We have now seen how the two great political systems that were founded upon the Ancient City both ended in failure, though both achieved enormous and lasting results.  And we have seen how largely both these political failures were due to the absence of the principle of representation from the public life of Greece and Rome.  The chief problem of civilization, from the political point of view, has always been how to secure concerted action among men on a great scale without sacrificing local independence.  The ancient history of Europe shows that it is not possible to solve this problem without the aid of the principle of representation.  Greece, until overcome by external force, sacredly maintained local self-government, but in securing permanent concert of action it was conspicuously unsuccessful.  Rome secured concert of action on a gigantic scale, and transformed the thousand unconnected tribes and cities it conquered into an organized European world, but in doing this it went far towards extinguishing local self-government.  The advent of the Teutons upon the scene seems therefore to have been necessary, if only to supply the indispensable element without which the dilemma of civilization could not be surmounted.  The turbulence of Europe during the Teutonic migrations was so great and so long continued, that on a superficial view one might be excused for regarding the good work of Rome as largely undone.  And in the feudal isolation of effort and apparent incapacity for combined action which characterized the different parts of Europe after the downfall of the Carolingian empire, it might well have seemed that political society had reverted towards a primitive type of structure.  In truth, however, the retrogradation was much slighter than appeared on the surface.  Feudalism itself, with its curious net-work of fealties and obligations running through the fabric of society in every direction, was by no means purely disintegrative in its tendencies.  The mutual relations of rival baronies were by no means like those of rival clans or tribes in pre-Roman days.  The central power of Rome, though no longer exerted politically through curators and prefects, was no less effective in the potent hands of the clergy and in the traditions of the imperial jurisprudence by which the legal ideas of mediaeval society were so strongly coloured.  So powerful, indeed, was this twofold influence of Rome, that in the later Middle Ages, when the modern nationalities had fairly taken shape, it was the capacity for local self-government—­in spite of all the Teutonic reinforcement it had had—­that had suffered much more than the capacity for national consolidation.  Among the great modern nations it was only England—­which in its political development had remained more independent of the Roman law and the Roman church than even the Teutonic fatherland itself—­it was only England that came out of the mediaeval crucible with its Teutonic self-government substantially intact.  On the main-land only two