Page:English Historical Review Volume 37.djvu/313

 1922 SHORT NOTICES 305 the result of original research, the u. ' elusions are Mr. Herbert's own, and, I am afraid, will come as a shock to the historical mind. To ascribe the name of ' primary cause ' of the French Revolution to any category of facts is inadmissible when we consider how little we know of the history of the Revolution, how much less still of its causes. To say that ' institu- tions do not grow, they are made ', is to ignore intentionally the history of institutions. To say ' The popular sense of right may often be wiser than the opinion of statesmen ' is to draw a political conclusion which gives to a book of historical scholarship a partisan aspect which ought to be avoided. All generalizations, all conclusions on this aspect of the Revolution are premature until we possess complete local histories and studies of details, and until the following two questions of primary impor- tance have been confronted and solved : (1) How far can we ascribe to the peasants what is given as their ideas in the very numerous documents presented in their name to the assemblies ? (2) How is it that the peasant class, alleged by these documents to be in such a state of unthinkable poverty, was able, even before 1789, to acquire, by payment of ready money, the possession of a large part of the soil and to continue, in spite of its perpetual complaints, this policy of purchase during the first years of the Revolution ? R. F. In Robespierre Terroriste (Paris : La Renaissance du Livre, 1921), by M. Albert Mathiez,-are some interesting papers, mostly reprinted from the Annales Revolutionnaires. Specially noteworthy are those on the two versions of the trial of the Hebertistes, on the banker Boyd, on ' Le Garnet de Robespierre ', and on Robespierre's notes on and for Saint- Just's speech demanding the condemnation of Danton, Camille Desmoulins, Herault, and the rest. M. Mathiez's aim throughout is to defend and exalt Robespierre and, as a means to that end, to blacken Danton. He shows his usual erudition and is, as usual, skilful in wringing the last drop of evidence from every fact that may tell against Danton ; he puts the case in favour of Robespierre with equal skill. E. D. B. Every student of the Reign of Terror will be deeply grateful to M. Mathiez for his book, Un Proces de Corruption sous la Terreur IS Affaire de la Compagnie des Indes (Paris : Alcan, 1920). The strange and compli- cated affair with which it deals brought four of the most prominent deputies of the Convention to the scaffold in disgrace, and Danton, who had nothing to do with the crime for which they were tried, was tried along with them. It is therefore important to follow the business through all its windings, and hitherto it has been impossible for anyone to do so unless he had access to the Archives Nationales ; a patient study of the printed documents relating to the case scattered in many books was not enough. M. Mathiez has now, as he says, given historians the means of judging for themselves. To put the matter briefly : two or three deputies who had the ear of the Convention were accustomed to make speeches which sent stocks and shares up and down, in order that they might speculate in them. They, or some of them, finally ventured to alter certain clauses of a bill for winding up the Compagnie des Indes after the VOL. XXXVII. NO. CXLVI. X