devotion to his city-state. To a wider circle he was not capable of
feeling anything like the same sense of obligation or, indeed, any
compelling obligation at all. If he recognized the claim of a group of
city-states, which remotely claimed common origin with his own, it was
an academic feeling: if he was conscious of his community with all
Hellenes as a nation it was only at moments of particular danger at the
hands of a common non-Hellenic foe. In short, while not insensible to
the principle of nationality he was rarely capable of applying it
practically except in regard to a small society with whose members he
could be acquainted personally and among whom he could make his own
individuality felt. He had no feudal tradition, and no instinctive
belief that the individualities composing a community must be
subordinate to any one individual in virtue of the latter's patriarchal
or representative relation to them.

Let us deal with this political implication of Hellenism before we pass
on to its other qualities. In its purity political Hellenism was
obviously not compatible with the monarchical Macedonian state, which
was based on feudal recognition of the paternal or representative
relation of a single individual to many peoples composing a nation. The
Macedonians themselves, therefore, could not carry to Asia, together
with their own national patriotism (somewhat intensified, perhaps, by
intercourse during past generations with Greek city-states) any more
than an outside knowledge of the civic patriotism of the Greeks. Since,
however, they brought in their train a great number of actual Greeks and
had to look to settlement of these in Asia for indispensable support of
their own rule, commerce and civilization, they were bound to create
conditions under which civic patriotism, of which they knew the value as
well as the danger, might continue to exist in some measure. Their
obvious policy was to found cities wherever they wished to settle