the soil of great nationalities--such are a few of Treitschke's dogmatic
utterances on this subject.[2] But it is not merely the Germans who think
small beer of small nationalities. Listen to Sir John Seeley: "The question
whether large states or small states are best is not one which can be
answered or ought to be discussed absolutely. We often hear abstract
panegyrics upon the happiness of small states. But observe that a small
state among small states is one thing, and a small state among large states
quite another. Nothing is more delightful to read of than the bright days
of Athens and Florence, but those bright days lasted only so long as the
states with which Athens and Florence had to do were states on a similar
scale of magnitude. Both states sank at once as soon as large country
states of consolidated strength grew up in their neighbourhood. The lustre
of Athens grew pale as soon as Macedonia arose, and Charles V. speedily
brought to an end the great days of Florence. Now if it be true that a
larger type of state than any hitherto known is springing up in the world,
is not this a serious consideration for those states which rise only to the
old level of magnitude?"[3] The answer to which is, "Yes, indeed, if
the good old plan
That he should take who has the power,
And he should keep who can

is to be the guiding principle in European politics of the future." But
surely Sir John Seeley's argument, though undoubtedly telling as regards
the sovereign independence of small _States_, tells for and not against the
preservation of small _nations_. Was it to the interest of the world as a
whole that Athens and Florence should be crushed? Is it not true, in spite
of Treitschke, that the great things of earth have been the product of
small peoples? We owe our conceptions of law to a city called Rome, our
finest output of literature and art to small communities like Athens,
Florence, Holland, and Elizabethan England, our religion to an