have overlooked an agelong antipathy between the Iranian Per- sians and the Turanian Tartars, and likewise between Persians and Semites, and Semites and Tartars. These aversions appear in both ancient and modern history and appear to be neither religious nor geographic. Nevertheless, Bryce is not greatly in error when he says that people have fought for plunder, for land, for conquest, for religion, for commercial supremacy, but practi- cally never because of racial unity or racial antipathy. Yet in our own day this motive is appealed to again and again. It did not, to be sure, prevent England from siding against the Ger- mans in 1914, even though both nations suppose that they are more closely akin to one another than to the French. Never- theless, the consciousness of racial kinships is abroad in the earth. It expresses itself in the so-called principle of nationality. In the last century this inspired Greeks, Italians, Poles, and Mag- yars to strive for political independence. Later it aroused Serbs, Roumans, Bulgars, and Armenians. In our day a wave of racial feeling has swept India, Egypt, and many other lands. As Bryce puts it, “Race consciousness sprang into life and became the core of Nationality.” That this racial consciousness is fast pervading the world can scarcely be questioned. According to Clutton-Brock’s illuminating suggestion in The Atlantic Monthly, many a man who knows that in his own self he has no special superiority over his fellows takes refuge in the thought that he belongs to a superior race. Thus the most incompetent Anglo- Saxon often looks down upon the most competent Italian, be- cause the Italian belongs to the “Dago race, or upon the great- est of Chinese savants because the wise man’s skin is yellow and his eyes aslant.

Whether the present conception of racial differences is right or wrong, it seems destined to play a great part in the history of the next few generations, for it has become embedded in the 'world’s equipment of ideas. If once a certain tenet is accepted by the mass of the people its verity or falsity makes little differ- ence in its potency, as Le Bon well shows in his Psychology of ‘Peoples. The mere fact that an idea has become the common