Of this notion of Jerusalem as the New Jerusalem, of the Utopian aspect of the adventure of the Latin Kingdom, something may be said in a moment.

But meanwhile there was a more important part played by Jerusalem, I think, in all that great progress and reaction which has left us the problem of modern Europe.
And the suggestion of it is bound up with the former suggestion, about the difference between the goal and the right road that might have led to it.

It is bound up with that quality of the civilisation in question, that it was potential rather than perfect; and there is no need to idealise it in order to regret it.
This peculiar part played by Jerusalem I mention merely as a suggestion; I might almost say a suspicion.

Anyhow, it is something of a guess; but I for one have found it a guide.
Medievalism died, but it died young.

It was at once energetic and incomplete when it died, or very shortly before it died.
This is not a matter of sympathy or antipathy, but of appreciation of an interesting historic comparison with other historic cases.
When the Roman Empire finally failed we cannot of course say that it had done all it was meant to do, for that is dogmatism.
We cannot even say it had done all that it might have done, for that is guesswork.