MODERN EUROPE.* " WHosoEvzn," wrote Sir Walter Raleigh, "in writing
a modern history shall follow truth too near the heels, it may haply strike out his teeth." This danger Dr. Rose is well aware of. Many events of the last thirty years are still shrouded in contemporary fog, many forces which now seem all-important may shrink to insignificance in the calm retro- spect of history, and movements which are still obscure may stand out in time as the true features of the age. His work, as he says, is that of a pioneer, "to notch the track," and provide for his successors a provisional chart. In one sense his path is clear. The last three decades may contain the germs of an unpredictable future, but they also represent the consequences of a more or less intelligible past. The forces unloosed in the beginning of the nine- teenth century reach at its end their destined conclu- sion. This is especially true of the two great ideals of democracy and nationalism. The French Revolution preached the first to the world, and throughout the century we can discern with some certainty its slow development. Napoleon taught the Germans and Italians that they were nations, and the idea grew till the men of destiny were found in Bismarck and Cavour to give it practical realisation. This is the key to the chief movement of the century, which ended in the con- solidation of Germany and Italy. France, its first propa- gandist, played the part of an unwilling agent of fate, and suffered at the hands of the genie she had raised. England remained the critical and sympathetic spectator of a conflict which did not touch her interests. It is in the sequel to the new nationalism that the historian finds his difficulty, for the desire of expansion followed on consolidation, and the area of strife, instead of being narrowed to Central Europe, is spread over the whole globe, and involves all the Great Powers of the world. If nationalism is the keynote of the first era, Imperialism dominates the latter, and we are still in the thick of its manifestations.
Dr. Rose begins his narrative with the year 1870 and the outbreak of the war between France and Germany. He gives a fair and candid portrait of that colossal adventurer, Napoleon III., who "did not know the difference between dreaming and thinking." He never quite lost the character of the political refugee, and he was full of the ingenuity of the arriviste rather than the statesman. Believing that a success- ful war was the only thing needed to establish his dynasty, he so mismanaged the game that he put the winning cards from the start in his opponent's hand. He failed to make use of the Austrian enmity to Prussia, and when war broke out found himself without an ally. Dr. Rose takes a different view of the famous Ems telegram from most historians. He does not consider that Bismarck's editing of it did anything to precipitate war. War was clearly inevitable after the Duo de Gramont's dictatorial despatch. Of the great campaign we are given an excellent summary, on which we have no criticism to make. Sedan could only mean the ruin of the Napoleonic edifice. An Emperor who, in the phrase quoted by Nassau Senior, was "condemned to be brilliant," must fall with the failure of his adventure. "The flashy sensationalism of his policy, setting the tone for Parisian society, was fatal to the honest unseen drudgery which builds up a solid edifice alike in public and in private life." Thereafter came the slow work of recon- struction on a different plan. The history of these years is brilliantly told in M. Hanotaux's Contemporary France, of which the second volume has just been translated. France was fortunate in her citizens, for the fiery patriotism of Gambetta was as necessary to the task as the clear-sighted and resolute statesmanship of Thiers, "the greatest little man known to history." That tragical enterprise, the Commune, as Dr. Rose points out, was in reality a war of town and country, an attempt on the part of Paris to assert herself as against the provinces. With its failure the way was paved for a true national government, and in the Republic under MacMahon. France found almost by accident the type of
* (1) The Development of the European Nations, 1870-1900. By J. Holland Bose, Litt.D. London: A. Constable and Co. [DU. net.]—(2) Contemporary Franco. By Gabriel Hanotaus. Vol. II. Same publishers. [15s. net.]
Constitution most suited to her needs. Bismarck favoured the change, because he believed it would be tine .114publiqUe dissolvante ; but for once that shrewd prophet was mis- taken.
Germany, victorious on the field, had to face the harder work of internal consolidation. How widely divergent were the elements which the new "master of Europe," Bismarck, had to unite appears clearly from Dr. Rose's narrative. The constitutional and fiscal fabric which he created still stands, but time has shown flaws in the structure. The immense impulse to activity which the new nationalism gave and the prosperity which followed have consecrated Bismarck's work ; but it remains to be seen how far it will bear the strain of that period of low national vitality which follows all expan- sion. Meantime, foreign affairs distracted the attention of Europe from Germany's domestic policy. The Eastern question rose into prominence, and the storm-centre shifted to the Balkans. Dr. Rose is a severe critic of the policy inaugurated by Lord Beaconsfield, which, in opposition to the supposed designs of Russia, encouraged the Sultan in his obstinacy; and he quotes on his side the authority of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, who could not be accused of undue tenderness towards the Czar's Government. His narrative of the events of the Russo-Turkish War is, like all his military chapters, clear and adequate ; and scarcely less good is his account of the tortuous diplomacy which culminated in the Berlin Conference. The Conference was largely a sham, all the chief points having been privately settled beforehand. Its main importance is the impetus which it gave to the opposition to the bureaucracy in Russia, for by its effect on national pride it largely contributed to make Nihilism possible. But the movement produced no leader, and the murder of Alexander II. on the eve of a reforming career discredited it finally with the bulk of the Russian people. Dr. Rose does justice to that strangest of Monarchs, Alexander III., who, with scanty ability, and under constant threats of death, grappled with the affairs of his Empire with an unwearied resolution to which we can scarcely refuse the name of heroism.
The rest of the epoch is dominated by Imperialism. The mutual fears of France and Russia created the Dual Alliance, which was met by the union of the three old opponents, Germany, Austria, and Italy. Dr. Rose, who as a rule inclines towards Germany in sympathy, thinks that the " Triple Alliance was the genuinely conservative league which saved Europe from the designs of the res tless Republic and the exacting egotism of Alexander III." But we doubt whether the idea of the revanche ever took practical shape in France during these years, while there is good evidence, on the contrary, that Bismarck intended to bleed the Republic further if a fair excuse offered. Both alliances were prompted by fear, and served the useful purpose of a checkmate in Europe. The international struggle was carried to further regions. British opposition to Russia in the Balkans was repaid by Russian interference on the Indian frontier, of which Dr. Rose has furnished us with a full account. Excellent, too, is his chapter on Egypt, though certain of his facts might be corrected in view of the dis- closures in the recent Life of Lord Granville. No one will grudge the space be has given to the heroic story of Gordon, of whom be says well that "he appealed to all that is most elemental in man." Not the least useful part of the work is that dealing with the modern partition of Africa by European Powers, which gives an orderly account of many tangled enterprises. We believe ourselves to be the chief African Power; but how many people are aware that, even including the Soudan, we own nearly half-a-million square miles fewer than France, though it is true that the Sahara makes up the bulk of her territory ?
In his closing chapter Dr. Rose sums up the main features of the period he has reviewed. The ferment of nationalism begins formally with the Franco-Austrian War of 1859, and reaches its dramatic finale in 1870. Then comes the extra- European activity of the Continent, in which Britain reaped the fruit of earlier blunders in the serious hostility of Russia, whether shown direct or through the tacit support of German enterprises. On the whole, we have been more fortunate than we deserved; for we have saved our chestnuts, if sometimes with difficulty, from the fire. We failed to use the influence which our position as a powerful outsider gave us through not knowing our own mind; though Egypt, the one occasion when by the force of a great administrator we had it made up for us, shows the advantages we might have reaped else- where. We may close with quoting Dr. Rose's wise words on the close relation between insular and Imperial affairs :—
"In times of dull trade and high taxation there is a danger that attention will be bestowed almost wholly on home politics. In periods marked by prosperity and contentment the affairs of the Empire tend to overshadow local concerns. The United Kingdom cannot afford to relax its energies in either sphere. To neglect domestic reform is to court the fate of Carthage ; to dis- regard the claims of our young commonwealths beyond the seas is to follow in the wake of Spain. Assuredly of all people that have ever faced political problems, the British race needs the widest vision, the sanest judgment, the most unremitting study of public affairs, both internal and imperial."
Previous page
