usage, the authors of the Report have very little to propose. A Chamber of Princes as a permanent consultative body; a Standing Committee of that body; a commission of inquiry into disputes, and another, perhaps of higher standing, to deal with cases of misconduct; a change in political relations by placing the more important States in direct correspondence with the Government of India, and an informal conferencesimilar to a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliamentbetween the Council (or Chamber) of Princes and the democratic Council of State; such are the proposals, and it will be obvious that only one of them, or at most two, contemplate the revolutionary alterations in the constitution of India from an alien benevolent oligarchy to a so-called responsible democracy. For the moment we may put aside the conference. The withdrawal of the States from the control of local Governments seems to suggest some apprehension lest the Princes should conceive some derogation of their dignity by dealing with a Government reconstituted upon a democratic basis, though it is only fair to add that other critics have seen in the proposal a weakening of British control and a deprivation of salutary advice from the more accessible authorities.

The important paragraph in the chapter is that in which the authors outline their vision of the future:

'Looking ahead to the future we can picture India to ourselves only as presenting the external semblance of some form of "federation." The provinces will ultimately become self-governing units, held together by the Central Government, which will deal solely with matters of concern to all of them. But the matters common to the British provinces are also to a great extent those in which the Native States are interested. . . . The gradual concentration of the Government of India upon such matters will therefore make it easier for the States while retaining the autonomy which they cherish in internal matters, to enter into closer association with the Central Government if they wish to do so.'

The enigma in this passage lies in the words 'Central Government.' What sort of Central Government is contemplated? The word 'ultimately' taken in combination with a forecast of the future suggests a vision

of India, not after ten years or twenty, but in its final shape, and that shape in the aspirations of practically all her politicians will be a completely self-governing Dominion with perhaps an English Viceroy to represent the connexion with the Crown. If that is so, all the difficulties and complications we have been considering will arise. If not, then Indians are hugging a delusion.

Now, if we consider critically the famous declaration of 1917, it will be seen that while it does not and cannot directly touch the Indian States, it leaves open to interpretation the question of their indirect inclusion in the scheme. It speaks of the increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible government in India.' It is quite plain that India as used here means British India, for it is absurd to suggest the 'gradual development of self-governing institutions' in States which are internally autonomous. It may therefore be at least plausibly argued that 'every branch of the administration' refers only to the internal government of the country, including of course national defence, though whether foreign policy would also be included would depend upon the final control reserved by the Mother Country. It is true that the external foreign policy is a matter of great interest to the Princes whose fortunes are interwoven with those of British India and who are bound by their engagements to assist in the defence of the country. The existence within an Empire of large blocks of territory owning a general allegiance, yet admitting a limited interference by the suzerain Power while otherwise retaining full autonomy, differentiates India from any other Dominion, and indeed from any other country in the world; unparalleled conditions may require special treatment, and we need not assume that England has said the last word on systems of government, or been too proud to borrow hints from other nations. There is in the Japanese constitution a provision withdrawing the Army and Navy from popular control, and the articles are worth quoting:

'ART. XII. The Emperor determines the organisation and peace standing of the Army and Navy.'

'ART. LXVII. Those already fixed expenditures based by the Constitution upon the powers appertaining to the Emperor and such expenditure as may have arisen by the effect of law and that appertain to the legal obligation of the Government shall neither be rejected nor reduced by the Imperial Diet without the concurrence of the Government.'

On some such lines as these it may be possible to withdraw the States from the control of the Legislative Assembly, at the same time ensuring that the British Department shall not be hampered by an adverse financial vote. The mutual interests of the States and of British India would be discussed through the medium of the Department, which would thus stand midway between the two, and occupy a position akin to that of arbitrator. The arrangement is not ideal; friction would no doubt arise, and there might be some difficulty in maintaining a small foreign department in a wholly native government. Once again the thorny question of the Army, with all its implications and complications, looms in the background. But the friction would in all probability be considerably less under such an arrangement, and the question of the Army, if no better safeguards can be devised, must be left to goodwill and harmony in practical working. The suggestion has at least this merit-that it does not confuse the ideas of autocratic and constitutional monarchy, nor does it sever the States from British India, at any rate to the degree entailed by the idea of direct access to His Majesty's Government and the King-Emperor through the Viceroy acting as sole agent. One thing is certain, that the prestige of the Princes ought to be enhanced rather than reduced. Already there are signs-insignificant perhaps in themselves but cumulative in effectthat service in the States is regarded as something hardly equal to similar service in British India, and for that the English cannot be held to be entirely blameless. All the more, therefore, is it necessary when the political position in India comes to be reviewed, to put in the forefront the prestige of the Princes and the unity of the country. STANLEY RICE.

Art. 8.-THE GREEK VIEW OF LIFE.

The Legacy of Greece. Essays by Various Writers. Oxford University Press, 1921.

THE 'legacy' or 'heritage' of Greece is a phrase which has been much repeated in recent years since the traditional supremacy of the classics has been questioned and very considerably reduced in the educational system of the large English schools. Alarmed by the sudden cracks and threatened collapse of their classic temple, English and American scholars have been at pains to make the extent and value of the legacy of Greece and Rome clear to the general public, and, at times, by the excess of their fervour and protests have, perhaps, rather increased than diminished the distrust of those whom they would convert or reassure. Their theme has been, in general, the literary, artistic, and philosophical achievement of the Greeks, evident in the still existing remains, and to a less extent the development of their political thought and practice, and their championship of liberty.

These works constitute the actual legacy of Greece. They are in one sense the positive results of the great civilisation of Greece, and their appreciation is either æsthetic or educational, under which term is understood the study of their language and thought rather than of their art, though that of course cannot be entirely excluded, used to train the mind in the habit of clear and precise thought. We may be delighted by the direct contemplation of her architecture or sculpture or by the artistic form of her literature whether prose or poetry, or we may benefit our minds-and this is her educational legacy in a secondary sense-by following out the recorded attempts of Greeks to solve the various problems that arise in the course of man's social and political development, problems presented to them in a simple and fundamental form, which they viewed without any bias or tradition from earlier and alien civilisations to complicate the method of approach.

But there is another legacy which Greece has left us, more difficult to formulate, for it is negative rather than positive in result, and has no place in the general estimates of their bequest to the modern world, nor is it directly presented in any of the concrete remains of

that civilisation, though each fragment of literary and artistic and historical record presupposes it and assists its elucidation. It is their conception of the world and of the purpose of life in it; or more precisely the relationship of the individual to his world. And it is the failure of their conception, showing the untenability of one of two possible attitudes towards experience, which constitutes the great spiritual legacy of Greece to the modern world, in distinction from the more visible heritage of art and literature. And when we talk of the legacy of Greece, we mean very largely the legacy of Athens, for it is at Athens in the fifth century B.C. that Greek civilisation culminates and fails, and it is from the political and social life of that age that spring as from a central fire those forces of art and literature which are still active in the modern world. It is at Athens that we find the most complete and essential form of Greek civilisation, the full development of the Greek conception of the individual's relationship to the world, and it is from Athens that we draw to its full extent the legacy bequeathed to us in her failure.

In his recent book on Romanticism Mr Lascelles Abercrombie has analysed in an interesting and illuminating manner some aspects of the romantic element in literature. He has taken as his touchstone of the romantic spirit a passage from Thomas Campbell's 'Pleasures of Hope':

'Why to yon mountain turns the musing eye
Whose sunbright summit mingles with the sky?
Why do those cliffs of shadowy tint appear
More sweet than all the landscape smiling near?
'Tis distance lends enchantment to the view
And robes the mountain in its azure hue '—

and from it in particular the famous line

''Tis distance lends enchantment to the view,' as giving with epigrammatic force the essence of the romantic temperament, which he finally defines in prose form as being 'the habit of mind . . . that in all respects life in this world is likely to be most satisfactory when the mind withdraws from outer things and turns in upon itself.' Now, if we apply this definition of Romanticism to the great period of art and literature in fifth