The text, in order to secure as fully as possible
the historic " atmosphere," is reproduced in its mother-tongue. " For this reason, the documents have been left in their original languages ; that is, in Latin, Greek, English, French, German and Dutch ; the documents in German and Dutch being made more accessible by English translations." Dr. Reich adds, with perhaps unconscious irony : "It could not reason- ably be supposed that a purchaser of a book like the present was unacquainted with the two classical languages." We only wish that such a reasonable supposition could be made. On the whole, we are sorry that no subsidiary translation of the mediaeval Latin documents has been given, and for the very reason which Dr. Reich offers for not supplying translations. We admit that attempts to translate such documents " are bristling with almost insuperable difficulties." But if that is the case with specialists, the ordinary student with a fair working knowledge of classical Latin certainly requires the help and suggestions of an editor. Moreover, it is unreasonable to translate the German and to leave the Greek text untranslated. We hope that these points will be considered when a second edition of this work is called for.
Valuable as this book will undoubtedly prove to be, we dislike the way in which in the introduction Dr. Reich
advertises his forthcoming General History, and blares forth the worth of the work under review. It might surely have been left to a reviewer to say that "any teacher of history will at once recognise that the choice of the documents, the
introductions, the bibliographies, and the elaborate index, all concur to give into the hands of students a work of reference such as has not yet been attempted either here or on the Continent." This is not a modest age, and we can only regret to see a scholar forgetting, with every one else, that good wine requires no bush.
The work is divided into nineteen parts. First wo have the most important international treaties, from the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) to the Second Peace of Paris (1815). The Treaty of Berlin (1878) should have been added,
We have next the ecclesiastical and Church documents that Dr. Reich regards as the most important between the Edict of Milan (313 A.D.) and the Bull (Pastor Aeternus) declaring the infallibility of the Pope (1870). These documents might well have included Wycliffe's Conclusions and the funda- mental documents of the Scotch and other Reformed Churches. Part IIL gives us the General Institutions of the Middle Ages from the Capitulary of Quierzy (877) to the Charter of the University of Orleans (1312). This section should have included the earliest Charter of the City of London (1070; see fiber custumorum). Succeeding sections give
select documents relating to the Byzantine Empire, the Holy Roman Empire (to the Golden Bull, 1356), the
Italian City-States, France from the Edict of Nantes (1598) to the Proclamation of the Third Republic (1870), France and England (Treaties of Bretigny, 1360, Troyes, 1420, Amiens, 1802), England from Domesday Book (1086) to the Act of Settlement (1700), Germany (1740 to 1871), Holland (the Union- of Utrecht, 1579), Austria, Bohemia,
Hungary, Poland, Switzerland, Turkey, Sweden and Russia America (from the Mayflower' compact, 1620, to the aboli. tion of slavery, 1865). An "Appendix to ChurCh History "
gives 'us'Calvin's -Hierarchy amid. dOetrine of Predestination. Dr. Reich •would have done well to have supplied some reference to the decision last year of the House of Lords -relating to the Scottish Churches and the Healing Act of 1005: --- We -need not praise the elaborate index -of some -seventy-one pages—a tenth of the whole book—as-Dr. Reich has-here-also forestalled our well-meaning intention.
It is needless to say that Dr. Reich's selection of documents is open to eriticism. No two historians would be content -with the same identical set of documents ; and though perhaps no historian would be prepared seriously to' cavil at the insertion of any one of the hundred and thirty-eight docu- ments or groups of documents which are here set out, many will feel that the omissions are serious. We have already indicated some of these. Under the Byzantine Empire there were few laws that have had so great an influence on the development of European society as the laws of marriage set forth in the Ecloga and the Basilica. Novella 89 of the Emperor Leo VI. abolishing morganatic marriages should at least have been given. Moreover, a good deal of our current English law as to the transmission of personalty on death springs from Byzantine legislation. The only Byzantine laws that Dr. Reich gives us are two Novellae of 922 A.D. and 967 A.D., aimed against the creation of the great estates that were ruining the peasantry. The most important novel on this subject was, however, that of Romanus Lecapenus in 934 A.D. But neither this nor the confirming novel passed by Constantine VII. in 947 A.D. is mentioned.
In the case of the Holy Roman Empire we ought to have had the letter of Pope Urban IV. of 1263 recognising the Electoral College of Seven,—composed of the three Archbishops representing the German Church, the King of Bohemia (or the Duke of Bavaria), the Count Palatine of the Rhine, the Margrave of Brandenburg, and the Duke of Saxony. In the section on the Italian City-States it is difficult to understand why there is no footnote reference to Henry Sidgwick's admirable lectures on the subject contained in his Develop- ment of European Polity. The German City-States call for attention not less loudly than those of Italy, since their historic influence is even more important.
The section dealing with France is full, and few important documents after the Edict of Nantes are missing. The section might well have begun earlier, and have included the Ordon- nance of 1302 confirming the powers of the great Parlements of France. The documents illustrating the policy of Richelieu between 1624 and 1642 are all of value. In particular we must note at this time the memorandum de lee Puissance sur la Mer. France at that date had no sea-power, though, as Richelieu pointed out, "il semble que la nature ait vouln offrir rempire de la mer a la France, pour l'avantageuse situation de ces deux cotes, egaleraent pourvues d'excellens ports aux deux mere, Oceane et Mediterranee." Among the Richelieu documents are the letters patent of 1637 consti- tuting the French Academy. The document was drafted by a Protestant, Valentin Conrart, at whose house as early as 1623 the nuelens of the Academy had met. Dr. Reich in his English secti9n might have added the letters patent of the British Academy granted in 1902. The text of the Revoca- tion of the ,Edict of Nantes (October, 1685) is an important document. „In it we find the reversal of the whole of Richelieu's policy, and the official adoption of that policy of repression which played a great part in the downfall of Monarchical. France. The repression of the Jansenist move- ment by the Bull Unigenitus (1713), following the dispersion of the Port-Royalists (1709), also brought the Revolution appreciably nearer. The Cambridge Modern History volume on the French Revolution should have been noted in the authorities. The Revolutionary decree establishing normal schools is an important document, but earlier documents from the sixteenth century dealing with the history of education in France and elsewhere should have been given.
The English documents are quite inadequate. Dr. Reich 'gives us Domesday Book (1086), Magna Charta. (1215), the petition of Right (1628), the Navigation Act (1651), Habeas Corpus Act (1679), the Bill of Rights (1689), the Act of Settlement (1700). There is no reference to the settlement, of the Courts of Justice at Westminster, to the first Par- liamentary writs, to the Reformation legislation, to the Union of. England and Scotland, to the Union of England and Ireland, to the Act of Uniformity, to the Free-trade - legislation, to the Reform Act of 1832, or to the Education Act, 1870. Yet every one of these matters absolutely calls for .documentary evidence.
The German, Austrian, Dutch, and Polish documents are also somewhat inadequate. The Charter to the Dutch East India Company of March 20th, 1601, is a document of the first importance, and the Treaty for the Twelve Years' Truce, signed in 1609, between Spain and Holland was of scarcely less interest, for it secured freedom of trade in East and West alike. The Treaty of Vienna of 1606 is an historic document, illustrating the ever-important relationships of Austria and Hungary. None of these is set forth, nor do we find sufficient reference to the Ottoman power in the sixteenth century. There are no documents at all relating exclusively to Spain. We should have thought that the Treaty of Cliteau-Cambresis (1559) was of great importance in its relationship to the Counter-Reformation, and the Peace of Vervins (1598) scarcely less material to the history of religion in Europe.
Previous page
