overlord, it was never forgotten for an instant that his relation to his subjects was as their own count and strictly limited by conditions that had long existed within each petty territory.  While Charles seemed to be on the straight road towards his goal, the people within each body politic of his inherited states were profoundly preoccupied with their own local concerns, and only alive to his schemes when they feared demands upon their internal revenues for external purposes.

It does not seem probable, however, that the abstract question of the projected kingdom was ever taken very seriously among those to be directly affected by the proposed change.  The bars interposed by his own subjects in the duke’s progress towards royalty were obstructions to his successive steps rather than to his theory.  Indeed, strenuous opposition to details was allied to a vague and passive acceptance of the whole.  Moreover when the idea was phrased it was distinctly as a revival, not as a novelty.  The previous existence of a kingdom of Burgundy was undoubtedly a potent factor in the degree of progress made by Charles towards conjuring into new life a reincarnation of that ancient realm.  Yet it was a factor clothed with a shadow rather than with the substance of truth.  Geographically there was very little in common between the dominion projected more or less definitely in 1473 and any one of the kingdoms of Burgundy as they had successively existed.  That of Charles corresponded very nearly to the ancient kingdom of Lorraine.  Franche-Comte was the only ground common to the territories actually held by the duke and to the latest kingdom of Burgundy.  His possessions in Picardy and Alsace lay wholly beyond the limits of either Burgundy or Lorraine.  But the old name survived in his ducal title, and it was that name that lent a semblance of reality to this fifteenth-century dream of a middle kingdom as outlined in the duke’s mind more or less definitely or as bounded by his ambition.

In retrospect it is clear that more was requisite for the realisation of the vision of the wished-for nation, than imperial investiture of a crowned monarch with sovereignty over a group of lands.  A modern writer has pointed out how infinitely subtle is the vital principle of a nation, one not even to be created by common interests.  A Zollverein is no patria.  An element of sentiment is needful, and an element of growth.[23] The nation like the individual is the result of what has gone before.  An heroic past, great men, glory that can command respect at home and abroad—­that is the capital on which is based a national idea.  To have wrought in common, to wish to accomplish more in the future, are essential conditions to be a people.  “The existence of a nation is a plebiscite of every day, just as the existence of the individual is a perpetual affirmation of life.”