MR. JOHN WILSON'S HISTORIC STUDIES.* THE study of history is

the most difficult of all the studies which one can undertake. The phenomena are so complex, so- many causes from different spheres unite to produce a blended' effect, that it is scarcely possible to give an exhaustive and' adequate account of any historical character or event. A worker - in any of the special sciences may venture to hope that he will master all the conditions of his problem. The physicist may hope to set forth the laws of matter and of motion ; a worker in natural history may, in course of time, make some progress in the explanation of the laws of life, in all its multiform move- ments; physiology and psychology work at the solution of problems comparatively definite. But the student of history has to deal with a subject into which all the special sciences enter, which unites their special difficulties in a new way, and adds others peculiar to itself. It is the most complex of all the subjects which form the subject of human investigation. When the conclusions of special science enter into this sphere, they- become subject to new conditions, and move on to new issues. Laws of matter and of motion, climate and its changes,.

life and its conditions, human nature, with its laws of freedom and of progress, and human character in its fluid and fixed forms, — these, in their mutual relations, bounds, and reactions, are elements in what we call human history. The main element in history is itself also sub- ject to change. Human nature grows more complex.

Modern mind and character are a much more complex thing than ancient mind and character. The student of ancient history has to deal with men of simple and direct emotion. Ancient valour was almost pitiless ; anger was un- mixed. Even the Greeks enjoyed it like strong drink. Ethical judgments were also simple and direct. No reserve was made, no allowance for temptation. Black was black, and white was white ; there were no neutral tints, no blended emotions, no pal-- liation, and no excuse to ward off the swift, keen stroke of con- demnation. The reverse of all this is true of human character now, for human nature is a more complex thing than it was two thousand years ago.

These reflections are forced on our mind as we turn over the pages of Mr. Wilson's book. The title of the book is large and suggestive. We have not found an exact correspondence between the title and the contents of the volume. The word "modern " in the title is evidently not to be construed strictly. It is not meant to convey the suggestion of the correlative word "ancient." The temporal sense is the only one which is meant by Mr. Wilson. Nor do the words "mind and. character" mean anything definite. Mr. Wilson was in search of a good title for a series of essays on historical sub- jects; and the title is one that sounds well, but is not to be too strictly pressed. Passing to the contents of the volume, we should say that the writing of historical essays seems not to have presented many difficulties to Mr. Wilson. Not that we seek to disparage the work he has done. The essays are fair of their kind. The literary workmanship is respectable ; the knowledge displayed is extensive, and manifests considerable

• Studies of Modern Mind and Character at Several European Epochs. By John. Wilson. Lomlon Longman and Co.

research ; and the statement of facts is usually accurate. But, on the other hand, there is little sympathy with large views of life; the reflections are trite and common-place, and the stan- dard of judgment, if not provincial, is at least insular. With the exception of the first four, and of the last, the book is mainly concerned with France. From Voltaire to Prevost- Paradol, the essays range over a number of topics connected with France. These essays present almost a continuous view of French history during a most important period. Some of them are reprints, and some appear for the first time. As the best introduction to what we have to say, we quote the follow- ing paragraph from the essay on Voltaire :—

"Twice in the eighteenth century, France imported—first from England, afterwards from a new England—systems of philosophy and politics which, borrowed as they both were, inspired her with the conceit that it was hers alone to regenerate the whole world of thought and action, in all countries and for all ages. England and Anierica, first through the medium of Voltaire, next of Lafayette and his fellow-comrades of Washington, set France on fire with doc- trines which had left comparatively cool the lands where they were first conceived and promulgated. Locke and Newton never made the figure at home of incendiary innovators ; Bolingbroke, admired as a speaker, never set the Thames on fire as a philosopher ; Wash- ington and Franklin were the most sober-minded of men whom events ever roused into revolutionists. France showed no originality but that of extravagance in her mode of appropriating theories of Mind and Rights of Man, which, in the land of their origin, turned no one's brains, whether of their teachers or learners. Now, how came this ? May we not be warranted in saying that the main cause of the difference was that England, old and new, possessed, and France had lost, an nnmutilated and independent middle-class ?" (pp. 189-90.)

The complacency of an Englishman crops out in every phrase of this paragraph. In mild form, we have in it that which, when full-grown, we in England have come to call Jingoism, and what in France has also a peculiar name. It might be better to borrow from Matthew Arnold the word which he has naturalised in our language, and at once call it Philistinism. Only Mr. Matthew Arnold has found it mainly among the Non- conformists. But here is the thing, naked and unashamed, in far other spheres than the Nonconformist one.

This insular type of thought we have found to be characteristic of almost all the essays which make up the volume. Now and then a higher note is struck, but for the most part only in the extracts from authorities, which abound in the pages of Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson's attitude towards France is throughout external, patronising, and critical. France is to be pitied, because it is not England. If it were England, it would not need to borrow a philosophy ; or if it did, it would not permit the borrowed system to produce undue excitement. It may be taken for granted, however, that an attitude of this sort is unfavourable to a true understanding of the great forces which have moulded French character, and made French history. Great as are the English character and the English history, there is room enough in the universe for history and character of other types. We gladly allow that whatsoever can be understood from without, Mr. Wilson has understood. The external aspects of French history have been clearly seen and fully described by him. The miseries of the French people under the Ancient Regime; the outward horror, mutual suspicion, and social fear of the Reign of Terror ; the iron despotism of the First Napoleon, the out- ward aspects of the various revolutions, are well described, at least as well as they can be described by one who is altogether external to them. True, also, are his remarks on the land sys- tem of France. But everywhere is felt this drawback, that Mr.

Wilson has never entered into sympathy with the French people. External and patronising observation cannot reach far. To understand French character, and appreciate the grandeur of French history, one must be so far French as to have a keen appreciation of ideas merely as ideas, and to feel an imperious demand for clearness of thought, a hatred of compromise, and an intellectual passion for the rigour of ruth- less logic :—

"'All idealists.

Too absolute and earnest, with them all The idea of a knife cuts real flesh ; And still devouring the safe interval

Which Nature places between the thought and act,

With these too fiery and impatient souls They threaten conflagration to the world, And rash with most unscrupulous logic on

Impossible practice.'"

In France, ideas tend to incarnate themselves in immediate action. Mrs. Browning could understand that with some " the idea of a knife can cut real flesh." Mr. Wilson would demand a sight of the wound, and if there were no wound and no scar,

would not believe that there had been any pain. In all the movements of French history there is an ideal element, which has always to be taken into account when we speak or write of French history and character. This ideal hunger of the French mind is as much an operative factor in French history as the material hunger on which Mr. Wilson lays stress, as if it were the only element to be taken into account. We may think that the possession of this ideal element is a disadvantage to France, and we may strongly disapprove of it ; yet, if we are to understand that great people, we must recognise its presence and its power in all their history. In England, we were con- tented to fight our own battle on the issue of the particular grievance we desired to remove, and the universal aspect of the fight for freedom emerged only in an informal and incidental manner. But the universal aspect came first to the French mind. If the French borrowed the system of the Rights of Man, they transformed it in the borrowing, and it became with them the passion of universal ])atriotism. For the Revolutionary party agitated and fought in the cause, not so much of France, as of universal man. In their passion for the universal they forgot the individual, and displayed a curious disregard of private rights and individual happiness. No doubt, they have the defects of their qualities. But there is something wrong in the attitude of mind and method of study which has regard only to the defects, and not to the qualities. No doubt, also there is much in recent French history to arouse horror and to cause regret in the mind of every student ; but is there no compensation ? What thoughts, feelings, desires, have been inwrought into the very fibre of our being, through the devoted and exaggerated insistence on them by the French people during their period of martyrdom ! Humanity, solidarity, universal patriotism, universal and mutual helpfulness of races,—are not these either new thoughts altogether, or have obtained a new and practical significance within the last hundred years ? Both thought and thing the human race owes to France. But we must conclude, and we do so by saying that if a man were to describe the constitutional history of England as mainly a series of squabbles about the power of taxation, though this would be so far true, it would be manifestly unjust and unfair. But a similar injustice has been done by Mr. Wilson when he writes of French history, and unconsciously leaves out that cause which gave to it its peculiar character, and was one of the greatest of all the forces which have made it what it is.