again. Quit the home and quarrelling is less obvious, but it goes on all
about one. What proportion of the letters delivered any morning would be
found to be written in displeasure, in petulance, in wrath? The postbag
shrieks insults or bursts with suppressed malice. Is it not
wonderful--nay, is it not the marvel of marvels--that human life has
reached such a high point of public and private organization?

And gentle idealists utter their indignant wonder at the continuance of
war! Why, it passes the wit of man to explain how it is that nations are
ever at peace! For, if only by the rarest good fortune do individuals
associate harmoniously, there would seem to be much less likelihood of
mutual understanding and good-will between the peoples of alien lands. As
a matter of fact, no two nations are ever friendly, in the sense of truly
liking each other; with the reciprocal criticism of countries there
always mingles a sentiment of animosity. The original meaning of
_hostis_ is merely stranger, and a stranger who is likewise a foreigner
will only by curious exception fail to stir antipathy in the average
human being. Add to this that a great number of persons in every country
find their delight and their business in exasperating international
disrelish, and with what vestige of common sense can one feel surprise
that war is ceaselessly talked of, often enough declared. In days gone
by, distance and rarity of communication assured peace between many
realms. Now that every country is in proximity to every other, what need
is there to elaborate explanations of the distrust, the fear, the hatred,
which are a perpetual theme of journalists and statesmen? By
approximation, all countries have entered the sphere of natural quarrel.
That they find plenty of things to quarrel about is no cause for
astonishment. A hundred years hence there will be some possibility of
perceiving whether international relations are likely to obey the law
which has acted with such beneficence in the life of each civilized