e and imperious personage, could be called a father and obeyed
as a natural master. His command might by convention be regarded as an
expression of the common voice, just as the father's will is by nature
the representative of his children's interests. Again, the members of
each community were distinguished from their enemies by many a sign and
custom; these signs and customs might also become a graphic symbol for
the common life.

Both these cases suggest how easily a symbol takes the place of its
object and becomes an idol. If the symbol happens to be a man there are
natural human sentiments awakened by him; and whatever respect his
character or gifts may inspire, whatever charm there may be in his
person, whatever graciousness he may add to his official favours or
commands, increase immensely his personal ascendency. A king has a great
opportunity to make himself loved. This scope given to private
inclination is what, to ordinary fancy, makes royalty enviable; few envy
its impersonal power and historic weight. Yet if a king were nothing but
a man surrounded by flatterers, who was cheered when he drove abroad,
there would be little stability in monarchy. A king is really the
state's hinge and centre of gravity, the point where all private and
party ambitions meet and, in a sense, are neutralised. It is not easy
for factions to overturn him, for every other force in the state will
instinctively support him against faction. His elevation above everyone,
the identity of his sober interests with those of the state at large, is
calculated to make him the people's natural representative; his word has
therefore a genuine authority, and his ascendency, not being invidious,
is able to secure internal peace, even when not enlightened enough to
insure prosperity or to avoid foreign wars. Accordingly, whenever a
monarchy is at all representative time has an irresistible tendency to
increase its prestige; the king is felt to be the guardian as well as
the symbol of all public greatness.

Meantime a double dislocation is possible here: patriotism may be wholly
identified with personal loyalty to the sovereign, while the sovereign
himself, instead of making public interests his own, may direct his
policy so as to satisfy his private passions. The first confusion leads
to a conflict between tradition and reason; the second to the ruin of
either the state or the monarchy. In a word, a symbol needs to remain
transparent and to become