it, which is at the same time an illuminating discussion of the Revolution itself and of its principles. And to whom should one go for such a criticism if not to the man who has given his life to the study of the Revolution? Well, there is such a criticism of Taine. But did M. Aulard write it? No. It was written 25 years ago, when the book first appeared, by a professional critic and man of letters— M. Ferdinand Brunetière; an essay of 70 pages, as good an example of critical reviewing as you will readily find. It may now be read in the author's collected works and is rather better worth reading to-day than the book which inspired it.
But now, over against this short critique, for purposes of comparison, place the entire volume which M. Aulard has devoted to Taine. It can not be said of M. Aulard that he rushed into print. On the contrary, 20 years of study and meditation prepared him, if he could ever be prepared, to say the last word on Taine, to estimate him justly, to the hair's breadth; and 300 pages was surely space enough to do it in. Under the circumstances, the book should be a masterpiece; but I confess it strikes me principally as the failure of a master, and perhaps it may serve to illustrate, on a grand scale, the way in which historians are most in danger of failing, if they do fail, when they assume the rôle of critic.
The title of M. Aulard's book is, "Taine, Historian of the French Revolution;" but it is only with one aspect of this large question, or at most two, that the author really deals. M. Aulard found that Taine had a preconceived notion of the Revolution, and that his references were not always adequate to the proof of his assertions. These facts are important, certainly, but M. Aulard has allowed him self to be overwhelmed by them; and so he has written, not a balanced and judicious criticism of Taine, but a catalogue of the errors to be found in his book. It needs not 300 pages, nor 3 pages, to prove that Taine was prejudiced. The fact is obvious. Taine is so hard on the Jacobins that one ends by supposing there must have been something substantial about these men to justify so much hammering. That Taine's documentation is inadequate was not so obvious. It was well to point out the fact, if it is a fact, but it was not well to do nothing else. For by dint of patiently picking out and methodically chronicling error after error, monotonously, without haste, without rest, chapter after chapter, through 300 pages, the reader is left with the impression that Taine must have been either a very superficial charlatan or an imbecile. Criticism should render us the form and portrait of a man in right perspective. M. Aulard has collected all the surface imperfections, the moles and the warts, the scars; he has put them all together under a magnifying glass; he bids us look—"See," he says, "this is Taine. How repulsive!"
