common result. This was the ideal of Goethe, and it is an ideal which will impose itself upon the thoughts of our modern societies more and more." Yes; the ideal of world-literature, which Herder's Voices of the People did so much to foster in Germany, is attractive, especially to men who have never known true national unity. But, however deeply national literature may be indebted to an international exchange of ideas, however splendid may be the conception of universal principles in literary production and criticism, the true makers of national literature are the actions and thoughts of the nation itself; the place of these can never be taken by the sympathies of a cultured class too wide to be national, or those of a central academy too refined to be provincial. Proyincialism is no ban in truly national literature. The influence of London has indeed been continually expressed by Chaucer, by Shakspere, by Milton, by Dryden, by Addison and Pope and Johnson. Perhaps the flavour of London life has been sometimes too strong in English literature.[1] But provincial language as well as spirit have found a ready place in the literature of England.
Here, then, we have two types of national literature—the English, blending local and central elements of national life without losing national unity in local distinctions such as Italy and Germany have known too well; the French, centralising its life in Paris, and so tending to prefer cosmopolitan ideals. Montesquieu tells us that he would subordinate his personal interests to those of his family, those of his family to those of his nation, those of his nation to the good of Europe and of the world.[2] In
