HISTORICAL SYNTHESIS 163 



opinion. To begin with, a certain predilection for the interests of 

 France may be observed in the scale of the work, and though the 

 general tone is excellent, one now and then sees national pride welling 

 up within the heart of the historian. For example, M. Denis, at the 

 close of his chapter on the Thirty Years' War, introduces a sentence 

 or two which, however natural and justifiable, must impress the 

 reader as being slightly tinged with purple. "In achieving the ruin 

 of imperial authority, the Peace of Westphalia completed the work 

 of Luther and marked the end of a constitutional development 

 which from the fall of the Hohenstaufen tended to transform Germany 

 into a princely oligarchy, and it also prepared for the revival of 

 German nationality which little by little was to group itself around 

 the princes. From the congress of Miinster and Osnabriick modern 

 Germany really dates. As at the Capetian epoch, as at the Revolu- 

 tion, the glory of France coincided with the distinct advance of 

 humanity." * Here is the note of patriotism. The note of dogmatism 

 is struck by M. Seignobos himself at the close of his text-book on 

 the political history of modern Europe. " The revolution of 1830 was 

 the work of a group of obscure republicans, aided by the blunders of 

 Charles X. The revolution of 1848 was the work of certain demo- 

 cratic agitators, aided by Louis Philippe's sudden lack of nerve. The 

 war of 1870 was the personal work of Bismarck, prepared by Napo- 

 leon Ill's personal policy. For these three unforeseen facts no general 

 cause can be discerned in the intellectual, economic, or political con- 

 dition of Europe. It was three accidents that determined the political 

 evolution of modern Europe." 2 Without breaking a lance over this 

 particular utterance, it may be pointed out that all such epigrammatic 

 statements about complicated phenomena represent pure opinion, 

 and depend for their value not upon their consonance with absolute 

 truth but upon their inherent power to persuade. 



Among English historians Stubbs and Gardiner have the brightest 

 reputation for that kind of impartiality which shines out through 

 the course of a monumental work. Macaulay, Carlyle, Green, and 

 Froude, whatever their other merits, cannot be brought into the 

 comparison at this point; and even though we admit Freeman's 

 character to have survived the onslaughts of Mr. Round, the Nor- 

 man Conquest can hardly, in respect to form, be taken as a model 

 of scientific history. Some people may deem Stubbs dull, but Pro- 

 fessor Maitland has told how he first picked up the Constitutional 

 History in a London club and read it because he found it interesting. 3 



1 Histoire Generate, vol. v, p. 582. 



2 Political History of Europe since IS 14 (translated by Macvane), p. 847. 



3 English Historical Review, vol. xvi, p. 422. 



Another passage in Maitland's appreciation of Stubbs (English Historical 

 Review, vol. xvi, pp. 417-426) may be quoted as cognate to the main motive of 

 this discussion. "At least there should, so it seems to me, be no doubt about the 

 award that should be made in this journal. The greatness of historians can be 



