But to understand this is by no means the same thing as to suppose that the artist ought not to concern himself with moral issues, or that he is transgressing if he plainly shows himself to be impressed by-to call it by its simplest name-goodness; and the critical mind is continually getting itself confused about this issue. It is one thing for an artist to say, 'Be good, sweet maid,' and quite another thing for him to create a Cordelia, and make it perfectly clear to us that he thinks Cordelia admirable. Every acute critic sees the defect in Be good, sweet maid,' but a great many critics who should know better become defensive (or offensive, as the case may be) about the Cordelias of art.

Now, Henley, as has been said already, was a good man, and he loved goodness. He was under no illusions as to what goodness really was, and, as was shown by his acrimonious treatment of some of Stevenson's whitewashers, he neither hoped nor wanted to find paragons of virtue among men. He was perfectly aware, too, that in this world of expediency the values of vice and virtue are continually falsified; so that he knew, for example, that in the sum Burns was a much better man than any of his detractors. But, when all is said, the fact remains that Henley did immensely cherish the ordinary decent things of charity and tolerance and fortitude and devotion. And, while he was the last man in the world to tell his fellows that they ought to foster these things, he was eager in his praises whenever he found them. Had he been a great creative artist, his world would have been alive with this best kind of virtue, and it would have been his to survive the common charge of sentimentalising life. As he was not a great creative artist, this instinct in him found its fullest expression in criticism; and it does so in such a way as perhaps might persuade even the most intellectual critic that, in an artist, to be moral is not necessarily to be damned.

JOHN DRINKWATER.

i

en

Art. 8.-MONARCHISM IN CENTRAL EUROPE.

Two Emperors, five Kings, five Grand Dukes, six Dukes, by and seven Princes, all of them reigning Sovereigns under the old régime in Germany and the former AustriaHungary, have lost their thrones as a consequence of the war. The only German Sovereign left in Central Europe is Prince John II of Liechtenstein. Liechtenstein is one of those anomalous small States, like the Principality of Monaco and the Republics of Andorra and San Marino, which contrived to preserve their independence intact amid the national groupings and regroupings of the 19th century. It has an area of 65 square miles, and a population of a little under 11,000. It lies on the border between Switzerland and Austria; and until the collapse of the Hapsburgs it was in effect (though never in law) a dependency of the latter. It had no army, however; and at the outbreak of the war it declared its neutrality. Since the collapse it has negotiated a Customs Treaty with Switzerland, under which in effect it has become a Swiss dependency. The Principality has a Diet, in which there is a small party which professes Republican opinions; but its propagation of them amongst the population is considerably hampered by the circumstance that the Principality is mostly the private property of the Prince, who, as he draws almost all of the revenue, also defrays almost all of the expenditure. The victory of Republicanism would accordingly imply the introduction of taxes, from which this fortunate State is at present entirely immune; and also, if it were to join Germany or Switzerland, some form of military service. In these circumstances competent observers incline to the view that Prince John can continue to count on the dutiful allegiance of his subjects.

In Germany before the collapse there were numerous similar States, though none were quite so small as Liechtenstein. In two German States (Prussia and Baden) the Sovereigns abdicated in 1918. In two others (Bavaria and Brunswick) the Sovereigns were formally deposed. In the remainder the Sovereigns amicably handed over the administration, withdrawing for the most part either to their country estates or abroad. The Governments which succeeded them thereupon

adopted some Democratic State title, generally 'Free State' or 'People's State,' or in one case (Baden) 'Republic.' Some of the smaller ones united with one another. Eight of the Thuringian States (the Duchies of Saxe-Weimar, Saxe-Meiningen, Saxe-Altenburg and Gotha, the two Principalities of Reuss combined as one State, and the two Principalities of SchwarzburgRudolstadt and Schwarzburg-Sondershausen separately) combined to form the United State of Thuringia (Einheitsstaat Thüringen) with Weimar as its capital. Saxe-Coburg, from whose reigning house in the 19th century Belgium and Bulgaria drew their rulers and Queen Victoria her Consort, preferred to join Bavaria. Three other small Principalities (the two Lippes and Waldeck) are likely in the near future to join Prussia.

To interpret these political developments as the triumph of the People's Will in conflict with the monarchic, or the militarist, or any other reactionary principle, would be misleading. The struggle with Liberalism, which occupied the energies of most of the German Princes during the first half of the 19th century, had no counterpart in the second. All of these princes, with the exception of the three Grand Dukes of the North (the two Mecklenburgs and Oldenburg), had granted Constitutions in or after the Revolutions of 1848; and the founding of the Empire in 1870 in broadening the horizon of both Sovereigns and subjects had cut the ground from under these political conflicts. The issue of Republicanism versus Monarchy in the small States had not in fact been on the tapis of practical politics in Germany any time in the last fifty years. In many or most of them it would probably never have been raised after the collapse, had not the Allies, or rather President Wilson*-for, so far as is known, the Allies made no pronouncement on the subject-indicated their desire for the establishment of republican institutions in Germany as a preliminary to the negotiation of peace. The loyalty of the average non-Prussian German to his Bundesfürst in the latter years of the Empire was a mildly romantic, eminently harmless, sentiment, which he inherited, accepted, and displayed on appropriate

*In his Note of Oct. 23, 1918.

official occasions, but to which at other times he did not give much thought-very much like the average Englishman's attitude to the English Royal House. Bismarck (who certainly had no illusions about the German Princes of his day) says in a well-known passage of his 'Reflections and Reminiscences' that this particularist patriotism' was a psychological necessity to the German mind; and the late Baron Marschall von Bieberstein, himself a Badener, once told the writer he believed it would outlive the Empire. Perhaps it will.

When the time came for parting, most of the Sovereigns left on excellent terms with their subjects. There were exceptions. The Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was very unpopular, partly for personal reasons, partly because he had recently enclosed, for game-preserving, large areas of Crown forest land which had previously been unfenced. The Duke of Brunswick, a member of the reactionary House of Hanover, has aroused indignation by claiming delivery of the contents of the court museums and libraries and of the ducal castles, or their value in cash, as his private property-which unfortunately, under the law governing the possessions of the Ducal House, they appear to be. He left Brunswick for Holland immediately after the collapse. So did the Grand Duke of Oldenburg; and the last-named has since contrived to remove large numbers of the pictures from his castles to Holland. He, too, would presumably not be welcomed back. On the other hand, the Duke of Anhalt has presented almost the whole of his rich collections, together with one of his castles, to the Anhalters. Of the rulers of the larger States (excluding Prussia) only the King of Saxony has left Germany. He and the King of Würtemburg and the Grand Duke of Baden were all popular with their subjects. But perhaps the most popular of all the German Princes at the present time is the Grand Duke of Hesse, who continues to live on one floor of the Grand Ducal Palace in Darmstadt, where he studies philosophy and indulges a well-known taste for the Arts.

In none of the small States are any efforts being made, apparently, either by the Princes or by their peoples, in the direction of Restoration. The Princes, it is said, are diffident of acting independently of the two

bigger States, Prussia and Bavaria. The peoples consider the ban of the Entente to be still binding. The question is more actuelle in Prussia and in Bavaria. In both of these States there still exist powerful political partiesthe Conservatives (now called German Nationals) and the National Liberals (now called German People's Party) in Prussia, and the Clericals in Bavaria-who openly advocate the restoration of the Monarchy in principle, though both realise that at the moment nothing can be done in the matter. On the other hand, in both States, but especially in Prussia, to which most of the industrial districts of Germany belong, there is the solid republican phalanx of the Social Democratic Party. The Republicanism of the Social Democrats is no academic tenet of the party leaders. That it extends to the actual workers was shown by the success of the general strike, which was called at the time of the monarchist Putsch in 1920. It is not perhaps that the workers are so much enamoured of republican state forms in themselves, as that they identify Monarchy with the old régime, which they regard as responsible for their misfortunes.

For the moment the prestige of the Social Democrats is very high in Germany. The public feels that on the whole they have risen to the occasion in an hour of national disaster, and made the best of a bad situation. But the Social Democrats are not all-powerful. At the 1920 elections they polled (Majority and Independent Socialists together) 40-4 per cent. of the total votes; and they now govern by a coalition with certain of the bourgeois parties. The bourgeois parties all together, but without the Centre (Clericals) and without one or two Independents, polled 41.2 per cent. Bourgeois and Socialist accordingly are equally balanced; and the Centre holds, as it has always held since the founding of the Empire, the balance. The Centre is itself both bourgeois and Socialist. It represents the whole Catholic population in Germany, from the reactionary peasants of Bavaria to the radical artisans of Westphalia. For the present it is co-operating with the Social Democrats. It has accepted the Republic, and, as a party, does not include monarchical restoration amongst even the academic items of its programme.

It might be expected that the Centre would look with