Page:American Historical Review, Volume 12.djvu/392

 382 Reviews of Books writer of established standing, and in his preface he too makes con- fessions. His object is stated to be " donner un tableau general de la vie de TAllemagne de 1851 a 1871, en etudier les divers cotes, politique, litteraire, economique, et indiquer ainsi les conditions qui ont prepare et determine la formation de I'Unite germanique ". He might be think- ing of Zwiedineck-Siidenhorst when he protests against the writers who " exagerent Taction des heros sur revolution du monde ", and declares " que les accidents ne prennent d'importance que s'ils sont la conclusion et la sanction d'un long developpement anterieur, et que les heros n'ap- paraissent et n'exercent d'action reelle que si les conditions generales les preparent et les soutiennent ". The power of a Bismarck " ne s'explique que parce qu'il est la vivante synthese de desirs infinis et de lointaines aspirations "'. In regard to political development he will try " de montrer, au milieu des incidents diplomatiques de portee se- condaire, les causes lointaines et profondes qui expliquent I'attitude des cabinets et les deconvenues de leur politique ". All this seems neither very unfamiliar nor very shocking, and we are rather surprised when M. Denis proceeds to say, " Je ne me dissimule pas combien cette con- ception de I'histoire s'eloigne de I'histoire dite scientifique qui est aujourd'hui en faveur ", and announces that he will " indiquer nettement cette divergence " by suppressing all his notes. There would seem to be here something of inconsequence, and a writer of less standing would per- haps be exposed to some suspicion. But though the careful reader will frequently regret the absence of notes and references (in one instance, p. 317, a very important and definite promise of territorial compensation to France in 1866 is attributed to Bismarck without precise date or authority), and will be constantly irritated by obscurity and lack of precision in quotation, he will not fail to recognize the work of the serious student and to see that the author has a wide acquaintance with the best material. M. Denis also disclaims full objectivity, though not so strongly as Zwiedineck-Siidenhorst; on the whole his narrative seems less marred by his prejudices. As he fulfils his promise of presenting strongly the mass-factors. M. Denis's book forms an admirable complement to the other; how this is so, even in Zwiedineck-Siidenhorst's own field, will be seen by comparing the treatment of military matters. The general European situations are given much more attention by Denis, though on the whole he keeps more closely to his subject than does the Austrian (who, for example, gives too much space to Austro-Italian warfare). Though emphasizing collective aspects, Denis by no means neglects the indi- vidual ; indeed the great personalities of the time loom out of his ani- mated pages more strongly than from those of the companion work. This is due largely to the degree in which he indulges his unusual talent for characterization, lavishing it at times on individuals of com- paratively little importance. This is coupled often with a yielding to the tendencies of the natural gossip and raconteur, and is set off by a