence; the postman came to bring light to the door of the poor man's hut as to the palace gate; protestantism maintained that all men are equally qualified to find the road to heaven. The discovery of America presented a thousand new roads to fortune ... Everywhere we have seen the divers incidents of the life of peoples turn to the profit of democracy ...<br />Shall democracy stop now that it is so strong and its adversaries so weak? ...<br />The grandeur already achieved keeps us from seeing what yet may come.<br />The entire book one is about to read has been written in a sort of religious awe produced in the author's soul by the sight of this irresistible revolution which has marched on through so many centuries and through every obstacle, and which we see today yet advancing ...<br />The ... peoples seem to me to present today a terrifying spectacle; ... their fate is in their hands; but soon it will escape them.<br />To instruct the democracy, to revive, if possible, its beliefs, purify its practices, regulate its movements; to replace little by little its inexperience with science and its blind instincts with knowledge of its true interests; to adapt its government to the times and conditions, to modify it according to circumstances and men: such is the first of the duties our times impose on those who lead society.<br />A world quite new needs a new political science ...<br />This book does not follow precisely in the wake of any one. In writing it I have sought neither to serve nor combat any party; I have sought to see not other but farther than the parties, and while they were busy with tomorrow I have tried to think of the future. — Alexis de Tocqueville, in the Introduction to his Democracy in America, 1835.</div><div align="center"><br /><strong>Contents</strong></div><div align="left"><br />FOREWORD<br />INTRODUCTION BY DE TOCQUEVILLE<br />Proposal<br />I WHAT THIS BOOK IS ABOUT<br />UNION<br />THE AMERICAN WAY THROUGH<br />DEFINITIONS<br />FIFTEEN FOUNDER DEMOCRACIES<br />POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY<br />WHICH WAY ADVANCES FREEDOM MORE?<br />THE ALTERNATIVES TO UNION<br />THE WORST ALTERNATIVE<br />THE MUNICH METHOD<br />LEAVING "EUROPE" TO THE EUROPEANS<br />THE PERIL RETURNS — ONLY GREATER AND NEARER<br />BALANCE OR UNBALANCE OF POWER?<br />THE TEST OF COMMON SENSE<br />THE AMERICAN EXAMPLE<br />II PUBLIC PROBLEM No. 1: WORLD GOVERNMENT<br />THE MACHINE THAT REQUIRES WORLD GOVERNMENT<br />THE INTERNAL OR THE EXTERNAL PROBLEM?<br />WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS<br />THE WIDENING GAP<br />WHAT REASON SHOWS<br />MORE URGENT THAN TREATY OR ECONOMIC ISSUES<br />III URGENT MOST FOR AMERICANS<br />THE PRESENT AMERICAN POSITION<br />WHERE WE ARE MORE EXPOSED THAN EUROPE<br />MORE THAN MONEY TO LOSE<br />HERMIT OR PIONEER?<br />IV PATCHING WON'T DO<br />PATCHING THE WORLD GOLD STANDARD<br />The Fact to be Retained<br />PATCHING THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS<br />The Two Schools<br />The Futility of Universal Conference<br />The Futility of the Big Collective Alliance<br />The Futility of Small Regional Pacts<br />GEORGE WASHINGTON COULD NOT MAKE A LEAGUE WORK<br />THE NEED TO START AFRESH<br />V WHY START WITH THE DEMOCRACIES<br />NEEDED: A NUCLEUS WORLD GOVERNMENT<br />THE NUCLEUS NEEDS TO BE DEMOCRATIC<br />FIFTEEN DEMOCRACIES AS NUCLEUS<br />The Close Cohesion of the Fifteen<br />The Overwhelming Power of the Fifteen<br />THE TWO ESSENTIALS<br />Twelve to Twenty Founders<br />Fewer than Fifteen?<br />More than Fifteen?<br />What of Soviet Russia?<br />Universality the Ultimate Goal<br />Cooperation Meanwhile with Non-Members<br />VI HOW TO ORGANIZE THE DEMOCRACIES<br />WHY THE CHOICE IS BETWEEN TWO UNITS<br />WHY THE UNIT SHAPES THE END<br />NATION — THE MODERN JANUS<br />VII LEAGUE OR UNION? THREE TESTS<br />1. THE SUPER-STATE TEST<br />Why Leagues are Undemocratic<br />Why Unions are Democratic<br />Investing in Union<br />Today's Super-state: The Nation<br />2. THE PRACTICAL<br />Why Leagues Can Not Work<br />Why Leagues Can Not Act in Time<br />Why Leagues Can Not Escape the Unanimity Rule<br />Why Unions Can Act Swiftly<br />3. THE ACID TEST<br />Why Leagues Can Not Enforce Law<br />Why Lawbreakers are Immortal<br />Where Trial Precedes Arrest<br />The Fallacy of Bloodless Sanctions<br />Judge, Sheriff, Criminal — All in One<br />Result: No League Can be Trusted<br />Why Unions Can Enforce Law<br />How Unions Eliminate Inter-state War<br />VIII HOW THE UNION REMEDIES OUR ILLS<br />MILITARY DISARMAMENT AND SECURITY<br />ECONOMIC DISARMAMENT<br />MONETARY STABILIZATION<br />COMMUNICATIONS<br />MEN, JOBS, TAXES, GOVERNMENT<br />DYING TOGETHER OR LIVING TOGETHER?<br />IX ISOLATION OF THE GERM<br />X THE UNION<br />HOW FAR SHALL WE UNITE?<br />The Great Federal Problem<br />Uniting to Decentralize<br />HOW SHALL WE UNITE?<br />The Constitution of the Union<br />What of India?<br />Shall Colonies be Ceded to the Union?<br />The Union Legislature 187 Parliamentary or Presidential Government?<br />The Executive<br />The Judiciary<br />The Amending Machinery<br />Too "Eighteenth Century"<br />XI OF TIME AND FREEDOM<br />THE ETERNAL QUESTION<br />1789 AND TODAY<br />XII TO GET UNION NOW<br />LET UNIONISTS UNITE<br />POSTCARD PLEBISCITE<br />IN MAN OUR TRUST<br />MAN'S WORST WEAKNESS<br />DECLARATION OF DEPENDENCE<br />Philosophy<br />XIII OF FREEDOM AND UNION<br />OF FREEDOM<br />OF CAIN AND ABEL, SOCRATES, JESUS AND MOHAMMED<br />OF UNION<br />Poem<br />MAN<br />Annexes<br />1. ILLUSTRATIVE CONSTITUTION<br />2. TRANSITIONAL AND TECHNICAL PROBLEMS OF<br />UNION<br />CITIZENSHIP<br />DEFENSE<br />MONEY AND DEBTS<br />COMMUNICATIONS<br />FREEING $50,000,000,000 OF TRADE<br />3. HOW NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY WRECKED THE GOLD STANDARD<br />THE SHORT TERM FLAW<br />WHAT BRITAIN DID TO CONFIDENCE<br />WHAT THE UNITED STATES DID TO CONFIDENCE<br />4. HOW NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY WRECKED THE LOCARNO TREATY<br />5. MY OWN ROAD TO UNION<br />LAST WORD<br /></div><div align="left"><br />PROPOSAL<br /><strong>CHAPTER I</strong><br />What This Book Is About<br />Now it is proposed to form a Government for men and not for Societies of men or States. — George Mason in the American Union's Constitutional Convention.<br />I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity and your happiness ... I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded ... My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth. — Alexander Hamilton, opening The Federalist.<br />UNION<br />Now when man's future seems so vast catastrophe threatens to cut us from it. The dangers with which depression, dictatorship, false recovery and war are hemming us in have become so grave and imminent that we no longer need concern ourselves with proving how grave and near they are, certainly not since the September that reeled from Nuremberg through Berchtesgaden and Godesberg to end at Munich. We need concern ourselves instead with the problem of escaping them and the cruel dilemma Munich found and left democracy facing: Whether to risk peace or freedom? That is the problem with which this book is concerned. I believe there is a way through these dangers, and out of the dilemma, a way to do what we all want, to keep both peace and freedom, and keep them securely and be done with this nightmare. It promises not only escape but life such as I, too, never hoped could be lived in my time.<br />It is not an easy way — who expects one? — and to many it will seem at first too hard to be practical. But this is because its difficulties are greatest at the start; other ways that seem easier and more obvious to begin with grow increasingly hard and lead to frustration. How could We feel hemmed in if the way through were so easy to take or even see at first? For my part to find it I had to stumble on it, but once found it soon opened so widely as to make me wonder how I had ever failed so long to see it. I shall not be surprised then if you begin by being skeptical or discouraged by the difficulties at the start, but I ask you to remember that the essential question is: Which way will really lead us through, not, which way starts most like a valley, least like a crack in the wall?<br />Since 1933 when I stumbled on this way I have been exploring it all I could and trying, in the writing of this book, to clear away the things hiding it. By all the tests of common sense and experience I find it to be our safest, surest way; it proves in fact to be nothing new but a forgotten way which our fathers opened up and tried out successfully long ago when they were hemmed in as we are now. I believe it will lead us through in time to avoid catastrophe if only we make the most of the brief respite gained at Munich to agree to set out on it without delay.<br />The way through is Union now of the democracies that the North Atlantic and a thousand other things already unite — Union of these jew peoples in a great federal republic built on and for the thing they share most, their common democratic principle of government for the sake of individual freedom.<br />This Union would be designed (a) to provide effective common government in our democratic world in those fields where such common government will clearly serve man's freedom better than separate governments, (b) to maintain independent national governments in all other fields where such government will best serve man's freedom, and (c) to create by its constitution a nucleus world government capable of growing into universal world government peacefully and as rapidly as such growth will best serve man's freedom.<br />By (a) I mean the Union of the North Atlantic democracies in these five fields:<br />a union citizenship<br />a union defense force<br />a union customs-free economy<br />a union money<br />a union postal and communications system.<br />By (b) I mean the Union government shall guarantee against all enemies, foreign and domestic, not only those rights of man that are common to all the democracies but every existing national or local right that is not clearly incompatible with effective union government in the five named fields. The union would guarantee the right of each democracy in it to govern independently all its home affairs and practise democracy at home in its own tongue, according to its own customs and in its own way, whether by republic or kingdom, presidential, cabinet or other form of government, capitalist, social or other economic system.<br />By (c) I mean the founder democracies shall so constitute the Union as to encourage the nations outside it and the colonies inside it to seek to unite with it instead of against it. Admission to the Union and to all its tremendous advantages for the individual man and woman would from the outset be open equally to every democracy, now or to come, that guarantees its citizens the Union's minimum Bill of Rights.<br />The Great Republic would be organized with a view to its spreading peacefully round the earth as nations grow ripe for it. Its Constitution would aim clearly at achieving eventually by this peaceful, ripening, natural method the goal millions have dreamed of individually but never sought to get by deliberately planning and patiently working together to achieve it. That goal would be achieved by Union when every individual of our species would be a citizen of it, a citizen of a disarmed world enjoying world free trade, a world money and a world communications system. Then Man's vast future would begin.<br />This goal will seem so remote now as to discourage all but the strong from setting out for it or even acknowledging that they stand for it. It is not now so remote, it does not now need men so strong as it did when Lincoln preserved the American Union "for the great republic, for the principle it lives by and keeps alive, for man's vast future." It will no longer be visionary once the Atlantic democracies unite. Their Union is not so remote, and their Union is all that concerns us here and now.<br />THE AMERICAN WAY THROUGH<br />These proceedings may at first appear strange and difficult; but, like other steps which we have already passed over, will in a little time become familiar and agreeable. — Thomas Paine in Common Sense.<br />One hundred and fifty years ago a few American democracies opened this union way through. The dangers of depression, dictatorship and war, and the persuasiveness of clear thinking and courageous leadership led them then to abandon the heresy into which they had fallen. That heresy converted the sovereignty of the state from a mere means to individual freedom into the supreme end itself and produced the wretched "League of Friendship" of the Articles of Confederation. Abandoning all this the democrats of America turned back to their Declaration of Independence — of the independence of Man from the State and of the dependence of free men on each other for their freedom, the Declaration:<br />That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.<br />Finding they had wrongly applied this philosophy to establish Thirteen "free and independent States" and organize them as the League of Friendship so that "each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence," they applied it next as "We the people of the United States" to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." To do this they invented and set up a new kind of inter-state government. It has worked ever since as the other, league type has never worked. It has proved to be an "astonishing and unexampled success," as Lord Acton said, not only in America but wherever democracies have tried it regardless of conditions, — among the Germans, French and Italians of Switzerland, the English and French of Canada, the Dutch and English of the Union of South Africa. It is the kind of interstate government that Lincoln, to distinguish it from the opposing type of government of, by and for states, called "government of the people, by the people, for the people." It is the way that I call Union.<br />To follow this way through now our Atlantic democracies — and first of all the American Union — have only to abandon in their turn the same heresy into which they have fallen, the heresy of absolute national sovereignty and its vain alternatives, neutrality, balance of power alliance or League of Nations. We the people of the Atlantic have only to cease sacrificing needlessly our individual freedom to the freedom of our nations, be true to our democratic philosophy and establish that "more perfect Union" toward which all our existing unions explicitly or implicitly aim.<br />Can we hope to find a safer, surer, more successful way than this? What democrat among us does not hope that this Union will be made some day? What practical man believes it will ever be made by mere dreaming or that the longer we delay starting to make it the sooner we shall have it? All it will take to make this Union — whether in a thousand years or now, whether long after catastrophe or just in time to prevent it, — is agreement by a majority to do it. Union is one of those things which to do we need but agree to do, and which we can not possibly ever do except by agreeing to do it. Why then can we not do it now in time for us to benefit by it and save millions of lives? Are we so much feebler than our fathers and our children that we can not do what our fathers did and what we expect our children to do? Why can not we agree on Union now?<br />Are not liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable as in Webster's day? We can not be for liberty and against Union. We can not be both for and against liberty and Union now. We must choose.<br />DEFINITIONS<br />Democracy I would define more closely than the dictionary that defines it as "government by the people" (though I would not attempt needless precision and would indicate an ideal rather than an average). I would add with Lincoln, and I would stress, that democracy is also government for the people and of the people — the people being composed of individuals all given equal weight in principle.<br />Democracy to me is the way to individual freedom formed by men organizing themselves on the principle of the equality of man. That is, they organize government of themselves in the sense that their laws operate on them individually as equals. They organize government by themselves, each having an equal vote in making law. They organize government for themselves, to secure equally the freedom, in the broadest possible sense of the term, of each of them. By democracy I mean government of the totality by the majority for the sake equally of each minority of one, particularly as regards securing him such rights as freedom of speech, press and association. (If merely these three rights are really secured to all individuals they have the key, I believe, to all the other rights in all the other fields, political, juridical, economic, etc., that form part of individual freedom.)<br />Union to me is a democracy composed of democracies — an interstate government organized on the same basic principle, by the same basic method and for the same basic purpose as the democracies in it, and with the powers of government divided between the union and the states the better to advance this common purpose, individual freedom.<br />Union and league I use as opposite terms. I divide all organization of inter-state relations into two types, according to whether man or the state is the unit and the equality of man or the equality of the state is "the principle it lives by and keeps alive." I restrict the term union to the former, and the term league to the latter. To make clearer this distinction and what I mean by unit, these three points may help:<br />First, a league is a government of governments: It governs each people in its territory as a unit through that unit's government. Its laws can be broken only by a people acting through its government, and enforced only by the league coercing that people as a unit, regardless of whether individuals in it opposed or favored the violation. A union is a government of the people: It governs each individual in its territory directly as a unit. Its laws apply equally to each individual instead of to each government or people, can be broken only by individuals and can be enforced only by coercing and punishing individuals found guilty of having not simply favored but caused the violation.<br />Second, a league is a government by governments: Its laws are made by the peoples in it acting through its government, or the delegate of that government, as a unit of equal voting power regardless of the number of individuals in it. A union is a government by the people: Its laws are made by the individuals in it acting each through his representatives as a unit of equal voting power in choosing and changing them, each state's voting power in the union government being ordinarily in close proportion to its population. A union may allow in one house of its legislature (as in the American Senate) equal weight to the people of each state regardless of population. But it provides that such representatives shall not, as in a league, represent the state as a unit and be under the instructions of and subject to recall by its government, but shall represent instead the people of the state and be answerable to them.<br />Third, a league is a government for governments or states: It is made for the purpose of securing the freedom, rights, independence, sovereignty of each of the states in it taken as units equally. A union is a government for the people: It is made for the purpose of securing the freedom, rights, independence, sovereignty of each of the individuals in it taken as units equally. To secure the sovereignty of the state a league sacrifices the rights of men to justice (as in the first point) and to equal voting power (as in the second point), whereas a union sacrifices the sovereignty of the state to secure the rights of men: A league is made for the state, a union is made for man.<br />This may suffice to explain the sense in which the terms democracy, union and league are meant in this book.<br />FIFTEEN FOUNDER DEMOCRACIES<br />In the North Atlantic or founder democracies I would include at least these Fifteen (or Ten): The American Union, the British Commonwealth (specifically the United Kingdom, the Federal Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Ireland), the French Republic, Belgium, the Netherlands, the Swiss Confederation, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland.<br />These few include the world's greatest, oldest, most homogeneous and closely linked democracies, the peoples most experienced and successful in solving the problem at hand — the peaceful, reasonable establishment of effective inter-state democratic world government. Language divides them into only five big groups and for all practical political purposes, into only two, English and French. Their combined citizenry of nearly 300,000,000 is well balanced, half in Europe and half overseas. None of these democracies has been at war with any of the others for more than 100 years. Each now fears war, but not one fears war from the others.<br />These few democracies suffice to provide the nucleus of world government with the financial, monetary, economic and political power necessary both to assure peace to its members peacefully from the outset by sheer overwhelming preponderance and invulnerability, and practically to end the monetary insecurity and economic warfare now ravaging the whole world. These few divide among them such wealth and power that the so-called world political, economic and monetary anarchy is at bottom nothing but their own anarchy — since to end it they need only unite in establishing law and order among themselves.<br />Together these fifteen own almost half the earth, rule all its oceans, govern nearly half mankind. They do two-thirds of the world's trade, and most of this would be called their domestic trade once they united, for it is among themselves. They have more than 50 per cent control of nearly every essential material. They have more than 60 per cent control of such war essentials as oil, copper, lead, steel, iron, coal, tin, cotton, wool, wood pulp, shipping tonnage. They have almost complete control of such keys as nickel, rubber and automobile production. They possess practically all the world's gold and banked wealth. Their existing armed strength is such that once they united it they could radically reduce their armaments and yet gain a two-power standard of armed superiority over the powers whose aggression any of them now fears.<br />The Union's existing and potential power from the outset would be so gigantic, its bulk so vast, its vital centers so scattered, that Germany, Italy and Japan even put together could no more dream of attacking it than Mexico dreams of invading the American Union now. Once established the Union's superiority in power would be constantly increasing simply through the admission to it of outside nations. A number would no doubt be admitted immediately. By this process the absolutist powers would constantly become weaker and more isolated.<br />POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY<br />Tremendous world power brings with it tremendous responsibility for the world. It is no use blaming today's chaos or tomorrow's catastrophe on Mussolini and Hitler and the Japanese militarists. It is still less use to blame the Japanese and German and Italian peoples. It has never been in their combined power to establish law and order and peace in the world. They are not the source of the danger our whole species now faces, they are only its first victims. They are already living on war bread, going without butter and meat, dressing in shoddy, suffering censorship, hysterical patriotism, propaganda, forced loans, loss of liberty. They are today where we dread to be tomorrow. The anarchy among the democracies is already costing Germans, Italians and Japanese what it will cost us only if we let it go on. As Ambassador Bullitt put it in inaugurating the Lafayette monument at La Pointe-de-Grave Sept. 4, 1938:<br />It is not enough to observe with a sense of superiority the worst mistakes of the new fanaticisms. The origins of those fanaticisms lie in part in our own unwisdom. If our effort for peace is to achieve anything, it must be based on our ability to put ourselves in other men's shoes, and recognize the truth of the saying, "There, but for the grace of God, go I."<br />When the really powerful members of a community refuse to organize effective government in it, when each insists on remaining a law unto himself to the degree the democracies, and especially the United States, have done since the war, then anarchy is bound to result and the first to feel the effects of the chaos are bound to be the weaker members of the community. When the pinch comes the last to be hired are the first to be laid off, and the firms working on the narrowest margin are the first to be driven to the wall or to desperate expedients. That makes the pinch worse for the more powerful and faces them with new dangers, with threats of violence. It is human for them then to blame those they have unwittingly driven to desperation, but that does not change the source of the evil.<br />So it has been in the world. The younger democracies have been the first to go. The first of the great powers driven to desperate and violent measures have been those with the smallest margin. There is no doubt that their methods have since made matters worse and that there is no hope in following their lead. Their autocratic governments are adding to the world's ills but they are not the real cause of them. They are instead an effect of the anarchy among the powerful democracies.<br />The dictators are right when they blame the democracies for the world's condition, but they are wrong when they blame it on democracy. The anarchy comes from the refusal of the democracies to renounce enough of their national sovereignty to let effective world law and order be set up. But their refusal to do this, their maintenance of the state for its own sake, their readiness to sacrifice the lives and liberties of the citizens rather than the independence of the state, — this we know is not democracy. It is the core of absolutism. Democracy has been waning and autocracy waxing, the rights of men lessening and the rights of the state growing everywhere because the leading democracies have themselves led in practising beyond their frontiers autocracy instead of democracy.<br />Now many argue that the democracies must organize themselves or at least arm more heavily because the autocracies have formed the Triangular Pact. It is true that the rising power of autocracy increases the need for Union just as the spread of a contagious disease increases the need for quarantine and for organizing the healthy. But it is essential to remember that though the victims carry the disease they did not cause it, and that quarantine of the victims and organization of the healthy are aimed not against the victims but against the epidemic, the purpose being to end it both by restricting its spread and by curing its victims. Union does not seek to put the autocracies even in quarantine in any material sense; it seeks primarily to organize the healthy so as to overcome the disease.<br />It is wrong, all wrong, to conceive of Union as aimed against the nations of the Triangle. There is a world of difference between the motives behind Union and those behind either the present policy in each democracy of arming for itself or the proposals for alliance among the democracies. For such armament and such alliance are meant to maintain the one thing Union does attack in the one place Union does attack it — the autocratic principle of absolute national sovereignty in the democracies. Unlike armament and alliance policies, Union leads to no crusade against autocracy abroad, to no attempt to end war by war or make the world safe for democracy by conquering foreign dictatorship. Union is no religion for tearing out the mote from a brother's eye — and the eye, too — while guarding nothing so jealously, savagely, as the beam in one's own eye.<br />Union calls on each democracy to remove itself the absolutism governing its relations with the other democracies, and to leave it to the people of each dictatorship to decide then for themselves whether they will maintain or overthrow the absolutism governing them not only externally but internally. Union provides equally for the protection of the democracies against attack by foreign autocracy while it remains and for the admission of each autocratic country into the Union once it becomes a democracy in the only possible way — by the will and effort of its own people.<br />The problems the Triangular powers now raise, — equality, treaty revision, raw materials, a place in the sun, the have and have-not struggle, — Union would put on a new basis, that of equality among individual men instead of nations, thereby rendering these problems infinitely simpler and less dangerous. To attain the equality they crave the citizens of these absolutist nations would no longer need to sacrifice their individual freedom to their nation's military power, they would need instead to sacrifice dictatorship and military power to the restoration of their own individual liberties. By gaining membership for their nation in the Great Republic they would gain the equality they now demand and more, for they would enjoy precisely the same status, rights and opportunities as all citizens of this Union just as do the citizens of a state admitted to the American Union. But, to become thus equal sovereigns of the world, they would first have to prove, by overthrowing their autocrats and establishing democracies at home, that they believe in and hold supreme the equality and freedom of individual Man, regardless of the accident of birth. The attraction membership in the Union would have for outsiders would be so powerful and the possibility of conquering the Union would be so hopeless that once Union was formed the problem the absolutist powers now present could be safely left to solve itself. As their citizens turned these governments into democracies and entered the Union the arms burden on everyone would dwindle until it soon completely disappeared.<br />Thus, by the simple act of uniting on the basis of their awn principle, the democracies today could immediately attain practical security while reducing armaments, and could proceed steadily to absolute security and absolute disarmament.<br />They could also increase enormously their trade and prosperity, reduce unemployment, raise their standard of living while lowering its cost. The imagination even of the economic expert can not grasp all the saving and profit democrats would realize by merely uniting their democracies in one free trade area.<br />They need only establish one common money to solve most if not all of today's more insoluble monetary problems, and save their citizens the tremendous loss inherent not only in depreciation, uncertainty, danger of currency upset from foreign causes, but also in the ordinary day-to-day monetary exchange among the democracies. The Union's money would be so stable that it would at once become the universal medium of exchange — a world money far more than was the pound sterling before the war.<br />Merely by the elimination of excessive government, needless bureaucracy, and unnecessary duplication which Union would automatically effect, the democracies could easily balance budgets while reducing taxation and debt. To an appalling degree taxes and government in the democracies today are devoted only to the maintenance of their separate sovereignties as regards citizenship, defense, trade, money and communications. To a still more appalling degree they are quite unnecessary and thwart instead of serve the purpose for which we established those governments and voted those taxes, namely the maintenance of our own freedom and sovereignty as individual men and women.<br />By uniting, the democracies can serve this purpose also by greatly facilitating the distribution of goods, travel and the dissemination of knowledge and entertainment. With one move, the simple act of Union, the democrats can make half the earth equally the workshop and the playground of each of them.<br />Establishment of Union involves difficulties, of course, but the difficulties are transitional, not permanent ones. All other proposals in this field even if realizable could solve only temporarily this or that problem in war, peace, armaments, tariffs, monetary stabilization. These proposals would be as hard to achieve as Union, yet all together they could not do what the one act of Union would — permanently eliminate all these problems. These are problems for which the present dogma of nationalism is to blame. We can not keep it and solve them. We can not eliminate them until we first eliminate it.<br />WHICH WAY ADVANCES FREEDOM MORE?<br />This does not mean eliminating all national rights. It means eliminating them only where elimination clearly serves the individuals concerned, and maintaining them in all other respects, — not simply where maintenance clearly serves the general individual interest but also in all doubtful cases. The object of Union being to advance the freedom and individuality of the individual, it can include no thought of standardizing or regimenting him, nor admit the kind of centralizing that increases governmental power over him. These are evils of nationalism, and Union would end them. Union comes to put individuality back on the throne that nationality has usurped.<br />Everywhere nationalism in its zeal to make our nations instead of ourselves self-sufficing and independent is centralizing government, giving it more and more power over the citizen's business and life, putting more and more of that power in one man's hands, freeing the government from its dependence on the citizen while making him more and more dependent on it — on the pretext of keeping him independent of other governments. Everywhere the national state has tended to become a super-state in its power to dispose of the citizen, his money, job and life. Everywhere nationalism has been impoverishing the citizen with taxes, unemployment, depression, and it is poverty — it is the desert, not the jungle, — that stunts variety in life, that standardizes. Everywhere nationalism is casting the citizen increasingly in militarism's uniform robot mold.<br />Union would let us live more individual lives. Its test for deciding whether in a given field government should remain national or become union is this: Which would clearly give the individual more freedom? Clearly the individual freedom of Americans or Frenchmen would gain nothing from making Union depend on the British converting the United Kingdom into a republic. Nor would the British be the freer for making Union depend on the Americans and French changing to a monarchy. There are many fields where it is clear that home rule remains necessary for individual freedom, where the maintenance of the existing variety among the democracies helps instead of harms the object of Union.<br />It is clear too that a Union so secure from foreign aggression as this one would be would not need that homogeneity in population that the much weaker American Union feels obliged to seek. Our Union could afford to encourage the existing diversity among its members as a powerful safeguard against the domestic dangers to individual freedom. Just as the citizen could count on the Union to protect his nation from invasion or from dictatorship rising from within, he could count on his nation's autonomy to protect him from a majority in the Union becoming locally oppressive. The existence of so many national autonomies in the Union would guarantee each of them freedom to experiment politically, economically, socially and would save this Union from the danger of hysteria and stampede to which more homogeneous unions are exposed.<br />Clearly, individual freedom requires us to maintain national autonomy in most things but no less clearly it requires us to abolish that autonomy in a few things. There is no need to argue that you and I have nothing to lose and much to gain by becoming equal citizens in the Union while retaining our national citizenship. Clearly you and I would be freer had we this Great Republic's guarantee of our rights as men, its security against the armaments burden, military servitude, war. It is self-evident that you and I would live an easier and a richer life if through half the world we could do business with one money and postage, if through half the world we were free to buy in the cheapest market what we need to buy and free to sell in the dearest market what we have to sell.<br />In five fields — citizenship, defense, trade, money, and communications — we are sacrificing now the individual freedom we could safely, easily have. On what democratic ground can we defend this great sacrifice? We make it simply to keep our democracies independent of each other. We can not say that we must maintain the state's autonomy in these few fields in order to maintain it in the many fields where it serves our freedom, for we know how to keep it in the latter without keeping it in the former. We have proved that in the American Union, the Swiss Union, and elsewhere.<br />What then can we say to justify our needless sacrifice of man to the state in these five fields, a sacrifice made only to maintain the nation for the nation's sake? How can we who believe the state is made for man escape the charge that in these five fields we are following the autocratic principle that man is made for the state? How can we plead not guilty of treason to democracy? Are we not betraying our principles, our interests, our freedom, ourselves and our children? We are betraying too our fathers. They overthrew the divine right of kings and founded our democracies not for the divine right of nations but for the rights of Man.<br />Clearly absolute national sovereignty has now brought us to the stage where this form of government has become destructive of the ends for which we form government, where democrats to remain democrats must use their right "to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its power in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."<br />Clearly prudence dictates that we should lay our new government's foundations on such principles and organize its powers in such form as have stood the test of experience. Clearly democracy bids us now Unite our unions of free men and women in one world Union of the free.<br />THE ALTERNATIVES TO UNION<br />Fantastic? Visionary? What are the alternatives? There are only these: Either the democracies must try to stand separately or they must try<br />to stand together on some other basis than union, that is, they must organize themselves as a league or an alliance.<br />Suppose we try to organize as a league. That means seeking salvation from what Alexander Hamilton called "the political monster of an imperium in imperio." We adopt a method which has just failed in the League of Nations, which before that led the original thirteen American democracies to a similar failure, and failed the Swiss democracies, the Dutch democracies, and the democracies of ancient Greece. We adopt a method which has been tried time and again in history and has never worked, whether limited to few members or extended to many, a method which, we shall see, when we analyze it later, is thoroughly undemocratic, untrustworthy, unsound, unable either to make or to enforce its law in time. Is it not fantastic to expect to get the American people, after 150 years of successful experience with union and after their rejection of the League of Nations, to enter any league? Can any but the visionary expect us to go through the difficulty that organization of the democracies on any basis entails — all for what we know to be a political monstrosity?<br />Suppose we try to organize instead an alliance of the democracies. But an alliance is simply a looser, more primitive form of league, one that operates secretly through diplomatic tunnels rather than openly through regular assemblies. It is based on the same unit as a league, — the state, — and on the same principle, — that the maintenance of the freedom of the state is the be-all and the end-all of political and economic policy. It is at most an association (instead of a government) of governments, by governments, for governments. It has all the faults of a league with most of them intensified and with some more of its own added.<br />Though possible as a temporary stopgap an alliance, as a permanent organization, has never been achieved and is practically impossible to achieve among as many as fifteen states. The fact that the states are democracies makes a permanent alliance among them not less but more impractical and inconceivable. For the more democratic a state is, then the more its government is dependent on public opinion and the more its people are loath to be entangled automatically in the wars of governments over which they have not even the control a league gives, and the more its foreign policy is subject to change. But the more all this is true of a state the harder it is either for it to enter an alliance or for its allies to trust it if it does.<br />A big alliance being looser than a league, the fact that the democracies preferred the former would show the strength of their desire to keep apart. That would further encourage their enemies to gamble on exploiting this separatist tendency till they overcame them and their satellites one by one. It would not encourage them so much as the existing nationalism among the democracies which has already led the autocrats to invade China, Ethiopia, Spain, Austria and, practically, Czechoslovakia, but the difference would not be enough to matter.<br />The best way to prevent war is to make attack hopeless. It will not be hopeless while the autocrats, who by their nature are gamblers with abnormal confidence in themselves and their luck, have any ground left to gamble either that the democracies can be divided or that the inter-democracy organization is too cumbersome and loose to resist surprise attack. An alliance can not long make this gamble hopeless.<br />The basic flaw in an alliance of democracies is the nationalist philosophy responsible for it. If the desire to avoid commitments is strong enough to prevent a democracy from forming a union or even a league with the others, it will also prevent its allying with them until the danger is so great and imminent that the alliance comes too late to prevent war. The alliance may come in time to promise to win a war that pure nationalism could not hope to win, and to win it at greater cost than could a league. But it can not promise, as Union can, to prevent the war — and that is the main thing.<br />Even the war danger before 1914 failed to drive the British and French democracies into a real alliance; they got no further than a "cordial understanding." It took three years of war then to bring them to agree on a supreme command. Now the war danger has driven the British to a much closer understanding with the French than in 1914, and they have already agreed on a supreme command. But by the time the rising threat from the other side drove them to this, Germany, Italy and Japan already felt too strong to be discouraged by it. And so the Anglo-French accord has utterly failed to remove the war danger.<br />Even the world war after it engulfed the United States could not persuade the United States to ally with the other democracies; it would only "associate" itself with them. If it is not visionary to expect the United States to enter an "entangling alliance" now, what is it?<br />"It is necessary," declared Secretary Hull, Aug. 16, 1938, "that as a nation we become increasingly resolute in our desire and increasingly effective in our efforts to contribute along with other peoples — always within the range of our traditional policies of non-entanglement — to the support of the only program which can turn the tide of lawlessness and place the world firmly upon the one and only roadway that can lead to enduring peace and security." By excluding all solutions contrary to "our traditional policies of non-entanglement" this champion of world law and order did not exclude union, for there can be no more traditional American policy than this; no American considers as an entanglement the union of the Thirteen democracies nor the union of their Union with the Republic of Texas. By entanglement Americans mean alliances and leagues; these are the solutions which Secretary Hull warns are excluded.<br />But suppose the United States could be brought into an alliance. On what reality rests the belief that this would prevent war with the opposing alliance? The lack of machinery for reaching and executing international agreement in the economic and financial and monetary fields in time to be effective did much to throw the world into the depression that led us through Manchuria and Hitler and Ethiopia to where we are today. What could be more fantastic than the hope that any conceivable alliance could provide this machinery, or that without this machinery we can long avoid depression and war?<br />THE WORST ALTERNATIVE<br />Only one thing could be more visionary and fantastic, and that is the third possible alternative to Union, the one that would seek salvation in rejecting every type of interstate organization and in pursuing a policy of pure nationalism, — the policy of isolationism, neutrality, of each trusting to his own armaments, military and economic. For if the democracies are not to try to stand together by union or league or alliance, the only thing left for them is to try to stand alone. Consider the experience of the powers that have tried this alternative.<br />Once each of the Triangular powers believed so much in its ability to stand alone and insisted so much on its right to be a law unto itself that each defied the League and left it. Each seemed at first to prove its case and win by the operation. Yet in fact they proved and won so little that they have all had to recant their principle of standing alone and organize themselves in a Triangular pact. They found that neither the things they seized alone — Chinese territory, Ethiopian territory, Austria, the demilitarized Rhineland and the right to arm without limit, — nor the fact that they acted each for self made them more secure. Each instead now feels much more exposed than it did before. That has been shown by the way they each sought security, first, by increasing their armaments and then, when that failed to give them security, by organizing themselves more and more. When Mussolini took care to step into the Triangular pact before daring to step out of the Geneva Covenant he gave a vivid example of how impossible nationalism has become and how much nations need to work together.<br />At most the efforts of the Triangular powers to become politically and economically independent are not making them more independent, they are simply making them less dependent on one group of states, the democracies, and more dependent on another group, the Triangle. The more they develop these relations among themselves the more they will need to organize them. Every state they succeed in adding to this group can only involve them more deeply in the problem of how to organize it, — and they too have only these alternatives: alliance, league or union.<br />The experience of the United States shows that even the most powerful nations can not get what they want by isolationism. The United States sought through the nineteen twenties to preserve its peace and prosperity by isolationism. It did remain in peace, but isolationism can not be given the credit for this since Britain and France followed the Opposite policy of cooperation through the League of Nations and they, too, kept out of war. As for prosperity, isolationism failed to preserve it; depression struck the United States hardest.<br />Hard times led to war dangers which the United States in 1935 sought to lessen by the neutrality variation of isolationism. It adopted the policy of advising potential aggressors and victims that it not merely would not attempt to distinguish between them but would furnish supplies only to the belligerent who could come, get and pay cash for them. What has happened since this policy was adopted? Italy invaded Ethiopia and conquered with poison gas. Militarism and fascism began fighting it out with democracy and communism in Spain. Japan invaded a huge part of China, bombing almost indiscriminately. Germany violated the Locarno treaty, and got by bullying all of Austria and much of Czechoslovakia. The naval limitation treaties broke down, the League broke down, the Peace Pact and the Nine Power Pact broke down, all the world's peaceful machinery broke down, and "recovery" sagged into "recession."<br />No "peaceful" years in modern times, not even those preceding 1914, have been so full of war and so charged with accumulating dangers to peace as those since 1935. Even if it could be argued that the adoption of the American neutrality policy did not help bring on the disasters that followed, the point is that it was adopted to lessen the war danger. It must be admitted that there is much more danger of war now than there was when this policy was adopted, and so it must be admitted that it has already failed.<br />The neutrality policy, moreover, was designed to require the least armaments; it left only the American continent to be protected against the raids of belligerents who had the ships to carry off American goods but lacked the gold with which to pay for them. Yet the United States has never armed so heavily in peace time as it has since it adopted this policy. And the end is not near.<br />In proposing, Jan. 4, 1938, that Congress spend $990,000,000 on armaments, President Roosevelt referred "specifically to the possibility that, due to world conditions over which this nation has no control, I may find it necessary to request additional appropriations for national defense."<br />Clearly he did not expect this huge expenditure to remove the cause for it and put under control those "world conditions over which this nation has no control." By the time Congress adjourned in June this expenditure had not only passed the billion dollar mark but the Vinson Act had called for another billion to be spent on naval construction alone. By Oct. 14 the press was reporting Washington's intention to add another and bigger increase to this program. Yet has the United States come nearer to controlling world conditions? What reason is there to hope that it will gain control of them by spending still more on its armaments? Need it not fear the opposite? It is now spending twice as much on arms as it did in 1933 and its control over world conditions has meanwhile lessened.<br />"Furthermore," President Roosevelt added in his January message, "the economic situation may not improve and if it does not I expect the approval of Congress and the public for additional appropriations" — additional to those of $1,138,000,000 he then proposed for "recovery and relief." Again there was no promise, only fear of failure. Within a few months President Roosevelt had tripled this figure, but still without a promise of success. What promise could there be since obviously the billions already spent had not achieved their purpose? Plainly those world conditions beyond the control of even the United States endanger it economically as well as politically, plainly the only hope for recovery as well as for security lies in gaining control over them, and plainly there is no hope of gaining it by national action alone.<br />Here is a policy which has had the overwhelming support of the American people, most of all in its basic isolationist principle. It has resulted in the national debt reaching $38,000,000,000 while the national and world situations have darkened, and so it is proposed to add more billions to the debt — and the proposal is accompanied with a warning that the failure may continue. Is not this proposal "fantastic," and is it not sane to propose instead that the democracies gain control of their common world by organizing effective government in it, by each bringing its part of the conditions now outside the control of the others under the common control of them all through Union?<br />THE MUNICH METHOD<br />I for one am firmly resolved to hold to this vow: So long as I am where I am there shall not be war. — Aristide Briand, addressing the Assembly of the League of Nations, Sept. 11, 1930.<br />We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude ... There was no difficulty at all in having cordial relations between the British and German peoples ... Never could there be friendship between the British democracy and the Nazi Power, that power which spurned Christian ethics, which cheered its onward course by a barbarous paganism, which vaunted the spirit of aggression and conquest, which derived strength and perverted pleasure from persecution, and used with pitiless brutality the threat of murderous force ... The policy of submission will carry with it restrictions upon the freedom of speech and debate in Parliament, on public platforms, and discussions in the Press. — Winston Churchill, House of Commons, Oct. 6, 1938.<br />Suppose we dilute this policy so that only some democracies, such as the United States, Switzerland, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland seek peace and freedom in neutrality while others, notably Britain and France, depend on alliance. This is what we are now doing. Suppose we continue on this road that led to Munich and put our trust in a Four Power pact or any other variant of the balance of power theory.<br />Those to whom Munich brought hope of peace in our time seem to have gained it chiefly from these sources: The intense desire for peace and dread of war every people showed in the Sudeten crisis, the part this feeling played in preventing war, and the belief that Munich removed the most dangerous of the European causes for war. This belief seems based on Chancellor Hitler's statement that this was his last European territorial demand, or on belief that all the remaining questions can be settled now by further great power "consultations" or by a "general settlement" through conference of everyone on everything, or on belief that since the great democracies would not fight for Czechoslovakia they will not fight for states which do not have that democracy's claim on their sympathies and which are now in the line of German expansion, — Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, Rumania, Russia.<br />There is no doubt that the immediate popular reception of Prime Minister Chamberlain's flight to Berchtesgaden and of the Munich agreement proved the existence everywhere of a powerful desire for peace. This helped prevent war then, and it remains a power that must be taken into account in future as contributing both positively to facilitate the trend toward appeasement and negatively to brake the trend toward war. But if the mere existence of power sufficed to get results we could run our factories simply by making water steam; we would not need to bother about making machinery to center the steam on the piston-head. If the quantity of power available is the main thing we should be satisfied with turbines so crude that they will work only when the river is at flood.<br />The Sudeten German crisis proved how deeply defective is our machinery for harnessing to peace mankind's will for peace. It was so defective that time and again that month millions thought war inevitable. Each time they found themselves saved by a miracle only to find themselves next week in need of a greater miracle to save them from its consequences. The magician who pulls rabbit after rabbit from an empty hat is sure to be applauded by the famished, and when he has nothing left to pull out except a rabbit's foot the applause will be greater because the hunger and the willingness to believe in magic have grown greater too.<br />By returning repeatedly to tremble on the brink of an abyss we may learn to balance better but we do not avoid the danger of falling. As Pope wrote of vice:<br />War is a monster of so frightful mien, As to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face We first endure, then pity, then embrace.<br />The fact is that as the war danger has grown the readiness of every people to plunge into it has grown, too. When Germany occupied the Rhineland with a relatively small force in 1936 France did not call two classes to the colors, Britain did not mobilize the fleet and the United States did not intervene to pin responsibility on Chancellor Hitler. They made these moves in 1938 after all the horrors of war in Spain and China had been drummed into them and after they faced a semi-mobilized Germany. How can we hope that we shall avoid war because we lived all September with the spectre of war, when the American people was not kept out of war but drawn into it by living for three years with world war itself?<br />Not only psychologically but militarily the world is readier for war now than it was before the Munich meeting. No aggressor will go to war in the hope of its being long-drawn-out; to attack he must gamble on winning quickly by overwhelming surprise. This gamble has proved wrong in Spain and China but that will no more keep others from trying their luck than deaths of climbers kept other men from trying to scale the Eiger Wall until they did succeed.<br />To win a lightning war one must have a military force that is at once exceptionally well-prepared, exceptionally well-trained and exceptionally numerous; to defeat a lightning war all this is needed, too. Because this is the kind of war for which Europe must prepare and because neither side had had the dress rehearsal that is the sine qua non of success in such a fast and dangerous enterprise, I said to any who asked my opinion before and at the worst of the September crisis that I believed there would be no general European war this year but a dress rehearsal that would leave the danger of war next year much greater. Where governments once could be content with the practice given by war games on the scale of a division or an army corps, they must now practice on a far greater scale and test out too their machinery for mobilizing their army, their industry and their public opinion. The Sudeten German crisis allowed every great power in Europe to make these tests. Since then leaders in every country have been showing that Prime Minister Chamberlain spoke for them all when he told Parliament Oct. 6, 1938:<br />One good thing at any rate has come out of this emergency through which we have passed. It has thrown a vivid light on our preparations for defence, on their strength and their weakness. I would not think we were doing our duty if we had not already ordered that a prompt and thorough inquiry should be made to cover the whole of our preparations, military and civil, in order to see, in the light of what happened during these hectic days, what further steps may be necessary to make good our deficiencies in the shortest possible time.<br />I do not say that the September scene was consciously staged by Machiavellians, nor do I mean that it was never in danger of getting out of hand. I say only that the underlying situation tended at that time to produce a dress rehearsal and to keep it one, and that as one result every government is now correcting the faults this test revealed in its war machine. Each is already much better prepared than it was in July for the lightning war it seeks to save itself with or from.<br />There remains the belief that Munich ended the most dangerous European cause for war. How can democrats base their hope for peace in our time on Chancellor Hitler's statement that the Sudetenland is his last European territorial demand? Before anschluss he promised to respect Austrian independence, during anschluss he had Marshall Goering reassure President Benes as he himself reassured the British Prime Minister in September — and then at Saarbruecken Oct. 9, 1938 he boasted that he had made a New Year's vow to himself to bring both Austria and Sudetenland into Germany. "At the beginning of this year," he said, "I reached the determination to bring back to the Reich the 10,000,000 Germans who stood apart from us." How can one trust a man who can keep his secret vows to himself only by breaking his public vows to others? Suppose that despite such questions as the Polish corridor we can trust Herr Hitler this time; can we reasonably expect one in his shoes to trust that Mr. Chamberlain will long remain Prime Minister? Does he not have reason for his fear in that Saarbruecken speech that "a Duff Cooper or an Eden or a Churchill" may come to power? Herr Hitler obviously does not believe that even the Germans would keep his own regime in power were they free to choose; how can he trust the British people not to use their freedom to choose leaders who will stand against him? How can peace be made on a basis of mutual trust between democracies and dictatorships when the democracies can have no guarantee that the dictator will keep his word, and the dictator can have no guarantee that the democracies will keep in power those whose word strengthens him?<br />Shall we depend on Four Power pacts and/or conferences to impose and/or negotiate a general settlement of all remaining questions? A Four Power pact excludes Russia from the meeting room but not from the world that the pact must work in. The same is true of Japan and the United States. To omit Russia from the pact practically means removing Russia's weight from the Franco-British side while neither replacing it with the United States nor removing Japan's weight from the other side. It also means freeing Germany and Japan to absorb as much of Russia as they can. This would seem to be making not peace but the kind of power against which Mr. Chamberlain himself said he would fight. And what faith can we Americans have in such a method, even if it leaves us on the sidelines at our own demand?<br />LEAVING "EUROPE" TO THE EUROPEANS<br />It is important that our people should not overlook problems and issues which, though they lie beyond our borders, may, and probably will, have a vital influence on the United States of the future. — President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Aug. 14, 1936.<br />In "leaving Europe to the Europeans," do we not leave our peace and freedom to them too? We see that if peace is upset in Europe we shall suffer too, but we do not seem to see that by the present policy we entrust our future blindly to Britain and France, we depend on their statesmanship to keep us out of war and on their arms to keep autocracy from invading America. We see the advantage of keeping our peace and freedom, but from the way we talk about never fighting again off American soil it is clear we do not see the advantage of the policy that has kept invasion from British soil since 1066. That is a policy of not waiting till the conqueror comes to lay waste one's home but of going out to stop him while he is far away and relatively weak. If we think it wise to warn the world that we will fight for our freedom, is it not still wiser to add the warning that we will begin to fight for it on its European frontiers? It is better not to fight if one can help it, but if one must fight is it not better to fight away from home?<br />If we could trust the British and French governments to preserve our peace and freedom safely for us, yet to leave the burden to them alone would still be unworthy of us. And can we have this faith in them? Obviously we do not have it. We made that clear after what we called the "Hoare-Laval deal." But did we improve things for ourselves by the paradoxical policy we then adopted of leaving our fate all the more in their hands by keeping ours tied with the neutrality act? Has it not led us straight to Munich?<br />We may prove to the hilt that the European democracies are not up to our standards, but if so is that an argument for trusting the future of our freedom to them as we are doing? It may be that we are in position to sit by and find fault with others who are at the danger point, it may be that it is better that those in our position should find fault than keep still — after all, if those who are in the most secure position do not speak out for what is right, who will? — all this may be true, but the position it leaves us in is not always becoming to a man.<br />I can not say the British and French "sold out" Prague when they sought nothing for it except a peace that benefits me too. I can only say that if they sacrificed Czechoslovakia to save themselves from war they followed a lead we gave them long before. For was it not partly to save ourselves from having to go to war for Czechoslovakia that we refused the Wilsonian Covenant? I can not condemn Messrs. Chamberlain and Daladier, but I must ask those Americans who condemn them as being both knaves and fools how they can then urge on us an isolationist policy that means trusting more than ever Europeans to save us from the consequences of war?<br />Suppose that, instead of everyone depending for peace on a Four Power pact, we all turn back to the general conference method. It failed before under easier circumstances, but suppose it will succeed now — though this is supposing to the point of dreaming. Success means the restoration to Germany of the Polish corridor, Memel, Eupen, colonies, also the restoration of the international gold standard, the return to normal trade barriers, and so on. What guarantee of peace is all that dream if realized? All that dream was already real once — in July, 1914.<br />We come to those who believe that the corner is turned for better or worse since democracies that would not fight for the only democracy east of Switzerland can not go to war to protect the oil wells of Rumania, or to save a Poland that resorts to partition from perishing again by partition. Is this idea well-founded either as fact or as a basis for expecting peace in our time? Consider but one thing:<br />Munich leaves Europe with two "Belgiums," No. 1 southwest and No. 2 southeast of Germany, and Britain has now promised to guarantee the neutrality and integrity of No. 2 — though it is almost surrounded by Germany — as well as the frontiers of No. I. Belgium No. 2 is stripped down now on the moral side to a democracy that is purely Czechoslovak. The self-determination principle is now all on its side and it is strengthened by its self-sacrificing acceptance of the wrongs done it for the sake of peace. On the strategic side it is stripped down to the bones of the Bohemian quadrilateral round Prague of which Bismarck said, "Who holds that, holds Europe." That is why Czechoslovakia is to be neutralized. Its neutrality is made and is liable to be broken for the same considerations that led to the creation and then to the violation of the neutrality of Belgium No. 1.<br />Czechoslovakia remains a strongly armed base in position to endanger on the left flank German aggressive expansion toward Rumania and the Ukraine and to endanger on the right flank German aggressive expansion toward the Polish corridor. Czechoslovakia can be turned in a twinkling into an air base from which the warplanes of Russia — excluded at Munich from the pledge to respect Czech neutrality — can attack the heart of Germany and harass or cut the communications of a German force attacking Russia through Rumania or Poland. At the teeth of the upper jaw of Germany lies the great mining and industrial area of Silesia, at the teeth of the lower jaw lies Vienna. The distance between these teeth — if they cut violently through Czechoslovakia — is about ten times shorter than their line of communications while they go respectfully round the Bohemian quadrilateral. In these circumstances can one reasonably expect Chancellor Hitler, who has openly proclaimed his aggressive intentions against Russia, to treat his Czech neutrality pledge as other than a scrap of paper the day his war with Russia starts?<br />If he violates Czech neutrality Britain must then either follow suit and treat as a scrap of paper its own guarantee of Czech neutrality against this very danger, or it must go to war against the violator. If it does the former its moral position is almost as bad as Germany's and its political and military positions become much worse than Germany's. Its position as the chief bulwark of democracy in Europe goes down, down and down. By this course it is accepting the one thing that Prime Minister Chamberlain in his moving radio broadcast Sept. 27, 1938, said he himself would go to war rather than accept:<br />I am myself a man of peace to the depths of my soul. Armed conflict between nations is a nightmare to me. But if I were convinced that any nation had made up its mind to dominate the world by fear of its force, I should feel that it must be resisted. Under such a domination life for people who believe in liberty would not be worth living; but war is a fearful thing and we must be very clear, before we embark on it that it is really the great issues that are at stake.<br />By the other course Britain and France would fight — but they would be fighting no more for Rumania or Poland than they fought in 1914 for Serbia. They would be fighting for the neutrality of the Czech democracy, for the respect of treaties, for the defense of individual freedom everywhere. Can we really base our hopes for peace in our time on the assumption that there is now nothing left for which the great democracies would fight?<br />THE PERIL RETURNS — ONLY GREATER AND NEARER<br />For our own people the issue becomes terrifying. They desire peace ardently and sincerely. They are ready to make sacrifices in order to strengthen the foundations of peace. They seek freedom of thought, of race, of worship, which every week become more restricted in Europe. The conviction is growing that continual retreat can only lead to ever-widening confusion. They know that a stand must be made. They say "Let it be not made too late." — Anthony Eden, speaking at Stratford-on-Avon, Sept. 21, 1938.<br />How can we but be alarmed at the Munich method of appeasement when its German partner who rose to power by tracing the evils we suffer to the Treaty of Versailles seeks to remedy them by practising in turn what he condemned? Germany was at least consulted at Versailles before the signature of the treaty; Czechoslovakia was not even invited to Munich. If Versailles can be called a diktat, what must Munich be called? How can those who believe events have proved that peace can not be made by diktat, believe that peace in our time can be secured by the Munich method?<br />How can we but be still more alarmed when the great champions of the Munich method have themselves made clear that their alarm now is greater than it was before Munich? When in indorsing Munich Lord Baldwin came out in favor of the mobilization of British industry for war? When the great London newspaper that opened September, 1938, with a plea for a plebiscite in Sudetenland ended September by announcing and upholding the Munich accord in one column while opening in the adjoining column a campaign for conscription in Britain? Most alarming of all, Mr. Chamberlain himself told the House of Commons Oct. 4, 1938: "For a long period now we have been engaged in this country on a great program of rearmament which is daily increasing in pace and in volume. Let no one think that because we have signed this agreement between the four Powers at Munich we can afford to relax our efforts in regard to that program at this moment."<br />In finishing the debate Oct. 7 all he could answer to the comments this provoked was to edge closer to conscription ("I would not like to commit myself now until I have had a little time for reflection as to what further it may seem good to ask the nation to do"), after saying:<br />"I am told that the policy which I have tried to describe is inconsistent with the continuance, and much more inconsistent with the acceleration, of our present program of armaments. I am asked how I can reconcile an appeal to the country to support the continuance of this program with the words which I used when I came back from Munich the other day and spoke of my belief that we might have peace for our time.<br />"I hope that hon. members will not be disposed to read into words used in moments of some emotion, after a long and exhausting day, after I had driven through miles of excited, enthusiastic, cheering people, something more than they were intended to convey. (Ministerial cheers.) I do indeed believe that we may yet secure peace in our time (No cheers), but I never meant to suggest that we would do that by disarming until we can induce others to disarm too."<br />How is this to be done? In the same speech Mr. Chamberlain said, "I say that it is no use to call a conference of the world, including these totalitarian Powers, until you are sure that they are going to attend, and not only that they are going to attend but that they are going to attend with the intention of aiding you in the policy on which you have set your heart." Apart from trusting in "the universal aversion to war" as "the strongest argument against the inevitability of war," Mr. Chamberlain in this speech based his hopes as regards disarmament and peace in general on the following policy:<br />"What is the alternative to this bleak and barren policy of the inevitability of war? In my view it is that we should seek, by every means in our power, to avoid war by analyzing its possible causes and by trying to remove them by discussing in a spirit of collaboration and good trill. I can not believe that such a program would be rejected by the people of the country even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with dictators, and talk, man to man, on the basis that each is free to maintain his own ideas of the internal government of his country, willing to allow that other systems may suit better other people."<br />This is the sort of thing in which British peace-lovers put their trust before the World War. They were arming then too, they were talking, then too, with Berlin man to man about disarmament and trying to remove the causes of war — by, for example, secretly dickering to satisfy Germany's demand for "a place in the sun" with part of the colonies of Portugal, Britain's oldest ally. The parallel today with the period that preceded World War once before in our time is only too clear.<br />There is the same political and strategic balance between the war-breeding grounds of eastern Europe and the western Mediterranean, between the Danube valley and the Straits of Gibraltar. But where peace then trembled between the annexation of Bosnia and the Balkan wars to the East and the conflict over Morocco in the West, it now trembles between Czechoslovakia and Spain. The main difference is that the danger has moved North, closer to the heart of civilization.<br />There are the same dramatic "peace" agreements, reached only more melodramatically now because of more modern methods of communication and mass propaganda, with the same net results. But where the Agadir peace resulted in France making service for three years obligatory for every man, the Munich peace is no sooner signed than Britain itself moves toward conscription. The main difference is that military servitude is moving West, closer to the heart of individual freedom.<br />There are the same frantic and vain last minute appeals for a conference by a power that allows the aggressor to hope that it will not fight against him if he goes to war. But where these appeals were made in 1914 by London, they are made now by Washington. This time they succeeded? When did Chancellor Hitler answer President Roosevelt's second appeal? When was the "conference of all the nations directly interested in the present controversy" that he then suggested held? The main change is that this time to get even to Agadir a President West of the Atlantic instead of a Foreign Minister West of the Channel had to beg for a conference.<br />The outstanding change is that all along the line the catastrophe is developing on a greater scale and at a faster rate and moving North and West, — nearer, nearer, nearer to ourselves.<br />BALANCE OR UNBALANCE OF POWER?<br />Never in post-war history has the menace that hangs over European economy made itself felt more, the menace of grave disorders capable, if we do not promptly remedy them, of leading us in the end to a dangerous rupture of the balance to the detriment of all ...<br />At this moment the hope of millions expects from us more than an affirmation, it expects the demonstration of a will for peace, effective and constructive ... — Aristide Briand, addressing the Commission of Enquiry for European Union, Jan. 16, 1931.<br />The balance of power theory that is preparing catastrophe now as then — there is no more sterile, illusory, fantastic, exploded and explosive peace policy than the balance of power. Look at it. Take it apart. What does it mean in common words? It means seeking to get stability by seeking to equalize the weight on both sides of the balance. One can conceive of reaching stability this way — but for how long and at the cost of what violent ups and downs before? And when the scales do hang in perfect balance it takes but a breath, only the wind that goes with a word spoken or shrieked in the Hitlerian manner, to end at once the stability, the peace that has been achieved. Stability can never be more in danger, more at the mercy of the slightest mistake, accident or act of ill will than at the very moment when the ideal of the balance of power is finally achieved.<br />Who would ever suggest that we seek to keep the peace in our town or state or nation by striving to arrange a perfect balance of power between law-keepers and law-breakers, between G-men and gangsters? It is only when we let our fancies roam beyond the nation and out into the world that we indulge in such blundering buncombe — and it is precisely in this great field that a mistake is worse than a murder.<br />We do not and can not get peace by balance of power; we can and do get it by unbalance of power. We get it by putting so much weight surely on the side of law that the strongest possible law-breaker can not possibly offset it and is bound to be overwhelmed. We get lasting stability by having one side of the balance safely on the ground and the other side high in the air.<br />Even the moment's stability which the balance of power may theoretically attain is a delusion since each side knows it can not last. Therefore neither can believe in it and the nearer they come to it the harder both must struggle to prevent it by adding more weight on their side so as to enjoy the lasting peace that unbalance of power secures, — and the race is to the strongest.<br />The race is to the strongest, and the democracies, by scrapping all this balance of power and neutrality nonsense and directly seeking peace in the unbalance of power that Union alone can quickly and securely give them, can still win, for they need but unite their strength to be by far the strongest.<br />The problem facing the democracies is simply one of uniting their existing power, but the problem before the autocracies is to get that much power, and more, to unite. The speed at which Germany, Japan and Italy have increased their power in recent years has blinded many to this basic difference, and to the fact that despite all their gains the power of the three put together remains feeble compared to the combined power of the fifteen democracies.<br />The democracies can secure world control overnight without doing violence to any one or to any democratic principle. They need merely change their own minds, decide to stand together as the Union instead of apart, accomplish this simple act of reason. The autocracies can do nothing of the kind. They can not possibly gain world control overnight. None of them can add to its territory without doing violence to some one, and thereby offsetting the gain by making possession precarious and increasing opposition everywhere, as each of them has been doing. None of them can keep the power they have gained nor even that which they began with except by force, — not one of them can stand free speech even in his own capital.<br />The autocracies can not unite their power under a common government without each violating the totalitarian state's basic principle of the supremacy of the state above all else. Their problem in gaining world control is infinitely harder than ours, and they can not possibly solve it by their own strength, reason or genius. They are like an outclassed football team that can not hope to score — let alone win — except through the errors of the other side.<br />Now that I have said why I am convinced that there is no hope for peace in the Chamberlain policy, I would express my admiration for his courage and sincerity and my gratitude to him for having gone to Berchtesgaden and Godesberg and Munich. I would express this no less strongly to Premier Daladier who encouraged and supported him and to President Benes and the Czech people who paid the bill. If I have my . own reasons for believing that the continuance of this policy will be fatal both to our peace and freedom, I have also reasons others do not have for being grateful that this policy was followed in September.<br />Its great merit then was the reasoning in which Messrs. Chamberlain, Daladier and Benes really placed their faith, — that we all want both our peace and freedom, that we shall have sacrificed our peace once we go to war for our freedom, that by averting war this time there will still remain the possibility of finding somehow a means of saving our peace and freedom both together. That reasoning is unanswerable, but it means that we must lose no time now in finding that way through.<br />The greatness of Mr. Chamberlain will be judged in the end by whether the catastrophe is definitely averted or only made greater in the breathing space he gained. It will be a tragedy if the courage Mr. Chamberlain showed in rescuing a drowning world in September should come to be forgotten through his having then finished it off by doing the wrong thing when he sought to revive it. I who believe I know the way to revive it must remain grateful to him and to all the others who have kept open the possibility of preserving peace and freedom through Union now.<br />THE TEST OF COMMON SENSE<br />Who knoweth not such things as these? — Job<br />Because Union is a fresh solution of the world problem it appears to be something new. The deeper one goes into it, however, the better one may see that there is in it nothing new, strange, untried, nothing Utopian, mystic. The fact is that we democrats have already strayed away from the road of reason and realism into the desert of make-believe and mysticism. We have strayed away seeking the mirage Utopia of a world where each nation is itself a self-sufficing world, where each gains security and peace by fearing and preparing war, where law and order no longer require government but magically result from keeping each nation a law unto itself, where the individual's freedom is saved by abandoning at the national frontier the principle that the state is made for man and adopting there the dogma that man is made for the nation. It is proposed here that we have done with these dangerous delusions, that we return to the road of reason and seek salvation by tested methods, by doing again what we know from experience we can do. I ask nothing better than that we stick to the common interests of us individual men and women and to the simpler teachings of common sense.<br />Common sense tells us that it is in our individual interest to make the world safe for our individual selves, and that we can not do this while we lack effective means of governing our world.<br />It tells us that the wealthier, the more advanced in machinery, the more civilized a people is and the more liberties its citizens enjoy, the greater the stake they have in preventing depression, dictatorship, war. The more one has, the more one has to lose.<br />Common sense tells us that some of the causes of depression, dictatorship, war, lie inside the nation and that others lie outside it. It tells us that our existing political machinery has let us govern strongly the conditions of life within the nation but not outside it, and that all each people has done to overcome the dangers inside it has been blighted by its failure to reach the dangers outside it, or remains at the mercy of these ungoverned forces.<br />Common sense advises us to turn our attention now to finding means of governing the forces still beyond our control, to constituting effective world government. It warns us that no matter how strong or perfect we each make our national government, it can never end those outside dangers, and that we individuals can not know how long we can wait to end those dangers before they end us.<br />Common sense reminds us Americans that we are part of the world and not a world apart, that the more we keep our lead in the development of machines the more important to us we make the rest of the world, that we can not, without catastrophe, continue through good times and bad improving these machines while refusing to develop political machinery to govern the world we are thus creating. It tells us that the principles of this Union of the free are the principles that America was born to champion, that Americans can not deny them and still remain Americans. For the loyalty of the American is not to soil or race. The oath he takes when he enters the service of the American Union, is altogether to the principles of Union, "to support and defend the Constitution," — a constitution that is already universal in its scope, that allows for the admission to its Union of any state on earth, that never even mentions territory or language, and that mentions race and color only to provide that freedom shall never on that account be denied to any man.<br />THE AMERICAN EXAMPLE<br />Common sense may seem to say that the American example does not apply, that it was much easier for the Thirteen States to unite than it would be for the Fifteen Democracies today, that the possibility of their forming a Union is now too remote to justify practical men trying to solve the immediate problem this way. It may seem to say that one needs only consider current American public opinion to realize that unlike 1787 Union now is a dream that cannot possibly be realized for many years, let alone in time to save us now. This seems convincing but is it so?<br />American opinion has always been remarkable for seeing from afar danger to democracy and quickly adopting the common sense solution, however remote and radical and difficult and dangerous it seemed to be. What other people ever revolted at less oppression? Independence was so remote from American thought at the start of 1776 that it was not even proposed seriously until January 10, when Paine came out for it. Yet his Common Sense then so swept the country that within six months the Declaration of Independence was adopted.<br />To understand how difficult and remote the Union of the Thirteen States really was when 1787 began and how encouragingly the example they set applies to our democracies today, common sense suggests that we turn back and see the situation then as contemporaries saw it.<br />"If there is a country in the world where concord, according to common calculation, would be least expected, it is America," wrote Paine himself. "Made up as it is of people from different nations, accustomed to different forms and habits of Government, speaking different languages, and more different in their modes of worship, it would appear that the union of such a people was impracticable."<br />Conditions among the American democracies of the League of Friendship were if anything worse than among ours today. As John Fiske put it, "By 1786, under the universal depression and want of confidence, all trade had well-nigh stopped, and political quackery, with its cheap and dirty remedies, had full control of the field." Trade disputes threatened war among New York, Connecticut and New Jersey. Territorial disputes led to bloodshed and threat of war among New York, New Hampshire and Vermont, and between Connecticut and Pennsylvania. War with Spain threatened to break the League of Friendship in two camps. The League could not coerce its members. Threats of withdrawal from it were common. Its Congress often had no quorum, rarely had any money in the treasury, could no longer borrow. The states issued worthless currency, misery was rife, and courts were broken up by armed mobs. When these troubles culminated early in 1787 with the attempt of Shays's rebels to capture the League arsenal in Massachusetts so strong was state sovereignty and so feeble the League that Massachusetts would not allow League troops to enter its territory even to guard the League's own arsenal. Washington had already written to Jay in 1786, "I am uneasy and apprehensive, more so than during the war." Everything seemed to justify the words of the contemporary liberal philosopher, Josiah Tucker, Dean of Gloucester:<br />As to the future grandeur of America, and its being a rising empire under one head, whether republican or monarchical, it is one of the idlest and most visionary notions that ever was conceived even by writers of romance. The mutual antipathies and clashing interests of the Americans, their differences of governments, habitudes, and manners, indicate that they will have no centre of union and no common interest. They never can be united into one compact empire under any species of government whatever; a disunited people till the end of time, suspicious and distrustful of each Other, they will be divided and sub-divided into little commonwealths or principalities, according to natural boundaries, by great bays of the sea, and by vast rivers, lakes, and ridges of mountains.<br />The idea of turning from league to union was so remote in 1787 that it was not even seriously proposed until the end of May when the Federal Convention opened. How remote it was may be inferred from the fact that the opening of the Convention had to wait ten days in order to have even the bare majority of the Thirteen States needed for a quorum. The Convention itself had been called by Congress merely to reform the League — "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation." It was not deflected away from patching and into building anew until the eve of its session, — and then only thanks to George Washington's personal intervention. Even then Union as we know it now was more than remote: It was unknown, it still had to be invented.<br />Yet once the Convention decided to build anew it completed this revolutionary political invention within 100 working days. Within two years — two years of close votes and vehement debate in which Hamilton, Madison and others, now called "men of vision," were derided as "visionary young men" even by Richard Henry Lee, the revolutionist who had moved the Declaration of Independence in 1776, — within two years the anarchy-ridden, freedom-loving American democracies agreed to try out this invention on themselves. Twenty months after they read its text the American people established the Constitution that still governs them, — but now governs four times as many democracies and forty times as many free men and women.<br />Is it really visionary to believe that the American people can still be trusted quickly to understand and act upon the common sense of Union?<br />Can it be hard-headed reason that holds it easier for the American democracies to invent and agree to try out Union in the infancy of self-government than it is for our more mature democracies to adopt it now?<br />It does seem practical to ask first how all the difficulties in changing from national sovereignty to Union are to be met. Yet the makers of the first Union were not delayed by such considerations. They abolished each State's right to levy tariffs, issue money, make treaties, and keep an army, and they gave these rights to the Union without waiting for a plan to meet the difficulties of changing from protection to free trade, etc. They did not even bother trying to work out plans to meet all these difficulties of transition. And they were right in treating all this as secondary and leaving it to the Union itself to solve, for the lack of such plans neither prevented the swift adoption of Union nor caused any serious difficulty thereafter.<br />Yet they lived in a time when New York was protecting its fuel interests by a tariff on Connecticut wood and its farmers by duties on New Jersey butter, when Massachusetts closed while Connecticut opened its ports to British shipping, when Boston was boycotting Rhode Island grain and Philadelphia was refusing to accept New Jersey money, when the money of Connecticut, Delaware and Virginia was sound, that of all other States was variously depreciated and that of Rhode Island and Georgia was so worthless that their governments sought to coerce the citizens into accepting it. In those days New York was massing troops on its Vermont frontier while the army of Pennsylvania was committing the atrocities of the "Wyoming massacre" against settlers from Connecticut.<br />Can it still be said that the difficulties of transition to Union were simpler then than now? That it was then more practical to risk establishing Union without a transition plan than to risk delaying Union until such a plan was made? That it is now more practical to delay Union at the risk of catastrophe than to adopt it at the risk of having some transition difficulties? Common sense answers, No.<br />Some factors, of course, made Union easier for the American democracies than it is for us just as others made it harder for them. Though it seems to me on balance that Union is much easier now than then, I would grant that it is hard to strike such a balance. But we can not have it both ways. Those who say that I am wrong, that conditions were so much more favorable to union of the American democracies then than they are for Union now, they are also saying implicitly that conditions then were also much more favorable than now to all the alternative solutions — league, alliance, or isolationism. If a common language, a common mother country, a common continent and all the other things the American democracies had in common made union easier for them than us, they also made it easier for them to make a league succeed. If even they could not make a league work, then how in the name of common sense can we expect to do better with a league than they did? Even if Union is harder now than then we know, at least, that we can succeed with it.<br />Common sense leads to this conclusion: If we the people of the American Union, the British Commonwealth, the French Republic, the Lowlands, Scandinavia and the Swiss Confederation can not unite, the world can not. If we will not do this little for man's freedom and vast future, we can not hope that others will; catastrophe must come and there is no one to blame but ourselves. But the burden is ours because the power is ours, too. If we will Union we can achieve Union, and the time we take to do it depends only on ourselves.<br />In the democracies of Europe — in the little democracies in the danger zones; in the more fortunate democracies of Scandinavia; above all, in the great democracies of France and Britain — the average American finds a way of life which he knows instinctively to be the way of life which he himself has chosen.<br />He knows that these democracies are the outposts of our own kind of civilization, of the democratic system, of the progress we have achieved through the methods of self-government and of the progress we still hope to make tomorrow. He knows that if these outposts are overrun by the dictatorships of either Right or Left we shall find ourselves deprived of friends. He knows that, despite geographical remoteness and a traditional desire to avoid entanglement in other peoples' quarrels, we are inevitably the natural allies of the democracies of Europe ...<br />In any ultimate test of strength between democracy and dictatorship, the good-will and the moral support — and in the long run more likely than not the physical power of the United States — will be found on the side of those nations defending a way of life which is our own way of life and the only way of life which Americans believe to be worth living. — The New York Times, editorial, A Way of Life, June 15, 1938.<br /><strong>CHAPTER II</strong><br />Public Problem No. I: World Government<br />Transport, education and rapid development of both spiritual and material relationships by means of steam power and the telegraph, all this will make great changes. I am convinced that the Great Framer of the World will so develop it that it becomes one nation, so that armies and navies are no longer necessary. — President Grant, 1873.<br />During my journey in Europe I have been more deeply impressed than ever with the gravity of the situation with which we are faced. When I perceive that in one or two days a degree of devastation can be effected which no lapse of time could ever make good, again I realize that we must make provision for a form of security which is dynamic and not static, and which rests on reason and not on force. — Lindbergh, at the German Air Ministry, July 24, 1936.<br />Is the future of the world to be determined by universal reliance upon armed force and frequent resort to aggression, with resultant autarchy, impoverishment, loss of individual independence and international anarchy? Or will practices of peace, morality, justice and order under law, resting upon sound foundations of economic well-being, security and progress, guide and govern in international relations? As modern science and invention bring nations ever closer together, the time approaches when, in the very nature of things, one or the other of these alternatives must prevail. In a smaller and smaller world it will soon no longer be possible for some nations to choose and follow the way of force and for other nations to choose and follow the way of reason. All will have to go in one direction and by one way ... The re-establishing of order under law in relations among nations has become imperatively necessary. — Secretary of State Hull, Aug. 16, 1938.<br />PLAN OF CHAPTER<br />The proposition we begin with is this: The most urgent problem of civilized mankind is to constitute effective means of governing itself where its civilization has already made its world practically one.<br />We reach this conclusion in this chapter by examining first the relation between the development of machinery and the needs of government.<br />We find that the characteristic of the machine is, as it develops, to bring the individual man into closer relation with the rest of mankind and both to enlarge the circle of men with whom he needs to reach agreements in order to govern his conditions of life and also to speed the tempo with which the instrument for reaching such agreements, government, must work. We find this process has already reached the point requiring constitution of effective government on a world scale, and that the urgency of this problem is greatest for the peoples most advanced in the development of the machine. To find whether this world or external problem in government is more urgent to them than the national or internal problem in government which the development of the machine also raises, we then consider both problems from the standpoints of experience and theory.<br />The objections of those who find other things more urgent than the problem of constituting effective world government are then examined. Special attention is paid to the argument that the economic problem, particularly the conflict between capital and labor, is more urgent than the world constitutional problem.<br />THE MACHINE THAT REQUIRES WORLD GOVERNMENT<br />Politics can be separated from the machine no more than can civilization. The machine I would define broadly as anything made by man that frees man even a little from any of his natural limitations or that extends his powers. The machine's nature is such that to use it or make the most of it men need more of the world than they needed before its invention. To do their work well or to exist an increasing number of machines today need the whole planet.<br />A wooden plow needs little land, and few men, whether to make it, work it or consume the harvest. A steel plow needs more land, a bigger world. It needs many men to make — prospectors, miners, iron puddlers, blast-furnace men, tool-makers, transporters, salesmen. It brings greater surplus than the wooden plow: It needs more consumers. A tractor gang plow requires a still wider world. Horses may feed on the farm, but one may need to bring fuel to a tractor thousands of miles. And one needs a world of consumers if tractor wheat is to be sold.<br />Any one can make himself a megaphone and extend his voice a little. But to make a telephone that will extend his voice anywhere one needs generations of inventors and scientists of many nations. One needs to comb the world to get all the little things required to make a telephone. If a man could find them all in his backyard and invent the whole thing himself, to use it he would need another man, and to make the most of it he would need all mankind. One can telephone round the world today but one does not telephone to oneself. The more civilised and civilizing the machine, the more we must depend on all the planet and all mankind to make and use it.<br />In the world our machines have made us, distance is no more a thing of miles, but of minutes. New York is closer to England now than to Virginia in George Washington's time. Men fly round the globe today in one tenth the time once needed to send news of the Monroe Doctrine from the White House to Buenos Ayres. Rumor, panic and millions in money can now cross oceans even faster — in a flash.<br />Our world is now practically one in many respects. Even the Ethiopians who rate low in machines and civilization have had this fact forced upon them. An early Ethiopian statement to the League lamented the hopelessness of making their case known to the world: Italy had all the machinery for reaching daily mankind's eye and ear and Ethiopia had none. Yet such is the world we live in that it spent millions merely to satisfy its own need of knowing the Ethiopian side. The League broadcast it round the world while Americans carried a microphone to the Emperor. New York overnight became willing to pay many times more for a word from Addis Ababa than from Washington. Suddenly it became possible to see in Paris the bombing of the then unheard of down of Dessié only a few days after it happened. While the Ethiopians were learning that there was a vast incalculable world outside, the more civilized world was learning that there was a backward Ethiopia and that it could upset many a plan made far from it. We all live in the same world now, but the more civilized we are the more we live together in it, the more we depend on each other, the more our world is one.<br />Does this bring to civilized mankind the problem of constituting effective means of governing itself?<br />We can not give our world the tendons that mass production and consumption give it, the blood circulation that steamships, railways, automobiles and airplanes supply, and the nervous system with which electricity permeates it, and expect it still to function as it did before we made it one organism. When our common organism begins to ail we can not reasonably expect to cure it by each nation seeking to cure its portion of the nerves, blood and tendons separately, whether by its own devices or its own dervishes.<br />Nor can we now dispense with tendons, blood and nerves. True, we got on without them once. That was when we were, politically, like the amoeba — one-celled creatures. But once the germ from which we start develops tendons, blood, nerves, we can no longer live without them, nor without a head, an effective means of governing the whole. These are thereafter vital.<br />The idea that we need not bother much about these connecting common things while they are relatively small is as unsound as the idea that since we did without them once we can do without them again. Those who argue that we can do without world trade because it is a mere fraction of national trade should argue too that we can do without the tendons because they are smaller than the muscles. The blood and nervous systems do not give the body its weight, but so long as they remain the rest can be starved down almost to skin and bones, and yet recover. It is the fraction that pours over the spillway that keeps a whole lake fit to drink, and it is the lack of even a trickling outlet that makes the Dead Sea. Except under penalty of stagnation poisoning us we can no more dispense with world trade, communications, contact, than we can uninvent our steam, gasoline, electric and other machines.<br />These world-machines, these world-made, world-needing and world-making machines, inevitably bring our nations many problems in living together. Such problems in human relations can be solved only (a) by one imposing his solution on the rest by force, or (b) by mutual agreement. While machines were crude the way of force was possible. There is no possibility now of some modern Rome imposing law on all mankind. Our choice is not between law through conquest and law through agreement. It is between agreed law and no law, between self-government and no government. Before we can agree on how to solve any of the problems of living together, we need to agree on how to reach and enforce and interpret and revise such agreements or laws in time. Our first problem in mutual agreement is the constitutional problem of creating effective world government.<br />THE INTERNAL OR THE EXTERNAL PROBLEM?<br />The more intelligent among civilized people seem ready to agree that we do face a problem in world government. They question only whether this is the most urgent problem now, particularly for themselves. Many deny that it is, and more act as if it could wait more safely than other problems.<br />It is true that there is no end of problems, world, national, local, individual crowding in on us. We can neither give them all equal attention nor safely drop all but one to concentrate on it. We need to give our best attention to what is most urgent, without letting the rest get out of hand. But first we need to decide which problem is really most urgent.<br />Problems in living can be divided in two, internal and external. Whether we are concerned with a nation, or any organized group in it, or with the individual, or with any single organic cell, there is always this division. To live it is not enough that a cell should be so organized that all within works together, there is also the problem of its relations with other cells, with all the outside world. For the individual man life depends on keeping healthy not simply the relations among the cells in his body but also his relations with other men, with all his outside world. We turn from physiology to economics when we turn from man to the nation, and we speak of self-government where we spoke of self-control; the words change, not their meaning. We can then boil down our choice to this: Which is the more urgent, the internal or the external side of our problem in government?<br />Before answering, one general remark: The degree to which the external directly affects cells, men or nations, is in proportion to their reach, that is to say, to their powers of movement and communication. The machines that are said to make the world smaller really make it larger. They extend to the antipodes the world within reach of a man's eye, ear, tongue, and thought. They free him from barriers that hemmed in his fathers. The world that was small was that of the cave man: His world was his cave and as far as he could reach, throw, walk, look, listen, yell. Machines have made the civilized man's world today the planet. Men have never had anything like the reach that men have today. That means that the external side of human problems has never been nearly as great as it is now.<br />Europe was no problem to the men of America nor America to the Europeans until the machines of the fifteenth century let Columbus establish communication between them, and made the Old and New worlds one. But this did not make them one world to all men at once, but at first only to those whose machines gave them the greatest reach. America was no more a part of the external problem of the Tibetans in 1692 than in 1491. One can concede that the internal problem remains even now more important than the external one for the Tibetan, and certainly his world is smaller and his life less dependent on the rest of mankind than are, say, the American's.<br />It seems safe to formulate the rule that the poorer, weaker, remote and more backward generally a people is, the more self-sufficing it therefore is, the higher the ratio of its internal to its external problem and the less urgent the problem of world government to it. Conversely, the richer, stronger, the faster in communications and generally the more developed mechanically and more educated and civilized a people is, the less self-sufficing it therefore is, the more dependent on all mankind, the higher the ratio of its external to its internal problem and the more urgent its need of world government.<br />If this problem is not more urgent than the national one for us who are citizens of the advanced nations it can not be for any one else. We can confine to ourselves, then, the question: Which is the more urgent, the problem in national or in world government?<br />WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS<br />To answer it, consider first the record. At the start one thing stands out. The one important problem that has nowhere been accorded urgent treatment is the problem of world government. It came nearest to urgent status, perhaps, in 1919 when the Covenant was drafted. But even then when catastrophe was still smouldering President Wilson was damned everywhere, and not least in the United States, for delaying what the world generally deemed most urgent — the winding up of that particular war — in Order to secure the establishment of a first attempt at world government, the League. The Covenant had to be drafted after office hours and such men as Lloyd George and Clemenceau never had time for it.<br />Since the League's foundation what has been done about this world constitutional problem? Briand's committee to inquire into European Union was merely an attempt to establish European government along League lines. What little political discussion his committee dared indulge in added nothing new to inter-state or world constitutional thinking. The Bank for International Settlements was, like the League, a by-product of the conference that gave it birth. Thereafter there was no sign of political activity in the constitutional field of world government until the 1936 League Assembly, and it showed little evidence of any fresh thinking about this problem.<br />External affairs generally have received much more attention than has this constitutional problem, but even they have not been treated as most urgent since the war. The relative importance everywhere attached to national and to world government is reflected by budgets; the whole world has never spent more than $10,000,000 a year on all the activities of the League. For the equal of the League budgets one has to get down to such budgets as that of the tiny canton of Geneva.<br />Many international meetings have attempted to solve this or that specific external problem by the existing machinery. Not even in such great ones as the Disarmament Conference and the Monetary and Economic Conference did the attempt at a world solution receive as urgent treatment as the attempt at a national solution simultaneously made by each nation. Compare the effort and money spent on arming by each power in any day, month or year of the Disarmament Conference with the amount it spent seeking disarmament agreement. Here was a thing that had always defied man, success in it was worth immeasurably more than victory in war, yet governments, press, and public seemed to assume that disarmament could be had for only a shade of the attention they would give to winning a war. There seems no need to draw the contrast between the noisy show the nations gave at the London Monetary and Economic Conference and the huge efforts they were making at the same time to strengthen national policies. Still less need is there to contrast the energy governments are devoting now to reform at Geneva and to rearmament at home.<br />On the other hand the theory that the internal side of our problem deserves the most urgent treatment has had as fair a trial as any theory can hope to have. The record may thus be summarized:<br />First, in the golden middle nineteen twenties when times were good and war danger relatively small all the nations acted as if the urgent thing was (a) to extract, each for itself, the most profit from the situation at the least cost in preparations to meet the changes, internal and especially external, this golden age was rapidly making, and (b) to try to continue this golden age by maintaining unchanged whatever national constitution laws, administration, machinery or general political condition happen to be accompanying prosperity.<br />Second, when this policy crashed in 1929, the nations acted on the theory that the most urgent thing for each was to make national laws to meet each emergency as it rose. This was a policy of seeking recovery by concentrating on bringing the national statutes in line with the changed conditions machines had produced, as far as this could be done while keeping the national constitution static and foreign policy passive or retrograde.<br />Third, as nations reached their limits in constitutionally changing their national laws, administrations and policies, they proceeded on the theory that the national problem, which had grown worse under this treatment, was more than ever the urgent one and now required this treatment to be carried beyond constitutional limits, but only temporarily, as in much New Deal legislation.<br />Fourth, where this policy has failed to bring relief, nations have simply carried further the theory behind it, and have given urgent attention to the question of changing their constitution, peacefully or by revolution.<br />THE WIDENING GAP<br />The depression showed that the internal machinery in every state was already far better made than its external machinery for that swift, strong, responsive action which the machine age demands. Political machinery to be effective must be able to act quickly when an emergency rises. Compare the action the American Union got through its national political machinery in 1933 with its failure to get action through its external machinery on the same problem. The mechanism governing the relations of the people of the forty-eight states of the American Union enabled them in a few months to do and undo a vast amount of important legislation. Meanwhile neither the mechanism governing the relations of the people of the fifty odd states of the League nor all the diplomatic machinery has yet enabled them to agree on any important constructive action.<br />When the emergency rose Britain's internal political machinery was so responsive that the British could reverse overnight in 1931 even their historic policies of gold money and free trade. The machinery of the German Republic proved capable of extraordinarily swift, radical action without Hitlerian purges or press control. The government of the French Republic has shown during the franc crisis in 1926, the Paris riots and the 1936 strikes, remarkable power to meet quickly the gravest emergencies without suspending constitutional methods or the rights of man. Everywhere one finds that the internal machinery allowed people swiftly to reach agreement and act — whatever one may think of some of the actions taken — while the external machinery failed to do this. It seems safe to say that even before the depression the worst internal political machinery anywhere in the civilized world was far more efficient than the best external machinery. It would appear to follow that the more urgent need for improvement lay on the external side even in 1929.<br />Yet since 1929 the gap has widened. By changes in law, by the force of practice or of violence, the internal political machinery in nearly all nations has been made capable of still faster and stronger action. Meanwhile their external machinery has become even weaker, even slower. Within the nations many checks on governmental action have been weakened or removed: Political checks, such as free speech, free press, free assembly, free elections, the necessity of taking into account powerful minorities and of bowing to local self-government and to genuine majorities. Juridical checks, such as independent courts and the need to submit to process of law. Economic checks, such as private property rights. Psychological checks, such as rugged individualism and prejudices against being dependent on the government, against politicians "managing" money, against deficits, against bureaucracy, against centralization, against concentrating tremendous powers in the hands of one man.<br />Nearly all these checks have already been removed in some nations, as Germany; in others, such as Britain, only a few have gone or been weakened. But no nation has escaped the trend toward removing the brakes on the national government, nor the accompanying trend toward increasing its motive power with more cylinders, whether by giving it new legal rights, or huge funds to spend, or control over domestic and foreign exchange or trade, or great armed force. In every nation one finds men advocating or practising all kinds of perilous experiments in state reorganization, and an increasing number preaching the sacrifice of individual freedom in the interests of these experiments. Few seem even to ponder whether the desired results might not be more easily or safely gained by a milder readjustment of external political machinery.<br />The point here is not whether some or all of these changes are good or bad. Still less do I mean that there is no need for change in national political machinery. The point is simply that the political machinery has been and is being changed to make its action stronger and swifter, and that there exists not only recognition of the need of such change but powerful demand for it, — but always mainly on the internal side.<br />On the external side the trend has been toward strengthening still more the political, juridical, economic, psychological brakes on the machinery and weakening still more the motor.<br />Americans can estimate the efficiency of the world's political machinery in 1929 by considering what the Washington machinery would have been worth if each of the forty-eight states had an army, a high tariff, and a money all its own, and reserved the right of veto on the ground that Aim No. 1 was not agreement with the others but independence from them. Americans can measure the deterioration in the world's political machinery since 1929 by considering what would be left of Washington's machinery if each state then had a bigger army, a higher tariff and a more dubious money, while Pennsylvania and California seceded and Indiana successfully invaded Arkansas, and every state insisted more than ever on its right to veto all agreement.<br />Another American example may make the point clearer. In 1933 Washington was at least suggesting a definition for aggression and considering conditionally consulting other law-abiding powers in the event of war. Now — except in Latin America where it hardly matters — the United States is applying a policy of unconditional refusal to consult or even to try to distinguish between aggressor and victim, no matter how flagrant the offense. The American attitude toward the external problem has thus changed from refusal to agree that world government needs to be strong and effective to complete negation of the first principle on which all government depends, namely, that offenses against the law will be judged by the law-abiding neutrals. During this American trend toward anarchy on the outside what has been the trend on the inside?<br />Many of those who sought in 1933 to bring political development in line with machine development by changing only the internal laws and practices of the United States now seem mentally ready to change its fundamental law, the Constitution, as being out of date. Many of those who are tem- peramentally most open to new ideas, the liberals, radicals, revolutionists, seem even more conservative and reactionary now regarding the problem of external relations than they were in 1933. They seem willing to face the dangers of revolution in internal American government, but they remain blind to the need of even moderate change in the government of American relations with the rest of the world.<br />They would scrap the Constitution before they would scrap neutrality or isolationism. That Constitution has been for 150 years the world's outstanding success in inter-state government, but the idea that Americans, before doing violence to it, might study whether they could attain their ends better by applying its principles to the problem of world inter-state government, — that idea seems to be too revolutionary even to occur to today's American revolutionists.<br />Everywhere the gap has widened. The means of doing business within the nation have been speeded, the means of doing business outside it have been slowed. But is the problem of living together being solved? Has the policy of giving the national side of the problem most urgent treatment justified the hopes placed in it, the sacrifices made for it? Is the world farther from catastrophe now than it was? Does any people on earth feel the richer, the safer, the freer for its stronger means of agreeing swiftly with itself on its own plan of action and its weaker means of agreeing with other peoples? The fact is that the problem has been getting harder to solve not only externally, but internally and as a whole.<br />WHAT REASON SHOWS<br />Yet the very fact that the situation has grown worse under this treatment continues to make people act as if the national side of the problem deserved still more immediate attention. It is true that the more a man takes poison the more urgently he needs to take something — but is it more poison? The record allows no hope that continuance of the present policy will bring anything but disaster. If, however, we will not accept the answer that the past has given, we must turn to logic to know what the future will reply.<br />Suppose then that we continue to act on the assumption that the most urgent problem is the internal one. What does success and what does failure bring? Suppose first that all countries recover by this method. Suppose the exponents of planned and managed nationalism get their hearts' desire, and that we can wait long enough for it. Suppose miracles. Suppose the governments plan so well that each achieves the ideal of the self-subsisting nation, that the Americans succeed in turning their surplus cotton into rubber (without causing a surplus in rubber), the Swiss their surplus cheese into cotton, the Germans their potash into nickel, the British their ships into soil, the Japanese their silk into oil and every people their leisure into toil. Can the point be reached by all nations where there is no further monetary, trade or communication problem to solve because there is no longer any exchange among them? If it could, would this end the need of world government?<br />The need for world government rises for every people from two movements; its own outward movement into the world and the world's inward movement into it. Recovery is bound to increase the importance of both these movements for each nation that enjoys it. It is bound to mean greater development of and dependence on the world-made and world-making machines, and that means still greater inter-dependence of peoples, still greater need of world government.<br />For what are we going to do with our prosperity? Spend it trying to keep in our Lindberghs and keep out the Einsteins? Prosperity means having more than we want at home and therefore having the means of getting other things elsewhere. Will that not increase our desire for them? Do we not usually want most what we haven't got? If we want merely to travel, to see new sights and old ruins and get fresh ideas, we are buying abroad and to buy we must sell, and once we are doing all this we have fallen from the nationalist ideal of self-subsistence, we are no longer independent but inter-dependent. If we are to enjoy our prosperity we are bound to use it to trade, travel, invest — and to develop those interests in the world whose enjoyment and protection require world law and order. If we are not to enjoy these things, if we can not spent our money abroad, if we can not get about the world as we please, if each nation is a prison no citizen can leave, where on earth is the individual freedom for which democratic states were made, the freedom which this national planning and managing has also promised us?<br />Germany has reached the point in self-subsistence where citizens can not freely buy a foreign newspaper or travel abroad, but even without prosperity to stimulate the outward movement Germany has been unable to end that movement. Russia, paradoxically, came closest to self-subsistence when it was suffering famine; as Russia has risen from famine the outward movement has grown, and the importance of foreign affairs. Even if nationalism succeeded with Germans and Russians who are accustomed to autocracy, even if its prisons could be gilded with prosperity as they are papered with patriotism, would men accustomed to freedom tolerate it?<br />If they did, the nation would still remain more concerned with the outside world than it was before it gained prosperity because it could not, by becoming richer, lessen the world's inward movement into it. It is prosperity, not poverty, that attracts the world. Our supposition that each nation really recovers by nationalism can not possibly mean that they all attain the same level of prosperity. Just as the rich man needs protection against kidnapping and robbery more than does the poor man, the rich nation needs more than the poor nation protection against invasion or other form of aggression. This protection can be gained only through effective government or through each keeping his own bodyguard.<br />The nationalist method, if it brings us this need of protection, rules out our gaining it through world government. Its cardinal principle is that we must depend on ourselves alone, whereas the cardinal principle of government is that we depend on the community and the community depends on us. To suppose that nations gain prosperity by devotion to the nationalist principle is to suppose that they become still more devoted to it, and less inclined to abandon it for the opposite principle of world government. And so, the more successful national recovery is the more it makes world government not only necessary but the harder to achieve.<br />Moreover, the nationalist principle that we must depend only on ourselves rises largely from fear and suspicion of others. We readily depend on those we trust — indeed, one synonym of trust is depend on. One cannot teach a nation that it must depend on itself for everything without teaching it to distrust other nations and regard them as potential enemies. If, then, nationalism leads to prosperity it must also lead to suspicion, and the more it gives the nation to protect, the more it leads the nation to suspect sinister designs against it in the outside world. The more nationalism profits a nation the more insecure the nation must feel and the less inclined to have that trust in others needed for security through government.<br />To make all this worse, the development of the machine which prosperity brings means that each nation has more nations to fear, for more come within range to strike it. The value of its natural defences, such as oceans, mountains, rivers, is lowered and the need of artificial defences, armaments, increased. Even if a nation could prevent all outward movement of its civilian fliers in peace time, it would still face the problem of keeping out the inward movement of enemy fliers attacking by surprise before peace time ended in formal declaration of war.<br />Nationalist recovery, even if successful, does not end the problem of security, it merely makes it worse. It makes nations need protection more than ever, it forces them to seek that protection in armaments instead of law, in each of them building up their own bodyguard instead of common government. It leads them to speed a process which, with them as with prosperous gangsters, inevitably ends in self-destruction.<br />Since we can not make the problem of world government less urgent by succeeding in recovering through purely national measures, let us consider the other alternative. Suppose we fail to recover by the national route. Will failure make us need world government less urgently? Failure involves depression, poverty, war, destruction. They can put us back far. There is no doubt that the problem of world government was much less acute before the steamship, railroad and telegraph created such things as world prices and world markets only some seventy years ago. It was still less acute before simpler machines led to the discovery of the New World. It did not exist in the area of the wooden plow. But this road back to the wooden plow is marked with wooden crosses, every foot. It is no road out of the problem of living together.<br />MORE URGENT THAN TREATY OR ECONOMIC ISSUES<br />There remain the objections of those who have still other problems that they would put before the problem of world government.<br />One school holds it more urgent to get certain concrete improvements in the world situation than to improve the machinery for getting such results. To this popular school belong those who reject the League because of the Versailles Treaty: They would defer the establishment of the machinery for removing injustice till injustice is removed without it. Here we find all those pacifists and liberals who devote their energies to discovering or stressing existing injustices and inequalities and expatiating on the need of redressing them. They talk as if the crying evil were blindness to the existence and effects of evil, lack of will to obtain prosperity and do away with war, and not lack of effective machinery for harnessing the world's will for peace and prosperity to the attainment of these ends.<br />"Justice, disarmament and a basic economic readjustment of our present order, not legality, are the only true hopes of peace," they preach, but they bend their efforts neither to building up patiently the League of Nations mechanism for obtaining these nor to working out an alternative to it. Some of them assume that these objectives can be gained by a sort of spontaneous creation if only sufficient desire for them is expressed. Others assume that the war they see coming will be a just war. Because it seeks to wipe out the injustices of the last one they depend on it to leave no injustices of its own. The more realistic members of this school admit that "steps must be taken to secure equality of economic opportunity for all nations" or even smaller objectives. But they seem never realistic enough to consider just how these steps shall be taken. When pressed they suggest a world conference, or a small conference of great powers, or the League, or diplomatic channels, or armaments, or that "just war." They propose, in short, to leave it to machinery whose failure to achieve such results they themselves have announced and denounced at the time of its last trial.<br />The most flourishing section of this school is now the economic one. To it belong those who divide the nations into two classes, the haves and the have-nots, or the static and dynamic, and then split on what to do about it. Some turn hopefully to a conference to end this phenomenon before it results in war. The conference to prevent war by reducing the means of holding and gaining possessions by arms failed, for both haves and have-nots preferred even the unlimited risks of war to the risk to their holdings or their dreams which they saw in disarmament. The conference to prevent war by freeing trade and thus lessening the importance of having or not having possessions also failed. What hope can then remain for a conference called to end the whole issue through the haves handing over to the have-nots the possessions themselves? Even if some territory changes hands, will that make matters better? Even if all Germany's colonies were restored, and the Polish Corridor, Alsace-Lorraine and everything else, why should that decrease instead of increase the war danger? When Germany had all that in 1914, and Britain was trying to soothe her with half of Portugal's colonies, Germany was demanding only more imperiously than now "a place in the sun."<br />Others, agreeing there is no hope of our existing machinery adjusting peacefully the difference between the haves and have-nots, advise us to leave it to war. But war can not end this struggle; it can only change the line-up, the units and the prizes. The aim is to keep this struggle, whether among nations or individuals, from ending in violence, and the only hope of doing so is to provide effective means of making, enforcing, interpreting and revising law, — to provide effective means of governing human relations.<br />Another group finds the root of all war in the venerable practice of turning public passion into private profit. For this group the most urgent thing is to abolish or control profit in armaments. Since I myself wrote a pamphlet attacking this traffic* a dozen years before it became fashionable to do so, it can not be said that I have failed to give its claims for most urgent treatment sympathetic consideration. It need only be added that even if we could succeed better than Soviet Russia in abolishing war merely by abolishing profit in armaments, there would remain the previous question: How to get world agreement to abolish it since all the conferences so far have failed to get agreement even to control this evil?<br />* "Where Iron Is, There Is the Fatherland." B. W. Huebsch, New York, 1920.<br />We come next to those for whom the machine age's most urgent problem is the world-wide struggle between capital and labor. Whichever side of it they are on, it seems so urgent to them that they have no time for the problem of organizing world government. They dismiss it as remote and visionary, or as unnecessary or impossible to solve before they have had their revolution, or counter-revolution.<br />There is no doubt that men everywhere are deeply torn into hostile groups by the economic issue and that it needs attention. But there is no doubt either that they are still more deeply torn into enemy camps by the political dogma of nationalism. Both if left to themselves will end inevitably in explosion dangerous not simply to civilization but to each man's life. But it is not civil war, it is war that threatens to strike most of us first. Indeed, the only real danger of civil war lies nearly everywhere in its following war — at least among the vanquished, for though both sides lose in war one side loses more. Only in Spain do men now seem so torn by the issue of capital and labor that the dogma of nationalism can not unite, in the service of its wars, both these classes against both of them beyond the frontier. Even in the special case of Spain, the issue is far from being purely economic, or domestic.<br />Capital denounces the efforts of the Red Internationals to unite labor throughout the world. Labor denounces the attempts of the international bankers, the munition makers, the steel cartels, the shipping pools and all the Yellow International of gold, to overcome the national divisions of capital. But despite all the efforts of Red or Yellow mankind remains more miserably and murderously divided into nations that into labor and capital. Whether one admits for heart's desire the more abundant life or the more abundant profit, he has much less to fear from delaying fulfilment of that desire than from delaying the establishment of law and government among nations. No sweatshop can be so inhuman as the cold sweatshop of war. No profit can buy back a son once slain.<br />Some argue that it is the capitalist system that causes war, that the first thing to do therefore is to remove it and that if each nation will only do this for itself all the nations will then live in peace, and world government will either be easy to establish or unnecessary. Whether or not the capitalist system is one of the causes of war, it is true that the problem of organizing peaceful relations among the nations was not solved when all the world was capitalistic. It may possibly be that if all the world were communistic the problem would be solved. No one can say. But one can say this: The capitalist system is not going to be eradicated soon nor is the whole world going to become communist at once. Any movement in this direction will be that of one nation after another and if each acts separately it is quite probable that there will be wide differences in their conception and application of communism. Consequently, even if we grant the argument, the practical questions remain: How long can you and I afford to wait for war to be thus eliminated? What of the period meanwhile? National divisions are bound to be made more miserable and murderous when to them is added the condition of some nations being on a capitalist basis and others on a Marxist basis. Once Germany, Russia and Japan all shared the same economic system, capitalism, combined with absolutism. They still have absolutism but now each has a different solution of the capital-labor problem, and their quarrels are the more envenomed. When our democracies no longer all share their present basic economic system, they too will need more urgently than ever world law and order, and they too will be much more liable to suffer war than to enjoy world government. And whatever solution of the capital-labor question they may have reached before that war begins is liable to be upset in it, especially if they lose.<br />Their safest, surest way of solving wisely and enduringly the problems of capital and labor is to solve first the problem of their international relations by uniting while they have so much in common to help bring them together. Union, far from preventing any democracy from continuing whatever social or economic experiments it desires, will, by making them safer, encourage such experiments to be made, and to be made by ballots instead of bullets.<br />Finally, there are those who know that nationalism is wrong and who admit the need of world government, but who find the times unpropitious, the price of peace too high. Will the price ever be lower? Are the times growing less dangerous? What keeps us waiting? It is the fear of war. There is no worse unwisdom than to fear that war is coming and stop one's fearing there. Wars never end where they begin. Can we trust war to make times safer for organizing world law and order? Can we hope that it will leave that problem less difficult? Even so, it's true solution then must be its true solution now. Since we must in the end truly solve this problem of living together, surely the urgent thing is to solve it now in time to keep alive. Conditions can not possibly be more favorable than they are now for us to unite to save our freedom and our lives, for now we still have our free governments and our lives. More than all else the looming dangers of war make the establishment of effective world government our most urgent problem now.<br />There is no worse tyrant than ungovernment.<br />The extreme parts of the inhabited world somehow possess the most excellent products. — Herodotus, III, 106.<br />We are an overseas people and we are dependent upon Europe for market for the surplus products of our farmers and laborers. Without order in Europe we will at best have business depression, unemployment, and all their train of troubles. With renewed disorganization in Europe, social diseases and anarchy thrive, and we are injected by every social wind that blows from Europe. We are forced to interest ourselves in the welfare of the world if we are to thrive. No American who has spent the last ten months in Europe does not pray that we should get out of the entanglement in the sordid selfishness, the passions, the misery of the world. Our expansion overseas has entangled us for good or ill, and I stand for an honest attempt to join with Europe's better spirits to prevent these entanglements from involving us in war. — Herbert Hoover, addressing Stanford University, Oct. 2, 1919.<br /><strong>CHAPTER III</strong><br />Urgent Most for Americans<br />Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? — Washington, Farewell Address.<br />The question before the world today, Mr. Chancellor, is not a question of errors of judgment or of injustices committed in the past. It is a question of the fate of the world, today and tomorrow. The world asks of us who at this moment are the heads of nations the supreme capacity to achieve the destinies of the nations without forcing upon them as the price the mutilation and death of millions of citizens.... The Government of the United States has no political involvements in Europe.... Yet in our own right we recognize our responsibilities as part of a world of neighbors. — President Roosevelt, Appeal to Chancellor Hitler, Sept. 28, 1938.<br />Not only has the rebuilding of a sound economic structure become absolutely essential but the re-establishment of order under law in relations among nations has become imperatively necessary.... When the dignity of the human soul is denied in great parts of the world, and when that denial is made a slogan under which propaganda is set in motion and armies take the field, no one of us can be sure that his country or even his home is safe. — Secretary of State Hull, Aug. 16, 1938.<br />PLAN OF CHAPTER<br />We consider here the peculiar urgency for Americans of the problem of organizing effective world government. We examine the policies of isolationism and neutrality which deny this and find that they are leading us away from the great line of American history. This deviation we trace to an interpretation of contemporary American history which holds that the mistake accounting for our present plight was our decision to enter the struggle to make the world safe for democracy. We find that this view is based on failure even to consider whether the mistake was not, instead, our decision to quit that struggle after two years. We conclude that whatever the mistake was, it has left us facing a grave situation and that failure to solve it in time can cost no people so much economically, politically, and morally as it will cost us, particularly our generation.<br />THE PRESENT AMERICAN POSITION<br />A people ... which remain among the graves and ... say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose.... Ye shall all bow down to the slaughter ... ye shall be hungry ... ye shall be ashamed ... and leave your name for a curse.... He who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth.... For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth. — Isaiah, 65: 3-17.<br />What has been said of the urgent need for world government applies with peculiar force to the United States. Yet nowhere is it more denied or ignored. This and the fact that practically there can be no effective world government without the United States require us to pay special attention to the present American position.<br />According to it the urgent thing for the United States to do is to attempt, not to keep out of war by organizing a world government capable of preventing its outbreak, but to organize instead a heavily armed neutrality with a view to keeping out of war after it starts. This policy aims to foresee and block in advance everything capable of drawing the United States into war. It would provide by legislation so that no political, legal, economic, financial, or moral motive should ever lead the American people to help either the victim or the aggressor, — the neutrality law in its majestic equality (to paraphrase Anatole France) aiming to safeguard the United States no less against aiding the invader than against aiding the invaded. That is its aim, at any rate, though in practice it has fallen so far short of safeguarding us against helping the aggressor that the government has found it more neutral not to apply the neutrality law to Japan's invasion of China.<br />A wave must run its course to the froth in which it ends, and this neutralism is but the old isolationism gone to foam. Isolationism refused to help organize law and order in the world, but it refused on the ground that the American people should not commit themselves in advance while conceding that they must deal with each disturbance of the peace when it rose. Isolationism thus implicitly committed the United States to judging in each given case whether to aid one side or remain neutral. Neutralism carries this philosophy to its ultimate chaos by seeking to commit the American people never to stand for law and order outside their hemisphere. It requires them to refuse in advance to judge even in the most flagrant cases. There can be no worse negation of law than absolute negation of the duty of judging. There can be no law where there is no judging; there must be violent anarchy where the leading men refuse to judge not because they find the case too hard but because they fear to risk their own skins for what they know is right.<br />A position more opposed to world government could hardly be imagined. Its popular strength now would seem to make Union hopeless. But a wave always reaches its peak and seems most imposing precisely at the moment when it breaks into froth and starts foaming down. This neutralism which shudders even at the thought of parallel action with other democracies to protect our individual freedom never won for us that freedom; it was won only thanks to alliance with France. It was kept only by the constitution of effective inter-state government among thirteen democracies.<br />Isolationism, it is true, has on its side such Americans as Patrick Henry, who, placing the independence of their state above the freedom of the people in it, opposed the Constitution of the American Union. Neutralism does not have behind it even Patrick Henry. Like isolationism it has against it the basic American conception of government as applied in the Constitution and proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.<br />It was not to neutralism or isolationism that the American people dedicated themselves at Gettysburg. It was "to the great task remaining before us: that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."<br />The present deviation from the great line of American history stands and falls on an interpretation of the last few years of that history. This interpretation results partly from some able, upright and very persuasive American thinkers and leaders seeing imperfectly one might-have-been while remaining blind to other might-have-beens. They are impressed by how much better off the United States might have been (they imagine) had we only kept out of the World War. They overlook, among other things, how much better off we might have been, too, if the United States, having been drawn into the war, had not been drawn out of the peace. The only American mistakes they see were made before the Versailles Treaty reached the Senate; they either insist or imply that none was made thereafter. If they do not trace the present situation entirely to the sins of Morgan and Wilson, it is only to put some of the blame on the Europeans or Japanese; it is not to attach responsibility to the post-war policy of the United States nor to Lodge, Borah, Johnson, Harding, Hearst, Huey Long and Coughlin.<br />Prominent in the school that teaches that our mistake was to have entered the war are those who lay it mainly to economic factors. They have been disillusioned and overwhelmed by the discovery that the war to end war and make the world safe for democracy has resulted instead in a depression-and-dictator-and-war-breeding situation, and that the economic factors in our entry in the war were much stronger than they had thought. They conclude and teach that the moral and political factors were mere Wilsonian window-dressing and propaganda to hide the real sordid motives and dupe the people into war.*<br />* Those who find I do not give this viewpoint sufficient attention or sympathy are requested to read Annex 5 of this book, which gives my own personal evolution in thought. They will find there documentary proof that I was alive to the economic and propaganda sides of the war during the war itself and stressed them when fewer did.<br />The failure to win the ideals President Wilson proclaimed is, however, the true father of the belief that our entry in the war was a mistake. The theory that we were duped into fighting for democracy and must safeguard ourselves against being duped again began really to flourish only after calamities thickened and the League failed and dictatorships spread and the war danger came galloping back. The economic interpretation of our entry in the war became the fashion only after hard times began. It and the resulting neutralism, like the Nazi interpretation of the same war and post-war period and the resulting Hitlerism, are the product of the belly, not the brain. It has been said of old, "An empty belly makes a bad counsellor."<br />The failure to achieve the ideals for which we fought can not be denied, but what was the cause of the failure? To argue that we failed because we entered the war is to argue that we might have succeeded if only we had never tried. This argument implies that had the United States kept on struggling year in, year out, since 1919 to organize peace the world would be even further from this goal. That is a singular thing for American patriots to argue.<br />The record shows that we fought for two years to organize the world effectively for peace and democracy, and that then we quit. If our dead died this time in vain, who this time abandoned in the hour of victory the cause for which they died? Does any American believe that their sacrifice will continue to be vain when once again from our honored dead we take increased devotion as at Gettysburg to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion? Our fathers fought seven years to make half the Atlantic coast of North America safe for democracy. What sons are we to quit because we fail to make the whole world safe for it in two?<br />It is at least possible that the mistake that accounts for our present plight was made in quitting this struggle, not in beginning it. Why, then, have our debunkers concentrated on how we were drawn in and ignored how we were drawn out, charting the road to the war to end war but not the road to isolationism and neutralism though it is the road to unending war? If we were capable of being so badly duped as they say we were in 1917, how can they or we be sure that we have never been duped since then? How can we safely assume that such undupers are not duping us now, after having duped themselves first of all?<br />Why do those who trace our entry in the war to profit and propaganda fail to put our post-war policy to their tests? What is so sacred in the Harding Administration and our nineteen twenties that they are taboo? Whatever the motive for suppressing nine-tenths of the record and applying microscope and megaphone to the rest, the effect is to justify ourselves in our own eyes for having quit the struggle to make peace. Is that not a troubling fact? What propaganda is more dangerous than self-propaganda, self-deception?<br />Few enterprises start so badly that nothing can be salvaged from them, none start so well that they can not be ruined by mistakes later. If proving a war was tarnished at the source proves that no good could come from it, it also proves that a muddy stream can never clear with time, and that the fair can never mend the foul. Such reasoning would deny bread because of the manure in the wheatfield. Yet what on earth is good that was untarnished at the start or made without the bad?<br />Whether we should have stayed out of the struggle or stayed in till We won what we fought for, the facts are that we did neither and that we, like everyone else, are now in a grave situation, and the overriding question is: What are we going to do about it? Wilson's great achievement was that he turned great evil to some good. We can do that, too. No poison is so poisonous that men — if only they keep trying — can not make it cure instead of kill.<br />WHERE WE ARE MORE EXPOSED THAN EUROPE<br />We in the Americas are no longer a far-away continent to which the eddies of controversies beyond the seas could bring no interest or no harm. Instead we in the Americas have become a consideration to every propaganda office and to every general staff beyond the seas. The vast amount of our resources, the vigor of our commerce, and the strength of our men have made us vital factors in world peace whether we choose or not. — President Roosevelt, Aug. 18, 1938.<br />The problem of world government is of peculiar urgency for us partly because it does not seem to be. We are less exposed than others to some of the dangers besetting mankind, but that exposes us most of all to one of the worst of dangers, — to the delusion that we shall be spared in any general calamity our species suffers. We suffer from that delusion to the point where our approach to the common problems of mankind has become habitually one of self-sacrifice rather than self-interest, of doing the world a favor rather than recognizing that we have anything to gain from the world, of donating rather than trading. We can not be safe while our thinking is wrong, and no thinking can be right that starts with the assumption that the United States is not a part of the world but a world apart.<br />The problem of world government is most urgent for us because the factors that expose us less than other nations — such as the ocean — belong to the past and are rapidly losing force, while the factors that expose us more than others belong to the present and future, and are rapidly gaining force. No other nation is so advanced as we are in world-needing and world-making machines. No other has so much to lose economically, politically, and morally as we by failure to solve in time the problem of world government.<br />We have already seen why the development of world machines makes increasingly urgent the need of world government, especially for the more advanced peoples. There seems no need to prove that we lead the world in developing these machines, and that therefore our position is particularly exposed and that we less than any other people can expect or afford to live in our world today on yesterday's political basis. But we can hardly recall too often that the depression struck no people so swiftly and savagely as it struck the people who believed what Irving T. Bush expressed in 1927: "The future destiny of America is in our hands, and is not dependent upon other nations."<br />No other people suffered and still suffers such per capita unemployment as the people which overwhelmingly elected President the candidate who assured them in August 11, 1928, "The poor-house is vanishing from among us," and on Sept. 17, "Were it not for sound governmental policies and wise leadership, employment conditions in America today would be similar to those existing in many other parts of the world."<br />There was only one people whose bank deposits shrank 20 per cent even in the first three years of depression (a rate of shrinkage 40 per cent faster than the average for the other 14 democracies and a total absolute loss twice as great as theirs combined, twelve billion gold dollars against five and a half), and then shrank during the next year 49 per cent (twenty-one billion gold dollars), — and whose banks were all forced to close. This people's present Chief Justice, Charles Evans Hughes, proclaiming its unique prosperity Oct. 24, 1928, said: "Delegations from foreign lands are visiting us to ascertain our secret."<br />In his last Message to Congress President Coolidge said, Dec. 4, 1928: "No Congress of the United States ever assembled, on surveying the state of the Union, has met with a more pleasing prospect than that which appears at the present time." Within four years American foreign trade had crashed down from $9,100,000,000 to $2,900,000,000. We lost 68 per cent of the gold value of our trade while the British lost only 59 per cent and the French only 53 per cent. Thereafter in one year of more energetically managed nationalism, 1933, we sank down to the level of 1902. Our trade dropped half a billion gold dollars in 1933 alone. It took a whole generation of American pioneers to add that much value to our trade, to raise it from $134 million in 1830 to $687 million in 1860.<br />It has cost and is costing no people anywhere so much in budget deficits, debt and monetary depreciation, to get what recovery we have gained since 1933 by strenuous nationalist measures and by Secretary Hull's strenuous efforts to add some very mild international measures to these. The color all this costly effort has brought to the American cheek — has it ever been the glow of health and not of fever?<br />How many times since 1929 have we been told that "prosperity is just ahead of us?" How often have our experts assured us that "the corner has been turned?" In 1930 they argued hopefully, "The farmer is flat on his back and there is no way to look, except up," and they still have that argument.<br />MORE THAN MONEY TO LOSE<br />We have a phrase that covers our position now as then: "The higher you are, the harder you fall." Whether or not we can gamble on being able to keep out of European or Asiatic war, we can not even gamble on keeping clear of the economic and financial effects of the world un-government to which we contribute so prodigally. Just as the war side of the catastrophe that ungovernment is bringing is more liable to strike first again in Europe or Asia and spread to us from there, its economic side is more liable to begin again with us and spread to Europe and Asia.<br />We have more than money to lose in depression. The Germans and Italians lost their individual freedom to no foreign aggressor but to dictators who rose from inside with hard times and unemployment brought on by world ungovernment. We can be the next great people to lose inside our state what we made it for. If we lose our freedom that way while the British and the French lose theirs to foreign autocrats, shall we be the better off? If we must risk it I would rather risk losing it to an autocrat from without than from within.<br />I have little fear of our losing our individual freedom through war — and none whatever if in that war we have with us all the democracies of the world. Even if we lose it to a foreign dictator whom we have allowed to fatten on the European democracies, I believe it will be relatively easy to rouse revolt against alien rule. I have no fear for the restoration of our freedom if we lose it fighting for it. But how shall we restore our freedom once we ourselves have deliberately destroyed it, stupidly or cravenly surrendering it more and more to some home-grown autocrat until all of it is gone — simply because we will not unite with European democrats to remove the source of the danger?<br />Under the pressure of the need of cutting costs, machines have developed tremendously since the depression, — and nowhere so much as with us. We are still marching ahead in the development of world-making and world-needing machines, and we are still keeping our political head stuck securely in volcanic ash. If to stand with one's head stuck so is folly, to go ahead with it stuck so can not be wise.<br />One thing more we need to note. It is that we more than others must be swift to foresee and make allowance in our political calculations for the speed of this machine development increasing in future. To do this we need to keep in mind its development during our own lives. If we compare each decade of the past thirty years with the decade before it we shall have some clue to the accumulating speed with which the machine will be making our world one during the next decade — if our failure to provide it with a governor does not meanwhile wreck machine and us.<br />Our generation has seen the world's worst war, its biggest inflation, its greatest boom, its deepest depression, all in quick succession. The one thing that has grown steadily through all these extremes of frost and drought is the machine that brings more and more and more of the world to the door of each of us and makes each depend increasingly for everything on all mankind. Consider how all the speed records were going down before the depression, and how all of them have been broken and broken again during the depression. Consider how much faster, safer, cheaper, better than in golden 1929 is now the automobile, radio, telephone, airplane, railway train, ocean liner, and every machine for communicating among all mankind men themselves and everything they make or say or think.<br />Consider too how much more this exposes us to tyranny on the tremendous scale of Hitler and Mussolini, how much closer it brings us to the evil as well as the good men do, how much more deadly it makes war.<br />What else except catastrophe beyond anything we yet have known can possibly prevent the world-machine from continuing its dizzying development, month on month, whether we like it or not? If we think the machine has not yet made even our North Atlantic democracies interdependent, we need to think that it is more inter-dependent today than it was yesterday and less than it will be tomorrow. If we think that the ocean still gives us enough security we need to think that that security is shrinking while our need of security is expanding and that when our natural security is gone it will be too late to replace it. It was not because we could not do without the Louisiana Territory in 1803 that we then added that great wilderness to our own. It was because we had in President Jefferson a man who looked ahead and knew that the safest, cheapest, wisest time to act is before action can not be avoided. It is only truer now than then that "to govern is to foresee," for change is faster now.<br />What then must we say of political thinking whose basic tenet is that we who are the most advanced and advancing in the development of world machines are the one people who can safely keep aloof from all efforts to organize the world politically? That for those who delight more than others in such things as telephoning from their Clippers flying across the Pacific to their balloons rising thirteen miles into the stratosphere the course of wisdom is to refrain from building machinery for allowing world change to proceed without war? That the more inventive and enterprising and foresighted a nation is mechanically the less it needs to be inventive and enterprising and foresighted politically? Can we say such thinking is political? Can we call it thinking?<br />We may set our clock back, we may set our clock ahead, but we can not set our clock back and ahead both at once.<br />HERMIT OR PIONEER?<br />We have only two choices, between struggling forward all along the line and falling backward all along it. We have only the choice between continuing the experiment we began three hundred years ago or abandoning it for the one Japan then started. In 1639 our fathers, believing that "to mayntayne the peace and union ... there should be an orderly and decent Government established," made history's first written constitution to this end, establishing in Connecticut the federation of self-governing communities which served as a model for the American Union. In 1639, too, the Shogun, Iyemitsu Tokugawa, closed Japan, hoping to keep the world out forever by forbidding the Japanese to build ships big enough to take them overseas. For 215 years thereafter — until the federation of three Connecticut villages grew into one of 30,000,000 people stretching to and across the Pacific and knocking at Japan's door — the Tokugawas kept Japan a hermit nation with its population held down to 30,000,000.<br />Now the people who opened Japan in 1854 are urged to close their own country. Now while Japanese conquistadores carry the dogmas of divine right — both of kings and nations — through Asia, the children of the pioneers who spread the rights of man through the world are asked (often in the name of George Washington) to go the way of Iyemitsu. The modern American priests of Iyemitsu broadcast to us that no matter what happens to the rest of mankind we Americans can keep our prosperity and peace and freedom if only we will scrap the methods and the principles by which we gained them. They would keep us rich and independent by killing off our surplus pigs and making us depend on cowardice instead of courage for our freedom and our lives.<br />They forgot to tell us that the Shogun found some other things were needed to attain that isolationist, nationalist, neutralist paradise which Japan's hermit period represents. It was achieved and maintained only by killing off, too, the surplus Japanese by infanticide, famine and disease instead of war. More than half the 70,000,000 Japanese today owe their lives to the fact their country was finally opened to the civilization that, during their hermit centuries, had developed in the West with the doctrine of man's individual right to life and liberty. After Japan was opened to the West "prosperity and population rose by leaps and bounds" (to quote Hugh Byas). Thereafter, he points out, "the new mobility of the peasants and the introduction of chemical fertilizers doubled the food supply and abortion and infanticide ceased. Western hygienic science, favored by the traditional cleanliness of the people, reduced the toll of disease, and railways abolished regional famines." Thereafter, too, ceased the long night when the human species owed little to any Japanese. Then came the Shigas and the Hatas to serve mankind, and Noguchi to die for us all fighting the germ of yellow fever.<br />So it was in Japan. But it is one thing for a poverty-stricken, remote people accustomed to despotism to turn hermit in the seventeenth century and in its relatively static Orient. It is another for a rich, twentieth century western people accustomed to individual freedom to start back toward famine and infanticide. It is one thing for plants to feel the sun, another to feel the frost. It is one thing, too, for men to flourish while they let their free principles freely expand, another for them and their freedom to survive when subjected to quickening contraction.<br />Americans who believe they have already suffered in recent years all the ills isolationism can produce or who believe Japan's experience tells the worst they have to fear from hermithood — these Americans have many painful things left to learn. Two facts they may learn now. When Rome let freedom go it was not in Rome it slowly rose again; it was at the farthest edge of her vast empire. And when the Romans let go their freedom they fell so far that they have not climbed back to freedom yet.<br />In the choice facing men today the name of no man is so much at stake as the name, American. Other peoples have proud traditions, but none has to continue the tradition "rooted in the future" that we Americans have to continue on the frontiers of self-government and Union.<br />Nor can this duty be more urgent to any Americans than to those of my own generation. The last Americans to die that this tradition might live were not the cronies of our fathers. They were not the playmates of our sons. They were the boys who played Indian and cowboy with us. They were the buddies of those who have now passed forty. They have a claim on us they have on no one else.<br />It is not our generation that is lost — not yet. We have only now reached that prime age when the responsibility for all that America means rests most on us. We followed when it was our turn to follow; now it is our turn to lead. We must write our own line now or never in the great record that Columbus opened with "Sail on!" The moving finger is already poised. We were lads in 1917 and we did then all that can be asked of youngsters. We are men today. Or are we? We must answer now. To us Walt Whitman calls:<br />Come my tan-faced children! ... For we cannot tarry here, We must march, my darlings, we must bear the brunt of danger, We the youthful sinewy races, all the rest on us depend, Pioneers! O pioneers!<br />The New York Times believes the American people will awake to the facts which menace this nation; and the world will learn that events are conceivable, that circumstances can arise, outside this hemisphere, which will instantly range American public opinion behind an effective peace policy and make junk overnight of the so-called Neutrality Act ... The enemies of democracy will discover that the United States has not become so timorous and so stupid as to abandon its responsibilities and imperil its greatness and its freedom. It will be wiser to put them on notice at once. — The New York Times, editorial, Nov. 30, 1937.<br />The right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts, — for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own Governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free. To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other. — President Wilson, ending his speech to Congress for declaration of war against Germany, April 2, 1917.<br /><strong>CHAPTER IV</strong><br />Patching Won't Do<br />No amendment leaving the states in possession of their sovereignty could possibly answer the purpose. — Hamilton.<br />The importance of the Federalist papers is that they expose, from experience and with unanswerable argument, why sovereignty is an insuperable obstacle to the organization of peace, and why the federal principle is the only way forward. — Lord Lothian, July 30, 1938.<br />PLAN OF CHAPTER<br />Our best post-war machinery for making, enforcing, interpreting and revising world law, the League of Nations, has failed. The trend back to pre-war methods proves this. It proves also how desperately we feel the need of change, for it is only too clear that there is no hope in turning back. Armaments, alliances, the Atlantic ocean, balancing power, proclaiming neutrality, desiring to keep out of war, — all these failed those who trusted in them before. They saved no people from war and between wars they failed to provide even a semblance of world government. The time gained by them costs fearfully in the gaining and risks making the final catastrophe only greater.<br />Reforming or patching the machinery we have seems to many the only practical thing to do. By reforming or, as I prefer, patching, I mean leaving basic principle intact. In patching I include any change, in law or fact, which however reached and however great, leaves the existing world machinery based on the principle of national sovereignty.<br />Before considering whether patching the League can suffice, we shall examine the possibility of patching one post-war international mechanism that remains in relatively good repute, the gold standard mechanism for giving the world stable money. The monetary problem has the advantage of being the least difficult of the major ones facing the world, and so, if we find it cannot be solved without sacrificing the principle of national sovereignty, we have gone far toward finding that patching won't do in any field. We need not then waste time examining other possibilities of patching things outside the League and can concentrate on the problem of patching the League. To find that patching it is not enough is to conclude, as this chapter does, that we must tackle afresh the problem of organizing world government.<br />PATCHING THE WORLD GOLD STANDARD<br />Progress has been made ... in the ... establishment of a solid basis for exchange stability.... But that general confidence which is essential to international stability is not present....<br />Adherence to a common currency system does not mean that individual countries will no longer be able to pursue internal policies of many different patterns. It does mean, however, that in doing so they will have to observe certain general principles ... without which no monetary stability can be secured. — J. W. Beyen, President of the Bank for International Settlements, 1938 Report.<br />The world enjoyed stable money before the war, and it achieved this then through the gold standard even without the League of Nations or the Bank for International Settlements. To achieve it again is really a matter of agreement among a very few countries which have made considerable progress toward agreement in the Tripartite Accord; why then, can we not regain monetary stability by patching the old gold standard?<br />That standard, patched as the London Monetary and Economic Conference proposed, provides, I would grant, the best international money available under national sovereignty. Restoration of the gold standard on that basis, or any other basis of national sovereignty, has so far been blocked by such difficulties as the war debts problem, the question of where to fix the ratio of the pound and dollar, the disinclination in both Britain and the United States to resume foreign lending on a big scale and to reduce trade barriers to where they were when the gold standard flourished. These suffice to show how formidable are the practical difficulties facing monetary stabilization on these lines, but I do not insist on them here.<br />Suppose that the gold standard can be restored with all the improvements in the rules or provisions for cooperation that any one desires — so long as this leaves the principle of national sovereignty intact, with each state remaining free to leave gold by its own sovereign will and with the international gold standard differing from the national gold standard in having behind it no effective common government, common budget, common commercial policy and common gold reserve. When we get the best that is possible within these limits have we got international monetary stability? Not merely for a few years but enduringly, for otherwise it is not stability. Can we get reasonable stability and keep national sovereignty?<br />The first thing to be noted is that when we have thus restored the gold standard we shall not have solved our security, armament and economic problems. Even when the gold standard was functioning these other problems were accumulating the pressure that broke that standard in the world depression. That fact says all that needs to be said on the durability of any monetary stabilization that is not accompanied by solution of our political and economic problems. Mere restoration of the gold standard can not in itself cure these ills; such restoration therefore can not long remain.<br />The stability of the gold standard depends not only on gold reserves and budgets but, above all, on confidence — confidence particularly that the rules of the game will be observed scrupulously, especially in emergencies and by those whom this observance most endangers or hurts. One can not trust in the law when one can not trust in the policeman to risk his life to enforce the law against dangerous criminals. The restoration of the gold standard among sovereign powers depends for its durability upon the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, and Japan, at least, feeling certain that the good will, good faith and enlightened self-interest of each of them will lead them all to respect scrupulously common monetary rules and cooperate loyally while accepting no strong central control and remaining political and economic rivals. Unless one can depend on them all having this mutual confidence one can not depend on the gold standard providing stability.<br />One plainly can not depend on this, and least of all when those very emergencies arise that stabilization is really intended to meet. In emergencies undisciplined and uncontrolled men are not governed by enlightened self-interest, good faith and good will, and in time of panic the collectivities of men called nations tend to become mobs. Moreover, the essential thing is that each of these nations, in retaining its sovereignty, retains the right to secede from the gold standard whenever it sees fit. The great powers may compel the weak ones to stay on gold, but short of war there is no way under national sovereignty to make a great power stick to any agreement on a really vital interest. To trust in the gold standard for stability in such conditions is like trusting in the law to keep the peace in a community which can not control the policeman and where each policeman reserves the right to leave the streets to bandits whenever they begin to shoot.<br />Recent experience is devastating to confidence in such a monetary system. It shows that central control over money is essential to confidence and that it is not possible when national sovereignty divides control among several fairly equal rivals.<br />The gold standard developed as an international money when world trade and finance were much less intensive, divided and swift-moving than now and when Britain's position in world trade, finance and politics was dominant. The gold standard developed then much more as a means to national than to international monetary stability. Indeed, the only two dangers to a nation's monetary stability that were foreseen before 1931 lay both inside the nation. One was the danger of domestic panic, the citizens all seeking at once to convert their paper money into gold. The other danger was that a government which wished to balance its budget or increase its revenues without raising taxes, might issue more promises to pay on sight in gold (that is, paper money) than it could reasonably hope to make good. The gold standard went on the theory that both these dangers could be met by each nation's law making its central banking institution independent of the government as far as possible and by requiring it to maintain a certain minimum ratio (usually 40 per cent) of gold in reserve against its paper currency or sight obligations.<br />Yet, when the gold standard broke down in 1931 it broke down through neither of these causes, through no violation of the ratio rule, through no inflationary measures, through no run on a gold reserve begun within the nation. International, not national, factors broke it down. The people who as voters had some control over the national budget and the national laws had confidence everywhere in the national money. In each nation where a run began, it began from a quite unexpected quarter, the outside world. It would seem only natural, however, that the first man to distrust a money when emergency loomed should be the man who had no control over it, who had to put his trust in the good faith and enlightened self-interest of foreigners, — not merely of the sovereign government and the men of the country concerned but of other foreigners and their sovereign governments.<br />Even if the nations should agree to improve the gold standard with the 1933 London rules its essential untrustworthiness and instability would remain, for these rules do not reach the source of the trouble. They lower the minimum ratio to 25 per cent and they improve the means of cooperation among the nations but they place no central control over them.<br />So long as any world money is based on cooperation alone the powers each remain sovereign. Indeed, it is simply to allow each to remain at bottom a law unto itself that the method of cooperation is followed. One can not have enduring faith in a money whose sole backers have thus implicitly reserved the right to break their promises whenever they think fit and have each preserved most carefully the means of violating with impunity their undertakings to the world. Any world money, so long as the United States, Britain, and France retain their sovereign rights and refuse to unite behind it as one government and make it depend on one joint budget and one joint political economy, will sooner or later fall a prey to precisely the same blind forces that wrecked the international gold standard in 1931. It will remain cursed by the memory of the examples set by England in 1931 and by the United States in 1933.*<br />* See Annex 3 for detailed study of how the principle of national sovereignty worked in practice to destroy monetary stability in and after 1931.<br />It is silly to trust for stability in the supposition that the great powers have learned their lesson and can therefore be relied on to keep on gold once they have returned to it. They may all desire and they may all honestly intend to keep on gold, but not one of them will trust the others to keep from plunging the world back into monetary chaos, any more than it trusts the others, because of the experience of 1914-18, to keep from plunging the world back into war. Even if the great rival sovereign powers should not be half so nervous, alarmist and suspicious of each other on the monetary side in future as they have been politically during the past fifteen years, their distrust will still suffice to sap and to ruin whatever world gold standard they restore. It is conceivable that the world may return to gold without loss of national sovereignty, but if it does it can be thankful if this "stabilization" endures even as long as it did the last time and that was only five years, 1926-31.<br />THE FACT TO BE RETAINED<br />Before the war there was as a rule no fundamental maladjustment of currencies.... Not only were more peaceful relations maintained in the hundred years 1815-1914 than in any other period of modern history, but the wars that occurred caused no permanent currency depreciations.... There was no living memory of serious currency losses to make people fear for the substance of their savings or hesitate to grant commercial credits to foreign customers from apprehension regarding exchange and transfer difficulties. In such an age the monetary problems were mainly technical and unaffected by the current of national and international politics.<br />Today, on the contrary, not only the grave question of peace or war but also the general attitude of the different countries ... has its influence; indeed, armaments and other measures that produce expansion predominantly in the national sphere may have unwonted repercussions on the foreign currency position. There is no overlooking the fact that an increase in "planned" activity creates new difficulties. — J. W. Beyen, President of the Bank for International Settlements, 1938 Report.<br />The fact to be retained is that when the international gold standard worked the only time it really did — in the nineteenth century and down to the war — it was based then on a factor that no longer obtains: British hegemony, especially in the industrial, commercial and financial world. It would be more accurate and enlightening to call the international gold standard then the sterling standard. Sterling then was the world money and this was so not because sterling was on gold, but because Britain so far outdistanced all other powers that sterling had in every way the best backing of any currency, and traders everywhere prefer to do business in the stablest measure of value. The sterling note was not merely "as good as gold," but better, if only because it was also more convenient. Under the name of the gold standard the sterling standard spread abroad with the help of British prestige and British influence, the desire on one side to borrow in London as cheaply as possible and on the other to safeguard investments and promote trade. The currency in which most international business was done was sterling, even when between countries neither of which was British. While Germany, France and the United States were growing into rivals of Britain, time was also serving to fix more firmly on the world the British financial and monetary system.<br />The war ended this British hegemony without leaving any other power — not even the United States — in position to assume Britain's monetary role in the world. The British government sought to continue it as before, paid a high price to put sterling back on gold, and seemed at first to have succeeded in restoring the pre-war gold standard. But gold and tradition and momentum were not enough to keep it functioning in a world where the unrivalled financial predominance of one power had given way to rivalry among near equals. And so the gold standard crashed between two stools, along with the world's confidence in both the leading monetary rivals, the pound and the dollar.<br />There would seem to be no hope of restoring the enduringly stable money the world enjoyed in Britain's prime without restoring first its essential basis, namely, a single overwhelmingly powerful government that is responsible for it. There can be no such basis while the power which that money must have behind it remains divided among three sovereigns, Britain, the United States and France.<br />PATCHING THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS<br />No thinking person can seriously dispute that it is State sovereignty and the anarchy it creates in a shrinking world which is the basic cause of our main troubles today.. , . It is what prevents the League, for all that it represents the first attempt to organize the world for law and peace, from accomplishing its noble purpose. — Lord Lothian, July 30, 1938.<br />When we turn to the best existing machinery for making, enforcing, interpreting and revising international agreements, the League of Nations, we find that it is itself a patch — though a big one — on the pre-war machinery. The League's "internationalism" is often contrasted with pre-war nationalism as if it were at the other pole. It is really an extension of the same principle.<br />The basic principle of the pre-war system was national sovereignty: Its unit for making, enforcing, interpreting and revising agreement was the state, its equality was the equality of these units, its procedure required their unanimous consent and its highest aim was to keep each state sovereign. The drafters of the Covenant, far from rejecting this, sought to legalize and crystallize it all by converting it from the unwritten to the solemnly signed. They enthroned the pre-war principle in the League and contented themselves with patching the pre-war application of it.<br />Their patching affected mainly two fields, (a) the means of making and revising and interpreting agreement peacefully, and (b) the means of enforcing it. In the first field, the chief means that the pre-war system provided were the permanent diplomatic machinery, isolated conferences, and The Hague panels from which special courts might be made for special questions. To these the League added permanent machinery for regular conference, a permanent secretariat, and a permanent court for all questions. In the second field, the pre-war system provided no international means to enforce international law, or to attain its object, the preservation of national sovereignty, except regional alliances aimed against other alliances. The League patched this by providing a world-wide collective alliance to uphold its law against any state that broke it by resorting to war.<br />THE TWO SCHOOLS<br />All proposals to patch the League consist at bottom in patching either or both of these League patches on the pre-war system. The patchers may therefore be divided into those who concentrate on the conference side of the League's patch on the pre-war system, and those who concentrate on the enforcement side.<br />The first are fascinated by all they imagine the League might do if only the United States joined it; this thought lies at the root of their thinking. The cult of universalism at Geneva is but one of the manifestations of its suppressed desire for American membership. Those who keep saying that the League cannot work because it is not universal really mean they think it cannot work without the United States. The fact, of course, is that the League was built to work without being universal, it was meant to be limited to democracies, — to be, in President Wilson's words, "such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free." But it was not built to work without the United States. Since, however, Americans resented being reminded of this, those who sought to bring the United States in stressed by euphemism the need of universality. This led to the idea that if ony non-membership could be reduced to the United States alone, the American people could not hold out longer and would join, too. From this tortuous thinking developed the habit and then the cult of that Geneva universalism which now holds it worse for the League to lose a member than a principle.<br />The second school is fascinated by all the power that the League wastes. It stresses that even without the United States, Germany, Japan and Italy, the combined power of the 50 odd members of the League would be overwhelming — if only the Covenant effectively harnessed it. This school sees that one can take a much smaller number of powers and by combining better their power make their organization far more effective than a universal league based on the present Covenant, let alone one based on a looser covenant.<br />The first school fears that tightening the machinery will mean practically an alliance against Germany, Japan and Italy. Or it sees that no matter what assurances are given that the alliance is open to these powers the reasons that have already brought them all into conflict with the League will keep them out of it. Tightening the League seems to this school equivalent to resigning oneself to war, for how, it asks, can peace possibly be arranged if all the parties are not around the table?<br />The second school fears that bringing everyone around the table means resigning oneself to war by hiding head in sand, recreating in substance the pre-war situation, where all the world sat round the table at The Hague, but remained divided into prospective neutrals and prospective belligerents, with the latter divided into two great allied camps. When this led to war, the more democratic camp was forced to build up a world coalition to save itself, and the League was designed to provide permanently a democratic coalition so as to prevent the danger recurring. Why dissolve that coalition, this school asks, for another mirage of universal concord only to have to build it up again by this terrible process? Then there are those many who share the hopes and fears of both schools and would combine all the patches in a political "crazy quilt." They would make the League universal by removing its teeth as far as they concern the United States, Japan and other overseas countries. Within this they would have continental compartments organized possibly in America and certainly in Europe on the present basis of the Covenant, except that its military commitment would be dropped and only its non-military sanctions retained. Within these continental compartments they would organize military mutual assistance pacts whereby the neighbors around every danger zone would commit themselves to enforce peace by arms against any one of them violating it.<br />To simplify the task all these patches will be considered under three general headings: (1) the universal conference, (2) the world or big regional collective alliance, (3) the small regional collective alliance or mutual assistance pact. In finding that they are all delusions, we shall see that the combination of them produces only delusion, too.<br />At the outset it may be noted that the patch that consists in bringing the United States into the League as it stands should be ruled out as practically hopeless. But all proposed patches that involve, as most do, serious amendments of the Covenant, whether to weaken or strengthen it, are no less hopeless. Many efforts have already been made to amend the Covenant; all of any importance have failed; there is no reason to expect success in future. Suppose, however, that these hurdles can be cleared, and in good time.<br />THE FUTILITY OF UNIVERSAL CONFERENCE<br />The school that stresses the conference side of the League aims to get everyone regularly around the table by sacrificing the means of enforcing the Covenant. It does not yet explain what revision of the Covenant will bring back Italy, Germany and Japan, keep out Ethiopia, bring in Manchukuo, and still attract the United States to Geneva. Bringing nations around a table does not make sure that agreement will be reached even if they are few in number and seek the same ends. Increasing their number by increasing their divergencies, as by bringing democracies and autocracies together as partners, makes sure only that agreement will be reached very slowly if at all. Could the League have done as much as swiftly as it did in condemning Italy and applying sanctions had Japan and Germany still been members?<br />This patching, moreover, cannot possibly reduce armaments or stop alliances. Since it provides no means of enforcing any peace agreements that do result, each nation must depend as before the war entirely on its own arms, alliances, and secret diplomacy. Finally and most important, no system of law and government has ever yet succeeded without having force, and overwhelming force, behind it. All patching of the League that ignores this is foredoomed to fail.<br />THE FUTILITY OF THE BIG COLLECTIVE ALLIANCE<br />We come to the other school which seeks to avoid the dangers both of no enforcement and of the pre-war alliance by the collective alliance backed by military staff plans for its execution. The case for this collective alliance, whether big or small, has been well put by Sir Norman Angell to whom peace owes so much. Speaking for the Executive Committee of "The Next Five Years Group" in a letter to The Times (London), published March 31, 1936, he wrote:<br />We are warned from many quarters about the danger of "making alliances with France" of conversations between the staffs, and are urged instead to "act through the League." There is certainly some danger here of falling into grave confusion owing to a careless use of words. The danger is not in an alliance — the League itself is an alliance — but in allowing an alliance designed to be the nucleus of a true European society upholding a principle of security which can be applied to all alike becoming an alliance which is in fact a challenge to that principle. The older type of alliance was exemplified in the two groups that confronted each other at the outbreak of the War. The growing power of Germany threatened to deprive us of all means of defending our interests and rights. Germany saw the War close by a hostile preponderance which deprived her of any means of defending her interests and rights and which imposed the Treaty of Versailles. If she was secure, we were not; if we were secure, she was not. The only recourse open to a State threatened by hostile preponderance was to fight.<br />Collective alliances offer another alternative to a state threatened with encirclement; it can join the alliances which encircle it and claim their privileges and protections, the privilege, that is, of impartial judgment in its disputes and protection against war; a defence organized on the principle that an attack on one is an attack on all. The collective alliance offers to others the same protection of law which it claims for itself. The old alliances did not. All forms of the collective method involve the giving of guarantees, undertakings to do certain things in certain circumstances. To say that conversations beforehand as to how these undertakings may best be carried out are dangerous is to condemn the undertakings themselves to unreality. The whole method depends upon the conviction that when the time comes the undertakings really will be fulfilled.<br />There seems no doubt that Sir Norman Angell is right in holding that to keep the potential aggressor in awe of overwhelming opposition one must do more than pledge in advance to give military aid to his victim, one must back this up with concrete staff plans. This staff work triply protects a member of an alliance: It assures him and everyone that his allies mean business, and it tells him precisely what help in men, material, blockade or money he will get and how it is to be used.<br />Moreover, the secrecy of the plan coupled with the knowledge that there is a plan leaves the potential aggressor against whom it is aimed fearful of the surprises that the allies have prepared against his own surprises. Gas, the airplane, the elimination of declaration of war because of the Kellogg Pact, and other things greatly increase the danger that the aggressor will attempt swift and overwhelming surprise attack requiring swift and strong defence to meet it. This makes detailed and secret staff planning in advance by allies — whether collective or not — much more necessary than before 1914.<br />It is practically impossible, however, to provide this planning in a genuine collective alliance, whether it has sixty members or three. Attempts at security through this method therefore also lead inevitably to armaments, pre-war alliances and secret diplomacy.*<br />* This sentence, indeed all this chapter was written early in 1936. I leave it to the reader to consider how subsequent events, such as rearmament, the development of the axis and new Anglo-French Entente, and the shift from Geneva to diplomatic channels, have justified it. I included much of the substance of this chapter in a lecture to the Geneva Institute of International Relations in August, 1936, published by the Institute in the eleventh series of its Problems of Peace. I take this occasion to thank the Institute and its publisher, George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., for their permission to use this material here, the place for which it was originally written.<br />To save the military and non-military commitments of Article Sixteen of the Covenant from unreality by staff planning, the League would need a secret war plan to protect each of the fifty-eight members against aggression by any of the other fifty-seven through alliance of the remaining fifty-six, since each member in this system is potentially victim, aggressor and ally. It would need war plans too against each of the non-Members, and against coalitions of Members, or of non-Members, or of both. Nothing half so complicated is possible. Even if it were the plans would be of small value for they could not be kept secret.<br />Even were the United States in the League, the universal collective alliance must still be practically planless and therefore of no military value to any League member at the time when war begins — when military aid is most needed. It may, of course, help later, and this possibility may deter the potential aggressor. The collective alliance is by no means useless to any peaceful country, and may save it not only from attack but from defeat in the end. But the aim of every government is bound to be to avoid being, (a) overwhelmed by surprise attack, (b) drawn into so long a war that it is ruined even if it wins, or, (c) forced to fight on its own soil. To avoid all this each member of the collective alliance is obliged to depend on his own armed force, to meet the first — and surprise — attack, and to hold the fort thereafter until Geneva can improvise and deliver aid of problematic character, speed and value.<br />Attack means that the victim's trust in the deterrent value of the League has proved unfounded, out-balanced probably by the aggressor's hope that he can sow confusion among the League members, exploit their inertia or divergent interests and delay the League's aid until it comes too late, or prevent its coming at all. These possibilities increase the victim's need of preparing to stand the first shock himself.<br />The upshot is that the League's collective alliance can not reduce armaments. Instead, the League's inability to provide immediate military help together with its possibility of providing decisive help in the end if the victim can only hold out long enough combine positively to encourage each member — or at least those most likely to be attacked — to increase armaments. The League thus leads back fatally to armaments racing.<br />This situation encourages the most exposed members to turn back to the encircling regional alliance to supply the deficiencies of the big collective alliance. Such arrangements as those of France with Belgium, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Rumania, the Little Entente and the Balkan Entente follow. Since no government, and least of all the one against which the alliance is more or less disguisedly directed, can be sure it is really a defensive and not an aggressive alliance, each must seek alliances. The League thus leads back fatally to the pre-war race for alliances.<br />All this encourages secret diplomacy. For these encircling alliances must be so harmonized with the collective alliance that the swift aid given by the one does not cancel the claim for the collective alliance's slower aid. All sorts of formulas have been used to this end, but it is practically impossible genuinely to harmonize the two. League governments cannot possibly avow openly that they are allying in pre-war style against one of their collective allies in the League. They must hide the real purpose of their treaty as well as the inter-staff work which forms the means to its end. The more exposed they are to attack the more deeply they are driven into secret diplomacy. For they then need the more not only to plan with their regional allies against the initial attack but also to obtain the moral support and slower material aid of the big collective alliance. The League thus leads back fatally to secret diplomacy.<br />THE FUTILITY OF SMALL REGIONAL PACTS<br />The consequences of the collective alliance can not be avoided by reducing its membership. To see this we need consider only the smallest pact, the Locarno guarantee treaty and the mutual assistance pact which has been proposed in its place. Here is the difference between them: In the Locarno treaty Britain and Italy agreed to guarantee with their military power France, Belgium and Germany against attack by any one or two of these three, but these three did not guarantee Britain and Italy. In the mutual pact all members would guarantee each other equally; they would form really a small league or collective alliance.<br />The effectiveness of the Locarno guarantee depended on France, Britain and Italy arranging in advance through their staffs secret war plans to repel together German attack on France by any conceivable route. It depended equally on Britain and Italy making similar secret plans with Germany to repel French attack on Germany. It is, however, clearly impossible to do both. Britain and Italy would have to know the secret war plans of both France and Germany, and they would have to divulge the French secrets to the German staff and the German secrets to the French staff. That would require new plans on each side whose secrets would then have to be divulged, and so on. The process would be worse than sterile, it would breed suspicion.<br />The Locarno guarantee was thus at bottom meaningless, but its members never got down to these absurdities. They were too busy with another difficulty. Britain, having no control over the policy of either France or Germany, insisted on keeping its guarantee to both ambiguous so that when a war threat actually rose it might decide for itself what if anything it would do. Before the French staff could plan with the British staff for the execution of the guarantee, the French had first to get Britain to make the guarantee unambiguous and automatic; they devoted ten years to this in vain. The Germans waited to see the result, for they knew that the British would not do more for Germany than for France. So no joint plans were made to execute either guarantee, France and Germany had to rely entirely on their own arms, the one could not reduce them nor the other ask less than equality in them, and the race began. Soon Germany found reason to fear that the French, thanks to Italy's Ethiopian challenge to Britain, had finally got the British to the verge of jointly planning to uphold Locarno's guarantee that the Rhineland should remain demilitarized and unfortified. Germany decided to move before they were ready and occupied that region by surprise March 7, 1936. The Locarno guarantee ended by not being upheld in this flagrant case.*<br />* See Annex 3 for a more detailed analysis of how the principle of national sovereignty destroyed the Locarno treaty.<br />The result was that the British staff then made secret plans with the French staff and London unambiguously guaranteed France and Belgium against German attack while dropping its guarantee to Germany. That means that Britain is even more committed now than in 1914. The British government has sought to escape the danger of this situation by declaring that the commitment is strictly limited to the period needed to replace the Locarno treaty with a mutual assistance pact that would include Germany. But such a pact would make matters worse. For the mutual treaty has all the fatal defects that the Locarno guarantee type has, and it has them to a worse degree.<br />The rock on which Locarno foundered was not that Britain had no guarantee from France and Germany but that Britain could not give an automatic guarantee to either without practically underwriting its policies blindly. Britain does not change this by asking a blind guarantee of its own policy in return; all it does is weaken the guarantee Britain gives. For the fact that Britain asks a guarantee proves that Britain is no longer strong and impregnable enough to defend itself alone.<br />If the new mutual treaty should get past the rock on which Locarno foundered it would run on the rocks that Locarno escaped only by foundering beforehand: The untrustworthiness of such security pacts unless armed with secret war plans, and the impossibility of thus arming them. The basic absurdity in the Locarno treaty was that Britain and Italy had to make and could not possibly make secret war plans with France for war on Germany and with Germany for war on France. A mutual pact makes this absurdity worse for it requires secret war planing amongBritain, Italy, France, against Germany;Britain, Italy, Germany, " France;Britain, France, Germany, " Italy;France, Germany, Italy, " Britain.<br />Could the devil himself devise anything capable of causing more frustration, intrigue and suspicion than this? If no plans are made the door is left open to surprise attack all round. If all the plans could be made they would only cancel each other out. There are only four major possibilities:<br />1. All explicitly agree there shall be no staff planning; this leaves each open to surprise attack and therefore requires each to arm or seek alliances or both.<br />2. Because of the futility and danger of this first course, all implicitly agree to plan but none does; this still leaves each open to surprise attack and encourages each to suspect that the others are planning to attack it.<br />3. Because of the futility and danger of the first two courses, all the plans are made; this leaves each plan cancelling out the others, none of them secret, and all the parties back where they started.<br />4. Because of the futility and danger of the first three courses, any one of them is ostensibly followed, and under cover of this some members make a super-secret plan against another; this changes the pact into a pre-war alliance with all its faults compounded by super-secrecy, hypocrisy and bad faith.<br />Clearly if any government is to feel secure under a regional mutual assistance pact it must trust in the power of its armaments and the secrecy of its diplomacy, not in the pact.<br />So far we have assumed that a Rhine mutual assistance pact could stand alone. But it could not. This is so obvious that none of its supporters has seriously proposed to limit mutual assistance to one region. The idea is to have several of these pacts and to tie them together some way through the League. It consists, as "provisionally" expressed by Neville Chamberlain,* in "localizing the danger spots of the world and trying to find a more practical method of securing peace by means of regional arrangements which could be approved by the League, but which should be guaranteed only by those nations whose interests were vitally connected with these danger zones." Whether left as loose as this or made as tight as Paul-Boncour's elaborate plan, this idea involves mutual assistance pacts on the Rhine and in Eastern Europe, Central Europe, the Balkans, and the Mediterranean, at least. It merely multiplies the difficulties and absurdities of the Rhine pact. Each of these pacts has the defects of the Rhine one, and most of them to a worse degree. The Eastern Pact, for example, would require Communist Russia to plan secretly to aid Nazi Germany against France — and would require (if it is to work) Germany to trust that Russia is as sincere in planning for as in planning against Germany.<br />* In his speech before the 1900 Club, June 10, 1936.<br />The inter-connections of these pacts cause further difficulties. When, for example, Britain and Italy interpret the Rhine pact to mean they must aid Germany against France they may find Russia and Poland interpreting the Eastern pact to mean they must aid France against Germany. Britain, Italy and Germany will not only have to make war plans against France in order to execute their pact, they must plan war against France, Poland and Russia too. The reverse is also true, of course, as are also all the other possibilities, — Britain, Italy, Poland, Germany, against France and Russia, etc., etc. This is only a beginning for there are the Central European, Balkan, and Mediterranean Pacts to be considered, too, in the planning. The possibilities are infinite, and much too bewildering for this system to give confidence to any nation. The method of simplifying by resorting to small regional pacts ends by creating even worse complications than a European or universal mutual assistance pact.<br />The backers of this scheme hope, of course, that all these pacts will be focused together on one state as aggressor, that when, for example, Britain and Italy decide France is aggressor against Germany, this view will be shared by Russia and Poland, so that the result will be five against France. But that possibility does not require nearly the planning that the opposite possibility does for it is not so dangerous. Consequently if Britain and Italy refuse to plan secretly with Germany to meet the greater danger, that Russia and/or Poland should aid France, Berlin must prepare otherwise against the risk of being deserted precisely when and because it needs help most, — and this means more armaments. Moreover, this system so works that the less danger the victim runs the more likely he is to get the promised mutual assistance, and the more danger he runs the less likely he is to get help. What system of law enforcement could be more untrustworthy?<br />This situation forces the backers of this scheme back to the League in order to have at least some means of focusing all the regional pacts on one country as aggressor by this decision being taken simultaneously at the same table. This, however, does not guarantee that all parties will then agree — and it is the possibility of disagreement in fact if not in form that does the damage. Moreover, it is hard to tie such regional pacts to the Covenant without making them so slow and uncertain in action as to make them useless. It will be hard enough to get each of them concluded in the first place, and still harder to enforce the Covenant in any given area without the neighboring powers having planned ahead to enforce it there. One needs only read the Locarno treaty and study how the Council's role in it worked out in fact to appreciate how serious are these difficulties.<br />Finally each government must expect that when the moment comes to apply these pacts, either separately or through the Council, there will be, just then, such unforeseen complications as in March, 1936, when the Locarno violation found Italy playing the triple role of Locarno guarantor, condemned Ethiopian aggressor, and Council member, — sheriff, criminal and judge. One must expect something unforeseen at such times because aggressors always seek to act when such complications exist to favor them.<br />The hope which the idea of regional mutual assistance pacts has raised in many quarters comes from no merit in the idea itself, but simply from the promise of an alternative to a hopeless universal pact and the still more hopeless pre-war system and from the failure to think it through. It owes its favor not to what it is but to what it isn't and to what it is fancied to be. The more deeply one goes into it, the more unworkable, unreal and downright absurd it appears and the less one can escape the conclusion that either its utter futility will throw the world openly back into two armed camps as in 1914 or it will provide merely a blind to hide this fact. The regional pact is no better than the universal one; it leads as fatally to arms racing, alliance racing, secret diplomacy and war.<br />How could such glaring defects as these in the collective system whether on a universal or a regional basis escape so long the attention both of foes and friends of the League and Locarno? For years I have been in the thick of world discussions of this security problem by those most immersed in it without hearing these flaws brought out. I say this in no criticizing spirit but to note a fact that must interest every thinking man, for it concerns process of thought itself. I am in no position to Criticize others for blindness. I have made as thorough a study of the security problem as I could and I confess that these basic absurdities of the League never occurred to me, either, until after sanctions were applied to Italy.<br />Looking backward I find these reasons why the world never got down to these basic absurdities of the collective system.<br />The foes of the League who presumably should have brought them out have not generally been very intelligent or lucid in their criticisms of it; their opposition has proceeded more from prejudice and passion than from reason. The opposition has rarely approached the subject from the premise that some form of world government is necessary and proceeded to deny the conclusion that the League form meets this need soundly. Instead it has usually denied the premise, and held that no world organization, or none with enforcing power, is needed, or is worth the sacrifice of national sovereignty. Often, indeed, the opposition has agreed, at least implicitly, that the conclusion of the League supporters followed from their premise; it has objected to the League not because it couldn't work but because it was supposed to be too strong, a superstate that would work only too well. Denial of the Geneva premise and rejection of its conclusion as too true have especially characterized opposition to the League in the United States and the British Empire, and the success of such opposition in such strong states has determined the development of the whole debate.<br />League supporters had no time to go deeply into the question of collective security. They were too busy defending their premise, trying to work out the problem of relations with the United States, seeking to get Britain to commit itself to the enforcement of the Covenant. They tended to assume that if only the United States would join and would consult, or if only Britain would agree unequivocally to stand by Article Sixteen, or if only the peoples were educated up to the fact that to prevent war they must be ready to assure quick overwhelming military aid to the victim no matter where, — why, then, no difficulty would be left. They knew enforcement was necessary for the maintenance of law and order, they saw no alternative to the League method of enforcement, the opposition offered none, and, being under no pressure to consider whether their method was sound, they simply jumped to the conclusion that it was sound. To get to the core of a matter one must first get below the surface, but the face that the surface is too tough to get through gives no reason to assume that the core is solid. It can still be hollow.<br />GEORGE WASHINGTON COULD NOT MAKE A LEAGUE WORK<br />The League's failure is not due to lack of leaders, lack of real statesmen. In the Geneva Assemblies that discussed the Ethiopian fiasco a number of delegates placed the blame for it not on the Covenant but on men who failed to apply it. It is very doubtful, however, that the greatest statesmen mankind has ever had could make the League of Nations work well enough to meet our needs. History has known other leagues but it has never known statesmen who could make one work successfully. The United States began as a League of Friendship and the fact that even this league worked no better than the League of Nations helps to show that the fault today lies in the system, not the statesmen.<br />The League of Friendship had greater power than the League of Nations, for though it lacked the explicit legal right to coerce members it enjoyed such practical powers as the right to raise its own army, make requisitions, issue money. It was made up of thirteen contiguous states, instead of nearly sixty world-scattered countries. Its member peoples, though much more divided than we now assume, had a common color (white), a common language and a dominant nationality (English), a common mother country, a common religion (Christian), a common tradition (pioneer), a common political theory (democracy). This is not true of the members of the League of Nations. The League of Friendship had a much better political instrument for common action and a far easier problem in cooperation than the League of Nations. Yet the League of Nations has been a success compared to the League of Friendship. Its failures have been in the same fields, and have been relatively no worse; and it has successes to its credit (such as maintaining order in the Saar with a League Army, settling the Yugoslav-Hungarian conflict, establishing some effective treaties, especially the narcotics convention of 1931, and restoring the finances of Austria, Hungary and other States) for which there is no parallel in the League of Friendship.<br />It has enjoyed, too, much more respect and good will from most of its member states. Apart from Italy's withdrawal for political reasons, no member of the League Council except Ecuador has ever failed to attend a single meeting, and only a few of the more backward and unimportant member states have ever missed the annual Assembly. No Geneva meeting has ever been even delayed for lack of a quorum. Compare this with the record of the League of Friendship. The total membership of its Congress was ninety-one delegates but the average attendance in the six years preceding Union was only about twenty-five. Often it could not sit because no quorum came. Things reached the point where Delaware, not thirty miles from Philadelphia where Congress met, decided it was no longer worth the expense to send a delegate.<br />Because of the contempt into which this American Assembly had fallen it was even thought necessary to insert in the new Constitution of the American Union a provision empowering the Union's Congress "to compel the attendance of absent members in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide." The Union Congress has not had to use this power, but the League of Nations not only has never had but has never needed the right to compel attendance.<br />Two things seem to account for the relatively smaller failure of the League of Nations, despite its harder problems, weaker powers and more cumbersome machinery. One is that the general standard of political intelligence and the general level of statesmanship throughout the world has risen considerably in the 150 years since the League of Friendship gave way to the American Union.<br />The other is that communications are now much faster. It took a month for the fastest message to reach Philadelphia, the seat of the League of Friendship, from its most remote members: a delegate took still longer. A delegate to the League of Nations can reach Geneva from any state in half that time — and Geneva can broadcast to the whole world in a flash. The Romans were right: Speed of communication is one of the greatest factors in government.<br />But despite these improvements the best the League can do is not good enough today. We cannot expect statesmen to succeed with it. Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, Madison, — the men who founded so securely the American Union and made so great a success of this untried system of inter-state government, — were all alive when the League of Friendship existed. They tried first to make the league system work. They could do nothing with it. We can not reasonably hope that men even of their calibre can meet through any kind of league our swiftly growing needs today. What we can hope is that once we find the sound mechanism for world government that the American States found in 1787 we shall also find as they did then plenty of able statesmen among the very men we now condemn for failing to make a league work.<br />THE NEED TO START AFRESH<br />With the League and collective security as with the old high-wheeled bicycle we have started in the right direction but on the wrong wheel. For a generation inventors wasted ingenuity trying to make that absurd bicycle effective while carefully preserving the principle of harnessing the power directly to the front wheel axle. That seemed the easiest solution of the power problem, but it was the cause of the bicycle's absurdity, for it forced the front wheel to have a radius as long as a man's leg. When this principle was abandoned, the problem tackled afresh and the power chained to the other wheel, the bicycle became at once effective. True, had the high wheel's absurdity led men to abandon the bicycle itself in despair and content themselves with the horse they would never have solved the problem. It can not be wiser to abandon the League of Nations or any other existing machinery for world government until a better mechanism has been found. Men can not hope, however, to achieve reasonable and effective world government until they do abandon the assumptions which have led to the grotesque and unworkable, and start afresh their thinking on this problem too.<br />We face today the issue that the Thirteen American States faced when their attempt to organize themselves as a league had confronted them with the dangers of war, dictatorship and depression. As the delegates assembled in Philadelphia in 1787 for the Convention called to consider what to do, debate began among them on the question: Whether to attempt merely to patch the League of Friendship or to start afresh? Here is the story as Fiske tells it in his Critical Period of American History:*<br />* See Critical Period, of American History, 1783-1789, p. 249 ff. Houghton Mifflin and Co., Boston and New York.<br />Some of the delegates came with the design of simply amending the articles of confederation by taking away from the states the power of regulating commerce, and intrusting this power to Congress. Others felt that if the work were not done thoroughly now another chance might never be offered; and these men thought it necessary to abolish the confederation, and establish a federal republic, in which the general government should act directly upon the people. The difficult problem was how to frame a plan of this sort which people could be made to understand and adopt.<br />At the outset, before the convention had been called to order, some of the delegates began to exhibit symptoms of that peculiar kind of moral cowardice which is wont to afflict free governments, and of which American history furnishes so many instructive examples. In an informal discussion it was suggested that palliatives and half measures would be far more likely to find favor with the people than any thorough-going reform, when Washington suddenly interposed with a brief but immortal speech, which ought to be blazoned in letters of gold and posted on the wall of every American assembly ... In tones unwontedly solemn he exclaimed;<br />"It is too probable that no plan we propose will be adopted. Perhaps another dreadful conflict is to be sustained. If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God."<br />That settled the question then, and the results gained by following Washington's advice should make its wisdom still more persuasive to us now.<br /><strong>CHAPTER V</strong><br />Why Start with the Democracies<br />We have it in our power to begin the world over again. — Paine, Common Sense, 1776.<br />PLAN OF CHAPTER<br />We must approach afresh the problem of organizing world government, but where shall we start? Shall we begin by trying to organize all the world at once or only a few peoples, and if so, which? This chapter shows why we should start with a nucleus composed only of democracies. Since the more the peoples composing the nucleus are naturally drawn together and the stronger their combined power the better the nucleus will be, the qualifications of fifteen democracies are then examined from both these standpoints and found unequalled. Discussion of whether it would be still better to omit a few or add a few democracies leads next to the conclusion that two things are essential, namely that the nucleus be composed of at least twelve and not more than twenty democracies, and that universality must be the ultimate goal. In this connection the problems raised by various states, such as Czechoslovakia, the Latin American republics, Soviet Russia, Germany, Italy, and Japan, are discussed, and also the general question of relations with non-members.<br />NEEDED: A NUCLEUS WORLD GOVERNMENT<br />The magnitude of the object is indeed embarrassing. The great system of Henry the IVth of France, aided by the greatest statesmen, is small when compared to the fabric we are now about to erect. — James Wilson in the American Union's Constitutional Convention.<br />With frustration for mainspring, the pendulum of world political thought has been swinging between the equally impractical extremes of trying to let each nation move as it pleases and trying to get all the nations to move together. The League of Nations and its still more universal disarmament and economic conferences illustrate the universal method. The first and hardest step in organizing the world is to get agreement on its constitution, and the universal method increases this difficulty (a) by increasing the number upon whose consent agreement depends, and (b) by thus inevitably lowering the average of political culture and experience available to meet the difficulty it heightens. Because universality must be the goal of any plan for world government, many think that the more members at the start the better. But one can not advance far when one tries to make the last step the first step, too.<br />The failures of the two extreme methods, isolationism and universalism, have led to various attempts and proposals to find some half-way ground by restricting numbers. Examples are the Pan America school, Briand's European Federation plan, and the post-war spectre of the old Concert of Powers flickering from Big Three to Big Five around Mussolini's Four Power pact proposal. They all have had two things in common: (1) They base their restriction of members on some factor, such as position on a certain continent or possession of great armed power, which keeps their membership forever restricted and excludes the possibility of growth into universal government, and (2) they have not proved satisfactory even in their restricted fields.<br />There remains what I call the method of the nucleus, which has not been tried. It alone combines the truth in the restricted method with the truth in the universal method, and combines them in their common sense order. It alone seeks to achieve world government through the normal principle of growth, through taking care at the start to select the best seed and then planting it well and cultivating it.<br />This method would have a nucleus world state organized by the peoples best qualified to organize its government soundly on a basis favorable to its peaceful extension round the world, and it would count thereafter on the vitality of this nucleus and the character of its principles for its growth to universality. The nucleus method would turn to the leaders in inter-state government for leadership toward universal government. The rearguard may become the leader when a mass reverses its movement, but if the mass is to continue forward, the vanguard must lead. Some sixty nations make the world political mass, and to count more than fifteen or twenty of them as the vanguard is to confuse the vanguard with the body and the rearguard, and deprive either one's terms of all meaning or the mass of all movement. The political character of the problem, the magnitude of the object and the need of early, sound solution all favor organizing the smallest practical number of the nations most advanced politically into a nucleus world government.<br />THE NUCLEUS NEEDS TO BE DEMOCRATIC<br />The last hope of human liberty in this world rests on us. — Jefferson.<br />What states shall compose the nucleus, the autocracies, the democracies, or a combination of the two? It can not be composed of autocracies alone.<br />They are not strong enough. Their basic political theory is opposed to organizing law and order in the world except by the method of one conquering all. Such governments as the German, the Italian, and the Japanese must organize inter-state government — if they can at all — on their common theory that the people are made for the state. They could not bring the American, British, French, and other democratic peoples under such a government except by force.<br />Nor can the nucleus be composed of democracies and autocracies together. We organize a tug of war, not a government, when we arrange for those who believe that government is made for the people to pull together with those who believe the opposite.<br />The nucleus must be composed exclusively of democracies. To start to make a world government pre-supposes belief in the democratic principle that government is made by the people. It is no accident that the desire for world law and order is strongest among the democratic peoples. It is natural that the democrats should be the ones who want world government, that they should insist on its being democratic, and that they should begin by organizing it among themselves.<br />One can hope, moreover, for the existing autocracies to enter eventually a democratic world government without war. Can one imagine, say, an American Napoleon overthrowing the American democracy and establishing himself as autocrat — in order to submit peacefully to the foreign autocrat ruling an autocratic world government? One can imagine a people overthrowing its autocrat and establishing a democracy in order to gain admittance to a democratic world government.<br />To organize world government soundly we must turn to the peoples most advanced and experienced politically, and this too turns us to the democracies. Peoples that accept dictatorships must be classified, politically, among the immature, or retarded, or inexperienced, high as they may rank otherwise. In admitting to be governed authoritatively, they admit they are not able to govern themselves freely. While men accept being governed as children they must be rated as immature.<br />As the world must turn to the democracies for world government, the democracies must turn to their vanguard. To begin this task in a constituent assembly composed of all the peoples that call themselves democratic is to burden the most experienced nations with those least experienced. It is as well-intentioned and foolish as trying to preserve the Bill of Rights for our children by giving children the vote.<br />The essential, it is worth repeating, is to get government constituted soundly and without delay. One can be sure then that those left out at the start will not be left out long. An example: When the American Union was made the glaring exception slavery formed to the Union's basic principle, all men are created equal, caused much argument. Such great democrats as George Mason, though himself a rich slave-owner, refused to sign the Constitution partly because it did not apply this principle thoroughly enough, and particularly because it allowed the slave traffic from Africa to continue twenty years. The Union could not have been established at all had its Constitution abolished immediately the importation of slaves, let alone extended complete political equality to the Negro, or even manhood suffrage to white men. Failure to form the Union could not have hastened manhood suffrage and the abolition of slavery; it might well have prevented them. Yet, once the American Union was firmly established by slave-owners and other men of property on the principle, all men are created equal, it began applying that principle to all those excluded from it at the start, and it has kept on doing so ever since.<br />This example suggests how all those left out of the world government at the time of its foundation may count themselves nonetheless among those who helped make it possible, for by their absence they helped reduce a hitherto insoluble problem to terms easy enough for sound solution to be reached. It indicates, too, how they gain from such solution being thus made possible. It shows how in organizing a new and democratic government in any community we need to turn to the elements in it — whether wealthy slave-owners or imperial democracies — that have, because of their possessions, the greatest interest in replacing chaos with effective government, and that are at the same time, because of their experience and ideals, best qualified to harness effective government to liberal principles.<br />FIFTEEN DEMOCRACIES AS NUCLEUS<br />Turning from the general to the concrete let us now consider the nucleus that could be formed by these fifteen democracies: The American Union, the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Holland, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the Union of South Africa. By first considering the possibilities that this group offers we can decide better whether to start the enterprise with a somewhat smaller or somewhat larger number.<br />The best nucleus will be composed of those peoples who already have strong natural bonds drawing them together and enough material power to provide them, as soon as they unite, with overwhelming world power in every important field. One can name groups of fifteen countries whose total power will equal or surpass that of our fifteen, but the thing that we must seek is the combination of the greatest power with the strongest natural bonds. The stronger these bonds are the easier it will be to organize the nucleus effectively, and the more effective its organization the greater its combined power will be and the less material power it needs to combine. We shall therefore examine our fifteen first from the standpoint of their natural cohesion and second from that of their material power.<br />THE CLOSE COHESION OF THE FIFTEEN<br />What other nucleus of fifteen has such natural bonds to unite such power as ours?<br />Geographically, they have the enormous advantage of being all grouped (with three undecisive exceptions) around that cheap and excellent means of communication, a common body of water. The Roman Empire spread round the Mediterranean and then through Europe, not through Europe and then round the Mediterranean.<br />But the Mediterranean was not nearly so small and convenient then as is the North Atlantic today. All the most important capitals of the North Atlantic democracies are within five days of each other by steam, one day by gasoline, less than a minute by electricity.<br />A government that bases itself on a continent or sea limits its possibilities of expansion, but a government that is based on the ocean is headed straight toward universality.<br />The culture of our fifteen is inextricably interconnected. Proceeding from the same basic Greek-Roman-Hebrew mixture grafted on the same dominant Teutonic-Celtic stock, the civilization of these democracies has reached broadly the same level. These peoples already do most of their travelling and studying and playing in the area they together own; they are more at home in it than in the outside world.<br />As for trade's strong tie, the fifteen already do most of their foreign commerce with each other. This is particularly true of exports, the side of trade that interests most countries most. The chief market of every one of the fifteen is formed by the other fourteen. Each of them also buys most of its supplies from the territory of the others, except Switzerland which, though situated between two of the autocracies, draws almost half its imports from the democratic group. On the whole 70 per cent of the trade of all our democracies is with each other, 73 per cent of their exports going to and 67 per cent of their imports coming from the democratic group, — while only 11 per cent of their trade is with the Triangle of autocracy.<br />The table on page 92 shows not only this, but also how little our democracies depend commercially on the autocracies and how much the<br />Triangle depends on them for its exports and imports. It shows, too, how weak are the commercial bonds binding together Japan, Germany and Italy. Only Italy does even 21 per cent of its trade with the others. Germany does only 7 per cent and Japan less than 4 per cent. This table speaks volumes.<br />The closest financial and business ties bind our fifteen together. They have built up each other with their savings and trust them to each other at their lowest interest rates. Most of them share the creditor's outlook and difficulties, and they include all the world's creditor powers. Ownership of many of the corporations in each is scattered among the people of the whole group, and their great corporations operate through branches in more and more of the area of the fifteen.<br />Not least are the fifteen bound together by the peaceful, good neighborly relations they enjoy with each other and desire to enjoy with all the world. In all that half the earth which the fifteen govern what acre causes dangerous dispute among them? Their relations in this respect are far more promising than were those among the Thirteen American States when they formed their Union. Not one of the fifteen now fears aggression for any cause from any of the others.<br />No two of the fifteen have fought each other since the Belgian-Dutch war of 1830. There is no parallel in all politics to this remarkable and unremarked achievement of democracy in maintaining peace so long among so many powerful, independent and often rival peoples, burdened as these were with hatreds and prejudices left behind by all the fighting among them before they achieved democracy.<br />Most essential of the ties binding together the fifteen is their common concept of the state. The machinery of government differs among them in detail but in all it is based on the individual as equal unit, it follows the same broad lines of free representative government of the people and by the people, and it aims to assure the same minimum guarantees of freedom to the individual, whether called the Bill of Rights, the Rights of Man, or les Droits de I'Homme.<br />All are devoted to freedom of speech, of the press, of association and of conscience, to the supremacy of civil power and of law made by common free consent of men equal before it. All share the same desire to protect the individual from the mass and assure him the utmost possible liberty within the limits that the liberty of other individuals allows.<br />These guarantees of men to man are "the very life-blood of democracy," as Senator Borah once said. But though he was addressing the Council on Foreign Relations he showed no awareness that at least fourteen other peoples than his own would think that he meant them when he added: "We shall find our highest service, not only to our own people, but to mankind and to the peace of the world, in transmitting these principles unimpaired to succeeding generations. That is our supreme duty."<br />DEMOCRACY AS DEMOCRACY'S MARKET<br />This table shows the percentage of exports sold by each of the Fifteen Democracies to the other fourteen, and of imports bought by each from the others; the percentage of their exports to and imports from the Autocratic Triangle (including Manchukuo, Ethiopia and Austria); and the same thing for each of the latter — Japan, Germany and Italy. Percentage of Trade Percentage of Trade with 15 Democracies with the Triangle 1936 1936 Country Exports Imports Exports Imports DEMOCRACY New Zealand ............... 96 92 4 5Ireland ................... 96 83 3 5Canada .................... 92 86 3 3Union of South Africa ..... 91 82 5 10Finland ................... 82 64 12 21United Kingdom ............ 75 71 6 6Australia ................. 74 80 16 10France .................... 73 66 6 9Denmark ................... 73 62 21 26Norway .................... 69 68 17 18Sweden .................... 69 59 19 26Belgium ................... 68 64 13 12Holland ................... 68 51 17 25United States ............. 58 55 15 12Switzerland ............... 50 44 31 34Average ................... 76 68 13 15Weighted Average .......... 73 67 11 11 AUTOCRACY Japan ..................... 57 67 2 5Germany ................... 56 51 9 7Italy (1934)*.............. 47 51 19 23Average ................... 53 56 10 12<br />* 1934 figures given because the sanctions of the League of Nations made Italy's trade in-1935 and 1935 and 1936 abnormal.<br />General Note: This table is drawn from the League of Nations yearbook, International Trade Statistics, 1936. It tends to err on the conservative side because the source does not give the trade with all the colonial possessions, and the omissions are much greater for the democracies.<br />The fifteen hold this heritage of personal liberty inextricably in common. It did not come from any one of them alone. From the highlands that sheltered the Swiss democracies to the lowlands where rose the Dutch Republic, from the Old World to the New World and back again, through the English, American and French revolutions, first one and then another has helped make possible what freedom the common man now enjoys in all their territory.* Together they have worked out and established the modern theory and practice of democracy. Could one of these free nations be where it is today had its concept of freedom been always its concept alone? Had it had always to fight singlehanded against the world for the Rights of Man? Had each had always to depend only on its own citizens and resources could any of them have handed down its free principles unimpaired? Other nations have no such debt to each other, no such bond among them, as have the free.<br />Geographically, culturally, commercially, financially, politically, historically, our fifteen provide a most cohesive nucleus. No other group of fifteen is so held together by all these bonds or lends itself so easily to our purpose.<br />* In his History of Freedom Lord Acton thus distributes the honors — and rates the freedom of the press as the keystone of democracy: "The Swiss Cantons, especially Geneva, profoundly influenced opinion in the days preceding the French Revolution, but they had had no part in the earlier movement to inaugurate the reign of law. That honor belongs to the Netherlands alone among the Commonwealths. They earned it, not by their form of government, which was defective and precarious, ... but by the freedom of the press, which made Holland the vantage-ground from which, in the darkest hour of oppression, the victims of the oppressors obtained the ear of Europe." (p. 50.)<br />He amplifies this in his Lectures on Modern History: "They [the Dutch] made their universities the seat of original learning and original thinking, and their towns were the centre of the European press ... It [their government] gave the right of citizenship to revolutionary principles, and handed on the torch when the turn of England came. There the sects were reared which made this country free; and there the expedition was fitted out, and the king provided, by which the Whigs acquired their predominance. England, America, France have been the most powerful agents of political progress; but they were preceded by the Dutch. For it was by them that the great transition was made, that religious change became political change, that the Revolution was evolved from the Reformation." (154.) (Macmillan, London, Publisher.)<br />"About the year 1770 things had been brought back, by indirect ways, nearly to the condition which the [English] Revolution had been designed to remedy for ever. Europe seemed incapable of becoming the home of free States. It was from America that the plain ideas that men ought to mind their own business ... burst forth like a conqueror upon the world they were destined to transform under the title of the Rights of Man." (History of Freedom, p. 54-55; Macmillan, London, Publisher.)<br />THE OVERWHELMING POWER OF THE FIFTEEN<br />Shall democracy stop now that it is so strong and its adversaries so weak? — De Tocqueville, 1835.<br />There remains the question of material power, and here the answer is even more decisively in favor of taking our fifteen for nucleus.<br />The following tables may suffice to show that these fifteen alone provide all the power — and more — that the nucleus needs. To bring this out more clearly I have lumped together their power on the one hand and, on the other, that of the only three states from which the democracies fear war — the aggressively absolutist trio, Germany, Italy and Japan. In most items I have also given separately the figures for Soviet Russia and for the rest of the world to help show how relatively feeble any other conceivable combination would be. To give the more conservative view of the relative power of the fifteen democracies and the three autocracies I have included Manchukuo and Ethiopia and Austria as possessions in calculating the strength of the latter but have excluded Egypt and Iraq from the dependencies of the democracies and have included Luxemburg only where its customs union with Belgium made separation impossible. I have excluded other allies from both sides but have included mandated territory on either side. I have included the Philippines among dependencies of the United States since they will remain for several years under American sovereignty. The figures are all taken or computed from data contained in official League of Nations publications.<br />Table 1 gives details of population and area. It shows that the fifteen have a total self-governing population of 280,000,000. In view of the number of their citizens dwelling in their dependencies or abroad it seems fair to put the total number of these democrats at roundly 300,000,000, — especially since it would need only the addition of a democracy or two to surpass this figure. When dependencies are included the man-power of the fifteen democracies swells to more than 900,000,000. The population of Japan, Germany and Italy aggregates only 189,000,000, and when dependencies are added their combined man-power is 260,000,000, — less than a third of that of the democracies. In land-power the superiority of the democracies is even greater, nearly 62,000,000 square kilometers against nearly 6,000,000, or ten times. The population and area of Soviet Russia and of Latin America are also given to assist those who would add them to one group or the other.<br />Table 2 measures the world power of our fifteen in 30 essentials. It gives in per cent their joint share of the world total of each, that of the three autocracies combined (including Manchukuo, Ethiopia and Austria), that of Soviet Russia, and that of the rest of the world. In all but six of these essentials the fifteen have more than half of the world total — and in most things one does not need to have half the supply to control the world, divided as it is. In four of the six, — artificial silk, land area, population, and wheat production, — the fifteen have more than 40 per cent of the world total. In the other two, potash and raw silk, the fifteen have 25 per cent of the first and more important.<br />TABLE 1 POPULATION AND AREA (END OF 1936) Population Population Area (Sq. Km.) without with with Dependencies Dependencies DependenciesCountry and Group (thousands) (thousands) (thousands) DEMOCRACIES: United States .......... 128,840 144,505 9,694United Kingdom ......... 47,187 505,528 14,299France ................. 41,910 112,358 11,558Canada ................. 11,080 11,080 9,543Netherlands ............ 8,557 75,135 2,085Belgium ................ 8,331 21,898 2,471Australia .............. 6,807 7,758 7,936Sweden ................. 6,267 6,267 448Switzerland ............ 4,174 4,174 41Denmark ................ 3,736 3,779 347Finland ................ 3,603 3,603 388Ireland ................ 2,954 2,954 70Norway ................. 2,894 2,895 389Union of South Africa... 1,944 [1] 10,060 2,058New Zealand ............ 1,585 1,659 272 Totals ................. 279,869 913,653 61,599 AUTOCRACIES: Japan .................. 70,500 136,678 [2] 1,984 [2]Germany [3]............. 75,347 75,347 555Italy .................. 42,677 51,497 [4] 3,329 [4] Totals ................. 188,524 263,522 5,868 Soviet Russia .......... 175,500 175,500 21,176Latin America .......... 127,540 127,540 20,479<br />1 White population.<br />2 Including Manchukuo.<br />3 Including Austria and the Sudetens.<br />4 Including Ethiopia.<br />Source: League of Nations Statistical Yearbook, 1937.<br />The combined power of the fifteen democracies stands out the more when compared to that of the three aggressively autocratic countries. The latter have more than 50 per cent of only two of the 30 — potash, which Germany controls, and raw silk, which Japan almost monopolizes. They have together more than 20 per cent of only five of the 30 essentials. Where in 23 of the 30 the fifteen have more than 60 per cent control in half the 30 the three have less than 8 per cent control.<br />The deeper one goes into this table, the more overwhelming appears the position of the fifteen and the feebler that of the only countries from which the democracies now fear war. It is precisely in the things that are most essential whether to modern civilization or to war that the fifteen are most powerful and the autocracies weakest. The democracies produce more than 95 per cent of the world's rubber and nickel, the autocracies none. The autocracies have<br />less than 1 per cent of the oil, and cotton,<br />less than 2 per cent of the tin, natural phosphates and wool,<br />less than 3 per cent of the known gold reserves,<br />less than 4 per cent of the gold production,<br />less than 5 per cent of the world's area,<br />less than 8 per cent of the ground nuts, iron ore, copper ore, lead ore and motor car production,<br />less than 11 per cent of the air traffic.<br />In all these 16 things except area the fifteen democracies have more than 60 per cent of the world total, and in all but cotton and lead they produce in their own territory more than 65 per cent of the world total, with high ratings in motor cars, gold reserves, ground nuts and tin. They also have more than 63 per cent of the world's trade, electricity and coal, and more than 70 per cent of the butter, merchant shipping, wood pulp and sulphur.<br />The fifteen democracies, in short, are shown by this table to be in a position to control overwhelmingly the world's most essential raw materials — minerals, fuels, textiles, chemicals, foodstuffs — its manufacturing resources in such things as steel and wood pulp, its transportation resources in such things as ships and motor cars and airplanes, its commerce in general. One can extend the table's list of essentials but this will not change the picture of decisive world power in the hands of fifteen democracies, it will only emphasize it.<br />TABLE 2 THIRTY MEASURES OF WORLD POWER<br /><br />15 Democracies<br />ThreeAutocracies<br />SovietRussia<br />RemainingCountries<br />Measure<br />Per Cent of World Total in 1937<br />Nickel production*<br />95.8<br />0.0<br />3.0<br />1.2<br />Rubber production<br />95.2<br />0.0<br />0.0<br />4.8<br />Motorcar production<br />90.2<br />6.3<br />3.1<br />0.4<br />Ground nuts production*<br />90.0<br />5.0<br />0.0<br />5.0<br />Gold reserves (known)<br />89.6<br />2.9<br />1.6<br />5.9<br />Sulphur production<br />82.2<br />15.5<br />0.0<br />2.3<br />Wood pulp production*<br />76.2<br />17.0<br />3.2<br />3.6<br />Iron ore — (m.c.)*<br />72.7<br />6.9<br />12.7<br />7.7<br />Tin production (m.c.)<br />72.2<br />1.1<br />0.0<br />26.7<br />Gold production.<br />72.2<br />3.9<br />16.8<br />7.1<br />Butter production*<br />71.2<br />16.2<br />5.6<br />7.0<br />Merchant ship tonnage<br />70.1<br />17.5<br />1.9<br />10.5<br />Air traffic (miles flown)*<br />66.7<br />10.8<br />14.4<br />8.1<br />Petroleum production<br />66.0<br />0.3<br />10.0<br />23.7<br />Copper production (m.c.)*.<br />65.0<br />6.7<br />4.8<br />23.5<br />Foreign trade (value)<br />65.0<br />18.0<br />1.1<br />15.9<br />Coal production<br />65.0<br />18.8<br />9.4<br />6.8<br />Raw cotton production<br />64.7<br />0.6<br />10.0<br />24.7<br />Natural phosphates production*.<br />64.2<br />1.5<br />29.3<br />5.0<br />Electricity production*<br />63.1<br />19.0<br />7.9<br />10.0<br />Wool production*<br />63.0<br />1.8<br />5.2<br />30.0<br />Lead production (m.c.)*<br />61.6<br />7.6<br />3.3<br />27.5<br />Steel production<br />60.6<br />21.4<br />13.1<br />4.9<br />Aluminum production (smelter) .<br />56.3<br />34.1<br />9.1<br />0.5<br />Silk, artificial, production<br />47.7<br />48.4<br />1.3<br />2.6<br />Area<br />46.3<br />4.4<br />16.0<br />33.3<br />Population ...................<br />43.1<br />12.3<br />8.3<br />36.3<br />Wheat production .............<br />42.6<br />11.6<br />23.3<br />22.5<br />Potash production*............<br />25.2<br />63.6<br />6.0<br />5.2<br />Silk, raw, production*..........<br />0.4<br />86.6<br />3.1<br />9.9<br />* 1936, figures for 1937 too incomplete, (m.c.) Mineral content of ore.<br />This table is computed from data in League of Nations Statistical Yearbook, 1938. For other explanations see text.<br />One can emphasize it perhaps better by pointing out two things. First, even the figures in the table underestimate the power of the democracies, because (a) the citizens of the fifteen own or control a substantial share of the raw materials, factories and means of transportation in the rest of the world, and (b), the figure fifteen understates the number of democracies in the world and leaves out of account many other countries who would stand with the democracies in the event of attack by the autocracies. Second, even if one lumps Soviet Russia with Germany, Japan and Italy, the four together have more than one-third of only eight of the 30 essentials (raw silk, potash, artificial silk, steel, wheat and aluminum), and less than one-fourth of 21 of the 30 — including only 3 per cent of rubber, tin and nickel.<br />Table 3 shows the relative financial power of democracy and autocracy, as indicated by the banked wealth of the fifteen and of the three, dependencies excluded from both sides. It shows that each democratic citizen averages nearly five times more money in the bank than each autocratic subject, and that the banked wealth of the fifteen is more than seven times that of the three. Excepting the special case of France — that wealthy people which is habituated to keeping its savings in the sock or in bonds or abroad rather than in the home bank — the per capita banked wealth in each democracy is greater than the highest per capita rating among the autocracies. With the exception of Finland, Belgium, and Holland, it is more than twice as great.<br />Table 4 throws more detailed light on the buying, selling and trading power of the fifteen democracies and the three autocracies, dependencies again excluded.<br />The figures for the fifteen are divided into three groups, the three great democracies, the eight small European democracies and the four British overseas democracies, to allow their comparative trading importance to be seen. This brings out the fact that the trade of the three great democracies alone is more than twice as important to the world as that of the three great autocracies, which is barely greater than that of the eight small European democracies.<br />Per capita the democratic citizen is two and a half times more important to the world as a market than is the autocratic subject and twice as important as a source of supply. The trading power per capita of democracy is more than twice and absolutely it is nearly four times greater than that of autocracy.<br />TABLE 3 DEPOSITS IN COMMERCIAL AND SAVINGS BANKS 1937 Total DepositsCountry and Group (In millions(Dependencies excluded) of dollars) Per Capita FIFTEEN DEMOCRACIES:United States .................. $59,000 $458United Kingdom ................. 19,678 417France [1]...................... 3,290 78Switzerland .................... 3,267 783Canada ......................... 2,835 256Australia ...................... 2,190 322Sweden [2]...................... 2,035 325Netherlands .................... 1,165 136Belgium ........................ 1,106 133Denmark ........................ 975 261Ireland [3]..................... 900 305Union of South Africa .......... 743 382Norway ......................... 609 210New Zealand .................... 570 359Finland ........................ 340 94 Totals ......................... 98,703 360 THREE AUTOCRACIES: Germany [4]..................... 6,788 94Japan .......................... 4,606 65Italy .......................... 2,727 64 Totals ......................... 14,121 76<br />Computed in devaluated dollars from data in League of Nations Monetary Review, 1938.<br />1 1936 commercial bank deposits. The misleadingly low per capita figure for the French, who are famed for thrift, is partly due to French habits of keeping money outside banks and, recently, France. French deposits, for example, are partly responsible for Switzerland's high per capita figure.<br />2 1936 savings deposits.<br />3 1935 savings deposits.<br />4 The exchange problem presented by the artificial character of the reichsmarks and the variety of other marks has been solved by exchanging reichsmarks into dollars at an estimated depreciation of one third. Most other currencies have depreciated more than this and the mark has been estimated high so as to be conservative. Austrian deposits have been included at the official exchange rate for the schilling.<br />TABLE 4 BUYING, SELLING AND TRADING POWER (In thousands of "old gold" dollars, 1937) Country and Group Total (Dependencies excluded) Imports Exports Trade GREAT DEMOCRACIES: United Kingdom ............... $2,787 $1,523 $4,310 United States ................ 1,779 1,946 3,725 France ....................... 1,003 565 1,568 Totals ....................... 5,569 4,034 9,603 SMALL EUROPEAN DEMOCRACIES: Belgium ...................... 546 508 1,054 Netherlands .................. 504 373 877 Sweden ....................... 318 300 618 Switzerland .................. 244 174 418 Denmark ...................... 214 201 415 Norway ....................... 187 119 306 Finland ...................... 118 121 239 Ireland ...................... 127 65 192 Totals ....................... 2,258 1,861 4,119 OVERSEAS DEMOCRACIES: Canada ....................... 479 665 1,144 Union of South Africa ........ 311 363 674 Australia .................... 293 343 636 New Zealand .................. 131 155 286 Totals ....................... 1,214 1,526 2,740 TOTALS, 15 DEMOCRACIES ......... 9,041 7,421 16,462 THREE AUTOCRACIES: Germany ...................... 1,299 1,406 2,705 Japan ........................ 634 532 1,166 Italy ........................ 430 324 754 Totals ....................... 2,363 2,262 4,625<br />Source: League of Nations World Trade Review, 1937.<br />Table 5 indicates the existing armed power of the democracies and of the Triangle, dependencies included. All figures on existing armaments are bound to be very faulty, and for more reasons than those touched on in the notes attached to this table. Much has been said of the secret armament of Germany, but there is really secret armament everywhere. While Germany has been feverishly preparing, the others have been, too. Bluffing, concealing, lying to fool adversaries into thinking that one is stronger or weaker than one really is — this has always been so elementary a principle of military strategy that all armaments figures need always to be regarded skeptically.<br />The figures in Table 5 have been drawn where possible from the Armaments Yearbook of the League of Nations as giving with all their faults the most authoritative picture of relative strength.<br />Britain's dominating position in the pre-war world was based on a navy equal to that of the two next strongest powers put together. Table 5 shows that to attain this two power standard as regards the only countries that threaten war, and to attain it not only on the sea but on the land and air sides, the fifteen democracies, once united, would need to disarm instead of arm.<br />Yet Table 5 reflects only dimly the real war power of these democracies as compared to that of the Triangle, for it omits potential power. To get a true picture one needs to consider this table in connection with the other tables, especially Table 2 which shows the overwhelming superiority of the democracies in war essentials. The autocracies are like poker players who make a strong impression by putting most of their money on the table, while their opponents (the democracies) put only their small change on it and keep the rest in their pockets.<br />These tables suggest that the fifteen have more than enough power to form a sound nucleus world government. They suggest, indeed, that the fifteen have so much power that the problem of ending the present chaos and organizing the world is nothing more nor less than a problem in organizing these few democracies. It appears from these tables that it is unfair to blame the depression on the Mussolinis and Hitlers; their countries weigh too little in the economic balance. The economic, financial and monetary world war we have been suffering appears from these tables to have originated and continued among these fifteen democracies, for they control the world in raw materials, manufacturing, transportation, finance and trade. The only creditors able to cause the runs on the schilling, mark, pound, dollar, French franc, Swiss franc and guilder were the dollar, pound, franc and guilder nationals. They are clearly the only ones responsible for the lack of stable money. It would seem evident that to end once for all world monetary insecurity and economic war there is needed only agreement among our fifteen to quit fighting each other and to organize law and order among themselves.<br />TABLE 5ARMED POWER National Navy Air Force, Defense Tons Number ArmyGroup and Country Expenditure Built and of Planes Effectives(Colonies in Millions Building (2) (3)included) 1937-1938 1937 1937 1937 DEMOCRACIES:Britain and India .... $1,458.3 1,354,865 4,000* 689,600United States ........ 993.2 1,378,595 3,150* 405,200France ............... 598.5 [4] 639,182 5,000* 733,300Belgium .............. 48.4 — 210 85,900Sweden ............... 46.3 82,378 330* 36,200Netherlands .......... 41.3 67,882 500* 66,300Canada ............... 35.5 5,424 183 54,600Australia ............ 33.1 42,360 32 29,800Switzerland .......... 24.5 — 330* 180,000Finland .............. 20.1 9,620 180* 39,700Denmark .............. 11.2 12,360 150* 12,300Norway ............... 10.4 29,687 220* 14,200Union of S. Africa ... 8.5 800 38 15,700Ireland .............. 7.9 — 16 17,200New Zealand .......... 5.0 16,745 28 9,700 Totals ............. 3,342.6 3,639.898 14,369 2,389,700 AUTOCRACIES:Germany [1]........... 405.7 311,980 2,700* 232,600*Japan ................ 349.8 916,933 3,800* 528,600 [6]Italy ................ 540.0 547,108 3,000 550,000 Totals ............. 1,295.5 1,776,021 8,500 1,311,200<br />Later figures: The latest authoritative Great Power figures, obtained in December, 1938, from a high source, raise British expenditure to $1,620,200,000, French to $805,400,000, Italian to $712,000,000, Japanese to $1,035,600,000 (including Chinese war), and German to $4,400,000,000 (including construction of war factories, airfields, reserves of arms and munitions); British fleet to 1,758,000, French to 643,489, Japanese to 1,194,260, and Italian to 862,174; British army effectives to 850,000, German to 750,000, Italian to 724,630, and Japanese to 1,230,000 (but this last is not peacetime establishment).<br />The same source increases British warplane figure to 6,200, German to 9,900 and Italian to 4,710; it cuts the American figure to 2,176, the French to 2,212, and Japanese to 3,130. (Excluding training planes and those it deems obsolete.) Its figures give a misleadingly strong picture of autocratic air power because it necessarily omits the potential and defensive advantages of the democracies. Potentially, for example, the United States is far stronger in aviation than Germany. This is true for fliers as well as building power for Germany has a much lower per capita figure for automobiles and a much higher one for ox or cow drawn vehicles than America, France, Britain, or the United States. Moreover, one must count in on. the defensive side anti-aircraft guns, etc., as well as planes, whereas for offense first-line planes alone count, and even enormous superiority in them has not proved decisive in the Spanish and Sino-Japanese wars.<br />The latest figures, in short, do not change the underlying picture of relative strength which the table gives when one keeps in mind the potential power of the democracies, the tremendous superiority in smashing power needed at the outset for successful aggression, and the fact that there is no question of anything but defense by the democracies.<br />The following notes refer to the figures in the table, which I have not amended since it is based on the latest official source that can be cited.<br />General note: Unless otherwise noted, all figures are taken or computed from the Armaments Yearbook, 1937, of the League of Nations (referred to here as A. Y.) and are the latest given there, if they are not — as is usually true — for the year mentioned at the head of each column.<br />(1) Germany. Since Germany gives no official figures except for the navy, the other figures are estimates. I estimated the war expenditure figure had increased since 1934 (the latest official one) at the rate at least that Japan's had increased in that period in yen. The resulting figure makes German expenditure about equal to that of France. I reached the estimate for German war planes by taking the mean between official French and Russian estimates. The army estimate is taken from A. Y. 1936.<br />(2) War planes. Since the figure from Germany was based on French and Russian estimates (see note 1), the figures for the countries marked (*) were taken from a comparable German source, Jahrbuch der Deutschen Luftwaffe, 1938. It gives figures later than those in A. Y. and all of the same date. The others are drawn from A. Y.<br />(3) Army effectives. In all countries reserves and naval effectives (except marine corps) have been excluded and air and colonial forces included. The military systems vary so much that it is practically impossible to obtain comparable figures. The aim here has been to keep the general picture from being too out of proportion on any side. In all countries on a volunteer basis forces, such as the National Guard in the United States, the Territorial Army in the United Kingdom, the militia in Canada, etc., have been included. In all countries on a militia or short-term conscription basis such as Switzerland, Denmark, Holland, etc., the figure includes the number of men doing military service, regardless of the number of days done. In countries on a long-term conscription basis, such as France, Italy, Japan, etc., the figure given represents the number of permanent and conscript troops in service.<br />(4) This figure is a mean between maximum and minimum figures.<br />(5) Peacetime establishment, 1935, latest normal figure in A. Y.<br />(6) Peacetime establishment, '34-35, latest normal figure in A. Y.<br />The tables tell throughout the same story. It is democracy that brings the individual not only freedom in its narrower political sense, but wealth and power; it is autocracy that blights. It is democracy that is curiously under-estimated even by those whom it has most benefited; it is autocracy that is wildly over-rated.<br />These figures should dispose of the theory that what ails the world is the power of the dictatorships. They make the talk of fascism's triumph and democracy's decadence seem ridiculous. The seat of an inferiority complex is in the mind; the best doctor can not cure it if he starts by diagnosing it as ulcer of the stomach, and he risks killing the patient by his needless operations. It can not be safer to keep treating the body democratic for pernicious anemia, whether with old-fashioned drugs or new patent medicines, when all that ails it is a trifling lack of mental and muscular coordination that can be remedied with a little common sense and practice.<br />The facts are: Fifteen democracies together practically own this earth, and do not know it. Each of these democracies was made to secure precisely the same object, the freedom of man, and they all forget it. These democracies have no one but themselves to blame for their difficulties and to fear for their freedom, and they do not see the beam for the mote.<br />United, these fifteen are (within human limits) almighty on this planet. They are united in holding dear the Rights of Man, but not in maintaining them throughout the land of the free. They are united in practising the principle that in union of free men there are freedom and peace and prosperity as well as strength. But they do not practise it beyond their borders even with each other to preserve it against those who sacrifice the freedom of man to the freedom of his government. United, these fifteen democracies become impregnable, secure beyond danger of attack, and the world is made safe for individual freedom and saved from further economic and monetary warfare. But they are not united. There and nowhere else is the rub.<br />Disunion among these democracies is the source of their ills, and of the world's. The problem of organizing world government is the problem of organizing government among only a few democracies.<br />THE TWO ESSENTIALS<br />A right result at this time will be worth more to the world than ten times the men. — Lincoln, Message to Congress, July 4, 1861.<br />Why the figure fifteen? Why not a few less, a few more? There is nothing hard and fast, nothing mystic in my choice of fifteen. I came upon this number originally in 1933. The widespread assumption then of the weakness of democracy ran counter to my own observations and I decided to make a study of the relative power of the democracies and the autocracies. To be conservative I limited the democracies to fifteen whose inclusion promised to be non-controversial. The results of this study, which were published at the time and which have been brought down to date in the preceding sections of this chapter, led me to study why these democracies did not unite and how they could best unite, and thus led to this book.<br />This should make evident that I attach no decisive importance to the figure, fifteen. There are only two points with regard to the nucleus (aside from the manner in which it is organized) that seem essential to me. One is that it should be composed of between twelve and twenty of the most experienced or otherwise best qualified democracies. The other is that the nucleus should make quite clear from the start that the restriction in the number of founders is intended only to make possible and hasten the organization of effective world government, that other states accepting this democratic government will be admitted to it by a simple majority vote — as with the admission of new states in the United States — and that universal world government by peaceful growth is the ultimate aim.<br />TWELVE TO TWENTY FOUNDERS<br />You must realize that when Stanley Baldwin said the other day in the House of Commons that the Rhine is now the frontier, he may not have been speaking in terms of military organization at all. He may have been speaking in terms of political, civil and economic ideals. All that is left of organized Liberty is west of the Rhine — the Scandinavian countries, Holland, Belgium, France, Switzerland, Great Britain, Canada and the United States. Therefore our responsibility is tremendous. — Nicholas Murray Butler addressing the American Club of Paris, June 20, 1935.<br />FEWER THAN FIFTEEN?<br />Some may think it better or easier to begin with the English-speaking world, or a British-American-French combination, but I believe both have serious disadvantages. Among the grave defects of a single language are these: It gives the nucleus an offensive air of exclusivity. It tends to falsify and limit the basic democratic principles of equality and freedom, to alarm the old and powerful democracies it excludes, and to encourage hostile combinations. It deprives the nucleus of the great advantage of strength so overwhelming from the start that no possible combination can come near it. It is, moreover, badly balanced internally: The overseas contribution to its citizenry would be about 145,000,000 against 49,000,000 from the British Isles, or three to one; the American element would have nearly twice the voting strength in it of the British Commonwealth. Neither can be expected to accept such a combination without misgivings, if only because it exposes the Americans to the dangers of a precarious foothold on the edge of a powerful and possibly offended European continent, while it exposes the British to absorption. An English-speaking union calls on its members, particularly in England and the United States, to make much more direct and therefore greater sacrifices of pride than does organization on a broader base. It allows the British opposition to exploit everything as a sacrifice to the Americans, and vice versa, with freedom rather than pride and prejudice the thing most liable to be sacrificed by both in the end.<br />The value of a common language for the purposes of organizing interstate government has been over-rated, I think, and the value of common political principle under-rated. I attach much more importance to the latter, particularly at the start. Surely it is easier to maintain effective democratic government among peoples of common political principle but different languages (consider the experiences in Switzerland, Canada, Union of South Africa), than among people of the same language but of opposing political principles (consider the American war for independence, the American Civil War, the Spanish Civil War).<br />Many of the objections to an English-speaking union are reduced by bringing in the French, but they are not reduced enough. From the French viewpoint such a nucleus is ill-balanced and unfavorable to freedom of language, tradition, etc.; it means four English-speaking votes for one French. The questions of pride and prestige remain vexatious when organization is confined to three great historical peoples. If one can not in the name of freedom and equality unite Americans and British and fail to invite the French, one can not fail to invite too the Dutch and Belgians and Swiss and Scandinavians who have contributed so much to freedom and equality and have shown so long how dear they hold democracy. If one could morally justify their exclusion at the start, there would be no material advantage or political wisdom in it.<br />The material contribution the small European democracies bring has already been shown. On the political side they make several contributions. They make the nucleus better balanced: The voting population would be 130,000,000 in Europe, 150,000,000 overseas. These smaller democracies bring the advantages of variety at the start without the disadvantages of too much of it. Thus, the fifteen are divided practically into only two racial stocks, Germanic and Latin, two religions, Protestant and Catholic, five major language groups, English, French, Scandinavian, Dutch, Finnish, — and most educated people among the latter three already know some English or French.<br />To each of the last four language groups the presence in the nucleus of the other three would be a strong safeguard against an undue domination of English, while to the English-speaking peoples the existence in the nucleus of these other languages would be a standing guarantee against hysteria sweeping through it and against the centralization of government they abhor. For official purposes in the few fields where the nucleus would govern one could limit languages to English and French as the League does. The League's experience has brought out many advantages, especially for the deliberative functions so essential to democracy, in having two official languages.<br />The presence of the small European democracies in the nucleus would be a standing token both to those inside and outside it that this government was genuinely based on the principle of freedom and equality for all men — not simply for men of one race or one language. That I consider to be of high political value.<br />To hold together solidly three great stones it often helps to take some small stones to fill the holes. An example of the beneficial effect gained in inter-state organization by the mere addition of small countries to big ones may be seen in the fact that whereas the Four Power Pact had to be drafted in four languages, Germany and Italy were able to accept English and French as the only languages in the Fifty-seven Power League, If the small European and overseas democracies did not exist it would almost be necessary to invent them for the purpose of bringing the Americans, British and French to swallow false pride in a constitutional convention, compromise and adjust their differences, and agree on a definite detailed constitution. It is not, however, essential that the nucleus include every one of these small democracies. If a few of them balk at coming in, the nucleus could be formed without them as the American Union was constituted without Rhode Island. If a few should seek to drive as dangerous a bargain as did South Carolina and Georgia in the American Constitutional Convention — where they refused to allow free trade to be established in the Union until they were guaranteed continuance of the African slave traffic for twenty years — it would seem wiser to go ahead without them. It would be preferable, however, to include them all, if reasonably possible. That brings us back to the figure, fifteen.<br />MORE THAN FIFTEEN?<br />Why not go on and include more than fifteen? We have already seen that the line must be drawn somewhere but why not add four or five or one or two democracies such as Czechoslovakia and at least one Latin American Republic? Twenty is not too many for the nucleus constituent assembly, if they draft this constitution by simple majority vote as the American States drafted theirs. There would seem to be no decisive objection to the fifteen raising the number of founders to twenty by inviting whatever democracies they agreed it was wise to add, and requiring only, say, three great power ratifications for the constitution the assembly drafted to go into effect. I have preferred to draw the line at fifteen at this stage mainly because of these considerations:<br />Once the generous minimum needed for a sound nucleus is reached at fifteen, the addition of other democracies may still be desirable. Since such additions are not necessary, however, one should lean backward to avoid slowing or endangering the organization of government by including elements liable in any way to rouse controversy or other difficulty.<br />Even if one keeps to the fifteen, the inclusion of Finland, for example, may be attacked on the ground that it would give the nucleus a common frontier with Soviet Russia, and this might cause other democracies to hesitate to join in organizing the nucleus through fear of being drawn into too close contact with the communist state. I do not share such fears, but I am concerned with the danger of their existence among others making the foundation of world government harder. Should there rise serious reason to believe that inclusion of Finland in the nucleus would delay its organization it seems to me that it would then be in the interests of the Finns as much as any one to let Finland wait till the others had actually established the nucleus. The Finns need not fear being left out thereafter, and they do need to fear failure to create this government.<br />What has been said regarding Finland applies only more strongly to the Spanish and Czechoslovak republics. Their great services to democracy and their magnificent struggle for it against terrifying odds make me desire keenly to include them in the nucleus. I have nonetheless omitted them because it seemed to me wiser and more in their interests as well as ours to leave this question to be decided by the prevailing opinion among the other democracies after they have accepted the idea that a nucleus should be formed. I hope I am wrong but I fear that for me to include in it either or both of these republics would make many consider their inclusion essential to my proposal that a nucleus of democracies be organized and cause them to oppose it from fear of being drawn immediately into war by Spain or Czechoslovakia. It seems to me that no democracies stand to gain more than these do from anything that hastens the formation of a nucleus of democracies, and that none stand to lose more than they from anything, however well-intentioned, that keeps any such nucleus from being formed, or delays its formation.<br />As for the inclusion of one or two Latin American republics, the main difficulty I see is that this might be found offensive to other Latin American states and might lead inevitably to the inclusion of so many as to bring the number of founders beyond the maximum of twenty and cause much needless argument and delay in the constituent assembly.<br />WHAT OF SOVIET RUSSIA?<br />At the moment when mines are being laid to blow up the organization in which were fixed the great hopes of our generation, ... when, by no accidental coincidence, decisions are being taken outside the League which recall to us the international transactions of pre-war days, ... when there is being drawn up a further list of sacrifices to the god of aggression and ... nothing succeeds like aggression, — at such a moment, every State must define its moral responsibility before its contemporaries and before history. — Maxim Litvinoff, U. R. S. S. Foreign Commissar, addressing the League of Nations Assembly, Sept. 21, 1938.<br />There remains the peculiarly controversial case of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. The mere fact that many democrats would class it among the dictatorships and that many other democrats regard it as an advanced type of industrial democracy suffices, it seems to me, to prove the practical wisdom of not including it in the nucleus but at the same time being careful not to push it into the arms of the absolutists.<br />Certainly Soviet Russia's political theory and practice differ radically from that of Japan in admitting no divine right monarch, and from that of Germany and Italy in denying the nation's supremacy over man. These three countries make the accident of birth the all important thing in politics, and Soviet Russia shares the democratic abhorrence of this theory that makes men bow down before blind, arbitrary force outside them. Far from contesting the democratic principle that power over men should not descend forever by accident of birth within a family or a nation or a race, communism like socialism seeks to apply this theory particularly in the field of economic power. It shares the democratic theory that all men are created equal.<br />It is democratic again in seeking to apply this theory to those to whom it is most applicable, those to whom it is now least applied. Nazi Germany holds all Germans to be equal, but not all men; it holds those born Germans superior to others, particularly to those born with any Jewish blood. Soviet Russia draws no national, race, color or sex line; where it discriminates among men it is always because of things they have acquired, such as ideas or property, and never, in principle, because of the accident of birth.<br />I deplore the Soviet departures from democratic equality but I condemn them less than legal discrimination based on factors which men cannot change or escape no matter what they do. Men can always change their minds, their views on politics or economics, and free men frequently do; they can acquire and lose property, the poor among them can become conservatives and the sons of the rich can turn communist. But one can not possibly change the color of his skin or the race of his grandfather; to exclude men from equality on such grounds is to put them in a hopeless position, it is to punish them not for doing but for being; it is stupid, cruel, and the very antithesis of democracy.<br />Democrats can not quarrel with Soviet Russia because of its use of collective machinery. Democracy itself introduced collective machinery into politics; this machinery's extension to other fields can not be necessarily undemocratic. What democrats can not admit, however, is that the extension of collective machinery to economic fields must be necessarily and always through state ownership and administration, as Soviet Russia seems to believe. But if the democrat must object to the communist tendency to extend — particularly through the state — collectivist machinery simply for its own sake, he must object equally to the same tendency in capitalist society to maintain willy-nilly the method of private enterprise, whether or not it is promoting individual freedom. Neither is common sense, both are fetish worship.<br />It is a profound mistake to identify democracy necessarily or entirely with either capitalist or socialist society, with either the method of individual or of collective enterprise. There is room for both these methods in democracy. Individual enterprise in certain times and fields best serves individual freedom. In other times and fields this end of democracy requires collective action, and in still others, a combination of the two methods. Democracy requires society to be so organized that it is free to choose between or combine these methods peacefully at any time and in any field.<br />It is here that Soviet Russia unquestionably falls short of democracy. Democracy not only allows mankind to choose freely between capitalism and collectivism, but it includes marxist governments, parties and press as well as laissez faire governments, parties and press. Soviet Russia allows no such choice and no such freedom in its territory, even under its new and more democratic constitution. Is this Soviet policy one of temporary expediency or one of permanent principle? If it is the former, Soviet Russia must be classed with the immature democracies. If it is the latter, Soviet Russia must be classed among the absolutists, for its real end then is not to serve individual freedom and equality but merely to preserve and strengthen one form of the state, and a form that makes the state all-powerful in everything.<br />The practice of the marxist theory in Russia, it may be added, has necessarily been influenced by the fact that the Russians have always been accustomed to absolutism and bureaucracy. One can no more expect them to rid themselves of their past in a few years than fascists can hope by revolution to end quickly democracy in the United States or in any other people long habituated to individual freedom. Allowance made for popular habit and training, even the practice of marxist theory in Russia has undoubtedly so far marked a substantial net advance for democracy over conditions there before.<br />It is true that before Hitler and Mussolini began attacking democracy, the communists were attacking it, though their attacks seemed often due to their confusing the laissez-faire economic theory with democracy. They often talk still as if the marxist theory inevitably harnessed the individual to the collectivity rather than the collectivity to the individual, as the democratic theory does. We need more time to answer definitely whether Soviet departures from the basic principles of democracy have been matters of expediency or principle.<br />All we need to note for the present is that whereas basic Nazi political theory is incompatible with democracy — if only because it flatly and aggressively rejects for purely racial reasons democracy's root principle, all men are created equal, — basic marxist political theory may easily be compatible with democracy, however much it (like capitalism in Germany, Japan and Italy) may also be made to serve the ends of absolutism.<br />UNIVERSALITY THE ULTIMATE GOAL<br />Freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of association, are the ideals which inspire progress not only in the continents of America and Australia, but also in the countries of Asia. — Harold Butler, Director, International Labor Organization, 1938, Report.<br />We come to the second essential, that no limit whatever be placed on the power of growth of this nucleus, that its constitution make explicitly clear that it is meant to grow peacefully into universal government. If it is in the interest of the freedom of the individuals of fifteen countries to unite, it can not be in their interest to bar themselves in advance for any reason whatsoever from uniting with other men whenever it seems wise to them to do so, and when these others desire it too. Any exclusivity would run counter to the freedom for which the government would be made and would fatally turn against the nucleus those excluded and thus, at best, expose it to unnecessary dangers.<br />An easier way of safeguarding the new government could hardly be devised than provision for unlimited expansion backed up by definite pledge that it aimed to attain universality peacefully. This simple clause would serve the nucleus far better than doubling its army. It would soothe in an honorable way the pride of those democracies which were left out of the nucleus at the start, and thus make it easier to keep the original nucleus down to a small number. Assurance that democracies later admitted would enjoy absolute equality, that — as in the United States — no distinction whatever would be drawn between them and the founders, would be proof that questions of pride had not determined the choice of founders. Certainly Americans born in Missouri or Montana or even naturalized feel no less pride in being Americans than do those born in Virginia or New York.<br />In this connection it can not be stressed too much that this government is to be created not so much by democratic states as by the individuals in them. Though many states must be left out of the nucleus, nothing prevents individuals anywhere from helping found it. In the founding of the United States there was room for such Englishmen as Tom Paine, such Frenchmen as Lafayette, such Germans as von Steuben, such Poles as Kosciusko. Their fellow nationals still take pride in their contribution to the United States. Men like Paine and Lafayette contributed more to the American Union than did some of its founder states. In the work of establishing a nucleus world government there will be similar room for individuals of this calibre from no matter what outside nation. I am confident there will be Germans, Italians, Japanese and other individuals from states outside the nucleus who will contribute more to its foundation than will a good many citizens of the founder democracies.<br />Provision for unlimited growth would, then, help to establish world government both by enabling its constitution to be made by a minimum of states and by encouraging individual democrats in all outside states to give the movement their whole-hearted aid. It would also serve, once the nucleus was established, to strengthen enormously its powerful natural position. By rousing hope of membership, it would draw the immature democracies still more closely to the nucleus. It would keep them from falling, through despair or offended pride, into the hands of the absolutists. It would encourage them to practise and not merely profess democracy at home, for that would be the surest way for them to attain the great advantages which membership would bring.<br />The admission of new members from time to time would help this world government to remain a powerful stimulus to democracy everywhere; it would need no propaganda bureau. Would not the establishment of genuine freedom of the press in, say, Soviet Russia, be hastened by the wish to join this world organization?<br />The provision for ultimate universality on the basis of equality among all the citizens would be particularly useful in removing the danger which absolute militarism in Italy, Japan and Germany now holds for democracy. This provision would enlist within these countries all the active force that can be needed to replace their present regimes with democracy. Up to a few years ago the democratic movement in all these countries was much stronger than in many immature democracies; it succumbed sooner to absolutism because it was more exposed. The repressive measures taken by the absolutists in Italy since the Matteotti assassination in 1924, in Japan since the Manchukuo adventure in 1931, in Germany since only 1933, make it impossible to say how strong the democratic element within these countries is today. These measures themselves are, however, proof enough that the autocrats governing these countries — with all their secret information regarding public or, rather, private opinion in them — remain afraid of their democrats.<br />Since the autocrats are already afraid of their own people overthrowing them, how much more will they fear the democratic movement from within once the German, Japanese and Italian democrats know that only by overthrowing their autocracies can they gain the equality, freedom, security and other advantages membership in this world government would bring? Would this situation encourage the autocrats to go to war in the hope of thus saving themselves? Nothing would speed their downfall faster than such an attempt to escape it. Even were their people solidly united under them, such a war against the democracies would still be utterly hopeless. An autocrat who to divert his people from revolution arms them for a clearly hopeless war is simply arming revolution.<br />COOPERATION MEANWHILE WITH NON-MEMBERS<br />The policy of the nucleus toward non-members pending their admission should be whatever policy would best advance the freedom of its citizens. The nucleus could cooperate with the other nations through the League of Nations or diplomatic channels. Inheriting all the voting and veto power its members now have in the League, it would have as strong and safe a position there as the United States now has in the Pan American conferences. By the admission of new members it would gradually absorb the League until that institution disappeared. What the nucleus should do to aid Spain, Czechoslovakia and China, and whether the nucleus should make the Covenant and Peace Pact its Monroe Doctrine, its warning to absolutism to keep hands off the immature democracies, are among the questions that the people of the nucleus need not decide until they have organized themselves. Then they will find that — thanks to their having organized themselves strongly — they have greatly simplified these questions and made them much easier to solve without resort to arms.<br />Every consideration would urge them to be a good neighbor to all. No one will deny this as regards the weaker outside countries that would be awaiting admission. Can any democrat deny it as regards the others?<br />I see no reason for hostility between the nucleus and Soviet Russia and many reasons why both should be good neighbors. Hostility by the nucleus to Soviet Russia would mean making what is now a hollow Triangle a solid one, and greatly increasing the strength of autocracy. Hostility by Soviet Russia to the nucleus would mean putting Soviet Russia at the mercy of its only aggressive enemies. I would favor admitting Soviet Russia to the nucleus as soon as it guaranteed freedom of the press and the other Rights of Man to the minimum degree common to the peoples in the nucleus. A world government whose principle of freedom not only allows but encourages the United States to retain its republic and Great Britain its monarchy could not refuse Russia its soviet. For Russia to try to promote freedom in its territory by communist experiments is no worse than Sweden trying to do the same by socialist experiments, or others by capitalist experiments — once Russia guarantees her capitalist and other opposition the same freedom to express and advance their views peacefully as the capitalist democracies guarantee their opposition.<br />Nor is there reason for the nucleus to adopt a hostile policy toward such autocracies as Japan, Germany and Italy. To think of this nucleus as a sort of democratic Holy Alliance is to misunderstand it completely. Where despots joined in the Holy Alliance to restore absolutism abroad the democracies would unite to preserve their freedom at home from despotism. For absolutists to unite suffices neither to overthrow democracy nor even to preserve absolutism; they must, because of absolutism's nature, still depend on force, the force by which the Holy Alliance sought its end. To endanger absolutism the free, however, need but unite. Three million free Americans, by merely establishing their small distant Union in an absolutist world, started a movement that since then has swept despots from thrones and established republics all over the world. Why then should a colossal nucleus of nearly 300,000,000 free men need to raise a finger against the few feeble autocracies left? It needs but exist for democracy to flourish and autocracy to fade.<br />It was not because the old democracies were united and strong that the Italians and the Germans lost their freedom. It was because the free had weakened freedom by their divisions, their disunion, their economic war. Had a strong government of the democracies been created in 1919 instead of the League of Nations there would never have been a Fascist or a Nazi state, and probably democracy would rule Japan today. When, and only when, this world democratic government is created may one look forward confidently to the end of absolutism among the German, Italian and Japanese peoples. They have sacrificed their liberties because they were deluded — partly by their sufferings from the effects of disunion among the democracies — into thinking that the only kind of equality possible is equality on the mystic nation-to-nation basis, and that sacrifice of their personal freedom and self-government is the price of their individual self-respect. When this world democratic government is founded they will know that only by first establishing their rights as men can they gain the kind of equality that really counts with them as with everyone — equality on a man-to-man basis with the freest men and women on earth. I do not expect to see the Germans, Italians and Japanese among the last peoples added to the nucleus. I expect to see them prove themselves worthy to be among the first.<br /><strong>CHAPTER VI<br /></strong>How to Organize the Democracies<br />All men are created equal. — Declaration of Independence.<br />That only holds men together which aggregates all in a living principle. — Whitman.<br />A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles ... (is) absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty, and keep a government free. — Pennsylvania's Declaration of the Rights of Man, 1776.<br />PLAN OF CHAPTER<br />We examine afresh in this chapter the basic principles of all interstate government in order to solve our next problem: How shall world government be organized among the few democracies with which it must begin? Basically there are only two ways of organizing inter-state government — the league way and the union way — and we must choose between them.<br />We have already examined the League of Nations enough to see that this particular application of the league method offers no solution and that we must approach the whole problem anew, both as regards the states to be organized and the method of organizing them. Having now narrowed the problem down to one of organizing a few democracies prudence requires us to re-examine more thoroughly the league method to learn whether this problem could possibly be solved by any type of league or could be solved only by union.<br />To this end this chapter analyzes the two methods first from the standpoint of their fundamental principles, leaving it to the next chapter to consider the application of these principles to the problem of organizing our democracies. First, that is, we examine the principles of all government to learn the essential characteristics of these two methods and the basic difference between all leagues and all unions. We trace this to their difference in unit. Then, in the next chapter, we apply the two opposing principles and units to the problem at hand by subjecting the league and the union methods each to three tests.<br />WHY THE CHOICE IS BETWEEN TWO UNITS<br />To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider what state all men are naturally in, and that is a state ... of equality. — Locke.<br />Nationality does not aim either at liberty or prosperity, both of which it sacrifices to the imperative necessity of making the nation the mould and measure of the State. — Acton.<br />The essence of our system of democracy ... has been the freedom of the individual as against the tyranny of government, and equality of rights among individuals. The essential test of man's security in that freedom and in that equality lies ultimately in the underlying conception of his relation to his government. Does that government exist for him as was announced in our Declaration of Independence? Can the individual man standing on his own right make secure his freedom by means of free speech, free discussion, a free press, and in the last resort by the invocation of the aid of an independent judiciary? Or, on the other hand, do all his rights come from his government and does his security depend solely upon the privileges which that government sees fit to grant him? These are the two essential conceptions of individual rights which have been fighting in this world during the past thousand years. They met on the battle front in the recent war and the issue was decided in favor of our system. We shall not reverse that decision. — Henry L. Stimson, Democracy and Nationalism in Europe, 1934.<br />Many who agree that our problem is to organize inter-state government among a few democracies are likely to assume as a matter of course that these must be organized as a league. This is partly because it requires some effort to get rid of the habits of mind formed during all the years in which the problem was seen as one of organizing the whole world at once, and to see that narrowing the problem down to a few democracies makes union become possible. The mere fact that the League of Nations exists leads many to conclude that despite its faults the only practical thing is to build on it some way or other. Others are not yet convinced that the League's failure results from the league system and ascribe it to minor defects or to men lacking the will to apply the Covenant. Then there is the widespread belief that the principle of national sovereignty is now so deeply rooted that it is hopeless to go against it. For such reasons all thinking on the problem of world organization still seems to center on the league method.<br />I too began this way. When it dawned on me that the problem was to organize not the world but a few democracies I first thought that they should form a league. No doubt such a league would be better than the League of Nations. The longer I have studied the problem both in practice and in theory, however, the more I have come to believe that a league at best offers no solution to it and that the only possible solution is union.<br />To explain why, I shall try first, before turning to the more practical aspects with which I am mainly concerned, to simplify theory on a complicated question whose difficulties are evidenced and, I fear, augmented by the monumental literature already devoted to it. I am afraid I may be misunderstood or found naive or shallow by the more academic of the experts in this field, but I run this risk in the hope of making some important points clearer to the mass they bewilder with their technical terms or fail to reach.<br />Every science has its units, though political science seems to neglect them. One rarely finds political organization analyzed according to its unit or hears the term, unit, used in constitutional discussions. Yet government, whether state or inter-state, has to be government of some unit, by some unit, for some unit. Since in all human organization, whether political, economic, or other, men must be taken either singly or plurally, that is, as individuals or as subordinate parts or cells of an organized body, there would seem to be, in the constitutional field that concerns us, only two basic units, Man and the State.<br />In solving the problem of what the relations of man to man shall be by organizing themselves as a body politic, men raise a new problem: What shall be the relation between each of them and the whole of them, between the individual and the collective or "plural man," — Hobbes's "great Leviathan called a commonwealth or State which is but an artificial Man," — of which he forms a part and helps create?* This question, which usually rises so gradually as to pass unperceived and to be solved at first unconsciously, has the importance for political organization that a continental divide has on the course a raindrop will take on reaching earth.<br />* To simplify matters and for other practical reasons I confine the discussion of this problem of the relation between individual and collective man to the more generally accepted political terms for the latter unit. Those who would organize men by economic groups according to the work they do, or by any other system, — in the Ottoman Empire men were organized according to religious belief, — instead of organizing them as they are now politically organized, that is, according to where they live or were born, need only substitute for State or Nation whatever term for and type of organized collective man they prefer. The underlying principle that there can be only two units, men taken singly as one or plurally as one, and the problem of their relations is what concerns us here and they remain basically the same whatever may be the collective unit or its name. Those who still think I stick too much to the 18th century are referred to Chap. X, last section.<br />However imperceptible it may be, the point where a continent divides Into two opposing slopes suffices, though two raindrops fall only an inch apart on either side, to send each inevitably to oceans worlds apart. So it is with our political problem. Just as the divide has only two basic slopes, and these are hidden amid those running every direction in the labyrinth of mountains around it, there are basically only two answers to this question of the relations between man and the state.<br />Either one must consider man as a cell in the body politic, a means to an end, the state supreme and the individual subordinate to it. Or one must consider man as himself the entity and the state as his tool, a means to his ends, the individual as supreme and the state as subordinate. Compromises between the two extremes are, of course, possible, but in the last analysis men in organizing government must either allow themselves to be taken plurally as parts of something greater and organized with the organization as unit and end, or they must take themselves singly and organize on the basis that they themselves constitute the equal units and the equal ends of their organization.<br />The solution that relegates the individual to the role of cell is a mystic one. Its indivisible unit, the body politic, is, as Hobbes admitted, an imaginary body. Unlike individuals it has no flesh, no blood, and can neither live nor die in the common sense of the words. Men can pretend to endow the state with their own attributes, they can work themselves into believing their own make-believe. They can not change themselves from an organic whole into an organic cell, least of all into the cell of so abstract a body as the body politic. The individual remains indivisible, individual, and the body politic is always dividual.<br />The solution that would create the state in the image of man out of men tends to carry its false and mystic analogy to the point of reducing men as far as possible to cells with specialized hereditary functions. It leads to governing power over all the people being given to a special class or person as absolutely as power over the body is given to the head. It reaches its ultimate expression when some one man, whether Louis XIV or Adolph Hitler, declares, "I am the State." This is the absolutist conception.<br />The opposite conception has nothing mystic about it. It centers in the tangible fact that individual man is a living, indivisible, independent entity, that he has blood not ink in his veins, that he can enjoy life and suffer death, that he has deep within him a longing to be more independent, to be freer from everything that hems him in and holds him down, and to live his own life, and that his most vital interest and dearest possession is himself. This conception gives majesty not to the state but to Man. It treats the state as only an instrument made by man for his own benefit as he has made houses, weapons, tools, — a great instrument, but still an instrument. It sees nothing intrinsically more sacred in a method of government than in a method of transportation. It judges each according to the service it renders the living individual, — and that depends on the conditions in which he must live, for as the automobile is better for men than the horse where there are roads, the horse is better where no roads exist.<br />Men of this second conception do not refuse, simply because a mechanism is a political one, to scrap it in favor of a better one. Their attitude toward the existing form of the state is at bottom the attitude of men toward the existing form of any instrument for doing what they want, one determined less by gratitude for past service to them than by their present and future needs and desires. They dismiss as contrary to observe fact and common sense the theory that men of one family or class are born to rule and others to obey. They delegate but never alienate their governing power; they carefully safeguard their right to re-delegate it; they employ men to serve them in politics as in anything else. This conception of politics, in short, begins with the plainest facts, proceeds by reason, sticks to the ground; it keeps its emotion and its awe for Man. It is the democratic conception.<br />The question, which shall be the unit, man or the state, is then a basic question in political organization. That becomes clearer when we pass from the general to the particular field that concerns us, inter-state government among democracies.<br />In a union by our definition each man counts for one; it follows that in a union the states with more men count for more than the less populous ones: Union is based on the principle of equality for men rather than for states. In a league each state counts for one; therefore the citizen of the least populated state counts for more than the citizen of the most populated one: There is equality for states but not for men. A union organizes inter-state government of, by and for the people of each state as individual men and women; a league organizes government of, by and for the states as states, as individual bodies politic made up of men and women as cells.<br />We must choose between these two units; we cannot have both supreme. Many, it is true, think that union or federal governments use equally man and the state as units because they usually balance equal representation of men in one legislative house with equal state representation in the other. This, however, does not make the states units in our sense, units whereof, whereby and wherefor the union is made. What union does is to divide not government between two units but the fields or powers of government between union state and member state, both of which it organizes with the same unit, man. In it men govern their local concerns through the state and their inter-state concerns through the union, but both governments have the same relations to the men concerned — they are both made of individuals, by individuals, for individuals.<br />Equal state representation in one union house does not upset this for what it provides is not representation of the state government, as in a league, but representation of the people in the state, — a very important difference. It is made to preserve the basic division between the powers of the state and union governments. It safeguards the people of each state against the union government invading the field left to the state government, just as the popular house in a union safeguards the people of the whole union against the state governments invading the union's field. Both are checks made by the people against the centralizing tendency of all government, the former checking centralization in the union government and the latter checking it in the state governments.<br />HOW THE UNIT SHAPES THE END<br />We must organize inter-state government, then, either with man or the state as unit, and the importance of this choice will be still clearer when we understand how our choice of unit determines the real end toward which our government will be directed. At first it may seem that it is the end for which we organize government that determines our choice of unit. That was long my own belief, but it assumes that men act more logically than they do. We should no doubt always proceed by first deciding clearly what we want to get and then deciding how best to get it. But usually we start with a very vague idea of what we want, and often our thought is so confused that we end by finding that our expressed aim is not at all the one we really want. In practice we can set out to organize government for the sake of ourselves but defeat our end by choosing the wrong unit, whereas by choosing the right unit we shall willy nilly achieve this end, however confused we may be about it.<br />Clearly the real end which the democracies had in mind when they organized the League of Nations was to organize world government for the sake of the individual: They sought to make the world safe for democracy. But this did not suffice to make them choose the democratic unit. From confusion due to various causes they chose instead the opposite unit and organized a league of states.<br />When we take the state as unit we are led into taking the state as sacrosanct. When we organize a government of states we are bound to have its laws bear on them as units, for if they bear directly on the citizen regardless of his state government the state is not the unit and the citizen is. Our government must therefore govern state government, not individual men. Our choice of the state as unit obliges us also to provide that our inter-state government shall be by these state governments for if we provide inter-state government directly by the people in the states then the states can not be equals, for the more populous will have more representatives than the less populous. In order to have this government of and by states, we are bound to provide government for the sake of these states, to preserve their integrity, equality, independence, sovereignty. That is precisely what we were led to do in the League of Nations by our choice of unit, and we have not been making the world safer for democracy.<br />Our choice of unit has led us instead into trying to make it safer for national sovereignty first of all, and we have succeeded only in making it safer for absolutism. Instead of making government for men we have organized men for the sake of government. We have turned our democracies into houses divided each against itself, governing inside by the democratic unit and governing outside by the absolutist unit. The two will not mix, and the unit taken in the broader field tends to become supreme in the smaller field. And so each of the democracies has been driven, since they organized as a league, into strengthening the state against its citizens in order to strengthen it against other states, into centralizing more and more power in each national government. By confusion and frustration we have been led to the rampant nationalism we are suffering and to the dogma of the divine right of the nation which Hitler preaches. Practising absolutism toward others has led us into practising absolutism toward ourselves. Not our will nor our desire but the unit we chose has shaped our course and end.<br />Conversely, we may aim to organize inter-state government for the sake of the member states, but if this time we choose man for unit we shall again defeat our end. Whatever our express purpose, the fact that we organize government of men inevitably undermines the position of the member states as states and strengthens the position of their citizens as individuals. It is as hard to promote absolutism in states by organizing inter-state government with the democratic unit as to promote democracy among them by organizing them on the absolutist basis. In each case it is the unit chosen in the broader field, no matter why or how, wittingly or unwittingly, that shapes the course of government in both fields.<br />Where the League of Nations illustrates the one case, the American Union illustrates the other. Though none of the drafters of its Constitution favored absolutism, many of them sought by it to check democracy. Even the strongest champion of democracy among them, George Mason, "admitted [Madison noted] that we had been too democratic." Most of the drafters seemed from what they said, more concerned with safeguarding the rights and powers either of the state governments or of the central government than with strengthening the powers of the citizens. The unit they chose, however, was man. True, this was hidden in such confusion that they called the result the United States instead of the United Americans, and it took a civil war and Lincoln to make indisputably clear that they had constituted not government of, by and for the states but government of the people, by the people, for the people. Yet when we analyze the Constitution we shall see how thoroughly they took man for their unit, and when we study the history of the American experiment we shall see how immediately, continuously and tremendously this unit has worked to promote democracy not only in America but everywhere.<br />NATION — THE MODERN JANUS<br />Much of our confusion now roots in our two-faced use of nation to mean both people and state, and in the tendency to use the former to mean race, too. The way democracy has developed has contributed heavily to this ambiguity. Democracy grew first in one existing state and then in another. By replacing royal sovereignty in an existing state with popular or national sovereignty it seemed to make nation and state one. According to democratic theory the nation (in the sense of a people) made the nation (in the sense of a state) to preserve the freedom of the nation (in the sense of a people). The nation seemed thus both means and end, though in reality the nation-state or nation-unit was the means and the nation-people, the individuals in it, was the end.<br />In his far-sighted essay, Nationality, that great liberator of the mind, Lord Acton, pointed out in 1862 that the theory of nationalism had already come to cover two opposing ideas which he called the theory of unity and the theory of liberty. The latter is our democratic or individualist conception of the nation, the former the Fascist or Nazi or absolutist conception of it. For my part, I would limit the term nationalism to this absolutist conception for, as Acton feared, it usually means this today. To free ourselves from our present confusion, to distinguish between the great good and the great evil that the nation can do us and our individual liberty, and to keep the good while avoiding the evil, we can not do better than re-read what Acton wrote prophetically of nationalism when this theory began creating modern Italy and Germany. Here are the more important passages, taken from his illuminating History of Freedom:*<br />* History of Freedom, p. 288 ff., Macmillan, London.<br />In one case, nationality is founded on the perpetual supremacy of the collective will, of which the unity of the nation is the necessary condition, to which every other influence must defer, and against which no obligation enjoys authority, and all resistance is tyrannical. The nation is here an ideal unit founded on the race, in defiance of the modifying action of external causes, of tradition, and of existing rights. It overrules the rights and wishes of the inhabitants, absorbing their divergent interests in a fictitious unity....<br />While the theory of unity makes the nation a source of despotism and revolution, the theory of liberty regards it as a bulwark of self-government, and the foremost limit to the excessive power of the State. Private rights, which are sacrificed to the unity, are preserved by the union of nations.<br />No power can so efficiently resist the tendencies of centralization, of corruption, and of absolutism, as that community which is the vastest that can be included in a State, which imposes on its members a consistent similarity of character, interest, and opinion, and which arrests the action of the sovereign by the influence of a divided patriotism.<br />The presence of different nations under the same sovereignty is similar in its effect to the independence of the Church in the State. It provides against the servility which flourishes under the shadow of a single authority, by balancing interests, multiplying associations, and giving to the subject the restraint and support of a combined opinion. In the same way it promotes independence by forming definite groups of public opinion, and by affording a real source and centre of political sentiments, and of notions of duty not derived from the sovereign will.<br />Liberty provokes diversity, and diversity preserves liberty by supplying the means of organization. All those portions of law which govern the relations of men with each other, and regulate social life, are the varying result of national custom and the creation of private society. In these things, therefore, the several nations will differ from each other; for they themselves have produced them, and they do not owe them to the State which rules them all. This diversity in the same State is a firm barrier against the intrusion of the government beyond the political sphere which is common to all into the social department which escapes legislation and is ruled by spontaneous laws.<br />This sort of interference is characteristic of an absolute government....<br />The combination of several nations in one State is as necessary a condition of civilized life as the combination of men in society. Inferior races are raised by living in political union with races intellectually superior. Exhausted and decaying nations are revived by the contact of a younger vitality. Nations in which the elements of organization and the capacity for government have been lost, either through the demoralizing influence<br />of despotism, or the disintegrating action of democracy, are restored and educated anew under the discipline of a stronger and less corrupted race.<br />This fertilizing and regenerating process can only be obtained by living under one government. It is in the cauldron of the State that the fusion takes place by which the vigor, the knowledge, and the capacity of one portion of mankind may be communicated to another. Where political and national boundaries coincide, society ceases to advance, and nations relapse into a condition corresponding to that of men who renounce intercourse with their fellow men....<br />Those [States] in which no mixture of races has occurred are imperfect; and those in which its effects have disappeared are decrepit. A State which is incompetent to satisfy different races condemns itself; a State which labors to neutralize, to absorb, or to expel them, destroys its own vitality; a State which does not include them is destitute of the chief basis of self-government. The theory of nationality, therefore, is a retrograde step in history....<br />It is a chimera. The settlement at which it aims is impossible....<br />It must contribute, therefore, to obtain that which in theory it condemns — the liberty of different nationalities as members of one sovereign community....<br />Nationality is more advanced than socialism, because it is a more arbitrary system. The social theory endeavors to provide for the existence of the individual beneath the terrible burdens which modern society keeps upon, labor. It is not merely a development of the notion of equality, but a refuge from real misery and starvation. However false the solution, it was a reasonable demand that the poor should be saved from destruction; and if the freedom of the State was sacrificed to the safety of the individual, the more immediate object was, at least in theory, attained.<br />But nationality does not aim either at liberty or prosperity, both of which it sacrifices to the imperative necessity of making the nation the mould and measure of the State. Its course will be marked with material as well as moral ruin, in order that a new invention may prevail over the works of God and the interests of mankind. There is no principle of change, no phase of political speculation conceivable, more comprehensive, more subversive, or more arbitrary than this. It is a confutation of democracy, because it sets limits to the exercise of the popular will, and substitutes for it a higher principle. It prevents not only the division, but the extension of the State, and forbids to terminate war by conquest, and to obtain a security for peace. Thus, after surrendering the individual to the collective will, the revolutionary system makes the collective will subject to conditions that are independent of it, and rejects all law, only to be controlled by an accident.<br />Mussolini and Hitler, by carrying the theory of nationalism to its logical absurdities, have made clearer now how right Acton was and is.<br />It was not this that Mazzini and Cavour saw in nationalism; they preached national unity in the interest of individual freedom, the rights of nations as a means to the Rights of Man. So, too, did the French, British, and Americans from whom they drew their theory. But, as we have seen so strikingly in Czechoslovakia, — where the democratic theory of the rights of nations has been used to strengthen the declared foe of democracy and deprive three million Germans of their rights as men, while endangering those of seven million Czechs — all the liberal fathers of nationalism were unwittingly fathering, too, the absolutism of Hitler and Mussolini. These liberals with their interchangeable use of nation to mean a sovereign democratic people and a sovereign state led men insensibly into assuming that the people, or nation, is a unit as natural and human and living as man himself. Thinking of domestic affairs, they used nation to mean ten million heads working freely together to make each one freer, and then, thinking of external affairs, they used nation in the next breath as if these individuals had melted or should melt into one composite head ten million times greater, — and as usual the conception in the greater or supreme field grew supreme. With this tendency to personify there slipped in the inevitable tendency to glorify and then deify this giant champion of individual freedom and complete the myth. Mysticism too abhors a vacuum.<br />Considering how far the most advanced democracies have gone in this direction it is not surprising that the peoples who got from them their democratic and their national theory together and who looked to them vainly for leadership should have gone still further astray. It was only to be expected that these peoples who had no long background of sturdy, rational individualism to brake the centralizing tendency, whose background had been formed instead by long sufferance of absolutism, and who had only recently thrown off divine-right rulers, should fall a prey to the mystical absolute nationalism of the Mussolinis and Hitlers.<br />But the great danger now to our freedom and theirs does not lie in their mistakes, it lies in the confusion among the older democracies. It is only our own nationalism, not theirs, that can prevent our union. Indeed, the nationalism of Hitler and Mussolini is doing much to drive the democracies back to their senses, and to force them to apply to each other their own democratic principles. It is for us of the older democracies to take the lead in undoing the damage we have done by failing to think things through, failing to read long ago Lord Acton's handwriting on the wall.<br />It is for us first of all to remember that nation and state are bloodless words and that the millions of us men and women they represent are living individuals — not mystic symbols, legalistic abstractions, composite photographs. We know our millions form together a unit only in desiring the freedom to have our own individual opinion about everything and to tell it to the world, to be our different selves and live our own lives. We know we never grouped ourselves into a nation and instituted government to melt down our differences into uniformity. We know we made the nation only as a step toward making the world safe for the enjoyment of these individual liberties and individual differences. We know now that the next step we need to make toward this end is to unite ourselves in a world democracy. It is for us who know better to do better, and cease blaming others for our ills.<br />Mussolini is always right. — Benito Mussolini.<br />You are nothing, your nation is everything. — Adolph Hitler.<br />Too solid to be overthrown? The livery stable business never seemed more solid than the day the first garage opened.<br />Reduce power diplomatics to mathematics and its falsity leaps out for it would have us believe that we over them are greater than we beside them, that A/B is greater than AB, and that 2 times 2 makes less than 2 or 1.<br /><strong>CHAPTER VII</strong><br />League or Union? Three Tests<br />Man is not the enemy of man but through the medium of a false system of Government. — Paine.<br />The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing when it is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors. — Mill.<br />We may now turn from these general considerations to more particular reasons why we must organize our democracies as a union instead of a league, to the reasons why leagues are undemocratic and unions democratic, why leagues can not work and unions can, why leagues can not be trusted to enforce law and unions can. In other words, we shall now submit our choice to the super-state test, the practical test and the acid test, exposed respectively in these questions:<br />Is it democratic? Can it work? Can it be trusted? We thus find the basic reason (1) why leagues at best encourage autocracy and the super-state while unions make for democracy and tend to lessen the state's power over the individual and increase his power over it; (2) why leagues at best can not reach agreement in useful time while unions can; and (3) why unions, but never leagues, can be relied on to enforce their laws and eliminate inter-state war.<br />1. THE SUPER-STATE TEST<br />Centralization is a word which is unendingly repeated nowadays and which practically no one seeks to define. — De Tocqueville.*<br />* See his penetrating discussion of this subject which opens with these words in the penultimate section of Chap. VI, Vol. I, Democracy in America.<br />WHY LEAGUES ARE UNDEMOCRATIC<br />Suppose we organize our democracies as a league. This league would have obvious advantages over the League of Nations. Yet because it was a league this organization of democracies would be a perversion of democracy. Its equality would still be the equality of states. It would accord one vote each to 4,000,000 Swiss, 40,000,000 French, 130,000,000 Americans, — flouting the most elementary democratic principle to this extreme degree for the sake of the state. It would require for any important action unanimous agreement among its state members; democracy proceeds by majority agreement among men. In it 4,000,000 Swiss would not only count for as much as 130,000,000 Americans but they could block action on which all the other democracies in the league were agreed — 4,000,000 could thwart nearly 300,000,000. If all this is not a perversion of democracy, what is?<br />Even were all our democracies equal in population, to organize them as a league would still be to encourage dictatorship among them. A league of democracies must necessarily favor its least democratic member for the same reasons that a league of all kinds of governments tends (though not so much, of course, as does anarchy) to give undue advantage to dictatorship. A league by giving an equal vote to the government of each nation in it allows the government least responsible and responsive to its people to manœuvre best.<br />The more democratic a people is the more it respects the minority and requires a government to explain policies to the people before committing them, and the more important the issue the more vigilant is its public opinion. But the more these conditions obtain the more handicapped the government is in defending the interests of its citizens in a league. The league system thus places a premium on whatever strengthens the government as regards its own people and a penalty on whatever strengthens the citizen's power to restrain his government. This premium and this penalty operate incessantly with accumulating force.<br />Their action is powerfully accelerated by the fact that, in forming the league on the basis of the state and for its preservation as an independent unit, the citizens tacitly admit that not their individual but their collective liberty is their supreme end. To advance their individual interests the league must produce agreements, but a government cannot obtain important agreement in the league without sacrificing some of its own independence, the very thing it entered the league to preserve.<br />Where in a democracy patriotism calls on all good citizens to defend the inalienable rights of the individual, in a league it calls on them to sacrifice their own rights in order to strengthen the government and preserve the state. National solidarity thus replaces respect of the minority or individual as the ideal. The idea spreads that the salvation of all the nation depends on a party, having once gained power, maintaining its power by suppressing all other parties and all freedom of speech and press so that the government may be stable and strong in its dealing with the rest of mankind; and the race is on toward the totalitarian state. Those who want the proof of experience need only look about them.<br />WHY UNIONS ARE DEMOCRATIC<br />It is not on these grounds, however, that the League of Nations has usually been attacked as undemocratic. The great cry against it has been that it involves sacrificing a member democracy's freedom, independence, sovereignty, that it forms a super-state. This cry is invariably raised against every proposal for inter-state government, whether league or union, and it has been raised even more loudly against the latter. Partly because of this democracies in their attempts at organisation have always turned first toward the league system as the lesser evil, as seeming to require less sacrifice of freedom, and have rejected the union system at first as being the super-state par excellence.<br />Where Senator Borah urged against the League of Nations that it would sacrifice the national sovereignty of the American Union, Patrick Henry opposed the Constitution of the American Union as sacrificing the state rights of Virginia. Whether the reference is to national sovereignty or to state's rights, the critics mean that the inter-state government involves sacrifice of the citizen's individual freedom, rights, sovereignty. Even the backers of inter-state organization usually seem to accept this view; they concede the sacrifice but plead that it is needed for the general good.<br />This reflects profound confusion over what occurs when democratic government, whether national or inter-state, is formed. We have already noted how this confusion rises partly from the assumption that the freedom of the state and the freedom of its citizens are necessarily identical. It also rises from the assumption that the organization of democratic government involves "sacrifice" of rights by the citizens.<br />"Sacrifice" is a most misleading word for what we do with our rights when we organize democratic government; the operation is really one of safeguarding or investing these individual rights.<br />When we hand over money to a bank to have it keep a heirloom in safe deposit for us we do not say we are sacrificing the money and the heirloom for the good of the bank. We say we are safeguarding our heirloom and paying for the service. When we hand over money to a corporation in order to gain more money through ownership of its stock we do not say we are sacrificing our money for the good of the corporation. We say we are investing it for ourselves. Even if we lose we do not call the operation a sacrifice; we call it a bad investment. We sacrifice our money only when we hand it over with no prayer or hope or intention of gaining thereby.<br />No more in politics than in business can we get something for nothing. To keep our freedom and to get more of it we must give freedom. It would not seem to need proving that individuals have always needed to give some of their liberty to the state in order to secure the rest of it; every free people has always admitted this.<br />Nor would it seem to need proving that united action by men, such as the organization or maintenance of government, involves some loss of freedom or power by each individual unit in it, and yet may result in a net gain in freedom or power by each. Where a government is made of, by and for the people every citizen, as Lincoln was fond of saying, is an equal sovereign, and national sovereignty would seem to be composed of the sovereignty its citizens have given it to secure better the rest of their individual sovereignty. In a democracy a state's rights can only be the rights its citizens have individually invested in it. All this is so evident that when men form a democratic government they say that they make the government for the sake of their own freedom. It is, in fact, because this is so clear that they tend to identify their individual freedom with the freedom of their state, and are thus led into the great mistake of assuming that any loss of the nation's sovereignty is necessarily a loss to them.<br />They forget that for the individual citizen to gain rights the state must lose rights, just as a bank must reduce its charges if the heirloom is to be guarded more cheaply, or a corporation must not merely pile up power in the form of surplus if stockholders are to get dividends on their investment in it. If, for example, the citizen is to gain the right to buy and sell freely in a larger market, his state must lose the right to levy a tariff or interfere with this trade.<br />When a democratic state's rights over its citizens are increasing more than are their rights one of two things would seem to be happening. Either it is retaining too much of the power gained through its formation — like the corporation that piles up an unreasonably huge undivided surplus — or it is running at a loss and requiring the citizens to throw good money after bad, to hand over to it more and more rights in order to keep the rest. This last would seem to be the case when citizens are required to give their government in the form of taxes more and more of the individual freedom that money represents and yet remain despite the state's increasing armed power more and more exposed to losing even their lives in war.<br />The object of democratic government is to provide increasing return in individual freedom to the citizens for decreasing investment of their freedom, — for example, more individual security for less taxation and military servitude. Consequently, loss of rights by a government, far from being a thing necessarily to be avoided or deplored, is a thing to be sought whenever the rights of the citizens are thereby really increased.<br />INVESTING IN UNION<br />When democracies form a union what really happens is this: The citizens of each withdraw certain powers they had invested in their national state and reinvest them or part of them in the union state. The operation involves loss of power by their national states but no loss of power by the citizens of any of them. At most they give the union state no more rights than they gave the national state, they simply shift certain rights from one to another.<br />The reason why there is no loss but merely a shift is that the citizens base their union government on the same equal unit that each of their national government is based on, namely, individual man. Each man consequently remains in precisely the same relation to the new government as to the old. When 10 men unite on this basis each equals 1. When 10 men thus unite with 90 or with nine groups of 10 each of the 100 men still equals 1 for all political purposes. If a democracy of 100,000,000 men thus unites with others of, say, 5,000,000 and 10,000,000 and 50,000,000, each of the 165,000,000 citizens of the union still equals what he did before, 1.<br />It is different when democracies league together. When 100,000,000 men league with 50,000,000 they lose power as regard the field of government they transfer to the league, for whereas each formerly had the power of 1 over policy in this field they now have only the power of one-half since the league weights 50,000,000 and 100,000,000 alike. Because it thus shifts the unit in shifting the field of government a league entails loss of power to the citizens of all but the least populous of the democracies in it.<br />As for the common illusion that citizens also lose when democracies unite, two things contribute to it: (A) One of the possible relations of one unit to 10 units is 1/10th, and of 1 to 100,000,000 units, 1/100,000,000th, and so the greater the number the less important each man appears to be. (B) Since 100,000,000 is more than 10, and 10 is more than 1, the greater the number of citizens the more important the state appears to become. But the action of a democracy, whatever its population, is determined in final test by 1, any 1 of the citizens, for it is determined by a majority and I can make a majority. If 10 men are divided 5 to 5 and 1 changes sides he carries with him the power of all 10 for he makes a majority of 6 to 4. Raise the number of voters to 100,000,000 and the majority that determines action is not 60,000,000 to 40,000,000 but 50,000,001 to 49,999,999. No matter what the population of a democratic state or union the citizen's relation to the government and his power to decide its action remain precisely the same.<br />Far from losing, the citizen gains power by union. While his power to decide action remains unchanged the power of the union whose action he decides becomes much greater as the population increases. Again, if a man must depend on himself alone for his security he must be on guard 24 hours daily. When he unites with five other men democratically for mutual security he needs stand guard only four hours. He gets 24 hours security for an investment of four hours. He gets six times more freedom, six times more defensive power. The more men with whom he unites the more freedom and power he has for less investment of them. In union therefore the progression from 1 to 1/10th to 1/100,000,000th is a progression downward, not in power and freedom for the citizen, but in the amount of it he needs to invest in government, and the progression from 1 to 10 to 100,000,000 is a progression upward, not in the absolute power of the state over the citizens, but in the power it places at the service of each.<br />When the citizens of several democracies form a union they create a new state but, as we have said, this creates no new rights or powers for the state as State. If they have invested a total of, say, 15 rights in each national government and they shift five of these rights to the union and leave the others untouched the total rights of Government remain precisely what they were, 15. The citizens divide them between two governments instead of centering them in one but lose none of their own power over government.<br />On the contrary they gain power in another way and Government loses power as regards the citizen. By "dividing the rights of Government between two governments the citizen leaves each of them incomplete. The national state loses supreme right to the union state but the latter is not the complete State the former was, for the union's supreme right is limited by all the rights that remain reserved entirely to its member states. By this division and by the fact that both governments equally and independently originate in him the citizen gains the power of balancing two governments to his own advantage, of shifting rights or appealing from one to the other as circumstances may suggest. The citizen of a complete national state has no such check-and-balance power over Government. He is in the exposed position of one with all his eggs in one basket, all his investments in one company.<br />How union extends the individual's effective freedom from the State, — whether the national, the union, or the foreign state, — may be seen by considering the state rights that he completely transfers to the union. These usually are:<br />1. The right to grant citizenship.<br />2. The right to make war and peace, to deal by force or treaty with foreign states.<br />3. The right to regulate inter-state and foreign trade.<br />4. The right to control the value of money.<br />5. The right to control postal and other means of communication.<br />(The union also has the right to tax individuals and enforce its laws on individuals, but these rights are not transferred to it from the national state, for the latter retains these rights equally; these are really enabling rights required by both governments to govern effectively in their fields and they are inherent in democracy's choice of individual man as the unit of government.)<br />Now, when the citizens of, say, fifteen democracies withdraw from each of them the above five rights and reinvest these in a union they create within the much larger area of their common state the conditions which had prevailed in each of its component parts, namely, one citizenship, one defense force, one free trade area, one money, one stamp. While leaving each citizen legally where he was as regards the outside world in these five respects they greatly reduce the area of that outside world by removing from it fourteen sovereign states. In reducing fifteen state sovereignties to one in these fields they reduce enormously the amount of actual interference from the State suffered by the inhabitants of this whole area — and, it is worth noting, by the outside world, too. Without taking any right from any citizen of any state anywhere on earth they thus free each citizen to exercise his existing rights on a far greater scale — in fourteen states which before gave these rights to their citizens, but not to him.<br />TODAY'S SUPER-STATE: THE NATION<br />The term super-state must be read in terms of power of the state, and since this can be understood in several ways super-state can easily be misunderstood. This term can really have terror for democrats only when it means greater power for the State over the citizens. When it merely means greater power for the democratic state over their foes, whether Nature, chaos, or aggressive absolutist states, they must welcome the superstate for then it means more power for each democrat and the achieving generally of what democracy seeks.<br />Yet such is their confusion that many shy at any inter-state organization simply because it must necessarily be greater in size than any member. They assume this means greater governmental power over themselves as if territory meant tyranny. Now tyranny is tyranny, whatever the<br />geographic scale on which it is practised, but the wider this scale the less intolerable men generally seem to find the same degree of tyranny. The states that gave us the word tyrant were among the smallest, not the largest, in antiquity. The tyranny that seems to irritate men most is petty personal tyranny. Though tyranny in a great state may sometimes be petty, the tyranny of a small state must be petty. Given equally autocratic states, tyranny will usually be worst in the smallest for the petty tyrant is more dangerously exposed from without and within, and his tyranny will be more personal for more men. Given equally free institutions, the greater group will normally provide the greater freedom for the individual.<br />It is sometimes claimed that the citizens of the small European democracies are freer from the danger of war than those of the large democracies. But can this really be attributed to their smallness? As autocracy has been growing in Europe the small democracies have been losing their feeling of security. If autocracy should gain the upper hand over Britain and France where would these small democracies be left? They never knew security until the great democracies rose; if size makes the super-state they would seem to owe their security to these super-states. Let those who argue that there is some inherent democratic virtue in the tiny and some inherent danger in the big consider where individual freedom would be now if there were no democracies larger than the smallest of the cantons that united to make such a super-state as Switzerland.<br />No, it is not size that the individual really fears in the state, but power over himself, interference with his liberties, meddling in his life. He resents his travel being vexed by more and more frontiers and frontier restrictions, his savings wiped out by monetary magic, his market cut off by a tariff, his source of supply ended by a quota. He resents having higher taxes to pay, being forced to depend increasingly on the state, having to turn to its soup-line to live, being exposed to more military service. He resents, in short, being afflicted with more and more government. It is the snooper state, the trooper state, that men really fear when they shy at the epithet, super-state, and that super-state today is the nation-state.<br />Nationalism has shown that it can even eliminate many of the normal advantages of size and, by pitting such great democracies as the American, British and French against each other, raise governmental meddling to monumental proportions and armaments to appalling figures. Nationalism has proved in Germany how far it can outdo the absolutism of the past. And the nation-state has only begun in recent years to show itself, we have only hints of what it has in store.*<br />* This entire section was written in 1934.<br />Bureaucracy and centralization and taxes growing, growing, growing; the state's power over the citizen reaching out, reaching in, reaching all round him, taking livelihood first, money next and freedom all the time until it troops him off to war, — if the nation-state everywhere today is not the super-state what super-state then need be feared?<br />The dustbins clogged with superfluous government and unnecessary generals, the war clouds gone, tariffs down and taxes trifling, the individual freed to roam and trade in half the world, needing neither to carry passport or change money, the security and freedom of each extended in every way and magnified a hundredfold and the same equal opportunity assured each whether born in the largest or smallest nation in the union — it is union of the free that ends the snooper trooper super-state.<br />2. THE PRACTICAL TEST<br />It may perhaps be asked, what need there is of reasoning or proof to illustrate a position which is not either controverted or doubted; to which the understandings and feelings of all classes of men assent, and which in substance is admitted by the opponents as well as by the friends of the new Constitution? ... But the usefulness of the concession ... is destroyed by a strenuous opposition to a remedy, upon the only principles that can give it a chance of success.... This renders a full display of the principal defects of the confederation necessary, in order to show, that the evils we experience do not proceed front minute or partial imperfections, but from fundamental errors in the structure of the building, which cannot be amended, otherwise than by an alteration in the first principles and main pillars of the fabric. — Hamilton in The Federalist, XV.<br />WHY LEAGUES CAN NOT WORK<br />We come to the practical test of everything: Will it work, can it work? Men have shown time and again that they prefer undemocratic, even tyrannical government to ineffective, futile government; indeed, it is to escape this latter that they turn to dictatorship. There would seem no need to prove, after all the evidence of history (of which Geneva's record is only the last chapter), that leagues do not work, can not work. Yet though there is widespread agreement that leagues have not worked there is still widespread faith that the league system can work.<br />The failure of the early league of the Thirteen American States which Hamilton laid bare in The Federalist along with the failures of all the leagues before it did not keep any one, least of all the American Union, from seeking to organize the world as a league. It was not the league character of the Wilsonian institution that kept the United States from entering it; the irreconcilables sought to make it, not a union, but more Of a league. Their opposition implied faith that the league system would Work if only rightly made or applied. The fact that all proposals for reform of the League of Nations have left the basic league principles untouched also implies faith in this system. This faith in the Geneva League itself is still avowed explicitly by many whose words have weight.<br />In the Geneva Assemblies in 1936, in the written replies to the inquiry they instituted into the problem of Covenant reform, in the records of the committee set up to deal with this subject and in subsequent discussions of it in the Council and Assembly, one can find the views of statesmen who personally participated in the League's Ethiopian test. Many of them had similar firsthand and confidential knowledge of the League's functioning in the Manchurian test and in the Disarmament and Economic conferences. Not one of them blamed the league system itself for the League's failures. Instead, nearly all these experts blame everything but the Covenant for Geneva's record and declare that the basic league system is sound and needs no great change.<br />This view was summed up strikingly by Earl de la Warr when, in the midst of the Sudeten crisis and at the lowest point Geneva has reached, he told the League Assembly, Sept. 16, 1938: "If there is one thing on which I would expect complete unanimity in the Assembly it is that there is nothing essentially wrong with the Covenant." It would seem evident that the unworkability of leagues has still to be demonstrated.<br />Some of the reasons why the League of Nations has not worked and can not work have already been noted, but not all of these apply to a smaller league of democracies. I would show now that even such a league is unworkable because its unit is the state. We shall first consider generally why a league can not act in time, and then, more specifically, why its enforcement machinery is unsound and untrustworthy.<br />WHY LEAGUES CAN NOT ACT IN TIME<br />Our civilization, we have seen, requires constant and rapid political adjustment to be made to meet change. The league system does not allow this adjusting to be done in time. The speed with which an inter-state organization can act depends much more on its unit than on the number of units it contains, whether states or men. Because the state is its unit even a league of fifteen democracies can act only through its state governments, by unanimity on important matters, and subject to ratification. All this makes for delay.<br />Because each state must act in a league through its state government, public opinion must be strong enough in each state to move the whole government before important league action is possible. Because public opinion can not act directly on league delegates but only indirectly through the governments that name them, and because the delegates do not depend directly on the voters, much more pressure is needed to get action in a league than in a union.<br />Moreover, public opinion in a union can exert pressure directly over the whole union area, and a majority leader always risks seeing the minority leader carry the fight into his own district and defeat him. But a league divides its public opinion into state compartments, and the delegate of one sovereign government can not go campaigning in another state to have its sovereign government thrown out or its delegate changed.<br />Again, since a league holds the state sacrosanct and is formed to preserve the state, the first concern of each state government in it must be state not league affairs. Normally each state government will owe its election to its policy on internal, not league questions, and it is bound to devote most attention to them and treat league affairs as secondary, until perhaps they smell to heaven.<br />Even could a league avoid the difficulty of having to act through government delegates, its action would remain slow and doubtful because of the unanimity rule. At best it is extremely hard to get unanimous agreement on any important matter, far harder than to get a majority to agree. It requires a different technique, and a degree of tact, understanding, and persuasive power that Geneva experience shows is extremely rare even among the world's ablest and most experienced politicians and statesmen. A league delegate must persuade not only his fellow delegates to the point where they will persuade the governments behind them to change their instructions, but he must often also persuade his home opinion at the same time, or keep it persuaded. He must also persuade the public opinion behind each of the delegates opposing him. And, since under the rules of national sovereignty every state must seek to win, the delegate of, say, the United States must publicly prove to the American people that they win by his policy while taking care to avoid thereby convincing, say, the French or British, that they will lose. For they will then disown the delegates who accepted this policy and the victory will be empty.<br />The worse the emergency the more swiftly there must be action, but the more a league then requires unanimity for action and the harder it is to get unanimity, if only because action then involves especial risk, and more risk or profit to some than to other states.<br />The units of a league, unlike those of a union, are not mobile but rigidly fixed to earth. Voters in a union being men can move from one region to another if political controversy gets too dangerous for them, but the voters in a league being states can not change neighbors. Consequently the men who decide how the state's vote is to be cast must not only consider the issue on its general merits but ponder even more how their vote is liable to affect their relations with a neighbor, especially a more powerful neighbor. All this makes for hesitation, vacillation, inaction; and makes the difficulty of getting unanimity grow with the importance of the issue.<br />WHY LEAGUES CAN NOT ESCAPE THE UNANIMITY RULE<br />There seems no escaping the unanimity rule in important matters so long as the unit of organization is the state. The choice of this unit means that the supreme object of government is the preservation of the state's sovereignty. One must then admit that each state government is more competent than any outside government to decide what is essential for its own sovereignty.<br />The latest and best example of how impossible it is for a league to escape the unanimity rule was given by the League of Nations in September, 1938, when Europe seemed on the verge of war. The votes of Poland and Hungary then defeated — and one veto would have sufficed to defeat — an Anglo-French proposal to re-interpret the Covenant's unanimity rule so that the veto of one or both parties in a conflict could no longer prevent the Council from adopting measures to preserve peace.<br />An organization that gives each state one vote and lets the majority of states rule the minority is repugnant both to democracies and autocracies. It lets a minority of men over-ride the majority. That defeats democracy even more than does the unanimity rule, for though the latter allows a minority to block the majority, it does not let any minority take positive control. As for the absolutists, majority rule in a league puts other states or the league above their state, and that is incompatible with the absolutist principle that nothing can be higher than the state.<br />The unanimity rule may save the absolutist, but not the democrat. Absolutism thrives on disorder and chaos, whether caused by action or inaction. Democracy needs law and order to survive, it can not get them without practical governmental means of timely action, and the unanimity rule allows it no such means. For it saves individual freedom from bad law only to expose it to the danger of no law, or law so weak and ambiguous that it can not be relied on, or law made too late to do any good.<br />Then there is the difficulty of ratification. To get the agreement needed for action in a league one must persuade not only all the delegates but the governments behind them, and, in democracies, the legislative authority too. After one has persuaded a delegate his government may drop him, or after he has persuaded his government it may be overthrown — perhaps on this very issue, perhaps on something quite unrelated to it.<br />Even if the delegate remains at the league he may be unable to persuade the new government. While the league statesman is bringing one government in line another may break loose — for time is passing and conditions changing. When all sorts of delicate adjustments have made agreement finally seem possible, conditions may have changed so that this delicate balance has to be readjusted to meet new facts: One must start this heartbreaking work again. If the treaty does reach signature it must then be ratified by all the governments whose unanimity was practically required in negotiating it, and this may take years. The failure of only one or a few states to ratify their delegate's signature has crippled or killed many a treaty.<br />None of this is theory, it is all the history of the League of Nations, of the League of Friendship among the Thirteen American States, of the international conference method. Consider how slowly the League moved in the Manchurian and Ethiopian conflicts, how many governments changed during the Disarmament Conference, how conditions changed. And military disarmament is fairly simple compared to economic disarmament. Military armament is, after all, the monopoly of each government. Some very temporary and extremely restricted armament limitation agreements can be reached with great effort by this method. But economic affairs are the monopoly of only one government. The simplest tariff agreement arouses in every country a multitude of conflicting private interests. Despite all the pressure for agreement no economic treaty of any importance has yet been achieved by the league or conference method.<br />WHY UNIONS CAN ACT SWIFTLY<br />Because it takes man for unit a union can put any important proposal directly before all its principals simultaneously, as in an election or plebiscite. Even if a league could assemble in conference the whole executive and legislative branches of each government instead of a small delegation, it would not be equalling the direct action possible in a union. It would still be dealing with agents, not with the sources of power, the men and women, the citizens, who elect the state executives and legislatures.<br />When a union proceeds indirectly, through agents or representatives of its units, it can still act more rapidly and easily than a league. Where in a league no agent ever represents more than one unit, in a union every agent must represent many units, his power is always delegated to him by several hundred or thousand of the union's units. A league inevitably makes the delegate a puppet depending on the instructions of his government; a union inevitably keeps its representatives from being rigidly tied to instructions and makes them freer to respond quickly to new facts or arguments.<br />The representative in a union may be advised by different units in his district to do this or that on a given issue; the advice may be contradictory; he must use his own judgment and strike a balance between the conflicting instructions he thus gets — and guess what all the silent units in his district want him to do. Presumably he will try to follow the wishes of the majority of units in his district, but he is free to decide (under penalty of being defeated at the next election) what these wishes are. He is free, too, to vote against the wishes of the articulate majority in his district, presumably in the belief that the inarticulate are with him or that time will justify him or that he can persuade a majority at the next election that he was right. The delegate to a league cannot possibly do this; he would be recalled and replaced at once by his government.<br />The representative in a union is the more responsive to demands for action because the opposition in the legislature can always enter his constituency and help his opponents there defeat him. Far from being able to count, as can the league delegate, on local patriotism defending him against such an outside campaign, he often stands or falls with his own union-wide party.<br />The representatives in a union, representing as each does only a majority or plurality of units in his district, must act by majority instead of unanimity. Since the nature of a union's unit makes their number so great that it is impossible for each unit to have a veto, the agent of these units can not claim this right after his principals have renounced it. The American presidential veto is not to be confused with this; it is accorded to the president not because he is one unit in the union but because he is the only representative of all the units together. Even so his veto is not absolute, as is that of any league unit.<br />Because a union acts by majority it can act much more quickly than a league. The league system slows action not only because it discourages many by making action different but also because it makes others fear that once done an action may be hard to undo. Union encourages the doubtful to act because of the facility of repeal.<br />Once there is agreement in a union to act, action can follow at once. There is no need in it to wait for its units to ratify the decision of their agents; the vote of these representatives suffices for law to take effect. Here again union has a tremendous advantage over a league.<br />Finally, the greater the emergency in a union the greater is the popular pressure for action — that is, the greater is the pressure of the units on their agents — and the faster the union machinery moves. The difficulty and danger in a union is that it can and may act too swiftly or even be stampeded in a moment of hysteria. Where the problem in a league is to get up enough steam to turn the wheels, in a union it is to control the speed, to arrange safety valves, governors, brakes, such as the American Union has in the powers reserved to the people and the states, the two-house Congress, the presidential veto, the Supreme Court, and the time required to amend the Constitution.<br />The United States has often shown how a union can rush action in an emergency when the prime psychological and material need is for action, and how when the emergency has thus been overcome the hasty, ill-considered, or dangerous elements in this action can be eliminated. Neither the Supreme Court nor any of the brakes in the American Union kept the NRA from being put into force at the height of emergency and maintained until there was more complaint against the measure's effects than against its cause. It was when, and only when, this point was reached that the Court invalidated the NRA, reminding the people in effect that they could not continue along certain NRA lines unless they adopted these policies not hastily but with the deliberation which amendment of the Constitution requires.<br />How much more swiftly a union can move than a league even in its slowest gear may be seen by another example. The slowest procedure in the American Union is that required for amending the Constitution and there is much complaint that it is too cumbersome. Yet in less than 15 years the American people not only amended the Constitution to prohibit alcoholic beverages but amended it again to undo this prohibition. In that period the League of Nations obtained no action whatever as regards even armament reduction, despite the tremendous public demand for it.<br />3. THE ACID TEST<br />The important truth ... is that a sovereignty over sovereigns, a government over governments, a legislation for communities, as contradistinguished from individuals, as it is a solecism in theory so in practice it is subversive of the order and the ends of civil polity, by substituting violence in place of law, or the destructive coercion of the sword in place of the mild and salutary coercion of the magistracy. — Hamilton in The Federalist, XX,<br />It may be, if we are to see these things correctly, we must look at them in a longer perspective than is possible tonight. It may be that ... when the time comes to assess the attempt to make collective security operative this unhappy, this tragic [Ethiopian] War, and the lessons derived from it will be found to have played an important part in establishing lasting peace. — Anthony Eden defending his League policy in the House of Commons, April 6, 1936.<br />WHY LEAGUES CAN NOT ENFORCE LAW<br />It is not enough for a government to be able to make laws in time, it must also be able to insure their effective execution. This brings us to the core of the problem of political organization, whether state or inter-state, the acid test of any government. Law depends on confidence that it will be executed. No system of political law has yet gained that confidence without providing for execution of law by force against those who refuse to accept it.<br />The Thirteen American States produced in their first attempt at interstate government the "new and unexampled phenomenon," Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, "of a government destitute even of the shadow of constitutional power to enforce the execution of its own laws." He added:<br />There was a time when we were told that breaches by the States of the regulations of the federal authority were not to be expected; that a sense of common interest would preside over the conduct of the respective members.... This language, at the present day, would appear as wild as a great part of what we now hear from the same quarter will be thought when we shall have received further lessons from that best oracle of wisdom, experience.... Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint. Has it been found that bodies of men act with more rectitude or greater disinterestedness than individuals? The contrary of this has been inferred by all accurate observers.<br />This lack of coercive power more than any other one factor led to the breakdown of the American Confederation and the establishment of the present Union. We need merely refer to this experiment those who today tell us the League of Nations would succeed if only all its powers of coercion were removed.<br />To be sound any government or system of law must be built to meet the danger of an attempt being made to upset it, and to meet it in a way inspiring confidence that its law-enforcing machinery can and will overwhelm the lawbreaker. To do this the system must be designed to give the greatest possible guarantees that the more dangerous the violation is the stronger the position of the law-enforcer will be and the weaker the position of the lawbreaker.<br />Nowhere is the question of the unit in government more important than here. If the unit is the state, then the law can be enforced only by states against states; if the unit is man, the law can be enforced only by men against individual men. To quote Hamilton again, the "penalty, whatever it may be, can only be inflicted in two ways — by the agency of the courts and ministers of justice or by military force; by the coercion of the magistracy or by the coercion of arms. The first kind can evidently apply only to men; the last kind must of necessity be employed against bodies politic or communities or States." Every national law system bears on men as individuals, and we are all so accustomed to this that when we organize a league which bears instead on the state we tend to continue thinking of its functioning in terms of our national experience, as if the change in unit made no serious difference. The fact is that it makes all the difference in the world. The whole effect of taking the state as unit is to weaken the law-enforcing machinery and strengthen the position of the lawbreaker. Here are some of the reasons why:<br />Suppose we form a league of democracies and one of them, say with a population of 20,000,000, elects by 60 per cent majority a government that proceeds to violate its league obligations. If the league law is to be enforced, it must be enforced against a group so powerful and well organized as to give the enforcer pause. This group is not simply 12,000,000 strong, as it may seem at first glance, but 20,000,000 strong because its government has control of the state's whole war power and because the league law must be enforced against the state as a unit. Whether the coercion is by war, blockade, or non-military sanctions, it can not possibly be restricted to the 12,000,000, it must punish just as much the 8,000,000 who presumably sought to prevent the violation. This fact, on top of the patriotic ideology responsible for the democracies having organized a league instead of a union, must encourage the 8,000,000 to join the 12,000,000 in resisting the law.<br />Here we have the essential unsoundness of the enforcement machinery of a league. This system begins by making sure that its weakest lawbreaker will be far stronger than any gang or mob of men — the strongest lawbreaker that a union faces — for a league lawbreaker must be at least an organized nation of men. Then the league system proceeds to strengthen its lawbreaker by itself outraging justice. Worse, it is incapable of sparing the innocent when it would punish the guilty. Still worse, it is bound to punish the innocent common people more than the responsible leaders. Its blockade strikes the ruler only by starving the half-starved into revolt, its bullets kill few statesmen. While it is putting the whole nation behind the offending government, this stupidity and injustice is demoralizing and weakening those upon whom it must depend to coerce the offender. For such reasons I predicted early in the Ethiopian war* that "the results of these sanctions are bound to be slow," and recalled, "It is always easier to keep a people united under outside pressure than when outside applying that pressure." To remember that Ethiopian experience is to see how serious is this defect in a league.<br />* The New York Times, Oct. 20, 1935. See also despatch Nov. 24, 1935.<br />WHEN LAWBREAKERS ARE IMMORTAL<br />Again, the league system requires enforcement by immortals against immortals. Its unit is the nation, and nations are immortal, compared to individual men. Because of this a league in coercing a state of 20,000,000 population must really coerce a state that is more than 20,000,000 strong, for the state disposes of all the power past generations have stored in it and is fortified by its generations to come, by its aspirations for and obligations to them.<br />What is more, to enforce law one must find the offender guilty. It is one thing for the immortal state to brand as a criminal one of its millions of mortals, and quite another for a few mortal statesmen to attach the stigma of guilt to an immortal nation. It is an appalling blunder, a monstrous thing, inherently indefensible.<br />"I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against a whole people," Burke declared in his plea for conciliation with America. "I cannot insult and ridicule the feelings of millions of my fellow-creatures ... I hope I am not ripe to pass sentence on the gravest public bodies, entrusted with magistracies of great authority and dignity and charged with the safety of their fellow-citizens, upon the very same title that I am. I really think that for wise men this is not judicious; for sober men, not decent; for minds tinctured with humanity, not mild and merciful."<br />All this would be true even were a nation mortal, and the fact that a people does not die makes Burke's statement only truer. What could be worse folly than to encourage men (as a league does by its subordination of individuals to their state) to put their pride in their nation, to identify their individual self-respect with their nation's status in the world — and to condemn then their nation as criminal? This system which visits on the children the sins of the fathers seems designed to rouse and maintain a spirit of bitter resistance to league law both among the fathers and the children; it strikes at what every self-re- specting individual must hold dear, the name he inherits, has made for himself, and would pass on. The effect of Geneva's verdict against the Italian government in uniting Italians behind that government, stimulating them to sacrifice and invent, spurring them in the field and at home to much greater effort than most people expected, should suffice to show how any system that would enforce law against immortal nations tends to defeat itself. It should be evident, too, that to attach war guilt to a people, as at Versailles, without even doing it by a league's process of law does not make matters better.<br />There remain the after-effects. Whether a league fails or succeeds in coercing its guilty nation, the condemned people is not likely to rest until it has forced its judges to recant, to absolve even the guilty among it in order to save their innocent compatriots, dead, living and unborn. One cannot better organize enduring bad blood, feud on a colossal scale, than by trying to establish peace and justice, law and order, through the coercive machinery of a league.<br />To make matters worse, a league's unit is not only immortal but immobile. An individual man who has been found guilty can hope to escape the disgrace by moving elsewhere, changing his name, beginning anew, or his family can. Not so the nation. It is fixed. The individual Englishman can change from one condition of life to another and another but the English as a national unit must face the world forever as an island. The Italians as a nation cannot escape from the problem Gibraltar and Suez pose, though the farmer whose gates to the highway are similarly held by another can always, at worst, move away. The immobility of a league's units breeds and nourishes unnecessary conflict and makes its enforcement machinery stiff and rigid. It also makes it harder for the nations that must adjoin forever the accused nation to condemn it, or for it to accept such disgrace from its neighbors.<br />The neighboring nations must remember, too, that condemning the accused endangers them more than other league members; on the neighbors falls the main burden of coercion in a league, their trade suffers most from economic sanctions, and they are the most exposed to the acts of desperation or vengeance of the condemned. These neighbors may be as weak compared to the lawbreaker as Switzerland and Austria compared to Italy, may have no material interest in enforcing the law against this particular offense, may hope to profit considerably from not enforcing it. Their failure to enforce the law may strengthen the offender as greatly as did the action of Switzerland and Austria in keeping open Italy's communications with Germany. This shows how the immobility of a league's units undermines its power to enforce law.<br />WHERE TRIAL PRECEDES ARREST<br />The procedure a league is bound to follow tends to make its law enforcement hesitating and untrustworthy. People often talk as if the League of Nations could enforce the law in about the same way their own government does. The difference in unit, however, makes the procedure of the two radically and inevitably different. One can lock up a man pending trial, but not a nation — one can not imprison a nation at all. When a policeman sees a man, knife in hand, creeping up behind another man he doesn't stop to consider whether perhaps no crime but only a practical joke is intended. He doesn't wait till the blow falls, the blood spurts, the victim appeals to him. He jumps in at once and arrests the man on suspicion. When the Italian government openly prepared for nine months to invade Ethiopia and the League of Nations did nothing to stop it except try to reconcile the two, many criticized the League for not acting like a policeman. But one can not arrest a nation on suspicion.<br />Even had a league the force to do this it would lack the will. The policeman does not need to consider whether public opinion will approve his intervention. But coercion in a league means war or risk of war, and the more democratic the members of a league are the less they will like to resort to coercion without first making sure that public opinion is behind them. One can get few if any peoples — let alone all members of a league — to agree suddenly to risk war on mere suspicion of aggression. To move public opinion to that degree one must arrange that the crime, if committed, will seem as flagrant and black as possible. To do this one must convince the public first of all that all means of peacefully preventing the crime have been exhausted.<br />If, as in the case of Italy, the suspected government not only protests its peaceful intentions but agrees to arbitrate the dispute, what can a league do but take it at its word? If the league does not, it itself spoils the possibility of conciliation, assures the suspected government stronger support at home and sacrifices the league's chances of rousing public opinion among its members to support coercion. It thus strengthens the potential offender while weakening the enforcer.<br />If the league does take the suspected government at its word, shows the utmost trust in its good faith, leans backward to be just and patient, then if the crime is committed it appears the more heinous and may possibly rouse enough indignation to make effective coercion possible. But this means waiting till the crime has been committed. It also means making eventual reconciliation and peace among these immortal immobile nations all the harder by making the crime and stigma worse. It means that the league is really a partner in the crimes it would repress, responsible for their being worse than they would have been otherwise. What must one say of a system of law whose possibility of repressing crime depends on its success in making crime worse?<br />[Since the rest of this chapter was written (in 1934-36), we have seen in the Sudeten crisis in September, 1938, how all this applies only to a more dangerous degree when, as in the old diplomatic machinery, the unit for international relations remains the state but the action takes place outside a league's regular processes of law. Then to get the law-abiding peoples to resist flagrant treaty violation one must fly to Berchtesgaden and Godesberg, help the aggressor force the victim to surrender, and by all manner of manoeuvres and pathetic appeals contrive to make aggression at once cataclysmic in its consequences and trifling in its cause. And then one must bring mankind to the brink of world war and keep it trembling there for weeks, not to get justice done but merely to defer a worse crime by strengthening the criminal. How much law and order can we expect to get by such methods, and for how long?]<br />Moreover, what law and order would any nation enjoy if the police could not arrest even a flagrant offender before they had convicted him in court? Yet this is just what any league must do. The diplomatic machinery must convict him overwhelmingly in the opinion of the world, and achieve this without a regular trial, as in the preceding example.<br />After the Italian government had invaded Ethiopia and while war was going on the League's Council and then its Assembly met, heard Italy's defense, and decided that the Italian government had resorted to war in violation of the Covenant. Only then could the League begin action against the aggression. Yet how can any organization of sovereign states allow even its highest-ranking official to act against an aggressor as the lowest-ranking policeman does? How can Sovereign States let him use their armed force against a state before they have formally agreed in each given case to such grave and dangerous action? In a league the trial must come before, not after, the arrest; and the action a league takes after the trial is not to punish the offender as many assume but only to stop the crime continuing or prevent the criminal from succeeding in his plan.<br />For seven months after the Italian aggression was condemned the crime continued — if it can be said yet to have ceased. One can murder a man in a minute but one can not keep on murdering him for months. Nor can one take all year, or even all day, to arrest a man; the policeman needs only a minute. But one can keep on committing for years any crime in a league calendar. These considerations may help make clear how ordinary conceptions of law are thrown out of gear when we change the unit from man to the state, and how this change complicates the problem of enforcement.<br />THE FALLACY OF BLOODLESS SANCTIONS<br />One effect of all this is to force a league to begin its enforcement gently and slowly, to turn then to stronger measures, and to encourage the aggressor thereby to commit worse crimes. But many have traced Geneva's failure to coerce Italy to the fact it did not begin by applying at once all of Article Sixteen's sanctions, as that article requires. But many countries that agreed to the verdict against Italy which made Article Sixteen applicable did so only because they understood beforehand that only the milder sanctions would be applied. It proved impossible, in fact, to get even all these mild sanctions applied by Switzerland, and other less strategically important countries.<br />At best every nation is very strongly and naturally reluctant to agree to participate in the wholesale bloodshed which any decision to apply military sanctions risks involving. This reluctance is made all the stronger by the hopes of success that non-military measures seem to hold. On paper one can make an attractive case for such measures. One can argue — as was argued in the Italian test — that sufficient agreement can be obtained on economic sanctions to make sure that the aggressor will be brought down eventually without the coercers themselves shedding any blood, that all they need do is sit by coolly and patiently and keep the screws on. It was also argued in the Italian test that the aggressor, seeing that there is such wide agreement against him and that it is bound to ruin him in the end, will not wait till his ruin is consummated but will give up long before. One can thus reach the conclusion that though these sanctions seem slow their effect will really be swift.<br />To the kind of men who are bound to predominate in a league such reasoning is the more persuasive because such men have a pronounced professional weakness for the theory that it is best always to begin mildly. The argument is that if one then wins one wins at least risk and cost, and if one fails one can still win by turning to stronger and stronger measures, whereas by applying the strongest measures at the outset one sacrifices the possibility of winning cheaply, and if one fails nothing more is left to do.<br />This argument, however, is never likely to work out in a league better or differently than in the Italian test. A case can be made for gradually increasing pressure, and also for staking all on a bold policy, — and the merits of this aggressive policy are naturally bound to appeal most to the aggressive-minded, and therefore to the aggressor, just as the merits of passive action appeal most to the pacific. Where desire to win by economic sanctions leads the coercers to see all the possibilities of victory through the aggressor reading the handwriting on the wall, the same process of wishful thinking leads the aggressor to concentrate on all the possibilities of nullifying these sanctions by economies, inventions, quick military triumph, etc. He becomes too engrossed in all this to see the handwriting on the wall, let alone surrender to it. The result is that the crime of war for which the league has condemned the aggressor continues to be perpetrated week in, week out, the league appears to be doing nothing effective even to stop the crime or aid the victim, public opinion is outraged by the spectacle, it demands that the killing be stopped and refuses to keep coolly and patiently content with slow-moving sanctions in the face of continued slaughter. The cry for something more effective is soon bound to rise, just as the demand for the oil sanction rose soon after the other sanctions were applied to Italy.<br />But what is the effect of the threat of stronger measures that thus rises? It encourages the victim of aggression to continue an otherwise hopeless war, and it encourages the aggressor to redouble his attack and resort to more frightful warfare — just as Italy turned to poison gas as Geneva turned toward the oil embargo — in the hope of winning the war before the sanction takes effect.<br />"The main hope for any slow-moving instrument to be effective," I wrote when sanctions went into force against Italy,* "lies in the one against whom it is aimed foreseeing his inevitable disaster and renouncing the hopeless struggle. There seems no reason to doubt that sanctions, continued long enough, would ruin Italy. But if this is encouraging Rome to stay in the League and keep exploring possibilities of compromise in Paris and London, it also is serving to speed Italian efforts to conquer Ethiopia before Italy is too weakened by sanctions. Is a method which shortens war by lengthening the casualty list effective?"<br />* The New York Times, Nov. 24, 1935.<br />JUDGE, SHERIFF, CRIMINAL, — ALL IN ONE<br />These examples by no means exhaust the difficulties and absurdities into which a league falls through having the state as its unit. Another result is that each member of a league is at once judge, juryman, and sheriff. Worse, as I helped point out when the Italian government, while undergoing sanctions, took part in the League's hearing on Germany's violation of the Locarno treaty, the league system "allows a nation to fill simultaneously the roles of condemned lawbreaker in one case and judge and sheriff in another." This weakness, the dispatch continued, was "exemplified by the first international meeting to be held in the new League palace, that of the Locarno powers on the afternoon of April 10, 1936. In it the Foreign Ministers of Britain and France, who that very morning had debated before the Committee of Thirteen in the old League building what to do about Italy, whom the Council found guilty of committing the worst crime in the League's calendar, debated with Italy what to do about Germany, whom the Council, with Italy as one of the judges, found guilty of committing its next worst crime.<br />"This situation results from the fact, underlying all the League's main weaknesses, that it, unlike any other system of government, takes for its operating unit not an individual mortal but an immortal collectivity of mortals called a nation which has the further peculiarity of being geographically fixed," I then wrote.<br />"Possibly the reason that no remedies yet touch this is that it is impossible to shift the League's law-making and law-enforcing unit to an ordinary mortal without scrapping the objective for which the League was formed. This objective, contrary to the general assumption, is primarily not peace but the preservation of the integrity and independence of these existing national units."*<br />* The New York Times, Apr. 19, 1936.<br />This may help make clear why a league can have no effective central or executive authority. There can be no sheriff in a community where every man is equally sheriff. The example should make clearer, too, why projects to endow a league with a permanent league police force for the coercion of members are doomed to failure. It is not the international character of such a force that makes it impossible — look at the French Foreign Legion — but the fact that a league army's real unit is not man but the nation.<br />It results that when a league does decide to enforce its law it must then improvise its instrument, whether non-military or military. It "must at the last minute organize an army out of a mob of armies of sovereigns so jealous of their sovereignty that they are unable to organize a league force beforehand."† We have already noted why a league can not provide even the advance military planning needed for confidence in its enforcement machinery. For similar reasons it can not make concrete advance plans to enforce its law by non-military means.<br />† The New York Times, Dec. 29, 1935.<br />Even if it could do this, and even if it did succeed in organizing an army to coerce a member, it would still face the difficulty of forcing its members to coerce the aggressor. Article Sixteen of the Covenant provides measures against the member that resorts to war, but the Covenant provides no means to compel members to apply these measures. It provides no sanctions, that is, for violators of Article Sixteen itself, and if it did how could they be enforced? A state that has no desire to coerce a particular state may profess to be applying sanctions and yet leave open a hundred loopholes whose existence could only be proved if the league had inspectors everywhere. To attempt to coerce a member that flatly refuses to apply a sanction means giving the aggressor an ally, strengthening him and adding to the burden on the coercers. Whatever a league's law may be on this point, the members who refuse to help coerce seem likely in practice to escape their obligation with the impunity that Austria, Hungary and Switzerland enjoyed in the Italian test.<br />Worse still, the possibility of successful coercion by a league is in inverse ratio to the need. As Geneva's experience shows, a league may succeed in minor conflicts, but the stronger the lawbreaker and the worse the crime, the less a league is likely to succeed. Yet we organize government more to protect us against the greater than the lesser dangers.<br />RESULT: NO LEAGUE CAN BE TRUSTED<br />The result is that a league can not inspire confidence among its law-abiding members nor respect and fear among the aggressively inclined. This encourages its members to arm. and whether they arm for defense or aggression they make matters worse by putting the enforcement problem on a still more enormous scale. The aggressive are encouraged to gamble by the lack of confidence members show in a league when they steadily increase their armaments. Whether the gambler wins or loses the cost and risk are tremendous. Even if he loses the success of the league is offset by the appalling heritage it leaves. Six months before Geneva's sanctions failed in May, 1936, I wrote:<br />If Ethiopia succumbs to aggression, can league members condone this better after they have put millions into sanctions for the sake of upholding the law? If Italy collapses, will that not leave a pretty problem? However essential it may be to frustrate Mussolini's methods, is frustrating them enough to cure what caused them?<br />What poisonous use will future Italian demagogues make of the sanctions, considering the use made of war debts in the United States and of war guilt in Germany? Meanwhile ... what else is going to be happening? Consider how remote now seem the problems which were worrying the world six months ago and it is possible to make a better guess regarding how the present will look in May.<br />The public, which earlier despaired too hastily of the League and now overrates its achievement, will know better then how complicated this whole problem is. It will be only human if it then blames the League....<br />The fault lies much deeper in the League machinery, ... so built as to be inevitably too weak and too slow to prevent war, and then too slow and too rough in stopping it to assure peace with justice.*<br />* The New York Times, Nov. 17, 1935.<br />Since no league, no matter how strong its paper guarantees to enforce its laws, can possibly remove the fatal defects inherent in itself, it can not possibly succeed in getting its members to trust it enough to disarm and avoid chaos. As long as the state must depend, in a vital emergency, on its own arms it must also protect strategic industries and prepare against blockade by artificially maintaining its agricultural production. So long as it must do this it can not afford to renounce control over such essential weapons as its currency and trade. Practically, there is no more possibility of monetary stability or free trade than there is of disarmament, security, or peace in any inter-state government requiring coercion of states. Through and through the league system is untrustworthy.<br />WHY UNIONS CAN ENFORCE LAW<br />To be sound, a system of law, we have said, must be built to meet the danger of some attempt being made to upset it, and to meet it in a way inspiring confidence that its law-enforcing machinery can and will overwhelm the lawbreaker. To do this it must be devised to give the greatest guarantees that the more dangerous the violation the stronger the position of the law-enforcer will be and the weaker that of the lawbreaker.<br />A union pins any violation of its law on the weakest possible political unit, a single mortal, and arrays against him the organized centralized power of millions of these units — the union state. Suppose we have fifteen democracies of 20,000,000 population each. If they league together the theoretical ratio of law-enforcing power to law-defying power is at best 280,000,000 to 20,000,000, or 14 to I. If they unite the ratio is 299,999,999 to 1. This shows how overwhelmingly the change of unit from state to man weakens the lawbreaker and strengthens the law-enforcer.<br />For law (whether treaty or statute) to be broken some individual man has to break it. A union by pinning the responsibility for the violation on this individual and on him alone tends to deprive him of all support. Members of his family or gang may help him, but they are not to be compared in power with a government which controls the force of an organized nation and can appeal to patriotic sentiments to justify its treaty violation. Union law does not by its very operation drive the innocent to support the lawbreaker as does league law; instead it tends to isolate him even from those most likely to support him. His family seldom resists his arrest.<br />No group, not even the family, is stigmatized legally in a union by the guilt of one member, let alone punished simply because of relation to him. The criminal's family may suffer some social disgrace, but the family can move away, change its name, begin afresh. Or it may find protection in the fact that many other unrelated men have the same family name. A union's units are so numerous and their names descend in such fashion that the unit whose name is unique is a rare exception, and many names less common than Jones and Smith are common enough to be protective. The name of each nation in a league is unique, and so there is no escape from that name and any blot on it stands out more, lasts longer, and is harder to bear.<br />There have been many celebrated murderers, but how often is one of their descendants identified as one — as, say, the grandson of Dr. So-and-so who was executed for poisoning a patient? The children of criminals often attract attention during trials, but how long does it last? They are soon mercifully lost or forgotten among the millions of men.<br />In a union there is, then, no enduring disgrace attached to the group to which a lawbreaker belongs, nothing to entangle all its members willy-nilly in the crime and turn them, as in a league, against the law in order to right this injustice or save their self-respect. By its condemnation a union, unlike a league, does not inevitably turn against it even the condemned criminal, for, unlike an "aggressor nation," he can hope to live down the stain on his name, change it if it is uncommon, move away.<br />The union system, moreover, gives those it arrests as lawbreakers much stronger guarantees of justice and much greater hope for acquittal than does a league. It is therefore easier for the innocent to accept arrest unresistingly. As for the guilty, it is noteworthy that a union's guarantees to each individual that its overwhelming power will not be used unjustly against him helps to weaken him at the critical time when he is about to break the law or is breaking it. The Bill of Rights serves to isolate the criminal and deprive him of misplaced sympathy by assuring all other men that their combined power will not be used wrongly against the weakest man, that the innocent individual will not be punished, that punishment will fall on the guilty or on no one.<br />These guarantees to the individual together with the individual's inherent weakness, mortality and mobility allow a union to act against offenders much more quickly than can a league. They allow it to stop crime in the bud, to arrest on prima facie evidence of criminal intent. The number and weakness of its units not only permit but require a union to have the powerful central authority a league can not possibly have — and to maintain law and order normally with a tiny fraction of the power at its disposal. It can have, say, one policeman to 1,000 potential lawbreakers and yet be able in an emergency quickly to outnumber or outpower the lawbreaker. The nature of a union's unit, moreover, permits and requires specialized functions for the enforcement of law — this union unit being a soldier, that union unit a policeman, another a judge, another a juryman, still another a prosecutor. It thereby escapes the grotesque absurdity into which a league is led by its unit; in a union no condemned criminal can judge for it the crimes of others while continuing his own.<br />The union system of law enforcement does not work perfectly. Sometimes the guilty escape, sometimes the innocent are punished, sometimes the union may even suffer revolt, civil war. But its principle is sound and the system does work well: it insures general respect for and enforcement of law by insuring that at the critical moment — the moment when the law is flagrantly broken — the enforcer will be at his strongest and the violator will be at his weakest. And it does this in direct ratio to the importance of the violation. It does insure the citizen more security against burglary than petty theft, and still greater security against murder than against burglary, and still greater security against war than against murder.<br />HOW UNION ELIMINATES INTER-STATE WAR<br />It may be objected that the enforcement of law against thieves and murderers is normally left to each state in a union and that such examples do not apply to conflicts between states in the union or between one or more states and the union itself. The examples were used, however, to illustrate the idea of varying degree of crime and security. Moreover, whatever may be the division between a union and a member state as regards the laws to be enforced, each enforces law by the same basic method, for the unit is the same. Consequently, whatever may be the range of crimes in the union code the union system does assure the citizen more security against its major than its minor crimes.<br />It is true that in a union as in a league conflicts may rise between member states in their corporate capacity and between them and the union. A union may refer such disputes to its supreme court, but refusal to accept the court's decision faces it with a league's problem of enforcing law against a state. There remain, however, great differences in favor of union.<br />In a league such conflicts and problems are the only ones possible; in a union they are abnormal. The state's position in a union differs radically, as we have seen, from its position in a league. The transfer to the union of some of the state's most important rights (which it most jealously retains in a league) tends to remove many of the worst sources of dispute and war among states. It leaves the state no longer an economic entity, the regulation of its trade with other states inside and outside the union is transferred to the union government which enforces its inter-state commerce laws not against the states but against individuals in them. Above all, the fact that its citizens have transferred from state to union the power to make war and peace eliminates the chief danger of inter-state disputes resulting in war. The state government loses not only its motives for war, but also the means of waging it successfully.<br />The knife edge is removed from disputes between states in a union because the citizens of each state are also citizens of the union, have the same control over both, and inevitably rate higher the citizenship that opens the wider field to them, lets them move freely from state to state, and gives them their standing in the world. When a man is equally sovereign in two governments, as he is in a union, disputes between these two agents of his tend to make him an arbiter instead of a partisan. A man can be at war with himself, of course, and this can lead him to commit suicide, but men organize government to save them from murder, not suicide, and to gain over each other some of the control they have over themselves.<br />History is even more reassuring than reason in these regards. For example there were many disputes — including eleven territorial ones — among the Thirteen American States during their league period. War threatened to result from some of these disputes and this danger was one of the reasons that led them to shift from league to union. All these disputes lost in explosiveness after union, none of them threatened war thereafter. Supreme Court decisions settled them without the theoretical danger of a state defying the Court ever actually arising. Since this liquidation of the disputes inherited from the league and colonial periods, disputes between states have lost in importance. There are few Americans today who can recall offhand what states and what issues were involved in any inter-state disputes before the Supreme Court, least of all the latest. That shows how popular interest in inter-state disputes dies out in a union. The way Americans still remember the Supreme Court's distant decision concerning one of the humblest among them, Dred Scott, shows how a union centers interest instead in cases that directly affect the freedom of the individual.<br />There is no example in the history of the American Union of a state refusing to accept the Court's decision in an inter-state dispute or seriously threatening to use force against another state. A state that contemplated such action in the American Union could not gamble on being left to fight it out with the other state as could Italy with Ethiopia and Japan with China in the League of Nations. Each state government knows that should it resort to force it would change its conflict from one with another state to one with the government of the United States, which is required by the Constitution to "protect each of them against invasion" and "domestic violence," which has enough armed power at hand to overwhelm at once the strongest single state and which can draw immediately, directly and without limit on the Union's whole potential power. The Union, moreover, can aim its coercive power at the Governor and other responsible members of such a state government as individual offenders. It can act against them personally on the ground that they and not the people are to blame and that as American citizens who are waging war against the Union they are committing treason.<br />The only memorable conflicts in American Union history in which states figured as parties were both, significantly, conflicts not with other states, as in the American league period, but with the Union government. There was South Carolina's nullification of the Tariff Act; President Jackson's blunt warning that he would uphold the Union law with force against such treason* sufficed to maintain the law. Then there was the attempt of the eleven Southern States to secede which the Union overcame by force in the Civil War.<br />* See Jackson's Proclamation to the People of South Carolina, "The dictates of a high duty oblige me solemnly to announce that you can not succeed. The laws of the United States must be executed. I have no discretionary power on the subject; my duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution. Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent their execution deceived you; they could not have been deceived themselves. They know that a forcible opposition could alone prevent the execution of the laws, and they know that such opposition must be repelled. Disunion by armed force is treason. Are you really to incur its guilt? If you are, on the heads of the instigators of the act be the dreadful consequences; on their heads be the dishonor, but on yours may fall the punishment. On your unhappy State will inevitably fall all the evils of the conflict you force upon the Government of your country." In this Proclamation Jackson also declared: "The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, not a league."<br />This last, however, was not, strictly speaking, a test of the Union's ability to enforce its laws but a test of its ability to maintain itself. The fact that the American Union has suffered one civil war in 150 years cannot be held against the union system, for secession and civil war can occur and have more often occurred in other systems of government. The American Civil War must be cited, if at all, in favor of the union system. It shows what tremendous resistance that system can successfully overcome. What is more important, it shows too how swiftly, completely and solidly a union can make peace, even in the exceptional case where it must use its coercive power against a state instead of an individual.<br />Theory and practice which alike condemn a league alike attest the fact that a union works. Both testify that this system is trustworthy, sound. We can not go right if we organize our democracies as a league; if we go wrong in organizing them as a union of ourselves we shall be the first to fail with union.<br />Any system that defies reason and defies accident is anti-Man.<br />Too small a cause for so great a consequence?<br />The motorcar that climbs the Alps in a driving rain can be stopped in the desert by one drop of water in its electrical heart.<br />In the story told in these pages I can point to no time which appears so fraught with disaster to the human race as a whole as the present, the moment at which I am bringing this book to a close.... We have now reached a stage in the growth of civilization which cannot go further, and is doomed to go back, until we discover the means of passing from the national to the international state.... Human nature has made immeasurable strides since our Lord showed in His own person how divine it can be. But it cannot advance further till men learn to think of the scheme of human relations which He conceived as one to be brought from the realm of dreams to the earth in which they live, to be made incarnate in the flesh and blood of a living society. That is the world situation, as I see it, today: — Lionel Curtis, closing in 1936 his monumental "Attempt to Show How the Past [from ancient times on through] has Led to the Present Position in World Affairs," in his work, "The Commonwealth of God."<br />Many people ask why we are abolishing the German States. I can only answer: "I do not know why we are doing this. I only know that I must do it. You lose the past and gain the future." — Adolph Hitler, speaking at Munich, Jan. 27, 1936 (as reported in The Times, London).<br />The League, in my view, has reached the stage that the United States reached when the Articles of Confederation proved much too loose to set up an effective common life ... That was what led to the framing of the Constitution of the United States ... I am sure there are millions in my country who are ripe for such a policy and I am sure also that throughout Europe and the world there would be a great response to such a lead.<br />We have now reached a stage in human affairs where we must either set out deliberately to build up a World Commonwealth, or suffer the collapse of civilization in another and infinitely more frightful world war.<br />World government based on democracy, social justice and racial equality is not only a noble ideal. It has become a stark necessity. Those who share that conviction must have the courage of their conviction that the future belongs to us and that it is we who must take the lead in order to save peace and lay the foundations of a new civilization. — Herbert Morrison, British Labor M. P., addressing the Geneva Institute of International Relations, Aug. 21, 1936.<br /><strong>CHAPTER VIII</strong><br />How the Union Remedies Our Ills<br />The effort for disunion produces the existing difficulty. — Lincoln, Message to Congress, Dec. 3, 1861.<br />We can turn now to the major ills that are afflicting our world and defeating our best doctors and see how the Union remedies them. We shall then see better what Union means and what we get from it, how much for how little.<br />MILITARY DISARMAMENT AND SECURITY<br />Our democracies have devoted nearly twenty years of patient effort to this problem. It has been tackled from apparently every angle: By all the nations together and by small groups of them; piecemeal, by this or that arm or this or that region, or as a whole on a universal scale; by secret diplomatic channels and by public League debate; security first and disarmament afterward and vice versa — by every way within the limits of national sovereignty. The problem remains. The progress that seemed at times to have been made has always proved illusory. There are more security pacts than ever and less secure peace. Only the World War knew heavier armaments than today, and its lead is falling every hour everywhere on earth. The efforts to solve the armaments-security problem have proved only that it cannot be solved under the league or national sovereignty system.<br />When the fifteen democracies unite in abandoning this system for Union what happens to this problem? A two-power standard in all arms provides more armed security than any nation now dreams of enjoying. Merely by establishing the Union and only by it can democracies be mathematically certain of gaining reduction in armaments while at least doubling their armed security.<br />Armament, however, is only one measure of power. Our Union, we have seen, would be even more powerful in other respects. It would enjoy almost monopoly world control of such war essentials as rubber, nickel, iron, oil, gold and credit. This, with the invulnerability from surprise attack its decentralized strength would confer and the prestige its centralized general staff and its swiftly effective Union government would give, would enable it to reduce its armaments safely below the two-power standard. The Union would have nothing to fear from most of the peoples left outside at the start; it could count on their support even before they entered it. Except for police work the Union's only need to keep armaments at all would be as a temporary precaution against the militant absolutist powers — Japan, Germany and Italy. Even a much tighter alliance among the three than seems likely to be made would be no more formidable to the Union than an alliance of, say, Mexico, Venezuela, and Italy would be to the United States.<br />If one can imagine Russia preferring to join with its present enemies, Japan and Germany, rather than to live on peaceful terms with the Union, it still needs considerable imagination to see real substance in an alliance of such bedfellows. And when one has imagined things as black as possible, he has imagined no real immediate danger to the Union. The figures already given show enough of the basic weakness of such a four-power combination to reassure all but the congenitally fearful. Moreover, the mere attempt to form such an alliance would make the heavily armed states of central Europe fearful of becoming its first victims and throw them all the more on the side of the Union. Those who are reassured for the present but fear a dangerous alliance might develop in twenty or thirty years can cancel their fears by imagining too how much the Union would be developing and expanding during this time.<br />Practical men, and even dreamers and nightmarers with fairly well-balanced imaginations, will find when they study the world in which our Union would exist that there is no reasonable conceivable combination that would dare contemplate attacking it. The reasonable probability is that all the aggressive dictatorships would soon be overthrown one after another from within because of the powerful stimulus the creation of the Union would give their peoples to revolt, regain their freedom and enter the Union. With each revolution the Union's security would rise and its need of armaments fall.<br />All this can be done without a disarmament conference or treaty. If the Union desired to speed the process of disarmament by a treaty it would be in a much better position to obtain agreement than the democracies are today. But there would be no real need for such a treaty. For all practical purposes, the simple act of Union by the democracies would suffice to end the whole armaments danger and problem, provide security for all the democracies and make every people on earth more secure from war than it is now. The present disunion among the democracies exposes no one more to war than the Germans, Italians and Japanese. Even they can have no security for their lives until they see their rulers faced with a democratic Union too mighty for them to attack.<br />The failure of the Disarmament Conference has left us with another problem. It has left us with world and national economy based on a quickening rhythm of armament-making, and with unemployment growing nonetheless. How can this arming be ended or even slowed now without plunging the world into acute depression, and through it into civil and international war? Some believe that the only way to avoid depression is to let war quicken this productive rhythm still more. No doubt war is one of the things that can do this: It is the final burst of speed to which arms racing logically leads, but it can not solve our problem. It merely ends the race later and in worse conditions. If we can not stop arms racing now without dangerous depression, we shall not, by stopping it after a war, suffer its consequences less.<br />The only hopeful way of stopping the arms race without dangerously upsetting world and national economy is to stop it in a way that greatly stimulates confidence in peace and strongly encourages production. Nothing is more opposed to depression than well-founded optimism, nor is there surer cure for fear than confidence, — and what can cause such buoyant optimism and confidence as the establishment of the Union?<br />To solve this problem without war we need a substitute for war that will equal war's power in speeding production and absorbing idle men while doing it healthily instead of unhealthily. World war is no half-measure, its substitute can not be one. It can be nothing less than our world Union.<br />ECONOMIC DISARMAMENT<br />We come to the second great problem of the day. If economic disarmament is not the first of our problems, as Secretary Hull maintains, it would seem to be the hardest. Production and trade, unlike armaments and money, are not the monopoly of any democratic government. They are instead in the hands of tens of millions of individuals, operating alone or through great collectivities called corporations. When democracy deals as a unit with democracy in this field where not the state but the individual is in fact the governing unit its negotiations are unimaginably complicated by the multiplicity of conflicting and connecting independent interests involved. Mixed with these are strategic considerations arising from the failure to settle the military disarmament-security problem. The result is again failure, and the failure induces in turn a trend to make production and trade as much a weapon of the state as the army is. Whatever may be the merits of managed economy the danger of managing it as a weapon is dear enough. It is no less evident that making trade more a thing of war than it is already will not solve the problem of economic disarmament.<br />Union is not, like a league, an improved means for solving this problem; here again it is itself the solution. There is no other way than Union to solve this problem, if only because Union alone allows this tangle of private property interests to be tackled by its own common denominator, the individual. Where under the best of leagues trade barriers remain and any reduction in them is not only temporary but precarious, exposed to the sudden exercise by any nation of its sovereign right to denounce them because of a national emergency, these barriers vanish completely and forever when states form a union.<br />Since these democracies do two-thirds of the world's trade, mostly among themselves, their abolition of trade barriers among themselves would solve the economic disarmament problem not only for themselves but practically for all the world. It is highly important to keep in mind that the trading power of the democracies as regards the rest of the world is even greater, much greater, than their armed power. No serious foreign trade problem would remain for the Union and no outside country could withstand the bargaining power of this rich market with its monopoly control of essential raw materials. The Union would not need tariffs to protect any industries as strategic or subsidies to agriculture as preparation for a blockade. Because of its great reduction of armament and governmental expense it would need a tariff for revenue much less than any democracy now.<br />Here again the Union of only fifteen democracies provides a base big enough to solve practically the whole world problem. Even before more countries entered the Union its influence would inevitably tend, powerfully, pervasively, to free trade and restore prosperity everywhere on earth. If one considers how much poorer the rest of the world would be if the principle of union did not give it now the rich market it enjoys in the United States, one can understand better how much the non-democratic world suffers now from the barriers dividing the democratic market. One may temporarily increase the prosperity of some at the expense of others as all the nations are now trying to do, but one can never long make any nation more prosperous by impoverishing the rest of the world. And one can not possibly add to the wealth of some nations all that our Union does without making all mankind the richer.<br />MONETARY STABILIZATION<br />With managed money currency has become like armaments and tariffs a weapon of the state. It is the swiftest, most sweeping and high-powered, the clumsiest, blindest, and most incalculable of the economic weapons in the arsenal of the state. It acts as a tariff on all imports — except that it brings the government no revenue — combined with a subsidy to all exports. When one resorts to ordinary tariffs or subsidies one can choose the commodities to which they apply, and vary the degree, but monetary depreciation like rain falls alike on rich and poor, ocean and desert, and like rain it falls most generously where in fact it is needed least.<br />Other nations may meet this tariff-subsidy by depreciating their currency too and restoring equilibrium, but they thereby render that equilibrium more precarious and give every trader less reason to trust in it, and more reason to fear that some nation will use its sovereign right suddenly to lower the value of its money and thereby change profit into loss on goods in transit or under contract. At best the uncertainties of managed money remain to harass trade and burden government, — and not least by stimulating gold production. It seems harder to see the stupidity of seeking recovery by managing the measures of value than by shortening the yardstick to 30 inches, or "managing" any other measure. Yet few weapons seem more intrinsically unmanageable than money.<br />It is not strange that the problem of monetary stabilization has grown worse under managed nationalism and has given birth to such costly nonsense about silver and gold and paper and internal price levels and deflation, inflation, reflation, and such hen-or-egg debates as that over which comes first, monetary stabilization or tariff reduction. It would be strange, however, for this monetary problem to be solved enduringly without the world economic problem, the world armaments-security problem and, above all, the world government problem, being solved at the same time.<br />We have already seen how insoluble the monetary problem is so long as the great democracies remain sovereign. We have also seen that the stability of the gold standard before the war was based really on Britain's predominance, and that to restore that stability we must restore its essential basis — a single responsible government overwhelmingly powerful in the economic world, a single budget and a single gold reserve. We can restore that basis by the Union of the democracies and only by their Union, for no other combination is strong enough.<br />The money of the Union would be stabler than any that men have ever known and the stablest that is now humanly possible. Businessmen everywhere want a stable money in which to make their contracts for future deliveries, particularly in international trade. There can be no doubt that in every country outside the Union they would at once tend to use the Union's money for all such transactions, even more than non-British traders used the pound before the war for international business between them. The Union, in short, would not need to spread round the world to establish a world money, it would need only to be created.<br />COMMUNICATIONS<br />For years the world has been struggling to unify and standardize and simplify transit regulations through the cumbersome machinery of diplomacy and the League. One needs only compare the situation in this whole field within the American Union to that still obtaining in the much smaller area occupied by the democracies of the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Holland and Switzerland to understand what a difference union makes.<br />It makes the greatest difference with aviation. The essential difficulty civil aviation presents to sovereign states is that it lends itself so swiftly and dangerously to war that a prudent government must remain always more or less on its guard against the aviation of any powerful neighbor, however friendly. So long as the neighbor's government is sovereign there can be no real guarantee that it will not suddenly use its air power as an instrument of national policy. No state in the American Union and no canton in Switzerland, however, has the slightest anxiety about aircraft from neighboring states or cantons; in these two areas the people think of aviation in terms of the whole union, not of the states within it. They escape the wasteful, dangerous competition between democracies in subsidies to civil air lines intended to maintain and strengthen their respective air arms.<br />Union of the democracies, by bringing half the world into one air union, would allow civil aviation to spread its wings at last and really fly. One can safely predict that in the Union's first ten years aviation would develop beyond the dreams of men today. It would profit not merely from removal of artificial barriers but from the positive stimulus it would receive from the great intensification of trade and travel resulting from the Union. It would profit, too, from the huge funds made available by the elimination of the present waste on arms and unnecessary government.<br />What has been said of aviation applies only in different degree to all other forms of communication. To mention but a few points, the Union would leave the problem of a tunnel under the English channel no more of a problem than is a tunnel under the Hudson river. It would reduce the North Atlantic to the status of Lake Michigan and bring three-fourths of the world's merchant marine under a common law. No more at sea than in the air could any outside country stand the competition of this Union. It would inevitably set the standard for all the world, and its control of all important means of communication would grow more and more complete as it spread.<br />It would also speed communications and make them cheaper. It would free us and all the world from all the financial, red tape, or other obstacles to postal, telegraphic, telephonic, wireless, cable, or radio communications which rise not from such natural factors as distance but from such artificial factors as national sovereignty among the democracies. Since it is possible for a German in New York to communicate by letter with a Japanese in San Francisco for three cents, it ought not to cost more for an American in New York to communicate with an Englishman in London. There is no service to our freedom in continuing a system whereby the believer in free speech in Lyons must pay to send a letter to the believer in free speech in Geneva three times what he pays to send it to the believer in free speech in more distant Cherbourg. Nor is there any service to our freedom in maintaining all the sovereignty barriers to communication among the free by motor car, railway, ship and airplane.<br />The amount of unnecessary vexation and bother and waste of time and financial imposition we now suffer in the great field of the communications of men and of their thoughts and things will make our children pity us. With all the improvement the Union would bring in the speed, safety, simplicity, comfort and cheapness of all communications, the world would truly become the workshop and the playground of the individual. More than anything else the development of all means of communications has made the organization of world government urgent, and its organization would develop these communications more than anything else.<br />MEN, JOBS, TAXES, GOVERNMENT<br />I have left to the last the problem of our persons because it runs through all the other problems, too. Disarmament, security, trade, money, communication, — these are really important to us because of the way they affect our persons. They are really problems in the freeing of our individual selves which have been handled separately here only for reasons of expediency and habit. Nationalism has habituated us to considering these things as separate problems of the state, and not as what they are — mere facets of our basic problem, that of gaining more and more freedom of every kind for our individual selves. The other facets we may more conveniently lump together here as the problem of our persons. A few examples may suffice.<br />There are all the disabilities, burdens and hindrances we suffer in our persons simply for the sake of maintaining our fifteen national sovereignties. There are passports, visas, quotas, "permits" to live. The citizen of one democracy founded on the principle of no taxation without representation is not only taxed without right of vote, if his business requires him to reside in another democracy devoted to this principle, but he is often obliged to pay taxes to both governments and disqualified from voting in either. Could we get rid of such anomalies while keeping national sovereignty, we still could not keep it and stay rid of them. Union rids us of them all for good.<br />There is the unemployment problem. It has been growing increasingly formidable in our generation. The momentary improvements achieved here and there and now and then are insignificant when measured by the cost and effort they have required and the time they have endured. Consider, for instance, all our democracies did in one year, 1934, to solve the unemployment problem. They spent billions on public works, on priming the pump in many ways to induce private employment, on doling out relief, on paying more in insurance benefits than they could collect in premiums. They spent further billions on monetary magic, quotas, tariffs, subsidies, and other contraptions to protect the worker and keep the factory going by lowering prices below cost to the foreigner and raising them proportionately to the citizen, — by, that is, combining hidden donation abroad with hidden taxation at home. They discriminated against the citizens of other democracies who sought work among them. They ran the risks of centralizing government, of increasing the authority of the state, of making the mass of men more dependent on the state, all to give men a chance to work and keep alive. They created all sorts of new governmental commissions and boards and bureaux. They investigated, legislated, pontificated. They made codes by hundreds and their workers went on strike by thousands. They inflated here and deflated there. They did about everything except unite. And the number of unemployed among the fifteen which totalled about 15,900,000 when 1934 began totalled 15,500,000 when 1934 ended. Thereafter, it is true, they got the total down considerably — but only by jumping from the frying pan of unemployment into the fire of armaments racing and only for a year or two, for since 1937 their unemployment has been rising again.<br />The Union promises to reduce unemployment to where it would be no grave problem, where it could be handled like other predictable accidents through normal insurance methods. The Union would do this by freeing trade, stabilizing money, lowering costs, reducing armaments, guaranteeing political security, eliminating the war danger, diverting into healthy channels the billions now being wasted, cheapening and speeding communications and making the worker and his product far more mobile, restoring confidence and opening vast new enterprises. If the problem of unemployment cannot be solved along these lines it would seem indeed insoluble. Then there is the pressing problem of reducing taxes, economizing on government, avoiding centralization's danger of dictatorship. Under national sovereignty taxation and governmental powers have been growing everywhere like weeds. Only the Union seriously tackles the problem of how the democracies are to recover from the taxation and borrowing and bureaucracy and unnecessary government with which the various nationalist recovery measures have afflicted them. With the creation of the Union would vanish not merely the costly governmental excrescences that have mushroomed up since the depression but also an almost unbelievable amount of unnecessary government that has endured so long that men seem calloused to it. The Union would not only end duplication and dangerously wasteful competition (as in war departments and foreign offices) but would eliminate the raison d'être of all sorts of governmental departments, boards, commissions, administrations, bureaux and services now devouring taxes in each democracy without serving the freedom of their citizens half so well as would their disappearance through union.<br />The fifteen democracies now maintain not only fifteen foreign ministries but hundreds of ambassadors and ministers and thousands of minor diplomats and consuls. Their Union's Department of Foreign Affairs would need less than fifty ambassadors and ministers and only a few hundred minor diplomats and consuls. Incidentally it would eliminate entirely the most expensive embassies the democracies now maintain, those at Washington, London, and Paris. The saving this would bring is suggested by the fact the British Ambassador at Paris receives a much greater salary than the British Prime Minister himself, and the American Ambassador to Belgium receives more than the Secretary of State.<br />When one begins thus to go into the details of what the Union means, one begins to understand why the departments of the Union government, far from being larger than their counterparts in the greatest democracies today, would, from sheer lack of governing to do, be much smaller and less expensive. The saving would be further increased by the dropping from the public payroll of all the taxation and customs officials whom this economizing on government would render unnecessary. Each of the present budgets of the democracies could be reduced astonishingly by the Union, — unless the Union led them to develop enormously their social, educational and health work, their fight against the real enemies of man: poverty, ignorance, disease and death.<br />DYING TOGETHER OR LIVING TOGETHER?<br />Thus does the Union remedy simultaneously our armament, security, tariff, quota, monetary, budgetary, communication, unemployment, taxation, centralization and governmental ills, and the list is not complete.<br />It cannot be completed. The evil done by nationalism is too extensive, too all-pervading.<br />Time and again statesmen and experts have declared that all our major world ills are inextricably inter-related. To tackle any of these ills separately is to learn this quickly, but to tackle the bewildering tangle all together has seemed even more discouraging. Yet the Union by striking at their common political source undoes them all at once. What else but the Union promises half so great a boon?<br />The non-unionist is left facing two dilemmas. If he solves some but not all of these problems the remainder will upset his solutions. How long will monetary "stabilization" last without economic disarmament or political security? On the other hand, could all or any of the major world problems be solved without the Union the problem of organizing effective world government would remain to upset such solution. If a miracle led us all to abolish armaments and trade barriers, stabilize money, guarantee every democracy against invasion and dictatorship, it would not be enough; we would need to have a continuing miracle to keep all this from vanishing next day like a dream. Or we would need to organize our relations well enough to keep our money stable, our arms down, our freedom secure and meet the problems that our miracle left or made.<br />Only by dying together can we escape this problem of living together, of organizing world government. We have already seen that to organize it we must take either man or the state as unit, we must organize either a league or a union. We have seen, too, why a league cannot possibly solve our problems by its mere creation, nor provide the government we require to keep solved any problem it may solve. By the Union alone can we hope to solve our insolubles all together and at the same time give ourselves the government we must have to keep them solved and meet the new problems that their solution brings.<br />With the passage of time, it becomes more and more clear that no fundamental, durable recovery can be hoped for unless and until a general stabilization at least of the leading currencies has been brought about. — Leon Fraser in his 1935 Report as President of the Bank for International Settlements.<br />Our Creator the Great Ruler never intended that man should engage in any such work as the destruction of human life. There are many who have perished in the direction you are now facing, and these lords have come to induce you to join them so that the shedding of human blood might cease and the Good Tidings of Peace and Power might prevail. — Traditional narrative of the founding of the Confederacy of the Five Nations, or Iroquois Indians.<br />War or battle, as a thing very beastly (and yet no kind of beasts so much use it as man) they do detest and abhor ... And therefore ... they never go to battle, but either in defence of their own country, or to drive out of their friends' land the enemies that have invaded it: or by their power to deliver from the yoke and bondage of tyranny, some people that be therewith oppressed ...<br />They be not only sorry, but also ashamed, to achieve the victory with bloodshed; counting it great folly to buy precious wares too dear ...<br />If any prince stir up war against them, intending to invade their land, they meet him incontinent out of their own borders with great power and strength. For they never lightly make war in their own country. — More, Utopia, II-10, 1516.<br /><strong>CHAPTER IX</strong><br />Isolation of the Germ<br />I have no other purpose than to place truth before my eyes ... and to draw the world away from its old heathenish superstitions. — Leeuwenhoek, discoverer of the microbe world.<br />It is only when a man or beast has tuberculosis that I can find these bacilli. In healthy animals I never find them. — Robert Koch.<br />Science has shown that the only sure way to overcome disease is to isolate the germ. It has shown too, by then eliminating the germ, that the effects of a germ can ramify far and that what seems to be a complicated condition of the body or a series of separate ills in it can be cured by the simple act of removing a microscopic germ. Though political science does not have guinea pigs to experiment with, those with remedies for ills of the body politic need to give what proof they can that they have really isolated the germ.<br />This book holds that the major ills of the world today originate in the assumption among the democrats that their own freedom requires them to organize the relations among the democracies with their state instead of themselves for unit, on the absolutist principle of nationalism instead of the democratic principle of individualism. For clarity we can name the germ, absolute nationalism, and the serum that eliminates it, unionism. We may now prove isolation of the germ by showing that injection of absolute nationalism in healthy political organism will give them the disease the democracies now suffer, and that injection of unionism will cure it.<br />Among the states composing the afflicted area there are two which are themselves composed of many states: the United States with forty-eight and Switzerland with twenty-two. Neither of these groups of democracies has the ills of our world group of fifteen. Switzerland, that is, is afflicted with such things as quotas only in its relations with other states; the Swiss cantons are not afflicted with quotas in their relations with each other. The citizens of each American state suffer as citizens of the United States from the armaments disease ravaging the fifteen democracies but they are free from it in their relations with the citizens of the other forty-seven American states. If all the world should sink except the area occupied either by these forty-eight states or by the twenty-two cantons their citizens would no longer suffer from ineffective government, armaments racing, fear of war, trade barriers, monetary instability; all mankind would then be free of these ills.<br />One may therefore consider the states within the American and the Swiss areas to be healthy organism, and consider as diseased organism the fifteen democracies.<br />Inject now into the people of each of these forty-eight states and twenty-two cantons the virus, absolute nationalism. Let the people of New York and of New Jersey, or of Zurich and of Geneva, think and act toward each other in terms of the state instead of the citizen precisely as Americans and Swiss now do toward each other or toward the British or French. Let their relations be infected with the same confusion that makes anarchy of those of the fifteen: Let them too identify the freedom of the citizen with the freedom of his state, the rights of man with rights of nations, the equality of man with the equality of states. Let them ground their relations on the state instead of man as unit. Let the citizens of each of the forty-eight and of each of the twenty-two democracies seek their individual freedom in establishing seventy national sovereignties where there now are two, and in guarding these seventy sovereignties as jealously as the fifteen democratic people guard theirs today. Who needs human guinea pigs to know that the seventy healthy organisms would then at once suffer the ills of the fifteen?<br />Consider more closely the effects of injecting the virus, absolute nationalism, into either the forty-eight or the twenty-two. They must then have not merely forty-eight (or twenty-two) flags where now they have one, but forty-eight (or twenty-two) armed forces, forty-eight (or twenty-two) currencies to keep stable by equalization funds, forty-eight (or twenty-two) national industries, farming classes, internal price levels and standards of living to protect by tariffs, quotas, subsidies, currency, depreciation, — all for the sake of the one thing left them in common: The Rights of Man.<br />The citizen of the sovereign republic of New York, when he crosses the Hudson to the sovereign republic of New Jersey, must then not merely stop to have his baggage searched and his money changed. He must first have a passport and a visa — for the republic of New Jersey seeks to protect its workers from the immigration peril that cheap Harlem labor forms. To cross this line in his automobile he must first get a customs paper for that and stop at the frontier to get it stamped. To send a letter, he must pay double postage.<br />What of the freedom of the individual to do as he pleases with the money he earns? The same 125,000,000 men must then pay enough taxes to maintain not one but forty-eight national governments, foreign departments, diplomatic and consular services, customs and immigration services, armies, airforces, and navies. What would it cost New York to protect its precious corridor to the sea against Connecticut and New Jersey making an alliance against it with the support of Pennsylvania? How big an air fleet would New York need to keep off bombers then? How many Holland tunnels would it need to dig — not under the river for commerce and pleasure but in Manhattan's rock for shelter in war time? What would it cost New Yorkers to seek safety in invading and annexing New Jersey — and thus coming face to face with powerful Pennsylvania?<br />This injection of nationalism causes the people of the forty-eight or the twenty-two to sacrifice their liberty and prosperity in other ways too. It involves them in all sorts of costly and dangerous political, economic and financial quarrels, — quarrels that centre in mad, maddening, mystic questions of the ratio of one sovereign people to another. By identifying a man's self-respect with what he imagines is the standing of his state in the world this nationalistic virus turns into a curse even the sense of dignity that freedom gives a man.<br />We see how the ills of the fifteen can be produced at will among the healthy forty-eight or twenty-two injecting in them the same nationalism. Suppose we now inject into the fifteen our serum, unionism. Suppose the Americans, British, French, Australians, Belgians, Canadians, Danes, Dutch, Finns, Irish, New Zealanders, Norwegians, South Africans, Swedes, and Swiss all begin to think and act toward each other in terms of men and no longer in terms of nations. Suppose that by some miracle we could inject simultaneously into these fifteen peoples, as doctors can inject serum into patients, the simple idea that their freedom required their union instead of their national independence. We can turn gain by this one costless priceless change all they are now vainly struggling to gain by deepening their dugouts the higher they fly. Does any one need human guinea pigs to believe that the injection of this serum would effectively cure the fifteen of all those ills they now suffer from which the forty-eight and the twenty-two are free?<br />For those who demand more proof of isolation of the germ more proof is available. We do not need to confine ourselves to imagining what would happen if the American states or Swiss cantons became infected with the idea that individual freedom required their separation instead of their union, nor what would happen if the people of the fifteen democracies should get the idea that their individual freedom required their union instead of their national independence. We can turn to laboratory record. American history provides an exceptionally clear and complete account of what happens to the same people when infected with the germ of absolute nationalism and then when treated with our unionism. In doing this book, I have carefully studied the record of this American experiment and written a fresh analysis of it, — but that is another book. While the American experiment seems from the scientific viewpoint the best for general study, every democracy is to some extent the result of a similar experiment. The citizen of each democracy can turn for proof to the history he knows best. Let each ponder where he would be now had not his forebears "sacrificed" to a union the sovereignty of the sub-division he now inhabits. Let him reckon all that he must lose for that sub-division to gain the right to levy tariffs, coin money, issue stamps, raise an army, fly a flag and stain the map. Let him think where he would be could it count only on those living in it to defend his rights as a man. Let each do his own book on his own case. There is no better way for us each to know how much freedom each would gain by making his sovereign union a sub-division of our Union now.<br />One of the early things men did was to make water run up, but because it took them long to learn what they had done they have had only 150 years of the Steam Age.<br />Our true State, this state that is already beginning, this state to which, every man owes his utmost political effort, must be now this nascent Federal World State to which human necessities point ... Nationalism as a God must follow the tribal gods to limbo. Our true nationality is mankind. — H. G. Wells, Outline of History.<br />A dark modern world faces wars between conflicting economic and political fanaticisms in which are intertwined race hatreds. To bring it home, it is as if within the territorial limits of the United States, forty-eight nations with forty-eight forms of government, forty-eight customs barriers, forty-eight languages and forty-eight eternal and different verities, were spending their time and their substance in a frenzy of effort to make themselves strong enough to conquer their neighbors or strong enough to defend themselves against their neighbors. — President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Aug. 14, 1936.<br /><strong>CHAPTER X<br /></strong>The Union<br />Let us discard all these things and unite as one people throughout the land ... declaring that all men are created equal. — Lincoln, Reply to Douglas, Chicago.<br />The work of practical organization to which this is a prelude excludes no loyal help or good will ... It is the guarantee of all against all the forms of disunion that lead to chaos, anarchy and war. The road is henceforth open before us and nothing shall stop our collective march.<br />... Equally attentive neither to disappoint the expectation of the peoples nor to compromise our chances of success, we must go methodically forward step by step with clear-sighted and firm decision and without ever forgetting our sense of what is possible or ever turning either from the final goal we seek. — Aristide Briand, addressing the Commission of Enquiry for European Union, Jan. 16, 1931.<br />PLAN OF CHAPTER AND TWO THINGS TO NOTE<br />The battle of freedom is to be fought out on principle. — Lincoln in his "Lost Speech."<br />A difference in degree grown large enough becomes a difference in kind. — Underwood.<br />Once we agree that our democracies must organize as a union, the next problem is one of practical application of the unionist principle to this particular case: How far to apply it and how, first a question of degree and then one of method. Before answering these two questions with a concrete application of the union principle, we need to note two things.<br />First, we should keep in mind during this whole discussion of practical application that it is subordinate to the question of principle and is to be regarded as illustrative of the concrete working of a hard and fixed principle rather than as forming a hard and fixed plan. This book is concerned above all with showing why we democrats of the world must organize our inter-state government with ourselves instead of our states as the equal units, and it discusses the application of this principle mainly to promote this end. This book aims to explain and defend the key principle of union rather than to insist on any concrete plan for union. When our democracies have agreed to turn to the union principle there will remain plenty of time for the practical problem to hold first place. To accord it even equal importance now risks obscuring clarity on the essential and dissipating in secondary disputes on method what common will for union we do develop. There seems no use debating how to bridge the Tiber before the Rubicon is crossed.<br />Secondly, we should keep in mind during the coming discussion that any application of the union principle to our problem in inter-state government differs radically from all previous applications of it because this time it is applied on a world scale and provides world control. The democracies to be united this time are so powerful that their Union would be all powerful and would be the first democratic state that from birth would dwarf all the rest of the world. Unless this be remembered, reasoning about our Union on the basis of the experiences of existing unions may mislead. Every existing union or democracy bears in its political thought and constitution the scars of revolutionary experiment, uphill struggle, one against a world. This has left a feeling of inferiority against which we need to guard.<br />To understand what union means today and what it can bring us in freedom we must create it in our imaginations, we must think in terms of the world in which our Union will exist, rather than in terms of the past and present worlds to which we are accustomed. We must never lose sight of the essential fact that the conditions in which the strongest of the seven great powers exist today are not the conditions in which our Union would exist. Its mere creation changes fundamentally the world situation and therefore the problems we face.<br />Our Union will be the great power, not one of the great powers. It will tower above all the rest of the world as the United States now does in the Americas. At the outset its population will be nearly twice that of China, its gold reserve and shipping tonnage about double that of the United States and the United Kingdom respectively, its area thrice that of Russia, its navy thrice that of the United Kingdom or the United States, its air force four times that of France. Its problems in the foreign field will be greatly simplified by the ratio between its strength in each domain and that of the strongest outside power or practical combination of them.<br />HOW FAR SHALL WE UNITE?<br />The economic, the financial, the political problems of the building of the United States, I repeat, ... are precisely the economic, the financial, the political problems of today, and those of today can only be solved by the application of precisely the same principles that the American people then used to solve them under the leadership of Washington and Hamilton. — Nicholas Murray Butler, addressing the American Club of Paris, June 20, 1935.<br />To what degree should the democracies in organizing inter-state government apply the union principle or government of the people, by the people, for the people?<br />Government of the people: Here the principle must be fully applied: The inter-state government where it governs at all must govern people, never states. It must have the power to maintain itself by taxing all the people of the Union and its revenue must not depend in any way on the governments of member states. It must have the power to raise and rule directly the armed forces of the Union and be entirely independent of the state governments in this field, too. Whatever laws it makes must never bear on the member states as states but only on all the inhabitants of the Union as individuals. It must have its own independent machinery for enforcing these Union laws throughout the Union. Insofar as it governs it must, in short, govern the people, the whole population divided as individuals, not as states.<br />"Insofar as it governs" — that brings another question. The union principle, we have seen, requires the fields of government to be divided between the Union and member states. Just which shall be the fields where the Union shall govern the people and which those where the nation shall govern them is, of course, a great and abiding federal problem. The answer depends on which government, Union or National, will best promote in any given field at any given time the object for which both were made, namely, the freedom in every sense of the individual. We shall therefore consider this question later when we reach the third point, government for the people.<br />Government by the people: Here again no exception to the union principle must be allowed in favor of the National government, but some exceptions may well be allowed in favor of the nations as peoples. That is, all the organs of the Union government, legislative, executive, judicial, and the machinery for amending the Union constitution, must be based directly on the people. Their National government must have nothing to do with these organs. But the Union government does not need to be based entirely on the population with the individual taken as equal unit; it can be based partly on the population divided by nations. It must however be based predominantly on the former, as, for example, in the American Union. How the balance between the two should be struck is one of several questions in constitutional mechanism raised by the principle of government by the people; these will be discussed when we reach the problem of method. We are now concerned only with the problem of how far principle is to be applied. The exceptions from the principle of the equality of man in favor of some representation of the people as nations are made in order to prevent the Union government from encroaching on the fields reserved to the National governments, — in other words, to prevent the Union itself nullifying the principle of government by the people as regards the National governments. Consequently the rule should be to allow these exceptions to the degree necessary to assure this object.<br />Government for the people: This must be fully applied. The constitution should make explicitly clear that the Union is made for the sake of the people themselves, for the individual freedom of each person equally. Practically, this means the constitution should provide (a) a list of individual rights that the people retain and that the government is made to preserve, and (b) a list of the rights which the people give to the Union to enjoy exclusively or to share with the National governments, — the division of powers, in short, between the Union and National governments.<br />The Bill of Rights which the Union would guarantee all inhabitants would contain those rights of the individual which all the founder democracies now separately guarantee. Where these rights are phrased differently in the different democracies, the Union could take the strongest formula, since the Union would be in a much stronger position to guarantee these rights and would be made to further them. It is to be hoped that this world Union would begin, as did the American Union, with a Bill of Rights surpassing that of many of its founder democracies, but if this risked preventing or delaying Union by rousing sterile dispute on fine points it would seem wiser to limit the Bill to the minimum of rights already enjoyed in common.<br />The Union's Bill of Rights would not end the existing guarantees of these rights in member democracies; it would simply be an added guarantee. The people of member democracies that guarantee rights not included in the Union Bill would continue to enjoy them. Union would prevent no nation in it from giving new rights to its citizens. Instead new rights would be expected to grow and spread among the member nations just as woman suffrage spread from one state to another in the American Union till it became general. The essential is that the Union constitution should leave no doubt that the government it forms is made for the sake of the freedom of all the individuals in the Union equally.<br />THE GREAT FEDERAL PROBLEM<br />What shall be the division of rights or powers or fields of government between Union and National governments? We have seen that the main attack against every proposal for inter-state government always comes from the fear that it creates a super-state, and this fear centers in the question of the division of power between inter-state and state governments. It rises mainly from both the advocates and opponents of the inter-state government approaching this question from the viewpoint of the power the governments concerned gain or lose rather than the object of the division — individual freedom.<br />If to each field of government we apply the test, Which will serve our individual freedom best, to give the Union or leave the Nation the right to govern in this field? we find five main rights that we need to give to the Union. They are:<br />1. The right to grant citizenship.<br />2. The right to make peace and war, to negotiate treaties and otherwise deal with the outside world, to raise and maintain a defense force.<br />3. The right to regulate inter-state and foreign trade.<br />4. The right to coin and issue money, and fix other measures.<br />5. The right to govern communications: To operate the postal service, and regulate, control or operate other inter-state communication services.<br />Manifestly, the Union must provide citizenship in the Union and obviously this brings each of us an enormous gain in individual freedom. Since we remain citizens of our nations in becoming citizens of the Union we lose nothing and only gain. Union citizenship must involve inter-state citizenship in the sense that a citizen in moving from one state to another retains all his Union rights and can change his state citizenship easily. The case for giving the other four rights to the Union is no less clear. We are seeing every day in all these fields that the rights we have granted our National governments to maintain separate armed forces, separate customs areas, separate currencies and separate communication systems have become not simply unnecessary to individual freedom but increasingly dangerous interferences with it.<br />It is easy to imagine any of the free peoples going to war again to maintain their rights as men. But can one imagine the American, British, French, or any other free people flocking to the colors merely to defend their present practice of taxing without representation each other's citizens who happen to live with them? Can one imagine any of their governments being able to raise an army to fight simply for its right to impose tariffs against the other free peoples?<br />No free people lacks a proud record of heroes who gave their lives at the stake so that men might have religious freedom. Is there among them any record of heroes who burned alive so that men might have military discipline and wear military uniforms? Do we call liberators or militarists those who fight for the sake of an army or navy, to whom armed force is a glorious end in itself, not a means to freedom, dreadful even when necessary? The free whatever language they speak hold dear the memory of martyrs who died for freedom of speech and of the press. If there be men among them who would sacrifice their lives merely to establish and maintain different kinds of bits of paper representing money or postage who would hold them dear? Union under the five-pointed star — one citizenry, one defense force, one market, one money and one stamp, — involves no loss of any of those liberties for which our fathers fought and for which we would give our lives today. It means pure gain of liberty without the shedding of blood.<br />Democracy's experience with inter-state government has shown that these five rights are the main ones we need to give our Union. It suggests that a few minor rights may be given the Union in addition to these, such as the rights to protect authors and inventors by copyright and patent and the right to make bankruptcy law uniform through the Union. Common sense, however, advises strongly against giving the Union even minor rights that the older and most successful existing unions do not have, and in favor of leaning backward to limit the rights of the Union at the outset. The essential thing now is to get the Union established, not to draw a perfect line between the things that belong to the Union and those that belong to the nation. Our immediate aim must be to remove the most immediate dangers to our freedom, and the easiest way to do this is to make no change that is not urgently or clearly needed. Once Union is established time will remain for other changes.<br />UNITING TO DECENTRALIZE<br />American genius does not show itself in its Fords and Wall Streets; it appears in its vital force only in its political constitution which balances so well decentralization and unity. — Count Sforza, Revue de l'Université de Bruxelles, No. 2, 1930.<br />Our object in uniting, we need to remember, is not to see how much we can centralize government but rather how much we can decentralize it or cut it out entirely as unnecessary. Though over-decentralization in five fields drives us now to Union, it by no means follows that centralization is the friend of freedom. The fact is, paradoxically, that what little centralizing we would do in uniting would really be done in order, on balance, to have more decentralization; we transfer five rights to the Union in order to curb the centralizing tendency in each of our nations which its possession of these rights now causes. We create some new government in order to get rid of much more existing government, to gain on balance more freedom from governmental interference in our lives.<br />"That government is best which governs least," Thoreau said, for as he explained, "government is at best but an expedient." Before him Paine said in his Rights of Man: "The more perfect civilization is the less occasion has it for Government, because the more it does regulate its own affairs, and govern itself, but so contrary is the practice of all Governments to the reason of the case, that the expenses of them increase in the proportion they ought to diminish."<br />We create Union to free ourselves from some fourteen governmental barriers to our selling dear and buying cheap, to reduce the expense of booming bureaucracy and monstrous armaments, to cut our way out of government gone jungle. The acme of decentralization is, after all, complete individual freedom. It is to come nearer to the democratic ideal where each man governs himself so perfectly that no other government is needed that we make our Union.<br />The five rights we would transfer to the Union are merely means of defending those individual, local and national rights that democrats hold dear, — means, that is, of defending what decentralization we have attained.<br />Far from weakening these dearer rights we protect and strengthen them by this transfer, whereas failure to make this transfer forces each democracy to centralize, to reduce individual and local rights so as to keep these five national rights, to sacrifice the end to the means. Since this leaves the national rights themselves more exposed to attack than does the Union, failure to centralize the means of protecting and extending decentralization is a losing operation all along the line.<br />The Union will give de jure status to all the existing decentralization that democrats value — to national home-rule for national affairs by whatever system of government, republic, monarchy, or whatnot that each nation desires, to each national language, each national educational system, each distinctive trait that makes each nation, and to the whole distinctive system of local liberties and customs and individual rights within the nation for which each nation stands. All these things now really have only de facto status as regards the world outside each nation. How perilous this lack of legal recognition of these rights by the outside world seems to each democracy may be seen by the way each is heavily arming. Only by uniting to recognize and guarantee all these national, local and individual rights can the democracies legalize them even in the democratic world. The practical result of their doing this, moreover, is to make these rights much more secure as regards the outside nations to whom they would remain only a de facto claim until these nations themselves entered the Union.<br />Particularly in connection with this question of centralization we need to remember that the proposed Union would be unique among unions because of its colossal material strength as compared to outside governments. The strongest existing union, the United States, needs flow to have much stronger central governmental powers and to develop much more homogeneity in its population than does this Union. The United States needs to insist on more and more homogeneity among Americans, to invade more and more the fields reserved to their states, to put more and more power in the hands of one man, and to provide a growing array of costly meddling central government organs, if its aim is not merely to defend the individual freedom of Americans against foreign centralizers, but to keep the American Union constantly pitted against other powerful free peoples, such as the British and the French. The United States must centralize more and more if it aims to battle all the time economically and monetarily and financially with all the rest of mankind, and to prepare always to battle separately from them by sea, land and air, cannon, gas and bomb. There is no end to the amount of government required when the aim of government is not only to live in world chaos but to keep the chaos alive too.<br />Not only would our world Union because of its unrivalled strength need homogeneity in its citizenry and centralization in its government much less than does the United States now, but it would gain added strength to protect the rights of its members by this very lack of homogeneity and centralization. By not merely tolerating but encouraging the existing diversity among and within the democracies the Union, we have seen, would doubly protect the citizen from the internal foes of freedom. He could count on this diversity to shield him from the danger of hysteria sweeping through the Union, and he would be protected as much against narrow-minded parochialism as against stampede.<br />Decentralization allows the Union to make the most of the fact that the forces and resources of the democracies are so scattered that there is no possibility either of any demagogue within the Union being able to seize all its power, or of any outside aggressor overwhelming the Union even by surprise attack with gas or germs. The Union would have no exposed center or heart as the British Commonwealth of Nations has in England, as France has in Paris, as the United States has in the area between the North Atlantic and the upper Mississippi. Each of these centers would have only fractional importance to this Union. The best the most powerful aggressor could possibly hope to do would be to surprise some outlying fraction of the Union. The rest of the Union would remain mighty enough to crush him like a cockroach. In these conditions who would dare attack: In union there is strength, but never so much as when union is decentralized as only this Union could be.<br />HOW SHALL WE UNITE?<br />When we are laying the foundation of a building, which is to last for ages, and in which millions are interested, it ought to be well laid. — James Wilson in the American Union's Constitutional Convention.<br />To balance a large State or society ... on general laws is a work of so great difficulty that no human genius, however comprehensive, is able by the mere dint of reason and reflection to effect it. The judgments of many must unite in the work; experience must guide their labor; time must bring it to perfection, and the feeling of inconveniences must correct the mistakes which they inevitably fall into, in their first trials and experiments. — Hume.<br />We come to the problem of method: How, concretely, shall we unite our democracies to this desired degree? We can divide this problem in two. There is primarily the underlying political problem of putting these general principles into constitutional form, establishing the Union and its governmental machinery. There is secondarily the practical problem of meeting the various transitional and technical difficulties raised by transfer of each of the five rights to the Union. The better to distinguish between first things and matters of secondary importance we shall consider the former here and the latter in Annex 2.<br />THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNION<br />Those who think through far enough will agree, I believe, that at bottom the only detailed or concrete plan that the Union can need is a draft constitution. For the establishment of the Union eliminates many of the problems for which we now think we need plans and planned management, and it provides itself the mechanism — government — for solving the various problems of transition.<br />The Convention that framed the Constitution uniting the Thirteen American democracies not only framed no plan except the Constitution, but it had no draft even of a constitution when it began, nothing but the broad outline of the Virginia plan for one — and New Jersey and Hamilton soon produced opposing plans. The situation the Thirteen had to remedy was relatively as complicated as ours, and unlike us they had no existing federal constitution on which to base their planning, for existing or previous confederations, such as the Swiss, were really leagues, not unions.<br />It is much less difficult to draft an inter-state constitution when man is the unit than when the state is. Organizers of leagues can still find only failures for models; those who would constitute unions can turn now to many time-tested successes. For reasons that will be seen when we study carefully the American Union I believe that we should turn particularly to the American Constitution and experience for guidance.<br />The drafters of the constitution of our world Union, however, will have the great advantage of including authorities from every successful democratic union, each of which has its own valuable contribution to make. The Swiss themselves are best fitted to tell what they have learned in uniting solid geographical and historical groups of Germans, French and Italians. The Canadians can tell of their union of French and English, the South Africans of their union of Boers and English, — and in the United Provinces and the United Kingdom the Dutch and English have a much older experience to relate. Can it be a harder political problem to draft a constitution uniting Englishmen in England and Dutchmen in Holland now after more than a century of peace between them than it was to draft one uniting Englishmen and Dutchmen in South Africa in the bitterness that war leaves in its wake?<br />These examples may suffice to indicate the rich store of constitutional experience which, since Hamilton cited the passage from Hume heading this section, has been placed at the disposal of union constitution-makers. They may indicate too the long tradition and discipline and training in self-government on which our democracies can count to aid them in uniting. We have only to organize the Union of unions. Our constitutional problem is not so much the difficult one of creating as the relatively easy one of selecting, adapting, consolidating, perfecting. It is not the venturesome task of sowing but the safer task of reaping the crop already grown by reason and chance, trial and error.<br />In drafting the constitution of our Union I would suggest that we take pains to avoid the dangerous confusion all unions so far have suffered regarding what they really are. We can do this by having our preamble make clearer than any union constitutions now do what we mean by union — that we men and women are constituting it of ourselves as equal sovereigns for our own equal individual freedom. I would copy the early American state constitutions which with logical clarity began by stating the object for which the government was being organized, namely, the Rights of Man, and then proceeded to organize government as a means to this end.<br />The Constitution would need to make clear at the outset, too, for reasons already explained, that the Union is organized as the nucleus of an eventual universal world Union of equal men.<br />WHAT OF INDIA?<br />At the outset there also rises the problem presented by such possessions of the democracies as India. Whatever we may wish, we must recognize that India's politically inexperienced millions can not at first be included in this Union on the same population basis as the western democracies. To try to do so would prevent our Union. To seek to free Indians this way is to deprive them of all the freedom that the organization of a sound nucleus of world government would bring the whole human species, and to expose them more than ever to the dangers to which all mankind is now exposed. Suppose those founders of the American Union who wanted slavery abolished had sacrificed the idea of union when they found they could not realize it without accepting slavery? Would they have made more freedom thus for any one? They chose instead union despite slavery, and within 70 years tens of thousands of white men were giving their lives to save the Union by freeing the slaves.<br />It would seem now practically necessary to distinguish in the Union territory between the parts that are already fully self-governing and those that are not, and restrict the right to vote in Union elections and to hold elective Union office to those born or naturalized citizens of the former. This would not mean that those born in the rest of the Union would be deprived of the other rights guaranteed individuals by the constitution, nor of the right to vote and hold office in their country. Instead, the Union's policy should be to train them for admission to the Union as fully self-governing nations. It is true that one can destroy democracy by seeking to spread it too quickly and over-loading the state with too many voters untrained for self-government. It is also true, however, that the only way to acquire such training is to practise self-government, and that an old and well-trained democracy can safely and even profitably absorb a much greater proportion of inexperienced voters than seems theoretically possible. Indeed, the higher the proportion of the untrained that a democracy is able successfully to admit to the vote, the stronger the democracy would seem to be. What better measure of ability to govern oneself can there be than to do it well despite all difficulties?<br />This whole problem is one of striking a balance, of deciding what proportion of the peoples that for one reason or another are politically weak shall be admitted at the outset to full citizenship. Common sense would seem to suggest both that we start with a low proportion, and that we explicitly state at the start that the Union's aim shall be to increase this proportion thereafter as much as prudent experiment justifies. A policy that deliberately and unequivocally aims at preparing every one in the Union for full citizenship should transform existing colonial psychology and make the colonial problem much easier to handle. It would be treating the politically inexperienced peoples much the same as we treat politically our own immature sons and daughters. These know that when they come of age they will enjoy full citizenship rights, and this great section of the unfranchised has never rebelled against the state nor taken the attitude the colonially unfranchised often do.<br />SHALL COLONIES BE CEDED TO THE UNION?<br />The non-self-governing parts of the democracies present another constitutional problem: Shall these territories remain under their control as now or shall each democracy on entering the Union transfer to the Union all its non-self-governing possessions? The latter policy would not be experimental; it was successfully practiced in the American Union. Indeed, the decision of the various states to transfer their land in the Northwest to the United States to govern as its Northwest Territory gave the United States in its league period a common possession and a common interest that contributed greatly to the establishment and maintenance of the present American Union.<br />This policy would require the United Kingdom and France to give more than any other democracy. It might therefore be called unfair, but the American precedent was open to the same attack. One needs to take a broad view in striking the balance between contributions to the Union. For example, the United States would give to the Union treasury much greater gold reserves than the British or French.<br />Moreover, it is much easier to see the advantages the governments of the various democracies would gain from continuing to hold their colonies than those their citizens would individually gain thereby. The question for the individual Englishman, Frenchman, American, Dutchman, etc., is not whether his national government would lose by his transferring the administration of colonies to the Union but whether he himself would lose on balance by accepting the Union on this basis.<br />Transfer of colonies to the Union would not require, of course, upsetting existing administration. Common sense would advise against any immediate, abrupt and sweeping changes in this respect, and generally in favor of leaving colonial administration to the individuals with the most training for it. Those who believe their national colonial administration is the best in the world should be among the first to welcome transfer of all colonies to the Union, since this would give the best colonial administrators a greater field in which to extend their beneficent influence. If the contrary should prove true, if their field should diminish once they had to compete with administrators of other nationalities in the free conditions of the Union, this would seem to mean that their claim to being the best in the world was unfounded. Best must meet perpetual challenge to remain best.<br />THE UNION LEGISLATURE<br />The chief technical problem in drafting the Union Constitution is the organization of its governmental machinery, its legislative, executive and judicial departments, and its mechanism for amending the constitution.<br />Practice is strongly in favor of a two-house Union legislature with one house based completely on the population and the other modifying this principle of equal men in favor of equal states. There can be no argument about the former, for the basic principle of Union requires it, and the practical objections vanish once the right to vote for members of the Union legislature is restricted to citizens of its self-governing member states. If, to prevent having too big a House of Deputies, the constitution allows one deputy for every half million or million citizens, the result in deputies from each of the fifteen democracies would be roughly:Australia .................... 13 7 Norway ....................... 6 3Belgium ...................... 16 8 Sweden ....................... 12 6Canada ....................... 21 11 Switzerland .................. 8 2Denmark ...................... 7 4 Union of South Africa*........ 4 7Finland ...................... 7 4 United Kingdom ............... 93 46France ....................... 84 42 United States ................ 252 124Ireland ...................... 6 3Netherlands .................. 16 8New Zealand .................. 3 2 Totals..................... 540 277<br />* Based on the white population since negroes there lack the right to vote.<br />Those who fear this would give Americans too much weight in the House need to remember two things. One is that this weight would diminish with every new democracy that entered the Union. The other is that there is no more danger of the American deputies or those from any other nation voting as a bloc when elected individually by the people of separate election districts than there is of the New York members of Congress or the Scottish members of Parliament voting as a unit now. Party lines would immediately cut across national ones in this Union as in all others. To have the representation by 1,000,000 (or major fraction thereof) instead of by 500,000 would seem wiser, since the expansion of the Union would soon make the House too big on the latter basis. The million basis would also tend to strengthen moderately the theoretical position of the smaller democracies.<br />As for the Senate, one of its main purposes in a Union is, of course, to safeguard the less populous against the more populous states, or better, to safeguard all the state governments against the Union government invading their field, or better still, to safeguard the people of the Union against losing freedom by over-centralization. In the American Union the method of achieving this purpose consists partly in allowing two senators to the people — not the government — of each state, no matter what the number of people in it may be. This might be copied in our Union. The difference in population between the United States and New Zealand, the most and the least populous democracies in our Union, is proportionately about the same as the difference between New York and Nevada.<br />For my part, however, I would favor a slight modification of this part of the American system. I would allow two senators to every self-governing nation of 25,000,000 or less population, two additional senators for every additional 25,000,000 or major fraction thereof up to a total population of 100,000,000, and thereafter two more senators for each 50,000,000 or major fraction thereof. This would give two senators to each of the fifteen democracies except France, the United Kingdom and the United States, the first two of which would have four and the third would have eight. The results of the two systems may be seen below:Australia ...................... 2 2 Norway ......................... 2 2Belgium ........................ 2 2 Sweden ......................... 2 2Canada ......................... 2 2 Switzerland .................... 2 2Denmark ........................ 2 2 Union of South Africa .......... 2 2Finland ........................ 2 2 United Kingdom ................. 2 4France ......................... 2 4 United States .................. 2 8Ireland ........................ 2 2Netherlands .................... 2 2New Zealand .................... 2 2 Totals........................ 30 40<br />The American method would give the small democracies a preponderance of five-sixths, the other would assure them three-fifths the Senate at the start, and these proportions would grow with the admission of new member nations since nearly all potential members have less than 25,000,000 population. It would seem wise to allow the government of so vast a Union as ours to draw more than the American system permits on the experience of the democracies most accustomed to government on a big scale, so long as the Senate's function of safeguarding the small democracies and decentralization is not thereby endangered. Either way the Senators would be elected at large by each nation, and each senator would have one vote.<br />In addition to the safeguard which the second system would provide, I would have the constitution itself forbid any interference by the Union with certain national rights, such as language, without the consent of each nation concerned. This would protect the rights which the system of absolute equality in national representation in the Senate seeks to protect, and would therefore make its extreme departures from the principle of the equality of men unnecessary. One of the great advantages of the second system to my mind is that it would help keep clear that the Union holds the equality of man superior to the equality of the state. It would thus help save the Union from such dangers as the Civil War which the American Union suffered because its Constitution applied the principle of the equality of the states so far that many concluded that state rights were superior to human rights in it.<br />PARLIAMENTARY OR PRESIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT?<br />There are obvious arguments for the parliamentary and for the presidential system of government. The former is more responsive, the latter more stable. One can argue that in this new venture of establishing union on a world scale and among so many historic nations the first aim must be stability. Once the Union is firmly established its government can be made more responsive when the need becomes insistent, whereas if the Union is so responsive at the start as to be unstable it may be too late to remedy this defect and keep the Union together. It is safer to cut cloth too long than too short. Moreover, the establishment of the Union eliminates so much of the work of government today as to make responsiveness less necessary.<br />On the other hand, one can argue that by eliminating all the burden and waste of unnecessary government and by generally freeing the individual we stimulate enormously the most powerful sources of change. When we study afresh the results of union in America we shall have a better idea of all that this means, how much the Union will change our world and speed change in it, how much we need to make our Union government responsive enough to meet these changes and this quickening tempo of change. The drafters of the American Constitution had no way of knowing how rapidly the United States would grow under the free conditions they provided. We know now from this and other experiences how conducive individual freedom is to rapid growth, invention, discovery, change in everything. We need only look back to see how the tempo of change in the world has been accelerating every generation since government began to be made on the principle of the equality of man and for the Rights of Man. We cannot make the leap forward that this Union makes on the road to freedom without speeding proportionately the tempo of change. Prudence once required for freedom stable rather than responsive government. Now prudence demands greater provision for adaptability.<br />My own view favors a combination of the responsive and the stable, of the parliamentary and presidential systems, — a combination aimed at keeping the advantages of each, meeting the peculiar needs of our Union, and insuring that its government will not seem too strange to any of the democracies. This brings us to the problem of the executive power. Only here do<br />I think that we need to invent or innovate in making this constitution, though not very much even here.<br />THE EXECUTIVE<br />Because we are unwilling to take change-making as part of our everyday life, changes are forced upon us and we say, "this is a catastrophe." I do not believe that you will ever get civilization or government of any kind on a sound basis until you appoint a cabinet minister on change-making, logical change-making, because you can not keep change from coming. — Charles Kettering, President, General Motors Research Corporation, addressing the American Club of Paris, Oct. 5, 1933.<br />My suggestion is that instead of establishing a single executive we vest executive authority in a Board of five persons, each selected for five years, one each year, or each elected for ten years, one every other year. This would assure constant change in the Board and constant stability. I would have three elected by direct popular vote. I think it highly essential that there be some officer or officers in the Union elected by and responsible to the people of the Union as a whole as is the American President. The other two members of the Board I would have elected in between the popular elections, one by the House of Deputies, the other by the Senate. This should assure a more representative Board. The Board would establish a rotation whereby each member presided it for one or two years. Three should form a quorum of the Board and it should act normally by the majority of those voting.<br />The Board, I would further suggest, should delegate most of its executive authority to a Premier who would exercise this power with the help of a Cabinet of his own choosing until he lost the confidence of either the House or the Senate, whereupon the Board would name another Premier. I would give the Board power to dissolve either house or both of them in order to call new elections, and I believe it should also have a power of veto somewhat similar to that which the American President has. I would make the Board commander-in-chief of the Union's armed forces, and empower it with the consent of the Senate to conclude treaties and name all the Union judges.<br />I would also have it report to the people and the Legislature from time to time on the state of human freedom and of the Union, and on the effects and need of change, and to recommend broadly measures and policies. In short, I would entrust the more general and long term duties of the executive to the Board, and leave the more detailed and short term duties to the Premier and Cabinet.<br />The aim of this system is threefold: First, to assure the supremacy of the people and to provide strength, continuity, stability and foresight in the executive while keeping it responsible to and representative of the people. Second, to reassure all those who would be fearful of any one man having too much power in the Union, or of all executive authority being in the hands of, say, an American, or an Englishman, or a Frenchman. Third, to avoid the unhealthy burden now placed on one man by the American system, while enabling the head of the Union to fulfill the liaison functions which the British royal family do to some extent in the smaller British Commonwealth, and which would be much more necessary in the Union. All members of the Board would be expected to travel through the Union, and it would be easy for the Board to arrange rotation whereby one would be visiting the more distant parts of the Union while another was visiting the less distant parts and the other three were at the capital.* Such, broadly are the aims of the system I suggest. I believe few will object to these aims, and certainly I would not object to any other system that promised to secure them better than mine, or nearly as well.<br />* Where should be the Union's capital? There would be advantages in having a permanent one and also in having the Legislature alternate sessions there with sessions in each of the main parts of the Union. This is one of the many questions best left to the Union to decide.<br />THE JUDICIARY<br />The essentials to me here are that there be an independent Supreme Court, that no controversies among member states be excluded from its jurisdiction, and that the constitution be made explicitly the supreme law of the Union. To attain these ends I would favor copying broadly the method followed in the American Constitution. No doubt there would be controversy over whether the Supreme Court should have the right to invalidate laws as unconstitutional. I believe it should have this right. The essential purpose of this right is, however, to keep the Constitution supreme — to keep intact the division between the more fundamental law which can be changed relatively slowly, the Constitution, and the less fundamental law which can be changed relatively quickly, the statutes. It would seem wiser to accept any system that gives reasonable promise of attaining this purpose than to delay or sacrifice the Union by controversy over the question of method.<br />THE AMENDING MACHINERY<br />Connected with the problem of the judiciary is the problem of how the constitution shall be amended. Many of the objections made to the American Supreme Court would be more justly aimed at the American Constitution's amending mechanism. It makes that Constitution too hard to change, too rigid, and it has for me the further disadvantages of being based too much on the states as corporate bodies. All that has been said of our Union's need to adapt itself more quickly to change than the American Union needed to do when it began applies with special force to the present problem. I would suggest that the constitution be amended by majority vote of the voting citizens on proposals that had gone through some preliminary scrutiny, with several choices open as to the kind of scrutiny. For example, the people might act on amendments proposed by two-thirds the Union legislature with the approval of four-fifths of the Board, or by two-thirds of either House or Senate with the unanimous approval of the Board, or by a special constituent assembly, or by petition of, say, one-fifth or fourth the voters in one-third or half the nations in the Union. It would be expressly stipulated in the constitution, however, that certain constitutional guarantees, such as the right of each nation to conduct its own affairs in its own language and the right of each citizen to freedom of speech and of the press, could not be lessened without the consent of each nation.<br />Such are the main lines on which the Union could be constituted. Those who desire to see how these proposals look when actually applied will find in the appendix a draft constitution containing them. It may give a better idea of them as a whole, and it provides an easy means of indicating how various minor constitutional problems not treated here might be solved. It should be kept in mind, however, that this draft constitution is not put forward as a hard and fast plan. When there is agreement to organize on the union principle there will be time for discussion of the details of how to do it. This draft is included only as an example of what might be done, an illustration of what Union means, to make the union principle clearer.<br />TOO "EIGHTEENTH CENTURY"?<br />I should esteem it the extreme of imprudence to prolong the precarious state of our national affairs, and to expose the Union to the jeopardy of successive experiments, in the chimerical pursuit of a perfect plan. — Hamilton in The Federalist, LXXXV.<br />I would now briefly explain my position better to those who object to my constitutional ideas as being too "eighteenth century" and would prefer to see more recognition given to economic considerations. I would neither stick to nor discard ideas because of their date, I would base my choice on reason and experience and existing practical and political conditions. I would not deny that two plus two make four simply because they made four in the eighteenth century, and I would not discard the basic principle either of union or of the steam engine because they were discovered in that century. On the other hand, I would not blindly copy past applications even of sound principle. I believe that we can never understand a principle fully or apply it perfectly at first (if ever), that we start with a faulty grasp and application of it, and that as we put this to the test of practice we gain an increasingly better position to understand and apply the basic principle. I find that I am more and more impressed by our need of practical experience in order to learn. Two examples may make clearer what I mean.<br />When I was a small boy my grandfather, Thomas Kirshman, used to tell me, as he studied the buzzards soaring over the fields and woods of Missouri, that when men learned the principle the buzzards used they would at last begin to fly. He did not live to know that men would begin to fly thanks to what they had learned about some things buzzards do not use — to what they had learned about creating motive power since Watt's time and about applying the principle of the wheel on which Watt built in his time. The fact is that only after they had flown for years with the aid of wheels and engines did men learn of the warm air currents that rise from open fields and of the cold ones that descend toward wooded plots, and begin in gliders to soar like buzzards without wheels or motors.<br />Similarly, I believe that for our Union to be possible we had to try out the league solution first. Certainly I do not mean to deny by my criticisms of the League of Nations the immense debt that I personally owe to it and to Woodrow Wilson and all the other men who have believed in it and made it possible for me to enjoy the advantage of seeing what could never before be seen — a world organization actually in operation.<br />I do not doubt that the best way to learn both to understand and to apply better the principle of union is to apply that principle enough to get the Union established. It follows that one should aim primarily at this stage at getting the Union established, and only secondarily at getting it established on what one believes to be the most perfect application of the principle of union. It seems to me that we are more likely to get the Union established by making it an extension of existing applications of the union principle with which people are familiar than by asking men not only to break new ground but to do it a new or unfamiliar way.<br />That is why I propose establishing the Union on, for example, the familiar "eighteenth century" political basis of a two-house legislature in which the representation of each citizen of the Union is determined by where he lives and not by what he does. I know that the modern tendency is to stress increasingly this latter, "economic," basis and to move toward representing men at least partly by their economic group interests. The future may well belong to this economic tendency, but obviously at present it is a minority tendency and we have not yet had much opportunity to tell from experience how it will work or whether it will work better than the time-tested and prevailing "political" method.<br />Whether we organize men on an economic or on a political basis, according to what they do or where they live, by industries or by states, we must still organize them either by the absolutist league principle or by the democratic union principle, we have still only two units to choose between, we must still base our organization on plural man or on individual man as our equal unit, and all that we have said against the former and in favor of the latter method still holds good. Consequently I am quite prepared in principle to organize men partly or entirely by economic groups so long as they are organized on the unionist as opposed to the league principle and unit. And I am ready to go as far in this direction as the majority desires. My objections are confined to the practical side.<br />Suppose we agree to organize men according to economic groups. There is a basic economic division between consumers and producers but since most men are both how shall be divide them thus? If we organize them only as producers according to what they do, we fall at once into the controversy that has split American labor into the A. F. L. and the C. I. O., — for shall we organize them horizontally by their craft or vertically by their industry? I do not say that there is no answer to these questions, nor that there may not be two answers that can be compromised. I can conceive of a combination not only of the horizontal and vertical methods, but also of the producer and consumer division, and of the economic and political systems. But all these answers and combinations raise a swarm of questions which invite controversy bound to delay the Union considerably and perhaps fatally.<br />However fertile this "economic" field may prove to be, we have as yet hardly begun to explore it, and it seems to me that the best way to hasten its exploration — and certainly the best way to get Union now — is to establish the Union on the familiar time-tested political basis with a minimum of innovation, and to leave it to each member state to experiment thereafter as much as it desires with organizing itself on an economic basis. This method allows the various methods of economic organization to be tried out on a small scale. It avoids the dangers of experimenting with one of these methods prematurely on too vast a scale and of delaying or preventing the establishment of the Union by overloading it with innovation. The method proposed is, in short, simply the method of doing first things first.<br />The kerosene lamp became better and better for twenty years after Edison invented the electric light, but that did not save it.<br />When we have a general who insists on devoting an increasing proportion of the national defense appropriation to free public schools we shall be impregnably defended and know military genius. The best defense of any country is a free, well-educated, well-informed, self-reliant citizen. One Lincoln is worth a fleet and army put together and costs far less to produce.<br /><strong>CHAPTER XI</strong><br />Of Time and Union<br />It ought to be the constant aim of every wise public council to find out, by cautious experiments and rational, cool endeavors, with how little, not how much, of this restraint [on individual freedom] the community can subsist. For liberty is a good to be improved, and not an evil to be lessened....<br />But whether liberty be advantageous or not (for I know it is a fashion to decry the very principle) none will dispute that peace is a blessing; and peace must in the course of human affairs be frequently bought by some indulgence and toleration at least to liberty. For as the Sabbath (though of Divine institution) was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, government, which can claim no higher origin or authority, in its exercise at least, ought to conform to the exigencies of the time. — Burke.<br />THE ETERNAL QUESTION<br />A policy of national sovereignty and independence has for various reasons proved very helpful in the past to the freedom of every democracy. This has helped lead them all to conclude that continuance of this policy must always prove helpful and never harmful to individual freedom, no matter how conditions change. But the question these democracies face is not whether a policy of nationalism toward all states is always necessary to this end, or never is as regards any of them. The question is whether at the present time and in existing conditions they will secure individual freedom better by practising toward each other a policy of absolute nationalism, or one of cooperation of national units as in a league, or one of union.<br />Much of the confusion in modern political thought comes from democratic thinkers failing to keep this question always in mind. There can be no more dynamic policy than the policy of freeing man — freeing all the incalculable powers of the individual in his two-billion-fold variety. There can then be no greater mistake than to imagine or assume that this policy can leave anything static, except sound principle. With the spread of democracy and the increasing inventiveness in every field that has accompanied and must accompany this increasing release of human energy, the problem that is always and inevitably coming back to each free people is the problem of what should be their relations to other peoples, particularly other free peoples.<br />In 1776 when Britain, to quote Lord Acton's History of Freedom, "had been brought back, by indirect ways, nearly to the condition which the Revolution [of 1688] had been designed to remedy forever" and "Europe seemed incapable of becoming the home of free states," the peoples of the Thirteen American colonies manifestly secured their liberty better by separating from a common sovereignty and declaring themselves "free and independent states." Just as manifestly in 1789 in a world of absolutism the peoples of these Thirteen American States secured their liberties better by "sacrificing" the sovereignty of their states to that of the United States.<br />On the other hand, maintenance of the independence of the United States then was manifestly more in the interest of human liberty than any other policy. A policy of extending that Union to other democracies was then impossible. The only practical way to extend it was the one followed, that of deliberately drawing individuals from all the European states and with them peopling the wilderness,* organizing it piecemeal into states and uniting then with these democracies.<br />* This free immigration policy was not only a deliberate American policy but one of the things for which we fought to establish our independence from Britain. In our general retreat after the World War from the deepest American principles, we forgot, in adopting then our existing law restricting immigration, that the indictments brought against George III by the Declaration of Independence included this one: "He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners, refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither."<br />A policy of cooperation with the other nations was equally impossible for the American Union when it began. A policy of entangling alliance with any of the European states was clearly dangerous to the freedom of the Americans. Few will dispute, however, that it was wise for the American people to ally with absolutist France till the Union could do without so dangerous a medicine. After all, that alliance killed only the absolutist partner.<br />The establishment of the Latin American republics brought the American people a new choice. Union with them was impractical and dangerous when the experiment in free government was so young and communications so slow. Yet it was dangerous too to treat these republics on the same basis as the autocracies of the Old World. Indifference risked bringing absolutism nearer the United States. In these circumstances the American Union took a middle course, still exceedingly bold for a people then only 10,000,000 strong facing the victorious Holy Alliance of Austria, Russia and Prussia. For the Union pledged then in the Monroe Doctrine its full cooperation in guaranteeing the Latin American republics against the restoration of European absolutism.<br />Later, when a part of one of these republics adjoining the United States declared its independence and was formally recognized in the New and Old World as the Republic of Texas, the American people, changing policy to meet conditions, agreed to unite with the people of this sovereign democracy at their request.<br />Still later the sons of the men who had seceded from Britain to declare all men created equal decided in four years of Civil War that none of their states had a right to secede and that individual freedom required not only the maintenance of the United States but the admission of the negro slaves to its Union of free and equal men.<br />The World War faced Americans again with this same problem in circumstances which made two things essential, and looking backward now we may see that they contrived to accomplish both, the one through the President and the other through the Senate.<br />The first essential was to establish a living institution that could bring out the great truth that the freedom of man had reached the point where it required law and order and government to be organized on a world scale. This institution Wilson did create. The founding of the League of Nations was an achievement for which Woodrow Wilson will always merit well of men. His was a conscious, positive, constructive act done against the indifference or opposition of all his peers in power.<br />One must measure the grandeur of a man by his contemporaries, for his successors stand upon him. There is no getting away from the fact that Woodrow Wilson got done what man had long dreamed of doing and had often tried to do but never done. Woodrow Wilson worked in a world in which the great conservatives saw no need for organizing world law and order, and the great liberals insisted the most important need was to lay down perfect frontiers and all that, and the great revolutionists at Moscow were interested only in violent overthrow of capitalism everywhere, not in the greater revolution of bloodlessly overthrowing violence itself. History may well rate Woodrow Wilson as a greater conservative than Poincaré and a greater revolutionist than Lenin. He stands out among the great men of his day for among them he alone was wise enough to know that the League with all its faults was at that moment in history worth half a dozen Versailles treaties, and to pay that price so that the great truth in his League might live and grow and make itself known to men as can only things that live.<br />The other essential was that the great error Wilson's work contained should be brought out before it was too late to avoid the catastrophe to which great error must inevitably lead. I do not doubt that the United States by joining the League would have enormously strengthened it and changed inestimably for the better the whole course of American and world history since the war. We would all be better off today, but I doubt that our young children would be better off when they take over. I do not know whether or not American entry would have led to detection and correction in time of the error in the league. But I do know this: As long as such error remains, it must grow, and grow to catastrophe. You cannot sow government of the state, by the state and for the state and not reap it. You cannot possibly place the sovereignty of the nation above the sovereignty of man without strengthening the nation at the expense of the citizen.<br />Had the United States entered the League its entry would not of itself have remedied the fatal flaw in the Covenant, and I fear that it would have glossed it over. By producing temporarily the peace and prosperity men sought, it would have given the Covenant a dangerous prestige and caused men to discriminate less than ever between its truth and its error. I fear the result would have been as it was with the truth and error in the American Constitution: Each would have gone on gathering sinews until our children, when men, would have been flung against each other in catastrophe as terrible as was the American Civil War.<br />By rejecting the Covenant the United States, without killing the truth within it, hastened the exposure of the error through inducing a relatively harmless breakdown that need not end in smash-up. It so hastened this that the young men who did the fighting and the young women who did the mourning in 1914-1918 could see the error now, — just when they enter the age of governing — and could have it driven home to them in time, precisely as the chaos of the League of Friendship drove home to the generation of the American Revolution that it was not for this they had killed and mourned.<br />It was essential that the error should be made clear in time for the generation most likely to see and remedy it to act. That this essential was assured was the contribution of Senator Borah and his friends. It may have been mostly blind, it certainly was negative. It was a less meritorious act than that of Wilson for its whole merit depended for existence upon Wilson succeeding in establishing the League. But though the value of a brake depends upon there being a motor, a brake becomes the second essential once the motor runs. It takes no less courage to stand up against a multitude for what one feels is right when one cannot give the best reason why, than when one can. The "irreconcilables," too, served man and truth and freedom.<br />These examples from one democracy's history indicate that the question, whether freedom requires a policy of separation, aloof nationalism, cooperation, league or union, can not be settled by a free people once for all toward all the world. By its nature this question must remain open and require that eternal vigilance which is freedom's price. Free men must be forever going back to their own basic principles and asking, when a policy is proposed, "Will it secure better, on balance, the blessings of liberty, not to our ancestors or the state, but to ourselves and our posterity?"<br />1789 AND TODAY<br />Since the first Union began in 1789 the positions of democracy and absolutism have been reversed. Where there were only one or two sovereign peoples, there is now only one important people, the Japanese, which is not at least theoretically sovereign, — for even the dictatorships carefully trace their power to vote of the people. Where government of the people, by the people, for the people among so many as 3,000,000 men was then an untried experiment, it has now been tried for more than a century by several powerful nations. Freedom can count today on a nucleus of 300,000,000 men and women whose combined power for defense against absolutism is even more overwhelming than the aggressive power absolutism enjoyed against the 3,000,000 in 1789. Fifteen democracies are today from every viewpoint far abler to give the younger democracies everywhere the protection of a Monroe Doctrine than were the twenty-four United States in 1823.<br />In the period when the Monroe Doctrine was proclaimed the United States appeared no stronger materially than Siam does now. In 1830 its population was 12,866,000; Siam's in 1930 was 12,000,000. In 1830 American imports totalled $63,000,000; Siam's now are $65,0000,000. American exports were $72,000,000; Siam's are $69,000,000. But in that century the population of the United States (only one of our fifteen democracies) increased more than ten times, its trade fifty times, and the individual American now means six times more to the business world than his grandfather did.<br />In 1789 the free peoples of today had not ended the long tradition of war among themselves into which absolutism had kept them plunged. In 1839 most of them were just coming out of that nightmare and into manhood suffrage. Now these democracies can look back on two things together: Their first hundred years of manhood suffrage and the first hundred years of peace among them.<br />We cannot live in the world of 1789 or 1839, we must live in our time. Since "from America," as Acton said, the Rights of Man "burst forth like a conqueror upon the world they were destined to transform," they have indeed transformed conditions. It is in the light of these changed conditions, and because of them, that the question of the political relations among the democracies needs to be re-examined and answered now afresh by all their citizens:<br />Does our freedom as individuals still require a policy of national sovereignty toward each other — toward old democracies, not immature ones, or autocracies? Do we still need to suffer all the restraints on our liberty that fifteen sovereignties involve? Absolutism forced its unit on us in the past, but does it now? Since individual freedom so far has gained by every application of the principle of union, can it lose by further application of that principle, — by union of the unions of the free? If our fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers could solve the problem of increasing man's freedom tremendously in every way by balancing local and central government as in the United States, the United Kingdom, the United Provinces of the Netherlands, the Swiss Confederation, the Union of South Africa, can we not do as well? Can we follow in their path if we stop now in their tracks?<br />At a time when our fifteen democracies can by union be almighty on this earth, are we preserving man's freedom by pitting our financial, economic, or other power against each other? If Monroe was faithful to his oath when he warned absolutism to keep hands off untried democracies a month distant from Washington, are Senators and Presidents preserving the Constitution to the best of their ability when they fail to warn absolutism to keep hands off tried democracies not one week distant? Since, for one example, freedom of the press in Holland led to freedom in England and everywhere, is it the Dutchman's right to a free press, or his loss of it, that needs to be feared by free men wherever they may be? Do the Rights of Man ever need protection against the Bill of Rights or les Droits de I'Homme?<br />A policy that asks men to renounce some of their freedom to defend the rest of their freedom from absolutism is understandable. So too is one that would sacrifice the freedom of the state to preserve or extend the freedom of the citizen. But a policy that consists in fifteen democracies each sacrificing the freedom of their citizens in order to preserve the rest of it from each other, to save national democracy from world democracy and freedom from freedom itself — does it make sense? The time for world-wide union of the free for freedom's sake — is not now the time? That could not be the question for 3,000,000 free men in 1789; it can not but be the question for 300,000,000 now.<br /><strong>CHAPTER XII</strong><br />To Get Union Now<br />The people gave their voice, and the danger that hung upon our borders went by like a cloud.... The Statesman declares his mind before the event, and submits himself to be tested by those who have believed in him.... The adventurer is silent when he ought to have spoken. — Demosthenes.<br />/ have seen war. I have seen war on land and sea. I have seen blood running from the wounded. I have seen men coughing out their gassed lungs. I have seen the dead in the mud. I have seen cities destroyed. I have seen two hundred limping, exhausted men come out of line — the survivors of a regiment of one thousand that went forward forty-eight hours before. I have seen children starving. I have seen the agony of mothers and wives. I hate war.<br />I have passed unnumbered hours, I shall pass unnumbered hours thinking and planning how war may be kept from this Nation. I wish I could keep war from all nations. — President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Aug. 14, 1936.<br />LET UNIONISTS UNITE<br />To get Union the first thing those who want it should do is to say so, and unite for it. The way not to get it is to think: "This idea of Union is all right, and I'm for it, and though there are lots of difficulties no doubt they can be overcome some way, but you'll never get most people to believe in it, they're too prejudiced and unreasonable for it to have a chance, and so what's the use of my doing anything about it?" Individuals who take this condescending view of their fellows condemn themselves and form the main obstacle to their own desires. No one can express the individual's will but himself, and so long as individuals do not at least express their will for Union it remains unknown, isolated, lost. So long as most men wait for the majority to make known their will for Union that majority can not possibly be formed.<br />Union has the great advantage that its supporters do not need to petition governments or wait on diplomats to get it: They need only turn to themselves and their neighbors, — but they must do that. The first necessity then is that Unionists wherever they are should make known their will for Union and organize their neighborhood, and keep on uniting for Union until they form the majority needed to get Union.<br />How should Unionists organize themselves? Should they form a new party — the Union or World Union Party — common to all the democracies? Would it be wiser to try to win over and work through existing parties, at least in some countries? The latter course has some obvious advantages, and certain parties may well desire to make the Unionist cause their own. It can conflict, in fact, with the principles of no existing party in any democracy, except those that put the nation above the citizen and are therefore undemocratic. One party in a given country, however, may attack Union because an opposition party has come out for it.<br />On balance, I am inclined to favor Unionists organizing themselves into a World Unionist Party, or at least forming some common organization to coordinate their campaign in the various democracies. The first step in this direction could be the convoking of a congress of Unionists from the fifteen democracies to form a common center and formulate a concrete program. This congress or the permanent body it organized would be most competent to decide all such problems as whether to form in each democracy a new party, or to work in each through existing parties, or to settle the problem in each country on its merits.<br />Democracy, however, allows policy to be promoted by men individually as well as collectively. Its true source of power is the free individual, and collective action is only one of the ways open to him. Each individual has an interest in Union, and democracy has freed individuals to advance that common interest by each putting behind it his own peculiar power. Some individuals have a gift for organizing men, others for organizing thoughts; one can express things in writing, another is excellent in impromptu public debate; there are men with special talent in every field, — trade, production, finance, defense, communications, research, popularization. For the establishment of Union there is a need and a place for the special talent and special experience of every individual.<br />The essential is that each individual, without waiting for any one else, begin devoting some of his individual talent to Union. Let those with a gift for organizing remember that the right of free assembly, which allows them to do the thing they best can do, was established only by union of democrats; let them begin using their gift for the safeguarding and extension of that right by organizing their neighbors for Union.<br />There was a time when men with the gift of writing or speaking went to the stake so that other men with such gifts might freely use them. To preserve these rights today those with the gift of writing or speaking need only lend to Union some of their gift. Each needs but lend a bit of the thing he is richest in and can best afford to lend. If each who profits from the rights of Man gives now his mite as he sees best for the cause that made these Rights possible, he will soon have world Union, and its greater rights for men.<br />POSTCARD PLEBISCITE<br />We can get Union still more quickly by working not only through our individual selves and through a party, but simultaneously through our governments. There is much complaint among us that autocracy allows men to act more swiftly than democracy. Autocracy, however, does not allow a people to do more swiftly what they will; it allows one man to do his will swiftly with the power of millions whom he keeps from even knowing what their will is. Democracy allows no individual the autocrat's speed and power of personal action, but it does allow the majority of men to form their common will and execute it swiftly. Democracy's speed of action is in direct ratio to the common sense of its citizens.<br />Though we usually form and express our will by votes on election day, we can form and express it any day to the representatives we have already elected. We can be certain that as soon as we make known to them our majority will for Union we shall have our existing organized power — our governments — acting forthwith for Union. Democracy is not simply government that bears always on the individual, it consists just as much in the individual bearing always on the government.<br />The democracy that permits a book such as this one to be freely written by any simple citizen and freely read by any individual, makes the speed with which the common will can be formed depend only on the book's truth and clarity, — for men will not reject truth that they see clearly. Democracy makes the speed with which this common will is then expressed and executed depend only on the majority of individuals using a microscopic fraction of their energy and money. It provides the citizen with a cheap and simple means — even less bothersome than the vote — of bringing his will to bear at once on his government.<br />He need only write, telegraph, telephone his Representative, Senator, Deputy, Member of Parliament, Premier, President. He can reduce his effort to the point where he need only spend the penny and the minute needed to send his representative a postal card asking him to favor Union. The very thing that makes him hesitate to do this — the fact that he can express only one man's will for Union — is the thing that gives it weight. A hundred men sending 100 individual postcard messages will outweigh 1,000 men sending the same stereotyped card. The more individually each man expresses his will the more weight it will have, and the more pennies or minutes he spends in expressing it, the more weight it will gain, of course.<br />At most he need spend only a few dollars, only a few hours, to hasten Union. He need only spend a tiny fraction of his money and time to reduce radically his taxes and save his own and his children's lives from war.<br />Citizens who want Union enough to have that postcard served with the breakfast newspaper only for one week so that the news each day will remind them to send it seven times, can be sure they will thereby cast a weight out of all proportion to their effort — so sharply will this contrast with their usual inertia and lack of persistence. The raindrop on the window seems powerless, but the crudest mill-wheel moves if only enough raindrops take the same canal. It is easier for the democrat to move his government to Union than for the raindrop to spin a turbine. Surely democracy which lets the individual do so much so easily is worth the effort that it requires from any man to save it and extend it.<br />The more advanced democracy is, the less effort it requires of each citizen, but the greater the responsibility on each to do that little promptly. How great is the responsibility for man's vast future it places now on each of us we may see by looking backward.<br />IN MAN OUR TRUST<br />"Ours is not the first modern world — there was Rome." Of all I heard Dean Carlyle say at Oxford this I remember. There was Rome (it came to me long after) and had the men of Rome held the ground that Man had won then for Man, where might not we be now? Had Rome not fallen, would Man have needed 2,000 years to step from Aristotle on to Descartes, and seven generations more to step from Descartes on to Darwin?<br />Had the men of Rome only held this ground — but Rome fell, and when Rome fell then fell not only civilized man, but all the barbarians whom they were civilizing, and American Redskins of whose existence they were not aware. When Rome fell, truly you and I and all of us fell down, for then fell down our species. It has not reached today the point it could long since have passed had Rome not fallen.<br />Fifty generations have lived and toiled and died since Rome fell, and slowly coral-like man has raised another and a far better Rome. It is the freest and the most extensive and the most marvelous and the most delicate civilization our species yet has known. Beside it Rome seems as barbarous as the world Rome ended seemed to Rome, and as unfree as our civilization should seem to our children.<br />With the fruit of past labor, with the slavery fruits of war, Rome bridged streams with massive stone. With the fruits of future labor, with the fruits of plants unplanted, we have flung strong spans of steel across great harbors. In the first Rome men knew how to make one hundred do the work of one hundred. Our Rome has been made possible because with our greater freedom we have found how to make one hundred do the work of one thousand by credit — which is to say by faith in our future, by faith in Man. Thus Man has freed the power in his arm until a child's finger on a button in London can start gigantic machines in Australia. Man has given his legs the seven-league boots he dreamed of in his fairy-tale age. He has come to throw his voice across oceans of which the first Rome never dreamed, to attune his ear to voices coming at once from the same room and from the antipodes, to sharpen his eye until he has discovered and had to name worlds of tiny animals and enormous stars that Adam never saw. Man has freed himself not only to enter the heavens alive, but to fly upside down as the birds themselves cannot fly.<br />Thus have men built up a civilization that seems too solid now to fall. And it is at once the strongest and the most fragile civilization that Man has ever made, the one in which the individual is most independent and dependent. We have not placed our world on the shoulders of an Atlas; we have pyramided our world on credit — on faith, on dependence of our neighbors (and we have for neighbors men not only next door but next continent), on dependence on ourselves, on dependence on Man and freedom for Man. Democracy is based on faith in free and equal Man, faith in Man's vast future.<br />For ten years now this confidence, this credit, this faith upon which our Rome is built has been crumbling away. Who can guarantee us that this crumbling can go on and our world remain? And if it fall? If it falls, then we can prophesy with certainty. If our democratic civilization falls, then will fall not only Germany, or France, or Russia, but Europe, not only Europe but America, Asia, Africa. The fat and the famished, the advanced and the retarded, the capitalists and the communists, the haves and the have-nots, the unionists and the nationalists, — they will go down together into the new dark ages, they and their children's children, for how many generations?<br />MAN'S WORST WEAKNESS<br />Our Rome need not fall. To live and grow to greater marvels it needs but the faith that made it, the faith in Man. Man's worst weakness is that he is always under-estimating Man. He has never seen too large, he has always seen too small, too small. He has never had too much faith in what Man could do; he has always had too little.<br />Since time began, the western world lay there across the sea, but even when Columbus came he saw himself as the discoverer not of a new world but of a new route. The kettle steamed through thousands of years of human slavery; then came Watt — and which would amaze him most today: The automobile or the negro owning one? Once a man believed that Man could make a ship go without sails against a river. Other men called his ship Fulton's Folly. But he kept faith in Man, in one man, — himself, — and Fulton's Folly went paddling up the Hudson. Fulton saw far for his time, but doubtless he himself would have called it folly to believe the oil he used to cure a cold in the head could ever drive gigantic ships across the Atlantic in a hundred hours.<br />The fathers of the American Republic, the leaders of the French Revolution, the authors of the Bill of Rights, the political liberators of men everywhere had faith in Man — but they had no idea of all the forces they were freeing. They had no idea of all the rapid growth in civilization, all the transformation of the world, all the victories of men over autocracy and Nature that would come from freeing those then called la canaille. Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, all voiced despair of the American Union even after its establishment, but they are not remembered for their doubts. They are known for what faith they showed in Man.<br />Man has still to find the limit of what he can do if only he has faith in himself. And yet each generation has seen wonders done by men who believed in Man. Man's greatest achievements have been the work of some obscure man or handful of men with faith in themselves, helping mankind against mankind's stubborn opposition. These inventors, discoverers, artists, statesmen, poets, — each of our benefactors has always had to overcome not only Nature but his own species. And always these lone men with faith have worked this wonder. As Andrew Jackson said, one man with courage makes a majority.<br />We have seen a village unknown through all the ancient Roman era become in a century Mecca to a world greater than Rome ever ruled, because there lived there then one man with faith in himself. We know what marvels one single simple individual with faith in Man can work — one Mohammed, one Joan of Arc, one Gutenberg, one Paine, Pasteur, Edison. What we do not know is what marvels could be done if the fifteen elected leaders of the 300,000,000 free men and women once worked together with the faith of one Columbus. We know that, working together, — which means depending on each other, — the Wright brothers did one of the many things that Man had always dreamed and failed of doing. But the Wright brothers were two simple citizens; they were not fifteen leaders in whom millions of men already trusted.<br />"As I stand aloof and watch [Walt Whitman wrote] there is something profoundly moving in great masses of men following the leadership of men who do not believe in man."<br />Yet the leaders who have believed in Man and have appealed not to his lowest but to his highest instincts have always in the end been not only followed but alone remembered by all mankind. There is nowhere a monument to those who burned Bruno at the stake; there is in Rome a monument raised, in 1889, which says: "To Bruno, the century he foresaw, here where he burned."<br />As the dust are all those of our species who said that Man could never bring the lightning down against his other natural foes. Green still is the name of Franklin. Who were those twenty-seven men who, preferring the freedom of New York to the freedom of New Yorkers, came so near to preventing the American Union? It is their opponent, Alexander Hamilton, whose name still evokes eloquence in Europe as in America.<br />The difficulties that now seem so certain to keep us apart, — will men remember them a generation hence more than they now remember those that seemed to make the Union of Americans impossible in 1787? Will our own children be the first to honor those who kept Man divided against himself, at war with himself and a prey to ignorance, poverty, disease, premature death?<br />DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE<br />If we are to save our own world, we need Union, and we need it now. If we are to save ourselves none of us can dodge or divide his individual responsibility, or delay. But the individual on whom the most responsibility must lie in each democracy is the one who has asked and received from his fellow citizens the post of guardian of their liberties. Among these few, the most responsibility must lie upon the one freely chosen and freely trusted by the most men and women.<br />For our unending nightmare to end before another night only that one man is needed. He needs but invite the chief guardians of fourteen other democracies to confer with him on how best to unite the free and safeguard and extend their common heritage. Who could refuse without betraying his trust? Who would not accept at once such an invitation if it came from the President of the American Union?<br />For the condition of the whole human species to change overnight immensely for the better, the American President need only invite the fourteen other leaders of democracy to join him in declaring the undeniable: That their common supreme unit of government is the individual free man, that their common supreme end of government is the freedom of individual man, and that their common means to their common end is the union of free men as equals; that the existence of a democracy is proof in itself that the people of it want Union, that Democracy and Union are one and the same; that the responsibility facing 300,000,000 free men today is the one that faced 30,000,000 in 1861 and 3,000,000 in 1787 — the responsibility of choosing for themselves and their children whether to slip backward with the misery-making absolutist principle of the sovereignty of nations, or to continue forward with the richest political principle men have ever found, the principle of free union through the equal sovereignty of man. The American President need only ask the others to join him in making this Declaration of the Dependence of free men on themselves and on each other, and in convoking then our Union's constituent assembly.<br />If he fears that even after the events of September, 1938, men will call his move premature and will not see in time what nationalism means he can recall Isaiah: "A people ... which remain among the graves and ... which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou.... These are a smoke in my nose.... Ye shall all bow down to the slaughter ... ye shall be hungry ... ye shall be ashamed ... and leave your name for a curse....He who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth ... For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth."<br />If he fears that men will call him mad, he can reply with Lafayette: "If it be a wild scheme, I had rather be mad that way than to be thought wise on the other track."<br />He can ask as Lincoln asked on the eve of war: "Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and, when after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you."<br />He can answer with that Great Emancipator: "I have only to say, let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man, this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal."<br />He can turn then to Washington's Farewell Address and repeat: "These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment."<br />The President has his responsibility, but we each have ours, too. He must depend on us, as we on him.<br />There is no need, and there can be no excuse, for democracy and its great civilization to crash from failure to act in time. There is no need whatever for millions of men to bow down again to slaughter, hunger and shame. We can escape these. We can leave our name for a blessing. We can hasten man's vast future. There is need only for you, too, to stand up for Union now.<br />Our cause is ripe: The enemy increaseth every day; We, at the height, are ready to decline. There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life Is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat; And we must take the current when it serves, Or lose our ventures.<br />Then, with your will, go on.<br />Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, IV-iii.<br />PHILOSOPHY<br /><strong>CHAPTER XIII</strong><br />Of Freedom and Union<br />One's-self I sing, a simple separate person, Yet utter the word Democratic, the word. En-Masse. Of physiognomy from top to toe I sing, Not Physiognomy alone nor brain alone is worthy for the Muse, I say the Form complete is worthier far, The Female equally with the Male I sing. Of Life immense in passion, pulse, and power, Cheerful, for freest action form'd under the laws divine, The Modern Man I sing.<br />— Whitman, opening Leaves of Grass, 1867<br />Out of the trouble and tragedy of this present time may emerge a moral and intellectual revival; a religious revival, of a simplicity and scope to draw together men of alien races ... into one common and sustained way of living for the world's service. We cannot foretell the scope and power of such a revival; we cannot even produce evidence of its onset. The beginnings of such things are never conspicuous. Great movements of the racial soul come at first "like a thief in the night," and then suddenly are discovered to be powerful and world-wide. Religious emotion ... may presently blow through life again like a great wind, bursting the doors and flinging open the shutters of the individual life, and making many things possible and easy that in these present days of exhaustion seem almost too difficult to desire. — H. G. Wells, Outline of History.<br />The real question is whether the free and civilised peoples of the earth can become a true community by giving up their unfettered individual sovereignties and by forming a union to stand against war.... The effort to get it might be risky to the point of mortal peril. I think it would be a risk worth running. And I do not believe that the world will ever find peace in freedom along any other road. — Wickham Steed, in Headway, January, 1939.<br /><strong>CHAPTER XIII</strong><br />Of Freedom and Union<br />If you would be freer than all that has been before, come listen to me ... I swear I begin to see the meaning of these things ... I swear nothing is good to me now that ignores individuals, The American compact is altogether with individuals, The only government is that which makes minute of individuals, The whole theory of the universe is directed unerringly to one single individual — namely to You ... I am for those that have never been master'd, For men and women whose tempers have never been master'd, For those whom laws, theories, conventions, can never master. I am for those who walk abreast with the whole earth, Who inaugurate one to inaugurate all. I will not be outfaced by irrational things, I will penetrate what it is in them that is sarcastic upon me, I will make cities and civilizations defer to me,This is what I have learnt from America — it is the amount, and if I teach again.<br />— Whitman, By Blue Ontario's Shore.<br />And now, having devoted twice six chapters to the work of the day, we may, perhaps, go on with it better if first we have a Sunday here to consider more broadly what we have been doing, to treat more deeply of the relation between the individual and society, and to get a better understanding of our philosophy of freedom and union.<br />OF FREEDOM<br />One can not repeat it too often: There is nothing so fertile in marvels as the art of being free. — De Tocqueville.<br />We have too petty a notion of freedom. We are bound to, since freedom is so great and growing. And yet our understanding of it need not be so petty. We tend to see it too narrowly on its political side. If we call that view old-fashioned our revolutionary up-to-dateness often consists in emphasizing instead its economic side. We divide and argue as if political and economic freedom were not complementary but mutually exclusive, and on this confusing basis we debate again the eternal question of the relation of the individual and the collectivity.<br />Even when we see that political freedom no more requires sacrificing the collectivity to the freedom of the strongest individuals than economic freedom requires sacrificing the individual to the collectivity, that political and economic freedom are parts of a whole and that the relationship of the individual and society which serves freedom most on the one side serves it most on the other too, — even when we see this we have too petty a notion of our freedom.<br />We talk, for example, as if freedom of trade were simply a problem for the legislator and economist, a matter of freeing trade from this or that tariff or other legal or theoretical barrier. We talk as if the steamship that freed man from the accident of wind and the accident of calm had done nothing to free trade, nor the express train that freed the producers of perishable foods from the tyranny of time and northern tables from the monotony of winter. We forget the air-driven drill and the dynamite that enable us, when a mountain bars our road, to take a short cut through it. We forget a host of things that free us from the limitations of tongue and ear and eye, and let seller and buyer find each other swiftly anywhere on earth. Yet trade can lose its statutory freedom and be encumbered by politicians and economic experts with all sorts of man-made barriers, and still grow greater because other men have been freeing it from more stifling natural barriers.<br />As it is with trade, so it is with everything. The story of the freedom of man, of the freeing of man by man, is the whole story of man. It is the story of the invention of language, of the freeing of man's tongue to tell his thoughts to his neighbor and of the freeing of his ear to understand his neighbor's thoughts, of the freeing of his thoughts from space and time and the tricks of memory and death by the invention of writing. It is the story of the freeing of his tongue, ear, eye, mind by the invention of grammar, and still more by the invention of paper, and still more by the invention of printing, and still more by the discovery of America and of electricity and rubber, and by such political inventions as the freedom of the press and democracy and Union and such mechanical inventions as the steam engine and the locomotive and the high speed newspaper press and the telegraph and photograph and phonograph and telephone and airplane and moving picture and wireless and talking picture and television.<br />This is not even a meagre outline of the freeing of man (insofar as he is free) in respect of his mind and thoughts and tongue and ear and eye. And were it complete it would outline only the freeing of these with respect to communication — for there is not a word in this about the freeing of the eye to peer into the worlds of microbes and of stars, nor the freeing of the ear to the harmonies of music, nor the freeing of the mind from error thanks to logic and from terror thanks to the accumulated experience of generations, nor the freeing of the mind to think honestly about anything regardless of the taboos of society or the self-interest of the body. And when we have outlined this vast field we have only begun: We have still to tell of the freeing of the power in the arm of man from the time he extended it with a club or rock on through to where he extends it with a bullet or electric button, of the freeing of man from his pulmonary handicaps until he can cross the ocean in a submarine, and of the freeing of his skin from the cold and the heat, of his stomach from famine, of his body and mind from disease, — and when we have told all this our tale of the freeing of man by man remains a fragment. It is a tale that can never be told, and not only because of its vast range and the intricate inter-relation of every detail to the others and to the whole. It can never be told because in the telling it is growing; somewhere, wittingly, unwittingly, some of the two billion of men and women are at work freeing man, adding to a glorious tale new glories that men will not be free enough to recognize or use perhaps for a hundred years to come.<br />It is a myriad-sided never-ending task and tale and joy, the freeing of man by man; and it is the myriad-sided never-ending variety among individual men and women, the rich resources given mankind by the fact that no two individuals are precisely the same, that each one forms a distinct combination of character, talent, knowledge, skill, tastes, curiosity, heredity, environment and physical, moral and mental strength, — it is this that allows the task to be advanced and the tale to be faintly imagined and the joy enjoyed. It is because the democratic principle of the equality and rights of man allows mankind to free all this power it has in men, and to let men enjoy themselves freeing mankind still more, that it is the most fertile and powerful political, economic, social, and philosophical principle that men have ever discovered.<br />To think, as so many seem to think, that this principle depends for its success mainly on all men exercising all the rights it gives to vote or govern in things political, or to innovate as one pleases in things political, economic or social, is to miss the point. The power in this principle lies instead in its guarantee by society to the individual of his right to do freely that which most interests him whenever it most interests him, and its guarantee to all other men of their right to judge freely then his work.<br />Government of gasoline and electricity by the people does not consist in every man being able to build an automobile or dynamo, any more than the government of microbes by men consists in every one of us having a thorough medical and scientific knowledge. Hardly more does government of the people by the people consist in every man interesting himself deeply in political problems and trying to work them out himself. We govern the power in gasoline, first, by insuring any man who is interested in the problem of governing that power the freedom to tackle it as hard as he pleases, and, secondly, by retaining the power to pass judgment broadly on the solutions brought us by these men who are engineer-minded. One such man has it clear in his mind that gasoline can be so governed as to run a wagon, but he can not make it clear to the rest of us, for we are not engineer-minded to that degree. And so to make it clear he makes us the first automobile, and when we see it running then we see the man is right and we admit it can be done. But it still is not at all clear to most of us that his automobile is safer than a horse, or cheaper, or faster, simpler, better. The more engineer-minded men, however, see that all this is true, too; in a widening circle this type of man becomes interested in the problem of man governing gasoline. These men fight out among themselves the technical questions, and when and as long as they all agree, — as, for example, on pneumatic tires — we readily follow them — no buyer now demands solid tires on a pleasure car.<br />But when these men of technical sense disagree they come to us, the men of common sense, and ask us, not to solve their problems, but to pass judgment on their different solutions. And through purchase we accord our highest prize in the long run to the engineer who has solved the problem most clearly — for that means he has solved it in a way that those of us who are least mechanically endowed can understand is the safest, cheapest, fastest, simplest, best solution.<br />The government of gasoline by man began with a contraption so simple in its structure that one could see or hear its every organ, but so complicated in its operation that even the genius who contrived it could never be sure of getting home without a horse. But by the democratic process of freedom mankind develops a machine so amazing that it makes the gasoline not only drive it far faster than a mile a minute but light its way at night, herald its arrival, and stop it shortly, — a machine so complicated structurally that no one genius could ever have developed it and so simple to run that a child can run it. Gasoline is being governed by the people when any man without engineering knowledge can make it take him where he wants to go with a touch of the finger, a touch of the foot, and a few simple rules such as: Obey the indicator when it warns that the governor needs more gasoline to govern.<br />In all this the thing to note is that the human freedom that government of gasoline by the people brings is achieved, first, by freeing all engineer-minded men to tackle this problem, and second, by keeping the rest of mankind free to pass judgment on their work. It is achieved by this system which discourages the non-engineer from trying to solve engineering problems while discouraging the engineer from turning to the best engineer as his supreme judge; this system which forces the best engineer to make himself so clear that a moron can see his solution is the best and which assures him that the greater his technical achievement the more he will gain the votes of the simplest laymen.<br />This is noteworthy because this system is the one through which government by the people for the people has been established, insofar as it is established, over everything they govern, whether it be gasoline or electricity or microbes or animals or music or fire or water or wind or earth or light. It is, too, the system whereby government of the people by the people for the people has been or is being established. This last is only the most difficult and the most productive of man's problems in government, because it means the government of the most powerful of the elements by the most marvelous and unaccountable among them, the government of the governors by the governors, the government of man himself by man himself for man himself. It is a never-ending problem if only because the more constructive man becomes the more destructive he is able, too, to be.<br />The way to solve the problem of self-government is to follow the same principles that have led to government by the people of everything from animals to gasoline, while carefully avoiding an error, tricked out as truth, which appears at this point and on which despotism, benevolent or malevolent, is based.<br />So well hidden is this trap that Plato himself fell victim to it. In his argument for government of all men by the wisest men Plato seems to base his reasoning on the analogy of the government of sheep by men: The statesman, he says, is after all only the shepherd of the human flock, and the conclusion seems to follow that since it is absurd for the sheep to elect and direct the shepherd the democratic theory is absurd. And so Plato divides his ideal state into three great specialized classes, rulers, fighters and farmers. He thinks out elaborate machinery, first, to make sure that the human shepherds shall never be responsible to the human sheep but only to other shepherds, and that the philosophers need answer only to the philosophers, and then to safeguard everyone from the dangers he sees in this. And so men less wise and generous defend the principle of government through dictatorship by a single autocrat, or by an hereditary despot, or by some single class of men, whether the propertied or the proletariat, the oldest families or the giovinezza, the chosen Aryans or the chosen Jews.<br />The error in all this is the same. There is a difference between the shepherd and the statesman, and it is a fundamental difference. The shepherd is a man governing, for men, a different animal, the sheep. The statesman is a man governing, for men, these same men.<br />The fact that in all cases, except that of man himself, the government by man of whatever he seeks to govern, whether sheep or gasoline, is invariably marked by his refusal to consult the wishes of the governed, does not make this refusal the sine qua non or cause of success; it makes it simply a worse trap for human reason. The essential thing is not this negative detail that the shepherd and engineer are not answerable to the sheep and gasoline, but the positive principle that the men who are shepherds and the men who are engineers are answerable to other men, — in last analysis to all other men, and not simply to the shepherds and sheep-owners or to the engineers and owners of oil wells. The essential to be remembered is that success comes from the fact that the supreme judges of the specialists are not the best of specialized minds but the commonest of lay minds, and that the specialists must bring the government of sheep and gasoline by men to that point of perfection where a child can govern them.<br />The way, then, to solve the great central problem of freedom, the problem of government in all respects of the people by the people for the people, is neither to depend on the bulk of men, who have no particular aptitude for or interest in the problems of politics, to work out the solution, nor to make those who have this aptitude and interest, those who are the best political engineers or philosophers or statesmen or rulers, answerable only to themselves. The solution is to assure man, alone and in society, equally the rights of man. It means freely allowing any one who is politically-minded to devote himself to political problems as much as he pleases, while reserving the right of passing judgment freely and frequently on his work to the rest of men, — to the engineer-minded, farmer-minded, artistic-, financial-, economic-, business-, doctor-, research-, artisan-, manual-, and other-minded men who compose the common political men.<br />These men do not want to think out their political problems for themselves any more than the man with a bent for governing men wants to work out for himself the problem of the automobile. The man who delights in making the soil grow two ears of corn where one grew before does not want to stop and fumble with the problem of how to distribute the extra ears, or of how to make his own body cease growing a cancer. The cry for leadership in politics is simply the demand by us all that our political inventors and explorers invent and discover for us as all our other inventors and explorers are doing — as each of us who is following his natural bent is doing. We are tired of seeing them come whining to us with their difficulties and with their problems to solve, instead of bringing us their solutions to judge. We want them to stop blaming our stupidity when we reject their truths, we want them to get down to their business of making their political truths so clear that a child can understand them.<br />They need not worry then about our verdict. They need only fear that we will vote so overwhelmingly for their truth as either to handicap by our gratitude their further search for truth, or to cause us to overreach their truth and fall again into error. When our vote is expressed by purchase we vote as readily for the man who makes his truth most clear in automobiles or oil or steel or other things that we load him now with a tremendous fortune liable to give him a diseased idea of his own importance, or dull his children's enterprise. Or we force him to leave the thing he can best do and try to solve a problem for which he may have no aptitude, — the problem of the distribution of wealth, of making the most of it to bring more freedom to himself and children and everyone by encouraging art, scholarship, medicine, industry, men. When the vote is by applause instead of purchase we fill the lives of our Lindberghs with so much applause that we deprive them of that freedom to live and act as simple folk which allowed them to do their greatest work.<br />When a Washington's firm grasp of truth liberates us our gratitude is such that, to show our pious respect for him, we make it heresy to follow his example and meet the problems of our time so boldly as to rebel against the "thus far and no farther" of the past. When a Lincoln makes the equality and rights of man clearer we are so grateful that we make a myth of a man who was proud of being a common human man, we forget that in so doing we fall into the very fault from which he sought to save us — that of disprizing or dishonoring members of our own species. What Jesus rebuked the Jews for doing to Abraham, the Christians soon were doing to Jesus, and for the same reason, to show their gratitude.<br />We are so ready to admit any man's truth if it is only made clear enough, so grateful to those who make it clear and so cursed with an inferiority complex about our species, that great teachers and liberators who seek to bring men to a truer concept of the equal dignity and rights of man need to guard against our deifying them more or less, or otherwise emotionally clouding over their central truth, — that Man, as Paine said, is Man's "high and only title, and a higher cannot be given him."<br />There is no more effective way than this democratic way for each of us to free ourselves from the tyranny of poverty, and disease, and ignorance, and matter, and time. There is no simpler, no safer and no cheaper way. No elaborate machinery of selection and reward is required: This is simply a question of freeing men so that their nature can most naturally take its own course. Everyone wants to do what gives him joy, and everyone is doing best his share in society when he is doing that which gives him the most joy.<br />The profit motive? True, it exists, and it is a mistake to rail at it or try to remove it. Whether he measures it in money, power, or whatnot, man will seek profit, and he should, for it is the fuel that moves perhaps the greatest force on earth, individual enterprise. Profit is but the surplus difference between what one puts into a thing and what he gets out of it, and nothing living grows except by getting back all it expends and something more. It is not profit we need weed out but the three evils, too much profit, too little profit, and dead loss, — for each of these dulls or kills individual enterprise. Provide a condition of freedom and security for the individual to develop his natural talent and let him profit enough materially from his work to live fairly well and he needs little or no further encouragement to bring us the best he has. He is not working for money beyond what he needs to live comfortably and do his work.<br />The proof is that when he finds some way of further freeing us we cannot keep him silent with bribes or even with comforts. He will do without comfort, spend all his money, borrow all he can, slave through day and night, wear himself out, risk his life, he will do anything he needs to do simply to solve a problem he has freely set for himself and force us by our common sense to agree that he is right, — that we can free ourselves from malaria by killing a certain mosquito, that we can free ourselves from earth and fly. Men who are doing what they can do best we do not need to encourage with millions in money; we can not contrive to discourage the men who are doing what they were made to do.<br />Every revolution, every great human crisis invariably shows that there is far more talent scattered through our species, and in the most unexpected places, than we imagine. There seems to be no limit to the power of individual enterprise, and there is no resource in which we are richer than individual men and women, and none we use less or waste so appallingly. We deal with refugees as if men were liabilities instead of assets.<br />All manner of means for freeing men are to be found widespread among men. We had no way of divining that the man who would give us paper would be born in China, and that an Arab would bring it to us, an Englishwoman would give us a Turk's idea of vaccinating against smallpox, an Italian would give us wireless, a German Jew would find the cure of syphilis with the help of a Japanese, and that negroes instead of white men would be the first slaves to establish an enduring republic of self-freed slaves. No one could have predicted that a Pole would be the writer who would bring the salt of the sea best in English to the English, or that a Dutch dry-goods merchant would be the man to make the lens that freed our eyes to discover the microscopic world. We can no more tell today what bargeman on what river will rise to steer our freedom through a dangerous civil conflict than our great-grandfathers could tell that a lanky Mississippi raftsman would be the man to save from suicide the first great union of the free.<br />We have no way of telling from what family, nation, race or class our future liberators will come, or from what farm, village, city, country, empire. We have no way of knowing that our cook will never change one day into a poet, our miller into chemist, our farmer into flier.<br />Yet there are some things we know, for they have been proved a million times. We know that men will not stay put, that great changes are continually happening in them, that the liberating genius of man is concentrated in no family or place but is scattered generously through the whole species. We know a ray of it was here yesterday, there today. We can divine only that it may be somewhere else tomorrow. We know that not even one beam of it is the monopoly of any man.<br />We know that our greatest liberators are those who make their liberating truth most clear to all of us. Their greatness is in proportion to the speed with which they can get us voluntarily to absorb and assimilate their truth as fully as they have themselves. The sooner they can free us from the need of their expert services, the more they allow us to build further on the top brick they have laid until that top brick becomes indistinguishable from all the bricks above and below and around it.<br />We are beholden the least to those who seek to maintain themselves longest in a position of superiority to us and convert a truth they have found into a permanent source of tribute to themselves. Our true benefactors never seek to impose themselves or their children on us, never seek in any field, political or other, to be answerable to us only once for all time, or to alienate in the slightest those inalienable rights of man that allowed them to do themselves whatever they have done. The mark of the spurious liberator, of the autocrat in every field, is the desire to make oneself more and more indispensable to mankind. We know that our true liberator frees us more and more from dependence on him and seeks only to enable others to outstrip him, — he is a man of the great, proud line of Whitman:<br />I am the teacher of athletes; He that by me spreads a wider breast than my own proves the width of my own; He most honors my style who learns under it to destroy the teacher.<br />We know all this and in our hearts we know too that for each of us to gain the most freedom we must all keep all the doors to life forever freely open to every man and woman.<br />At the heart of our freedom, then, lies the democratic principle of the equality and rights of man, the freedom of the individual to follow his natural bent and to bring his findings to mankind for judgment and to pass judgment on the findings of his fellows. And at the heart of the rights of man lies the freedom of speech and of the press. Do you still think that freedom of speech and of the press is concerned simply with politics and words? Read then this letter written by the School Board of Lancaster, Ohio, in 1826 and unearthed in 1920 by the Cleveland Press:<br />You are welcome to use the schoolhouse to debate all proper questions in, but such things as railroads are impossibilities and rank infidelity. There is nothing in the Word of God about them. If God designed that His intelligent creatures should travel at the frightful speed of 15 miles an hour by steam, He would have clearly foretold it through His holy prophets. It is a device to lead immortal souls down to hell.<br />The glory of Elizabethan England to me is Peter Wentworth. He was the one who reminded the House of the rumors of what the Queen would do to those who opposed certain bills, and of her messages commanding Parliament not to consider certain measures, and who then spoke out: "I would to God, Mr. Speaker, that these two were buried in hell, I mean rumors and messages." For this the House itself sent him to the Tower. When he came back a year later he spoke again for the right to speak freely in at least the House of Speech, and again he was sent to the Tower.<br />The glory of Elizabethan England is likewise John Stubbs and his printer, and those who stood with them. John Stubbs wrote a pamphlet protesting against Elizabeth's proposed marriage with Alençon, and for this he and his printer were condemned to have their right hands cut off. The lawyers and judges who protested were put in the Tower, and the right hands of John Stubbs and his printer were cut off at the wrist by a knife driven through with a mallet. With his left hand John Stubbs then waved his hat and cried, "God save the Queen!" And though her Star Chamber might a little while continue to assert the need of limiting "the excessive multitude of printers," her cruelty shocked and his fortitude encouraged people, and their children rose up in one hundred years and made the first king subject to the first Bill of the Rights of Man.<br />And now their children's children and all of us may go freely to the National Portrait Gallery in London and find one small room on the top floor big enough not only for Elizabeth and the great men of her time (not Wentworth, not Stubbs), but also for Henry VIII and the greater of those whose heads he had cut off. But as we go on down chronologically through the rooms and centuries, and the crude absolutist method of men governing men by cutting off their heads and hands gradually gives way to men governing men by the free speech principles of the Wentworths and by the free press principles of the Stubbses and by the other rights of man they led to, the scene changes. Where there were only a few portraits for each reign, and these only of monarchs, princes, ministers, generals, priests, with now and then a writer, poet, artist, or scholar, the number of portraits grows, and the variety with it more and more, until on the ground floor we find the nineteenth century needing room after room to house the great of England. There the monarchs, generals and priests become a minority amid the Shelleys and Jane Austens and Butlers, the Disraelis and Gladstones, the Benthams and Mills, the Stephensons and Faradays and Listers and Huxleys and Darwins.<br />Such is the great flowering of the genius of man that every people has enjoyed and is enjoying as they have enjoyed and are enjoying equally the rights of man.<br />In another gallery I looked at Leonardo's works after coming up through the centuries at the Italian Art Exposition in Paris in 1935, and it dawned on me that before his century the best eyes in Italy had been blind to the beauty in the play of light, blind to shadow. I walked back then through the centuries seeking shadow: Cimabue, Giotto, blind to shadow; Uccello discovering perspective but ignoring shadow; then here and there a painting with here and there a shadow, — the shell in Botticelli's Birth of Venus casting a shadow, but not Venus nor any of the figures nor the trees, no real perception of shadow there. Shadow always everywhere and everyone blind to it until somehow one man saw shadow clearly, and then everyone thereafter seeing shadow.<br />Why did we need so long to make the simple, invaluable wheel? Could man ever help but see the circular? Nature is all curves. It would seem that man must have made the wheel long before achieving that miracle of abstract reason, the brick. For men could not see so easily the square, cube, or straight line in Nature. These man created. Yet America knew the square before Columbus came, but not the wheel. Ages before mentioning the wheel, the Bible celebrates in the tale of Babel not only the confusion of tongues but the discovery of how to "make brick" and all it meant to men — how since "this they begin to do ... now nothing will be restrained from them" while "the people is one" and "have all one language," — not even the achievement of the great ideal that mankind then at once magnificently set out for: The building of "a city and a tower whose top may reach unto heaven."<br />The fact is that the wheel, despite all Nature's hints, also required a miracle of pure reason. To turn the first natural disk into the first wheel one had to see something that was there no more and no less than the straight line. Something invisible, abstract, yet so tangibly there that one needed only to put finger and thumb on it to make all men see — the axis, and wheels everywhere.<br />The marvelous thing about us is not simply that it took so many men for one to see the axis. It is perhaps even more marvelous that it took only one to see it and demonstrate it clearly for each of us to see it at once, and for all of us to keep it forever after. It is this marvelous power in our species that democracy harnesses through its equal interest in and equal freedom for every individual.<br />Underlying alike the brick and the wheel is a greater miracle — Man's creation of the straight line. How could it have taken us eras to see a truth so simple and precious as the straight line? How many simple things of truth, of beauty, of priceless value, lie today around us all, unseen, awaiting the marvel of sight by some one becoming sight by all?<br />Surely in such a world we can not fail to keep building on the simple truth of which we have had such proof: That Man's vast future lies in the democratic philosophy that would give every one an equal chance, an equal freedom to tell us all whatever truth he alone has seen or believes that he has seen, an equal obligation to express his truth with that clarity and simplicity that makes us all see it and thereby proves it true, and an equal right to refuse to accept whatever one alone still doubts is true, an equal veto against whatever one alone believes is false.<br />OF CAIN AND ABEL, SOCRATES, JESUS AND MOHAMMED<br />To understand is what is hard. Once one understands, action is easy. — Sun Yat Sen.<br />We learn to understand the new by studying the old. — Confucius.<br />We shall now combine our individual power into one great power which is this confederacy and we shall therefore symbolize the union of these powers by each nation contributing one arrow, which we shall tie up together in a bundle which, when it is made and completely bound together, no one can bend or break ...<br />This bundle of arrows signifies that all the lords and all the warriors and all the women of the Confederacy have become united as one person. — Laws of the Confederacy of the Five Nations, or Iroquois Indians.<br />Man's freedom began with men uniting. Both love of kin and love of country have served our species as a means of freeing man by uniting men. Blood patriotism built the family into the nomad tribe and allowed man, through the taming of the horse, sheep and cow, to free himself from some of his natural limitations. As he freed himself from subjection to the accidents of the hunt, he settled down and land patriotism rose to free him and his beasts from Winter's hunger and cold and from the accidents to which the hunter and nomad herdsman are prey. It grew through blood barriers, brought tribes together, tied the nomads not only to the land but packed them together and built the City. It grew through centuries of warfare between nomad and husbandman, which (as I learned from George Cram Cook one day in the ruined temple of the Delphic oracle) are compressed in the tale of Cain and Abel.<br />Cain was the first man known to love his country. Before his time there was no fatherland. There was only father. The nomad patriot abhorred the thought of being bound to the land where he happened to be born. He roamed the earth. Love of a common father and common aversion to the land held together the nomad tribe. Then came Cain.<br />Cain settled down. "Cain was a tiller of the ground." He brought to the Lord Judge the fruits of the soil as his offering. But Abel remained "a keeper of sheep," and "brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth." Neither the Judge who in favoring the conservative had promised the innovator, "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and ... thou shalt rule over him," nor the tribal bond of blood could prevent the conflict. "Cain rose up against his brother, and slew him ... and builded a city."<br />The city united more men in a closer compass than the flock or farm, and with it rose great empires, Nineveh, Babylon, spreading through mankind the fruits of the city's work in freeing man from his limitations. So it was that human wisdom grew strong and brave enough in Athens to take "Know thyself" for motto and to begin to think and talk in terms of individual freedom and universal union. It looked upon the slaves tilling the earth and revolted against the dogma that man's freedom must remain bound to the soil. It questioned the love of country on which the city's civilization was based, and asked as did the philosophers whose horrified countrymen called them Cynics, dogs, "Why should I be proud of belonging to the soil of Attica with the worms and slugs?" And it realized primitively, as Plutarch said of Alexander, "the Cynic ideal on its political side by the foundation of universal empire."<br />"The Cynics," says Professor Barker, "were descended from Socrates; and the Cynics were cosmopolitans, who found their own reason and knowledge sufficient for their needs, and, craving no guidance or instruction from any city, took the world to be their home." With them, as he points out, "two new ideas are entering the world, both destined to a long history — the idea that all men are naturally equal, and the idea that they are all by nature brothers in a single human society ... While the city-state lay dying, and while Aristotle busied himself with medicines and dietaries, Diogenes [greatest of the Cynics] lifted up his voice, and cried — The King is dying, is dead: long live the new King of the world."<br />Then came Jesus teaching men to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's, — to decide each in his own conscience which things are Caesar's and which things are God's, to decide each for himself what he owes to the gods of other men and what he owes to the god within himself.<br />Jesus went unto the mount of Olives ... saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.<br />The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.<br />Jesus answered ... Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true ... And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.<br />They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?<br />Jesus answered them, ... I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.<br />They answered ... Abraham is our father.<br />Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God; this did not Abraham ... Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day.<br />Then said the Jews ... Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?<br />Jesus said unto them, Verity, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.<br />Then came Mohammed to be hailed too as a liberator, and first by the slaves, and first of all by woman. He came into a society where a man inherited his mother as part of his father's property, wore sackcloth and ashes when a girl-child was born, and buried alive in the sand the sex that brought poverty-ridden men more mouths to feed. From the beginning of his first Sura Mohammed stood out against that society "in the name of the Compassionate, the Merciful, the most Beneficent, who hath taught the use of the pen." Among his earliest prophecies was the prophecy that a day would come "when the female child that had been buried alive shall be asked for what crime she was put to death" and each individual "soul shall know what it hath produced." He freed the girl-child from burial alive, and her mother from slavery, and through him tens of millions of women received economic rights that Christendom did not allow until modern times. He freed not only man from the myth that he was made of earth but woman from the myth that she was made of man. Mohammed rationally taught (Sura 46:46), "He hath created the sexes, male and female, from the diffused germs of life." He freed woman from the burden of original sin, placing it equally on Adam and Eve in Sura 87. Where Paul taught the Christians:<br />Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. (I Cor. 14:34)<br />Mohammed preached a single standard of morality for man and woman, repeatedly bracketing together the two sexes as in Sura 103:<br />Truly the men who resign themselves to God, and the women who resign themselves, and the believing men and the believing women, and the devout men and the devout women, and the men of truth and the women of truth, and the patient men and the patient women, and the humble men and the humble women, and the men who give alms and the women who give alms, and the men who fast and the women who fast, and the chaste men and the chaste women, and the men and the women who oft remember God: for them hath God prepared forgiveness and a rich recompense.<br />It would seem that Mohammed had eliminated every possibility of ambiguity, yet — such are the wonders of propaganda — Christians generally condemn this early feminist as a man who degraded woman and left her out of paradise.<br />The truth that Jesus brought to make men free was so misunderstood that his followers soon came to glory in filth of body and ignorance of mind* as signs of grace. They converted one of the most liberating of doctrines into an authoritarian institution and a dogma that ha? kept many men and women from striving after and enjoying truer and freer lives by promising them paradise when they die if only they suffer till then the evils of this world. The freedom Mohammed brought was corrupted until Mohammedan came to connote the seclusion of woman, and Islam, which means "to make peace," came to connote Holy War. "For eleven hundred years," sadly notes that devout Catholic, Lord Acton, "from the first to the last Constantine, the Christian Empire was as despotic as the pagan." The Moslem empires fared no better.<br />* J. A. Symonds (Renaissance in Italy, 160-61) gives some amusing examples of how the monks paraded their lack of grammar: "I warn the curious reader," writes a certain Wolfherd in the Life of St. Walpurgis, "not to mind the mass of barbarisms in this litle work; I bid him ponder what he finds upon these pages, and seek the pearl within the dung-heap." Gregory the Great goes further and defies the pedantry of pedagogues. "The place of prepositions and the case of the nouns I utterly despise, since I deem it unfit to confine the word of the celestial oracle within the rules of Donatus." ... Writes a fanatic of Cordova ... "let the foaming and bespittled grammarians belch, while we remain evangelical servants of Christ, true followers of rustic teachers."<br />Yet the teaching of Jesus with its appeal to the individual and to all mankind, instead of to the rulers of men, or to this or that tribe or nation of men, survived to do great service to human freedom. So, too, with the teachings of Mohammed: They led to the wisdom of many of the Cynic and other Greek philosophers being saved from the Christians, and to the printed Bible being made possible by the bringing of paper from China to the West, and to Voltaire pointing to the Turks,* when he wrote his Essay on Tolerance, as an example for the world to follow.<br />* When I was in Ankara in 1921 I found above the Speaker's chair in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey this verse of Mohammed: "Solve your problems by meeting together and discussing them." I found a woman, Halidé Edib Hanum, occupying a far more important role in that revolution than any woman held in the American Revolution, and when I remarked that the Turkish girls' schools I visited were better than the boys', Lieutenant Tewfik Bey answered: "You see, we think that if the mothers are well educated, the sons will surely be."<br />Like the means of uniting men that preceded it the modern dogma of nationalism is but an idea of men, no more, no less. It is a combination of the patriotism of blood and the patriotism of land, of the ideas of jus sanguinis and jus soli as the lawyers who try to separate them say, — a confused and confusing mixture of our throwback to the nomad bound to his beasts and to the peasant bound to the soil.<br />It is historically a parvenu. It was not known in the time of Jesus nor during the long centuries when what a European believed about God mattered more than his blood or land. As for the Moslem world, until the Turkish Republic was established Islam asked the traveller for his religious belief rather than his nationality; it organized men politically in its empires by religions and not by nations. There was so little nationalist patriotism in the great century of discovery that scarce an important explorer sailed under the flag of his birth, and a Portuguese captain, Magellan, angry when refused an increase in pay in Portugal, went over to Charles V of Spain and, to prove to him that the Spice Islands were not in the zone the Pope had given Portugal, set out on the voyage that proved the world is round.<br />Nationalism really began to flourish only in the nineteenth century when it did for freedom the great service of uniting the numerous petty states of Italy and Germany into two great peoples. It rose as a means of securing those wider and stronger political organizations which the steam engine and other inventions were making more and more necessary. It rose too as a democratic offshoot, as a lever for supplanting absolute royal sovereignty with popular sovereignty, and alien rule with home rule.<br />Nationalism reached its crest early in our century when the major nations were united to the point where further application of this principle was bound, because of the multiplicity of small nations in such states as Austria, Russia and Turkey, to begin dividing the world more into small compartments than integrating it on the greater scale that the gasoline engine and electrical and other inventions were making increasingly necessary. Since nationalism united men by making all important not Man's need of union but things separating one group from others, it could not possibly unite into one state the groups it had united as nations, except by the imperialist methods to which the greater nations turned. Its stress on points of difference between nations, once this stress had brought most of their nationals together, could only keep mankind divided and make for greater misunderstandings, quarrels and wars.<br />Nationalism's main positive, constructive, integrating work being done, all the human force and sentiment and gratitude which its liberating work had gathered behind it could only pour into and operate the negative, destructive, disintegrating principles inherent in it from the start. And so we had the World War of Nations, for the place in the sun of big nations, for the rights of small nations to independence and self-determination, and, as the need of organizing the world to prevent a return of this nationalist inferno grew more imperious, for a league of nations.<br />This period of transition was marked, as all such periods must be, by both the forces involved, by the one ending and by the one beginning. The constructive, liberating side of nationalism in its death agony served human freedom by creating in the League and International Labor Organization and Court and Bank the first such world institutions to live, and by thus preparing the way for the Union of free men.<br />It served human freedom in other ways too. It replaced the remaining hereditary autocracies in the West — Russian, German, Austrian and Turkish — with more democratic governments. It restored to the human equality and dignity that all men crave such peoples as the Poles and Czechs, whose position became intolerably inferior once the theory of nationalism succeeded religion and dynasty as the basis of politics and the popular criterion of liberty. It gave new life to other peoples such as the Chinese and Turks and made them a better medium for their own westernization than imperialism could possibly have been.<br />But when all is said, it remains true that in our generation nationalism reached its logical limits, its constructive elements began to wane and its destructive ones to wax, until its spiral definitely turned downward. It is operating less and less to bring men together and more and more to keep men apart. It has turned against both society and the individual, it has changed masters and quit serving the freedom of man to serve the freedom of the state — as was shown so strikingly when 3,000,000 Sudetens were deprived of their individual freedom and delivered to autocracy in the name of democratic self-determination. Like everything that has outlived its usefulness nationalism has changed from a beneficent into a maleficent force; it can only lead backward and downward now those whom it helped prepare for that greater union of men which their civilization and machines demand so impatiently.<br />The political theories which the tribesman and the countryman and the nationalist represent have in common not merely their high motive but their basic method. They all seek, however unconsciously, to free man from the tyranny of accident by getting and keeping men working together and they all try to unite men by subjecting them to the same thing, to one accident, the accident of how or where they happened to be born. They all try to subject men to this accident and make it the all-determining thing for each individual by circling it with magic or mysticism.<br />Nationalism was saved for a while from its basic irrationalism by its early connections with democratic rationalism. Its rapid degeneration now may be seen from the way it is galloping back behind Guide Hitler to the nomad's belief in the superiority of the tribal blood and tribal gods. Such priestcraft may still be necessary among the more backward peoples — and it is for each people to say for itself through its institutions and its leaders how politically backward it is.<br />But while nationalism was growing there was also growing up another means of uniting men, democratic Union. It stemmed from Socrates and Jesus rather than from Cain and Abel. It grew out of the Renaissance that ceased appealing to Aristotelian authority and returned to the democratic appeal to reason that produced Greek philosophy and made Athens great in the days when Pericles said, "These things are made for men, not men for them." It rose too from the Reformation that sent the individual back from the authority of the Pope to the Word itself, and to its doctrine that "the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath," and its insistence on the equality of the soul of man and the importance of the humblest person.<br />It came up with the English and the American and the French revolutions to unite men for their Bill of Rights, for the principle that all men are created equal, for the ideals of Liberté Egalité Fraternité. The men it has freed no longer need mysticism to keep them together, they need only Union now to bring them all together to free mankind still more. They have now enough experience behind them and intelligence in them to understand that freedom lies in free men freely uniting, trusting in each other and depending on each other. They are mature enough to understand that the way to man's freedom can not possibly lie in worshiping the accident of birth. They know that freedom for each can lie only in men freeing all the billion possibilities that the billions of men can alone supply for the billion-sided task of freeing man from accident's arbitrary rule. They know that to free man from the accident of death they must begin by freeing his mind from the accident of birth.<br />OF UNION<br />Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable. — Webster.<br />There never was an independent man, or nation, or empire, and there never will be. To think these possible is foolish. It is worse to believe that one has achieved them, to glory proudly in one's independence or his nation's. It is shameful.<br />There is no shame in admitting one's dependence on his fellows, and the dependence of one's nation on one's species — dependence not only on the living but on the billions and billions of men who have brought us painfully up. We need not blush to remember that in the sweat of arms like ours was paved the path on which we stroll, that through a human patience perhaps surpassing ours our enemy the wolf was made our friend the dog, that we owe much to the boldness of Xerxes in defying the gods by throwing the first bridge across the Hellespont, and to the courage of the Spartans at Thermopylae and to the wisdom that Socrates by his way of dying carried far beyond the grave.<br />We need not hang our heads in recognizing that minds and hands like ours are somewhere in nearly everything we see and are protectingly around us wherever we may be, that they discovered the microbes that cling to fingers and made the waxed paper and invented the machines to put it round the food we announce "no human hand has touched." There is no shame in being mindful of our dependence on the men who today are tapping the rubber tree in the tropics, trapping the fox in the Arctic, braving the explosive gas of the coal mine, feeding the hungry silkworm, watching the whirring spindles, cleaning the streets and the surgeons' lances, tracking the storm to its lair in Greenland and fever to its marsh in Africa, guarding the thoroughfare we crowd and the lonely reef that lies in ambush for us.<br />The shame lies instead in forgetting all or anything we owe our species, in exaggerating what little mankind owes to us, in combining ingratitude, conceit and usurpation to make a patriotic virtue, and in professing that we are self-made and independent. The shameful thing is for a man to think that mankind is in his debt when the balance is struck between what mankind has done and is doing every day for him, and what he has done to make his species freer and happier. It is still more shameful to act as if mankind were so much in his debt as to justify his receiving, and his children and his children's children receiving, millions more than other men, or political, social or other title and position whose possession needs no further justification — no matter how many other benefactions other men confer thereafter on society. The shame is not lessened when such delusions of grandeur are enjoyed by masses of men instead of by individuals, when a whole nation assumes that it has given more than it has received, that there is something naturally superior and peculiarly sacred in it, that it is the Elect of God or the Chosen People, that it was meant to be the lord of others. These are the things that are shameful in men, and they are shameful because they are so tawdry and false and unworthy of a species whose name gives us the adjective, manly.<br />The freedom of man goes hand in hand with the inter-dependence of men, whether organized as a democracy or union or on some other basis or tacit. This is true in every field, it has always been true, and the more our freedom and self-reliance has grown, the more inter-dependent we have become and the more we have needed union with more men.<br />It is a common thing to find a man who treats all the rest of us as stupid, as obstacles in his path from which he longs to be free. Each of us has sometimes felt that way about some or all of the rest of us. It is natural that we should, that each man should always be ready to indict the mass of mankind as stupid. We are so made that all of us are ignorant and awkward and stupid in far more ways than we are skilled and wise. That in itself tends to make us esteem more our own wisdom where we have it. The fewer the things in which we are wise the more value we set, of course, on our wisdom and the more irritating becomes the stupidity of our fellows in the field where we are wiser.<br />But the interesting side of this is the other side of the medal, for it is the positive side. Though a man may be stupid in no matter how many things, he is almost certainly more skilled or wiser than most of us in some few things, or at least in some one thing. "In every god there is something divine," Anatole France remarked, and we can add that in every man there is some of Man. I once had a cook who I thought was a hopeless moron until one day she made an apple pie. It was the one thing she knew how to do, it was her specialty, but she could do it so succulently well that one forgave her a heap of other things.<br />The man who was no good at pie-making would be a fool not to depend on her for apple pies, and the one who could make pies but not so well would be a fool not to depend on her for instruction. This example being typical, we can smile while minorities of different experts nearly 2,000,000,000 strong accuse our (and their) species of a hundred million stupidities. We can be sure our species will survive and each of us will grow richer and wiser and freer so long as we enjoy this wealth in minorities of experts — and are not so stupid as to try to be independent of any of them. Put in other terms, the wildest reactionary is never 100 per cent conservative, and the wildest revolutionary is never 100 per cent rebel. Our Neville Chamberlains are the first to rebel at the cut-and-dried methods of diplomacy, our Lenins are conservative not only in their habit of dress but in a host of other things. Conservatism and radicalism partly result from men differing in the velocity of their adaptability to change, and from this standpoint the most hide-bound among us would appear a flighty revolutionist to his own great-grandfather. Some of course in every generation adapt themselves to or welcome change in general relatively more than others, but usually we are each conservative about many things and actively rebellious against only a few. And generally our radicalism comes out in the things we know the best, and we resent change most in the things we know the least or have just gained knowledge of.<br />But the result of our division into conservatives and rebels is that though we can not depend on ourselves not to atrophy or grow stagnant or lax or careless in some directions we can depend absolutely on our species never lacking plenty of men either to rebel against every conceivable obstacle to the freedom of man, or to conserve every bit of the freedom won by yesterday's rebels until those of today prove the new bit of freedom that they bring is really worthy of acceptance. This may not conduce to our independence, but can we have a better way than this to free ourselves?<br />It is not our greatest men who think it beneath them to acknowledge their dependence on others. They teach us not to depend on ourselves alone if we would free what is individual in us, but to study diligently other men who are masters, for, as Sir Joshua Reynolds said, "The more extensive your acquaintance with the works of those who have excelled, the more extensive will be your powers of invention ... and what may appear still more like a paradox, the more original will be your conceptions."<br />As it is with those lonely venturers, our great men in every field, so it is with those who are pioneers in the narrower sense of the word. If any man can be called independent it is the pioneer who goes out into the wilderness and carves out his home, the man of the type of Mr. Bulow, the Connecticut farmer who took Brillat-Savarin on a turkey hunt in 1794 in the forest near Hartford, and who, the great epicure narrates, thus described himself:<br />"You see in me, Sir, a happy man, if there is one under Heaven: Everything around you and every thing you have seen in my home come from my own property. These stockings, my daughters knitted them; my shoes and my clothes came from my flocks, which contribute, too, with my garden and poultry-yard, to supply me with plain and substantial food."<br />Yet in the next breath Mr. Bulow (with Shays's rebellion and the hard times of the Confederation only seven years gone and the American Union only five years old) attributes his happy lot to union with and trust in his fellows, saying:<br />"The great thing about our government is that you can count in Connecticut thousands of farmers as contented as I am, and whose doors, like mine, are never locked. Our taxes are next to nothing, and as long as they are paid we can sleep soundly. Congress favors in every way our budding industry ... All we have comes from the freedom we have won and founded on good laws."<br />It was these pioneers of Connecticut who were among the first to sacrifice the sovereignty of the state and ratify the Constitution of the United States. Their forebears, the first men to pioneer in Connecticut, Lord Acton notes, "possessed so finished a system of self-government in the towns, that it served as a model for the federal Constitution." As early as 1638 a pioneer was preaching in the primeval Connecticut forest the dependence of men on each other, and of their rulers on them, saying: "The choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people, by God's own allowance. They who have the power to appoint officers and magistrates, it is in their power, also, to set the bounds and limitations of the power and place unto which they call them."<br />It was precisely in these conditions, when civilized man was thrown in the American wilderness most upon his own resources that the elemental fact of his dependence on his fellows was most driven home to him, and men came to realize that their freedom lay in trusting in each other, in pulling together, in uniting freely on the basis of the equal rights and dignity of each of them. It was in these pioneering conditions that these<br />American colonies, before they constituted their Union, united under state constitutions that form the first written constitutions in history superior to and limiting the government and alterable only by the people themselves. When enlightened men were most alone against the world in America they put first things first and began most of these state constitutions by asserting first the Rights of Man, and then providing in the second part a broad plan of self-government designed to secure through the Union of men their inalienable rights to individual freedom.<br />As the pioneers moved westward through the American wilderness enlightened men for 200 years had to depend on women to do not only a woman's work but a man's work too, — to seize the reins and drive the Covered wagon while the man stood off the Indians, to take his rifle and defend the children when he fell or was away. Pioneering conditions made so clear the dependence of men and women on each other that there finally began in the Rocky Mountains, with man's free acknowledgment of the equal right of woman to the vote and to everything else, the liberation of half the human race. There never were men more independent than the cowmen and prospectors and homesteaders of Wyoming in 1868, and they were the first thus to recognize and extend their dependence on women.<br />Our freedom has always been inseparably bound to our faith in our fellows, and the more of them we have trusted, and the more implicitly, blindly, we have depended on each of our fellow-men — no matter what race, nation, class or sex — the more we have been rewarded with freedom. Truly of the stuff of dreams is our species made.<br />Men talk excitedly of crime waves. We are so good at heart that for every house built as a prison there are a hundred thousand homes where live law-abiding men. No country needs more than a tiny fraction of its population for police, and the freer the people the fewer the police. There were 160 crimes for which men were put to death in England when Blackstone wrote and George III reigned. In that century when England grew such men as Paine and Burke a man guilty of high treason was cut down when half hung, disembowelled and his bowels burned before him, and his body then was quartered. The law for pressing with weights a prisoner who refused to plead was not repealed until 1771, and down to 1790 Englishwomen who murdered their husbands were publicly burned to death. There is no such ferocity now in England, and though the population is far greater there is much less crime and only one prisoner to 4,000 people. There is also now far more freedom and trust by Englishmen in each other.<br />Two hundred, one hundred, fifty years ago one finds everywhere in every field far less dependence of men upon each other, and far less freedom. Then perhaps ten or a dozen men entrusted themselves for fifty miles to a stage-coach driver with four or six horses, after making inquiry, and scrutinizing their man. Now a thousand men rush into a train and are whisked off sixty miles in an hour. They may do it twice a day through every year or they may cross a continent without ever going up to the locomotive to see what manner of man is there with his hand on the reins of hundreds of horses, with his eye now on his watch and soon searching vigilantly through the mist for the signal lamps.<br />They may do this all year without it once occurring to them that they are all trusting their lives to a man at the throttle, and to the unknown men who made his watch, and to the man at the throttle of the train hurtling toward them, and to the maker of his watch, and to distant train dispatchers and their watches and clocks, and to the signal men, and to the brakemen, and to the long line of men who made and inspected the making and also the operation of the brakes and the wheels and the cars and the locomotives, and to the men who made and inspected and laid the rails, and to the section hands and the track-walkers, and the bridge-builders and the tunnel-makers. We can not enjoy the freedom from the horse's limitations that a train gives without trusting our lives blindly to the good faith of thousands of unknown men.<br />While the passenger must have faith in these thousands, they have to trust in millions of passengers having faith enough in the railway to use it. The Great Eastern, that 1857 fore-runner of our Atlantic liners, failed not because she lacked room for passengers, — she was longer than nearly all the ocean greyhounds afloat sixty years later, — but because she lacked passengers. She failed because ocean travellers then did not have enough faith in steamships, in their makers and their crews and in men generally.<br />The train and the ocean liner are two of many wonders that are possible only through the willingness of men to depend utterly on their fellow-men. Wherever we go, whatever we do, we do, we need but keep our eyes open to see the same phenomenon of freedom for each man through faith in every man.<br />It is in every item in our newspaper as it is in every bed in our hospital. Our newspapers, now that they reach to the ends of the earth for men who are interested in and need to know everything on earth, require for their functioning far more confidence all round than ever before, far more faith in unknown men. The statesman, the banker, the businessman who closes his door on the press, who impatiently tries to dodge when the newsmen surround him may not realize, when he suppresses or distorts or falsifies to them the news of what he has been doing, that he is hurting most himself. Yet however important he may be he has only a few items of news to give compared to all those he needs to get, and the more he handicaps the newsmen in their work of accurately and quickly reporting the essentials in every field to everyone, the more he contributes to a condition that poisons the air which he himself must breathe.<br />The newsman who jazzes a story to sell himself to the editor and public, or who is not alert for the true interest and essential in everything, or who fails to do his best to put himself in the shoes of those whose actions or words he is reporting so as to understand the gist of what they are trying to tell the world, — the newsman may not realize it either but the worse he does his job the more he hurts himself, if only because he too must depend on the newspapers for his facts. No men, indeed, depend upon newsmen more than do the newsmen.<br />Our great-grandfathers rarely trusted their lives to men they did not know, our grandfathers did so only sparingly, but we are doing it all the time, many of us nonchalantly many times a day. Yet it is now, and especially among the more trusting peoples, which is to say the freer peoples, that the death rate is far lower and the span of life is growing. We eat and drink almost anywhere on earth without the fear that man once had that strangers might poison him. We pile into elevators and go dizzily down, we dodge through streets crowded with cars more powerful than the monsters of antiquity, we jump into taxicabs without worrying whether the driver may possibly be drunk — and we never suffer half the qualms that grandfather did.<br />In his time there were never on the roads nearly so many horse-drawn vehicles as there are now horseless ones. When he was out driving with his girl in the buggy he did not need to trust that the men driving the few buggies he met would keep to their side of the road and not run into him and kill him. He could depend on the other man's horse and his own horse not colliding even if both drivers went to sleep, and he could be reasonably sure that an accident would not be fatal.<br />Paradoxically the more that men depend upon machines, the more they must depend on men, and on more men. The number of slaves who labored up the Great Pyramid is small compared to the world-scattered, ungeneralled army of free men who now help bring each tourist to see that work of autocrats and slaves.<br />The doing of a book may seem an independent enterprise, one requiring few hands compared to those needed to bridge the Golden Gate. Yet I would sooner try to count the hair of my head than the men and women who have lent a hand merely on the mechanical side of the writing of this book: The men who felled the trees, who brought them to the paper mill, and mined and smelted its minerals and provided it with chemicals and fuel and grease, who loaned the money to build the mill and provide the machinery for it, who ran the mill and distributed the sheet of paper on which these words are now being written by a typewriter, — and all the world-scattered men who put that typewriter on this desk (among them far away natives who helped bring it bits of rubber and provided its inked ribbon (we must count in too the cotton-pickers).<br />And then there is the host of men behind this desk, this chair, this house, this fountain pen, this ink, and behind the universal postal system that carries this "manuscript," and the machines that set in type every letter in it, and the presses that print that type, — and the tale is neither finished nor even complete as far as it goes.<br />And when we have finished with the mechanical side there would remain the substance of the book. That seems to be something independent, personal, but the book is studded with allusions to only some of those who have lent me a hand. If I sought merely to list all the men and women, great and obscure, known and unknown to me, whom I thank for encouraging me and helping give this book what substance it has, there would be no space left in it. Even to express my thanks I must depend on Lincoln who solved the problem so well when he wrote in his letter to Conkling and the "unconditional Union men" of 1863:<br />Thanks to all — for the great Republic, for the principle it lives by and keeps alive, for man's vast future, — thanks to all.<br />I can not even number the individuals, living and dead, upon whom I have had to depend, and upon whom I am glad to depend to bring before your eyes these words:<br />Let us then all keep clearly in our minds and tightly in our hearts that in Union there is freedom, and that each shall be the freer and happier the more we all recognize our dependence on the individual and the more we each recognize our dependence on each other and on all our species. We are all the losers when one of us is not doing the work that is joy for him, and we are all the gainers when he is doing what he loves to do, for he is then doing his share best. The more deliberately and fully and trustingly we unite with each other and depend upon each other for our freedom, the more we shall solve the problem of so arranging our society that each lives in it more happily and freely. For freedom is like love, the more of it we give, the more of it we can enjoy, and love is like union, too. True love can not do without union, nor can there be full union without love, nor freedom without either, nor either without freedom.<br />We have too long forgot that freedom and love were born together, and we have yet to learn that they can not live and grow without each other. As a child sometimes sees deeper than a man, so Man, when he was making words for those ethereal solid things that he has never touched and always reached for, saw into them more deeply than we do, and he made his word for love his word for free. We have too long forgot that we began to free with the Gothic frijon and the Sanskrit pri, which means, to love; we have yet to learn that not simply through the Gothic frijonds up from the Sanskrit priyon for beloved but from the very nature of things stem together friend and freedom.<br />Man has on earth no one but Man to help him, and what a mighty, what a generous, what a kindly and abiding and dependable friend and liberator is Man to Man. Man has already wrought miracles of Man by Man for Man. These are great and they are but a hint of those that will be done when our Union opens Man's vast future as each Man pledges each:<br />Thy freedom is my freedom as is my freedom thine.<br />Man<br />Here in a thimble seed of Man enough to fill every womb in the land womb within womb seed within seed all in a thimble Say what shall we say of Man? Myriad myriad seed of Man torn and dead and back in the land myriad myriad still to be sown and then one day Man shall be grown Man who shall be finally free Then he shall say who he is why he is all he is Man.<br /><strong>ANNEXES</strong><br />These annexes deal with matters that are of secondary importance at this stage of the Union, or illustrate concretely certain points in the book with a view to making these points clearer.<br />ANNEX 1<br />Illustrative Constitution<br />The draft constitution that follows is meant to make the proposed Union clearer by illustrating how the democracies might unite. I would stress what I have already pointed out in Chapter X. This draft is not intended to be a hard and fast plan. Practically all of its provisions, however, are time-tested.<br />The draft is drawn entirely from the Constitution of the American Union, except for (1) a few provisions that, although not drawn from it, are based on American practice (notably Art. II, sections I, 2, 4, 5), and (2) a few innovations: These latter are given in italics so that they may be seen at once. Most of the draft taken from the American Constitution has been taken textually, though its provisions have sometimes been re-arranged with a view to greater clarity and condensation, and once or twice they have been made more explicit and somewhat expanded. The Preamble is the only serious example of this last. In the American Constitution the Preamble reads:<br />We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.<br />No important element in the American Constitution has been omitted. The draft follows:<br />ILLUSTRATIVE CONSTITUTION<br />We the people of the Union of the Free, in order to secure freedom equally to every man and woman now and to come, to lessen ignorance, poverty, and disease, to insure our defense, to promote justice and the general welfare, to provide government of ourselves, by ourselves, and for ourselves on the principle of the equality of men, and to bring peace on earth and union to mankind, do establish this as our Constitution.<br />PART I<br />THE RIGHTS OF MAN<br />ARTICLE I — In the individual freedom this Constitution is made to secure we include:<br />1. Freedom of speech and of the press and of conscience.<br />2. Freedom to organize ourselves for any purpose except to change by violence this Constitution and the laws made under it; freedom to assemble peaceably and to ask redress of grievances and make proposals.<br />3. Freedom of our persons, dwellings, communications, papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from warrants unless issued upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.<br />4. Freedom from ex post facto law and from bills of attainder.<br />5. Freedom from suspension of the writ of habeas corpus except when public safety may temporarily require it in case of rebellion or invasion.<br />6. Freedom from being held to answer for a capital or infamous crime except on indictment of a grand jury — save in the armed forces in time of war or public danger — and from being twice put in jeopardy of life or limb or liberty for the same offence, and from being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and from having property taken for public use without just compensation.<br />7. The right when accused of any crime to have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the country and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, as previously ascertained by law, and to be informed in good time of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against one, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in one's favor, to be under no compulsion to be a witness against oneself, and to have the assistance of counsel for one's defense.<br />8. Freedom from excessive bail or excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments.<br />9. Freedom from slavery, and from involuntary servitude and forced labor except in legal punishment for crime.<br />10. The right to equality before the law and to the equal protection of the laws.<br />11. The preceding enumeration is not exhaustive nor shall it be construed to deny or disparage other rights which we retain.<br />PART II<br />THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION<br />ARTICLE II. — THE PEOPLE OF THE UNION.<br />1. All persons born or naturalized in the self-governing states of the Union are citizens of the Union and of the state wherein they reside. All citizens above the age of 21, except those in institutions for the feebleminded or mentally deranged or in prison, are entitled to vote in all Union elections, and to hold any Union office for which their age qualifies them.<br />2. All other persons in the territory of the Union shall enjoy all rights of citizens except the right to vote in Union elections. The Union shall seek to extend this right to them at the earliest time practicable by helping prepare their country to enter the Union as a self-governing state.<br />3. The self-governing states of the Union at its foundation are Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the Union of South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America.<br />4. The non-self-governing territory of these states and of all states admitted later to the Union is transferred to the Union to govern while preparing it for self-government and admission to the Union.<br />5. Before casting his or her first vote each citizen of the Union shall take this oath in conditions to be prescribed by law: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Union of the Free against all enemies, foreign and domestic."*<br />(* The American Union requires this oath only of naturalized citizens or of citizens entering the Union service or applying for a passport.)<br />6. Treason can be committed only by citizens against the Union and can consist only in levying war against it or in adhering to its enemies, aiding and comforting them. No one shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or on confession in open court.<br />ARTICLE III. — RIGHTS OF THE UNION AND OF THE STATES.<br />1. The Union shall have the right to make and execute all laws necessary and proper for the securing of the rights of man and of the Union and of the states as set forth in this Constitution, and to lay and collect income and other taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, provided these be uniform throughout the Union, and to incur and pay debt, provided that no money shall be drawn from the treasury except by lawful appropriation and that an account of all receipts and expenditures be published regularly.<br />2. The Union shall have the sole right to<br />a. grant citizenship in the Union and admit new states into the Union;<br />b. treat with foreign governments, provide for the Union's defense, raise, maintain and control standing land, sea and air forces, make war and peace, regulate captures, define and punish piracies and felonies comntitted on the high seas, call forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions, organize, arm, discipline, and govern such part of the militia as the Union may employ, and punish treason;<br />c. regulate commerce among the member states and in the Union territory and with foreign states;<br />d. coin and issue money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign money, provide for the punishment of counterfeiting, fix the standard of weights and measures;<br />e. own and operate the postal service and own, operate or control all other inter-state communication services;<br />f. grant authors and inventors exclusive right to their work for limited periods;<br />g. provide uniform bankruptcy laws throughout the Union;<br />h. govern any district the Union may acquire for its seat of government or for forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful Union plant.<br />3. The Union shall have no right to establish a Union religion, grant hereditary or noble titles, levy any tax or duty on inter-state commerce, subject vessels bound to or from one state to enter, clear, or pay duties in another, grant preference by any regulation of commerce or revenue to one state over another.<br />4. The rights not expressly given to the Union by the Constitution nor forbidden by it to the states or the people are reserved by it to the states respectively, or to the people.<br />5. The Union shall guarantee to every state in it a democratic form of government and shall protect each of them and all the territory of the Union against invasion; and on application of the state legislature or executive the Union shall protect each state against domestic violence.<br />6. Each state has the right to maintain a militia and a police force, but may engage in war only if actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will admit of no delay.<br />7. Each state has the right to guarantee to the people in it greater rights than those enumerated in this Constitution.<br />8. No state has the right to<br />a. abridge the rights, privileges and immunities of citizens of the Union;<br />b. exercise, except temporarily by consent of the Union, any of the rights given by this Constitution to the Union alone;<br />c. raise any barriers to inter-state commerce or communications without the consent of the Union;<br />d. adopt any law impairing the obligation of contracts;<br />e. enter without the consent of the Union into any pact or agreement with another state or foreign power.<br />9. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state in the Union.<br />10. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.<br />11. A person charged in any state with crime who shall flee and be found in another state shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled be delivered up to it.<br />ARTICLE IV. — THE LEGISLATIVE POWER.<br />1. The legislative power of the Union is vested in the Congress, which shall consist of a House of Deputies and a Senate. Each shall choose its own officers, judge the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members, determine its rules of procedure, have the power to punish its members for disorderly behavior, to compel their attendance, and to expel them by two-thirds majority; keep and publish a record of its proceedings, meet and vote in public except when two-thirds shall ask for a private meeting on a particular question, vote by roll call when one-fifth of the members ask this, form with a majority a quorum to do business though fewer may adjourn from day to day, act by majority except where otherwise stipulated in this Constitution.<br />2. The Congress shall meet at least once a year at a regular date it shall fix. During a session neither branch shall adjourn more than three days or to any other place without the other's consent.<br />3. Members of Congress shall not be questioned outside their branch of it for anything they said in it, nor shall they be arrested on any charge except treason, felony, or breach of the peace, during attendance at a session of Congress or while going to and from it.<br />4. No member of Congress shall hold other public office in the Union or in a state during his term, except in the Cabinet.<br />5. The Deputies shall be at least 25 years old, and shall be elected directly by the citizens every third year.<br />The number of Deputies from each state shall be determined according to population, a census being taken at least every ten years, and shall not exceed one for every 1,000,000 inhabitants or major fraction thereof, though each state shall have at least one.<br />6. Senators shall be at least 30 years old, shall have resided since at least 10 years in the State by which elected, and shall be elected at large from each state directly by the citizens every eight years, except that in the first election half the Senators of each state shall be elected for only four years. There shall be two Senators from each state of less than 25,000,000 population, and two more for each additional 25,000,000 population or major fraction thereof.<br />7. To begin with the apportionment of Deputies and Senators shall be:Australia ..................... 7 2 Norway ....................... 3 2Belgium ....................... 8 2 Sweden ....................... 6 2Canada ........................ 11 2 Switzerland .................. 4 2Denmark ....................... 4 2 Union of South Africa ........ 2 2Finland ....................... 4 2 United Kingdom ............... 47 4France ........................ 42 4 United States ................ 126 10Ireland ....................... 3 2Netherlands ................... 8 2New Zealand ................... 2 2 Totals...................... 287 42<br />8. To become law a bill must pass the House and the Senate and be approved and signed by a majority of the Board.* If a majority of the Board shall return the bill with its reasons for not signing it, the bill shall become law only if passed again by House and Senate by two-thirds roll-call majority and if a member of the Board shall ask to be heard by House or Senate during its debate thereon he shall be heard. A bill not returned by the Board within fifteen days (holidays and Sundays excepted) after presentation to it shall be law, as if signed, unless adjournment of Congress shall have prevented its return. This shall also apply to every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the House or Senate may be necessary, except on a question of adjournment, and to every expression of the Union's will, unless otherwise provided herein.<br />(* The executive, see Art. V. The United States Constitution gives to the President the powers this paragraph gives to the Board.)<br />9. The Congress shall have the power to declare war, make peace, and exercise all the other rights of the Union unless otherwise provided herein.<br />10. The Congress shall have the right to admit new states into this Union; but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states or parts of states without the consent of the state or states concerned.<br />ARTICLE V. — THE EXECUTIVE POWER.<br />1. The executive power of the Union is vested in the Board. It shall be composed of five citizens at least 55 years old. Three shall be elected directly by the citizens of the Union and one by the House and one by the Senate. One shall be elected each year for a five-year term, except that in the first election the citizens shall elect three, and the House shall then elect one for two years and the Senate shall then elect one for four years, and the Board shall then by lot assign terms of one, three, and five years respectively to the three Members elected by the citizens.<br />2. A majority of the Board shall form a quorum, and it shall act by majority thereof unless otherwise provided herein.<br />3. The Board shall establish a system of rotation so that each Member may be President of it one year.<br />4. The Board* shall be commander-in-chief of all the armed forces of the Union, shall commission all officers of the Union and appoint ambassadors, ministers and consuls, may grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the Union, shall have the power to make treaties by and with the advice and consent of the Premier and Congress,† and to appoint with the advice and consent of the Senate the justices of the Supreme Court and of all lower Union Courts, and to make any other appointments required of it by law.<br />The Board* shall from time to time report to the people and Congress on the state of the Union, its progress toward its objectives, and the effects and need of change, and shall recommend to their consideration such policies and measures as it shall judge necessary and expedient; it may require the opinion of any one in the service of the Union on any subject relating to the duties of his office.<br />The Board* may convene extraordinarily Congress, adjourn it when its two houses cannot agree on adjournment, or dissolve it or either branch of it for the purpose of having it elected anew as shall be prescribed by law.<br />The Board* shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers.<br />5. The Board shall delegate all executive power not expressly retained by it herein to a Premier, who shall exercise it with the help of a Cabinet of his choice until he loses the confidence of House or Senate, whereupon the Board shall delegate this power to another Premier.<br />(* President, in the United States Constitution.<br />† Senate, in the United States Constitution.)<br />ARTICLE VI. — THE JUDICIAL POWER.<br />1. The judicial power of the Union is vested in a High Court, and in such lower courts as the Union may from time to time establish by law. All Union judges shall be appointed for life. The number of High Court judges shall be fixed by law, but shall not be less than 11.<br />2. The judicial power extends to all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the Union, and treaties made by it; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies between two or more states; between a state and citizens of another state; between citizens of different states, and between a state, or citizens thereof, and foreign states, or persons.<br />3. The High Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which a state or a foreign state shall be party; in all the other cases before-mentioned it shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, under such regulations as shall be made by law.<br />ARTICLE VII. — THE AMENDING POWER.<br />1. The power to amend this Constitution is vested in the citizens of the Union acting by a majority of those voting on proposals made by two-thirds majority of the House and of the Senate with the approval of three-fifths of the Board, or by two-thirds majority of either House or Senate with the unanimous approval of the Board, or by a special constituent assembly established by law, or by petition signed by at least one-fourth the voters in one-half the states. No state, however, shall be deprived without its consent of its right to have its own language and its own form of democratic government.<br />ARTICLE VIII. — GENERAL<br />1. This Constitution, and the laws of the Union which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties which shall be made under the authority of the Union, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.<br />2. All persons in the service of the Union, and the legislative members and executive and judicial officers of each state, shall at the beginning of each term renew their oath to support this Constitution.<br />3. All Union elective offices, unless otherwise stipulated herein, shall be filled on the same day throughout the Union, to be fixed by law; the exact date when their terms shall begin and end shall also be fixed by law, as well as the manner for filling vacancies.<br />4. All persons in the service of the Union shall be paid from the Union treasury as shall be fixed by law, but the compensation of no judge shall be decreased during his term nor shall that of any elected officer of the Union be increased during the term for which he was elected.<br />5. Any one in the service of the Union, on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes, shall be removed from office and may be disqualified from holding office again, and if convicted remains liable to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law.<br />The House shall have the sole power of impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try an impeachment, and it shall convict only by two-thirds majority of the Senators present sitting under oath or affirmation. The Chief justice shall preside when a President or Member of the Board is tried.<br />6. No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the Union, nor shall there be any official Union religion.<br />ARTICLE IX. — RATIFICATION<br />1. The ratification of this Constitution by ten states, or by France, the United Kingdom, and the United States, shall suffice to establish it among them.<br />An endeavor to conciliate mankind, to render their condition happy, to unite nations that have hitherto been enemies, and to extirpate the horrid practice of war, and break the chains of slavery and oppression. — Paine's description of his Rights of Man.<br />They are two to one against us.... Tell them that the Convention shall never rise until the Constitution is adopted. — Hamilton when asked by a friend what to tell New York City about the prospects of the New York State Convention ratifying the American Constitution. In six weeks he changed a hostile majority of two-thirds into a favorable majority of three.<br />ANNEX 2<br />Transitional and Technical Problems of Union<br />The difficulties involved in creation of the Union's common citizenship, army, market, money and stamp may frighten or discourage many. Three things may help reassure them.<br />First, our choice is not between difficulty and danger with the Union and ease and safety with any other course, but between greater and lesser difficulty and risk. What we face in securing our freedom by the Union is trifling compared to what we face in trying any other course.<br />Second, the difficulties in uniting are mainly if not entirely transitional ones that will soon end. The difficulties in any policy that fails to establish one citizenship, army, market, money and stamp are inherent and unending.<br />Third, many of the difficulties and risks liable to be held against the Union will be imaginary, or rather, will arise only from the faulty imaginations of those that see them. Many will spring from the assumption that we need ideal union from the start and must solve every problem not only perfectly but at once. Or they will come from forgetting that our aim is not to make everything uniform, orderly, neat, but to make the world safe for more variety, more individualism, more democracy. Only part of the present disorders needs ending as hindering rather than helping this end, and much of this part can safely be left to the Union to deal with later. The only problems needing consideration now are those that absolutely need consideration if the Union is to be established.<br />We shall now briefly consider the main transitional and technical difficulties involved in establishing the Union citizenship, defense force, money, and communications system, and then discuss less briefly our hardest problem, the establishment of a customs union.<br />CITIZENSHIP<br />Some nations may fear that one citizenship, because it brings free movement of men within the Union, will cause them to be flooded with emigrants from other parts of the Union. Experience does not justify this fear. If possession of freedom of movement involved necessarily the use of it the German Swiss would have flooded long ago the French and Italian cantons, or the French would have emigrated from Quebec to other parts of Canada. Why should nations fear great migratory movements within this Union more than the American states fear such movements from the other states of that Union?<br />Union by bringing opportunity for freedom and prosperity equally to men wherever they are tends to keep them settled; acute migration problems derive from conditions that force men to leave in order to be, or hope to be, free and prosperous. The relatively small part of the total population that would be shifting from nation to nation in our Union would, moreover, be better balanced than it is now, for there would be more migration among the scientists, engineers, doctors, artists, etc. Men from the nations in the Union that excel in certain things would be in demand in other nations in it that are retarded in these things. To make teachers freer to teach and students freer to learn is to cause some migration, but not an immigration problem, certainly not one dangerous to freedom. It is true that the United States raised some problems when it granted the emancipated negro slave the right to move about as freely as the whites, but this policy has never raised anything like the problems which were raised by its extreme opposite — by the fugitive slave law which sought to fix the negro in the South.<br />There is, too, the question of what to do about all the immigration officials, passport officials, customs officials, and all the other government officials, civil and military, high and low, whom the Union will make unnecessary. The practice in relieving the unemployed which nationalism has given every democracy should make it easy for each of them to handle its share of a problem so relatively small. The great stimulation to business which the Union would give could be counted on to provide productive work soon absorbing these superfluous officials.<br />DEFENSE<br />How should the great reduction in defense forces which the Union permits be carried out? Should at least some of it be erected by each nation in forming the Union or should it all be left to the Union government to do? The latter would seem the more reasonable. How much reduction should there be? How far should the process of eliminating duplication be carried? Such questions could be left to the Union.<br />How shall the Union take over the existing defense establishments? The Act enabling the Republic of Texas to enter the American Union shows how easy it is to do this. It provided that Texas should cede "to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy yards, docks, magazines, arms, armaments, and all other property and means pertaining to the public defense belonging to the said Republic of Texas." Our Union might of course permit minor exceptions enabling nations to retain things of historic and sentimental rather than military value. The less of this the better, however, especially as concerns things reminiscent of the wars between our nations. Pride is at the root of the desire to retain these things, and the individual will be safer if he puts his pride less in what the nation has done to keep men apart and more in the Union and all that men in every nation have done to make the Union possible.<br />What of the fact that some democracies have volunteer armies and others universal service? Which system should the Union adopt? It would seem possible for each democracy to continue provisionally its present system until the Union adopted a common one, if not till the admission of new states solved the question by making nothing necessary except a small volunteer force. The Union's least secure period would be at the outset and its most exposed territory then would be on the European continent. But this very territory would enter the Union best prepared to defend itself, thanks to universal service there. Even if the Union adopted a volunteer policy at the start it would take some time to organize it and in that time the Union would be strengthening itself with new members. The advantages of universal training can not be lost quickly even by abolishing conscription. The European situation is such that as the Union spreads it could always count on having a citizenry trained for the army at those frontiers where and when the Union needed this most.<br />What of the command of the Union army, navy, air force at the start? This does not need to be accorded to one man; it could be given provisionally at least to a supreme defense council composed of the officers commanding the armed forces of the democracies now. Common sense would give a preponderating position in this council to the democracies contributing at the start the greatest armies, navies, air forces. One would expect the Union to begin by turning most to the French — as the British have already done — for army leadership and to the British — as the French have already done — and to the Americans for navy leadership. It would thus enjoy the services of the most experienced military experts precisely where it would need them most. Since the military would be subordinate to the civil power, and since the greatest democracy could not dominate this power and the smaller democracies would be safeguarded by their strong position in the Senate, there could be no valid objection to the Union organizing its defense on the basis of merit rather than national pride. The better the Union officers, the more its armed forces could be reduced with safety.<br />The Council would have to work out a new defense policy, of course. That should be child's play for its members. They now have the problem of defending the same individual freedom with a fraction of the Union's resources, and with no guarantee all the other democracies will even remain benevolently neutral should their nation become engaged in war.<br />But organizing an army of Americans, British, French, Dutch, Belgians, Scandinavians, Swiss, etc., — is it not too difficult to get men of so many nationalities and languages to form a coherent fighting force? It is difficult but by no means impossible to do this even by the league or alliance system, as the World War showed. It is much easier when one changes the political governing unit from state to man. The French with their Foreign Legion and the United States with all its forces have shown how easy it is to weld the greatest mixture of men into an effective force, provided only that one can organize them on a man to man instead of state to state basis. Our Union's task at the outset would be little more difficult in this respect than that of Switzerland with its three nations. There would be no need of or advantage in mixing all the troops at the start; one could begin with a judicious mixture among the officers and gradually extend this.<br />Finally, there is the fear that it will be too hard to get the different democratic peoples to defend each other, especially the more distant or least exposed ones. This fear is another hangover from the habit of thinking of world organization in terms of states instead of men. Just as an international and a union army are poles apart, so too there is basic difference between a league which expects Americans, for example, to cross the sea to defend France while the French remain free to carry on whatever foreign policy they desire, and our Union where every American, Frenchman, Englishman, Dutchman, — where every citizen would have an equal voice in determining the Union's foreign policy, where there would be no French or American or British or Dutch territory or policy to defend but only the Union's. When all the land of the free would be one common land of theirs, one could rely on plenty of the brave rising from every nation in it to defend the whole or any part of it.<br />Many may fear that the American people will be less disposed to defend the European part of the Union than the contrary, but I do not believe it. The American people are much more accustomed than any other to think in terms of union. None could be depended on to understand more easily than Americans why the men of Maine should agree to aid Texas if attacked as a member of the Union and why they should refuse to make this pledge to the people of Texas as an independent republic. It is true that geographical position does enter into such considerations, that the Americans of the West were more reluctant than those of the Atlantic seaboard to come to the aid of the British, French and Belgian democracies in 1917. It is also true that once a government elected by the whole American people decided to enter that war to make the world safe for democracy, no state held back and the people in each sought to outdo the others in assuring victory for the Union cause.<br />In considering all defense problems, moreover, it should always be remembered that the mere formation of the Union will greatly diminish the danger of war, and that as time consolidates the Union and spreads it through mankind this danger will steadily disappear. Though prudence requires preparation now for the worst, there is reasonable hope that once the Union is formed the dangers for which it must prepare will not actually arise.<br />MONEY AND DEBTS<br />The monetary problem, now so perplexing even from a short-range view, would be among the easier problems for the Union. It would be mainly a question of establishing a common Union currency and pooling behind it the existing reserves of the member democracies and of all new members as they entered the Union. It would seem wiser not to take the pound, dollar, or franc as the Union money but to avoid all national feeling by giving the Union currency a new nomenclature and valuation. The suggestion was made several years ago in the Bank for International Settlements that the unit for a world money could be one gram of gold, to be called the gramor after the shorter French name for gold, or. The Union might adopt this idea.<br />The change to the Union money would be inevitably gradual. People in each nation would continue for some time to quote prices and do local business in terms of the old national money, but everyone would soon learn the exact relation of the new to the old currency. When Austria established its postwar currency with the new name of schilling and with this unit worth 10,000 of the old kronen, it showed how easily such changes can be made. From the first the money that changed hands was expressed in schillings though people continued for some time to buy and sell in terms of kronen. The old habit slipped off and the new one on sooner than many expected. Now Austria's money has been changed again, this time to the Reichsmark.<br />The pooling of the gold reserves in the Union need not involve necessarily shipment or concentration of gold. It would require essentially only the political act or transfer of ownership to the Union, and creation of a Union central bank or reserve system which would have for branches the existing national central banks. That done, it would seem safer to leave the gold scattered than to concentrate it.<br />Should the Union take over the debts with which the democracies enter it, or should each of them keep its own? It would not seem wise for the<br />Union to take either all or none of this burden. Nations have incurred debt to obtain the armaments or colonial territory which they would have to hand over to the Union; it is only fair that the Union should assume such debt.<br />As for the "War Debts," they could be settled by the Union taking over and consolidating the entire debt of each democracy incurred as a direct result of the World War, for without their common victory then the Union would not be possible now. This would of course involve each nation handing over to the Union all its foreign war credits or reparation claims. If this operation when worked out increased or decreased too unreasonably the actual per capita war debt burden that each democracy is now bearing it should not be hard to adjust the extremes. No people in the Union would draw real advantage from a solution saddling any people in it too heavily or too lightly per capita with debt at the start. Too great disparity in this tax burden would tend to stimulate unhealthily such compensating movements as migration from the poorer to the richer nations.<br />The debt operation I suggest would really give advantage not to any nation or its government but to all the individuals in the Union who own the bonds that the "War Debts" represent. These bonds are widely held everywhere by individuals with such small capital that they must put their savings into the safest investments. My suggestion would make these bonds even safer, and would therefore benefit most the small investor.<br />COMMUNICATIONS<br />Uniting the postal services seems to present no serious problem. Some new postage rates would need to be made. The American Union finds it possible to have a flat three-cent letter rate throughout its vast territory, and the world finds possible a flat five-cent letter rate around the planet. The Union could have a flat rate of three or four cents, or it could modify the latter with a three-cent continental rate. It would seem best, however, to fix a cheap flat rate throughout the Union to encourage communication among the democracies and knit together the Union. The money saved on armaments would cover probably a thousand times any loss this involved.<br />Electric means of communication present a somewhat more complex problem because some nations now own and operate these while others leave them to private companies. This complication is not very serious. The two systems now cooperate very well together and there is no reason why they should not work together even better under the Union. The only essential is that power to control rates and regulate all electric means of communication should be vested in the Union. In this field, too, it would seem wise to encourage communication by cheap rates, especially cheap press rates.<br />As for the communication of goods and men, the establishment of the Union would appear to be relatively simple. At sea it would mean opening coastal shipping in each democracy to the others, but this does not seem liable to work any violent change in the existing services. Shipping firms that now need the protection of coastal regulations to live would probably find the loss of their privileged position more than offset by the increase in trade Union would bring. All transoceanic shipping that was confined exclusively to intra-Union trade would become part of the coastal shipping of the Union, subject to the Union's regulations as regards manning, hours, working conditions, etc. These regulations should eliminate much of the argument now in favor of protecting the national shipping of the various democracies against that of the others. The rest of this argument should be eliminated with the Union's elimination of each democracy's need to protect its shipping as a measure of national self-defense.<br />Similar unification of river, rail and road communications would be still simpler. It would be mainly continental and would seem to require little immediate change in existing regulations for international traffic, except the abolition of all such customs formalities as automobile trip-tyques.<br />There remain air communications. Far from bringing civil aviation any hard problem the Union would go far to free it from the bewildering vexatious labyrinth of national regulations with which the needs of national defense now afflict it.<br />FREEING $50,000,000,000 OF TRADE<br />Many will consider that the change from protection to free trade is the greatest difficulty confronting the Union. Much of this difficulty, too, is imaginary. Here again the problem is mainly transitional, at worst only a small minority would be injured, this minority would soon be absorbed in the productive mass, and help given it meanwhile would bring the majority no new burden but would instead reduce and liquidate an existing burden.<br />The more agricultural among the democracies may fear that the Union would freeze them in their present state and prevent their developing a more diversified economy. United States history may soothe such fears. Union there has not kept the textile industry from spreading to the South from New England; Ohio and Illinois have not needed tariffs against Pennsylvania to develop their steel industry. The automobile industry has flourished most not in the older manufacturing states but in Michigan, and when the motion picture industry came it, too, picked a non-industrial state, California, for its home. Certainly the less industrial countries would seem to have a much better chance to develop rapidly as sharers in the business expansion that the Union and its great free market would bring than as independent nations walled in — and out — by tariffs.<br />Industrial democracies may fear that the Union would lower their standard of living. To oppose the Union on this ground is to argue that the people of any state in the American Union would be far more prosperous today had the Constitution preserved each state's right to raise tariff walls instead of sacrificing it to extend the citizen's right to trade.<br />The term, national standard of living, — like so many other terms now glibly used in discussions of world problems, — covers usually a wide range in standards within the nation and gains its significance from national sovereignty rather than from itself. There always has been a wide disparity in standards of living in, for example, the United States, if only as a heritage of slavery, and this disparity remains not only between sections but within states. Is this range of standards of living in this one democracy really less than the range in the so-called national standards of living of the fifteen democracies forming our Union? Is the difference between the American and the Belgian, French, Irish, British, or any other standard of living in our Union greater than the difference between that of, say, Iowa, and Mississippi? Is it so much more that those enjoying the highest standard in the United States need a tariff to protect them against the lowest standard in our Union, when the lowans never needed a tariff's protection against Mississippi to attain and keep their higher standard? The Union, instead of being faced with fifteen different national standards of living, is really faced with fifteen ranges in standards whose highs and lows are probably not nearly so far apart as is generally imagined. For a simple explanation, assume that these ranges run from 1 to 10, the standards of living in some democracies running the whole range, those in others running from I to 7 and those in still others ranging from 4 to 10. Does this not make clear that what the Union does is merely to swell the number of people having each existing standard, not to create a new problem?<br />Abolition of trade barriers within the American Union did not result in lowering the higher standards of living in it: Instead it has raised gradually both the higher and the lower standards. The surest way to protect the workers with the higher standard would seem to be to raise it in this manner, or to bring up to it as many workers elsewhere as possible. Tariff protection not only keeps the cost of living higher for the protected worker, but, by preventing sales by the foreigner, helps keep the foreigner's standard low. It thereby reduces his power to buy what the protected worker makes and tends to cut the latter's wages and standard of living. The Union policy doubly protects the worker, for the Union not only provides a market for all but facilitates raising the standards of workers throughout its territory by law, and in this and other ways builds up buying power everywhere.<br />It has been hard to end child labor among the forty-eight American States, but it has been impossible to end it among the sixty states of the International Labor Organization. For seventeen years this League organ has tried to get the world to put in force the 48-hour week convention. The American States, thanks to their Union, improved their worker's standards much more radically in a year — only to face the problem of how to keep those standards alone in a nationalistic world. That seems an insoluble problem — without the Union to help eliminate the cut-throat competition among the democracies that nationalism encourages.<br />We come to the general, usual fears of change. There are always those who want to be reassured against loss from change even when they run no real risk, or much less than their present risk against which they can gain no reassurance. There are those, who claim the right to be guaranteed against loss from change made by majority vote though they ask no such guarantees against loss from change made without majority vote, from change resulting from failure to act in time. There are also the marginal enterprises in each democracy that need protection to exist, the people whom the Union would really force to change more or less their occupations.<br />Although it may be practically and politically wise to make imposing safeguards to reassure or compensate this opposition to the Union, it would no doubt be found in practice that only a very small minority in every country was adversely affected even for a few years by the change to the Union, — and none to the degree to which most will be affected by continuance of the present policy of disunion. It would also be found no doubt that the cost of tiding this minority through transition took but a fraction of the gain in prosperity which would be obtained from the Union.<br />The maximum foreign trade our fifteen democracies have achieved under national sovereignty was that of 1929 when it amounted to $44,000,000,000 gold or $75,000,000,000 devaluated. One can estimate that $50,000,000,000, devaluated, of that trade was inter-democracy trade which the Union would make domestic trade. These fifteen could do this $50,000,000,000 trade among themselves in 1929 despite tariffs, they quickly cut this down to $15,000,000,000 while increasing the monetary and other barriers to trade, and they have subsequently raised this to $22,000,000,000 in 1937, regaining some of their trade by lowering these barriers. Is it then unreasonable to expect them to regain the rest soon by freeing this great market of all barriers and endowing it with one stable money and cheap, simple communications? Yet, in merely regaining the 1929 level they would be more than doubling their present prosperity, as measured in value of inter-democratic trade.<br />Even if they thus gained only some twenty billion dollars in trade could they not easily afford to set aside a billion or two to tide them through transitional difficulties? And are transitions caused by a healthily rising prosperity ever really hard or costly? Does not nearly everyone take care of himself in such conditions?<br />There is, moreover, good reason to trust that our $50,000,000,000 area would soon pass its 1929 peak, double it, triple it, and continue upward. When we study afresh the results of union and disunion in the United States we shall see this reason better. True, we have no good figures that are exactly comparable. We do not know what the trade among the Thirteen American democracies aggregated before their Union. Its rise, however, is reflected by the fact that the foreign trade of this same territory quadrupled in the first ten years of the Union. If the trade of thirteen weak, isolated democracies quadrupled in ten years of Union despite all the artificial and natural barriers to trade at the end of the 18th century, is it unreasonable to expect as much for our Union which would practically own the earth, be secure from foreign danger, have no rival, — and whose people would have ten times more cause for confidence in their future than they had in 1929 or the American people had in 1789? Would any producer who could not find buyers in this huge market nor make a living in such transition conditions deserve much attention? Would he deserve our sacrificing the Union for the sake of his pocketbook?<br />Many will find in these considerations sufficient answer to such questions as: What will happen to those farmers in Switzerland who are used to growing wheat and can no longer do so if tariffs go? What of the watch-makers in the United States who presumably can not survive Swiss competition in a free market? To reassure those others, however, who will multiply such questions in each democracy we need to consider in more detail the problems such interests present.<br />These interests, we have said, will form at worst a small minority. This is not merely because the trade expansion which the Union brings is bound to benefit most of its citizens. There is another reason. Each of our democracies even now sells most of its exports to the other fourteen despite trade barriers. That shows both that the major part of their export trade would be freed by the Union, and that this major part needs no protection. For if a democracy can sell a commodity now in this democratic market despite barriers, it could surely continue to sell it there after the Union removed the barriers.<br />It would seem to follow that in each democracy all those producers of commodities that now can be exported profitably to the democracies, or elsewhere, would not only survive the Union but flourish on it. Study of the situation from this angle suggests that allowance must be made for some subventioned exports that could not survive, but that even so a large part of the people in every democracy is represented by the producers of these commodities whose surplus — which may be only a small fraction of the national production of them — is now profitably marketed abroad.<br />One example may suffice. The chief exports of the United States according to the League of Nations yearbook, International Trade Statistics, which names no export of less than $5,000,000, or animals, meats, lard, fish, wheat, flour, rye, other cereals, fruits, nuts, refined sugar, other foodstuffs, furs, fodder, tobacco, wood and manufactures thereof, copper including ingots, wire, plate, etc., iron and steel including manufactures, other metals, petroleum, coal, cotton, chemicals, leather and manufactures thereof, cotton and other textiles, rubber manufactures, paper and printed matter, electrical machinery, farm implements, office machines, motor cars, other vehicles, — and a number of other commodities that together make 10 per cent of American exports. Consider how many Americans are directly or indirectly engaged in producing all these commodities whose export all the existing trade barriers have failed to stop, and which should boom with the removal of those barriers. One may then get an idea of how few Americans could possibly be hurt by the Union. The list varies with the democracies but the conclusion remains the same — none could possibly be adversely affected by the Union except the small minority which can not even sell their produce at home to the nearest, most friendly consumers, their fellow citizens and neighbors, without tariff protection against other democratic producers.<br />Moreover, this minority, it is important to remember, would not be in difficulty long. Take the extreme case of the Swiss wheat-grower whose business the Union would presumably ruin. It does not follow that he himself would be ruined or torn from the soil. The Union would at the same time stimulate the Swiss specialities, such as watch-making, cheese-making, lace-making. This would give work to the farmer's sons and daughters whom tariffs have deprived of their jobs; he would have fewer mouths to feed at home and more to feed in town with vegetables and other fresh foods. The probability of his finding an easier livelihood in truck-farming would be increased by the fact that the rise in prosperity through the Union would bring Switzerland more tourists. This would expand its hotel business (now at 20 per cent capacity), increasing the demand for fresh foods while tending to reduce the supply by drawing people from the farm to work in the hotels. This process would be speeded by the fact that the tourist influx would cause much constructive work of all kinds for the development of the scenic and playground resources of the Alps.<br />Production, it is often forgotten, is not an end in itself but a means to consumption. Economic thinking that thinks always in terms of work and never in terms of play is hopelessly wrong. A rise in independent leisure spells prosperity as a rise in dependent idleness spells depression. The more leisure the world gains, the more access to its natural playgrounds can be cheapened by various capital improvements, and the more these playgrounds can be put within reach of more and more people.<br />Consider what only one detail in this widening world of play that the Union opens — skiing — means economically, keeping to the same example, Switzerland. The rise of this sport has added snow and mountains to the list of valuable raw materials, and no country is so rich in these as Switzerland. Others may have more mountains, but they are not so high or not so open or not so sunny or not so easy to get at or not so close to great populous regions as those of Switzerland. The business that this sport of skiing brings with it ramifies amazingly. We may profitably glance at the work which this play brings for it is typical of many economic developments in every democracy which the Union will encourage. Skiing brings the woodworker skis to make and the metal worker, fixtures; the textile worker has to supply ski clothes and the shoemaker ski shoes. Back of each of these are foresters, miners, farmers in many lands. There is transportation to be supplied: Rail, air and motor to the mountains and then snow-trains, motor buses, funiculars and "air ferries" or "téléfériques" to the mountain tops. There are roads to be kept open from the snow, new highways to be blasted through the mountains, service stations and garages to be multiplied in mountain villages, hotels and restaurants and refuges to be erected in hitherto forgotten valleys and peaks. There are food and drink and fuel to be supplied, and guides and ski instructors. Almost everyone seems to benefit from the spread of this one sport. Even the doctors have broken bones to set, the insurance agent new policies to sell.<br />The sport of skiing rose even through the depression and with it rose all this business. In the years while people were talking of the imminence of political revolution and economic collapse in France skiing was developing there so fast that one Alpine village, Mégève, had to erect scores of buildings and two "air ferries" in a vain attempt to keep up with the rising demand. With prosperity this sport is bound to leap forward with all it means to business.<br />Give the people who can grow wheat more cheaply than the Europeans their natural market so that they can prosper and travel, and there is no need to worry about the European wheat-grower's future. He can make a living much more easily then merely exploiting in one way or another the play resources in which his country is really wealthy. He too can then begin to travel and enjoy overseas the beauty of unbroken, unending fields of golden wheat, a sight as rare to him as the Matterhorn to the plainsman.<br />What is true in this example seems true for all the minority interests adversely affected by the Union. One can reasonably expect them to be reabsorbed soon into healthy activity by the development of the natural advantages that each country enjoys and by all the new activities which the Union would open, particularly through the greater leisure it would permit.<br />Financial aid to tide these interests through transition would mean no additional burden to the majority in each country — the great crowd of producers who can produce so well that even now they can sell their surplus against world competition. These producers already support the minority; they pay for its inefficiency by the various tariff and monetary schemes for keeping excessive the prices of what efficient producers need to buy while keeping low the prices of what they have to sell. This process eats into the good producer's profit from two sides, raising cost of production and lowering demand, all for the sake of a minority that can not stand alone.<br />The amount which the inefficient are thereby already costing the efficient is incalculable, and there is no possible shifting of this burden under the present system. Far from shifting it to the foreigner, a tariff ties it on the home producers by forcing them to consume goods they would otherwise buy more cheaply from the foreigner. When a thing can not stand alone, the only thing that can possibly hold it up is a thing that can stand alone with strength to spare. There is, moreover, nothing transitional or temporary about this burden now. It is a permanent part of the nationalistic system and it has been growing instead of declining in the past decade.<br />The question facing members of the efficient majority in each democracy is simply this: Shall we continue to pay more and more to protect this parasitical, loud-mouthed minority, or shall we definitely free ourselves from this burden by establishing the Union, and speed its establishment by arranging to use some of the profits the Union will bring us to help the parasites through the few years necessary for them to be absorbed in sound production? The choice is between bearing the existing burden forever or only a little while longer.<br />It should not be hard to work out in detail provision for this transitional relief; here again it may be noted that nationalism has given every people plenty of experience in handling relief problems.<br />Should the transition of the fifteen from trade barriers to free trade with each other and one tariff policy toward the outside world be accomplished abruptly, at one step, or gradually, by stages? "There is no greater mistake than to try to leap an abyss in two jumps," Mr. Lloyd George has said. It may be, however, as great a mistake to try to leap it from a standstill when it is too wide to jump without a running start. There are arguments for both ways of effecting this change to the Union.<br />A system could be worked out whereby each of the democracies would reduce by stages its barriers to trade with the other fourteen, say 10 per cent the first six months or year, 20 per cent the next, then 30, and the remaining 40 in the fourth period. But this seems to me unnecessarily complicated, particularly since much confusion would rise from the necessity of working out simultaneously the Union's tariff relations with the rest of the world.<br />My tentative suggestion would be that, in agreeing to the principle of the Union, all should agree that its abolition of customs frontiers should take effect on a definite day. This day might be six months or a year after the Union government had decided on what its commercial policy toward the outside world should be, which policy should also take effect the same day. This would seem to be the method of abrupt change, but the abruptness is really confined to the legal side of the operation. The method suggested allows plenty of time for adaptation between the taking and the application of the legal decision. It would require time to debate and decide what the Union's foreign commercial policy should be, even if the final decision were to adopt (as would seem wise) the simple policy of free trade with all the world, or the maintenance of merely a revenue tariff. Even before this could be decided time would have been needed to work out the Union's constitution, get it ratified and the Union government elected. During all this unavoidable delay a good deal of voluntary adaptation to the coming change would be going on. It would be induced particularly by two things:<br />First, the rise in prosperity would not be delayed until all these changes were effected in practice or worked out on paper. The decision in principle to unite would stimulate confidence and hope sufficiently to start an upward movement, and this in itself would ease transition and simplify the working out of the practical details of the Union. The process of economic forces transforming — to return to our example — the Swiss wheat-grower into a truck farmer would therefore immediately begin its work. Second, the certainty that on a definite date cheap wheat would enter Switzerland would strongly encourage the Swiss wheat-grower to begin planting something else.<br />Even on the day that the change to free trade went into effect the degree of abrupt change practically felt would probably surprise more by its smallness than its greatness. Once the mind is made up, one can change a law abruptly but one can not thereby effect abruptly great practical change. Such change involves change in men's habits, and that always takes time and comes about gradually in practice even when no provision for this is made.<br />This is especially true of all constructive change, all improvement, all growth. Destructive change may be effected with relative abruptness. A sapling can be felled at one stroke, but an inch can not possibly be added at one stroke to the girth of its trunk. All one can do is to stimulate the tree's own natural process of growth. This applies even more to the affairs of men. An earthquake may wreck a city in a moment and effect great practical changes in the lives of a million men, but these men cannot rebuild the city except gradually no matter how determined to do it they are, or how united. It is only when one is pursuing a policy of contraction, of negation, of destruction, — such as the policy of nationalism today, — that one needs to worry about safeguarding against abrupt change. Nature can be trusted to make transition gradual when the policy is positive, constructive, natural.<br />To illustrate: Suppose (what is really very doubtful) that Americans could, practically, supply from their factories in the United States all the automobiles the fifteen democracies can now absorb. Yet the demand for automobiles at the time the change to free trade began would be much more than now, because of the period of rising prosperity preceding it. Suppose the Americans were able to meet this demand, too. If they sought to meet it without establishing European factories, they would be getting into economic difficulties, for it is cheaper to ship the materials than the finished product. If they could make a profit shipping motor cars from Detroit to France, they could make a greater profit by getting the steel in Lorraine, having the materials they could not get more cheaply in France shipped there and making cars in France too to meet the rising demand. They would thus be giving more employment there and increasing on both the economic and the psychological sides the demand in France for their product.<br />This would not mean that the French maker would be driven necessarily out of business, let alone abruptly, or what is more important, that his plant would be closed and his workers thrown out of employment. His costs meanwhile would be falling through the effects of the Union. This might offset the American automobile maker's advantage, for his costs would be increasing if he sought to supply the whole world. To mention one item, shipping is limited and the more of it he sought to take from other commodities (also desirous of reaching their market) the more ocean freights would rise.<br />Suppose Detroit could still deliver all the cars demanded in France — and everywhere else in Europe — more cheaply than the maker on the spot could. There would remain the problem of distribution and service and this would require building up a greater organization than the French makers now have, and this takes time and money. When all this was done, there would still be business left the French maker. For one thing, there would remain all the tens of thousands of his sold cars to help protect him for several years. At worst, from his viewpoint, these might all be traded in for American cars, but even then they would have to be re-sold and kept running, and the demand for their parts would continue.<br />There are, moreover, all sorts of uneconomical factors that enter into the buyer's psychology. There is habit to make many people reluctant to Change their make of automobile. There is national or local pride. The irrational belief that has been propagandized into the people of every nation for generations that everything done by a fellow-national is better than the same thing done by the foreigner is not going to vanish the day that the Union is established. It is going to remain and do yeoman service to the European automobile maker and the American dressmaker and other producers (for the example applies to many producers of many things in many countries) in tiding them through the Union's transition period.<br />These are only some of a host of factors that combine to make this transition gradual in practice no matter how abrupt it may be on paper. There would seem to be no need to arrange for a gradualness that is bound to occur.<br />However carefully one does make such arrangements, however great the assurances and reassurances and safeguards and super-safeguards the unionist provides, one can be sure there will still be plenty of pother and crying-before-hurt. The delusion will still be popular that there is security only in continuing our present ills. We shall long have with us the slave who has no time to fear his burden will break his back, because he is too occupied by fear of catching cold if the burden is removed.<br />One can be sure that the fearful minority will fill the air with cries — and there is one thing more incredible than the amount of noise a small minority composed of silly and selfish interests can make. It is the readiness of the majority on whom they are imposing not only to believe them without checking their figures, investigating their motives or remembering their past record, but to suffer for them as if silliness and selfishness were the great patriotic virtues and vital interest they pretend to be.<br />Unionists need not be worried by the genuine technical difficulties to be solved in uniting the democracies into one market. Customs unions have already been made successful, time and again, and the task at hand is much less complicated than it seems, far less complicated than the task of trying to make the existing system work. Unionists need be concerned still less by all the imaginary complications that will be conjured up. They have hysteria and parasitic interests and pedantic experts and inertia and lack of constructive imagination and the present against them. But on their side they have the facts, and both the past and future.<br />We must see things in time perspective.<br />ANNEX 3<br />How National Sovereignty Wrecked the Gold Standard<br />Slowly, painfully, by differing and even by contradictory methods in the various national economies, the world is coming nearer to some degree of economic equilibrium, but it has not yet arrived ... No decisive lead has been given to coordinate the various efforts. Whereas one national economy has gained or seemed to gain, another has lost or seemed to lose, frequently as a consequence of the repercussion upon it of a nationalistic policy followed by a neighbor. The world is still waiting for a courageous move which, whatever risks it may appear to involve, holds out the hope of founding reconstruction on a firmer ground of monetary stability than the shifting currency values which have hampered economic revival to date. — Leon Fraser, in his 1935 Report as President of the Bank for International Settlements.<br />The basic reasons for the fatal role that national sovereignty plays in the monetary question were explained in Chapter IV. To make clearer why the confidence which monetary stability requires can not possibly be long maintained while the great democracies remain sovereign over their money, we shall now briefly examine in more detail how confidence in the gold standard as an international money was in fact destroyed. We shall see better then that we have had before the Munich accord the kind of reasons and reasoning that encourage some now to believe that we can have peace and prosperity in our time without union.<br />The run on the gold standard began in Austria in May, 1931. That year had begun well. "In the spring of 1931, as in the spring of 1930," says the League of Nations, World Economic Survey, 1931-32, "there seemed to be a definite easing of economic and financial conditions. The early months of the year were calm, there was some return flow of capital to Germany and of gold to Great Britain, security prices rose somewhat in most countries in the spring, and money-market rates were extremely easy in the chief financial centres." The Board of the Bank for International Settlements, which includes all the big central bank governors of Europe, found conditions so improved that it unanimously voted March 9, 1931, to encourage resumption of long term investment by investing publicly some of the bank's money in fifteen year German mortgage bonds.* Hitler was then a minor figure, Japan had not seized Manchuria, the London Naval Treaty had been concluded, the World Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments had been convoked for 1932, and the latest cause for optimism was that the British had persuaded the French and Italian governments to initial in February the Bases of Naval Agreement.<br />(* See The New York Times, Mar. 10, 1931.)<br />The fact, however, was that under the rules of national sovereignty things were going well only from the viewpoint of the sovereignty and power of the United States, Britain and France. They were going badly from the viewpoint of the sovereignty and power of Germany, which, because of its weakness, was also feeling most the pinch of depression.<br />Armament lies at the heart of world politics under the existing principles of sovereignty, for armed force is the final instrument for maintaining that sovereignty and all its policies. It is not merely security and advantage in war time that armed superiority gives, but constant security and advantage in the day in and day out diplomatic bargaining. When one really has this armed superiority one does not have to flourish it, to sabre rattle in order to profit by it. In a game based on armed power relative strength is everything, and in 1931 the question of the relative armed power of each nation was the issue that was scheduled to come up in a year in the Arms Ratio Conference, alias the Disarmament Conference.<br />The year 1931 that had opened so auspiciously was, in short, the last year in which each power could manœuvre — as was its duty under the national sovereignty rules — for position at the coming conference. Each had to prepare then or never so that any reduction in armaments should result in improving its own degree of armed strength and lessening that of its possible enemies. Britain and France had won the first move, for one effect of the naval agreement with Italy was to isolate Germany in the coming Conference. Germany counter-moved only one month later by suddenly announcing, March 21, the signing of a protocol for customs union with Austria.<br />While Germany was pursuing primarily political aims in this ostensibly economic move, Austria was seeking means to improve its bargaining position in the trade negotiations it was then vainly carrying on with its neighbors. Its government knew better than any other how dangerously exposed it was financially and economically. The best card Austria had to play — and frequently played — in diplomatic negotiations then was to raise the threat of anschluss, and this customs union protocol threatened it more effectively than had any previous move. It is hard to believe that its Berlin or Vienna authors then thought for a moment that their neighbors would allow this union. Nor is it likely that they failed to realize that a bilateral union made in the spirit behind this one ran dangerously contrary to the spirit of the movement for European federation Briand had then got started at Geneva.<br />The results followed swiftly — and have been continuing ever since, for the present troubles in Europe can be traced back directly to the chain of events started by this Austro-German protocol or, if one prefers, by the Franco-Italian naval agreement preceding it. The protocol at once set Europe by the ears. It enabled the French nationalists finally to discredit Briand and prevent the consummation of his naval agreement with Italy, which fell to the ground at once. It dealt the Committee of Inquiry on European Union a blow from which it, like its founder, never recovered. Six months before this move Stresemann had died; ten months after it Briand, already forced from office, followed him. By September the customs union protocol had been declared illegal by the Permanent Court for International Justice. But the mere announcement of the protocol had succeeded in its political purpose for it had effectively torpedoed the Franco-Italian naval agreement and rescued Germany from its isolation. When the Disarmament Conference opened Germany enjoyed some support from Britain and much from Italy, both of whom hoped thereby to induce France to come to terms with them.<br />This may seem to have nothing to do with the gold standard. It had enough to do with it for England itself to go off gold six months after the signing of this customs protocol.<br />A few weeks after the protocol was announced a high official of the Bank for International Settlements told me that this protocol had "hit on the nose the hope of restoring long term investment just as it was getting its head out of water." Since then no German bonds, and almost no fifteen year bonds of any country have been issued in the foreign market.<br />France and the new states of Central Europe, having no security that Britain or the United States would help defend them against a German attack, sought to protect themselves against the danger of Germany strengthening herself by anschluss with Austria. Their first necessity was to get Germany and Austria to agree to submit to the Court the question whether this protocol was in violation of Austria's treaty obligations. France and its friends brought financial and economic pressure to bear. As one of the statesmen directly involved later admitted to me, "we combined, as always in politics, against the weaker of the two, Austria."*<br />(* This statesman has lived to grow into a greater statesman and yet see the stronger combine much more ruthlessly against his own country.)<br />In these circumstances it became publicly known in early May — about six weeks after the protocol was announced — that the balance sheet of the great Creditanstalt Bank of Vienna, drawn at the end of 1930, showed it to be in very bad condition.* "The importance of this news from Vienna which travelled round the world's financial centres like a seismic shock, lay less in the event than in its general significance," notes the League's World Economic Survey, 1931-32. "It was instantly realized that not only other banks in Austria and foreign countries, but virtually the whole industrial structure of Austria, and other Eastern European countries, would be involved. It was equally evident that neighboring debtor states, and particularly Germany, would be at once exposed to the danger of panic withdrawals of capital."<br />(* See Geneva despatch, The New York Times, May 13, 1931.)<br />One will understand still better the general significance and effect of this disclosure if one keeps in mind two things in addition to the technical, financial and economic situation that one can find in the Survey. One is the political situation just described, to which the Survey devotes only these few cushioned phrases: "The Austro-German protocol announcing the plan of a customs union appeared on March 21, 1931. The European political situation was strained and international economic cooperation became more difficult. Soon after the Creditanstalt difficulties were announced, a renewed run began on the Reichsbank."<br />The other thing, which the Survey does not mention at all, is that all financial centres knew that one of the legendary names in the financial world was involved in the crisis, for the Creditanstalt was the Vienna bank of the Rothschilds. When the Austrian government had to advance $14,000,000 to the Rothschild bank, it is hardly surprising that creditors everywhere in the world began to wonder what must be the condition of the other banks in this region.<br />No doubt others placed in the same conditions as the German and Austrian governments, or those of France and her allies, would have done about the same as each side did to protect the interests of their sovereign states. No doubt the German government was not aiming then at immediate anschluss, to say nothing of war, but merely at dissolving the opposing diplomatic combination. No doubt the French government had no intention of really ruining the schilling, to say nothing of the gold standard. No doubt it too sought only to break up without war the opposing combination by making the Austrians and Germans merely fear their currency would again be undermined. No doubt both sides planned to keep things in bounds and were merely manoeuvring, playing with fire within the accepted national sovereignty rules or the Great Power game. The result, however, was that Americans and Englishmen and Dutchmen and Swiss and others suddenly realized that the financial position of Austria and Germany was rotten. They had no means of knowing how far the political playing with fire might go (there were rumors of war then as now), and they had no means of controlling the situation or protecting their investments in these countries — except by selling out and withdrawing the money. They began to sell and withdraw. And the foreign run on Austria and Germany began.<br />THE SHORT TERM FLAW<br />At this point there was a discovery that accelerated and spread financial panic everywhere until the situation got out of hand. A tremendous flaw was found in the gold standard: Its main safeguard, the 40 per cent ratio of gold reserve to currency, was not the safeguard it appeared to be for it left completely out of account the fact that any country's foreign short term indebtedness could be quickly converted by foreigners into the country's currency and the currency converted into gold and withdrawn. The fact that gold coin nearly everywhere had been withdrawn from circulation after the war had led the League's Gold Delegation to hold in 1930 that "an internal drain can not take place" and that modern gold reserves were mainly required "to meet possible deficits in the international balance of payments."* This report, however, gave no hint of what was to happen four months later. The experts who wrote it mentioned short term debt incidentally and only once or twice. It had apparently occurred to no one that the world had become so inter-dependent that panic among distant† Americans over Austrian stability could lead, through this process of turning short term credits into currency, to Austria losing her gold reserve without the Austrian government inflating or Austrian citizens starting a bank run.<br />(* Gold Delegation, Second Interim Report, C. 75. M. 31, 1931-II, p. 16.<br />† Geographically, not electrically distant.)<br />In 1931 almost no account was taken in any country of its own short term indebtedness, or of that of any other country. The first attempt anywhere even to collect information on how much the country owed and was owed at short term was made, I believe, by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1930, and that was still a crude isolated pioneer effort when the bubble burst in Austria. Not only in Austria, but even in England neither the central bank nor the government then knew how much short term paper the country owed abroad. The Bank of England did not begin regularly securing reports on this subject until January, 1932 — after the gold standard had broken down. Most central banks now have some information on their country's short term position, but even this helps little for they keep it mostly secret. The Federal Reserve now has an idea of how much short-term money Americans have loaned in, say, Belgium, and the Bank of England knows how much has been loaned there from England, and the Bank of France how much from France, but none knows how much all others have loaned; only the Bank of Belgium has an idea of how much Belgium owes all the world at any given time. The example is generally true of all countries.<br />The creditor world still has little means of knowing how much short term debt each country has at any given time. Yet experts agree that this knowledge is at least as essential to confidence in a currency as the fact which the world does know — how much sight indebtedness (paper money) each country has at any time. One of the chief aims of the Bank for International Settlements has been to make itself the clearing house for this short term debt information, but it still falls far short of the information any government needs to safeguard its currency. Banking and business and political conditions make it extremely difficult to assure the world adequate timely short term debt information — and the principle of national sovereignty makes it even harder to obtain reliable information in time of emergency. Yet that is precisely the time when it is most needed.<br />This problem of short term debt remains one of the great obstacles to the permanence of any restoration of the gold standard under the existing conditions of national sovereignty. But in 1931 most bankers no more suspected that this problem existed than a baby suspects typhoid germs in water. The huge debt load on Austria had been built up because the individual American and British and other lenders had no idea how much short term money had already been lent Austria even by their own countrymen, let alone the world, and because the Austrian government did not know how much the Austrians had borrowed. The danger in this ignorance was discovered only when foreigners, fearful of the schilling breaking, began to sell their Austrian short term paper at a discount for the sight paper (schilling currency) that could be converted into gold, or dollars or pounds or francs at gold parity, and taken out of Austria.<br />It then began to be realized that if it was true, as the gold standard premise held, that a minimum of 40 per cent of gold against obligations convertible at sight in gold was necessary for confidence in a currency, then the gold standard conclusion — that one could have confidence in a currency that totalled, say, 100,000,000 schillings so long as its gold reserves totalled 40,000,000 — was wrong. For if the country had a foreign short term debt of, say, only 300,000,000 schillings, one must add this to the 100,000,000 and admit that really 400,000,000 of paper had been issued against the 40,000,000 of gold, and the true ratio was only 10 per cent.<br />Moreover, the long term foreign indebtedness could also be similarly converted, by the creditors selling the bonds at a discount and exchanging their schillings for gold. The long term factor could be measured and was not so dangerous at first — but it played an increasingly important role in the run on the pound in February, 1935 and on the Swiss franc in April, 1935. But there was no means of knowing in 1931 whether the short-term paper totalled, say, 100,000,000, or 300,000,000, or 700,000,000 or more — whether there was enough gold to satisfy 40 per cent, or 20 per cent, or 10 per cent, or 5 per cent of Austria's foreign creditors, or still less.<br />A more disconcerting financial discovery could hardly be imagined. And so the run on Austria swiftly gathered force despite the millions that the big central banks and the Bank for International Settlements poured into Austria to stop it. It is not surprising that once this appalling miscalculation in the gold standard rules had been discovered, foreign short-term creditors of Germany began to "play safe," and that a worse run swiftly developed there.<br />All this in turn reacted on the political factor, which blossomed quickly (June 1931) into the reparations-war-debts-private debts-political security tangle among the three great democracies. Britain was seeking to relieve the pressure this Austrian run brought on the pound by getting rid of the war debt claims of the United States and the reparations claims of France. The United States as the biggest private creditor of Germany, holding the second mortgage on her, was seeking with the Hoover moratorium to save this interest by lifting even the "unconditional" part of the French reparation first mortgage on Germany — but without renouncing the American war debt claims. France, as Germany's biggest public creditor, was seeking to protect the unconditional reparations against the private holders of the German second mortgage and to get Britain to secure France politically against Germany and to get the United States to cancel war debts — both in exchange for French concessions on the reparations side. Each of the three governments, in short, was defending what any one playing under the national sovereignty rules would have deemed to be the immediate interests of the State. Each was simply doing its duty.<br />While all this was inevitably stirring up bad feeling and suspicion in each people with regard to the others, and while each government was bringing all the pressure it could on the others, the French and Americans, who had a great deal of money in London, began to discover (thanks to what the Austrian and German breakdown revealed) that London had been lending long and borrowing short — and no one knew how much — and also that the British budget was getting more and more out of balance. French, American and other private citizens began hastily to take their money away from London. The Banque de France and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York rushed in with loans to Britain totalling $130,000,000. The British public did not become panic-stricken over sterling, but — as in Austria and Germany — foreigners who had no voice in sterling or British policy preferred to play safe.* In less than four days, more than $200,000,000 of short-term funds were withdrawn from Britain.<br />(* Snowden as Chancellor told the House of Commons Sept. 21, 1931: "We consulted the banks as to the origin of the heavy sales of sterling and the banks assured us that as far as they can judge the selling was predominantly on foreign account and there was no evidence of any substantial export of capital by British nationals.")<br />Two days later, Sept. 21, 1931, Britain suddenly abandoned gold. That dealt a staggering blow to confidence in the international gold standard. Though the United States later dealt it a blow that was worse in some ways, it did not rock and move the world as much as did England's abandonment of gold. The consternation it caused everywhere showed how little it was expected, despite the run on London. It forced thirteen countries off gold within six weeks and others, including Japan, followed in a few months.<br />"This very considerable breakdown of the world's monetary mechanism was important in itself," notes the World Economic Survey 1931-32. "Even more important in the immediate situation, however, was the reaction upon the remaining gold standard countries and upon the financial structure of the world as a whole. When Britain went off gold, all the European stock exchanges except those of Paris, Milan and Prague, closed for various periods; bank rates rose, foreign exchange restrictions (ranging from limitation of imports to moratoria) were imposed in thirty different countries, tariffs were increased, contingent, priority and quota systems introduced. Partly as a result of these trade restrictions, the financial storm burst with redoubled force on Germany ... New York was for a few weeks subject to much the same kind of run as London and Berlin had experienced. In October a "gold rush" set in which had the net effect of reducing the United States stocks by $715 million."<br />WHAT BRITAIN DID TO CONFIDENCE<br />Why did the British decision so shatter confidence? Britain for generations had been the world's greatest trading and financial power. It had practically given the world the international gold standard. It had built up carefully the greatest reputation for financial trustworthiness in the world. It had shown before that it held that reputation very dear and would make sacrifices to keep it. Britain had brought the pound back to its old value in 1925 at tremendous cost to its business interests.<br />The gold standard's 40 per cent minimum ratio* meant, if it meant anything, that at worst one was sure of having two chances in five of saving his money, of being among the 40 per cent of the holders of paper who got paid in gold. It was based, as we have seen, on a miscalculation which made the real ratio much lower, but this does not change the implication in it that, in an emergency, the promise to pay in gold would be kept to the bitter end, nobly, self-sacrificingly.<br />(* The usual ratio figure, 40 per cent, is used for simplification, although all countries did not have this figure and British law did not provide for a minimum reserve on a percentage basis. The Currency Act of July 2, 1928, allowed the Bank of England to issue a maximum of £260,000,000 of fiduciary notes (backed by securities other than gold beyond the total value of its gold reserve). In practice this works out near enough to the fixed percentage for the present purposes.)<br />Certainly the implication was not that as soon as a country's reserves fell to about 40 per cent it was entitled to suspend gold payments. The requiring of a minimum reserve was never intended as a guarantee to the central bank that, if the worst came to the worst, it at least could always keep 40 per cent of the security it had promised for its notes. No one could trust the currency of a country that proclaimed: "We have gold now for 55 per cent of our currency but if our ratio ever falls to 40 per cent we shall cease paying gold." That would be a ratio of 15, not 40 per cent.<br />Britain had the highest reputation for financial integrity. It had a special responsibility to the world. Not only were many business transactions between non-British countries done in sterling,† but Britain had encouraged other countries to tie their currencies to sterling through that post-war invention, the gold exchange standard. By this device weak countries could form their metallic reserve of pound, dollar and other notes rated "as good as gold." The result was that Britain had not only the safety of sterling but of other currencies directly in its keeping.<br />(† For example, even in 1923 when the pound was off gold and the dollar seemed supreme, I found American tobacco buyers in Greece paying for their purchases not in dollars or drachmas but sterling.)<br />The world knew in September, 1931, that Britain was having economic and financial difficulties, but it knew also that the British had enormous assets and resources and plenty of credit in New York and Paris.<br />The world expected Britain to make a titanic struggle to overcome any panicky fear of sterling. It expected every English sovereign to do its duty at every monetary Trafalgar. If they all perished, it expected Britain to use its credit or sell its assets — as individual Englishmen in similar straits had often done — until it had made good every promise. The world expected England to stand behind English money as unflinchingly, as self-sacrificingly as it was to seeing the English "bobby" stand behind English law. These may seem romantic ideas now, but on such ideas confidence is built. Would men trust the captain who always kept one life boat reserved for himself as they trust a captain who was rescued drowning when his ship went down? The world's utter consternation when England quit gold showed how heroically high it had held the name of England and how much it expected from England.<br />What the world saw was that Britain quit gold with a reserve of £133,628,000 and its credit still good. It is true the £130,000,000 London had borrowed from New York and Paris almost equally the remaining British gold reserve, but it can not be seriously maintained that this wiped out that gold reserve or that it was Britain's last liquid asset. The fact is that the Bank of England statement two days after gold payments stopped listed the gold reserve at £133,628,000 — not at £3,628,000 as should have been done if the rest belonged instead to New York and Paris. If the gold reserve was wiped out by these loans, then it was wiped out before these loans were made — indeed, it never really existed — since the possible claims against it were always far greater than it was.<br />New York and Paris, moreover, were not pressing London to pay back the £130,000,000 then, and did not do so later. How little the National Government (which used the emergency very effectively to hold elections and win overwhelming power) used Britain's inherent strength to keep its gold obligations may be seen from the fact that in six months the £130,000,000 was repaid,* an unknown amount of gold was diverted from the reserve into the equalization fund — and still the reserve was almost as great as when it had fallen so low that, presumably, gold payments had to be stopped.<br />(* All was repaid except a fraction of the French loan which, it is worth noting, was not repaid simply because it was in a form that could not be redeemed so soon.)<br />The British in quitting gold sought to improve their competitive commercial position in a declining world market.† The world awoke Sept. 21 not only to find that the historic champion of sound money had quit gold but also to learn the almost equally disconcerting news that the historic champion of free trade had become protectionist, doubly protectionist, in the most lightning-like and thorough way possible. For currency depreciation acts both as a subsidy for every export and a tariff against every import. The pound immediately fell 25 per cent, making British goods 25 per cent cheaper for all gold countries — and their goods 33 per cent dearer to the British. By quitting gold the British government thus encouraged all the world abroad and at home to follow the nationalist slogan and "Buy British."<br />(† Those who believe the British left gold from purely monetary reasons and with no deliberate intention to profit thereby will do well to turn back and read again such contemporary things as the inspired and other comment in the London press when it announced the abandonment of gold.)<br />All the major currencies were then still on gold, for previous experience of inflation had led Austria and Germany to shun the temptation to seek a temporary trade advantage in depreciation and to keep their currencies at gold parity by extraordinary measures of control and "standstill" arrangements. It was Britain of all nations that introduced into the depression that poisonous weapon of national commerce, monetary depreciation. Being the first to use it Britain profited by it more than did those who followed.<br />In self-defense rivals then invented contingents, quotas, etc., to keep out such cheapened goods, but they could not remove the barrier that depreciation raised against the sale of their goods in Britain nor the premium it put on British goods there. Britain, having hitherto had the least trade barriers, benefited most of all from the protective side of depreciation, from its stimulation to domestic trade and private building. Despite the great improvement in Britain's position and the talk of "recovery" that monetary policy helped bring, Britain has stubbornly refused (except for a brief interlude immediately after the dollar quit gold) to listen to the urgent pleas of the United States or France for stabilization. But Britain has not refused to use its managed currency as a means of pressure on other countries for political and other ends.<br />There is no doubt whatever that the monetary policy Britain followed can be defended on the ground that the superior interests of the nation required it. Certainly I would be the last to argue that this policy violated the basic national sovereignty rules of the game. Nor would I dispute that the British National Government, however much one may criticize it for not having tried harder to change those shortsighted rules of the jungle, is entitled to have its monetary policy judged on the basis of these existing rules. One can strongly argue that, considering the practical dangers and possibilities in 1931, Britain in leaving gold chose the lesser evil not only for Britain but for all the world. Any other government of equal intelligence would probably have done the same in those conditions.<br />We are not concerned here, however, with the morality or immorality, the merits or dements of Britain's action in leaving gold. No such red herring should be allowed to divert us from the point — the effect of Britain's action on confidence in the stability of the gold standard or of any other international money based on national sovereignty. If Britain could thus in its national interest and to its national profit break its promise to pay in gold, what country could people trust to keep on gold? In what country could one have faith that the guarantees of the international gold standard — these promises to mere foreigners — would always resist the imperious demands of national policy? In the United States?<br />WHAT THE UNITED STATES DID TO CONFIDENCE<br />The United States proceeded to deal at least as shattering a blow to confidence as Britain had. Britain was in a much more exposed position than the United States, had stood a relatively greater run, had twice borrowed before quitting gold, owed war debts to the United States, and by the most generous calculation had only 41 per cent cover when she left gold. The United States left gold when it was the world's chief creditor and had the greatest gold reserve in the world, and a gold reserve ratio of 55 per cent.* The effect was aggravated by the fact that it suddenly suspended gold payment while Messrs. MacDonald and Herriot were at sea on their way to Washington at Washington's invitation to discuss stabilization. Later it was further aggravated by the United States disregarding the most solemn "gold clause" contracts and deliberately depreciating the dollar, deliberately using the currency as an instrument both of domestic and foreign policy.<br />(* Federal Reserve report Apr. 16, 1933. The ratio on March 1 before the first temporary suspension of gold was 50 per cent.)<br />It is true the United States was undergoing an exceptionally severe internal crisis when it definitely went off gold — although it had already been able to resume gold payments after the temporary suspension while the banks were closed. It is true the American internal debt situation remained bad, and that there were strong demands in Congress for inflation or devaluation. Though financial conditions might have permitted keeping the gold clause in contracts with foreigners, regardless of the measures taken to meet the domestic situation, it would have been extremely hard, to say the least, to persuade Congress to pay foreigners in gold and Americans in paper. It is true, too, that Britain would not even consider stabilization until the United States quit gold.<br />There is no more point in denouncing the Washington than the London government for what it did, and I would repeat that we are not here concerned with weighing the virtues or vices of the policy of any government. We are concerned solely with systems of government, and particularly now with the idea that the gold standard can be made a stable international money again with nothing more behind its guarantees — in the last analysis — than the quixotic idea that in a grave emergency independent sovereign states can be depended on (as can some independent sovereign men, at least), to sacrifice themselves if necessary merely to keep their word even to strangers.<br />The United States perhaps dealt confidence in this system the worst blow of all, for, until it left gold, all financial centres felt there was no need to worry about a currency until the gold ratio began to fall within a few points of the minimum. Even then, it was felt one could count on each country making at least as much struggle as Britain had made to pay its obligations to foreigners. But after the richest power on earth left gold without warning and while it still had 55 per cent of its money backed with gold and unlimited credit in the world, there was nothing left to trust in this system. All the rules had been made ridiculous. Thereafter no matter how big a gold reserve one amassed, one could not be certain this would protect one from a run by one's neighbors — for the neighbors could not be certain this big reserve would protect them from a sudden willful depreciation.<br />If a domestic situation could arise in the wealthiest country such as to lead it to repudiate its gold obligations to foreigners, it was bound to arise thereafter with the same results in other countries, and it did. Why should it not do so again in the first crisis after any restoration of the gold standard — if that standard continues to be based on national sovereignty?<br />Nationalism would now fetter man's genius in the name of man's freedom.<br />The work of deepening and extending the range and the meaning of Democracy and Citizenship, Liberty and Law, ... would seem to be the chief political task before mankind in the new epoch of history on which we have suddenly entered. — Sir Alfred Zimmern, prefacing the second edition of The Greek Commonwealth, Dec. 2, 1914.<br />ANNEX 4<br />How National Sovereignty Wrecked the Locarno Treaty<br />The Locarno experiment is worth examining in more detail than was practicable in Chapter IV, because this treaty, for ten years the key piece in the post-war European balance, was the only experiment ever made in regional collective security. Though the present study of the Locarno treaty was written in 1936 it may be the more timely now when there is talk of peace in our time through a Four Power Pact. The reader can judge for himself how far this analysis has been borne out by subsequent events.<br />The Locarno treaty provides an object lesson in (a) the inefficacy of collective security even on the smallest basis and under most favorable auspices so long as it is not backed by definite collective war plans, and (b) the practical impossibility not only of getting such war plans made but even of obtaining unambiguous commitments to enforce the treaty effectively. It shows throughout how the principle of national sovereignty itself upsets attempts to harness it to peace.<br />The Locarno experiment was made under most favorable auspices because each party to this treaty had from beginning to end as strong a national interest in its success as can reasonably be expected.<br />To Germany, which took the initiative that led to Locarno, this treaty was a powerful guarantee at the outset against another Ruhr occupation and against separatism in the Rhineland, and, later, against France and Russia resuming their automatic pre-war alliance. For under it France could not aggressively invade the Rhineland without running the risk that Britain and Italy would carry out their pledge to defend Germany.<br />To France, Locarno gave in addition to the Covenant's general pledges — whose weakness we have already seen — a more definite and extensive legal commitment from Britain than France had obtained before the war, and also a guarantee from Italy. As diplomatic weapons go, the Locarno treaty with all its faults was by far the best France had, for it tied Britain most.<br />To Italy Locarno gave, in addition to the prestige of acting as guarantor of France and Germany, valuable practical support on the Brenner. For Locarno by keeping the Rhineland unfortified kept Germany open to legal invasion by France when called by the League Council to defend the independence of Austria against German attack. Conversely, German fortification of the Rhineland by protecting Germany against such French invasion facilitates German action in Central Europe. German possession of Austria would tend for nationalist reasons (Italian annexation of the Germans of South Tyrol) and for trade reasons (the need of an Adriatic port) to aim German policy thereafter toward controlling the Trentino and Trieste.<br />To Britain Locarno gave the deciding voice in Europe by making both France and Germany look to London. First, the treaty was a guarantee against Germany either attacking the Channel region or becoming too powerful in Central Europe, because by keeping the Rhineland unfortified it effectually laid Germany open to French attack whenever Germany lost London's favor. This became all the more important when France, after vain efforts to gain an automatic commitment from Britain, fortified the frontier. The effect of these forts is double. On one hand, they give France a better springboard for plunging into Germany. On the other hand, just as one forces water to go either over the dam or around it when one dams a stream, the "Maginot Line" forces Germany in any attack on France to strike directly by air and indirectly by land through Belgium, Holland or Switzerland.<br />The Maginot Line thus practically makes German war on France all the more dangerous to Britain, since it develops the air weapon to which Britain is most vulnerable and tends to make the fighting occur in Britain's continental front yard. German fortification of the Rhineland only accentuates this for it frees more German forces for invasion by air and by Belgium, and it forces the French, too, to develop their air arm and look to Belgium. For France to sink into a position where it can give no effective aid to Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc., is to let these countries fall, for all practical diplomatic considerations, under German control. The more Germany thus builds up its position in Central Europe the more dangerous the position of France and therefore of Britain becomes.<br />During this stage Britain and France can buy peace for themselves by merely granting Germany a free hand in Central Europe. But to do this openly kills in Central Europe all hope of aid against Germany and thus merely speeds the process whereby Germany grows able to dictate to France and Britain. Berlin, moreover, can not trust that London and Paris, even if they promise Germany a free hand, will long resign themselves to the effects of such a policy or remain so blind as not to foresee them. Britain now as in 1914 and as in Napoleon's time is the real keystone of resistance to any country's desire for hegemony in Europe. Consequently, Germany though not desiring war with Britain must prepare above all either to overawe or overcome Britain. It is this set-up that made Stanley Baldwin call the Rhine Britain's frontier. German occupation of the Rhineland thus recreates the 1914 war danger for Britain.<br />Second, Locarno guaranteed Britain not only against France disturbing recovery by another Ruhr occupation, or becoming all powerful on the Continent, but also against France restoring her pre-war automatic alliance with Russia. Such an automatic alliance means that if Germany and Russia go to war, France must attack Germany. For France to have invaded Germany, unless authorized by the League or after a German attack on France, would have been a French violation of the Locarno treaty. This would have allowed Germany to demand that Britain and Italy should attack France. So long as the Locarno treaty stood France could make no automatic alliance with Russia without sacrificing its claim on Britain.<br />Again, an automatic Franco-Russian alliance risks putting Britain back in the dangerous position of 1914, where Russia really had the decisive role and could take initiatives bound to lead France and Britain into war. For if Russia decided that the moment had come for, say, a preventive war against Germany, the alliance would drag France in. That would confront Britain with this problem: If it stayed out it would face at the end a European continent controlled either by France and Russia or by Germany and company. If Britain went in it could determine the issue and maintain its position as the arbiter of Europe. That is, it could regain by war the position it was assured of without war so long as the Locarno-League system was maintained, and extended to include Russia.<br />By this system Britain kept the decisive role for, being under obligation to defend either France or Germany, Britain could defend whichever one suited British interests best and could thus keep both paying court to London. Moreover, as Britain's decision would take the form of a League Council vote to determine the aggressor, Britain, thanks to the rule excluding the votes of the parties but requiring unanimity in the rest of the Council, could always avoid being pushed into war on either side.<br />The unanimity rule allowed Britain, if it did decide for war, to enjoy from the outset — as in the Italo-Ethiopian war — the support of a vast ready-made coalition composed of all the other Council members whose votes had made its decision possible. Moreover, the vaguer the Locarno commitments remained, the easier it was for Britain to manoeuvre in the Council, and throw its great weight to one side or the other as it preferred. This situation required Britain to maintain the League and the prestige of the Council, for these provided the manoeuvring ground; if they fell into decay Britain would fall back into its 1914 position, and become even more dependent on France than then by being more exposed than then to air attack.<br />Germany, France, Italy and Britain thus all had a strong national interest in the maintenance of the Locarno treaty. Yet they all were led inevitably by the principle of national sovereignty on which the treaty reposed to contribute to its ruin. The main lines of the Locarno tragedy are worth retracing for they show what is bound to happen with such pacts. It would take too long to tell the whole story here, but the following summary may show broadly how one thing led to another and make clear an extremely complicated chain of developments.<br />Because Britain could not underwrite blindly the foreign policy of the sovereign governments of France and Germany and remain sovereign, it had to limit itself to a general pledge to each and insist on its freedom to interpret this pledge in its own way when the time came. The French general staff therefore had to base its defense plans on the assumption it would have no British military aid with which to meet the first shock and on the possibility it might receive none thereafter. France thus had to rely primarily on French arms while French diplomats sought to manoeuvre Britain into a more definite pledge, make the most of the possibility of receiving British military aid, supplement this with help from allies more likely to act quickly, and still avoid anything weakening practically or legally either the French Locarno claim on Britain or its Covenant claim on all League members. Because the French could neither get a more definite pledge nor sacrifice the one Locarno gave them, they could neither reduce their armaments nor use them in preventive war, neither abandon military understandings with other neighbors of Germany nor develop these into automatic alliances.<br />Because France could not reduce armaments or military connections, and because Britain could give definite pledges to Germany even less than to France, Berlin could not feel safe or even sure that France and Britain did not mean to keep Germany down forever. Consequently Berlin had to make the most of France's difficulties in waging preventive war at this stage and build up Germany's military position. Berlin had to do this secretly (until strong enough to do it openly) in order to keep Germany's Locarno claim on Britain valid and prevent France strengthening its claim. Because of this whole situation and after it (together with its economic side, sketched in Annex 3) had brought Hitler to power in 1933 and after he had sacrificed Germany's treaty with Soviet Russia, France and Russia in 1934 started back toward their pre-war alliance. Because any alliance or pact with a non-League member weakened the Locarno claim on Britain, France insisted that Russia join the League and added to the French pact with Russia the protocol which subordinated it both to the Locarno treaty and League and safeguarded Britain against the pact becoming an automatic alliance.<br />Because this pact was, even so, a step back toward the 1914 position Britain then sought to offset it by building up the prestige of the Council through which Britain kept the decisive role. The British pro-League policy began before and not, as many believe, after the Ethiopian conflict reached the League, and began for reasons of European instead of imperial policy. The time-table was: July, 1934, France arranges in London the entry of Russia into the League; September, France and Britain bring Russia into the League; December, Britain begins to throw her influence toward security through the League by taking the responsible role of mediator in the Yugoslav-Magyar conflict and by favoring — in fact proposing behind the scenes — the formation of the first League police force in Europe, the one sent to the Saar; 1935, January 3, Ethiopia appeals to the League against Italy.<br />Because Locarno kept the Russo-French agreement from being in fact an automatic alliance, France was the more encouraged to seek to supplement it with an agreement with Italy, including military staff plans for the execution of the Locarno treaty. Because of this Laval was led to encourage Signer Mussolini's Ethiopian ambitions and then, when these clashed with Britain's League, European and imperial interests, to play one Locarno guarantor against the other, in the hope of keeping the staff agreement with Italy and obtaining a staff agreement with Britain, or at least a more definite Locarno guarantee.<br />Because of this split among Britain, France and Italy, the opportunity rose for Germany to occupy the Rhineland. Because of this danger Paris refused to vote the oil sanction against Italy unless Britain gave France some staff guarantee against such German occupation. This pro-Italian policy weakened France's moral claim on Britain and the League. Because of this Germany, moving a few days before Paris could bring all its threads together by ratifying the Soviet Pact, obtaining a staff understanding from Britain and accepting the oil sanction, was able to occupy the Rhineland with impunity. While this German success cost the League authority in France, Italy (with the help of poison gas) was able to reach Addis Ababa, which cost the League prestige in Britain and elsewhere.<br />Because of this German blow to Locarno and the Italian blow to the League the main practical obstacle to the Franco-Soviet pact becoming what Germany and Britain both feared — a pre-war automatic alliance — was removed. Because of the German and Italian advances, London has ended by having its military staff make concrete war plans with the French staff and by committing Britain much more definitely than in 1914 to fight if Germany attacks Belgium or France. And so Locarno's regional guarantee pact failed like the League's universal guarantee through the fatal flaw at the core of them both, and the world has been brought back appallingly near to 1914.<br />When I have seen what great men in France, in England and in Germany have written before me I have been lost in admiration, but I have not lost courage. — Montesquieu, Introduction, De I'Esprit des Lois.<br />As nature in her dispensation of conceitedness has dealt with private persons, so has she given a particular smatch of self-love to each country and nation. Upon this account it is that the English challenge the prerogative of having the most handsome women, of being most accomplished in the skill of music, and of keeping the best tables. The Scotch brag of their gentility, and pretend the genius of their native soil inclines them to be good disputants. The French think themselves remarkable for complaisance and good breeding....<br />The Italians value themselves for learning and eloquence.... The Grecians pride themselves in having been the first inventors of most arts.... The Turks ... pretend they profess the only true religion, and laugh at all Christians for superstitious, narrow-souled fools. The Jews to this day expect their Messias as devoutly as they believe in their first prophet Moses. The Spaniards challenge the repute of being accounted good soldiers. And the Germans are noted for their tall, proper stature, and for their skill in magic. But not to mention any more, I suppose you are already convinced how great an improvement and addition to the happiness of human life is occasioned by self-love. — Erasmus, The Praise of Folly, 1515.<br />ANNEX 5<br />My Own Road to Union<br />We are accepting this challenge of hostile purpose because we know that in such a Government, following such methods, we can never have a friend; and that in the presence of its organized power, always lying in wait to accomplish we know not what purpose, there can be no assured security for the democratic Governments of the world.... We are glad, now that we see the facts with no veil of false pretense about them, to fight thus for the ultimate peace of the world and for the liberation of its peoples, the German peoples included: for the rights of nations great and small and the privilege of men everywhere to choose their way of life and of obedience. The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty. We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make. We are but one of the champions of the rights of mankind. We shall be satisfied when those rights have been made as secure as the faith and the freedom of nations can make them. — President Wilson in his speech to Congress for declaration of war against Germany, April 2, 1917.<br />It may be useful to retrace briefly the road by which I have come to dissent now when "it is generally conceded that we should not have entered the last war" and were duped into it mainly for economic or even for sordid profit motives, when it is the fashion to jest bitterly of "making the world safe for democracy" as if it were "a matter of no overwhelming importance to the United States" — when "my brethren," as in the time of Job, are "ashamed because they had hoped." If I can not accept the basic premises and conclusions of the neutralistic school it is not from failure to give its arguments consideration. It is rather because I happened to go through long ago the evolution which many have undergone only recently, and because I have had more time and been under greater pressure to evolve further.<br />I have already mentioned one proof of the importance I attached to the profit motive in war when it was not so generally conceded. I would give other proof now that I did not wait till after the event either to stress this point publicly or to criticize our entry in the war.<br />On April 4, 1917, the Associated Students of the State University of Montana where I was then editor of the college paper, Montana Kaimin, sent this telegram to President Wilson:<br />Monster patriotic demonstration today by students of State University. A united student body, who, having faith and confidence in your wisdom and judgment pledges its enthusiastic support of your every undertaking.<br />The next day the college paper published under my signature the following:<br />BLIND DEMOCRACY<br />I have been asked why I voted against sending the telegram to President Wilson which was to say that the University students "stand behind him in whatever he undertakes." I was opposed to it because I object to the all-inclusiveness of the wording which I have just quoted.<br />When the war first began we condemned that very attitude among the Germans. We criticized severely their blind obedience to the Kaiser. Now at the first shadow of war, although we are not in the danger the Germans were with hostile countries on both sides, shall we lock up our brain and throw the key away?<br />To say that we are behind the President in everything he undertakes, especially at this stage of the international situation, is to undermine the very foundations of democratic government. It is an indication of mob-mindedness and is least to be expected and most to be deplored when found in our colleges.<br />Instead of being a "glittering generality" the telegram should have said something definite. If it had said, "We are behind you in every move you make to aid the cause of democracy against autocracy, and we urge you to make the entrance of the United States into the war dependent upon the definite agreement of the allies to establish a league to enforce peace after the conflict is over and while overpowering the German government to oppose dismembering and economically crushing that nation and thus sowing the seeds of future warfare" — if the message had been of that order, I would have been among the first to say aye.<br />The United States today has the opportunity of doing great service to the cause of democracy. The allies need our help, they are dependent upon us for munitions and other supplies. They are fighting the cause of democracy, but at the same time so many racial passions and other issues have entered into the war that it is doubtful whether the furtherance of democracy or the commerce of the allies will be uppermost in the minds of the men who gather around the council table when the war is over. We had a Platt amendment before we went into the Spanish war to keep us to our purpose of making Cuba independent. We can do equal service for democracy and world peace if we make the condition of our entry in the war as definite as outlined above.<br />When the college term ended I volunteered in June, 1917, in one of the engineer regiments which Marshal Joffre on his visit to Washington urged the United States to organize and dispatch at once to France; it was called at first the 8th and later the 18th Railway Engineers. (I had been working summers as transitman in the United States Public Land Surveys in Alaska and the Rockies.) Six weeks after the regiment was organized we were sent to France where I remained until discharged from service June, 1919. In June, 1918, I was transferred to the Intelligence Service (G. 2, S.O.S.) and in December was attached in a confidential position to the American Peace Commission in Paris where I remained for six months.<br />I had access there to many highly secret official documents, not only the daily record of the secret meetings of Wilson, Lloyd George, Clemenceau, etc., but daily despatches between the President and American generals on all fronts, our diplomats, and Washington (on the home and Senate situation). I was in an unusual position to see daily what was really happening and how little the press or public knew of this, and to see too from the inside how propaganda was being handled abroad and at home. I was also one of those chosen to guard President Wilson on his return to Paris from Washington until the secret service men he brought with him could take over, my job being mainly to "smell" the bouquets sent him to see they hid no bombs. I mention these details to show the degree to which my functions encouraged a skeptical attitude — in one already born a Missourian.<br />My mental evolution during the war and armistice period does not need to be reconstructed now from memory; it can be followed in these excerpts from what I wrote then:<br />March, 1918. [Letter published in the Missoulian, Missoula, Mont.]<br />"I can not understand the wave of intolerance, with its determination to suppress the least expression of non-conformity, which seems to have spread over the country which has always acclaimed its freedom of speech and press," writes Private Clarence K. Streit, formerly of the Missoulian staff, from "Somewhere in France." "I suppose the country is only going through the same psychological stage as that experienced by England and France at the beginning of the war. May they pass through it quickly. When they have, they will realize that in a country fighting to make the world safe for democracy, intolerance, hate and forced conformity are among the enemies of the cause."<br />March 14, 1918 [Letter]<br />A good many of our newspapers understand the President's policy about as well as the German Junker class.... They have not caught that spirit of democracy which is abroad in the world.... The American who wants to know what our aims and those of our Allies are is denounced as a pacifist. The newspapers are keen to know more of our military operations over here — they don't give a continental damn, apparently, as to where we are going but they want to know how fast we're getting there....<br />After Wilson's speeches of the past winter one has reason to believe that while Wilson remains President we will not be buying with our lives and limbs colonies for Great Britain, territorial gains for the other Allies and commercial special privileges for American big business.... His prestige over here is enormous, more than in the United States, I believe.<br />March 23, 1918 [Published letter]<br />In my opinion the Russians and President Wilson, backed up by the British Labor party and the French Socialists, have made this a war for democracy. Had the Russians remained under the Tsar and kept on fighting (which is rather doubtful) the Allies would probably have won the war already, but I do not think it would have been a victory for democracy, as it will be now. The Russian revolution at one stroke removed the primary raison d'être for German militarism....<br />By its publication of secret treaties it showed how imperialistic were the aims of the Allies — making the Adriatic an Italian lake, giving France German territory to the Rhine, parcelling out supposedly neutral Persia, in fact, sowing the seeds of future wars on every hand.... I have noticed very little about those secret treaties in the American press....<br />The despised Bolsheviks proceeded to demonstrate how imperialistic are the German war aims by the Brest-Litovsk conference. They got the first real show-down of those aims, a show-down which should convince everyone that the militaristic party is still in the saddle....<br />The Russian military power is gone, it is true, but that has served to make the Allies really more than ever rely on help from the United States. It has made our position among the Allies much more important, in fact, I believe it has given us the leading position. And that, again, works toward a democratic peace. We are certainly a pacific people; we have no territorial ambitions and we have an idealistic and sincerely democratic president directing our great war power.<br />Oct. 26, 1918. [Letter]<br />It is going to be mighty easy to lose this war in winning it. By that I mean that I think the war will have been lost to democracy no matter what the decision on the field if the prime motive in the making of peace is not the safe-guarding of the world against another catastrophe such as this war. If only a quarter of the zeal paid in each country to the protection of its "national interests" were devoted to the interests of humanity!<br />President Wilson has earned the everlasting gratitude of every democracy in the world by the policy he has pursued in this war, it seems to me. Against all the pressure of "national interests" he has stood out firmly for a peace on the broad lines necessary for the world's interest.<br />Against the decisions of the Paris Conference of 1915 and the "high protectionists" at home and abroad he has emphasized the danger of economic wars after the war and called for the freedom of international trade. I think that is one of the most important points in his policy. Commercial rivalry between nations is one of the chief causes of war and if it is allowed to continue after the war is over there will be little real hope for a durable peace. And it is on this very point that the President is going to encounter strong opposition at the peace conference.<br />Nov. 8, 1918 [Letter]<br />From what meager news we have received of the election results in the States, it seems that the Republicans are in the lead. That's a pity. You know I'm no Democrat, but in a time like this I want to see the President's hand strengthened in Congress. And electing Republicans now is no way to help the President or democracy with a little "d." Of course, the Republican and Democrat parties are hardly different, except in name.<br />Nov. 15, 1918. [Letter]<br />I am glad the President is coming over here for the peace conference. His presence will be needed. He has shown himself the sanest and most far-sighted of statesmen and with his enormous prestige he will have a deciding voice at the peace table. And he will get a reception from France, I will tell you.... Of course, the royalist and reactionary elements are not pleased with his ideas, but he is unbelievably strong with the mass of the people.<br />And as for our troops, well, I was talking with a fellow back from the front while in Bordeaux. We were speaking of the recent election. He said it was a shame the soldiers didn't get to vote, that the result would have been different, for "the boys up at the front think President Wilson is the greatest man in the world." I heard no rejoicing over here on the Republican victory nor anything like commendation of the [Theodore] Roosevelt tactics, though of course I am not acquainted with the sentiment in all parts of this big old AEF.<br />Dec. 22, 1918 [Paris, Letter]<br />I reached Paris about 9 a.m. Saturday Dec. I4th.... Soon came the boom of a cannon. The President had arrived.... I arrived at the Champs Elysées just in time to hear the cheers and see the handkerchiefs and hats waving.... He received a magnificent reception.... The French recognize the greatness of Wilson, even if a portion of the American public, perhaps too close to him and certainly too far distant from the late front, can't seem to appreciate him....<br />If the Republicans really thought the President's policy was wrong, why didn't they say so when he first enunciated that policy?<br />Instead, Senator Lodge stated after the President's speech of April 2, 1917, in which he defined our aim in going to war, that Wilson had "expressed in the loftiest manner possible the sentiments of the American people." And [Theodore] Roosevelt, who now practically accuses the President of being pro-German, came out with this comment at that time on the President's speech: "The President's message is a great state paper of which Americans in future years will be proud. It now rests with the people of the country to see that we put in practice the policy the President has outlined." And now that ... we are in a position to "put in practice the policy the President has outlined" this group is doing all it can to prevent the President's policy from being carried out to end.<br />The sickening feature of the situation is that the American public should have let itself be carried away with hysteria and elect a Congress hostile to the President in these critical times. And that the A.E.F. should not have had any voice in the proceeding.<br />The royalist propaganda papers and the reactionary press in France are playing up this group in the States for all, no, for a great deal more than it is worth. Fine bed-fellows. Meanwhile the liberal press of France and England is rallying strongly to the President's support.<br />Dec. 23, 1918. [Diary, Paris, Record Room, American Peace Commission]<br />I made the usual inspection to see what important papers had been left out. Found a great deal of valuable information lying around. Also all the keys to the filing cabinets. Among other things, a document dated Nov. 29, 1918, from the French Republic to U. S. Government giving plans for Peace conference drawn up by French Govt.<br />One learns a great deal at this station. Surprising the way things are left accessible. This record room contains all the files and documents of the Peace Commission. There are interests which would give a good deal to get hold of some of this information. My reports on all this carelessness are bearing some fruit, for conditions are slowly bettering. But I can easily see why there were leaks in the State Department. Turned in a two-page report thereon this morning.<br />It is enough to give one an idea of the immensity of the problems confronting the coming conference — to see the universal scope of the documents and books in this room.<br />Dec. 24, 1918. [Diary, Paris]<br />Most important of all, saw notes taken by Col. House of meeting of heads of allied governments, Lloyd George, Clemenceau, etc., Nov. 4-7 (also the military — Foch, etc.) in which armistice conditions were framed.<br />Jan. 9, 1919 [Diary, Paris]<br />So many diverse peoples of the world are expecting so many diverse benefits from Wilson and America at the Peace Conference that the many inevitable disappointments are likely to have a boomerang effect in the world's opinion of the U. S. There is such a thing as setting up too great expectations.<br />It is reported that the first 100,000 miners have returned from the army to the coal pits of England. No doubt the super-patriots met them in the under-ground galleries with a band playing "Hail, the Conquering Hero Comes."<br />Before the Armistice the Allied press was filled with stories of the lack of food and raw materials in Germany, paper suits, etc. Since the Armistice the press is filled with stories of the comfortable situation of the Germans, of the plenitude of food in Germany, and no one has yet spoken of seeing a paper suit. The answer is — Propaganda. Germany is menaced by famine, yet the idea of feeding their enemies grates upon some Christian folk and they try to prove that said enemies need no food....<br />No doubt German historians will prove the war was a victory for Germany or, at least, that she was not beaten. And millions of Germans will be brought up to believe that. Just as millions of other children will be brought up to believe another "truth." Each group of belligerents used its press for four years to instill into the majority of its people its own particular "truths," these "truths" being as absolutely opposed to each other as the soldiers of the two camps during a bayonet charge.<br />It would be idle to suppose that the effects of this persistent propaganda should die out with the Armistice and that now Truth should shake off her shackles, reveal herself to all people of the world so that no one could longer doubt her identity. Even in times of continued peace we cannot decide just what is this much referred to "Truth." What chance is there for her to be recognized now?<br />Jan. 18, 1919. [Diary, Paris]<br />The grand conference of Paris has at last opened, ushered in with some well chosen platitudes from the mouth of President Poincaré.... Surround the peace conference with a halo of high and noble thoughts, and then do your dirty work behind closed doors. Same old scheme that they worked in Vienna in 1815.... Read the stenographic report of the afternoon's session. What a beautiful frameup. Everything done unanimously after the slate prepared in advance. How long will that continue?<br />Jan. 25, 1919. [Diary, Paris]<br />Gave the peace conference the once over ... from the outside. Populo is not very popular with the peace commissioners. He is useful as a background for the splendid limousines which roll by and up to the door of the Quai d'Orsay, carrying his "servants." ... There were two or three hundred of populo, representing most of the Allied nations, many soldiers anxious to see the "fathers of the victory," the "premier poilus," the select few who "won the war."<br />Many of them, I gathered from phrases overheard, were waiting especially to see Pres. Wilson.... I recognized Balfour, and think I saw Winston Churchill.... Marshall Foch ... drew a cheer.... The President ... also drew a cheer, and the crowd pressed to the fence to see him descend from his car.... They could only get a glimpse of him. Cold weather, nipping wind. But crowd stuck. I see in the morning papers that Pres. Wilson made an important speech on the Society of Nations at this session.<br />Feb. 19, 1919. [Paris, Letter to a French girl]<br />President Wilson's speeches were all that reconciled me in the least toward this war as a war. The patriotic speeches only disgusted me. The men who were the strongest supporters of the United States entering the war "for democracy," why, they were all the worst reactionaries in America, men who all their lives had bitterly opposed democracy at home. And the men, most of them at least, who protested against our entering the war and were called traitors and maligned in the press — they were the men who had been abused for years by the same press because they advocated democratic reforms.<br />I detested the German government and the German idea, wherever I found it. And I found plenty of Prussianism in the U. S. I put little faith in the Allied protestations of democracy. And, in the last three months, I have seen enough of the secret inside workings to know that the heads of the Allied Governments are not sincerely democratic, they are only as democratic as they feel compelled to be by public opinion. Some of them are cynically un-democratic, though in their public speeches they usually hide this.<br />[I would here give a general warning to the reader. I was only 21 when I enlisted and had never been east of the Mississippi. I was much impressed in Paris by the fact that I was then in a better position to judge what was really going on than most contemporaries, more impressed by this than by the facts that the picture was, even so, very incomplete and that I was young and inexperienced. I did not realize how I tended to give more importance to what was unexpected or new to me, than to what was true but not surprising.<br />Nor did I then realize what strange chameleons documents are. A passage in a document read when it is fresh and in the light of one's impression of the whole situation then may seem to one cynical and significant, while if read years later when quite removed from the context of events it may seem innocent and ordinary. Conversely, documents that raised no eyebrows when written can take on a most sinister meaning when read years after the contemporary atmosphere has gone but facts not common knowledge then have come to light or viewpoints have changed.<br />We tend to assume that the picture we get of a given event will be the one the future will get of it or that the past got. Yet how many of the factors that influenced President Wilson and other leaders of his day are lost to us, and how many factors that we know now were unknown to them? And, then, as Bishop Stubbs said apropos of Henry V:<br />"It is one of the penalties which great men must pay for their greatness, that they have to be judged by posterity according to a standard which they themselves could not have recognized, because it was by their greatness that the standard itself was created."]<br />March 3, 1919 [Paris, Letter]<br />Part of the Louvre museum is now open.... I've visited it twice. What did I go back to see the second time? Especially the Venus de Milo. And also the Victory of Samothrace.... The Victory of Samothrace has no head. Did Victory ever have a head? Perhaps. But it always loses it... •<br />No doubt these letters of mine from Paris are rather disappointing to you. So little about this epoch-making Peace Conference — this great historical assembly. Why, from the preceding four and a half pages [of this letter], one would never know that the world's eyes were centered on this city from which I am writing. Well, I could make a few remarks — but this paper is not of asbestos and I don't know how well the fire department here is organized.<br />I might say, however, that this is not a Peace Congress but an interallied Victory meeting, with indignation as the guiding general force and Individual Economic Interest as the chief counselor of each nation. If you want to cling to your opinion of the greatness of a number of gentlemen much in the public eye, why, stay home and read the newspapers. Don't hang around here.<br />But still, this conference is an enlightened body compared to some of the vociferous Senators back home, for whom political thinking ended when the Constitution was written and the Monroe Doctrine enunciated. The world is moving mighty fast these days, but just where it is going I would not venture to say. Ah, these piping days of — the armistice. I'll wager some of the directing heads of the Allies long sometimes for the good old days when everybody had but one purpose — to lick the other fellow. Heigh ho! for the next last war.<br />But I'll re-iterate that President Wilson, in my opinion, is far ahead of the others. But he is handicapped by lack of support at home and I doubt if he will be able to accomplish much. It will be a pity, for there can be no doubt that the masses of Europe are trusting implicitly in him. It is touching the faith they show in him.<br />March 1919. [Paris, Letter]<br />The opinions of the American press these days show a lamentable ignorance of world conditions. To read the papers, and the speeches of ... [various] ... senators, one would think that they have been asleep for the last five or ten years. They talk about ... keeping out of European affairs. Were we able to keep out of this war? The world isn't as big as it used to be. And it is getting smaller all the time....<br />I don't think the proposed League of Nations is by any means perfect.... What discourages me with so much of American criticism of the League — it is so plainly caused by nothing more than personal or party hostility to the man Wilson. Or it is urged by a selfish nationalism and imperialism more closely related to Prussianism than to the old American idealism. It is not helping the cause of future world peace. The militarists and reactionaries of Europe are making capital use of our Lodges, Borahs and Co.<br />You seem to think that the government took over the cable lines to prevent American opinion hostile to Wilson from reaching France and England. If you could read the papers over here you would see that such is not the case. The reactionary newspapers and the royalist press are doing their best to weaken Wilson's position at the conference by playing up dispatches from the U. S. hostile to him.<br />March 20, 1919. [Paris. Letter to a French girl]<br />I think parents are rather under obligation to the child.... The same reasoning I apply to man's relation to the state. A man owes a state nothing because of the fact that he happened to be born in it. It was through no choice of mine that I am an American. I could be naturalized now as citizen of some other country? True, but the state, in educating me, was fitting me for a life within that state, its object was to train me into being a good citizen of it. And the very accident of birth gave me dear associations, friends, memories in America, made me prejudiced in her favor. I would not change. With all her faults, I prefer America to any other country.<br />But — had I been born in France, say, of French parents — I would no doubt prefer to be French, would be proud of my French nationality just as you are. And if the fates had willed that I should have been born an Englishman, a Russian, a German, a Chinaman, a Turk or any other nationality, I would undoubtedly be just as happy in my state and prefer it to any other.<br />And yet, this simple accident of birth under one flag instead of another colors the mental attitude and distorts the intellectual processes of most men, including most of the men whom I used to look up to as intellectuals, men of science and philosophy, men whose sole concern was the truth. This war showed the stuff of which the world's "elite" or "intelligenzia" is made — and it is a sight enough to make one despair.<br />For my part, I love America — aside from the accident of birth — because of the ideals on which the Republic was founded (not all of them, however), I love American life for its boundless energy, its freedom from tradition, because it is facing the future and not the past. But that isn't going to keep me from trying to see things as they really are. I am an intelligent man first, an American afterwards. The United States is now undoubtedly the most powerful single nation on the globe. All the more need then for men in America whose allegiance is to the human race.<br />My evolution, then, has not been from unthinking acceptance of the war to disillusioned belief that it was a monstrous mistake into which we the people were led through no fault of ours but through sinister influences. My evolution has been from doubtful acceptance of the war as being, on balance, more right than wrong, to a bitter feeling as early as 1919 that it had been botched. After this interlude of disillusionment I have slowly grown to the deep conviction that with all their mistakes Wilson and the American people chose the lesser evil in all their essential choices.<br />Though I went into the war favoring a league to enforce peace, I thought of it then only vaguely. When President Wilson talked of making the world safe for democracy I did not then understand that the real problem was not that of doing justice at once but of providing the means of doing justice, the machinery of world self-government. I lost interest in his League in 1919 because it was coupled with so bad a treaty and because I thought it was too weak. I have since become convinced that, considering all he had to face and chose between, President Wilson showed high statesmanship in tying the Covenant to the Treaty of Versailles, and that he got as strong a world organization founded as was practically possible then. Though I have since come also to believe that the League is no solution for us because its basic working principle — which I never questioned then — is wrong, I am nonetheless convinced that this League was practically essential for the necessary transition to world organization on a sound basis. But when I left the army I was so disappointed with Woodrow Wilson and his works and so opposed to the irreconcilables that I took no part in the ensuing fight over the League at home.<br />I went to work as a reporter and then in January, 1920, returned to Europe as a Rhodes Scholar. After covering the Turco-Greek war, during vacation, for the Philadelphia Public Ledger I left Oxford in the Fall of 1921 to become the Ledger's Rome correspondent. My interest in the League had so ebbed that though I was in Lausanne for months in 1922-23 reporting the Turkish peace conference I never bothered to make the trip of only one hour needed to visit Geneva. I never saw the League in action, in fact, before The New York Times sent me in 1929 from New York to Geneva to be its correspondent there. Meanwhile, however, my life and work in many parts of Europe and especially in the territory of the Central Powers had helped persuade me that we had not made a mistake in entering the war.<br />I have had many occasions to note how advanced the British people are in the practice of political democracy and how the French people, if behind them as regards parliaments and courts, are ahead of them in practicing social democracy, above all in practicing the equality of man.<br />I have also had many occasions to see how retarded and inexperienced in democracy the peoples of Italy and of the Central Powers generally were, and the effects among them of their longer exposure to absolutism's degradation of the common man and insistence on blind obedience to state and church and all constituted authority. Such things (for one example) as finding even in Vienna in 1926 after six years of Socialism cooks and maids who still assumed as a matter of course that they had to go down on their knees and kiss my wife's hand when coming to receive instructions for the day. I have had many occasions to see how most of the democracy these people have has come from America, from England and, most directly of all, from the French Revolution.<br />Before seeing this I had already seen how close the abominable servile system of the Central Powers had come to triumphing over Europe's most advanced democracies. I had taken fifteen days zigzagging against submarines to reach Britain in August, 1917, and feel there myself to what straits they had then reduced the British. I had seen soldiers reprimanded at Aldershot camp for throwing away a potato peeling, I had spent much of my first day in London (August, 1917) trying to find a place to eat amid all the padlocked restaurants. I had been among the soldiers convoyed across the Channel under cover of the night. I had witnessed how low French morale had fallen in 1917, how it rose with the arrival of the Americans — and how near to Paris the invaders still came more than a year after our entry in the war.<br />Long before Adolph Hitler rose to prove what bad habits the German people had got under their feudal lords, I had often had brought home to me how great were the dangers from which the old democracies had escaped, and how President Wilson had been much wiser than I had once supposed. I had come to understand better with each year why he had touched so deeply the hearts of common men and women all through Europe.<br />Then the Geneva assignment gave me a rare opportunity to follow continuously and at first hand the actual working not only of the League proper, but of the International Labor Organization and the Bank for International Settlements — all the chief machinery the world has organized for governing itself. The reasons that split Americans for and against the League in 1920 were, of course, paper reasons since the League then existed only on paper. Yet to this day only a relative handful of Americans have had or taken occasion to test their theories by studying on the spot how the League of Nations really works in practice. Most of the leading American opponents of the League have such faith in pure theory that they have never so much as laid eye or ear on a League meeting. My own theories about the League have had to face the facts directly year after year.<br />Unlike most of those who have been in close contact with the League and its problems, I have never been responsible for any part of the League machinery or for producing results in any of its fields for any government. My responsibility instead, has been that of reporting objectively, accurately and understandingly to all who cared to read what these others were doing. This function required close continual contact with the permanent officials of the League, I. L. O. and Bank, with the policies and special problems and delegations of all important member and non-member countries, and with all big world questions, political, economic, monetary, social — and yet sharp detachment always from each of these. No one present but the reporter had this function. Nor was any one under more pressure to see each day's development in every field in terms of living men and women, and to judge correctly the essentials in it interesting laymen and experts far removed in distance or occupation. I have enjoyed the further and immense advantage of reporting for The New York Times. Mr. Ochs said to me, as my only instructions on being appointed League correspondent ten years ago: "Remember always to lean backwards in being fair to those whose policies The New York Times opposes."<br />A visiting correspondent once remarked as we sat together in the press section during a Council meeting, "This post is a liberal education." I have found it so. I could not help but come to see some things differently. Nor could I help but be impressed with how difficult it was before the League existed, and still is outside Geneva now, to enjoy that essential for solving any problem correctly — a continued view of it as a whole. I wrote in The New York Times, Sept. 13, 1931:<br />The world as seen from Geneva appears an Alice in Wonderland world, devoted to the propositions that all nations are created superior, the part is greater than the whole and the day is longer than the year....<br />What is impressive in Geneva is that of sixty nations any fifty-nine should realize so acutely the absurdity of the other's claim to be the only one in step, and that none of them ever realizes that each is simultaneously making that very same claim....<br />What makes this loom big in Geneva is, of course, the very same thing that keeps the world from seeing it. The near always seems greater than the far, and only sometimes is. What is nearest to the observer in New York, in London, Paris, Rome, Berlin, is a nation, a people, a way of seeing, a way of understanding, a way of doing. What is nearest to him at Geneva is the mixture of all these, the international thing....<br />In Geneva day in and day out the observer's contacts, business and social, are international.... There is no major issue that does not come up here. And always from an international if not a world viewpoint. You are hearing in Geneva not merely the views of the various nations on all sorts of questions but, what is far more illuminating, you are hearing what they think of each other's arguments. It doesn't matter in Geneva if you can't see the beam in your own eye: While the American is pointing unerringly to the motes in the eyes of the Frenchman, the Englishman, the German, the European in general, all these are revealing the motes in the American's eye, and all the motes in the eyes of the others that he has missed.<br />You have the politicians, the businessmen, the professors, the admirals, the bankers, the jurists, the scientists, the poets, the doctors to correct each other similarly. They come and go and come back again, dipping in and out of this atmosphere, but the observer living in Geneva is in it all the time. With everyone and everything continuously forcing upon him a world viewpoint, he is naturally struck by the lack of it elsewhere.<br />The discovery that the world does not see the world for the nations is so new to him that he is likely to think that it is something new. The world, of course, has never seen the world for the nations. What is new about the world is that in the last of its ten thousand years it has at least and at last begun to try to see itself as a world. What is new is the world observatory that the world itself has started in Geneva.<br />Such is the road I took at the age of 21 and by which I have come in 21 years to propose Union now.<br />To understand the true greatness of Man one must first understand how infinitesimal he is.<br />Man is certainly stark mad; he cannot make a worm, and yet he will be making gods by dozens. — Montaigne.<br />What I call virtue in the republic is the love of country, that is to say, love of equality. — Montesquieu, opening De I'Esprit des Lois.<br />Surely our twentieth century civilization can not be so helpless that it is out of its power somehow to obtain what is the common desire of all nations and peoples ... We may surely believe that whole-hearted cooperation for a common aim must eventually be crowned with success. — Beaumont Pease, Chairman, Lloyds Bank, London, 1936 Report.<br />Whatever the fears and forebodings of those who hold their own faith weakly, there is no reason to fear that the world, having known the joys of freedom and enlightenment, is destined to relapse into the brutish obscurity of another Dark Age. — Harold Butler, Director, International Labor Organization, in his valedictory Report, April 25, 1938.<br />Last Word<br />On all great subjects much remains to be said. — Mill.<br />One must not always finish a subject so completely as to leave nothing for the reader to do. The object is not to make others read but to make them think. — Montesquieu, De I'Esprit des Lois, Book IX, Chapter 20.<br />When Aristide Briand proposed his European Federation the similarity of many of the responses to it impressed me. They applauded, they said: "This is noble, this is what we all want," and they added, "But there is this difficulty and that difficulty, and how is he going to meet them?" They acted as if the veteran French statesman, though in a much better position than they to see the difficulties his proposal faced, had not foreseen them and needed their help in seeing rather than in solving them. They implied that all these difficulties were for him to overcome; they assumed the role of spectators who would not be affected if his project came to naught through his failure to overcome every difficulty himself. Even the depression that followed could not persuade these waiters-for-a-perfect-plan that this was an enterprise in which they were willy-nilly involved, that they too would be punished — swiftly, mercilessly, increasingly — for failure to solve in time the problems on which Aristide Briand had made so brave a beginning.<br />I am aware of many of the difficulties confronting the Union, and I have no doubt that there exist more than I realize. I know that this book has led me into fields where others have a much greater knowledge than I. No one needs take time to convince me that this book falls far short of what it should be, that it is weak indeed compared to the great enterprise it would promote. I regret that this book is not as clear, short, complete, well organized, free from error, easy to read and hard to controvert on every page as I — perhaps more than any one — desire it to be. I feel, however, that I have reached the point of diminishing return for isolated work on its problem, and that time presses for an agreed if imperfect answer. My hope is that the book can now make at least the friends it needs, for if it can then I am sure that they can do far more than I to correct its faults and advance its purpose.<br />One can not believe as I do in democracy and fail to believe that the surest way to bring out the true from the false and to accomplish any great enterprise is to get the greatest number of individual minds to working freely on it. The variety in our species is so rich that one can be sure in any such undertaking that one can do almost no detail in it so well as can some one else.<br />Democracy taps this rich vein. It does so by recognizing that Man can not foresee which obscure person or lowly thing may suddenly become of the greatest value to Man, by setting therefore an equal value on every man and every thing, and by seeking to give equal freedom to every man to do the thing he best can do and trade it in the commonwealth for all the billion things he can not do so well. That is the meaning of democracy's great declaration, All men are created equal, and the reason why democracy's spread has led to the discovery of more and more truths and to the doing of greater and greater enterprises.<br />And so I ask you not merely to make known any error you have found in this book but to try yourself to solve the problem that it leaves. Since it was you who found the fault how can you know that you are not the one who can overcome it better than I, better than anyone?<br />After all, are not your freedom, your prosperity, your security, your children at stake as well as mine? Is not the problem of world government your individual problem as well as mine? Can I alone organize the world for you any more than you for me? Can any dictator do it for us? If you and I and the other man and woman working freely and equally together can not gain our common end, then how on earth can it be gained?<br />For Man's freedom and vast future man must depend on man. It is ours together, or no one's and it shall be ours. </div>coordinatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01483215435633115889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001519995842436212.post-38516511973907459192009-05-04T20:43:00.003+02:002009-05-06T08:28:45.004+02:00Penn's European Union<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgy3BcSlku7X30abYcDMGXv6o7OT5L1-I42HB4L1O8-yAGkEvxHfnuQsO8W9q5Hzr89VwYzVKHiG9FEo39PnUq1-q6K7v57RHjJuknIFd1kXzywBBGCMOkJc12qt26i6ZTJI8HENHeQvzJL/s1600-h/WilliamPenn_CityHall_U.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5332594057018230306" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 173px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgy3BcSlku7X30abYcDMGXv6o7OT5L1-I42HB4L1O8-yAGkEvxHfnuQsO8W9q5Hzr89VwYzVKHiG9FEo39PnUq1-q6K7v57RHjJuknIFd1kXzywBBGCMOkJc12qt26i6ZTJI8HENHeQvzJL/s200/WilliamPenn_CityHall_U.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div align="center"><strong>An ESSAY towards the Present and Future Peace of Europe by the Establishment of an European Dyet, Parliament, or Estates</strong> (1693)<a name="a_1861680"></a><br /></div><br />Beati Pacifici.Cedant Arma Togae<a class="note_ref" id="c_lf6418_footnote_nt_574" href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=893&chapter=77004&layout=html&Itemid=27#lf6418_footnote_nt_574" name="c_lf6418_footnote_nt_574">1</a><a name="a_1861681"></a><br /><br />To the READER.<a name="a_1861682"></a><br /><br />Reader,<a name="a_1861683"></a><br />I HAVE undertaken a Subject that I am very sensible requires one of more sufficiency than I am Master of to treat it, as, in Truth, it deserves, and the groaning State of Europe calls for; but since Bunglers may stumble upon the Game, as well as Masters, though it belongs to the Skilful to hunt and catch it, I hope this Essay will not be charged upon me for a Fault, if it appear to be neither Chimerical nor Injurious, and may provoke abler Pens to improve and perform the Design with better Judgment and Success. I will say no more in Excuse of my self, for this Undertaking, but that it is the Fruit of my solicitous Thoughts, for the Peace of Europe, and they must want Charity as much as the World needs Quiet, to be offended with me for so Pacifick a Proposal. Let them censure my Management so they prosecute the Advantage of the Design; for ’till the Millenary Doctrine be accomplished, there is nothing appears to me so beneficial an Expedient to the Peace and Happiness of this Quarter of the World.<a name="a_1861684"></a><br />An ESSAY towards the Present and FuturePeace of EUROPE, etc.<a name="a_1861685"></a><br /><br /><strong>Section 1</strong><br />Of PEACE, and it’s Advantages.<br /><a name="a_1861687"></a><br />HE MUST not be a Man, but a Statue of Brass or Stone, whose Bowels do not melt when he beholds the bloody Tragedies of this War, in Hungary, Germany, Flanders, Ireland, and at Sea. The Mortality of sickly and languishing Camps and Navies, and the mighty Prey the Devouring Winds and Waves have made upon Ships and Men since 88.<a class="note_ref" id="c_lf6418_footnote_nt_575" href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=893&chapter=77004&layout=html&Itemid=27#lf6418_footnote_nt_575" name="c_lf6418_footnote_nt_575">2</a> And as this with Reason ought to affect human Nature, and deeply Kindred, so there is something very moving that becomes prudent Men to consider, and that is the vast Charge that has accompanied that Blood, and which makes no mean Part of these Tragedies; Especially if they deliberate upon the uncertainty of the War, that they know not how or when it will end, and that the Expence cannot be less, and the Hazard is as great as before. So that in the Contraries of Peace we see the Beauties and Benefits of it; which under it, such is the Unhappiness of Mankind, we are too apt to nauseate, as the full Stomach loaths the Honey-Comb; and like that unfortunate Gentleman, that having a fine and a good Woman to his Wife, and searching his Pleasure in forbidden and less agreeable Company, said, when reproach’d with his Neglect of better Enjoyments, That he could love his Wife of all Women, if she were not his Wife, tho’ that increased his Obligation to prefer her. It is a great Mark of the Corruption of our Natures, and what ought to humble us extremely, and excite the Exercise of our Reason to a nobler and juster Sense, that we cannot see the Use and Pleasure of our Comforts but by the Want of them. As if we could not taste the Benefit of Health, but by the Help of Sickness; nor understand the Satisfaction of Fulness without the Instruction of Want; nor, finally, know the Comfort of Peace but by the Smart and Penance of the Vices of War: And without Dispute that is not the least Reason that God is pleased to Chastise us so frequently with it. What can we desire better than Peace, but the Grace to use it? Peace preserves our Possessions; We are in no Danger of Invasions: Our Trade is free and safe, and we rise and lye down without Anxiety. The Rich bring out their Hoards, and employ the poor Manufacturers: Buildings and divers Projections, for Profit and Pleasure, go on: It excites Industry, which brings Wealth, as that gives the Means of Charity and Hospitality, not the lowest Ornaments of a Kingdom or Commonwealth. But War, like the Frost of 83, seizes all these Comforts at once, and stops the civil Channel of Society. The Rich draw in their Stock, the Poor turn Soldiers, or Thieves, or Starve: No Industry, no Building, no Manufactury, little Hospitality or Charity; but what the Peace gave, the War devours. I need say no more upon this Head, when the Advantages of Peace, and Mischiefs of War are so many and sensible to every Capacity under all Governments, as either of them prevails. I shall proceed to the next Point. What is the best Means of Peace, which will conduce much to open my Way to what I have to propose.<a name="a_1861688"></a><br /><br /><strong>Section 2</strong><br />Of the Means of Peace, which is Justice rather than War.<br /><a name="a_1861690"></a><br />AS JUSTICE is a Preserver, so it is a better Procurer of Peace than War. Tho’ Pax quaeritur bello, be an usual Saying, Peace is the End of War, and as such it was taken up by O. C. for his Motto:<a class="note_ref" id="c_lf6418_footnote_nt_576" href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=893&chapter=77004&layout=html&Itemid=27#lf6418_footnote_nt_576" name="c_lf6418_footnote_nt_576">3</a> Yet the Use generally made of that expression shews us, that properly and truly speaking, Men seek their Wills by War rather than Peace, and that as they will violate it to obtain them, so they will hardly be brought to think of Peace, unless their Appetites be some Way gratified. If we look over the Stories of all Times, we shall find the Aggressors generally moved by Ambition; the Pride of Conquest and Greatness of Dominion more than Right. But as those Leviathans appear rarely in the World, so I shall anon endeavour to make it evident they had never been able to devour the Peace of the World, and ingross whole Countries as they have done, if the Proposal I have to make for the Benefit of our present Age had been then in Practice. The Advantage that Justice has upon War is seen by the Success of Embassies, that so often prevent War by hearing the Pleas and Memorials of Justice in the Hands and Mouths of the Wronged Party. Perhaps it may be in a good Degree owing to Reputation or Poverty, or some particular Interest or Conveniency of Princes and States, as much as Justice; but it is certain, that as War cannot in any Sense be justified, but upon Wrongs received, and Right, upon Complaint, refused; so the Generality of Wars have their Rise from some such Pretension. This is better seen and understood at Home; for that which prevents a Civil War in a Nation, is that which may prevent it Abroad, viz. Justice; and we see where that is notably obstructed, War is Kindled between the Magistrates and People in particular Kingdoms and States; which, however it may be unlawful on the Side of the People, we see never fails to follow, and ought to give the same Caution to Princes as if it were the Right of the People to do it: Tho’ I must needs say, the Remedy is almost ever worse than the Disease: The Aggressors seldom getting what they seek, or performing, if they prevail, what they promised. And the Blood and Poverty that usually attend the Enterprize, weigh more on Earth, as well as in Heaven, than what they lost or suffered, or what they get by endeavouring to mend their Condition, comes to: Which Disappointment seems to be the Voice of Heaven, and Judgment of God against those violent Attempts. But to return, I say, Justice is the Means of Peace, betwixt the Government and the People, and one Man and Company and another. It prevents Strife, and at last ends it: For besides Shame or Fear, to contend longer, he or they being under Government, are constrained to bound their Desires and Resentment with the Satisfaction the Law gives. Thus Peace is maintain’d by Justice, which is a Fruit of Government, as Government, is from Society, and Society from Consent.<a name="a_1861691"></a><br /><br /><strong>Section 3</strong><br />GOVERNMENT, it’s Rise and End under all Models.<br /><a name="a_1861693"></a><br />GOVERNMENT is an Expedient against Confusion; a Restraint upon all Disorder; Just Weights and an even Ballance: That one may not injure another, nor himself, by Intemperance.<a name="a_1861694"></a><br />This was at first without Controversie, Patrimonial, and upon the Death of the Father or Head of the Family, the eldest Son, or Male of Kin succeeded. But Time breaking in upon this Way of Governing, as the World multiply’d, it fell under other Claims and Forms; and is as hard to trace to it’s Original, as are the Copies we have of the first Writings of Sacred or Civil Matters. It is certain the most Natural and Human is that of Consent, for that binds freely (as I may say) when Men hold their Liberty by true Obedience to Rules of their own making. No Man is Judge in his own Cause, which ends the Confusion and Blood of so many Judges and Executioners. For out of Society every Man is his own King, does what he lists, at his own Peril: But when he comes to incorporate himself, he submits that Royalty to the Conveniency of the Whole, from whom he receives the Returns of Protection. So that he is not now his own Judge nor Avenger, neither is his Antagonist, but the Law, in indifferent Hands between both. And if he be Servant to others that before was free, he is also served of others that formerly owed him no Obligation. Thus while we are not our own, every Body is ours, and we get more than we lose, the Safety of the Society being the Safety of the Particulars that constitute it. So that while we seem to submit to, and hold all we have from Society, it is by Society that we keep what we have.<a name="a_1861695"></a><br />Government then is the Prevention or Cure of Disorder, and the Means of Justice, as that is of Peace: For this Cause they have Sessions, Terms, Assizes and Parliaments, to over-rule Men’s Passions and Resentments, that they may not be Judges in their own Cause, nor Punishers of their own Wrongs, which as it is very incident to Men in their Corrupt State, so, for that Reason, they would observe no Measure; nor on the other Hand would any be easily reduced to their Duty. Not that Men know not what is right, their Excesses, and wherein they are to blame: by no Means; nothing is plainer to them: But so depraved is Human Nature, that without Compulsion, some Way or other, too many would not readily be brought to do what they know is right and fit, or avoid what they are satisfy’d they should not do: Which brings me near to the Point I have undertaken; and for the better Understanding of which, I have thus briefly treated of Peace, Justice and Government, as a necessary Introduction, because the Ways and Methods by which Peace is preserved in particular Governments, will help those Readers, most concerned in my Proposal, to conceive with what Ease as well as Advantage the Peace of Europe might be procured and kept; which is the End designed by me, with all Submission to those Interested in this little Treatise.<a name="a_1861696"></a><br /><br /><strong>Section 4</strong><br />Of a General Peace, or the Peace of Europe, and the Means of it.<br /><a name="a_1861698"></a><br />IN MY first Section, I shewed the Desirableness of Peace; in my next, the Truest Means of it; to wit, Justice, Not War. And in my last, that this Justice was the Fruit of Government, as Government it self was the Result of Society; which first came from a Reasonable Design in Men of Peace. Now if the Soveraign Princes of Europe, who represent that Society, or Independent State of Men that was previous to the Obligations of Society, would, for the same Reason that engaged Men first into Society, viz. Love of Peace and Order, agree to meet by their Stated Deputies in a General Dyet, Estates, or Parliament, and there Establish Rules of Justice for Soveraign Princes to observe one to another; and thus to meet Yearly, or once in Two or Three Years at farthest, or as they shall see Cause, and to be Stiled, The Soveraign or Imperial Dyet, Parliament, or State of Europe; before which Soveraign Assembly, should be brought all Differences depending between one Soveraign and another, that cannot be made up by private Embassies, before the Sessions begins; and that if any of the Soveraignties that Constitute these Imperial States, shall refuse to submit their Claim or Pretensions to them, or to abide and perform the Judgment thereof, and seek their Remedy by Arms, or delay their Compliance beyond the Time prefixt in their Resolutions, all the other Soveraignties, United as One Strength, shall compel the Submission and Performance of the Sentence, with Damages to the Suffering Party, and Charges to the Soveraignties that obliged their Submission: To be sure Europe would quietly obtain the so much desired and needed Peace, to Her harrassed Inhabitants; no Soveraignty in Europe, having the Power, and therefore cannot show the Will to dispute the Conclusion; and, consequently, Peace would be procured, and continued in Europe.<a name="a_1861699"></a><br /><br /><strong>Section 5</strong><br />Of the Causes of Difference, and Motives to Violate Peace.<br /><a name="a_1861701"></a><br />THERE appears to me but Three Things upon which Peace is broken, viz. To Keep, to Recover, or to Add. First, To Keep what is One’s Right, from the Invasion of an Enemy; in which I am purely Defensive. Secondly, To Recover, when I think my self Strong enough, that which by Violence, I, or my Ancestors have lost, by the Arms of a Stronger Power; in which I am Offensive: Or, Lastly, To increase my Dominion by the Acquisition of my Neighbour’s Countries, as I find them Weak, and my self Strong. To gratify which Passion, there will never want some Accident or other for a Pretence: And knowing my own Strength, I will be my own Judge and Carver. This Last will find no Room in the Imperial States: They are an unpassable Limit to that Ambition. But the other Two may come as soon as they please, and find the Justice of that Soveraign Court. And considering how few there are of those Sons of Prey, and how early they show themselves, it may be not once in an Age or Two, this Expedition being Established, the Ballance cannot well be broken.<a name="a_1861702"></a><br /><br /><strong>Section 6</strong><br />Of Titles, upon which those Differences may arise.<br /><a name="a_1861704"></a><br />BUT I easily foresee a Question that may be answered in our Way, and that is this; What is Right? Or else we can never know what is Wrong: It is very fit that this should be Established. But that is fitter for the Soveraign States to resolve than me. And yet that I may lead a Way to the Matter, I say that Title is either by a long and undoubted Succession, as the Crowns of Spain, France and England; or by Election, as the Crown of Poland, and the Empire; or by Marriage, as the Family of the Stewarts came by England; the Elector of Brandenburgh, to the Dutchy of Cleve; and we, in Ancient Time, to divers Places abroad; or by Purchase, as hath been frequently done in Italy and Germany; or by Conquest, as the Turk in Christendom, the Spaniards in Flanders, formerly mostly in the French Hands; and the French in Burgundy, Normandy, Lorrain, French-County, &c. This last, Title is, Morally Speaking, only Questionable. It has indeed obtained a Place among the Rolls of Titles, but it was engross’d and recorded by the Point of the Sword, and in Bloody Characters. What cannot be controuled or resisted, must be submitted to; but all the World knows the Date of the length of such Empires, and that they expire with the Power of the Possessor to defend them. And yet there is a little allowed to Conquest to, when it has the Sanction of Articles of Peace to confirm it: Tho’ that hath not always extinguished the Fire, but it lies, like Embers under Ashes, ready to kindle so soon as there is a fit Matter prepared for it. Nevertheless, when Conquest has been confirmed by a Treaty, and Conclusion of Peace, I must confess it is an Adopted Title; and if not so Genuine and Natural, yet being engrafted, it is fed by that which is the Security of Better Titles, Consent. There is but one Thing more to be mentioned in this Section, and that is from what Time Titles shall take their Beginning, or how far back we may look to confirm or dispute them. It would be very bold and inexcusable in me, to determine so tender a Point, but be it more or less Time, as to the last General Peace at Nimeguen,<a class="note_ref" id="c_lf6418_footnote_nt_577" href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=893&chapter=77004&layout=html&Itemid=27#lf6418_footnote_nt_577" name="c_lf6418_footnote_nt_577">4</a> or to the commencing of this War, or to the Time of the Beginning of the Treaty of Peace, I must submit it to the Great Pretenders and Masters in that Affair. But something every Body must be willing to give or quit, that he may keep the rest, and by this Establishment, be for ever freed of the Necessity of losing more.<a name="a_1861705"></a><br /><br /><strong>Section 7</strong><br />Of the Composition of these Imperial States.<br /><a name="a_1861707"></a><br />THE Composition and Proportion of this Soveraign Part, or Imperial State, does, at the first Look, seem to carry with it no small Difficulty what Votes to allow for the Inequality of the Princes and States. But with Submission to better Judgments, I cannot think it invincible: For if it be possible to have an Estimate of the Yearly Value of the several Soveraign Countries, whose Delegates are to make up this August Assembly, the Determination of the Number of Persons or Votes in the States for every Soveraignty, will not be impracticable. Now that England, France, Spain, the Empire, &c. may be pretty exactly estimated, is so plain a Case, by considering the Revenue of Lands, the Exports and Entries at the Custom-Houses, the Books of Rates, and Surveys that are in all Governments, to proportion Taxes for the Support of them, that the least Inclination to the Peace of Europe, will not stand or halt at this Objection. I will, with Pardon on all Sides, give an Instance far from Exact; nor do I pretend to it, or offer it for an Estimate; for I do it at Random: Only this, as wide as it is from the Just Proportion, will give some Aim to my Judicious Reader, what I would be at: Remembring, I design not by any Computation, an Estimate from the Revenue of the Prince, but the Value of the Territory, the Whole being concerned as well as the Prince. And a Juster Measure it is to go by, since one Prince may have more Revenue than another, who has much a Richer Country: Tho’ in the Instance I am now about to make, the Caution is not so Necessary, because, as I said before, I pretend to no Manner of Exactness, but go wholly by Guess, being but for Example’s Sake. I suppose the Empire of Germany to send Twelve; France, Ten; Spain, Ten; Italy, which comes to France, Eight; England, Six; Portugal, Three; Sweedland, Four; Denmark, Three; Poland, Four; Venice, Three; the Seven Provinces, Four; The Thirteen Cantons, and little Neighbouring Soveraignties, Two; Dukedoms of Holstein and Courland, One: And if the Turks and Muscovites are taken in, as seems but fit and just, they will make Ten a Piece more. The Whole makes Ninety. A great Presence when they represent the Fourth; and now the Best and Wealthiest Part of the Known World; where Religion and Learning, Civility and Arts have their Seat and Empire. But it is not absolutely necessary there should be always so many Persons, to represent the larger Soveraignties; for the Votes may be given by one Man of any Soveraignty, as well as by Ten or Twelve: Tho’ the fuller the Assembly of States is, the more Solemn, Effectual, and Free the Debates will be, and the Resolutions must needs come with greater Authority. The Place of their First Session should be Central, as much as is possible, afterwards as they agree.<a name="a_1861708"></a><br /><br /><strong>Section 8</strong><br />Of the Regulation of the Imperial States in Session.<br /><a name="a_1861710"></a><br />TO AVOID Quarrel for Precedency, the Room may be Round, and have divers Doors to come in and go out at, to prevent Exceptions. If the whole Number be cast into Tens, each chusing One, they may preside by Turns, to whom all Speeches should be addressed, and who should collect the Sense of the Debates, and state the Question for a Vote, which, in my Opinion, should be by the Ballot, after the Prudent and Commendable Method of the Venetians:<a class="note_ref" id="c_lf6418_footnote_nt_578" href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=893&chapter=77004&layout=html&Itemid=27#lf6418_footnote_nt_578" name="c_lf6418_footnote_nt_578">5</a> Which in a great Degree, prevents the ill Effects of Corruption; because if any of the Delegates of that High and Mighty Estates could be so Vile, False, and Dishonourable, as to be influenced by Money, they have the Advantage of taking their Money that will give it them, and of Voting undiscovered to the Interest of their Principals, and their own Inclinations; as they that do understand the Balloting Box do very well know. A Shrewd Stratagem, and an Experimental Remedy against Corruption, at least Corrupting: For who will give their Money where they may so easily be Cozened, and where it is Two to One they will be so; for they that will take Money in such Cases, will not stick to Lye heartily to them that give it, rather than wrong their Country, when they know their Lye cannot be detected.<a name="a_1861711"></a><br />It seems to me, that nothing in this Imperial Parliament should pass, but by Three Quarters of the Whole, at least Seven above the Ballance. I am sure it helps to prevent Treachery, because if Money could ever be a Temptation in such a Court, it would cost a great Deal of Money to weigh down the wrong Scale. All Complaints should be delivered in Writing, in the Nature of Memorials; and Journals kept by a proper Person, in a Trunk or Chest, which should have as many differing Locks, as there are Tens in the States. And if there were a Clerk for each Ten, and a Pew or Table for those Clerks in the Assembly; and at the End of every Session, One out of each Ten, were appointed to Examine and Compare the Journal of those Clerks, and then lock them up as I have before expressed, it would be clear and Satisfactory. And each Soveraignty if they please, as is but very fit, may have an Exemplification, or Copy of the said Memorials, and the Journals of Proceedings upon them. The Liberty and Rules of Speech, to be sure, they cannot fail in, who will be the Wisest and Noblest of each Soveraignty, for it’s own Honour and Safety. If any Difference can arise between those that come from the same Soveraignty, that then One of the Major Number do give the Balls of that Soveraignty. I should think it extreamly necessary, that every Soveraignty should be present under great Penalties, and that none leave the Session without Leave, till All be finished; and that Neutralities in Debates should by no Means be endured: For any such Latitude will quickly open a Way to unfair Proceedings, and be followed by a Train, both of seen, and unseen Inconveniencies. I will say little of the Language in which the Session of the Soveraign Estates should be held, but to be sure it must be in Latin or French; The first would be very well for Civilians, but the last most easie for Men of Quality.<a name="a_1861712"></a><br /><br /><strong>Section 9</strong><br />Of the Objections that may be advanced against the Design.<br /><a name="a_1861714"></a><br />I WILL first give an Answer to the Objections that may be offered against my Proposal: And in my next and last Section, I shall endeavour to shew some of the manifold Conveniences that would follow this European League, or Confederacy.<a name="a_1861715"></a><br />The first of them is this, That the strongest and Richest Soveraignty will never agree to it, and if it should, there would be Danger of Corruption more than of Force one Time or other. I answer to the first Part, he is not stronger than all the rest, and for that Reason you should promote this, and compel him into it; especially before he be so, for then, it will be too late to deal with such an one. To the last Part of the Objection, I say the Way is as open now as then; and it may be the Number fewer, and as easily come at. However, if Men of Sense and Honour, and Substance, are chosen, they will either scorn the Baseness, or have wherewith to pay for the Knavery: At least they may be watch’t so, that one may be a check upon the other, and all prudently limited by the Soveraignty they Represent. In all great Points, especially before a final Resolve, they may be obliged to transmit to their Principals, the Merits of such important Cases depending, and receive their last Instructions: which may be done in four and Twenty Days at the most, as the Place of their Session may be appointed.<a name="a_1861716"></a><br />The Second is, That it will endanger an Effeminacy by such a Disuse of the Trade of Soldiery: That if there should be any Need for it, upon any Occasion, we should be at a Loss as they were in Holland in 72.<a name="a_1861717"></a><br />There can be no Danger of Effeminacy, because each Soveraignty may introduce as temperate or Severe a Discipline in the Education of Youth, as they please, by low Living, and due Labour. Instruct them in Mechanical Knowledge, and in natural Philosophy, by Operation, which is the Honour of the German Nobility: This would make them Men: Niether Women nor Lyons: For Soldiers are t’other Extream to Effeminacy. But the Knowledge of Nature, and the useful as well as agreeable Operations of Art, give Men an Understanding of themselves, of the World they are born into, how to be useful and serviceable, both to themselves and others; and how to save and help, not injure or destroy. The Knowledge of Government in General; the particular Constitutions of Europe; and above all, of his own Country, are very recommending Accomplishments. This fits him for the Parliament, and Council at Home, and the Courts of Princes and Services in the Imperial States abroad. At least, he is a good Common-Wealths-Man, and can be useful to the Publick, or retire, as there may be Occasion.<a name="a_1861718"></a><br />To the other Part of the Objection, Of being at a loss for Soldiery as they were in Holland in 72. The Proposal answers for it self. One has War no more than the other; and will be as much to seek upon Occasion. Nor is it to be thought that any one will keep up such an Army after such an Empire is on Foot, which may hazard the Safety of the rest. However, if it be seen requisit, the Question may be askt, by Order of the Soveraign States, why such an one either raises or keeps up a formidable Body of Troops, and he obliged forthwith to reform or Reduce them; lest any one, by keeping up a great Body of Troops, should surprize a Neighbour. But a small Force in every other Soveraignty, as it is capable or accustomed to maintain, will certainly prevent that Danger and Vanquish any such Fear.<a name="a_1861719"></a><br />The Third Objection is, That there will be great Want of Employment for younger Brothers of Families; and that the Poor must either turn Soldiers or Thieves. I have answer’d that in my Return to the Second Objection. We shall have the more Merchants and Husbandmen, or Ingenious Naturalists, if the Government be but any Thing Solicitous of the Education of their Youth: Which, next to the present and immediate Happiness of any Country, ought of all Things, to be the Care and Skill of the Government. For such as the Youth of any Country is bred, such is the next Generation, and the Government in good or bad Hands.<a name="a_1861720"></a><br />I am come now to the last Objection, That Soveraign Princes and States will hereby become not Soveraign; a Thing they will never endure. But this also, under Correction, is a Mistake, for they remain as Soveraign at Home as ever they were. Neither their Power over their People, nor the usual Revenue they pay them, is diminished: It may be the War Establishment may be reduced, which will indeed of Course follow, or be better employed to the Advantage of the Publick. So that the Soveraignties are as they were, for none of them have now any Soveraignty over one another: And if this be called a lessening of their Power, it must be only because the great Fish can no longer eat up the little ones, and that each Soveraignty is equally defended from Injuries, and disabled from committing them: Cedant Arma Togae is a Glorious Sentence; the Voice of the Dove; the Olive Branch of Peace. A Blessing so great, that when it pleases God to chastise us severely for our Sins, it is with the Rod ofWar, that, for the most Part, he whips us: And Experience tells us none leaves deeper Marks behind it.<a name="a_1861721"></a><br /><br /><strong>Section 10</strong><br />Of the real Benefits that flow from this Proposal about Peace.<br /><a name="a_1861723"></a><br />I AM come to my last Section, in which I shall enumerate some of those many real Benefits that flow from this Proposal, for the Present and Future Peace of Europe.<a name="a_1861724"></a><br />Let it not, I pray, be the least, that it prevents the Spilling of so much Humane and Christian Blood: For a Thing so offensive to God, and terrible and afflicting to Men, as that has ever been, must recommend our Expedient beyond all Objections. For what can a Man give in Exchange for his Life, as well as Soul? And tho’ the chiefest in Government are seldom personally exposed, yet it is a Duty incumbent upon them to be tender of the Lives of their People; since without all Doubt, they are accountable to God for the Blood that is spilt in their Service. So that besides the Loss of so many Lives, of importance to any Government, both for Labour and Propagation, the Cries of so many Widows, Parents and Fatherless are prevented, that cannot be very pleasant in the Ears of any Government, and is the Natural Consequence of War in all Government.<a name="a_1861725"></a><br />There is another manifest Benefit which redounds to Christendom, by this Peaceable Expedient, The Reputation of Christianity will in some Degree be recovered in the Sight of Infidels; which, by the many Bloody and unjust Wars of Christians, not only with them, but one with another, hath been greatly impaired. For, to the Scandal of that Holy Profession, Christians, that glory in their Saviour’s Name, have long devoted the Credit and Dignity of it, to their worldly Passions, as often as they have been excited by the Impulses of Ambition or Revenge. They have not always been in the Right: Nor has Right been the Reason of War: And not only Christians against Christians, but the same Sort of Christians have embrewed their Hands in one another’s Blood: Invoking and Interesting, all they could, the Good and Merciful God to prosper their Arms to their Brethren’s Destruction: Yet their Saviour has told them, that he came to save, and not to destroy the Lives of Men: To give and plant Peace among Men: And if in any Sense he may be said to send War, it is the Holy War indeed; for it is against the Devil, and not the Persons of Men. Of all his Titles this seems the most Glorious as well as comfortable for us, that he is the Prince of Peace. It is his Nature, his Office, his Work and the End and excellent Blessing of his Coming, who is both the Maker and Preserver of our Peace with God. And it is very remarkable, that in all the New Testament he is but once called Lyon, but frequently the Lamb of God; to denote to us his Gentle, Meek and Harmless Nature; and that those, who desire to be the Disciples of his Cross and Kingdom, for they are inseparable, must be like him, as St. Paul, St. Peter and St. John tell us.<a class="note_ref" id="c_lf6418_footnote_nt_579" href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=893&chapter=77004&layout=html&Itemid=27#lf6418_footnote_nt_579" name="c_lf6418_footnote_nt_579">6</a> Nor is it said the Lamb shall lye down with the Lyon, but the Lyon shall lye down with the Lamb. That is, War shall yield to Peace, and the Soldier turn Hermite. To be sure, Christians should not be apt to strive, nor swift to Anger against any Body, and less with one another, and least of all for the uncertain and fading Enjoyments of this lower World: And no Quality is exempted from this Doctrine. Here is a wide Field for the Reverend Clergy of Europe to act their Part in, who have so much the Possession of Princes and People too. May they recommend and labour this pacifick Means I offer, which will end Blood, if not Strife; and then Reason, upon free Debate, will be Judge, and not the Sword. So that both Right and Peace, which are the Desire and Fruit of wise Governments, and the choice Blessings of any Country, seem to succeed the Establishment of this Proposal.<a name="a_1861726"></a><br />The third Benefit is, that it saves Money, both to the Prince and People; and thereby prevents those Grudgings and Misunderstandings between them that are wont to follow the devouring Expences of War; and enables both to perform Publick Acts for Learning, Charity, Manufacturies, &c. The Virtues of Government and Ornaments of Countries. Nor is this all the Advantage that follows to Soveraignties, upon this Head of Money and good Husbandry, to whose Service and Happiness this short Discourse is dedicated; for it saves the great Expence that frequent and splendid Embassies require, and all their Appendages of Spies and Intelligence, which in the most prudent Governments, have devoured mighty Sums of Money; and that not without some immoral Practices also: Such as Corrupting of Servants to betray their Masters, by revealing their Secrets; not to be defended by Christian or Old Roman Virtue. But here, where there is nothing to fear, there is little to know, and therefore the Purchase is either cheap, or may be wholly spared. I might mention Pensions to the Widows and Orphans of such as dye in Wars, and of those that have been disabled in them; which rise high in the Revenue of some Countries.<a name="a_1861727"></a><br />Our fourth Advantage is, that the Towns, Cities and Countries, that might be laid waste by the Rage of War, are thereby preserved: A Blessing that would be very well understood in Flanders and Hungary, and indeed upon all the Borders of Soveraignties, which are almost ever the Stages of Spoil and Misery; of which the Stories of England and Scotland do sufficiently inform us without looking over the Water.<a name="a_1861728"></a><br />The fifth Benefit of this Peace, is the Ease and Security of Travel and Traffick: An Happiness never understood since the Roman Empire has been broken into so many Soveraignties. But we may easily conceive the Comfort and Advantage of travelling through the Governments of Europe, by a Pass from any of the Soveraignties of it, which this League and State of Peace will naturally make Authentick: They that have travel’d Germany, where is so great a Number of Soveraignties, know the Want and Value of this Priviledge, by the many Stops and Examinations they meet with by the Way: But especially such as have made the great Tour of Europe. This leads to the Benefit of an Universal Monarchy, without the Inconveniencies that attend it: For when the whole was one Empire, tho’ these Advantages were enjoyed, yet the several Provinces, that now make the Kingdoms and States of Europe, were under some Hardship from the great Sums of Money remitted to the Imperial Seat, and the Ambition and Avarice of their several Proconsuls and Governours, and the great Taxes they paid to the Numerous Legions of Soldiers, that they maintained for their own Subjection, who were not wont to entertain that Concern for them (being uncertainly there, and having their Fortunes to make) which their respective and proper Soveraigns have always shown for them. So that to be Ruled by Native Princes or States, with the Advantage of that Peace and Security that can only render an Universal Monarchy desirable, is peculiar to our Proposal, and for that Reason it is to be preferred.<a name="a_1861729"></a><br />Another Advantage is, The Great Security it will be to Christians against the Inroads of the Turk, in their most Prosperous Fortune. For it had been impossible for the Port, to have prevailed so often, and so far upon Christendom, but by the Carelessness, or Wilful Connivence, if not Aid, of some Christian Princes. And for the same Reason, why no Christian Monarch will adventure to oppose, or break such an Union, the Grand Seignior will find himself obliged to concur, for the Security of what he holds in Europe: Where, with all his Strength, he would feel it an Over-Match for him. The Prayers, Tears, Treason,Blood and Devastation, that War has cost in Christendom, for these Two last Ages especially, must add to the Credit of our Proposal, and the Blessing of the Peace thereby humbly recommended.<a name="a_1861730"></a><br />The Seventh Advantage, of an European, Imperial Dyet, Parliament, or Estates, is, That it will beget and increase Personal Friendship between Princes and States, which tends to the Rooting up of Wars, and Planting Peace in a Deep and Fruitful Soil. For Princes have the Curiosity of seeing the Courts and Cities of other Countries, as well as Private Men, if they could as securely and familiarly gratify their Inclinations. It were a great Motive to the Tranquility of the World, That they could freely Converse Face to Face, and Personally and Reciprocally Give and Receive Marks of Civility and Kindness. An Hospitality that leaves these Impressions behind it, will hardly let Ordinary Matters prevail, to Mistake or Quarrel one another. Their Emulation would be in the Instances of Goodness, Laws, Customs, Learning, Arts, Buildings; and in particular those that relate to Charity, the True Glory of some Governments, where Beggars are as much a Rarity, as in other Places it would be to see none.<a name="a_1861731"></a><br />Nor is this all the Benefit that would come by this Freedom and Interview of Princes: For Natural Affection would hereby be preserved, which we see little better than lost, from the Time their Children, or Sisters, are Married into other Courts. For the present State and Insincerity of Princes forbid them the Enjoyment of that Natural Comfort which is possest by Private Families: Insomuch, that from the Time a Daughter, or Sister, is Married to another Crown, Nature is submitted to Interest, and that, for the most Part, grounded not upon Solid or Commendable Foundations, but Ambition, or Unjust Avarice. I say, this Freedom, that is the Effect of our Pacifick Proposal, restores Nature to Her Just Right and Dignity in the Families of Princes, and them to the Comfort She brings, wherever She is preserved in Her proper Station. Here Daughters may Personally intreat their Parents, and Sisters their Brothers, for a Good Understanding between them and their Husbands, where Nature, not crush’d by Absence, and Sinister Interests, but acting by the Sight and Lively Entreaties of such near Relations, is almost sure to prevail. They cannot easily resist the most affectionate Addresses of such powerful Solicitors, as their Children, and Grand-Children, and their Sisters, Nephews, and Neices: And so backward from Children to Parents, and Sisters to Brothers, to keep up and preserve their own Families, by a good Understanding between their Husbands and them.<a name="a_1861732"></a><br />To conclude this Section, there is yet another Manifest Privilege that follows this Intercourse and Good Understanding, which methinks should be very moving with Princes, viz. That hereby they may chuse Wives for themselves, such as they Love, and not by Proxy, meerly to gratify Interest; an ignoble Motive; and that rarely begets, or continues that Kindness which ought to be between Men and their Wives. A Satisfaction very few Princes ever knew, and to which all other Pleasures ought to resign. Which has often obliged me to think, That the Advantage of Private Men upon Princes, by Family Comforts, is a sufficient Ballance against their Greater Power and Glory: The One being more in Imagination, than Real; and often Unlawful; but the other, Natural, Solid, and Commendable. Besides, it is certain, Parents Loving Well before they are Married, which very rarely happens to Princes, has Kind and Generous Influences upon their Offspring: Which, with their Example, makes them better Husbands, and Wives, in their Turn. This, in great Measure, prevents Unlawful Love, and the Mischiefs of those Intriegues that are wont to follow them: What Hatred, Feuds, Wars, and Desolations have, in divers Ages, flown from Unkindness between Princes and their Wives? What Unnatural Divisions among their Children, and Ruin to their Families, if not Loss of their Countries by it? Behold an Expedient to prevent it, a Natural and Efficacious One: Happy to Princes, and Happy to their People also. For Nature being renewed and strengthened by these Mutual Pledges and Endearments, I have mentioned, will leave those soft and kind Impressions behind in the Minds of Princes, that Court and Country will very easily discern and feel the Good Effects of: Especially if they have the Wisdom to show that they Interest themselves in the Prosperity of the Children and Relations of their Princes. For it does not only incline them to be Good, but engage those Relations to become Powerful Suitors to their Princes for them, if any Misunderstanding should unhappily arise between them and their Soveraigns: Thus ends this Section. It now rests to conclude the Discourse, in which, if I have not pleased my Reader, or answered his Expectation, it is some Comfort to me I meant well, and have cost him but little Money and Time; and Brevity is an Excuse, if not a Virtue, where the Subject is not agreeable, or is but ill prosecuted.<a name="a_1861733"></a><br /><br /><strong>The Conclusion.</strong><a name="a_1861734"></a><br />I WILL conclude this My Proposal of an European, Soveraign, or Imperial Dyet, Parliament, or Estates, with that which I have touch’d upon before, and which falls under the Notice of every One concerned, by coming Home to their Particular and Respective Experience within their own Soveraignties. That by the same Rules of Justice and Prudence, by which Parents and Masters Govern their Families, and Magistrates their Cities, and Estates their Republicks, and Princes and Kings their Principalities and Kingdoms, Europe may Obtain and Preserve Peace among Her Soveraignties. For Wars are the Duels of Princes; and as Government in Kingdoms and States, Prevents Men being Judges and Executioners for themselves, over-rules Private Passions as to Injuries or Revenge, and subjects the Great as well as the Small to the Rule of Justice, that Power might not vanquish or oppress Right, nor one Neighbour act an Independency and Soveraignty upon another, while they have resigned that Original Claim to the Benefit and Comfort of Society; so this being soberly weighed in the Whole, and Parts of it, it will not be hard to conceive or frame, nor yet to execute the Design I have here proposed.<a name="a_1861735"></a><br />And for the better understanding and perfecting of the Idea, I here present to the Soveraign Princes and Estates of Europe, for the Safety and Tranquility of it, I must recommend to their Perusals, Sir William Temple’s Account of the United Provinces;<a class="note_ref" id="c_lf6418_footnote_nt_580" href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=893&chapter=77004&layout=html&Itemid=27#lf6418_footnote_nt_580" name="c_lf6418_footnote_nt_580">7</a> which is an Instance and Answer, upon Practice, to all the Objections that can be advanced against the Practicability of my Proposal: Nay, it is an Experiment that not only comes to our Case, but exceeds the Difficulties that can render it’s Accomplishment disputable. For there we shall find Three Degrees of Soveraignties to make up every Soveraignty in the General States. I will reckon them backwards: First, The States General themselves; Then the Immediate Soveraignties that Constitute them, which are those of the Provinces, answerable to the Soveraignties of Europe, that by their Deputies are to compose the European Dyet, Parliament, or Estates, in our Proposal: And then there are the several Cities of each Province, that are so many Independent or Distinct Soveraignties, which compose those of the Provinces, as those of the Provinces do compose the States General at the Hague.<a name="a_1861736"></a><br />But I confess I have the Passion to wish heartily, that the Honour of Proposing and Effecting so Great and Good a Design, might be owing to England, of all the Countries in Europe, as something of the Nature of our Expedient was, in Design and Preparation, to the Wisdom, Justice, and Valour, Of Henry the Fourth of France, whose Superior Qualities raising His Character above those of His Ancestors, or Contemporaries, deservedly gave Him the Stile of Henry the Great. For He was upon obliging the Princes and Estates of Europe to a Politick Ballance, when the Spanish Faction, for that Reason, contrived, and accomplished His Murder, by the Hands of Ravilliac. I will not then fear to be censured, for proposing an Expedient for the Present and Future Peace of Europe, when it was not only the Design, but Glory of One of the Greatest Princes that ever Reigned in it; and is found Practicable in the Constitution of One of the Wisest and Powerfullest States of it. So that to conclude, I have very Little to answer for in all this Affair; because, if it succeed, I have so Little to deserve: For this Great King’s Example tells us it is fit to be done; and Sir William Temple’s History shews us, by a Surpassing Instance, That it may be done; and Europe, by Her incomparable Miseries, makes it now Necessary to be done: That my Share is only thinking of it at this Juncture, and putting it into the Common Light for the Peace and Prosperity of Europe.<br /><a name="a_1861737"></a><br /><a name="a_1861738"></a><br /><em>The Footnotes are taken from the Online Library of Liberty version of this text. Please limit your use to education and activism,</em><br /><br /><a id="lf6418_footnote_nt_574" href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=893&chapter=77004&layout=html&Itemid=27#c_lf6418_footnote_nt_574" name="lf6418_footnote_nt_574">[1. ]</a>Blessed are the peacemakers (Matthew 5:9); Let arms yield to the toga (refers to the Roman custom of generals laying down their swords and taking up the toga upon entering Rome, as a symbol of setting aside their military command and entering into their civic role).<a name="a_1862313"></a><br /><a id="lf6418_footnote_nt_575" href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=893&chapter=77004&layout=html&Itemid=27#c_lf6418_footnote_nt_575" name="lf6418_footnote_nt_575">[2. ]</a>England under William III was at war almost constantly in opposing James II’s attempts to retake the throne and in heading a Grand Alliance against France.<a name="a_1862314"></a><br /><a id="lf6418_footnote_nt_576" href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=893&chapter=77004&layout=html&Itemid=27#c_lf6418_footnote_nt_576" name="lf6418_footnote_nt_576">[3. ]</a>Oliver Cromwell.<a name="a_1862315"></a><br /><a id="lf6418_footnote_nt_577" href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=893&chapter=77004&layout=html&Itemid=27#c_lf6418_footnote_nt_577" name="lf6418_footnote_nt_577">[4. ]</a>The Treaty of Nimeguen terminated the continental war in 1679.<a name="a_1862316"></a><br /><a id="lf6418_footnote_nt_578" href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=893&chapter=77004&layout=html&Itemid=27#c_lf6418_footnote_nt_578" name="lf6418_footnote_nt_578">[5. ]</a>The Venetian balloting system, designed to make corruption impossible, consisted of a series of votes involving drawn lots and colored balls. See George B. McClellan, The Oligarchy of Venice (Boston, 1904), pp. 159–60.<a name="a_1862317"></a><br /><a id="lf6418_footnote_nt_579" href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=893&chapter=77004&layout=html&Itemid=27#c_lf6418_footnote_nt_579" name="lf6418_footnote_nt_579">[6. ]</a>For Jesus as the lion of Judah, see Revelation 5:5; as lamb, see John 1:29, 36; Acts 8:32; and 1 Peter 1:19.<a name="a_1862318"></a><br /><a id="lf6418_footnote_nt_580" href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=893&chapter=77004&layout=html&Itemid=27#c_lf6418_footnote_nt_580" name="lf6418_footnote_nt_580">[7. ]</a>Sir William Temple, Observations upon the United Provinces of the Netherlands (London, 1676).coordinatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01483215435633115889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001519995842436212.post-867285212358870482009-05-02T19:28:00.001+02:002009-05-06T08:35:39.535+02:00Treaty on the Establishment of Peace throughout Christendom<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAl00sVOPEO9VCmuMXTqrFbtNwDJ8UnxAqNwCfodGNUfgTI70hmRrPGSXeSTT5RixkJMmzQiV25hfnj4DgWzxJD-H0RZd7Ezy_KnAj-rduRQrDDEYZZiCHJYXx5RHynJ69JoNXlN9cVKJD/s1600-h/george_of_podebrady.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5332595860448909634" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 150px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAl00sVOPEO9VCmuMXTqrFbtNwDJ8UnxAqNwCfodGNUfgTI70hmRrPGSXeSTT5RixkJMmzQiV25hfnj4DgWzxJD-H0RZd7Ezy_KnAj-rduRQrDDEYZZiCHJYXx5RHynJ69JoNXlN9cVKJD/s200/george_of_podebrady.gif" border="0" /></a><br /><div>In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We A B C. Let this be known to one and all for eternity: We learn from the writings of ancient historians that Christianity once flourished and was blessed with men and goods, spreading so far and wide that it held in its womb one hundred and seventeen rich kingdoms, that it also brought forth so many people that for a long time it held a large part of pagandom including the Holy Sepulchre; in those days there was no nation in the world which would have dared to challenge Christian rule. But we all know how lacerated it is today, how broken, impoverished and deprived of all its former brilliance and splendour it is. For not long ago Christendom passed through such a change that if any of the ancient kings, princes or notables were to rise from the dead and visit the Christian countries, he would not recognise his very own land. When almost the whole world was strong with the holiness of the Christian religion, the astute Mohammed first led astray the exiguous Arab nation. However, when his first attempts were not opposed, he gradually acquired so many of the lost people that he subjugated very large regions of Africa and Asia and incited them to commit a most detestable treachery. And then the utterly despicable Turks, who had most recently subjugated first the famous Greek Empire and then very many Christian lands and kingdoms, abducted an almost innumerable multitude of souls from the Christian parts, took away everything as bounty, destroyed and defiled many convents and large churches, and perpetrated very many other evils.<br />Oh, golden land! Oh, Christianity, Thou jewel of all lands, how could all Thy glory disappear in such a way, how couldst Thou lose all Thy most magnificent brilliance? Where is the vigour of all Thy people, where is the reverence shown to Thee by all nations, where is Thy royal glory, Thy fame? What good were Thy many victories when so soon Thou werest to be led in a triumphal march? What good does it serve that Thou hast resisted the power of pagan leaders when now Thou art unable to resist the attacks of Thy neighbours? Woe to fate! Woe to vicissitude! How quickly empires change, how quickly kingdoms succeed each other, how quickly governments deteriorate! It is indeed not easy to understand the cause of such change and ruin because the Lord´s designs are hidden. The fields are still as ripe as they used to be, just as prolific are the herds, the vineyards are fruitful, profits flow in from the goldfields and silver mines, men are sensible, industrious, brave and expert in many things, letters flourish as never before. What is it, then, that has so depraved Christianity that only sixteen of the said one hundred and seventeen kingdoms are left in the womb of Christendom? It must be the many sins that God wants to punish as so often before, to which the Old Testament bears witness. Therefore it seems to us that due consideration should be paid to amending what may be erroneous and to mollifying His Divine Majesty with pious acts, as it apparently must be ired by some ill deed. However, since we know that God deals justly and mercifully with those whose wrongs He punishes in this world and that He considers men his sons and those whom He loves He corrects, castigates and leads to virtue through many adversities, we hold, turning our hopes to our Lord whose cause is at stake, that we can do nothing more pious in our integrity, nothing more compatible with our honesty and nothing more glorious for our praise than to strive diligently for the establishment among Christians of true, pure and lasting peace, unity and love, and to defend the faith of Christ against the most vicious Turk. For we have been entrusted with the rule of kingdoms and principalities in order to glorify peace with all possible care and diligence, to uphold the position of Christendom, to bring the wars against the infidel to a successful end, and to guard and extend the frontiers of Christendom; these aims should and must be striven for by all men, all nations and all kings and princes with a joyous and ready mind. For if we call ourselves Christians, we must see to it that the Christian religion is protected; if we do not want to be against Christ, we must fight for His faith and stand with Him. For the Holy Spirit damns those who do not fight on His side, who do not oppose the enemy, who do not stand up like a wall to protect the House of Israel. And no man must be detracted from service to God by the sweetness of his land or magnificent palaces or a multitude of wealth. For we must serve Him, who was not afraid to die for us on the cross, who will reward every believer with the heavenly realm which is our true home, offering and endless abode, incomparable riches and eternal life. And thus, although the fate of the Greeks at this time is sorrowful and although we must loudly mourn the disaster of Constantinople and other lands, we can but rejoice, if we crave for glory, in this opportunity which will allow us to call ourselves defenders and preservers of the Christian name. Therefore, desiring that such wars, plunder, tumult, fires and murders which, alas, have engulfed Christendom almost on all sides, which devastate fields, destroy towns, lacerate lands and ruin through endless miseries kingdoms and principalities, should end and be completely eradicated and that such kingdoms and principalities may be brought through praiseworthy unity into a state of mutual charity and fraternity, we have decided on the basis of reliable knowledge, after thorough preliminary consideration, having prayed to the Holy Spirit for guidance and after consulting and gaining the consent of our prelates, princes, notables, noblemen and doctors of divine and human law, to create such a bond of alliance and degree of fraternity and concord as would endure and last forever for us, our heirs and future successors in the forms indicated bellow:<br />Article 1.First of all, we hereby declare and pledge on the honour of the Catholic faith and upon our royal and princely word that from this hour and day on we shall extend to one another and maintain pure, true and sincere fraternity, that we shall not resort to arms or allow any man to resort to them in our name due to any dissension, quarrel or complaint, but rather that we shall support one another, in accordance with the letter and spirit of the further described provisions, against any living man who might try to attack us or any one of us by a hostile act and without a legitimate edict.<br />Article 2.Secondly, that none of us shall grant assistance or advice, or associate against the person of any other of us, and that we neither ourselves nor through another or others shall in any manner whatsoever conspire to endanger or cause the death of any other of us, nor shall we associate with those who would plot unlawful machinations, but that we shall care as much as possible for the maintenance of the health, life and honour of the others.<br />Article 3.Thirdly, we pledge in the aforesaid manner that if one or some of the subjects of any one of us commit some devastation, plunder, robbery, arson or other crimes in the kingdoms, principalities or provinces of any other of us, our will is that the said peace and unity will thereby not be abolished or broken, but that such malefactors will be forced by him within whose area of jurisdiction they reside or on whose territory they are discovered as delinquents to give satisfaction voluntarily or in court, so that the damage caused by them will be compensated from their property, they themselves to be duly punished in accordance with the nature of their crime; those criminals held in contempt of court shall be pursued and prosecuted by their lords, both according to their domicile and the place of the committed crime, without such lords waiting for the other to take action. If any of us, in whose territory the delinquent is domiciled or on whose territory the crime is committed and the delinquent detained, neglects and fails to proceed as provided above, the person who has suffered injustice or damage may prosecute and sue such one of us in the below described parliament or consistory, because under the law he and the delinquent should suffer the same penalty.<br />Article 4.Fourthly, we provide that if some person or persons standing outside this covenant and our charity and fraternity, without having been injured by us or without having been provoked, should begin war against any of us, or intend to begin it (which we need not fear, if this amity and charity persist), our below described assembly shall dispatch in the name of all the parties to the present covenant and at our joint expense, even if the attacked companion does not so request, its solemn envoys to settle the dispute and restore peace to a place suitable to the parties, and there, in the presence of the parties in dispute or their envoys invested with full powers, they shall diligently strive to bring the parties in dispute to concord and peace through friendship, if possible, or persuade them to appoint arbitrators or seek justice before a competent judge or parliament or consistory in the below described manner. And if owing to the person who started the war, or through his fault, peace and unity cannot be obtained by negotiation, all of us shall help our attacked or self-defending companion by unanimous and concordant decision to defend himself from the tithes of our kingdoms and from the incomes, profits, and yields of our subjects which they spend on their homes and households on the average in three days of every year, in such a sum and for such a time as this our assembly or its majority may decide and determine as being proportionate and suitable for our attacked companion to obtain peace.<br />Article 5.In order to facilitate the suppression of dissidence and wars, the very thoughts of which pains those who have to experience them, and in order to strengthen peace also among others faithful to Christ who are not parties to the present covenant, we hereby provide and order that if discord or war should occur between other Christian princes and magnates who are not included in our fraternity, our below described assembly shall dispatch in our name and at our mutual expense envoys whose task will be to restore concord between the parties in dispute, if possible by friendly means, or by way of law, as stated above; if both parties or one of them do not wish to be reconciled and to desist from fighting and wars, the person who started the war or who does not wish to desist from it shall be brought to order in the manner and forms described in the preceding article.<br />Article 6.We provide further that those who dare in any manner whatsoever disturb our present peace must not and cannot be received, employed, protected, supported or granted any favour under any pretense whatsoever in any of our kingdoms, principalities, estates, territories and districts, castles, towns, villages or forts; instead, irrespective of any letter of safe conduct they may possess, they shall be arrested, captured and punished as violators of general peace in accordance with the nature of their crime or excess, as each of them merits.<br />Article 7.Furthermore, we provide and hereby order our officials and subjects, all and each separately, never to take any man under their protection and tuition - jointly or individually - and in no manner whatsoever to grant him a general or special letter of safe conduct without reserving in advance, particularly and expressly, that such letter of safe conduct or protection will not protect and guard the person to whom it is issued against the measures of our present peace, so that if he is accused and suspected of or indicted for violating the peace, action may be taken against him in the above stated manner without any hindrance, including the process of justice.<br />Article 8.Whosoever knowingly associates with a violator of the present peace and under any pretense whatsoever grants him counsel, assistance or favour, or receives him, or dares to protect or defend him or issue him a letter of safe conduct contrary to our present union, shall himself be punished by the same penalty as the culprit.<br />Article 9.As the cult of peace is unthinkable without justice, and justice without such endeavours, because peace is born of justice and is upheld by it, and because we and our subjects cannot subsist in peace without justice, we link justice with the cause of peace; however, because the law written on judicial matters has undergone many changes in the passing of time, having reached the stage where it has gradually lost all its significance and has been given a completely different interpretation in practice, we consider judicial procedure to be utterly confused and hold that in accordance with the customs, usages and conditions of the new times and of our various provinces, kingdoms and principalities, new laws drawn from the heart of the nature must be introduced and that new evils must be opposed by new remedies under which the virtuous will be rewarded and the vicious constantly crushed under the hammer of penalties. And in order to settle individual matters in proper order, we have decided, first of all, to establish a single general consistory which will sit in the name of all of us and our whole assembly at the place where the assembly is sitting at that time, and from it, as from a spring, rivulets of justice will flow to all sides. This court shall be established in accordance with what our below described assembly or its majority may conclude and decide with respect to the number of its members, their qualification, and the rules of its procedure.<br />Article 10.And in order that disputes be brought to an end in this court and not be protracted indefinitely, we hereby will that in accordance with the nature of the dispute, the judge himself and the assessors conduct the proceedings for the parties in dispute and find justice simply and clearly, without formalities and judicial clamour, by disposing of all subterfuges and frustrating delays.</div>coordinatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01483215435633115889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001519995842436212.post-16274464151256686732009-04-26T22:42:00.004+02:002009-05-05T21:23:05.181+02:00Hanna's Town Resolves<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjq-1ORtM8sWEkXBCC6fAQb_QAu5dGP4I25RBLKD6vRTKrIj9JUfeglXQfjc1UFF3yMQiy-fTPDOr6g_3SoC3ktq6a5ZKRVW00oJGwYhpDmZ2nwKnsC5RMd07_vwgETAl-US2w_KndeeVkX/s1600-h/Hanna's+Town+with+women.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5331514444331071778" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 200px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 130px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjq-1ORtM8sWEkXBCC6fAQb_QAu5dGP4I25RBLKD6vRTKrIj9JUfeglXQfjc1UFF3yMQiy-fTPDOr6g_3SoC3ktq6a5ZKRVW00oJGwYhpDmZ2nwKnsC5RMd07_vwgETAl-US2w_KndeeVkX/s200/Hanna's+Town+with+women.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>On May 16, 1775, settlers in the far west of Pennsylvania, along with Arthur St. Clair (The Penn government’s local representative) gathered at the tavern “also serving as the seat of government” in Hanna's Town and affixed their names to the Hanna's Town Resolves agreeing to bind themselves together and to take up arms if necessary to resist further "tyrannical" acts of Parliament. More than a year later, the Declaration of Independence would be signed in Philadelphia.<br /><br />The full and original text of the Hanna’s Town Resolves are included here. There is also a more detailed history of the place and time at the end of this article.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div><strong>The Hanna's Town Resolves</strong></div><br /><div></div><br /><div>"Resolved unanimously, That the Parliament of Great Britain, by several late acts, have declared the inhabitants of Massachusetts Bay to be in Rebellion, and the ministry, by endeavoring to enforce those acts, have attempted to reduce the said inhabitants to a more wretched state of slavery than ever before existed in any state or country. Not content with violating their constitutional and chartered privileges, they would strip them of the rights of humanity, exposing lives to the wanton and unpunishable sport of licentious soldiery, and depriving them of the very means of subsistence." "Resolved unanimously, That there is no reason to doubt that the same system of tyranny and oppression will (should it meet with success in Massachusetts Bay) be extended to every other part of America: It is therefore become the indispensable duty of every American, of every man who has any public virtue or love for his country, or any bowels for posterity, by every means which God has put in his power, to resist and oppose the execution of it; that for us we will be ready to oppose it with our lives and fortunes. And the better to enable us to accomplish it, we will immediately form ourselves into a military body, to consist of companies to be made up out of the several townships under the following association, which is declared to be the Association of Westmoreland County." "Possessed with the most unshaken loyalty and fidelity to His Majesty, King George the Third, whom we acknowledge to be our lawful and rightful King, and who we wish may long be the beloved sovereign of a free and happy people throughout the whole British Empire; we declare to the world, that we do not mean by this Association to deviate from that loyalty which we hold in our bounded duty to observe, but, animated with the love of liberty, it is no less our duty to maintain and defend our just rights (which, with sorrow, we have seen of late wantonly violated in many instances by a wicked Ministry and a corrupted Parliament) and transmit them to our posterity, for purpose which we do agree and associate together:" "1st. To arm and form ourselves into a regiment or regiments, and choose officers to command us in such proportions as shall be thought necessary." "2nd. We will, with alacrity, endeavor to make ourselves masters of the manual exercise, and such evolutions as may be necessary to enable us to act in a body with concert; and to that end we will meet at such times and places as shall be appointed either for the companies or the regiment, by the officers commanding each when chosen." "3rd. That should our country be invaded by a foreign enemy, or should troops be sent from Great Britain to enforce the late arbitrary acts of its Parliament, we will cheerfully submit to military discipline, and to the utmost of our power resist and oppose them, or either of them, and will coincide with any plan that may be formed for the defense of America in general, or Pennsylvania in particular." "4th. That we do not wish or desire any innovations, but only that things may be restored to, and go on in the same way as before the era of the Stamp Act, when Boston grew great, and America was happy. As a proof of this disposition, we will quietly submit to the laws by which we have been accustomed to be governed before that period, and will, in our general or associate capacities, be ready when called on to assist the civil magistrate in carrying the same in execution.'' "5th. That when the British Parliament shall have repealed their late obnoxious statutes, and shall recede from their claim to tax us, and make laws for us in every instance; or when some general plan of union and reconciliation has been formed and accepted by America, this our Association shall be dissolved; but till then it shall remain in full force; and to the observation of it, we bind ourselves by everything dear and sacred amongst men." "No licensed murder: no famine introduced by law? "Resolved that on Wednesday, the twenty-fourth instant, the township meets to accede to the said Association and choose their officer." Adopted at a general meeting of the inhabitants of the County of Westmoreland, held at Hanna's Town the 16th day of May, 1775 for taking into consideration the very alarming situation of the country, occasioned by the dispute with Great Britain.</div><br /><div><br /><br /><strong>Early History of Westmoreland County</strong><br /><br />Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania was the last county established under the Penn proprietary government during the tumultuous final years of British rule prior to the outbreak of the American Revolution. I was probably named after Westmoreland county in northwestern England, but the origins of the word: “west of the dark land” were appropriate for this Westernmost land of King George’s land.<br /><br />Nearly a century and a half passed from the time of the founding of the first permanent English colony at Jamestown, Virginia (1607) before Europeans entered the land west of the Allegheny Mountains and into what is now western Pennsylvania. That account is detailed in the diary of Christopher Gist, surveyor and agent for the Ohio Company of Virginia, who on November 12 through 14, 1750, stayed at a Delaware Indian town at Loyalhannon, near present day Ligonier, Pennsylvania. The first white settlement within the region of old Westmoreland was sponsored by the Ohio Company in what is present day Fayette County in 1752. Virginia continued to lay claim to the region through the onset of the American Revolution.<br /><br />General Braddock's ill-fated 1755 military expedition to dislodge the French and their Indian allies at Fort Duquesne (Pittsburgh) established a major transportation artery, Braddock's Road, into Western Pennsylvania. This military road, from Virginia through Cumberland, Maryland provided easy access to Western Pennsylvania for immigrants from Maryland, Virginia and the western Carolinas. It was not until General Forbes built a military road from Carlisle, Pennsylvania to present-day Pittsburgh in 1758, that the door was opened for settlers from eastern Pennsylvania to start settlements in what is now Westmoreland County. The Forbes Road, or the "Great Road" as it was known to the thousands of settlers to follow, entered present-day Westmoreland County at the top of the Laurel Ridge near where a fort was constructed. It was named Fort Ligonier by General Forbes in honor of Sir John Viscount Ligonier, Commander-in-Chief of all of the kings forces. By the fall of 1758, Fort Ligonier was the military springboard for the assault on Fort Duquesne that drove the French from western Pennsylvania. The Forbes Road continued from Ligonier through present-day Hanna's Town (near Greensburg, Pennsylvania) and on to the forks of the Monongahela, Allegheny and Ohio Rivers where General Forbes would rename the captured French fort, "Pittsbourgh" in honor of the British Prime Minister William Pitt. By eighteenth century frontier standards, the Forbes Road provided a "superhighway" into the western Pennsylvania wilderness. The duel for North America between England and France known to the Americans as the French and Indian War, ended in victory for the British in 1763.<br /><br />The end of the French and Indian War resulted in the British government issuing the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Issued to placate the Native American tribes who were complaining about the encroachment of white settlers on their lands, the act forbade English settlement beyond the head waters draining into the Atlantic Ocean from the Crest of Laurel Hill. Neither the threats of arrest nor later enactment of a death penalty for violators of the law stopped squatters and some early traders from moving into the area. Fueled by glowing accounts of the land to the west, taken back east by the soldiers of Braddock and Bouquet's armies, settlers poured into western Pennsylvania in pursuit of land.<br /><br />As the area of Westmoreland County began to be settled, the composition of the population began to take shape. In the main they were the landless, the disinherited and the disenfranchised. They were bold, aggressive, hardy, courageous and self-reliant. They often had little respect for authority or title. Having experienced arbitrary and capricious government in England, they were zealous defenders of personal liberty and self-government. Ethnically, the<br />majority of the population in early Westmoreland was composed of Scotch-Irish, German and English settlers.<br /><br /><strong>Westmoreland County Created<br /></strong><br />The Penn government soon found it necessary to create a new county, both to establish the province's ownership of the land and to establish law and order in an area, where many unruly individuals cared little about civil law or the laws concerning land ownership. The same statute that created Westmoreland County also designated Hanna's Town along the Forbes Road, as the<br />temporary county seat. Robert Hanna and town residents Joseph Erwin and Samuel Sloan were appointed along with George Wilson and John Cavett as trustees to choose a permanent county seat. Hanna and his neighbors outvoted Wilson and Cavett who favored Pittsburgh. It was in Robert Hanna's tavern, on April 6, 1773, that the first English court west of the Alleghenies was organized with Robert Hanna as presiding judge.<br /></div><br /><div><strong>Westmoreland County and the New Republic</strong></div><br /><div><br />In addition to the Hanna’s Town Resolves, a second event relative to Westmoreland's role in the American Revolution occurred during the brief life of Hanna's Town when some officers and men of the British Indian Department and their Seneca Indian allies attacked and burned Hanna's Town on July 13, 1782 in retaliation for American atrocities committed against them. Although rebuilt to some degree, the town never recovered. Archaeological surveys begun in 1969 have resulted in a partial reconstruction of the town and its stockade. The site is a designated National Historic Registered Site as well as a Westmoreland County Park and is administered by the Westmoreland County Historical Society. The need to re-establish the county, seat resulted in a committee of trustees, appointed by the General Assembly, selecting Greensburg (then called New-town) as the new county seat. Greensburg was located on the new state road which ran from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh. Parts of this road would later become the Lincoln Highway. The first court at the new county seat was held on January 7, 1787 in a log building on the site of the present court house. Rapid growth and the press of county business resulted in the construction of new courthouses on the same site in 1798, 1856 and the present French Renaissance structure completed in 1907. After the Colonial War for Independence, Westmoreland, the "mother county", gave "birth" in their entirety, to five counties that were carved from her original boundaries - Allegheny, Armstrong, Fayette, Indiana and Washington. After 1800, eleven other counties in the western section of Pennsylvania - Beaver, Butler, Clarion, Crawford, Erie, Forest, Greene, Lawrence, Mercer, Venango, and Warren - were created in part from these counties making Old Westmoreland a "grandmother" county as well.<br /><br />Findley, whose home was along the Loyalhanna Creek near Latrobe, served as Westmoreland County's first Congressman. A staunch anti-Federalist, he was elected to Congress in 1791 and served for twenty-two years. Findley opposed the tax on whiskey levied during Washington's administration. He also opposed the shortlived Whiskey Rebellion that followed.<br /><br /><em>Adapted from “WESTMORELAND COUNTY A Short History” Prepared by the Westmoreland County Historical Society 1997. </em><a href="http://www.starofthewest.org/images/shorthistory.pdf"><em>http://www.starofthewest.org/images/shorthistory.pdf</em></a> </div>coordinatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01483215435633115889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001519995842436212.post-10062930147686907952008-12-27T13:19:00.003+01:002009-05-21T23:09:47.871+02:00Civilis Stands Up<span style="font-family:arial;">The Bativian tribe revolts against the oppressive imperial rule of Nero in 69 A.D.. They wish to return to rule by their local tribal councils rather than far distant Rome. Legends of bravery during this time inspires the Dutch people in the struggle against the Spanish Empire 1500 years later.</span>coordinatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01483215435633115889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001519995842436212.post-75363936097765314822008-12-23T22:47:00.002+01:002009-05-06T08:51:00.484+02:00Ancient Mesopatanian Democracy?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRSZL1hm27M3ui6eWPh1PQ8mSuwHVVR0XXHq8IIE3l-EQbr7xg6TJ545yAxv37RPJeeRrzYY5W4H9twssbeoMoTH8VfUe_Lp2zhjVz_9RTmYN-NYPoRMUHRCQkHLvNUrKgUxV14bUOIXcq/s1600-h/meso+lion.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5332599544720609202" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 200px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 167px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRSZL1hm27M3ui6eWPh1PQ8mSuwHVVR0XXHq8IIE3l-EQbr7xg6TJ545yAxv37RPJeeRrzYY5W4H9twssbeoMoTH8VfUe_Lp2zhjVz_9RTmYN-NYPoRMUHRCQkHLvNUrKgUxV14bUOIXcq/s200/meso+lion.bmp" border="0" /></a> <div>In searching East and West for original democratic traditions, one need not retreat when confronted with monarchy, aristocracy, nobility, or slavery. In fact, the search must begin in the East, not the West, for it is in the East that early original egalitarian societies first developed hierarchies and blossomed into mature civilisations, clustered around life-giving sources of water which provided not only irrigation but also arteries of commerce and communication, stimulating urbanisation.<br />In fact, the earliest such civilisation, Mesopotamia, was named for its position between the two great rivers the Tigris and the Euphrates (Greek mesos, middle, and potamos, river). It is the earliest prototype for Wittfogel's "hydraulic society", which necessitates and produces Oriental despotic power - "total and not benevolent".(2) Indeed, the most common recollections of Mesopotamia are those of original imperial despotisms.<br />However, the story of the birth of an empire, focusing on the forces that it took to weld it out of scattered communities, may not bother to look unto the character of the original communities. It was, in fact, the search for steady irrigation that brought farming communities to the alluvial lowlands of the Tigris-Euphrates system around 4000 B.C. In apparent contradiction to the Wittfogel theory, there was no spontaneous growth of centralized despotism among them - only villages that "were relatively self-sufficient and politically autonomous".(3) 500 years later, they developed their first cities, and still 500 years later, they put together the first known system of handwriting.<br />At that point, Service points out, "we merge archaeology (prehistory) with documentary history. It is documentary history that tells us of life and government in the Mesopotamian cities".<br />A. Leo Oppenheim writes of the coexistence of two components in Mesopatamian society, in a "pattern (which) maintained its effectiveness through three millennia". First there was:<br />" the community of persons of equal status bound together by a consciousness of belonging, realized by directing their communal affairs by means of an assembly, in which, under a presiding officer, some measure of consensus was reached as it was the case in the rich and quasi-independent old cities of Babylonia."(4)<br />Side by side with this democratic configuration, there was a second "organization of persons entirely different in structure and temperament from the community just mentioned, whose center and raison d'etre was either the temple or the palace, either the household of the deity or that of the king". Here, then, we have an early instance of a kingdom, within the tight confines of its city-state where the population was within reach of the royal power, which not only tolerated but complemented an operative popular sovereignty. "The solidarity of a Mesopotamian city," observes Oppenheim, "is reflected in the absence of any status or ethnic or tribal articulation". The city's community of citizens "constituted as an assembly" not only administered the city under a presiding official, but also made legal decisions, some of them ceremonially confirmed by the king. Its coexistence with the temple-palace system created for the Mesopotamian city "an equilibrium of forces and an overall harmony that endowed the city with the longevity which the Greek Polis could not achieve"(5)<br />However, it is another anthropologist, Thorkild Jacobsen, who provides us with deeper, and more sanguine, insights into the democratic character of Ancient Mesopotamia. Jacobsen read a paper entitled, "Primitive Democracy in Ancient Mesopotamia" at the meeting of the American Oriental Society in Chicago in April, 1941. His "primitive" is more substance than form, where "sovereignty resides in the citizens", but "the various functions of government are as yet little specialized, the power structure is loose, and the machinery for social coordination is as yet imperfectly developed". He then portrays a Mesopotamia where the classic historical confrontation between democratic and autocratic tendencies takes place. The autocratic drive was strong: "The country formed a mosaic of diminutive, self-sufficient autonomous city-states, and in each such state one individual, the ruler, united in his hands the chief political powers: legislative, judiciary and executive". This autocratic momentum "drove Mesopotamia forward relentlessly toward the more distant aim: centralization of power within one large area". Lugal-Zaggisi achieved this goal with his "activities imperial", followed by King Sargon and the highly organized bureaucratic state of the Third Dynasty of Ur.(6)<br />Working its way up against this autocratic downstream was the egalitarian instinct of the original society, producing seemingly anachronistic democratic institutions. In Assyria, the highest judicial authority was a general assembly of all the colonists: karum sahir rabi - "the colony young and old" - which could be called into session by a clerk only at the bidding of a majority of its senior members. If the clerk issues the call at the request of only one individual, he was fined ten shekels of silver! Besides discharging judicial functions, the general assembly had its political duties. For example, it could overrule objections of particular colonists to the coming commissaries sent by the legal authorities of the mother-city Assur.<br />In Babylonia, where "we are very naturally struck first of all by the degree to which royal power is there in evidence", anyone had recourse directly to the king for redress, and he could delegate each case to suitable courts for decision. But alongside the king and his judicial powers stood "the Babylonian city", whose town mayor and town elders settled minor disputes and where the whole town - Puhrum, the "assembly" - decided important cases "according to its own local ideas of right and wrong".<br />To prove that participation in the Puhrum and its judicial function was not limited to a favoured class but was open, perhaps with some degree of compulsion, to all citizens, Jacobsen quotes a Babylonian proverb which presages modern day counsel from stand-up comedians to potential witness summons dodgers and jury-duty evaders:Do not go stand in the assemblyDo not stray to the very place of strifeIt is precisely in strife that fate may overtake you;Besides, you may be made witness for them.So that they take you along to testify in a lawsuitNot your own.(6)<br />Jacobsen believes that these democratic judicial institutions were not the vanguard of a vigorous democratic thrust, but rather "a last stronghold, a stubborn survival, of ideas rooted in earlier ages". Thus, perhaps unwittingly, he refutes those who, whilst ostensibly advocating support of democracy for all nations, insist that it can only come with growth, progress and development.<br />As Jacobsen looks backward in time at Mesopotamian history, "the competence and influence of the 'assembly' appears to grow and to extend from judiciary functions to other, even more vital, aspects of government". In the days of the kings of Akkad, "the assembly deemed it within its authority to choose a king". Farther back, in older tradition concerning Uruk in the time of Gilgamesh, "beyond the border line of history proper", the ruler consults the assembly in important matters of peace and war. Gilgamesh, lord of Uruk, is remembered as consulting first the senate, "the elders of Uruk", and then the assembly, "the men of the town", before he decides to arm for a fight with King Agga of Kish. His consultation is not only for advice but for consent, and, Jacobsen correctly concludes, the assembly is recognised as "the ultimate political authority".(7)<br />The success of the early Mesopotamian democratic thrust appears to be traceable to the fact that the egalitarian values of the primitive population were successfully translated into religious legend.<br />The Sumerians and the Akkadians projected their human terrestrial conditions into their world of gods and goddesses, who reflected early Mesopotamian culture by organising themselves politically along democratic lines. There was, according to the Adad myth, an assembly of gods and goddesses usually held in a large court called Ubshuukkinna.<br />An, the god of heaven and "father of the gods", was their presiding officer, and Enlil, god of the storm, was their executive officer and discussion leader. There were fifty "senior gods" - corresponding to the earthly seniors in the Assyrian karum - who handled the discussion, and seven deciding "gods of fates", corresponding to the group of seven members of the karum entitled to seal documents.<br />The assembly's functions were not only judicial. It also had the authority to grant kingship and to take it back. The period of the kingship was called a bala, the same word applied to the term of earthly Sumerian kings and - in its altered form palu - to that of the rulers of Akkad.<br />The elections of Mesopotamian kings of that period were dramatically confirmed as late as 1976 by the excavations which yielded the remains of the lost kingdom of Ebla, which flourished in 2500 B.C., a "large and thriving commercial, administrative, and intellectual center with economic and political institutions that sound remarkably familiar".(8)<br />The diggings yielded some 15,000 clay tablets or fragments written in Sumerian cuneiform. The king of Elba, according to the records discovered in the palace archives, was elected for a seven-year term and shared power with a council of elders. The King, (we would probably call him president today) who lost reelection bids retired on a government pension!<br />What is involved here is not a primitive, prehierarchical society or a hierarchical society of limited scope, - such as a village or even a town or city-state. Ebla, whose existence had long been inferred from Mesopotamian literature, now rises in history, through its own records, as a fairly extended kingdom of at least 250,000 inhabitants - a large population in those days - with a capital city of 30,000 residents "of whom a eleven thousand seven hundred were civil servants". It was a society of highly organized sophistication. The findings included Sumerian-Eblaite dictionaries of more than 3000 words, expense accounts of traveling diplomats, and even a list of beers, one of which was called ebla, "pronounced just like the city", write Bermant and Weitzman, venturing to add the obvious observation. "could it have been the beer that made Ebla famous?"(9)<br />Ebla appears to have hosted international conferences and dominated many other kingdoms and cities politically and economically. Among its principal trading partners were the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, whose historical reality had been doubted until now.<br />So the thrust of Mesopotamian democracy, which even its enthusiastic commentator Jacobsen would cautiously trace as a declining tradition from "beyond the border line of history proper", now receives even stronger confirmation in recorded history than that which already had been found for it by Jacobsen and, after him, Oppenheim.<br />A little less than 4000 years before the maturing of British Parliamentarianism, the founding of the Swiss Confederation, and the birth of the American republic, we find in Mesopotamia a likeness of a political system which, although with much cruder and broader strokes of the brush, strikingly resembles the finer lines of the Swiss and American written constitutions and the unwritten charter of the British system.<br />On one fine but crucial point the Mesopotamian democracy may have been superior to at least the current Swiss system. The Puhrum, or assembly of the Babylonian gods, was open to goddesses. An old Babylonian hymn, the song of the goddess Ishtar, relates that "in their (i.e. that gods') assembly her word is highly esteemed, is surpassing; she sits among them counting as much (with them) as Anum, their king".(10) If the reality of the Babylonian system was, as we have seen above, but a reflection of the democratic legends of the Babylonian deities, the women may have participated in the earthly Puhrum. In Switzerland, women received the right to vote in the constitution only in 1971, and up to this writing they may not vote or even participate in some cantons in those open-air, popular assemblies for which Switzerland has had such a rightful claim to fame.<br />The Eblan discovery, as well as the Oppenheim and Jacobsen theses, may now enable us to cross the line between substance and form. As we move from the cradle of civilization to its neighbour, India, we may perhaps begin to feel entitled to suspect that, whether in form or substance, democracy may have been, indeed, the natural state of early man wherever he may have been.</div><div></div><div> </div><div>This article is Chapter 3 from the late Raul S. Manglapus' book Will of the People: Original Democracy in Non-Western Societies. Manglapus' overall thesis is that democracy is not a Western concept but "a value that has been treasured and practiced in the East - in Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere - as far back as at least 2500 B.C." With impressive research through eighteen case studies in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and the Americas, he argues persuasively that democracy is the natural state of most of mankind. He says it was practiced naturally in the earliest tribes and villages through among other things, discussion, consensus and customary law and that it preceded despotism in all civilisations. In the chapter we have reproduced, slightly edited, below, Manglapus argues that the earliest formal democracy gradually developed in Mesopotamia, that is today's Iraq, between 2500 and 4000 B.C.</div><div></div><br /><div><a title="Freedom House" href="http://www.freedomhouse.org/" target="_blank">Freedom House</a>, New York, 1987. Manglapus was a lawyer, Philippine senator, and a Foreign Secretary under President Corazon Aquino. He founded and led the Philippine Progressive Party (PPP), and under its banner unsuccessfully ran for president. In the post-Marcos era, he founded the National Union of Christian Democrats (NUCD) which supported presidents Aquino, Ramos and Arroyo. Early in his career, he became the secretary-general in 1954 of the founding conference of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) and the following year vice chairman of the Philippine delegation to the famous Asian-African Conference at Bandung, Indonesia. He wrote Will of the People while in exile during the Marcos years. His hands-on research took him to every country and region of the world he discusses. Manglapus visited Melbourne in September 1966 and a luncheon in his honour was organised by our editor and a number of other people in the process of establishing the Pacific Institute, a regional organisation dedicated to the development of liberal democratic institutions of which Manglapus was to become an active member and our editor its secretary general. Mesopotamia: Earlist Formal Democracy? By Raul S. Manglapus</div><br /><div>2 See Karl S. Wittfogel, Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1957<br /></div><div>3 Elman R. Service, Origins of the State and Civilization, Norton, New York, 1975, p.20.<br /></div><div>4 A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1964, p.95.<br /></div><div>5 Oppenheim, p.114.<br /></div><div>6 See Journal of Near Eastern Studies, July 1943, pp.159ff.<br /></div><div>6 Jacobsen, p.25.<br /></div><div>7 Jacobsen, p.161.<br /></div><div>8 Chaim Bermant and Michael Weitzman, Ebla: A Revelation in Archaeology, excerpted in the New York Times, 16th January 1979, p.C-1.</div><div> </div><div>9 Bermant and Weitzman, p. 159. </div><div><br />10 Jacobsen, p.163.</div><br /><div></div>coordinatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01483215435633115889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001519995842436212.post-69549366478913074472008-12-23T22:25:00.001+01:002009-05-06T08:55:59.128+02:00THE DEATH OF VERGINIA<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgovseI578nV_juHuImXPpYVaisrY9TZhyphenhyphengR5sWybZhfEy3uQkuziXGCTtD7hOw19FjbXEN57GK08iNNPerrZbc1L5ZUybwIIHJfzSp_qV_-2JHQdCDRoH7Vjz4GhgYm6op2XX03yOJoCzw/s1600-h/verginia.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5332601074686185570" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 143px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgovseI578nV_juHuImXPpYVaisrY9TZhyphenhyphengR5sWybZhfEy3uQkuziXGCTtD7hOw19FjbXEN57GK08iNNPerrZbc1L5ZUybwIIHJfzSp_qV_-2JHQdCDRoH7Vjz4GhgYm6op2XX03yOJoCzw/s200/verginia.gif" border="0" /></a> <div align="justify">APPIUS CLAUDIUS did not go to the war. He stayed in Rome, and before long roused the temper of <span style="font-family:arial;">the people beyond control.<br />Verginius, a brave plebeian soldier, was with the army, and in his absence he had left his beautiful young daughter Verginia in the care of her nurse.<br />One day as the young girl was on her way to school in the Forum, Appius Claudius saw how beautiful she was, and he determined to take her away from her father and Icilius, to whom she was betrothed.<br />But alth</span>ough he did his utmost to persuade the maiden to go home with him, Verginia refused to leave her father's house.<br />Then Appius Claudius grew angry, and vowed to himself that he would take her away by foul means, since fair ones had failed.<br />So the tyrant ordered a man, named Marcus Claudius, to declare that Verginia was not a free Roman maiden, as Verginius had pretended, but was a slave belonging to himself.<br />This Marcus did, and then, seeing the girl one day in the Forum, he tried to lay hold of her. But her nurse cried aloud for help, so that a crowd quickly gathered, and hearing what had happened, it vowed to protect Verginia, until her father and her betrothed returned from the camp.<br />Then Marcius did as Appius Claudius had secretly bidden him. He said that he did not wish to harm the maiden, indeed, he was even willing to take the matter to law.<br />So, followed by the crowd, he led Verginia before the judge, who was no other than Appius Claudius.<br />Here Marcus announced that he could prove to Verginius that the maiden was not really his child, but belonged to a slave who lived in his house. Meanwhile he demanded that the maiden should be given into his charge.<br />But the crowd did not believe what Marcus said, nor did they care to let the young girl leave her home in her father's absence.<br />"Send to the camp for Verginius," cried the people, heedless of the angry looks of the judge. "Verginia is a free maiden, and shall stay with her friends until she is proved a slave."<br />With an effort, Appius Claudius concealed his real feelings, and, speaking with the dignity of a judge, he said: "The maiden belongs either to Verginius or to Marcus. As Verginius is absent, Marcus shall take charge of her until her father returns, when the case shall again come before me."<br />But to such an unfair sentence the people refused to submit. So fierce was their temper that they would have forced Claudius to leave the city had he not reluctantly allowed Verginia to stay with her friends until the following day. If Verginius did not then appear at his tribunal Marcus should claim the maiden without delay, said Claudius.<br />Icilius had by this time returned to the city, and he at once sent to the camp, beseeching Verginius to let nothing keep him from at once coming to Rome.<br />But Claudius also sent a messenger to the camp, bidding his officers on no account to allow Verginius to leave his post.<br />Fortunately, the messenger sent by Icilius reached the camp first, and Verginius was already hastening to the city when his officer received the order sent by Claudius.<br />The next morning Claudius went to the Forum, sure that before the day was over he would have secured Verginia.<br />What was his surprise and anger to see that Verginius, whom he had believed to be safely detained at camp, was [82] already there by the side of his daughter, accompanied by many Roman matrons and a crowd of people.<br />The judge could hear the voice of Verginius as he drew near. He was speaking to the people, and Claudius knew too well how easily the passions of the mob could be roused.<br />"It is not only my daughter that is not safe," Verginius was saying; "who will dare henceforth to leave their children in Rome if I am robbed of my child?"<br />As the matrons listened they wept, thinking of the fate that might overtake their own dear daughters.<br />Claudius was now much too angry to try to humour the people.<br />Bidding Verginius be silent, he at once gave his verdict that the maiden should be given to Marcus, until her father had proved that she was free-born.<br />The people stood silent, stunned for the moment by the wickedness of the judge. But as Marcus drew near to lead Verginia away, her friends gathered around her, refusing to let the man come near her.<br />Then, in his rage, Claudius bade his lictors drive the people away, and they, raising their axes, soon scattered the crowd, for it was unarmed.<br />Verginius, turning quietly to Claudius, asked that he might at least speak apart for a moment to his daughter and her nurse. His request was granted. Then the poor father in his desperate sorrow knew that there was but one thing to be done. To trust his daughter to these wicked men was not to be thought of, so, drawing her into his arms, he snatched a knife from one of the stalls, and whispered in her ear: "My child, there is no other way to free thee." Swift and sure, even as he spoke, he plunged the knife into his daughter's heart.<br />Turning to the unjust judge, Verginius cursed him to his face; then breaking through the crowd, he sped to the city gates, and mounting a horse, rode in hot haste back to the camp.<br />Meanwhile, Icilius lifted the dead body of the maiden, and bade the people see what the tyrant Claudius had done.<br />In fierce anger, the crowd rushed upon the lictors and a band of armed patricians and drove them from the Forum. Claudius, covering his face with his toga, fled, and for the time escaped with his life.<br />Verginius had no sooner reached the camp than he told his piteous tale to the army. Willingly the soldiers marched to Rome, led by the miserable father, and joined by another army, at the head of which was Icilius.<br />Together they entered Rome, and the soldiers deposed the decemvirs, while each army elected ten tribunes. They then marched out of the city, followed by the people, and encamped, as once before, on the Sacred Mount, leaving Rome to the patricians.<br />The Senate saw that it was time to act, for the decemvirs, it was plain, still hoped to keep the power they had grasped. So it forced them to resign, and then sent to the Sacred Mount to ask the plebeians what sentence they wished the tyrants to suffer.<br />Icilius demanded that the decemvirs should be put to death, the others were content that they should be banished from Rome. But Appius Claudius was not banished with the other decemvirs. He was sent to prison, where some say that he killed himself, but others assert that his enemies put him to death.<br />The people were now ready to return to the city, having obtained from the Senate a promise that they should have their tribunes as of old, and that the sacred laws should be again established.<br />In 445 B.C., about four years later, the plebeians succeeded in gaining new privileges. A law was passed allowing them to marry patricians, and this greatly pleased the people.<br />For many years the plebeians had wished to be allowed [84] to stand for the Consulship. Now it was arranged that, instead of Consuls, from three to six military tribunes should be appointed, and for this office plebeians might stand.<br />Two of the duties however that had belonged to the Consuls were not given to the military tribunes, but kept for two new officers, called censors. The censors were to be chosen from among the patricians.</div><br /><div align="justify"></div>coordinatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01483215435633115889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001519995842436212.post-89743681229144985612008-12-23T19:11:00.004+01:002009-05-06T12:52:07.383+02:00Vaishali<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKPjpjL1UBHwNZ3t0rinT4mJ8vfPQDX8dlXXMiP79JLmPNQJCWL3BDNOceHwXAV_rm36l9Mhw5SC0JOyarlniRGP1EMZzDO8PetbLTrQVFtVCcZclLkOmOs_d4CXsNT0g925QAMgN0bF1s/s1600-h/Vaishali+ruins.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5283050361668069378" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 241px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKPjpjL1UBHwNZ3t0rinT4mJ8vfPQDX8dlXXMiP79JLmPNQJCWL3BDNOceHwXAV_rm36l9Mhw5SC0JOyarlniRGP1EMZzDO8PetbLTrQVFtVCcZclLkOmOs_d4CXsNT0g925QAMgN0bF1s/s320/Vaishali+ruins.jpg" border="0" /></a> Just 55 kms form the city of Patna is the oldest known republic state of the world, Vaishali. Named after the King Vishala the small town of Vaishali was ruled by the Licchhavi rulers. It is believed to be the earliest republics of the world having an elected body of representatives and an efficient administration, as early as 6th century BC. Vaishali is an important pilgrimage sites for Buddhists and Jains as well. Lord Buddha after attaining his Nirvana, and before attaining the Mahaparinirvana, preached his last sermon here, after which he announced his Mahaprinirvana to come soon. Vaishali is also believed to be the birthplace of Lord Mahavira, the founder of the Jain religions.It is said that the famous courtesan Amrapali belonged to Vaishali, who later became a devout Buddhist. The stories about the Lord's encounter with the courtesan here in Vaishali are famous. Vaishali holds another importance of holding the second Buddhist council after 100 years after the Buddha's death. The monks from all over North India came here to discuss the 10 points of Vinaya, or 10 rules of conduct. The Chinese travelers Fa Xian and Xuan Zhang had visited this place on their journey to India and have written highly about Vaishali and its administration.coordinatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01483215435633115889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001519995842436212.post-82274295266030006022008-12-23T13:40:00.005+01:002009-05-06T09:01:12.816+02:00Lanfang Republic<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUGHThuziK53ZXEm0pi_7LQHHrL2PpHwzKmCSBFApH2528CqSnHvKaVBhhoaN4AcouLaSsRS5kNdemXVotpguBi5sQLR126ccl3KpzntHpVuPGwY2B2N_WG7gFLNCRSUSwxibc6dO_8cmr/s1600-h/lanching+hall.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5283098984909433634" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 221px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUGHThuziK53ZXEm0pi_7LQHHrL2PpHwzKmCSBFApH2528CqSnHvKaVBhhoaN4AcouLaSsRS5kNdemXVotpguBi5sQLR126ccl3KpzntHpVuPGwY2B2N_WG7gFLNCRSUSwxibc6dO_8cmr/s320/lanching+hall.jpg" border="0" /></a>Towards the end of the 18th century, Kwangtung Hakkas established a republic in Western Kalimantan which lasted 107 years and had 10 presidents.<br />The first president is Low Lan Pak. He was born in Kwangtung, Mei Hsien, Shih Pik Pao on the third year of Ching dynasty Chien Long emperor. He married a girl and had a son. But Hakka's custom usually do not take wife along for overseas trip. He left for Western Kalimantan alone to join the gold rush at that time.<br />He travelled along Han Jiang to Shantao, along Vietnam coastline, and finally landed in Western Kalimantan.<br />The sultan at that time, Panembahan believing that Chinese workers are hard working, brought in 20 Chinese from Brunei. The sultan Omar in Singkawang, also heard about Chinese diligence and use the lease land system to encourage Chinese to explore in his territory.<br />When Low Fan Pak reached Western Kalimantan, the Holland has not yet aggressively moved to Kalimantan. Along the coastal area, a lot of Java people and oceania's Bugis people settled down. Also, the Sultan's power were confined to the coastal area, the inland power belongs to the Dayak. The territories among Sultans were not well defined as well.<br />In the beginning of 1740, the Chinese numbered only a few tens. By 1770, the Chinese has grown to 20,000 strong. By blood clan or by the area they are from, the Chinese established Kongsi(company) to protect themselves.<br />In 1776, 14 kongsi banded together to form a He Soon 14 Kongsi in order to break the bottleneck of being grouped by area or by blood.<br />At that time Low Lan Pak established his own Lang Fan kongsi. He then united all the Hakkas in the San-Sin lake area and build a Mem-Tau-Er township and made it the headquarter of his united company.<br />At that time, Kun Tian(Pontianak) which located in the lower stream of Kapuas River was an important commerce area and was controlled by Sultan Abdul Laman. The upper stream of the river is controlled by the Dayaks. Kun Tian neighboring state Mempawah's Sultan tried to build a palace in the upper stream which led to the fighting between the 2 Sultans.<br />The Kun Tian Sultan asked Low Lan Pak for help. Since the palace is being built near the Lan Fang company territory, Low Lan Pak decided to help Kun Tian Sultan and defeated the Mempawah's Sultan.<br />The defeated Mempawah's Sultan then joined forces with the Dayaks and launched a counter-attack. Low Lan Pak again defeated Mempawah Sultan and this time marched North all the way to Singkawang. Singkawang Sultan and Mempawah Sultan signed a peace treaty with Low Lan Pak and Low Lan Pak's popularity increased dramatically. He was 57 then.<br />After that, Chinese and locals, turned to Low Lan Pak to seek protection, and when Kun Tian Sultan realized that he can not challenged Low Lan Pak, The sultan himself seek protection from Low Lan Pak.<br />Thus, Low Lan Pak established a government, using his company name, changing kongsi(company) to republic, and formed Lan Fang Republic in 1777, 10 years earlier than USA(1787). At that time people wanted Low Lan Pak to be Sultan, but he declined and take the post of governorship, similar to the president post.<br />From Qing dynasty's sea nation annals, it recorded that it is a place where Ka Yin people (Mei Hsien area) do mining, build road, establish its own nation, every year has ships reached ng Zhou and Chao Zhou area, doing commerce. >From its own Lan Fang Company annals, it indicated that every year it pays tribute to Qing dynasty like Annan (Vietnam).<br />The capital was in Ceh Wan Li. The Ta Tang Chon Chang(president) is elected by election. Both the president position and the vice president position has to be of Hakka from Ka Yin or Ta Pu area. The flag is a rectangle yellow flag with the word Lan Fang Ta Tong Chi. The president flag is a triangular yellow flag with the word Chuao (General). The high ranking officials dress in Chinese style while lower ranking officials dress western style clothing.<br />Low Lan Pak passed away on the second year of the republic. He has been in Borneo for 20 years. he 47th year of the republic during the reign of the fifth president Liew Tai Er, Dutch began its active expansion in Indonesia and occupied the South East region of Borneo. Lan Fang lose its autonomy and became a protected state of Dutch.<br />Then Dutch opened a colonial office in Kun Tian and intervened republic's affair. In 1884, Singkawang refused to be ruled by Dutch, and was attacked by the Dutch. The Dutch occupied Lan Fang Kongsi. Lan Fang Kongsi fought for 4 years but eventually was defeated, and its people fled to Sum<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_9nydhbeqx3HwCZnerGwk1zSbM46kt0pNjSQ2d6w2m4KUNujgTir9TDccpTzfbF149ZVRXiu0LVwww4cC5o9sO_63juSfR3GPclqB9tgkb829aree6vEvUbQefDXfuLURx0JchEQLr26x/s1600-h/lanchung+ruins.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5282968924824723074" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 241px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 178px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_9nydhbeqx3HwCZnerGwk1zSbM46kt0pNjSQ2d6w2m4KUNujgTir9TDccpTzfbF149ZVRXiu0LVwww4cC5o9sO_63juSfR3GPclqB9tgkb829aree6vEvUbQefDXfuLURx0JchEQLr26x/s200/lanchung+ruins.jpg" border="0" /></a>atra. Fearful of strong reaction from Ching government, Dutch never declared that it occupied Lan Fang and let one of the descendent be a figure head. It was not until the formation of Republic of China in 1912 that Dutch formally declared its formal control of the area.<br />Those that fled to Sumatra regrouped in Medan. From there, some moved to Kuala Lumpur and Singapore. One of the descendent from these people is Lee Kuan Yew. While Hakkas are the minority in Singapore, it is the Hakkas that played an important part to establish the second Lan Fang company - Singapore.<br /><br />(summary from the book Hakka people - Jews of the Orient by Kao Chung Xi. Summary digest compiled by Jonathan Teoh. Some spelling were revised according to Josef Widjaja, Oct 26, 1996)coordinatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01483215435633115889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001519995842436212.post-48145830007608755222008-12-23T12:34:00.002+01:002008-12-23T12:50:12.380+01:00The Whiskey Rebellionfrom Wikipedia:<br /><br />The Whiskey Rebellion (less commonly known as the Whiskey Insurrection) was a popular uprising that had its beginnings in 1791 and culminated in an insurrection in 1794 in the locality of Washington, Pennsylvania, in the Monongahela Valley. The rebellion was the result of tax imposed on whiskey. The rebellion occurred shortly after the Articles of Confederation had been replaced by a stronger federal government under the American Constitution in 1789.<br /><br />The 1791 tax<br />The new federal government, at the urging of the first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, assumed the states' debt from the American Revolutionary War. In 1791 Hamilton convinced Congress to approve taxes on distilled spirits and carriages. Hamilton's principal reason for the tax was that he wanted to pay down the national debt, but he justified the tax "more as a measure of social discipline than as a source of revenue." But most importantly, Hamilton "wanted the tax imposed to advance and secure the power of the new federal government."<br />Congress designed the tax so smaller distillers would pay by the gallon, while larger distillers (who could produce in volume) could take advantage of a flat fee. The net result was to affect smaller producers more than larger ones. George Washington, the president at the time, was one such large producer of whiskey. Large producers were assessed a tax of 6 cents per gallon, while small producers were taxed at 9 cents per gallon. But Western settlers were short of cash to begin with and, being far from their markets and lacking good roads, lacked any practical means to get their grain to market other than fermenting and distilling it into relatively portable distilled spirits. Additionally, whiskey was often used among western farmers as a medium of exchange or as a barter good.<br />The tax on whiskey was bitterly and fiercely opposed among the Cohee on the frontier from the day it was passed. Western farmers considered it to be both unfair and discriminatory, since they had traditionally converted their excess grain into liquor. Since the nature of the tax affected those who sold the whiskey, it directly affected many farmers. Many protest meetings were held, and a situation arose which was reminiscent of the opposition to the Stamp Act of 1765 before the American Revolution.<br />From Pennsylvania to Georgia, the western counties engaged in a campaign of harassment of the federal tax collectors. "Whiskey Boys" also made violent protests in Maryland, Virginia, and North and South Carolina.<br /><a id="The_insurrection" name="The_insurrection"></a><br />The insurrection<br />By the summer of 1795, tensions reached a fevered pitch all along the western frontier as the settlers' primary marketable commodity was threatened by the federal taxation measures. Finally, the civil protests became an armed rebellion. The first shots were fired at the Oliver Miller Homestead in present day South Park Township, Pennsylvania, about ten miles south of Pittsburgh. As word of the rebellion spread across the frontier, a whole series of loosely organized resistance measures were taken, including robbing the mail, stopping court proceedings, and the threat of an assault on Pittsburgh. One group, disguised as women, assaulted a tax collector, cropped his hair, coated him with tar and feathers, and stole his horse.<br />George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, remembering Shays' Rebellion from just eight years before, decided to make Pennsylvania a testing ground for federal authority. Washington ordered federal marshals to serve court orders requiring the tax protesters to appear in federal district court. On August 7, 1794, Washington invoked martial law to summon the militias of Pennsylvania, Virginia and several states. The rebel force they fought was likewise composed of Pennsylvanians, Virginians, and possibly men from other states.<br />The militia force of 12,950 men was organized, roughly the size of the entire army in the Revolutionary War. Under the personal command of Washington, Hamilton and Revolutionary War hero General Henry "Lighthorse Harry" Lee, the army assembled in Harrisburg and marched into western Pennsylvania (to what is now Monongahela) in October of 1794. The rebels "could never be found," according to Jefferson, but the militia expended considerable effort rounding up 20 prisoners, clearly demonstrating Federalist authority in the national government. The men were imprisoned, where one died, while two, including Philip Vigol (later spelled Philip Wigal), were convicted of treason and sentenced to death by hanging. Washington, however, pardoned them on the grounds that one was a "simpleton," and the other, "insane."<br />Only two were actually arrested and jailed: judge Robert Philson and devout Quaker Herman Husband. Philson was released by Washington, but Husband died in jail before he could be released.<br />By November, some individuals were fined and charged with "assisting and abetting in setting up a seditious pole in opposition to the laws of the United States," and in January 1796 the following were fined five to fifteen shillings each: Nicholas Kobe, Adam Bower, Abraham Cable Jr, Dr. John Kimmell, Henry Foist, Jacob Holy, Adam Holy, Michael Chintz, George Swart, and Adam Stahl of Brothers Valley township; John Heminger, John Armstrong, George Weimer, George Tedrow, Abraham Miller, John Miller Jr, Benjamin Brown and Peter Bower of Milford township; Emanuel Brallier, and George Ankeny, of Quemahoning township; Peter Augustine, James Conner, Henry Everly, Daniel McCartey, William Pinkerton, and Jonathan Woodsides of Turkeyfoot township.<br /><a id="Tom_the_Tinker" name="Tom_the_Tinker"></a><br />Tom the Tinker<br />"Tom the Tinker" assumed the leadership of the Whiskey Rebellion in the early 1790s. He came about after it was decided that to merely attack tax collectors or those who rented offices and lodging to tax collectors wasn't enough; pressure needed to be applied to those who had registered their stills and were paying the tax. In essence, Tom the Tinker illuminated the point that compliance with the law was as contemptible an action as collecting the whiskey tax. William Hogeland has described the situation thus:<br />You might find a note posted on a tree outside your house, requiring you to publish in the Gazette your hatred of the whiskey tax and your commitment to the cause; otherwise, the note promised, your still would be mended. Tom had a wicked sense of humor and a literary bent: "mended" meant shot full of holes or burned. Tom published on his own too, rousing his followers to action, telling the Gazette's editor in cover notes to run the messages or suffer the consequences.<br />Groups formed calling themselves Tom the Tinker's Men. They assured Tom the Tinker's threats were carried out. Some believe John Holcroft, a leading member of the Mingo Creek Association and veteran of Shays' Rebellion, was Tom the Tinker, or perhaps the author of the letters attributed to Tom, but this has never been proven. It is not known whether Tom was an actual individual or a character created by the leading members of the Whiskey Rebellion to serve as their leader, much like Ned Ludd's role as leader of the Luddites. Hogeland takes issue with the notion that "Tom the Tinker" was a pseudonym or nom de guerre for one of the other participants in the rebellion, saying, "Tom wasn't an alias for a person. He was the stark fact that loyal opposition to the resistance was disallowed. Tom was Mingo Creek personified."<br /><a id="Consequences" name="Consequences"></a><br />Consequences<br />This marked the first time under the new United States Constitution that the federal government used military force to exert authority over the nation's citizens. It was also one of only two times that a sitting President personally commanded the military in the field; the other was after President James Madison fled the British occupation of Washington, D.C. during the War of 1812.<br />The military suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion set a precedent that U.S. citizens who wished to change the law had to do so peacefully through constitutional means; otherwise, the government would meet any threats to disturb the status quo with force.<br />The suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion also had the unintended consequences of encouraging small whiskey producers in Kentucky and Tennessee, which remained outside the sphere of Federal control for many more years. In these frontier areas, they also found good corn-growing country as well as limestone-filtered water and therefore began making whiskey from corn; this corn whiskey developed into Bourbon. Additionally, the rebellion and its suppression helped turn people away from the Federalist Party and toward the Democratic-Republican Party. This is shown in the 1794 Philadelphia congressional election, in which upstart Democratic Republican John Swanwick won a stunning victory over incumbent Federalist Thomas Fitzsimons, carrying 7 of 12 districts and 57% of the vote. The farmers were severely angered.<br />The hated whiskey tax was repealed in 1803, having been largely unenforceable outside of Western Pennsylvania, and even there never having been collected with much success.<br /><a id="References_in_popular_culture" name="References_in_popular_culture"></a><br />References in popular culture<br />Susanna Rowson used the Whiskey Rebellion as inspiration for a musical farce for the stage called The Volunteers. The lyrics were set to music by Alexander Reinagle of the New Company, which performed the play in Philadelphia in 1795.<br />In L. Neil Smith's alternate history novel The Probability Broach, Albert Gallatin convinces the militia not to put down the rebellion, but instead to march on the nation's capital, execute George Washington for treason, and replace the Constitution with a revised Articles of Confederation. As a result, the United States becomes a libertarian utopia called the North American Confederation. Gallatin's decision comes as a result of an additional word in the Declaration of Independence, which in the parallel universe contains the phrase "deriving its just powers from the unanimous consent of the governed."<br />The rebellion is referenced in Albert Frank Beddoe's song "Copper Kettle" (1953), which has been recorded by Joan Baez, and by Bob Dylan on his 1970 album Self Portrait. The song contains the line "We ain't paid no whiskey tax since 1792".<br />The rebellion plays a central role in David Liss' novel, The Whiskey Rebels (2008), in which settlers and distillers seek revenge against Hamilton and the Bank of the United States.<br /><a id="See_also" name="See_also"></a>coordinatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01483215435633115889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001519995842436212.post-78053161260147272662008-12-23T10:50:00.004+01:002008-12-23T10:56:36.051+01:00The Battle of the Golden SpursThis battle was fought between the French crown and the guilds and city-states of Flanders on July 11, 1302 in Kortrijk.<br /><br />from Wikipedia:<br /><br />The reason for the battle was a French attempt to subdue the county of <a title="Flanders" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flanders">Flanders</a>, which was formally part of the French kingdom and added to the <a title="Crown land" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_land">crown lands</a> in 1297, but resisted centralist French policies. In 1300, the French king <a title="Philip IV of France" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_IV_of_France">Philip IV</a> appointed <a title="Jacques de Châtillon" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_de_Ch%C3%A2tillon">Jacques de Châtillon</a> as governor of Flanders and took the Count of Flanders, <a title="Guy of Dampierre" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_of_Dampierre">Guy of Dampierre</a>, hostage. This instigated considerable unrest among the influential Flemish urban <a title="Guild" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild">guilds</a>.<br />After being exiled from their homes by French troops, the citizens of <a title="Bruges" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruges">Bruges</a> went back to their own city and <a title="Murder" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder">murdered</a> every Frenchman they could find there on May 18, 1302, known as the <a title="Bruges Matins (history)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruges_Matins_(history)">Brugse Metten</a>. According to legend, they identified the French by asking them to pronounce a Dutch phrase, scilt ende vriend (shield and friend), and everyone who had a problem pronouncing this <a title="Shibboleth" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth">shibboleth</a> was killed.<br /><br />The French king could not let this go unpunished, so he sent a powerful force, led by Count <a title="Robert II of Artois" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_II_of_Artois">Robert II of Artois</a>. The Flemish response consisted of two groups; one group which consisted of 3,000 men from the city militia of <a title="Bruges" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruges">Bruges</a>, was led by <a title="William of Jülich" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_J%C3%BClich">William of Jülich</a>, grandson of Count Guy, and <a title="Pieter de Coninck" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieter_de_Coninck">Pieter de Coninck</a>, one of the leaders of the uprising in Bruges. The other group, which consisted of about 2,500 men from the suburbs of Bruges and the coastal areas, was headed by <a title="Guy of Namur" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_of_Namur">Guy of Namur</a>, son of Count Guy, with the two sons of Guy of Dampierre; the two groups met near <a class="mw-redirect" title="Courtrai" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtrai">Courtrai</a>. From the East came another 2,500 men, led by <a title="Jan Borluut" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Borluut">Jan Borluut</a> from <a title="Ghent" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghent">Ghent</a>, and yet another 1,000 men from <a title="Ypres" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ypres">Ypres</a>, led by <a class="mw-redirect" title="Jan van Renesse" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_van_Renesse">Jan van Renesse</a> from <a title="Zeeland" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeeland">Zeeland</a>.<br />The Flemish were primarily town militia who were well equipped, with such weapons as the <a title="Morning star (weapon)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_star_(weapon)#Goedendag">Goedendag</a> and a long spear known as the Geldon. They were also well organized; the urban militias of the time prided themselves on their regular training and preparation, which allowed them to use the Geldon effectively. They numbered about 9,000, including 400 nobles. The biggest difference from the French and other feudal armies was that the Flemish force consisted solely of <a title="Infantry" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry">infantry</a>.<br />The French were by contrast a classic feudal army made up of a core of 2,500 noble <a title="Cavalry" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry">cavalry</a>, including knights and squires. They were supported by 1,000 <a title="Crossbow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbow">crossbowmen</a>, 1,000 <a title="Spear" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear">spearmen</a> and up to 3,500 other light infantry, totaling around 8,000.<a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Golden_Spurs#cite_note-rogers-1">[2]</a> Contemporary military theory valued each knight as equal to roughly ten infantry.<br /><br />After the Flemish unsuccessfully tried to take <a title="Kortrijk" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kortrijk">Kortrijk</a> on <a title="July 9" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_9">July 9</a> and <a title="July 10" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_10">July 10</a>, the two forces clashed on <a title="July 11" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_11">11 July</a> in an open field near the city.<br />The layout of the field, crossed by numerous ditches and streams, made it difficult for the French <a title="Cavalry" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry">cavalry</a> to charge the Flemish lines. They sent servants to place wood in the streams but did not wait for this to be done. The large French infantry force led the initial attack, which went well, but French commander Count <a title="Robert II of Artois" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_II_of_Artois">Robert II of Artois</a> recalled them so that the noble cavalry could claim the victory. Hindered by their own <a title="Infantry" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry">infantry</a> and the tactically sound position of the Flemish militia, the French <a title="Cavalry" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry">cavalry</a> were an easy target for the heavily-armed Flemish. When they realized the battle was lost, the surviving French fled, only to be pursued over 10 km (6.2 mi) by the Flemish.<br />Prior to the battle, the Flemish militia had either been ordered to take no prisoners or did not understand (or care for) the military custom of asking for a ransom for captured knights or nobles;<a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Golden_Spurs#cite_note-liberman-0">[1]</a> modern theory is that there was a clear order that forbade them to take prisoners as long as the battle was as yet undecided (this was to avoid the possibility of their ranks being broken when the Flemish infantry brought their hostages behind the Flemish lines).<a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Golden_Spurs#cite_note-HTrappeniers-3">[4]</a> Robert of Artois was surrounded and killed on the field.<br /><br />The large numbers of golden <a title="Spur" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spur">spurs</a> that were collected from the French knights gave the battle its name<a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Golden_Spurs#cite_note-trabel-4">[5]</a>; at least a thousand noble cavaliers were killed, some contemporary accounts placing the total casualties at over ten thousand dead and wounded. The French spurs were hung in the Church of Our Lady in Kortrijk to commemorate the victory, and were taken back by the French eighty years later after the <a class="mw-redirect" title="Battle of Westrozebeke" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Westrozebeke">Battle of Westrozebeke</a>.<br />Some of the notable casualties:<br /><a title="Robert II of Artois" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_II_of_Artois">Robert II</a>, <a class="mw-redirect" title="Count of Artois" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_of_Artois">Count of Artois</a>, the French commander<br /><a class="new" title="Raoul II of Clermont (page does not exist)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raoul_II_of_Clermont&action=edit&redlink=1">Raoul II of Clermont</a>, Lord of <a title="Nesle" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nesle">Nesle</a>, <a title="Constable of France" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constable_of_France">Constable of France</a><br /><a class="new" title="Guy I of Clermont (page does not exist)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guy_I_of_Clermont&action=edit&redlink=1">Guy I of Clermont</a>, Lord of <a title="Breteuil" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breteuil">Breteuil</a>, <a title="Marshal of France" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal_of_France">Marshal of France</a><br /><a class="new" title="Simon de Melun (page does not exist)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_de_Melun&action=edit&redlink=1">Simon de Melun</a>, Lord of La Loupe and Marcheville, <a title="Marshal of France" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal_of_France">Marshal of France</a><br /><a class="new" title="John I of Ponthieu, Count of Aumale (page does not exist)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_I_of_Ponthieu,_Count_of_Aumale&action=edit&redlink=1">John I of Ponthieu, Count of Aumale</a><br />John of Trie, Count of <a class="mw-redirect" title="Dammartin" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dammartin">Dammartin</a><br /><a title="John II of Brienne, Count of Eu" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_II_of_Brienne,_Count_of_Eu">John II of Brienne</a>, <a class="mw-redirect" title="Count of Eu" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_of_Eu">Count of Eu</a><br />John d'Avesnes, <a class="new" title="Count of Ostrevant (page does not exist)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Count_of_Ostrevant&action=edit&redlink=1">Count of Ostrevant</a><br />Godfrey of Brabant, Lord of <a title="Aarschot" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarschot">Aarschot</a><br /><a title="Jacques de Châtillon" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_de_Ch%C3%A2tillon">Jacques de Châtillon</a>, Lord of <a title="Leuze-en-Hainaut" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leuze-en-Hainaut">Leuze</a><br /><a title="Pierre Flotte" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Flotte">Pierre de Flotte</a>, Chief Advisor to <a class="mw-redirect" title="Philip IV the Fair" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_IV_the_Fair">Philip IV the Fair</a>.<br /><a id="Historical_consequences" name="Historical_consequences"></a><br />The battle was one in a string during the 14th century that showed that knights could be defeated by disciplined and well-equipped infantry (one example is the <a title="Battle of Sempach" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sempach">Battle of Sempach</a> in 1386). The Scots then applied this idea of attacking infantry and brought it to the battlefield at <a title="Bannockburn" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bannockburn">Bannockburn</a>, where the Scottish Schiltron charged English Cavalry and routed them. It is also a landmark in the development of Flemish political independence and the day is remembered every year in Flanders as the <a title="Flemish Community" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemish_Community">Flemish Community</a>'s <a title="Day of the Flemish Community" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_the_Flemish_Community">official holiday</a>.<br />The battle was romanticised in 1838 by Flemish writer <a title="Hendrik Conscience" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Conscience">Hendrik Conscience</a> in his book <a class="mw-redirect" title="The Lion of Flanders" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_of_Flanders">The Lion of Flanders</a> (Dutch: "De leeuw van Vlaanderen"). Another unusual feature of this battle is that it is often cited as one of the few successful uprisings of peasants and townsmen, given that at the time most peasant uprisings in Europe were quelled.<br />“<br />The uprising originated from the people themselves, without being provoked by a lord (the Flemish count and his most important lords were in French captivity). Only when the uprising became widespread, the count's relatives who still were free rushed in to aid. But in the first place this was a struggle of people against a lord (the French king), not the struggle between two lords.”<br />Barbara Tuchman describes this as a peasant uprising in A Distant Mirror. Though the winning army was well armed, the initial uprising was nonetheless a folk uprising. Eventually, however, the Flemish nobles did take their part in the battle—each of the Flemish leaders were of the nobility or descended from nobility, and some 400 of noble blood did fight on the Flemish side.<br />The outcome of the battle, the fact that a large cavalry force, thought invincible, had been annihilated by - relatively - modest but well-armed and tactically intelligent infantry was a shock to all military leaders in Europe. It resulted in the end of the perceived supremacy of cavalry and led to a deep re-thinking of military strategies.<br />The slaughter of about 40% of French noblemen led to a deep crisis in French nobility but strengthened the king's position.coordinatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01483215435633115889noreply@blogger.com