The Monroe Doctrine， to take a dignified example， is a tradition， regarded historically， but a convention as to the manner in which it enters into contemporary opinion.
In a similar manner we may see that conventions must also be traditions.
The new fashions are adaptations of (338) old ones， and there are no really new ideas of any sort， only a gradual transformation of those that have come down from the past.
In a large view， then， tradition and convention are merely aspects of the transmission of thought and of the unity oi social groups that results from it. If our mind is fixed upon the historical phase of the matter we see tradition， if upon the contemporary phase we see convention. But the process is really one， and the opposition only particular and apparent.
All influences are contemporary in their immediate origin， all are rooted in the past.
What is it， then， that makes the difference between an apparently traditional society， such as that of mediaeval Europe， and an apparently conventional society， like that of our time？ Simply that the conditions are such as to make one of these phases more obvious than the other. In a comparatively small and stable group， continuous in the same locality and having little intercourse with the world outside， the fact that ideas come from tradition is evident； they pass down from parents to children as visibly as physical traits. Convention， however， or the action of contemporary intercourse， is on so small a scale as to be less apparent； the length and not the breadth of the movement attracts the eye.
On the other hand， in the case of a wide-reaching group bound into conscious unity by facile communication， people no longer look chiefly to their fathers for ideas； the paternal influence has to compete with many others， and is further weakened by the breaking up of family associations which goes with ease of movement. Yet men are (339) not less dependent upon the past than before； it is only that tradition is so intricate and so spread out over the face of things that its character as tradition is hardly to be discovered. The obvious thing now is the lateral movement； influences seem to come in sidewise and fashion rules over custom. The difference is something like that between a multitude of disconnected streamlets and a single wide river， in which the general downward movement is obscured by numerous cross-currents and eddies.
In truth， facile communication extends the scope of tradition as much as it does that of fashion. All the known past becomes accessible anywhere， and instead of the cult of immediate ancestors we have a long-armed， selective appropriation of whatever traditional ideas suit our tastes. For painting the whole world goes to Renaissance Italy， for sculpture to ancient Greece， and so on. Convention has not gained as against tradition， but both have been transformed.
In much the same way we may distinguish between traditionalism and conventionalism；the one meaning a dominant type of thought evidently handed down from the past， the other a type formed by contemporary influence梑ut we should not expect the distinction to be any more fundamental than before.
