Page:English Historical Review Volume 35.djvu/484

476 ' SHORT NOTICES July with his hero. M. Deschauel writes in an admiring spirit, but his admira- tion is controlled by good sense and good taste. Passing somewhat rapidly over Gambetta's early years and his share in the inglorious revolution of September 1870, M. Deschanel dwells at length upon that period when Gambetta became the soul of the national resistance to the Germans. He does not hide Gambetta's unwise interference with the generals, but he quotes effectively the evidence of the most competent hostile witnesses as to the immensity of the work which Gambetta achieved xmder so many difficulties. He reminds his readers that Gambetta was merely the chief of a delegation, since the national government remained in Paris until the end of the war. He thinks that Gambetta was right in wishing to continue the struggle when his colleagues despaired. On this point only experts can speak with confidence, but it seems to us that M. Deschanel does not fully realize the disadvantages under which France laboured in 1871 as compared with France in 1792 or Prussia in 1814. Much less, we think, did Gambetta realize them. When describing Gambetta's share in the controversies which filled the early years of the Third Republic, M. De- schanel insists again and again that, like Mirabeau, Gambetta was not merely a fervid orator but a practical statesman as well, aware of the necessity for a strong government and an effective army, and anxious for internal peace and conciliation. Some of his quotations from Gambetta on the subject of foreign policy are remarkable. Thus in a letter of -July 1869, Gambetta writes of the hatred which he had vowed against the conquerors of Sadowa. A few years later he wrote that it was desirable to retard the victory of the principle of nationality which tended to destroy all equilibrium. ' It is the European equilibrium, such as diplo- matists conceived it at the end of the eighteenth century, before the Revolution, that I prefer.' M. Deschanel admits that at one time Gambetta seriously considered the possibility of redeeming Alsace-Lorraine by the sacrifice of some of the French colonies. But he also quotes from Gam- betta's letters to show how earnestly he desired the knitting of ties with England and Russia, with the Jugo-Slavs and Rumanians. M. Deschanel allows that Gambetta was hardly successful either as president of the chamber or as head of a ministry. As an orator, Gambetta, he considers, although unsurpassed in the power of producing an immediate effect, lacked the highest gifts of thought and style. His speeches were meant to be heard ; they do not bear reading. F. C. M. It is unnecessary at this time of day to call attention to the merits of Dr. J. F. Rhodes as an historian ; and, if the most recent volume of his History of the United States (vol. viii)/rom Hayes to McKinley, 1877-96 ^ (New York : Macmillan, 1919) is of less importance than those which preceded it, this is not due to any shortcomings on the part of the author. In his characterization of the presidents dealt with and in his exposition of their policies, no less than in his treatment of social questions, such as the various strikes, and of the episode of the ' Molly Maguires ', Dr. Rhodes shows the same robust good sense, severe impartiality, and scrupulous accuracy which have secured him his position among American historians. ' See ante, xxi. 183; xxiii. 394.