Page:English Historical Review Volume 37.djvu/142

 134 REVIEWS OF BOOKS January influence of Ancillon's education on the most romantic of the Hohen- zollerns is carefully and methodically described and its effect on the momentous decisions of the years succeeding the war of liberation clearly indicated. In the second a topic partly considered in the first is worked out in greater detail, and an attempt made to assign the responsibility for the refusal of Frederick William III to keep his word to his people and grant them the constitution which he had promised on 22 May 1815. It is unfortunately slighter and less well supported with evidence than the first. Nevertheless Professor Haake has made at least a prima facie case for the view of Hardenberg which he puts forward. There is, indeed, great need for the book entitled Hardenbergs Kampf fur preussische Reichsstdnde, which he had long planned, but which economic condi- tions in Germany made it impossible for him to publish, and it may be hoped that he will be able to follow these studies with a much-needed full- dress biography. A more tedious philosopher and statesman than Ancillon it is difficult to imagine, whatever his merits as a preacher, and only a stupid and emotional nature like that of Frederick William IV could have been so impressed by him. Of the crown prince's attachment to his tutor there can, however, be no doubt. It was testified in endless letters with a wealth of superlatives and exclamation marks. As Dr. Haake points out, Ancillon was the last sort of person to be put in charge of a romantic like his pupil. He encouraged and increased his undisciplined and visionary outlook on life. He used him too as a tool in his opposition to the constitution, and the final overthrow of Hardenberg's schemes was partly, though not mainly, due to this influence. Hardenberg's attempt to force his master to grant some real con- stitutional reform to his people is more fully considered in the second monograph. Its pitiful failure, which resulted merely in the creation of eight provincial assemblies with powers so restricted that they were no check whatever on the royal despotism, was due to causes over which Hardenberg had no control. Not merely the weak, untrustworthy, and ungrateful character of the king, but the whole trend of German, indeed of European, politics made it impossible for Hardenberg to carry through his plan of a central assembly of estates. Dr. Haake strives to show that Hardenberg made an honourable and determined fight for constitutional liberty, and that Stein and Humboldt in his place could have done no more. He scarcely stresses sufficiently the effects of the physical weak- nesses of Hardenberg and the irregularities of his private life. Yet it is true that no statesman could have supported with honour to himself the intolerable burden of such a master as Frederick William III, and to the Hohenzollern character must be mainly attributed the fact that Prussia was for so long denied the possibility of constitutional development, a fact which altered the whole character of German history in the nineteenth century and led to the final catastrophe of the great war. Dr. Haake writes of these events with a fine detachment, though he reveals at times that he fully realizes how much they have contributed to the present position of his country. C. K. WEBSTER.