KARL HILLEBRAND, ESSAYIST AND HISTORIAN.f. THE greatest of French critics

was of opinion that an entirely independent judgment on French affairs is beat formed out of the country, near the frontier, for instance, at Geneva or at Brussels ; and following his own precept, he wrote Port Royal at Lausanne, far from the influence of Paris coteries and party spirit. In a certain sense, these words of Sainte-Beuve may be applied also to those who write on countries not their own. When they have succeeded in penetrating into their spirit, in acquiring a thorough knowledge of their peculiarities, in thoroughly comprehending the past and in accurately observing the present, they have more than once equalled, if not surpassed, the best writers of those countries themselves. Distance lends clearer outlines ; what is not essential and characteristic is thrown into the background ; pre- judices and preconceived ideas, which often so powerfully in- fluence the native writer, have no hold on the foreigner ; he is able to keep the end in view without letting himself be disturbed by minor considerations, and he is sure of success if to all these outward advantages he joins that "gift of intelligence" which, Thiers remarks characteristically enough, is the first condition for writing history. In favour of this view, we have only to remind the reader of Gneist's English Self-Government, Guizot's Revolution d'Angleterre, Tocqueville's Democracy in America, the writings of Ranke, the studies on Dante of the late King of Saxony, the classical notes of Arthur Young on the state of France on the eve of the Revolution. The difficulties of such a task must, however, increase, if it is to be properly accomplished as regards a nation which, like the French, has, with very few excep- tions, directed its whole power and attention to its own history, and whose greatest historians have, at the same time, been its most splendid writers. Nor are such difficulties lessened if the writer on French affairs happens to be a German. With few ex- ceptions, amongst which Professor Sybel deserves to be noticed (Was wir von den Franzosen lernen Ktinnen), German political writings cannot of late be acquitted of the charge of partiality. In this respect, victory has been harder to bear than defeat ; and only a short time ago, Professor Daniel, at Halle, in a book on Germany, all but surpassed French Chauvinism. We therefore frankly confess that when Hillebrand's work, Frankreich und die Franzosen, first made its appearance, we felt no particular desire to read it, prepared, as we were, to find a repetition of the oft- told tale, how German virtue and German morality would have ensured success, even without the genius of the leader and the excellence of one of the best armies that ever stood in line. A nearer inspection of the above-named book, however, soon un- deceived us, and in proportion as the, reader is himself acquainted with French affairs he will know how to value the sense of justice, the fairness of Hillebrand's appreciation of them, and the extent of the knowledge of men and things which he brought to his task. Before his first book on France appeared, Hillebrand was known chiefly by articles on literary matters. Long before 1862, when he wrote his first historical essay on Dino Compagni, he had accepted an appointment as professor of literature at the Facultd de Droit at Douai, and during twenty years, up to the war of 1870, he witnessed the doings of the Second Empire,

a Lullebrand. PL. s Probably &misprint re r "tower."

t 1. F, ankreich und die Franzosen. Von Ea Berlin : Verlag von R. Oppenhelm, 1873.

2. Aus end Ueber Bnpland Von Earl Billebrand. Berlin: Verlag von R. Oppen- heini. 1876.

3. Geschichie der Euroydischen 8taaten. Herausgegeben von A. C. L. Heeren, F. A. Alkert, und W. von Giesebreeht. Geschichee Frankreichs (1880-1871). Von gar' Habibrand. Enter The11. Gotha : F. A. Penile& 1877.

and became personally acquainted with many of the men then most influential in polities, science, and literature. To this and to his intimate knowledge of French writings he owes much of the formal merits of his own, the ease, clearness, and elegant correct- ness with which he expresses himself, the refined care of language and style, the absence of which even higher merits cannot altogether-

make up for. When Hillebrand came to France, the revival of French literature due to the generation of 1830 was already on the wane. Still, while new corners of great promise entered the lists, illustrious names were surviving. It was in the nature of his mind to be particularly attracted by Sainte-Beuve, and for years he devoted his free time, both as lecturer and essayist, to subjects taken from English or French literature. In 1865, he published a series of lectures on the English novels. of time eighteenth century, amongst which a first-rate one oni Toni Jones deserves special notice. A comparison with Taine on this last subject is decidedly favourable to the German critic,. for whose superior knowledge of English life and thought the French author's most brilliant colours offer no equivalent. In the years which followed, Hillebrand contributed to the Revue des' Cours Litteraires, the Journal des Debats, and the Revue' des Deux Mondes. In 1868, he published in French a volume of Etudes Ristorigue8 et Litteraires. At the same time, articles of his in the Nueva Antologia testify his lasting in- terest in Italy. After a time, however, and notwithstanding his, knowledge and experience in literary matters, his interest ha historical and political questions became predominant. In 1867 he published an interesting little volume on contemporary Prussia and its institutions. The war of 1870 forced him to sacrifice his position in France. It was then that he collected the results of his twenty years' experience of French life and thought in the book, Frankreich und die Franzosen, which met with the attention it so well deserved. Meanwhile, its. author spent the year 1873 in England, and from there wrote his. book Aus und Ueber England, which forms the third volume of his. essays, published under the title, Riker, Zeiten und Menschen.

Hillebrand calls himself a Liberal Conservative. The. present political terminology has become so vague, that there is no longer a clear, distinct meaning attached to such words as these. It is, perhaps, more to the point to say that his claim to be trusted in his political judgments consists in his per- sonal independence, and calm, passionless power of observation. He has a clear, well-balanced mind, which is not to be satisfied by mere external appearances ; in his eyes, the realities of life, experience, historical development are of far greater value than mere formula) and abstract theories, be they ever so harmonious or connected with illustrious names. He is far too well acquainted with the past of the leading nations of Europe to indulge in the fancy that institutions can be transplanted about like trees, or that it is possible suddenly to call into existence in a foreign, country that constitutional system which in England is the result of centuries of training in the art of self-government and liberty. Nor does he believe it at all likely that a nation whose greatness and glory in the past were the exclusive work. of an enlightened executive will suddenly, at the call of a few

, prosper under a totally antagonistic. theoretical politicians

system. At the same time, Hillebrand, who is so reluctant to accept the ready-made theories of others, carefully abstains. from setting up a cut-and-dried one of his own. He has taken the trouble to think for himself, and when asked what he means when speaking of a free country, he has in substance the following answer to give. Human interests are so involved and delicate, that it is impossible to foresee, to harmonise, or to regulate them all by laws. Notwithstanding the reforms already made or yet to. come, they must therefore make their influence felt beyond the boundaries of law. This is the essential point. As long as public control keeps this unlawful influence within its proper limits., the countries where this control is exercised may be called "free."

power in itself has nothing to do with The origin of

freedom ; even the most superficial politicians begin to perceive that democracy and freedom are two things absolutely different from each other. (Aus und Ueber England, s. 78.) In another passage he says:— " In truth, not that country is free in which everybody mixes himself up in public affairs, and in ordinary times, abstention ought to remain the normal condition for citizens in general. The sick, children, cliente, local and personal affairs have, as a rule, the first claim upon us, and the State comes only second, as long as its very existence is not threatened. Therefore the free country weild be that in which every citizen has a right to interfere in public business, and makes use of that right whenever times become critical. Every well-regulated State must be governed by men who have made the science of government 'the object of a life's labour. Citizens who govern themselves during their leisure hours, when they have finished making their shoes or ploughing their fields, belong no less to Utopia than the wise despots who manage everything. What is really important is the supervision, the control, not the constant interference of the citizen ; it is the possibility for the sovereign—the people—to pronounce a veto." (Arts ,und Ueber England, s. 320-327.) And as if thinking of the well-known passage in Montesquieu, 4'J'aime lea paysans ; Hs ne sont pas assez savants pour raisonner tie travers," Hillebrand insists that modern history, both in Franoe and Germany, tends to disprove the notion that the spread of education makes the majority of men really fit to form a judgment on political questions. The working-classes in the towns, who know how to read and write, let themselves be carried away, either by envy or covetousness, or by the shallowest political theories; while ignorant peasants, who merely follow their instincts, habits, or interests, are, he thinks, nearly always in the right. in accordance with such views, Hillebrand does not sympathise with theoretical politicians and doctrinaires, but with firm, clear, practical statesmen, like Cavour, Thiers, or Lord Palmerston. The latter, although he severely criticises his policy in the East, is his favourite, and his admiration for him rests on the assumption that while no other statesman was so sober in asserting moral principles, there was not one who took greater care to ensure their success in actual politics. As an illustration of this, he quotes Lord Palnierston's perfect loyalty in the question of Belgian independence, and the line taken by Lim towards Poland and Naples. "Lord Palmerston," writes Hillebrand, "had but few abstract ideas. lie was almost with- out poetical or ideal aspirations, was totally destitute of reli- gious enthusiasm, or an anxious morality, but, nevertheless, remains the type of a statesman who always felt, spoke, and acted as he ought, whose inclinations, aspirations, and energies were essentially actual, and for whom instinct and habit were safer guides on the path of duty, of success, and greatness for himself and his country, than any philosophical, moral, or political system could have been." (Aus tend Ueber England, s. 80-90.) And Hillebrand concludes with the remark that had Palmerston lived to the year 1870, the great war would never have come to peas, and France, prevented from making her raid on Germany, would not have lost her two provinces, a result which would have been more profitable to her than the tardy expressions .of sympathy from the neighbour who left her to her fate.

In surveying the history of the English Constitution in this century, Hillebrand considers the time about 1832 to have been the most glorious, and which, taken all in all, witnessed the completion of one of the most perfect and harmonious political structures ever seen in the history of the world :—

" For the last ten years," ho goes on to say," England also has entered into a state of transition, the course of which it has nearly run through. During the first half of the century, the power both of the Crown and of the House of Lords have been constantly weakened ; since then, the composition of the House of Commons has undergone a complete change. Other representatives of society, and consequently other ideas and other interests, have penetrated there, and the parties, whose names had already been changed, underwent a process of entire trans- formation. A third party made its appearance, which had long before been employed in undermining, or at least in changing the Constitution, as well as the whole intellectual training of England. This party— the Radical party—has governed for the last ten years despotically,

i

absolutely, and without seeing its power disputed, but t still governs through the statesmen of the two parties which existed before." (Aus .tend Ueber England, p. 71-73.)

This is the fundamental idea from which Hillebrand starts to judge the present state of affairs in England, and he is sharp and clever enough to interest even those who do not agree with him.

"The democratic movement in England," he writes, "may be checked for moments, but a little sooner or later it will pursue its course, and stop only when the over-heated locomotive bursts into fragments, destroying its heedless drivers, and leaving once more. those 'eternally indestructible orfianie forces which exist in every society to work, grow, and expand without hindrance. The best thing for those -who look anxiously at such a feverish, nearly involuntary motion of 'the machinery of the State is not to try and stop it. It is too late for that, and worse than useless to indulge in complaints. Bettor far leave the reckless drivers to complete their work, and to fulfil one's own, apart from them, earnestly and unceasingly, till the day comes, however late, when the common sense, the political instinct of the nation wakes up 'once more to the convietion that the responsible guidance of the national interests of a great country can be safely trusted only to the talent, the experience, and the energy of a few. (Aus und Lieber England, p. 32.) We have endeavoured fairly to state the opinions of Hillebrand, Without expressing any agreement with them. They are interest- mg, as the deliberate convictions of a very able and learned man, who does not allow himself to be influenced in his judgments by his personal wishes, and who labours under no illusion as to his being on the beaten side. He defends his views as ingeniously as he expresses them clearly and courageously, and a knowledge of them is necessary to those who wish to understand the state of mind in which he commenced his great book on the history of France since 1830, which we propose to notice on a future occasion.