territory overrun and subdued, were not the ‘great blond beasts’ of Nietzsche, but yellow monsters with black hair, the Huns and Tartars.[9] The causes of Tartar ascendancy had not the remotest connection with any moral or intellectual qualities which we can be expected to admire.  Nor can the Nordic race, well endowed by nature as it undoubtedly is, prove such a superiority as this theory claims for it.  Some of the largest brains yet measured have been those of Japanese; and the Jews have probably a higher average of ability than the Teutons.  Again, the Germans are not descended from a pure Nordic stock.  The Northern type can be best studied in Scandinavia, where the people share with the Irish the distinction of being the handsomest race in the world.  The German is a mixture of various anatomical types, including, in some parts, distinct traces of Mongolian blood, which indicate that the raiding Huns meddled, according to their custom, with the German women, and bequeathed to a section of the nation the Turanian cheek-bones, as well as certain moral characteristics.  Lastly, the German race has never shown much aptitude for governing and assimilating other peoples.  The French, by virtue of their greater sympathy, are far more successful.

The French have their own form of this pseudo-science in their doctrine of the persistence of national characteristics.  Each nation may be summed up in a formula:  England, for example, is ‘the country of will.’  A few instances may, no doubt, be quoted in support of this theory.  Julius Caesar said:  ’Duas res plerasque Gallia industriosissime prosequitur, rem militarem et argute loqui’; and these are still the characteristics of our gallant allies.  And Madame de Stael may be thought to have hit off the German character very cleverly about the time when Bismarck first saw the light.  ’The Germans are vigorously submissive.  They employ philosophical reasonings to explain what is the least philosophic thing in the world, respect for force and the fear which transforms that respect into admiration.’  But the fact remains that the characters of nations frequently change, or rather that what we call national character is usually only the policy of the governing class, forced upon it by circumstances, or the manner of living which climate, geographical position, and other external causes have made necessary for the inhabitants of a country.

To found patriotism on homogeneity of race is no wiser than to bound it by frontier lines.  As the Abbe Noel has lately written about his own country, Belgium,

the race is not the nation.  The nation is not a physiological fact; it is a moral fact.  What constitutes a nation is the community of sentiments and ideals which results from a common history and education.  The variations of the cephalic index are here of no great importance.  The essential factor of the national consciousness resides in a certain common mode of conceiving