Without provoking much dispute as to substance, Premier Mussolini's recent comment on Machiavelli's "Prince" invites generalization on the differences in the political and social outlook of the Anglo-Saxon and of the Latin. Mussolini's ideas may be looked upon as fairly typical of the latter Lincoln has been pointed out as one of the best interpreters of the former. And the vast gulf between the conclusions of such men can signify nothing other than a complete difference in methods and equipment.

It has long been one of the foibles of Anglo-Saxon races to Characterize the Latins as foolish, sentimental people, and to consider themselves as particularly rational and practical; and this delusion is still widely popular. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. It is the Latin who looks at the realities of life, and who, arguing like Machiavelli and Mussolini, from what man is, decide what government must be. It is the Anglo-Saxon who commences with an abstraction, an ideal conception of what ought to be, and finally shapes his state upon opportunity, according to theory. And as to sentiment, almost everyone knows that the English and Germans are the most sentimental people in the world, while the Italians, in spite of their demonstrate veneess, remain cool-headed and realistic.

This realism, amounting in the case of rulers at least to pessimism certainly has its disadvantages internally, it can hardly result in mutual confidence and loyalty, and "distrust" might be called the key to Italian history. Almost as truly might "sentiment" be called the key to English and American history. One must remember that appearances are deceiving. If one wants proof, one should turn not to the things which a nation says of itself--but to the reasoning with which its politicians away the populace or to the philosophy of its great men. One finds such contrasts as Lincoln and Mussolini, Lee and Napoleon men of comparable abilities, but with absolutely incompatible points of view. Such men are not typical in the usual sense; but they are crystallization's of the most admired, most cherished characteristics of their races. In this light, the analysis of their differences is of more than biographical interest.