Leading Articles in the Reviews. 



287 



FREDERICK THE GREAT AS HISTORIAN. 



Thk Sevkn \'k.\rs' War. 



The German reviews for February publish a number 

 of articles on Frederick the Great, one of them, by 

 Klisabeth von Moeller. in the Deutsche Rundschau, 

 dealing with him as historian of the Seven Years' War. 



THE KI.NG's ViJl.UMINOlS WRITINGS. 



The works of Frederick the Great are said to be 

 twice as voluminous as those of Goethe, and they were 

 all written in French, for the King, with his contempt 

 for German, could hardly speak, and certainly could 

 not write, his own language. In Preuss's edition, 

 published under the auspices of the Berlin Academy of 

 Sciences, 1846-7, the King's writings run to thirty 

 volumes. These include his famous history of the three 

 Silesian Wars, the third war being now better known 

 as the Seven Years' War (1756-1763). The history of 

 the first two wars was completed in 1746, but was 

 carefully revised thirty years later. Two \'olumes are 

 devoted to the third Silesian War. It may here be 

 remarked that Frederick did not use the designation 

 '■ Seven Years' War " ; that title was invented twenty 

 years after the war by G. F. von Tempelhoff, in his 

 history, and made popular by Archenholtz, another 

 historian. 



SOVEREIGN CARELESSNESS AS TO DETAILS. 



Frederick's history of the Seven Years' War was 

 never subjected to revision, like the previous histories, 

 and many errors, rather trifling it may be admitted, 

 have crept in. Various causes are given for the inac- 

 curacies. The King complained of his bad memory, 

 but more probably the chief causes were the haste in 

 which the history was written and his " sovereign 

 carelessness." The work was taken up as a kind of 

 recreation after the day's work. '' This occupation," 

 he wrote, " makes me happy so long as it lasts ; it 

 makes me forget my present condition, and gives me 

 what the doctors call lucid intervals. But as soon as 

 this stimulus dis.ippears I shall sink again into my 

 sad dreams." He did not approve of that painful 

 accuracy which seeks to avoid a mistake even in the 

 smallest detail ; it .seemed to him pedantic and lacking 

 in intelligence. " Our historians," he thought, " have 

 always made the mistake of not distinguishing between 

 chief and secondary things." He despi.sed details 

 which diverted attention from the m.iin point. 



A CHRONICLE OF HUMAN FiPl.l.iES. 



According to one critic, never did a King speak so 

 impartially about his own deeds, or, as a statesm.m or 

 general, so-i^rankly about his motives or his mistakes. 

 Frederick never emphasises his own great deeds ; he 

 merely states facts. He apologises for his use of the 

 French language. Hi- had considered the dilVirulties 

 for a German, but. on the whole, he thought French the 

 most precise, as it was also the language most in use 

 in Kurope at the time. Like C.e.sar, he writes in the 

 third person, and refers to hini'self as " the King." It is 

 not possible to say how much time he spent on the 



history, but the bulk of it was probably written in the 

 last seven or eight months of 1763. Though said to 

 have been finished in December of that year, the 

 preface is signed March 3rd, 1764. On February i6th 

 he wrote to Mari'chal d'Ecosse : — " I am at work 

 writing down m>- political and military follies " ; and 

 on .\pril 7th he wrote : — " The memoirs just completed 

 convint e me more than ever that the writing of history 

 is making a collection of human follies and chance 

 experiences." 



THE HISTORY A JUSTIFICATION. 



The two chief objects he had in view in writing his 

 own account of the war were, he said, first, to prove 

 to posterity that it was not possible for him to avoid 

 the war, and that the honour and welfare of the State 

 prevented him from making any other terms than 

 those agreed upon ; and, secondly, to e.xplain his 

 military operations. The history was thus a " justi- 

 fication," military and political. At the outbreak of the 

 war, as we know, he took the aggressive, but he 

 explains :— " The real aggressor is undoubtedly he 

 who compels another to arm and undertake a less 

 .serious war to avoid a more dangerous one. One must 

 always choose the lesser of two evils." While the war 

 was in progress he wrote down explanations of his 

 military strategy. His characterisations are often 

 severe. '" .Must not Maria Theresa feel that she could 

 not break her word against anyone without inflicting 

 wrongs?" he wrote. On the other liand, we have 

 " Maria Theresa, the splendid woman de\oured by 

 ambition, who executed plans worthy of a great man." 

 Some of the officers are very briefly mentioned, and 

 there are no eulogies. But Schwerin is described as 

 " worth more than 10,000 men," and Fouque is " a 

 second Leonidas," Other ofiicers come in for severe 

 criticism, 



Frederick's philosophy. 



Many a valuable hint for his successors is recorded 

 by the King. For instance : — 



No mailer how favouralile one's opinion may be of onc>clfi 

 carelessness in war is alw.iys dangerous. It i» bct'.cr lo lake 

 superfluous precavilions tli.in omil necessary ones. 



After all, it is neither the forlilicalions nor the soldiers which 

 defend a city. Kverythiny depends on more or less ctpablc 

 heads and the strong courage of the man in command. 



A few glimpses of the " unbelieving belief " of the 

 King are also afforded us in the great history. On one 

 occasion he expresses his contempt for humanity by 

 referring to the people as " an animal with few eyes 

 and many tongues." While he affected to set little 

 store by " secondary causes," he writes : — 



The existence of nun hangs by a hair, and the winnini; or 

 the lois of a battle depends on a mere baRatcUc. Our fates are 

 the result of a uni%-ersal network of secondary causes, which, 

 owing lo the results they induce, must of neceuily end favour- 

 ably ur dis.v>lrou9ly. 



Sometimes he calls the secondary causes " fate " ; but 

 again he explains, " What is usually called fate has 

 no part in the things of this life," 



