Page:Englishhistorica36londuoft.djvu/145

1921 REVIEWS OF BOOKS 137 that Holderlin is more nearly a German Shelley than a ' German Keats ', as Mr. Gooch, following some German critics, calls him. He has also points of contact with Wordsworth and Byron. In general the present volume confirms previous accounts. The statement (at p. 440) that ' the leaders of opinion ' in Hamburg were ' fully competent to separate the gold from the dross of the Revolution ' can scarcely be generalized for Germany as a whole, where to many the trend of events remained largely obscure and sentiment played the chief part. It is, in fact, true of the whole country that ' the death of the King aroused no less horror in liberal than in conservative circles '. Unswerving admirers of the Revolution were very rare ; even of J. H. Voss, Goethe (in a significant review not cited by Mr. Gooch) wrote in 1804 : Auch ist in der Folge die Annaherung zum franzosischen Freiheitskreise nieht heftig, noch von langer Dauer ; bald wird unser Dichter durch die Resultate des ungliick- lichen Versuchs abgestossen und kehrt ohne Harm in den Schoss sittlicher und burger- licher Freiheit zuriick. (This passage throws a good light on Goethe himself, the Frankfort Burger and Weimar Aristokrat.) The emigres are faithfully dealt with in the chapter devoted to ' The Rhineland ', which is especially well furnished with documents, and nearly forty interesting pages discuss ' The Germans in France '. At p. 350 one may add a reference to G. G. Ramon's book on Dietrich. Unfortunately this solid and important study has grave defects of design and execution. The chapters are arranged on three distinct fundamenta divisionis (temporal, personal, regional). This entails some overlapping in a work already somewhat overloaded, and perhaps the wiser plan would have been to imitate Julian Schmidt's method of following the phases of the Revolution throughout. 1 Again, despite his very wide historical reading, our author shows some lack of familiarity with a number of his more literary predecessors ; at least one misses important references to Freytag, Dahlmann, Cassirer, Gundolf, Viktor Hehn, Harnack, and Minor (on Goethe), J. G. Robertson, M. Kronenberg, R. Lote (on Wieland), Morris (Der junge Goethe) and Graf (Goethe in seinen Dichtungen), Nohl (Hegels Theolog. Jugendschriften), 0. Walzel, A. Dove (introductions in the ' Jubilaumsausgabe ' of Goethe and the ' Sakularausgabe ' of Schiller), Bohm and Zinkernagel (on Holderlin), and other writers. Richard Fester's essay on Goethe und die franzosische Revolution 2 is not cited ; it goes deeper than our author's chapter and its method is exemplary. The gravest blot, however, on this painstaking but far from ideal study of the writers of the revolutionary period — later authors, including Georg Biichner, seem unhappily to be excluded by design— is the very strange arrangement of the chapters. To put Kant in the middle of the book, preceded by half the men he helped to mould, including ' the Romantic School ', seems to argue a lack of the sense of evolution. Marshall Montgomery. 1 See his Gesck. der Deutschen Lift. vol. iii, bk. 8, Der dentsche Idealismus und die franzosische Revolution. 2 Deutsche Rundschau, Bd. clii, 1012.