The times., 1899-09-10
Fly Yenrr of Eurone.


s'The Historical Development OF Modern
Europe" by Charles N. Andrews, asso-
ciate professor Of history in Bryn Mawr
College, is a history Of European gov
ernments during the present century The
second volume of this history. which has
just appeared, deals with the events from
1850 to 1887, and the two volumes are sold
separately, each being complete in itself.
The work is of a type which is becoming
more Important as well as more common
In modern historical Iiterature-the sna-
lytical type. Prof. Andrews has conce.n n d
himself with the international relations of
the various powers. and treated only those
phases Of the history Of each country which
IN some way directly concern the develop
ment Of Europe. He has paid little atten-
tion TO military operations, believing that
these should be treated ia separate mill
tary history; nor has he given any bio
graphical details in regard TO statesmen,
dealing only with each mans work as it
concerned the public. The result is q
harmonious, weli-srrs nged. and compre-
hensive narrative of the type marked cut
by the author at the beginning. hint
Of the attitude Of this historian is found
in the preface, in which he explains his
views of certain events dealt with in his
book:
In studying the rise Of Napoleon III. the abase-
ment Of Austria, the independence Of Italy, the
unity Of Germany, and the entire alteration OF the
European political system, we are confronted on
the one hand with the danger Of exaggerating the
importance OF the persons concerned, giving un-
due prominence 10 single events Or incidents, and
taking results for granted without searching for
their causes; on the ether, with the equally
great danger Of minimizing the personal equation,
laying too much stress underlying and hidden
and lrnkfug he qf the
as dominated by influences beyond -sheir control.
Though in choosing between these TWO extremes
] have deemed il more true TO just inieTpre-
tatlon Ut my subject TO give the position 81
greatest prominence 10 the personal influence Of
Cavour and Bismarck, nevertheless no careful
student Of the period can fail 10 perceive that
the events Of 1853 lsl6. and 1870 were but the
logical outcome Of those Of the earlier period, OF
viii deny that either OF these statesmen, not
withstanding the genius and masterful diplomacy
by which he was able TO hasten and give shape 10
the movement, would have been pOweriess 70 ae-
complish his object had not the forces making
for independence and unity been preparing Tor
hall century.
This is precisely the point on which many
historians and politicians have blunderea.
They have persisted in believing either
that the personality of man can entirely
regenerate his time-that the man makes
circumstances that the leader of
great party is simply the creature OF
GfGAAes DHlOl<A4ilol- ->CAllct VI NutSC
things is true Napoleon without his op-
portunities would have been less than Ma
poleon- Bismarck. though he did not make
his destiny, yet helped TO make it, since the
great work Of the unifcation Of Germany
might have waited forever had he not been
fitted TO his task The historians, until
lately, have blundered as the moralists
and theolOgians have, in giving too great
or too little importance TO mans action as
compared with the great forces that make
for change and ultimate progress.
This history begins with the Congress
OF Vienna and the rise Of the second En-
pire, and continues TO the year 1897. Some
OF the important events discussed are the
unity Of Germany, the unity of Italy, the
Crinean war. and the establishment of
the dual monarchy The history of the
Second Empire and the Third Republic
should be particularly interesting at this
time, since the eyes Of all the world have
been turned On France. The Dreyfus case
has drawn attention to the French charac-
ter and civilization. and there is no pse
in denying that considerable interest, not
altogether friendly is felt by other nations
in regard TO the future Of this Gallic race,
so strangely made up of patriotism and
treachery, deep feeling and frivoiity. There
is in the first chapter a clever analysis
Of Louis Napoleon, part Of which it may
be well 10 quote After mentioning the
acts strengthening the police force in
France and discouraging all socialistic or
labor movements. the author says:
Having thus struck down those who had fought
in lsse, Louis Napoleon continued his policy Of
reaction and despotism by attacking, first the
rnonarchists, aftcFwaFd, the pres. In order
10 control the elections more successfully the
government changed az viii the electoral dis
tricts, put INTO the feld its own candidates
fuTcfr and ffa
Interests. distributed piacards and bulletins and
IN general, held The election in lis own hands
not only 1y controlling the electoral machinery
but also by iHtimidating Republican and Or
leSnist that neither dared 20 10 the polls. In
consequence of these acts France fell into state
Of political sfatay thar 10 continue through
out tie ensuing decade; freedom of thought and
of speech were forbidden; opposition TO the gov
ernmoHt was punished without mercy; education
was controlled; political progress stopped; and
the parliamentary liberty that France had en-
soyed for nearly forty years gave way 70 a cen
tralizcd goFeFEmeEt which lacked constitutional
check or limiis and had as its head a political
despot.
And what return did france receive FOR the
liberty 50 willingly Tesignedg She was no longer
torInented by the horror ot anarchy which had
been almost constantly present since lsss: she
was relieved q the uncertainties % parliamentary
government. which had never proved natural to
fTznce and 4 the socialistic upTsings and exper-
3ments. Which mad threatened the country with
Constant municipal II not civil war. To this de-
sire fer rest and peace Louis Napoleon appealed.
lie tempered his desI0tism with good works, and
tried 70 give the various classes what he believed
each wished and needed, that he might bring the
nation look upon him Is . bsnefactor as one
who would never forget the welfare Of his people
He endegVored 10 bind 20 himself the official
world by fsTeTs, receptions and fetes, and the
people by fireworks, reviews and free displays
which seemed to be endless during the summer
ot 1852
All OF which goes to prove that in con-
trolling certain races a man may be fairly
8uccessful IL he Is only a wise despot
The next chapter deals with the cri-
saesn war, and ia IL are traced the diplo-
k1afic processes which eliminated IN this
yreat struggle between Russia and the rest
d the Continent. Prof. Andrews recog-
sizes as do many others, the fact that Rus
Eia is not altogether q European nation,
that she is the most westerly of Eastern
nations rather than the most easterly OF
Western ones" be points out the fact
that Nicholas I. Gar OF all the Russias.
had not the training necessary for a sue
cossfuI statesman; being head OF an en-
pire which had been for centuries undis-
turbed by the forces which were stirring
ell Europe. his habit was rather imperious
than diplomatic. Thus he made mistakes;
and the mistakes resulted in war. Blum
dering into interference with the liberty
OF other powers. he walked the guns of
England and aroused feud which is lot
yet ended The analysis OF this war by
the present author Is mastery bit Of
work. He says:
TIE war thus undertaken for the purpose Of
destroying Sehassoilo Is almost unique in his
fcrs. Springing from dispute over merely sb-
Ktracf questions of influence and political equiii
briun entered into without hate as far as the
sfsair ~ lrn acl fsNt