Das liebe heilige Römische Reich Wie hälts nur noch zusammen?

- GOETHE, Urfaust ( 1775).

Les diversités de ce pay sont telles, qu'on ne sait comment réunir sous un mâme point de vue des réligions, des gouvernements, des climats, des peuples mâmes si différents. . . . L'Allemagne était une fédération aristocratique; cet empire n'avait point un centre commun de lumières et d'esprit public; il ne formait pas une nation compacte, et le lien manquait au faisceau.

- MADAME DE STAËL, De L'Allemagne (written in 1810), chap. ii.

Nicht durch Reden und Mehrheitsbeschlüssewerden die grossen Fragen der Zeitentschieden--das ist der grosse Fehler von 1848 und 1849gewesen--sondern durch Eisen und Blut.

Speech of Bismarck before the Budget Committee of the Prussian House of Delegates, 1862
HANS BLUM, Fürst Bismarck und Seine Zeit, ii. 351.

DURING the eighteenth century and down to Napoleon's time "Germany," like "Italy," was merely an expression. It was not the name of a state, and it scarcely signified a nation. During the Reformation, in the sixteenth century, Luther had addressed an appeal to the nobility of the German nation, but he was using a term vague and not clearly defined. There was not such uniformity of character and manners that the Germans could think of themselves as one. The people of the Rhine provinces and Bavaria were much unlike the inhabitants of northern Germany and Prussia, the two being as dissimilar as the inhabitants of north and south France, or the people of Germany in the eighteenth century

People united

Aragon and Castile. But whereas in Spain and in France long ago there had arisen a strong central government, able in the course of time to weld together diverse populations and make them feel that they were part of one whole, in Germany this did not exist.

At the time of the French Revolution there were three hundred and thirty or more German States--the number is differently estimated, and difficult to ascertain exactly-some of them powerful and important, some of them large, the greater number insignificant and small, but most of them completely independent. Least important were the territories of the knights of the empire, some of whom ruled with despotic power and complete independence over little territories a few miles square. Next and more important were the free cities, fifty in number, survivals from early medieval time when cities and towns had complete independence or almost independent power, which after a while they had lost in most countries as strong central government arose. In Germany this had never arisen and such cities as Hamburg, Bremen, Frankfort, Lübeck, Augsburg, and others, continued with the political power and privileges which once they had had. More important were the other states, some insignificant enough, some like Bavaria and Saxony strong and important, and at the very top Austria and Prussia, greatest of them all. Austria had long been the leader; but for a hundred years Prussia had been steadily rising in importance, her power being based upon careful administration and the best army in any of the German lands. The Germanies

All of these jurisdictions were in some manner bound together in the Holy Roman Empire, which meant nothing very simple or exact, and which is neither easily understood nor defined. In the fifth century the Roman Empire in western Europe collapsed from internal decay and the attacks of barbarians from without; but the downfall had been gradual and slow, and the empire had lasted The Holy Roman Empire so long that men would not believe it could ever end, and afterward believed that in some way it was still living on. As a matter of fact, it was never restored, but because of the mighty impression it had made on men's minds it was not difficult for Charlemagne, a great Germanic conqueror, to revive something of it. The power of Karl the Great was established about the Rhine, in what are now western Germany and France, extending thence to Spain, in another direction down the valley of the Danube, and also down the Italian peninsula. On Christmas Day, A. D. 800, he was crowned at St. Peter's, in Rome, Emperor of the Roman Empire, which he seemed to restore; and this empire came to be called Holy because it had been established under sanction of the church. After Charlemagne it soon fell to pieces; but in the tenth century it was revived by German rulers, and thereafter, so far as it meant anything, it signified the dominions of the German rulers who had themselves crowned emperors in Rome, a custom which they continued until 1452. Karl the Great

No real empire ever developed. While the kings of England and of France were slowly building up out of the feudal fragments around them strong kingdoms and the beginnings of nations, the German rulers, trying to accomplish too much and uphold a great empire, lost all control over the outlying parts, and wasted their strength in the vain attempt to rule Italy and Germany together. Therefore the German people continued to be divided under princes and feudal lords, like the French in the early Middle Ages, though the name and the outward dignity of the empire lingered on. For a long time emperors were elected by the greater subordinate princes, but after 1438 the imperial dignity, still elective, remained in the House of Hapsburg. The princes and lesser rulers did much as they pleased. They owed allegiance to the emperor, but this was largely a form. The various cities and states sent representatives to an imperial assembly, the diet, No real German Empire established

The rulers of the parts virtually independent but this assembly was not a body which passed laws to govern the whole, for it had neither revenues to spend nor any armed forces to support its decisions; rather it was like a congress of ambassadors from the several states. Sometimes, indeed, the decisions of the diet were carried out by the kaiser, but generally he lacked the power and resources to enforce them. The real basis of his power was in the resources of the territory over which he ruled directly: Austria, and possessions like Hungary, Bohemia, and other territories which had been acquired through conquest or marriage. Usually he devoted himself for the most part to the care and increase of his own possessions, extending his power southward and eastward, until after a while Austria ruled more Slavic subjects than Germans. The Hapsburg dominions

Some Germans, from time to time, seeing the weakness of division, and knowing how their weakness made it possible for foreigners to despoil them and bring war and ruin to their country, dreamed of a day when all of them might be truly one nation; but the mass of the people were inert, and all attempts at closer union were thwarted by the selfish interests of princes who wished no lessening of their independent power. So the Holy Roman Empire remained a curious relic survived from old times, pompous, weak, meaning little. It was not holy, said Voltaire, not Roman, not an empire. Yet it would be a mistake to believe that the witty remarks of intellectuals in the eighteenth century exactly represented the truth. Little as the empire meant to the German people in any substantial way, it was yet revered as an inheritance from their past, it vaguely represented former greatness, and it was the symbol of their nationality in the present. Weakness Of the Empire

There was small chance, however, of bringing the German people together in a better union while the Holy Roman Empire continued, and there could be little hope of making a great German nation so long as local interests Failure to achieve unity or the "particularism" of various states continued to be dominant. The eighteenth century came to an end with no progress by the Germans toward union or real nationality, and it seemed that fate was denying to their land the unity and strength which long before had come to Frenchmen and Englishmen and Spaniards.

The first great step forward came at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when the victories of Napoleon brought the time-worn fabric of the empire down into ruins. Ruthlessly, but with the constructive ideas of a great statesman, Napoleon swept the old system away. In accordance with the Treaty of Campo-Formio ( 1797) and with following arrangements, German princes compensated themselves for the territory lost when France extended her frontier to the Rhine by taking possession of the ecclesiastical states and many of the free cities of the empire, and this was, indeed, ordered by the reichsdeputationshauptschluss (decree of the imperial delegates), in 1803. Then when Austria had been completely conquered at Austerlitz and Prussia overthrown at Jena, not only did Napoleon take much of their territory away, but, to counterbalance them, he strengthened certain states of the second rank dependent on himself, by giving them much of this appropriated territory and at the same time encouraging them to absorb the little states within their borders. In this way the small jurisdictions of the knights of the empire were abolished, and altogether the number of parts into which the German people had been divided was reduced from about three hundred and thirty to thirtyeight. Furthermore, in 1806, when Napoleon established the Confederation of the Rhine, dependent on himself, he declared that he no longer recognized the empire. A few days after, the Hapsburg emperor resigned his title, and the venerable organization came to an end, its ruler becoming now the first emperor of Austria, his hereditary dominions. Napoleon did all this for himself, not for the German people. Napoleon

Small states absorbed

End of the Holy Roman Empire

None the less, what a long line of German heroes and emperors had failed to bring about he succeeded in doing; and he is entitled to rank as the first and one of the greatest workers in unifying the German people.

The influence of the French and their very nearness had brought the best work of the Revolution into western Germany, abolishing serfdom and feudal survivals, introducing civil equality and the excellent, simple law of Napoleon's Code. Similar reforms were brought about in Prussia by the minister, Vom Stein, assisted by others who labored to regenerate the people. There also serfdom was abolished and civil equality introduced, while education and the military system were reorganized and greatly improved. During this time the yoke of France was so heavy on Prussians and other Germans, and they so hated the foreign tyrant, that their common German nationality seemed more precious than ever before. For a while there seemed no hope of deliverance, but after the Grand Army had perished in Russia, the Prussians first, then other Germans, rose in a great spontaneous effort and completed the destruction of Napoleon's empire. The War of Liberation in 1813 was the work of the people of Germany, not of their sovereigns. It is true that most of them had risen up in their wrath to turn the invader out, and that as yet it was only the intellectuals and a few others who were filled with strong national feeling. Yet many of the German liberals and leaders hoped that now their sovereigns would willingly offer better governments, and that the German peoples might be brought together in one strong union. Reform in The Germanies

Rise of national spirit

The German people, like the Italians, were soon disappointed. The leaders at the Congress of Vienna were little inclined to take account of new aspirations and passions. They were striving to reconstitute the old Europe, as far as they could. Alexander I, tsar of Russia, for the moment liberal leader of Europe, sympathized The Con Gress of Vienna


with the wish of Germans for a better arrangement, and tried to assist them; but with respect to German matters Prince Metternich dominated the Congress, and he had no desire to see the German states bound in a closer union, since in such organization, he clearly foresaw, Austria could not remain leader. His efforts were successful, and no further unification was achieved. Yet the work of Napoleon in this respect was not now undone, for the Germans remained in thirty-eight states as he left them.

Out of these states the Congress of Vienna established the German Confederation. It was to be governed by an assembly or diet to meet at Frankfort. As in the Holy Roman Empire, the delegates were to be appointed by the sovereigns of the states. In the diet no fundamental change of any sort could be made without a unanimous vote, probably as difficult to obtain as had once been the case in Poland, thus precluding from the start any change toward better government or closer unity of the parts. This body was to legislate for the general concerns of the German people, but neither its power nor the scope of its work was ever defined, and it had no capacity to enforce its decrees. Metternich had planned this assembly and Austria had the presidency in it. The Deutsches Bund, 1815-66

Evidently no progress had been made toward the betterment or unification of Germany. No nation had been formed; there was no national flag; no strong state had been founded, nor any closely knit league. As political scientists said, it was a staatenbund, or league of states, not a bundesstaat or federal state. Its princes had kept almost complete independence for themselves. Each one might have his own diplomatic representatives broad and conduct his foreign relations as he pleased, even making alliances with other countries, except that no member was ever to make war upon another. Furthermore, the confederation was not only loosely formed, but it contained members whose principal interests were outside. Character of the Confederation

A great part of Prussia, the non-Germanic portion, was not in the confederation, and two thirds of Austria was left out. Austria would certainly place her particular interests before those of the confederation, or "Germany."

For the next generation German patriots and liberals lived on with hope deferred. Most of the people were occupied principally with reconstruction after the long wars through which Europe had passed; they were engrossed in the simple problem of making their living under new difficulties, and could give scant heed to reformers. The recent territorial changes in German lands, the enlargement of Prussia and the absorption of the small German states, engaged the attention of the princes. Most of the rulers desired to restore former conditions or prevent further change, if they could. And those who strove so hard to unite the Germanies were themselves not decided about that which was best to do. Above all, Austria continued to be leader of the Germanic countries, and Austria, under Metternich, continued to desire that the old system of things should remain. Lack of progress

In spite of the defeats of the Napoleonic Wars, and despite the large changes which had taken place on her borders, Austria was much as before. She had changed almost as little as Russia. For her the French Revolution had not occurred. In her domains no great alteration took place until about the middle of the century. Like Russia, Austria was a strange and conglomerate empire, formed of many pieces. The basis of her power, what linked Austria with the German peoples, was the territory around Vienna, bordering on the south German lands, the old possessions of the Hapsburg House. Here, and scattered about in other parts, dwelt the Austrian Germans, pleasant and agreeable folk, but politically more backward and conservative in character than most of the other German peoples. They remained as the Germans elsewhere had been before the spread of the Revolutionary ideas. Austria

The Germans of the Austrian Empire, because of higher culture and the greater wealth and position they had for a long time possessed, dominated the other peoples, but they were only about a third of the entire population. For three hundred years the House of Hapsburg had been extending its dominions, at first by a series of fortunate marriages, then by conquest at the expense of the Turkish power which for a long while had been receding southward toward the Balkans, and by successful wars in Italy. The other two thirds of her subjects lived in these additions. There were West Slavs in Bohemia and Moravia; Poles and Rutherians in Galicia there were South Slavs in Carniola and Dalmatia, along the Adriatic, and in Croatia and Slavonia inland, with more just across the empire's borders in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which Austria would acquire in the future; in Transylvania were more Rumans than lived in the adjacent Turkish provinces which later on were to be Rumania; and above all there were the Hungarians, who with Transylvanians, Slovaks, and South Slavs composed Hungary, the other half of the empire. In northern Italy the Hapsburgs ruled Venetia, Lombardy, and Tuscany. The various people were divided from one another by race, religion, and speech. Toward the end of the eighteenth century attempts had been made to Germanize the non-Germanic populations, but these attempts had failed, and Italians, Bohemians, Hungarians, Rumanians, and South Slavs remained quiescent, indeed --for they lived, most of them, in ignorance and serfdom, ruled by nobles or their German masters, but they continued unassimilated. with little loyalty for the empire. Peoples of The Austrian Empire

Such an empire could be held together most surely in the old manner. So long as education and industrial progress could be kept away, so long as most of the people were in lowly servitude under nobles attached to the Austrian government, that long as most likely, would there be no rebellions for Hungarian or Bohemian independence. The Old Régime in the Hapsburg dominions

It would be expedient to check all progress in neighboring German lands; since probably, as conditions there became better, the German peoples or their rulers, bringing about real union, would make Germany prosperous and great; and when that time came there would be no more of Austrian leadership in central Europe, for in a Germany really unified and progressive there could be no primacy for an Austria most of whose territory lay outside the Germanic Confederation, and most of whose people were of races alien and subject.

The Austria of Metternich and the Germanic Confederation continued to a great extent to be lands of the Old Régime. In Austria serfdom and special privilege lasted on as before. Throughout the Germanic Confederation were reaction and repression. The object of Metternich and those who followed his system was to keep out all ideas foreign or new, which were thought to be dangerous, and to prevent all change. Education was carefully supervised and controlled. Austrians were forbidden to travel abroad, and foreigners were kept out as much as could be. There was strict censorship of the press and of the theater, and government spies everywhere prowled about to listen at lectures, to watch students, to report conversations, to discover what might be dangerous to the state. In Austria it was not difficult to accomplish what was desired; the mass of the people remained in their lowly condition, paid their heavy taxes, and hardly stirred against the German masters above them; while the government remained unreformed, corrupt, inefficient. But in the German countries near by it was far less easy to maintain the old system, for into western Germany the spirit of France had entered profoundly; for a while French influence had been the guiding force, and Prussia had raised herself from humiliation and defeat by enacting some of the reforms which the French Revolution brought elsewhere. Nevertheless, for the time the Congress of Vienna Metternich's system in central Europe left things much as before, and the German princes, forgetting the promises made in their need, followed where Metternich led them. Some of the German states--Weimar, Bavaria, Würtemberg, Baden--got constitutions, but most of them did not; and the government of Prussia was reactionary and strongly repressive.

Accordingly there was much discontent among the upper intellectual classes in Prussia and the smaller German states, particularly around the universities. In Prussia, moreover, there still remained patriotic societies, like the Burschenschaft, which had done so much to arouse the young men against Napoleon's rule. Great suspicion was shown now by the governments toward these societies and toward the university students. In 1817 members of the Burschenschaft from various universities celebrated at the Wartburg Castle the anniversary of Luther's theses and also of the Battle of Leipzig, and there they burned certain reactionary writings. This was magnified as a most dangerous event. Two years later a student stabbed to death a certain Kotzebue, known then as a dramatist of some little importance but better as an agent serving Russia. As a result of these occurrences Frederick William III of Prussia gave full support to Metternich's ideas, and, some of the other states consenting, Metternich had passed through the diet of the Confederation the Carlsbad Decrees of 1819. These decrees established drastic supervision of universities and strict censorship of the press, student societies were prohibited, and a declaration was made against constitutional reforms like those which had been brought to pass in England and France. It was about this time that the tsar of Russia, who had inclined toward liberalism before, became the strongest advocate of Metternich's principles. "Tell me what you desire," he said, "I will do it." Therefore from this time, the "Holy Alliance," which had been established in the first place from the best of motives, and for the one great pur- Discontent in the German countries

The Carlsbad Decrees

pose of maintaining the settlement of 1815, now became also the great engine of oppressive reaction, and thus got the reputation which made it so hateful to men in after days.

In the Germanic Confederation the Carlsbad Decrees remained to dominate the life of the people for the next thirty years. There was to be no further political progress and little betterment of conditions until the Revolution of 1848 swept over central Europe. It is true that the Revolution of 1830, which produced such important changes in Belgium and France, had effects in some of the lesser German states, but in Germany, as in Italy, 1830 produced no great alteration. During the remainder of Metternich's age, there appeared to be almost no progress at all, and in the long years of this stagnation the hopes of German liberals almost died. Spies and officials of the governments persecuted the men who had helped to liberate Germany from Napoleon, and who now looked forward to still better things. Jahn, who had founded the Prussian gymnastic societies, was thrust into prison. Arndt, whose poems had so stirred the German youth in the glorious days of the uprising, was persecuted and driven out of his profession. Emissaries listened to the words of the greatest preachers and professors. Some books were kept out of Germany, and some were suppressed. Most of the old governments continued as conservative as ever, and the Diet of the Confederation held the Germanic states together with as little effect as before. Reaction and political stagnation


But during these long, slow years, changes were taking place which silently brought enormous consequences. During the period from 1815 to 1848 economic causes were gradually eating away the very foundations of the old order; the Industrial Revolution began its work in central Europe as in Belgium and France. Hitherto, as from time immemorial, most of the people had been engaged in The Industrial Revolution agricultural work, and there were now little commerce and manufacturing, and few big cities, except the capitals and political centers. But during the second quarter of the nineteenth century machines and manufacturing on a large scale began to appear in Germany and Austria, and slowly railroads were developed. Workmen were assembled together in large numbers, means of communication were improved, and a prosperous middle class developed. There was not so much of all this as had appeared in France and much less than in England, but altogether a considerable amount. The rise of a bourgeoisie presently produced an important class out of sympathy with the old system of politics and government, and radical feelings were presently disseminated among a larger and larger number of the industrial workers. The reactionaries would have liked to keep out railroads and the new industrialism, but here they were working against forces which they could neither control nor understand. For many years Metternich's police and spies seemed to prevent all progress and change, but after a while his régime was left with much less secure foundation. Middle Class

This was evident in 1848. In that year the Orleans Monarchy was overthrown by a sudden revolution in Paris. At once the movement spread far outside of France; and all through central Europe the existing arrangement went down in ruins. The Revolution of 1848

When the news of the uprising in Paris arrived at Vienna, the government at once lost control, and Metternich was compelled to flee from the city. The government found itself helpless, and immediately promised far-reaching reforms. Freedom of the press was established, and a national guard of the citizens. April 25th, a new constitution was issued for the Austrian dominions. It established civil and religious freedom, and instituted a legislature, a reichstag, of two chambers, to which the ministers were to be responsible; and a little later, a legisla- Reforms in Austria ture of a single chamber with universal manhood suffrage. The imperial court, already deeply affronted at having to make concessions which it granted merely to save itself, now withdrew from Vienna to Innsbruck, which shortly afterward became the center of the forces of aristocracy and reaction.

Meanwhile there had been revolutions in Prussia and other German states, where the people demanded religious freedom, freedom of the press, trial by jury, and governments responsible to representatives elected by the people. In March, the people of Berlin rose in insurrection and made barricades in the streets. The king, Frederick William IV, at whose accession there had been hope of reform, but who had made no liberal changes, was compelled to proceed through the streets of his city acknowledging the changes brought about. In Prussia, however, as in France at the same time, the revolution was followed almost immediately by reaction, and for the same reason. As soon as the middle class had achieved the reforms that it wished, it became alarmed at what the workingmen of the lower class proposed to get, and presently the Prussian bourgeoisie rallied to support the king, so as to get his support against the workmen. This made it easier for the conservative forces in the kingdom to recover their power. An assembly had been called to draw up a constitution for Prussia. Presently the reactionaries caused this assembly to be dismissed, and the king, of his own will and grace, granted to the people a constitution destined long to remain in force and long to be regarded as one of the least liberal constitutions in Europe. Revolution of 1848 in Prussia


While reform was dying in Prussia and while Austria was also preparing for reaction, German progressives were attempting the still grander scheme of making a liberal, united Germany. For a long time there had been desire for a real union of the German states, though this had been successfully opposed during Metternich's years. In Attempt to make a united Germany 1847 certain liberals had met to declare that there ought to be a national parliament for the German people. To this feeling the Paris revolution now gave a powerful impulse, and March 5, 1848, a group of leaders meeting at Heidelberg, proposed that a parliament be summoned. The diet of the confederation was forced to agree; and a German parliament, elected by manhood suffrage, assembled at Frankfort.

May 13, 1848, the Frankfort Parliament opened its sessions. Unfortunately, its members were not fitted for the work undertaken. They had grand general ideas about the nobility of man and democratic rights, but they lacked practical experience with government itself. In Germany, as in France, the great mass of the people had never had any part in the government of their country, and now they were found unequal to the task when they attempted to make constitutions. The Parliament of Frankfort was only possible because for the moment Austria, who would surely have prevented such a gathering if she could, was in the throes of revolution, and because temporarily the princes of the other states had to bow to the will of their people. This condition would almost certainly not long endure: either there would be more complete revolution, or reaction to the old state of affairs. But the members of the Frankfort Parliament, which Karl Marx afterward described as an "assembly of old women," spent long time in debating the fundamental ideas of their system. At the end of the year they were, indeed, able to proclaim equality before the law, and freedom of press, petition, and meeting, but they had not yet formed a strong government or got for their system the support without which it could never be established. The difficulties confronting them had been very great. The Frankfort Parliament


The great problem confronting them at the outset was what to do with respect to Austria. The entire Hapsburg state might be embodied in a new Germanic union, but The problem of Austria that seemed not desirable, and moreover the Austrian dominions seemed about to fall into fragments. It was also proposed to exclude Austria altogether, but as yet this conflicted too much with old associations and longsettled opinion to be accepted. Accordingly, a compromise was adopted, the constitution providing that no part of the "German Empire" might contain non-German lands. In the case of such a state as Austria, provided that the German parts were taken into the new German federation, the Slavic and Hungarian parts might thereafter be connected only through personal union under the Austrian ruler. Since in any strong union this would mean the partition of Austria, she refused to accept the arrangement, and thereupon was excluded altogether. This being settled, the members proceeded to arrange the form of the government. At the end of March, 1849. they decided that the new Germany should be an empire, with the king of Prussia as hereditary ruler. The scheme was accepted by a large number of the smaller German states, but Austria announcing that she would not suffer herself to be expelled from the confederation, the outcome of the affair now hinged altogether upon what action Prussia would take. Prussia was more and more looming up as the natural leader of the Germanies, though it was still hard for many people to turn their hearts from the old allegiance to Austria. German unity was some years later to be achieved under Prussian leadership; but now Frederick William IV shrank from an undertaking which would surely involve him in conflict with Austrian power, and possibly with that of Russia, who had come to Austria's assistance. Moreover, he had no sympathy with the revolutionary movement which had brought the Frankfort Parliament into being. As Bismarck afterward declared, the king looked upon this assembly as a revolutionary body. He would only accept the crown of a German Empire if the princes of the various states asked Austria excluded from the proposed German Empire

Prussia refuses to accept leadership

him. Therefore he refused to take the leadership that was offered. Then, when not only Austria but Prussia had refused to accept the Constitution of Frankfort, Bavaria, Saxony, Hanover, and Würtemberg likewise declined, and the work of the Parliament, accepted only by the smaller states, came to an ignominious end.

The failure at Frankfort in 1849 was afterward seen to have been a turning point in the history of the German people, and, indeed, in the history of Europe in the nineteenth century. The two great forces in the life of European peoples during that hundred years were the tendency toward democracy and self-government and the tendency to realize nationality. Slowly and with normal development democracy was going forward in the British Isles, and more slowly, in face of greater obstacles, in France and other countries of western Europe. Hitherto it had made little progress in central Europe, but in 1848 came the great effort of the German liberals. Had they been able to cope more successfully with the difficulties which lay in their way, had they been able to erect limited constitutional monarchy, had they been able to bring about the unification of the German peoples, then it may well be that the entire political history of Germany in the years following would have been very different. There might have been no battles of Sadowa and Sedan, nor the terrible struggles of 1914-18. But actually, after the liberals had stirred the hearts of the people, they got nothing done and the failing system of a loose Germanic Confederation and rule by sovereigns in the old way continued. The German peoples turned from republicans and liberals with contempt. Profound conviction grew that the great work still to be done must be done not by parliaments and the people, but by power and force and under the auspices of the princes and upper class. Somewhat later it was brought about through the military power of Prussia; its development went forward upon the Significance of the failure at Frankfort

The liberals give place to militarists

battle-field; united Germany was made by the sword; and the government then established was left in the hands of princes and nobles. Then the military might which had accomplished so much was glorified by the German people, and their leaders made them hope for still greater power through greater armies led by their princes. All Europe became an armed camp, with Germany an ever greater danger and menace to other nations. It was the failure of 1848 and 1849 which definitively caused the German people to leave the path along which their western neighbors were then going forward. Not until after their Empire, which had been established on the battle-field, had been shattered on the field of battle was there possibility of erecting again a German government based on the German people themselves. Germany united by power and force

The failure of Prussia to accept leadership, and the collapse of the Parliament of Frankfort, were largely owing to the recovery of Austrian power. In 1848 that power had been broken to pieces; the subject peoples, so long bowed low, had risen and broken away from her empire. While the liberals and the lower classes of Vienna were extorting a constitution and universal suffrage in Austria proper, the Hungarians, the Bohemians, the Italians all shook off the Austrian yoke, and the numerous other peoples in the empire were aroused into wild excitement. Austria recovers

The northern Italians, subject to Austria or under her influence, hated their masters as alien tyrants, and longed for the day of their deliverance. Now in the midst of Austria's necessities they rose and declared their independence; and it seemed that under the lead of Piedmont a united, free Italy might be begun. Rising in Italy

In Bohemia a strong nationalist movement had long been developing. Since 1526 she had been united with Austria by personal union, the emperor being king of Bohemia. In course of time, a German minority of the In Bohemia population had become the upper class, in possession of much of the power and the wealth of the country. But always the great majority of the people were the Czechs, with their own Slavic language. During the nineteenth century there took place in Bohemia what had occurred in Greece and afterward in Hungary, and what was later on to be so prominent in Ireland, a consistent effort to revive nationality, and especially use of the language and a love for the old literature and traditions. In June, 1848, a congress of many of the Slavic peoples was held at the capital, Prague. The leaders were dreaming of a day when their peoples would have freedom and independence, and perhaps enter into a great Slavic union for their mutual advantage. But they found now that there was no Slavic language which all the delegates could understand, and German was used at the Congress. Almost immediately the old and deep-seated antagonism between Teutons and Slavs was aroused. At first the Bohemians protested loyalty to the Austria n government. Presently they proclaimed independence. Pan-Slavic Congress

In Hungary meanwhile a more important nationalist movement had taken place. When the power of the Hungarians had been broken in 1526 by the Turks at the battle of Mohács, part of the country had passed under Turkish dominion, but the remainder had been united in personal union with Austria. Since that time, all of Hungary, along with other dependent lands, had been reconquered from the Turks by the emperor, who was king of the Hungarian lands. In Hungary the most important element of the population was the Hungarians or Magyars, but they were exceeded in numbers by Rumanians and Slavs, just as the Germans of Austria were outnumbered by South Slavs, Czechs, and Poles. Croatia and Transylvania had some measure of autonomy, but ever since the Magyars had come into this region a thousand years before they had acted as superiors and In Hungary masters. Yet the mass of the Hungarian people were in as lowly condition as the other races about them. Hungary had an old constitution, according to which the power of the nobles was supreme. The greater nobles sat in the diet, and had nearly all the political power. There were some five hundred of these magnates or great men, but there were in addition about seven hundred thousand petty nobles, unimportant in the government, but raised far above the mass of the people. The nobles paid no taxes. They were supported by the labor of peasants, the great mass of the people, who continued in the lowliest serfdom, for Hungary was still a land of manorial, feudal, medieval customs. During Metternich's time the progress of western Europe had hardly reached into the country, though in recent years there had been some who had foreseen a change and tried to bring it about. Count Széchenyi, one of the most prominent of the magnates, endeavored to effect economic improvement; Louis Kossuth and Francis Deák labored for political reform. In 1847 their party had demanded liberty of the press, taxation of the nobles, and other changes. Along with this was going forward a nationalist awakening like that which had been developing in Bohemia. Hungarian leaders desired not merely reform, but a Hungary in which the Magyar people and language should completely prevail. In 1844 they had succeeded in getting their tongue declared the language of the government instead of Latin, though this was opposed by the Slavic peoples. Condition of the Hungarian people


Such was the condition of affairs when news came of the Revolution in France and the outbreak in Vienna. At once the effect was felt in Hungary, and in the midst of enormous enthusiasm and excitement the Hungarian diet, passed the March Laws, which were reforms like those made in 1789 by the National Assembly in France. Serfdom and manorial dues were at last abolished, and the nobles deprived of their monopoly of political offices The March Laws, 1848 and power. The diet was thereafter to be elected by Hungarians owning a stipulated amount of property. Freedom of the press, trial by jury, and religious freedom were also proclaimed. Furthermore, Hungary was now to have its own ministry and its own separate government, remaining connected with Austria only through the person of their common monarch.

As a result of all these movements Austria's power seemed for the moment to be gone. Austria proper, the center of Hapsburg power, was torn by revolution, and the dependencies and outlying possessions, Italy, Bohemia, Hungary, had effected virtual separation. But now was witnessed a phenomenon, frequently seen again with surprise in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Down to the very beginning of the Great War outsiders often predicted the breaking up of the Hapsburg dominions. But they usually forgot that the Hapsburg power had developed because it held together diverse elements not strong enough to stand alone, and generally too jealous of one another and too different to unite in any other combination. Because of these factors Austria-Hungary remained one of the great powers of Europe long after the middle of the century, and, indeed, seemed to grow stronger with time. Now after 1848 it was the jealousies of the different parts and the incompatibility of the racial elements that made it possible for Austria to recover. The power of Austria revives

In Italy, indeed, her power was only shaken a little. The aged but able veteran Radetzky, driven out of Milan, retired merely to the position of the Quadrilateral, the four strong fortresses of the north, and shortly after reestablished Austrian authority as a result of his victory at Custozza. Almost at the same time an Austrian army under Prince Windischgrätz reconquered Bohemia where the Germans and the conservatives had arrayed themselves against the Czechs, the mass of the people. The forces of reaction were rapidly getting new strength. The The Italians defeated

The Bohemians reconquered

Austrian Slavs, now rendered submissive, were used by the government to help in defeating the German insurgents in Austria. Racial jealousies were aroused, and dislike and suspicion fostered. July 22nd, a Constituent Diet for Austria assembled at Vienna. The gathering was torn by racial dissensions between Germans and Slavs, and made no important reform except the abolition of serfdom. Soon the democrats and liberals became alarmed at the signs of growing reaction; a new insurrection broke out; and the emperor, who had returned to the capital, again fled. But Windischgrätz now marched on Vienna; it was soon invested and captured; and by the end of October the power of the government was very largely restored in Austria. It was at this point, indeed, that Austria began effective resistance to the Parliament of Frankfort. Reaction now held full sway. March 4, 1849, a new constitution was granted by imperial authority, which proclaimed the unity of the Austrian dominions and organized them under central bureaucratic rule. Vienna reduced

Only the Hungarians remained to be dealt with. By this time they had virtually established their independence, and their position seemed strong, but actually they were near to their fall. The Magyars did, indeed, want reform and liberal change, but they also wanted to preserve their own supremacy, and to make Magyar things everywhere supreme in the state. In this they were opposed by the Slavic and German and Rumanian populations who were unwilling to abandon their own nationalist aspirations. The Hungarians were less than half of the population of Hungary, and were only one among the seven peoples who inhabited it; but they were now determined that the Magyar tongue should be the language of the government in all parts, and, as far as possible, that the non-Magyar parts of the population should be slowly fused into the Hungarian race. But the Slovaks, the Croatians, and also the Rumanians of Transylvania, were Racial troubles in Hungary

Magyar ambitions

strongly opposed to any attempt to incorporate them in a unified Hungarian state. As the Magyars themselves wanted complete autonomy if they were to remain connected with Austria, so the Rumanians and Slavs of Hungary wanted some measure of autonomy for themselves, and this the Hungarians were unwilling to grant. Kossuth told the South Slavs that before there could be any equality of the Slavonian tongue with the Magyar, appeal must be made to the sword. The result was that almost from the first the majority of the people in Hungary were against the revolutionary party.

Of this situation the Austrian authorities took easy advantage. The South Slavs tried to set up a kingdom, separate from Hungary and under Hapsburg rule, and presently the inhabitants of Transylvania also tried to separate themselves. For a time Austria waited, but as she recovered her strength she encouraged Jellacic ban or viceroy of Croatia, to invade Hungary, and in January, 1849, Windischgrätz took Budapest. Just when the cause of the Hungarians seemed desperate, however, they rallied and regained almost all they had lost. But in April, at this last moment of their triumph, they separated completely from Austria and proclaimed a Hungarian republic. This was a fatal step, for at once it brought Russia into the conflict. Now when the Austrians and the Croatians advanced from the west, the Russians entered the country through the passes of the Carpathian mountains, and, overwhelmed on all sides, the Hungarian republic collapsed. Austria, triumphant, took savage vengeance. The leaders, who had not escaped, were put to death or cast into prison; Hungary's autonomy was suppressed and her constitution annulled; the country was divided into provinces, and in all of them German was made the language of the state instead of Magyar. Of the Hungarian movement all that remained was the social reforms; feudalism and serfdom had disappeared. Hungary at bay

The Magyars overwhelmed

Just before the Frankfort Assembly melted away, German radicals, disgusted with its failure, had tried to set up republics in some of the German states, like the one just established in Hungary, but these republics did not last beyond the spring and summer of 1849. In central Europe the revolutionary movement for the present had spent its force. End of the Revolutionary in central Europe

The restoration of Germany was now attempted; first by Prussia, and then by Austria. The Prussian plan was to establish a German union from which Austria would be excluded, with a government, much like what was afterward adopted, in which Prussia should have the leading part. The Austrian leaders proposed to revive the Germanic Confederation, in which now all of the Austrian dominions were to be included. Prussia did attempt to establish a union, in which the smaller states entered, along with Saxony and Hanover, though these two states almost at once tried to withdraw. Austria began to establish a revived Confederation. Thus Germany was divided. Soon the matter came to issue over a dispute about Hesse-Cassel. Then Austria and the south German states put into the field an army of 200,000 men against Prussia, who was not prepared to make effective resistance. In November, 1850, by the Convention of Olmütz, Prussia yielded. Then the Germanic Confederation was revived; and Austria was once more, as previously, the leader among the German states. Struggle for leadership in Germany

The Confederation revived

For a few years more the ascendancy of Austria continued, but it is evident now that forces had long been silently at work which had brought about a great alteration. Ever since 1815 Prussia, despite reactionary politicians and weak kings, had been developing into the strongest state in central Europe. The leadership of Austria, which had come down from olden times, had been owing to the fact that she was the most powerful state in the old empire, and hence it had seemed very natural for The rise of Prussia her to be predominant in the Confederation. In older times south Germany and the lands in the Danube valley were more favored than the countries in the north. In Prussia and along the Baltic and the North seas the lands were poor and barren, but in the south agriculture flourished wherever it was developed. Moreover, in earlier times south Germany was the center of German commerce and industry and many of the trade routes led to the Mediterranean or down the Danube through Austrian lands. But gradually as time went on the great trade routes of Europe were in the north instead of the south, and presently Prussia and the north German lands lay not only along one line of communication from Russia to western Europe but across the routes from the south German lands out on to the Baltic and the North seas and thence to the Atlantic; and Austria and the south fell behind. Meanwhile Prussia had been carefully developed by a dynasty of sovereigns who built up Prussian power by their armies, it is true, but who also fostered commerce and industry to the utmost. Then in 1815 the Congress of Vienna had added greatly to Prussia's territory, giving her not only part of Saxony but also the Rhine lands to defend against France. She had now, after Austria, by far the largest population and territory of any state in the Confederation, and, since Austrian possessions were mostly non-Germanic, she appeared increasingly the natural leader of the German peoples. Austria falls behind

During the period of subjection to France, the great minister Vom Stein bad worked to make the land strong and prosperous so that the people might escape from the yoke of Napoleon. In 1807 serfdom was abolished, forty years before it was done in Austria; trade in land between the classes was permitted; occupations were thrown open to members of all classes; and trade barriers between country and town were removed. Previous to this time commerce had been fatally hampered by payments which Reforms in Prussia had to be made on goods taken through the German towns. Customs duties were, however, still levied at the frontier, and each of the states into which Germany remained divided after 1815 levied its own customs, the multiplicity and number of them greatly hindering German commerce. A great step forward was taken when in 1818 Prussia established a uniform rate for all parts of her widely scattered domain, with freedom of trade between all of these several parts and then invited other states near by to enter into the same regulations with her. The project of a customs union, or zollverein, was an old one in Germany, and long before, clear thinkers had seen the advantage which would come to German commerce and also to the German people if such commercial unity were brought about. Great difficulties and local particular interests stood in the way, but gradually Prussia won over some of the other states to join her. In the process of forming a zollverein she was greatly favored by her geographical position. As she won some of her neighbors to join her, others, like Saxony, presently found themselves cut off from easy access to the great trade routes and at such a disadvantage in commerce that presently they were compelled through self-interest also to join. In 1834 the Zollverein was established between Prussia, Saxony, Bavaria, and fourteen of the lesser states; and by 1842 the only important states remaining out were Hanover and Austria. The Zollverein

Thus, as the result of the working of economic forces, nearly all the German states were brought together in a commercial union, while Austria was left completely outside. It might very well seem to those who judged circumstances from politics and diplomatic relations that Austria was the leader of the German states bound together only in the loose Germanic Confederation ruled by the ineffective diet at Frankfort; and as late as 1850, when Prussia yielded so completely it at Olmütz, Austria's The position of Austria position might seem unimpaired. But the shadow not the substance of her former power among the German states remained; and what she still had she would presently be able to keep only through upholding it by force. More and more did north Germany and Austria draw farther apart in interests and importance. The Industrial Revolution came into central Europe at the time that Prussia was establishing the customs union, and developed in Prussia and the neighboring states far more greatly than in Austria and the lands of the south. The abolition of customs barriers fostered trade and industry greatly, and presently the countries of the Zollverein entered upon a splendid period of prosperity and economic advancement.

The significance of this work was afterward obscured by the apparent splendor and the success of the military achievements by which the political unification of Germany was brought about when the German Empire was established. But looking back now with altered perspective, it seems that it would have been better for Germany and the rest of Europe had it not been necessary for the work of Bismarck and his companions to be done, for it is evident now that while it was through their successes that German unity was finally achieved, yet the foundations were laid and the more important part of the task accomplished through the constructive and peaceful work of Prussian statesmen who established the Zollverein and with it the real beginning of German federation. Unfortunately, by the middle of the century it began to seem that they would not be able to finish the work of peacefully drawing together the Germans in one great nation. Then the task of unification was taken up by Bismarck, and by force, by strength, by military might suddenly and magnificently completed. But what Bismarck and Von Moltke did has since been undone; while what remains of Germany now and gives hope to the German people for the future is the work which was peacefully The economic unification of Germany wrought out in the first half of the nineteenth century.

In the years which followed Olmütz the affairs of Prussia came into the keeping of leaders who resolved to increase the military power of their country so greatly that they might later on give Austria defiance. In spite of all the commercial and industrial progress which Prussia had made, she remained politically far behind England and France, and even when a constitution was granted in 1850 the government continued to be controlled entirely by the king and by the aristocracy and nobles. For generations the instinct of these men had been warlike; their fathers before them had won their possessions by the sword and kept them by strength and by force. Much of the power of Prussia had come from the armies which former rulers had built up, and from the victories won by Frederick the Great. To the Prussian upper class force and power seemed the means of successful government and advancement. In 1857 the brilliant but erratic and weak Frederick William IV, being afflicted with a mental disease, the administration of Prussia was put into the hands of his brother William as regent, who, four years later, in 1861, ascended the throne as William I ( 1861- 1888). The new sovereign was a soldier by long training, and he resolved at once to increase the Prussian army. For this it was necessary to have additional revenue, which must be got from the Prussian parliament. But in the landtag the liberals were in control and they looked with disfavor on increasing the army. In 1862, by a great majority, they refused the money which the king required. In the bitter disappointment of this moment, William was prepared to abdicate his crown, but as a last resort beforehand he entrusted the administration of affairs to one who was destined now to guide Prussia through the greatest period of her career and profoundly alter the history of Germany and of Europe. This was Count Otto von Bismarck. The new leaders of Prussia

William I

Bismarck ( 1815-98), was it Prussian junker or noble- Bismarck man who had already gained some notoriety as a reactionary in the lower chamber of the Prussian landtag. He had served as Prussian representative at the Frankfort Diet, where he had stanchly upheld the dignity of his country; then, as ambassador to Russia and, for a few months in 1862, as ambassador to France, gaining invaluable experience in diplomatic affairs and much knowledge of the politics of Europe. His political tastes and instincts were thoroughly those of the conservatives and the nobility of central Europe. He had no patience with parliaments, and scant respect for representatives of the people. In his mind the king ruled by divine right, as the Prussian constitution declared. His principal desire was to uphold the power of his sovereign and his class, to increase the strength of Prussia, and effect the unification of Germany by grouping the other German states in union about Prussia. He was a thorough patriot and his motives, from his own point of view, were the highest and the best. He had great strength of character, iron resolution, dauntless courage, and the highest ability in conducting diplomacy and foreign relations. There was no one who dealt with him whom he did not overreach in the end. All the tasks he set out to accomplish he succeeded in effecting as he desired, and all that he gained for Prussia and Germany he kept as long as he remained in power. His success, indeed, was so immense that for a long time contemporaries and those who followed after him believed that he had been the greatest statesman of his century and the greatest one his country had ever produced. But afterward it was seen more clearly that some of his work was not based upon the moral foundations which give worth and permanence to achievement. His ambition

Bismarck at once warned the lower chamber not to rely too much upon its power. When it persisted in its refusal to grant the money, he boldly continued for 1863 the appropriation which had been passed the year pre- Bismarck and the Prussian representatives ceding. Then the chamber asked the king to dismiss him, but the monarch supported his minister, prorogued the diet, and announced a strict censorship of the press. The Prussians, who had not behind them a long history of constitutional progress, and most of whom as yet cared little for representative government, made no strong protest, and such discontent as there was soon diminished in the midst of the great economic prosperity through which the country was passing. So, reorganization and strengthening of the army went forward until Prussia was by far the strongest military power in Europe Meanwhile, with the greatest skill, Bismarck so conducted Prussia's foreign affairs as to make it certain that when the day came of contest with Austria, she would not be assisted by some other great power. After a brief war in 1864--in which Prussia and Austria together overcame Denmark--Austria and Prussia drifted steadily apart, as Bismarck so managed things as to make a contest between them inevitable. In 1866 the struggle came, and then, to the astonishment of the world, the Prussian army laid prostrate the power of Austria in the brief Seven Weeks' War. The king and some of the Prussian leaders wished to continue the war and take away from Austria a part of her territory, but Bismarck opposed them, for he desired only to thrust Austria outside of German affairs, to make a united Germany under Prussia's leadership, and hoped when this was accomplished to have Austria's friendship. By the Treaty of Prague much of the work which had so long been going forward in central Europe was now formally completed. Austria, paying to Prussia a small indemnity, but losing no territory except Venetia--which she ceded to Prussia's ally, the Italian kingdom--withdrew now from any part in German affairs; the old Germanic Confederation was dissolved; and Prussia prepared to establish a new confederation of the north German states. Prussia's army strengthened

Austria overthrown

When the war began every German state of any importance had ranged itself on Austria's side. Now all of them were conquered. From the south German states little was taken, but elsewhere Prussia did her will. She annexed Schleswig-Holstein, the subject of the dispute with Austria, all of the kingdom of Hanover, the duchies of Hesse-Cassel and Nassau, and also the free city of Frankfort. Thus was her territory rounded out, and her population increased by four millions and a half. She then formed the North German Confederation, a strong federal union of all the German states north of the river Main. Local affairs were to be regulated by the members, but there was now also a strong central government. In this central government the executive, an hereditary president, was the Prussian king, who commanded the armed forces of the union and managed its foreign affairs. There was also to be a bundesrath, or federal council, made up of representatives of the governments of the various member states, and a parliamentary assembly, reichstag, of which the members were to be elected by manhood suffrage. The North German Confederation, 1867


What remained to be done was soon accomplished. The states south of the Main--Bavaria, Würtemberg, part of Hesse-Darmstadt, and Baden--feared France, and considered themselves too weak to stand alone. Accordingly they formed an offensive and defensive alliance with Prussia. Bismarck believed that France would not willingly acquiesce in the creation of such a great new state on her border, and he saw clearly that triumph over France would create such enthusiasm everywhere among Germans that most probably the south German states would enter the union also. Therefore he skilfully led France on, as he had done with Austria, assisted however in this case by a rash and foolish war party in Paris. In 1870-1 France was completely crushed on the battlefield. Then amidst immense enthusiasm a German empire, including The German Empire established, 1871 all the German states, south as well as north of the Main, was proclaimed, with a constitution much like that which the North German Confederation had possessed. To this new empire France was compelled to cede AlsaceLorraine. In their rejoicing Germans thought of Bismarck as the unifier of their country after leaders had failed during a thousand years before his time.

Austria meanwhile had gone forward on her separate way. No longer absorbed in keeping her leadership of the German states, she turned to consider her domestic problems. In 1851, after the Magyars and the Slavs were reduced, she had entered upon a course of absolutism and reaction. The constitution which had been granted in 1849 was annulled; there was henceforth no constitutional government whatever; and in Austria, as in Russia, the will of the prince was law. The government, however, did go forward vigorously with reforms at the same time that it tried to Germanize all the various elements of the population. Austria outside of Germany

Had Austria continued to be successful in her foreign relations, she might have continued to rule despotically and try to Germanize all of her subjects, but soon began a period of great disasters. The Italians, striving to win freedom and unity, got the assistance of France, and in 1859 the Austrians were defeated, and forced to surrender a part of their Italian possessions. Austria weakened, now felt it necessary to make concessions, and the period of reaction ended in the following year. The liberals, who were influencing the government's course, hoped to preserve a unified state, and advocated a parliament in which all the races of the empire would have part. But national divisions were too strong for this, and neither Hungarians nor Slavs were willing to be merged even in a liberal Germanized empire. The Hungarians, who were the strongest of the dissenters, now got back again the status which their country had had before the Revolution A period of disaster

Unwilling subjects

of 1848. But they were in no wise satisfied with this, and demanded the restoration of the March Laws, which had given them greater independence. Then Hungary was again made a province of the empire, and allowed to send representatives to its diet.

The Hungarians refused to accept this position and began a vigorous opposition. Their leader now was Francis Deák, noble in character and wise and constructive as a leader. Patiently he tried to attain his ends by constitutional means, declaring that he did not wish to separate Hungary from Austria and break up the empire. His opportunity came when Austria was overthrown in 1866 in the Austro-Prussian War. The Hungarians had stood aloof while the Prussians gained their victories, and it was feared that they might now break away in complete independence. The result was that Austria readily yielded what Deák had been striving to obtain. In 1867 an arrangement was made known as the Ausgleich or compromise, by which the relations between Austria and Hungary were regulated, and the Dual Monarchy of AustriaHungary established. By this arrangement Hungary was put on a footing of complete equality with Austria, and given entire control over her internal affairs, as had been the case under the March Laws. There were now two states, each with its own ministry, its own parliament, and its own officials. They were to have one flag and a single ruler, who was to be emperor of Austria and king of Hungary. They were also to be united with respect to affairs concerning them jointly, such as war, finance, and foreign affairs, by a joint ministry of three parts, these ministries to be supervised by "delegations," or committees of the two parliaments, meeting together alternately in Vienna and Buda-Pest. Francis Deák

The Dual Monarchy

This remarkable system of dual government, which seemed strange enough to peoples more uniform and united, lasted successfully for half a century, and was not Success of the Ausgleich destroyed until the Great War broke it to pieces. It was, indeed, a very successful solution of the difficult problem of holding together under one government two peoples not alike enough to unite completely, and not strong enough to go their own separate ways. Its greatest defect, as was afterward clearly seen, was that it erected a system of dualism in an empire where there were three important races, not two. Hungarians and Germans were now contented, but the more numerous Slavs were not. Indeed, the Ausgleich was an arrangement whereby a minority, the Germans, in Austria, allied themselves with a minority, the Hungarians, in Hungary to hold down in subjection the more numerous Slavs whom they ruled. And in after years it was to be seen that the Slovaks, the Jugo-Slavs, and the Rumanians were just as discontented with the Dual Monarchy as ever the Magyars had been before the Ausgleich was granted.


General: for an introduction-- W. H. Dawson, The German Empire: 1867-1914, 2 vols. ( 1919); Sir A. W. Ward, Germany, 1815-1890, 3 vols. ( 1916-19). Ernst Berner, Geschichte des Preussischen Staates, ( 2d ed. 1896); K. T. von Heigel, Deutsche Geschichte vom Tode Friedrichs des Grossen bis zur Auflösung des Alten Reiches, 2 vols. ( 1899- 1911); P. M. Leger, Histoire de l'Audriche-Hongrie, depuis les Origines jusqu'à l'Année 1878 ( 1879), English trans. by Mrs. B. Hill ( 1889); Heinrich von Treitschke , Deutsche Geschichte im Neunzehnten Jahrhundert, 5 vols. ( 3d ed. 1895), from the period of the French Revolution, brilliantly written, strongly nationalist, hostile to the liberals, English trans. by E. and C. Paul, volumes I-VII ( 1915-19); H. von Zwiedineck-Südenhorst, Deutsche Geschichte von der Auflösung des Alten bis zur Errichtung des Neuen Kaiserreiches (1806-1871), 3 vols. ( 1897- 1905). Biographies: Charles de Mazade, Un Chancelier de l'Ancien Régime: le Règne Diplomatique de M. de Metternich ( 1889); G. S. Ford, Stein and the Era of Reform in Prussia, 1807-1815 ( 1922); J. R. Seeley, Life and Times of Stein, 2 vols. ( 1879). Particular periods: G. P. Gooch, Germany and the French Revolution ( 1920); J. von Pflug-Hartung, editor, Das Befreiungsjahr, 1813 ( 1913), official documents; H. A. L. Fisher, Studies in Napoleonic Statesmanship: Germany ( 1903), brilliant and admirable.

The Revolution of 1848: Hans Blum, Die Deutsche Revolution, 1848-1849 ( 1897), best study of, in German; Karl Marx, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, or Germany in 1848, ed. by Eleanor Marx Aveling ( 1896), consisting of articles written by Marx for the New York Tribune, 1852-3; Paul Matter, La Prusse et la Révolution de 1848 ( 1903); Charles Sproxton, Palmerston and the Hungarian Revolution ( 1919); also The Reminiscences of Carl Schurz, ed. by Frederic Bancroft and W. A. Dunning, 2 vols. ( 1907). Austria and Prussia: Heinrich Friedjung, Oesterreich von 1848 bis 1860, 2 vols. ( 1908-12), best study of, Der Kampf um die Vorherrschaft in Deutschland, 1859 bis 1866, 2 vols. ( 6th ed. 1904-5).

Prussia and the founding of the German Empire: E. Denis, La Fondation de l'Empire Atlemand, 1852-1871 ( 1906); Colonel G. B. Malleson, The Refounding of the German Empire, 18481871 ( 1893); Heinrich von Sybel, Die Begründung des Deutschen Reiche durch Wilhelm I, 7 vols. ( 1889-90), trans. by M. L. Perrin and Gamaliel Bradford, 7 vols. ( 1890-8). Austria-Hungary: C. M. Knatchbull-Hugessen, The Political Evolution of the Hungarian Nation ( 1908); Louis Eisenmann , Le Compromis Astro-Hongrois de 1867 ( 1904), excellent.


O Rome! my country! city of the soul! . . . Lone mother of dead empires!

BYRON, Childe Harold, canto iv ( 1818).

Che in Italia la condizione miserissima delle cose sia giunta a quel punto, in cui non v'é salute che in una intera e generale rivoluzione, non é oggimai chi ne dubiti. . . . Perché dunque la servitù dura tuttavia in Italia? . . . a questo non v'é che una risposta: l'austriaco . . . lo stupido, lento, pesante austriaco--. . . MAZZINI, La Giovine Italia, 1833.

Sono celebri le parole pronunziate da Bismarck al 1879, che l'Italia non era una potenza militare temibile . . . Oggi tutto é mutato in nostro vantaggio ed io non permetterò che l'Italia ritorni in quello stato di umiliazione. . . .

FRANCESCO CRISPI to Commendatore Ressman, September, 2, 1890.

AT THE end of the eighteenth century even the most ignorant Italian peasant must have known dimly something of the glory and excellence of his people in the past. Italy, long before, had been the center of the greatest of empires; later on the seat of noble cities, whose monuments and beauty still fascinated beholders; and later still the Renaissance had risen in these cities and thence spread outward to inform and stimulate other parts of Europe. For ages Italians had been leaders in the thought and the knowledge and the artistic work of mankind. And yet after the Congress of Vienna, as Mazzini said a generation later, they had no standing among the nations of Europe, no flag, and no common center, but their country Italy divided, in subjection was dismembered into parts, some ruled by foreigners, some by tyrants, and some by princelings subservient to a foreign master.

When the Roman Empire broke up in the west the invaders of Italy were unable to found strong lasting states, and the only great jurisdiction which arose there in the end was the religious power of the popes. After a while the German emperors carried on a long struggle to unite Italy and Germany in one strong large domain; but it was an impossible task, and their failure left Italy divided in parts. Meanwhile the popes were able to do no more than found a small state lying across the middle of the peninsula and cutting it in two, thus effectually contributing to keep Italy from being united. Splendid and prosperous cities arose, seats of the highest civilization in Europe, and small prosperous states were founded, but they could never be brought to unite, and, like the communities of ancient Greece, expended much of their energy in interminable contests with each other. Meanwhile strong nation states had slowly been made in France and in Spain. Before them at the end of the medieval time Italy lay as a helpless prize. At the end of the fifteenth century France entered the peninsula to conquer it, but she was speedily expelled by the power of Spain, after which for a long time Spain ruled the southern part of the land, Sicily and Naples, and made her influence predominant in the rest. Slowly Spain sank in weakness and decay, and at the beginning of the eighteenth century, her possessions in Italy went to Austria, though in course of time, Sicily and Naples, passed under Bourbon power, and, like Spain, were ruled by relatives of the kings of France. Earlier history

At the time of the French Revolution a great change began, for the Italians, stirred at the mighty changes taking place beyond the Alps, began to dream of better things for themselves. Soon, on the north Italian plains, The French Revolution and Napoleon

Napoleon shattered Austria's power, and laid the foundations of his military renown. Later on, when he had become First Consul and Emperor, changes were made which brought more benefit to the Italians than anything which had happened for ages. It is true that they were treated as a conquered population, works of art were carried off into France, soldiers lived on the country, and generals amassed fortunes for themselves; none the less, here, as in Germany, sweeping reforms were brought in. Feudalism and the remains of serfdom were abolished, the Code Napoléon introduced, laws were made uniform, and civil equality proclaimed, at the same time that industry was fostered and opportunity opened to all. The small republics recently set up when the French came into the peninsula were abolished along with the old and wornout states, and Italy was consolidated into three large divisions: the territory down the west coast from Genoa to Rome was joined with France; the land to the east, in north Italy and along the Adriatic was made into the Kingdom of Italy and joined with France under Napoleon who was its king; the southern part, almost half of the whole, was made into the Kingdom of Naples. The Italian mainland had been largely united by the French; and what they had done could not afterward be entirely forgotten even though it was largely undone.

When the Congress of Vienna settled Europe's affairs the feelings of the 17,000,000 Italians counted for little; they were again divided up among many masters; and a period of reaction, which immediately began, restored as many as possible of the things which the Revolution had removed. Austria got in Italy once more the position she had so long had: Lombardy and Venetia, the best and richest parts, were included in the Austrian dominions, and the neighboring districts of Tuscany and Lucca, Parma and Modena, were put under Austrian princes, and made practically dependent on her. To the south, and straight Congress of Vienna across Italy as of old, were the States of the Church, while the southern half including the island was again made the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, under the Bourbons, in close alliance with Austria. Only in the northwestern corner-the Kingdom of Sardinia, containing Savoy, Piedmont, the island of Sardinia, and Genoa, recently given to it at Vienna--was there an Italian state with any degree of independence and strength. In this Italy, with its eight parts, reaction for a time held full sway. In the Papal States as in Spain, the inquisition was set up again, and the King of Sardinia, for a time even restored serfdom.

As in other countries during this period the outlook for the people was dark. In Lombardy and Venetia the Austrian government tried to carry out its policy of Germanizing, as far as possible, the populations of the different provinces of its empire, political activity on the part of Italians was suppressed, the offices and the courts were filled with German officials, and the people burdened with taxes far heavier than in other provinces of the Hapsburg dominions. In the neighboring duchies the rulers imitated Austrian methods, though sometimes conditions were better. In the Papal States a burdensome and ineffective government was entirely in the hands of ecclesiastics. The people of the Two Sicilies were subject to a corrupt and ignorant despotism which succeeded less in governing than oppressing. In none of these states were there parliaments or constitutions or any limitation on the despotic rule of the princes; there was no freedom of speech or of the press, and little education. It is true that such conditions prevailed generally over Europe then, except only in England and France, and that the German people also were divided among despots at this time. But it was the misfortune of Italians that they, almost as much its the Poles and Hungarians then, suffered oppression largely from foreign masters. Throughout Italy, except in the Kingdom of Sardinia, the power or influence Condition of the Italian people

The foreigner's yoke

of Austria was supreme. Metternich declared Italy to be only a geographical expression, and it was his policy to keep her divided in fragments and within the parts uphold the rule of the petty, subordinate princes. It seemed hopeless to strive for an Italy free and united. The Italians had been so long divided among numerous city states and princes that now local differences made it difficult to bring them under one government. Moreover, so long as Austrian power continued in Italy, there could be small hope of improvement in political conditions, since the most reactionary rulers in the peninsula were encouraged by Austria to resist all change and supported by the overwhelming Hapsburg power. And there seemed small chance of removing Austrian influence and domination, since Austria was now leader in Europe. In Italy there was no state which could for a moment have successfully challenged her. Accordingly, for some years political and social discontent in Italy took the only form that was possible. A secret society, whose members called themselves Carbonari (or charcoal burners), was formed in the Kingdom of Naples and thence spread all over the peninsula, until it numbered several hundred thousand members. The purpose of the Carbonari was to drive the foreigner out of Italy and make things better, but working furtively and without good general organization they did little, and Metternich never considered them very formidable. They had much to do in bringing about revolutionary movements in 1820, 1821, 1831, and 1832, but these uprisings were easily suppressed by Austrian troops. The principal work of the Carbonari was to keep alive the spirit of nationality and patriotism, which the years of the Revolution and Napoleon had awakened. Hopeless outlook

The Carbonari

That work was carried forward in the following years, in the period known as the Risorgimento or era of resurrection. Gradually a great many of the most active, eager; and intelligent Italians were aroused until the deliverance Mazzini and reform of their country became a great passion. First and chief among the leaders of this period was Giuseppe Mazzini, father and prophet of the movement. In his youth he felt strongly the woes and degradation of his country, and, dreaming of her freedom, joined the secret society, for which he was arrested and imprisoned. After his release, almost all of a long life he lived as an exile in England, Switzerland, and France. In 1831 he founded the Society of Young Italy, believing that successful revolution could only be made by the people and that the people were most easily led forward by their youth. At a time when most Italians still desired only to drive Austria away or to bring about reform, Mazzini believed that the Italians must be one nation, and he taught this with burning eloquence to the followers who gathered about him. He tried to make them remember their common language and their culture and the glory of their fathers in the past. But he was an enthusiast and a splendid dreamer much more than a practical statesman. He believed that the deliverance of Italy must come through an uprising of the people and the establishment of democracy by them. Actually, however, this idea took little hold on the minds of most Italians, and the liberation and unification of Italy were to be brought about by others who followed. The Risorgimento

Mazzini and his followers wanted a republic. But all the patriots who worked for the Risorgimento were not agreed as to the methods by which the unification of Italy should be brought about. Many believed that a republic was impracticable. Some, like the priest Gioberti, thought that the utmost to be hoped for was a federation under the leadership of the pope. Others believed that the hope of Italy lay in accepting as leader the one strong Italian state, Piedmont or Sardinia, ruled by the House of Savoy. Italian Unity

In 1846 Plus IX, a liberal pope, began his pontificate. He was believed to be opposed to the Austrians, and it was known that he had been much influenced by Gioberti's The Revolution of 1848 writings. At once he proclaimed a pardon for political offenders, and instituted reforms in the States of the Church. Such was the effect of this upon Italians elsewhere that in the following month the Sicilians rose in revolt and set up a constitutional government, and this led Ferdinand II, King of the Two Sicilies, to grant a constitution in Naples. What had been clone in the southern districts now influenced the states farther north, and constitutions were soon proclaimed, by the pope, in Tuscany, and finally by the government of Piedmont. Metternich was not able to intervene, for in the spring of 1848 he was driven from power. The end of the Austrian Empire seemed to have come. In Lombardy the Austrian troops were driven out of Milan, and the Republic of St. Mark was established in Venice. The rebels sought the assistance of Charles Albert, king of Piedmont, and when now he accepted leadership, Italians from all over the peninsula joined him. But Radetzky, the Austrian commander took refuge in the Quadrilateral, and the Italians failed to follow up their first triumphs and cut him off from his base and reinforcements. Then the pope, who regarded Catholic Austria as one of the main supports of the church, withdrew from the contest, and was followed by the king of Naples. The people of some of the north Italian states now voted for union with Piedmont, and that power continued the contest; but the Piedmontese were defeated in the battle of Custozza, and the Austrians, capturing Milan, were masters of north Italy again. A revolution now breaking out in Rome, a republic was proclaimed under Mazzini. Early in 1849, Piedmont, which had made an armistice with Austria, began the war again, but was soon totally defeated at Novara, after which Charles Albert abdicated in favor of his son Victor Emmanuel II, and went into exile. Venice was still holding out, but she also was overcome, and once more the power of Austria was completely restored. Meanwhile France, Piedmont defeated

The Roman Republic

wishing to forestall intervention by Austria, had sent troops into Italy and brought the Roman Republic to an end.

Thus the Risorgimento seemed to have failed. In the course of another decade, however, most of the work of unification was achieved, and the foreign master driven out almost completely. This was the work of Piedmont, and it was brought about very largely through Count Camillo di Cavour ( 1810-61), the greatest and most successful statesman of the nineteenth century. The new era

In the midst of the humiliation of the years after Novara, Cavour came to the head of the government of Piedmont. First he gave himself to remarkable constructive work in reforming the finances and developing the prosperity of his country, at the same time that he strengthened its army. This was the prelude and foundation of his greater work later on. From the beginning he planned to expel the Austrians from Italy. He knew very well that Sardinia could never hope to oppose Austria unaided, and yet that the great powers would be more apt to side with Austria in preserving the status quo than assist a part of Italy against her. Nevertheless, he went to work with patience and consummate skill, first to raise Piedmont in the estimation of Europe by strengthening her power and enhancing her prestige; to get her some powerful friend; then, to isolate Austria so that she would have to stand alone against his combination; and finally to provoke Austria to be the aggressor. Cavour

He assumed the direction of the Sardinian government in 1852. Three years later he brought Piedmont into the Crimean War along with France and Great Britain, thus getting the gratitude and esteem of these powers. He had his reward in 1856, when he represented Piedmont at the Congress of Paris, and succeeded in bringing to the attention of Europe his protest against misrule by the Austrians in Italy. He had now got the friendship of two great governments, and increasing sympathy for Italian aspira- Austria isolated tions among the people of France and especially of England. On the other hand Austria was finding herself more and more friendless and alone. Prussia was getting ready to challenge her leadership in Germany, and she had just lost the friendship of Russia, from having failed to give assistance in the Crimean War to repay Russian help in 1849 in suppressing the Hungarian revolt.

Cavour now gained a great and powerful ally. Napoleon III of France desired to strengthen his position by successful policy abroad. Moreover he sympathized with Italian aspirations. He understood also that his people would rejoice at any overthrow of the settlement of 1815, imposed on Europe when France had been defeated. So Cavour was gradually able to win him over, and in 1858, at the Conference of Plombières, Napoleon promised to give assistance in return for the cession to France of Savoy. Napoleon III

It was soon evident that great events were impending. The statesmen of Europe suggested a congress of the powers for settling the Italian matter. In 1859 Austria rashly declared war. The forces of the allies under Napoleon and Victor Emmanuel encountered the Austrians on the Lombardy plains and gained the great victories of Magenta and Solferino, as a result of which Milan was taken and the Austrians driven into Venetia. Solferino was the greatest battle which had been fought since the time of Napoleon I, 260,000 men being engaged and the losses very heavy. Neither the French nor the Austrians had spent their force yet; nevertheless the war went no further. Austria had a strong position behind the Venetian fortresses, but Hungary was restless behind her. In France the clericals were now in bitter opposition to the Emperor's Italian policy, while the Prussians were making ominous preparations along the Rhine. Furthermore, in Italy events were fast running beyond what Napoleon had expected. As the Austrian garrisons were withdrawn War with Austria, 1859 from northern Italy, the people of Tuscany, Parma, Modena, and the Papal States, rose in an enthusiasm that could not be restrained and asked to be joined to Piedmont. Napoleon had gone to war to win the Austrian provinces for Piedmont, but he had no more intention of erecting to the south of France a powerful nation embracing all Italy than somewhat later he had welcome for the unification of the German peoples. Therefore, hastily now and without the knowledge of Cavour, he concluded the armistice of Villafranca. By the terms of this arrangement, which were afterward embodied in the Peace of Zurich ( 1859), Lombardy was ceded to Piedmont, Venetia remained with the Hapsburgs, and it was arranged that the pope and the deposed princes in northern and central Italy should be restored. Enthusiasm among the Italians

But the Italian people now went forward with the work themselves, those who had obtained freedom from their Austrian princelings refusing to acknowledge them again. Napoleon was in a dilemma: he had never planned to let things go so far, yet he wished to support the principle of nationality which so often before he had proclaimed. Therefore he would not allow Austria to intervene with force, and agreed to the proposal of Great Britain that plebiscites should be held to determine the wishes of the inhabitants themselves. The people voted by huge majorities to join the Kingdom of Sardinia. For his support which had made this possible Napoleon got from Piedmont her province of Nice as well as Savoy; but Piedmont had now become the most important and powerful of all the Italian states. Within a year her territory had been greatly enlarged and her population increased from five millions to eleven millions. Since the time of the Congress of Vienna there had been no lasting political change such as this. Unification of northern Italy

The expansion was now carried much farther forward by the impulses of the people and the leadership of an


Italian patriot whose splendid and picturesque exploits revived the deeds of the time of old romance. All the southern part of Italy was still included in the corrupt and backward Bourbon monarchy of the Two Sicilies, established on the ignorance and wretchedness of its people. Now, men who had once been inspired by Mazzini planned to overthrow it. Soon they came under the lead of the bold and dashing Giuseppe Garibaldi, a native of Nice. who had served the Roman Republic, then fled from Italy to serve in South American wars and live in exile abroad. In the spring of 1860 he suddenly landed with his followers, the "Thousand," in Sicily. At once the effete Bourbon power tottered and fell to the ground, and in September the Garibaldians also took possession of Naples. Then they planned to march northward and occupy Rome, still garrisoned by soldiers of France. The papal government collected a force of mercenaries from catholic countries to resist, and there was grave danger that some of the European powers might intervene and undo much of what Cavour and the Italian leaders had accomplished. But again Cavour managed the situation with the greatest skill and good fortune. The government of Piedmont called upon Rome to disband its new forces, and, when this was refused, declared war. Almost at once the forces of the pope were routed at Castelfidardo, and the States of the Church were occupied. Then the victors marched southward across the frontier of the Kingdom of Naples, and, meeting the king, Garibaldi surrendered to him the authority which his arms had just gained. Again the device of the plebiscite was tried. In the autumn the people of the Two Sicilies, and about the same time the people of the Papal States, voted for annexation to the Sardinian Kingdom by such overwhelming majorities that men could say the unification of Italy had been achieved by the will of the people as well as by diplomacy and fortunate battles and the march of events. In Feb- Southern Italy joined to the north, 1860 ruary, 1861, an assembly representing all Italy--except Venetia, still in Austria's hands; Rome, still kept by the pope; and Nice and Savoy, now ceded to France--met in Turin, where, a month later, the Kingdom of Italy was proclaimed, under the king of Sardinia, and the names of Sardinia, of Piedmont, of Savoy, receded as glorious, memories into the past. The Kingdom of Italy, 1861

A few months later Cavour passed away, his death brought on by the excessive burdens he had carried. He (lied just before his work was completely accomplished, but when the indispensable part had been fully achieved. What remained to be done could be brought about by successors when opportunity arose. He seems now to have been the greatest and most truly successful statesman of the century in which he lived. Shortly after, Germany was united and a far greater power built up by another statesman, whose mighty success for a while made Cavour's accomplishment seem small. But a great part of what Bismarck did was done by violence, and, after two generations, by violence much of it was undone. On the other hand, Cavour throughout his career believed in constitutional government based on the will of the people; what he helped so greatly to bring about was made possible largely by the will of the people affected, and so was based solidly on their affection and desires. When he died his work was virtually done; it has needed no great wars to maintain it; and it did not violently (disturb) European politics or afterward make Europe an armed camp. The greatness of Cavour

In 1866 Italy joined Prussia against Austria in the Seven Weeks' War. The Italians were defeated by the Austrian forces which opposed them, but the absence of these forces contributed to the Prussian success. As a reward Italy now obtained Venetia, rounding out her kingdom in the northeast. Not all the Italian people of this part of Europe were given to her, many remaining under Austrian rule across the Alps, in the Trentino, and Venetia obtained, 1866 along the northeastern shores of the Adriatic. Furthermore, the frontier was so drawn that Austria kept all the heights of the mountains and places of strength.

The unification of Italy was completed with the taking of Rome in 1870. This acquisition was one of the consequences of the Franco-German War. Napoleon III, who had had so much to do with making possible the establishment of the Italian nation, by the help which he gave to Sardinia against the Austrians in 1859, had not expected the work to be carried as far as it was, and viewed with displeasure the appearance of a new great state on the southern border of France. Moreover, the powerful Catholic party in France, then very active and aggressive, was deeply offended at the taking by the new state of most of the territories of the pope in 1860. Partly to appease them and gain their good will, Napoleon III occupied Rome, with French troops, to uphold the authority of the pope. Soon after the beginning of the war with the Germans these troops were withdrawn, Rome was then taken by Italian forces, and the capital of the Kingdom of Italy, which had first been at Turin, then in 1865 had been removed to Florence, was now brought to Rome. Rome and the comple- tion of Italiana unity, 1870

The government of the state was based on the Statuto Fondamentale del Regno, which had been granted by Charles Albert of Sardinia ( Piedmont) to his subjects in 1848, and later extended to the other districts as they were added to Sardinia to make the new kingdom. In course of time the Statuto, while not changed or amended, was enlarged and overlaid by much sulpplementary legislation and with custom having the force of law. By virtue of this constitution Italy became a monarchy, with a government of the model of England or France, where the authority was vested in a parliament, of two houses, with an executive, the ministry, responsible to it. The franchise was at first restricted by rigid property and educational qualifications, so that only one person in The gover- ment of the Kingdom of Italy forty could vote. A great extension was made in 1882, when the franchise was given not only to those who paid a certain amount of taxes but also to those who were able to read and write. In 1912 a reform was made by which manhood suffrage was, in effect, introduced.

The extending of the franchise in Italy was long delayed and much hampered because of the illiteracy of a large part of the population, especially in the south. The effective working of the government was long impeded by hostility of the pope. When Rome and the little strip of territory around it were occupied in 1870, it was not the purpose of the Italian government to drive the pope away or to interfere with him as pope. Cavour's ideal had been: libera chiesa in stato libero (a free church in a free state). Next year the Italian parliament. passed the Law of Papel Guarantees, still in force, which guaranteed the pope's sovereignty, possession of the Vatican and other places, and a large pension in perpetuity. Pius IX refused to acceept this, hoping that the lost temporal possessions of the church would be returned to him, and as late as 1914 Benedict XIV expressed hope that this would be brought about. The popes refused to take the pension, and remained in voluntary isolation, "prisoners" in the Vatican. As the years went by and no Catholic power restored to the papacy what had been lost, the popes tried to thwart and obstruct the Italian authorities. In 1883 the decree Non expedit (not expedient) declared it not well for Catholics to vote at parliamentary elections or to hold office under the Italian government; and in 1895 a further decree, Non licet (not allowable), proclaimed that the church forbade these things. The trend of ideas in the nineteenth century was such that there were numerous Catholics who no longer considered it well for the church to be a temporal power, who conceived its functions to be purely spiritual and ecclesiastical, and who therefore had no hostility toward the Italian government Vatican and Quirinal: church and state in Italy

Prisoners of the Vatican

because of the seizure of the Papal States. Accordingly, the orders of the popes concerning Italian politics were by no means generally obeyed. The strongest impulse in Italy continued to be the fervent feeling of patriotism awakened during the great years of unification. The Catholic population was divided by a conflict between nationalism and the church. Many had no hesitation in zealously supporting the government; many, more scrupulous and obedient, heeded the behests of the church.

Huge tasks confronted the new state. The effects of the weakness, the misery, the oppression of the centuries past, were not to be made up at once by any device. Especially in the south, so long weighed down under the oppressive tyranny of the Bourbons, there were old conditions surviving, poverty, illiteracy, ignorance, which it would take much to overcome and remove. In this southern part there were no railroads yet, ecclesiastics and rulers there having long considered them to be works of the devil, good communications had not yet been opened, and manufactures were utterly wanting. In the north there were railroads, good communications, and flourishing industrial cities. In this part there was a sturdy body of small proprietors, among whom the lands had been parcelled out. In the south, especially in Sicily, the land was held in large estates by the nobles, as in Russia, and as in western Europe during the Middle Ages, worked by an ignorant and debased peasantry. The nation was poor and taxation inevitably oppressive; but though the south contributed least, it was necessary for a while that the greater part of the revenue should be spent there, since the country could not be truly united until the chief differences between the northern and the southern portions were removed. Improve- ment nec- essary for union and progress

Conditions in Italy

Considerable development followed. New railroads were constructed, manufacturing extended, commerce develope. Much of this was accomplished in the face of Develop- ment and progress difficulties that remained very great. The principal occupation, as in France, was agriculture, but much of the soil was not rich, methods of cultivation were primitive, the peasants in the south very backward, and the land there held in the manner of the Ancient Régime. It was difficult to develop manufactures as Great Britain and Germany were then doing, since Italy was almost entirely without iron and coal, and could obtain these essentials only by buying them at high price abroad. Italy had no large quantity of exports to send out, and it was difficult merely to develop carrying trade in competition with the great seafaring nations. From a country thus poor and lacking rich natural resources it was necessary to raise huge taxes, partly to do the necessary things long left undone, and partly to sustain the ambitious foreign policy upon which the country soon embarked. The taxation was so crushing as to bow down the people and hamper the development of business; yet for a long time almost all the public revenue thus raised was devoted to paying interest on the large national debt, and to paying for the army and the navy. Notwithstanding all these things, and notwithstanding that many people could barely make a living, the birth-rate was high and the population increased rapidly, just as it had under still worse circumstances in Ireland in the first half of the nineteenth century. In 1914 the population of Italy was almost as great as that of France, and nearly twice as large as that of Spain, though the area of each one of these countries was twice as great as her own. Italy, indeed, like Japan at the same time, was unable to support her rapidly increasing numbers. Accordingly, there was a large and increasing emigration, to the South American countries, and especially to the United States, where myriads of Italian peasants became small farmers, sellers of fruit, or did the construction work on railways, sewers, and public improvements, always hoping for the day when enough Resources

Heavy taxation

Increase of population

money would be saved for them to return to the land of their birth.

It was ardent nationalism that made possible the strong union that was accomplished in Italy. During the Middle Ages Italy had been divided into states as completely self-conscious and distinct as were the states of Germany at the same time; and these divisions had been maintained down into the nineteenth century. Yet when the unification of the country was brought about a centralized nation state was erected, like England or France, whereas in the German Empire no more than a federal union of the parts was effected. The people also were filled with recollection of the greatness of Rome in the past, and with desire to have Italy important in the present. The Italian leaders resolved to make their country a great power. Partly through fear of France and also because of anger at her course, and partly because of previous association with Prussia, Italy joined the alliance which the German Empire and Austria-Hungary had made, and thus helped to form the Triple Alliance ( 1882). A large army and a large navy were now deemed necessary, and the expense of maintaining them not only constituted a burden beyond the real resources of the country, but took a great part of the public revenue which was sorely needed for education and internal improvements. Italian na- tionalism

Italy enters the Triple Alliance

During this time, while Italy was an appendage of the German alliance, she felt that she had security from France, and set out to acquire a colonial empire. Some possessions were taken in eastern Africa, but when attempt was made to conquer the independent kingdom of Abyssinia, the Italian forces suffered a crushing defeat ( 1896). For some years Italian colonial aspirations remained in abeyance, until in 1912, when a great change had come over international relations, Italy suddenly tried to take Tripoli away from Turkey. During this time Italy's connection with her partners had been growing weaker and Foreign relations weaker. The old fear and suspicion of France seemed to disappear. On the other hand, while relations with the German Empire remained cordial, with the Dual Monarchy they never became completly satisfactory. In 1866 Italy had joined Prussia against Austria, and though defeated had shared in the Prussian success. It was then that she had obtained Venetia, rounding out her possessions in the northeast. But at this time not all the Italian population in this part of Europe was given to her, a considerable portion remaining under Austrian rule across the Alps in the Trentino, at the head of the Adriatic about Trieste, and scattered along the Dalmatian shore of the Adriatic. Italian nationalists, fired with patriotic feeling, longed to bring their brethren of this Italia Irredenta into union with themselves. This could never be accomplished, so it seemed, until Austria-Hungary was defeated and conquered. Furthermore, extension of Austrian power down the eastern shore of the Adriatic always seemed threatening to Italy, whose own Adriatic coast, low and defenceless, might lie helpless before the naval power of Austria based on the fortresses of the mountainous shore across the sea. Finally, there was in the twentieth century a conflict of ambition between the two, since both Austria-Hungary and Italy desired to extend their power and dominion in the Balkans. This opposition gradually weakened the Triple Alliance, and it was the principal factor in bringing Italy into the Great War against the Teutonic powers in 1915. Better relations with France

Italia Irredenta (Unredeemed Italy

Italy abandons the Triple Alliance


General accounts: for the student who reads Italian the best is P. L. Orsi, L'Italia Moderna: Storia degli Ultimi 150 Anni ( 2d ed. 1902); Bolton King, History of Italian Unity, 2 vols. ( 1899), best account in English; Evelyn (Countess) Martinengo- Cesaresco , The Liberation of Italy, 1815-1870 ( 1895); W. J. Stillman , The Union of Italy, 1815-1895 ( 1898). Particular periods: R. M. Johnston, The Napoleonic Empire in Southern Italy and the Rise of the Secret Societies, 2 vols. ( 1904), The Roman Theocracy and the Republic, 1846-1849 ( 1901); Ernesto Masi, Il Risargimento Italiano, 2 vols. ( 1918); H. R. Whitehouse , Collapse of the Kingdom of Naples ( 1899); E. Bourgeois and É. Clermont, Rome et Napoleon III ( 1907); Ernest Lémonon, L'Italie Économique et Sociale, 1861-1912 ( 1913); A. Pingaud, L'Italie depuis 1870 ( 1915); Bolton King and Thomas Okey, Italy To-day ( 2d ed. 1909); F. M. Underwood , United Italy ( 1912); W. K. Wallace, Greater Italy ( 1917), for colonial expansion.

The States of the Church: M. Brah, Geschichte des Kirchenstaats, 3 vols. ( 1897- 1900). Biographies: R. S. Holland, Builders of United Italy ( 1908); Massimo D'Azeglio, I Miei Ricordi, 3 vols. (ed. 1899); W. R. Thayer , The Life and Times of Cavour, 2 vols. ( 1911), the best; Luigi Chiala, Lettere Edite ed Inedite di Camillo Cavour, 10 vols. ( 2d ed. 1883-7); W. J. Stillman, Francesco Crispi ( 1899); Francesco Crispi, Politica Estera; Memorie e Documenti ed. by T. Palamenghi-Crispi ( 1914), Memoirs of Francesco Crispi, 3 vols. ( 1912-14); G. M. Trevelyan, Garibaldi's Defense of the Roman Republic ( 1907), Garibaldi and the Thousand ( 1909), Garibaldi and the Making of Italy ( 1911), brilliantly written; Giuseppe Garibaldi, Memorie Autobiografiche ( 1888); Bolton King , Joseph Mazzini ( 1902); Scritti Editi ed Inediti di Giuseppe Mazzini, 27 vols. ( 1906-18); A. Pougeois, Histoire de Pie IX et de Son Pontificat, 6 vols. ( 1877-88); G. S. Godkin, Life of Victor Emmanuel II, 2 vols. ( 1879); G. Massari, La Vita ed il Regno di Vittorio Emanuele II, 2 vols. ( 1901).

RUSSIA, 1789-1881

What man ever thought that Moscow would one day be accounted an Empire? Once by the river Moskva stood only the hamlets of the worthy boyar, Stephen Kutchak, son of Ivan.

--Russian tale of the seventeenth century.

[In Russian ???]

[Thou art destitute, yet abounding
Thou art powerful, thou art weak,
O beloved Mother Russia!]

NEKRASOV ( 1821-1878)

IT WAS not until the eighteenth century that Russia really became a factor in European politics, not until the nineteenth that she became an important factor, and she did not greatly affect the western world until only a short while ago. In old times her land and her inhabitants were little known to other European peoples. Scarcely any of what now is Russia was ever a part of the Roman Empire. When the poet Ovid was sent an exile to Tomi near the mouth of the Danube, it seemed to him that he went forth into the farthest region of the world. In the Middle Ages Spaniards, Frenchmen, Italians, Englishmen, knew little of the Slavs who would one day possess all the eastern half of the continent. The Roman Empire had been divided into two portions, a Latin half in the west and an eastern half essentially Greek, which little understood each other and easily fell apart. Then Europe for Russia And Western Europe many hundreds of years was divided into a western half, with peoples having the Roman Catholic religion and Romano-Teutonic civilization, and an eastern half, held by the expiring Eastern Roman Empire at Constantinople, and after a great while by the intruding Turks, and also by Slavonic people, who had taken the Eastern Christianity of Constantinople. Except in the south the two halves had little intercourse and knew little of each other, save that throughout the Middle Ages the Germans of central Europe were pushing eastward, slowly but steadily driving back their Slavic neighbors, and founding Austria and Prussia.

During this time the Poles, a part of the Slavic people, were founding a great state in east central Europe. The Russians, another branch, were laying the foundations of a state in what is now southern Russia, about Kiev. On their southern and eastern frontiers they were harassed by Tartar nomads whose cruelty and rapine long hindered the development of better culture among them; and in the twelfth century all of eastern Europe was scourged by a more terrible and lasting barbarian invasion than had ever come to the west. The Mongols from central Asia, brave and skilful warriors but merely horsemen and shepherds, who had already spread their conquests and desolation across to the Pacific and down into China, came also into eastern Europe, and the rising Russian state was broken to pieces. The people long remained under debasing tyranny, ruled by their own princes, but compelled to pay tribute to the Mongols, whose capital was at Seraï on the Volga. For some centuries they remained subject with no chance for the development of free institutions like those emerging in western Europe. Russian princes fawned upon their Mongol lord and sought his favor, and so long as they paid tribute they had his protection. Of all who paid court the princes of Moscow gained greatest favor. In course of time they became strong enough to Tartars and Mongols throw off the conquerors' yoke and in Muscovy made the beginning of modern Russia, taking for themselves, in imitation of the Roman emperors, the title of tsar ( Caesar). So the medieval period came to a close. These Slavs, with their rude culture and little prosperity, were scarcely thought about in England and France. As late as the time of Queen Elizabeth the Russians were not so well known to the English as the people of India and China, and traders and explorers were just beginning to cross the vast distances and reach them. Muscovy

During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Russians of the country about Moscow, increasing in numbers, spread steadily forth to the south and the east, gradually getting for themselves a huge inland empire. Geographical conditions were very potent, just as they always have been. The Russians were placed in the greatest of all the plains in the world. From the Carpathian Mountains, to the east of Hungary, a great level stretch of land runs eastward over the remaining half of Europe, spreading out to the north and south as it goes, until it is partly bounded by the low Ural Mountains. But they afford scarcely an obstacle, and through them men easily cross into Asia where the plain continues interminably all across the breadth of the continent, until at last, seven thousand miles from where it began, it ends north of China on the Pacific. It is vast, monotonous, seldom rising high or sloping much, not often divided by mountains, nowhere broken off into distinct parts, traversed by broad, slowly moving rivers--always its best avenues of communication. This plain is the mother of the Slavic peoples. In the sixteenth century the teeming Russians from the district about Moscow began spreading out over it. In the course of two hundred years they had occupied most of it, and by the latter part of the nineteenth century they had brought almost all of it within one great Russian empire. The Russian Plain

The Russian colonists went forth along their rivers and into new stretches of the plain somewhat as the American colonists and pioneers took the middle part of North America in the nineteenth century. The extension of power was forwarded by the vigorous and able ruler Ivan (John) IV, the Terrible, in the latter part of the sixteenth century. In his reign, Russian colonists went east and began to conquer the tribes of Sibir. In the period 1581-1700 all northern Siberia was taken. Until the end of the sixteenth century the Poles had been the principal Slavic power in Europe, and had sometimes held many of the eastern peoples in subjection, but under the new Romanov Dynasty, which began to reign in 1613, the Poles were checked, and in 1667, by the Treaty of Andrussovo, the Russians obtained Kiev, part of the Ukraine, and got the frontier of the Dnieper river. The Expansion of Russia

Down to this time Muscovy had been a state with interests and ambitions to the east rather than the west, essentially eastern and even Asiatic in character; but the Romanov rulers began to cherish the ambition of extending their territory to get an outlet on the western seas. This work, begun in the seventeenth century, was the great task of the century that followed. When it had been brought to completion Russia's three western neighbors, Sweden, Poland, and Turkey, had been destroyed or much reduced, and Russia was one of the greatest of the powers of Europe. Russia a Europian power

The third of the Romanovs, Peter I ( 1682-1725), surnamed "The Great," was regarded afterward as the founder of modern Russia. He centralized his government like that of Louis XIV who was reigning then; reformed his army so as to make it like that which the Prussian rulers were developing; and completely subordinated the Russian church to his authority, organizing it under the control of the Holy Synod, afterward one of the principal means of upholding the autocracy of the Peter the Great tsars. Furthermore, he studied the civilization of western Europe, and strove to introduce it into his dominions. Since he ruled over a vast population composed mostly of superstitious and ignorant peasants, he was able to influence only the upper classes, his nobles and officials; and after his time foreigners could note how in Russia most of the population had the uncut hair and long beards, the eastern dress and the eastern customs which had long prevailed, while the upper class resembled in dress and habits the people of Germany and France. It was Peter who began the triumphant march of Russian arms to the west. Much of his reign was spent in successful war against the Swedes. By the Treaty of Nystad, in 1721, Russia acquired provinces from Sweden on the south shore of the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Finland. There already, in 1703, the tsar had founded St. Petersburg, to which he moved the capital from Moscow. Russia now extended to the Gulf of Riga, and she had her first good outlet on the sea and her first good opening for communication with western Europe. Russia reaches the Baltic

The forward progress was continued a generation later under the able tsarina, Catharine II ( 1762-1796), the Great. First she attacked the crumbling power of the Turks, and, after many victories, forced them, in the Treaty of Kutchuk-Kainardji, in 1774, to give up territory on the northern shore of the Black Sea and allow Russians free navigation there and in other waters under Turkish control. All the country to the north of the Black Sea was soon after acquired by Russia. Catherine the Great

Next Poland was destroyed. The Poles were a brave, warlike people, but they had made little political or economic progress for ages. At the top were the numerous nobles; beneath them the bulk of the population in abject serfdom. In Poland the worst evils and abuses of the old feudal system continued. The nobles had practically independent power, and the liberum veto, by which The Partitions of Poland no law could be put into effect if any noble disapproved it, paralyzed the weak central government. At the end of the ( eighteenth century, surrounded by the powerful states of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, she could go on in the old way no longer. Under the leadership of Russia the three powers conspired to divide Poland among them. In 1772 they cut off its outlying provinces. This First Partition was followed by a Second ( 1793) and a Third ( 1795), so that at the time when the French Revolution was bringing a new era to the peoples of western Europe, the unhappy Poles lost their country and their government, and passed under the yoke of strangers. Most of what had been Poland now became part of Russia, so that Russia extended as far as the boundaries of the German people.

Russia, now one of the principal European powers, took an important part against France, under the Directory, and then against the Empire of Napoleon. For a while after the defeat of the Russians at Austerlitz Tsar Alexander I ( 1801-1825) entered into a friendly understanding with Napoleon, and for a few years the Continent was practically divided between Russia and France. With Napoleon's consent, in 1809 the Russians took Finland from Sweden. But the two rulers soon drifted apart. The Russians wished to continue their expansion to the southwest, at the expense of the Turks, and although in 1812, by the Treaty of Bucharest, they obtained Bessarabia, they were hampered by Napoleon, who did not want them near Constantinople, the most important position, so he thought, in the world. And nowhere were the effects of his Continental System more onerous than they were in Russia, almost entirely an agricultural country, and compelled to buy manufactures abroad. Accordingly, Alexander partially abandoned the Continental System, and war followed with France. It was in this war that Napoleon, compelled to retreat, lost nearly all Alexander I

The downfall of Napoleon

of his army. His power, now seriously shaken, was destroyed by the peoples of central Europe, helped by the Russians. In 1814-15 Russia, farthest removed from the theater of the war, took minor part in the fighting, and at the end of the struggle was less exhausted than any of the other contestants. It was because she thus had such a powerful army available, and because of her reputation for invincibility after Napoleon's retreat, that Alexander had so commanding a position at the Congress of Vienna. There he was able to launch his Holy Alliance, and he got not only Finland and Bessarabia, taken in Napoleon's time, but the greater part of Poland, including Warsaw, formerly in the portion held by Prussia. Character of Alexander I

Serfdom in Russia

Alexander I desired to be generous and enlightened: in his thoughts and his theories he was liberal and, for a while at least, in his foreign policy progressive. It was owing to his desire to make the world better that he proposed the Holy Alliance, to bring improved relations between the sovereigns and avoid future wars. At the Congress of Vienna he seemed the most liberal statesman in Europe. He it was who insisted that moderate terms should be granted after Waterloo, when some Prussians wanted the French killed off like mad dogs and their country partitioned. For a while he seemed to wish to continue the liberal work of the French Revolution. In this spirit he insisted that Louis XVIII, the restored Bourbon king of France, should give to his subjects some measure of constitutional government; and he himself allowed constitutions and a measure of independence to his Finnish and his Polish subjects.

In his vast and backward realm there were mighty problems to be dealt with. First and greatest was the question of seldom. In 1815 the population of the empire was about forty-five millions. Of these less than a million were nobles; substantially there was no bourgeoisie or middle class; nearly all the rest were peasants, engaged in agriculture. Most of the peasants, as in Austria, and the Hungarian and the Polish lands, were serfs. Among Slavic people servitude was of great antiquity, but in Russia during the seventeenth century, and especially during the eighteenth, most of the peasants--formerly free--had been rendered partly unfree, compelled to remain on the estates where they were born, there to till the land or render other services, making payments to the noble of the district or the tsar, and working for him some of the days of the week. Such serfdom, still older in the western countries, had prevailed almost universally over Europe, and had lasted in central Europe as well as in Russia down into the nineteenth century. In parts of western Europe it had long since passed away, and as the conditions that had brought it to an end there--the rise of the cities, new industrial and economic methods, and a different spirit--gradually extended to Austria and Russia, serfdom was more and more felt to be no longer in accordance with the things which were right and best. The Russian peasants

Condition of the peasants

The Russian peasants were organized in their little agricultural communities much as the English villeins had lived on the manors of the twelfth and the thirteenth centuries. In primitive times almost everywhere the large mass of the people had been grouped together in village communities. In Russia such a village, or mir (miru--union, peace), was the unit of peasant life. In it the peasants chose a village council through which they regulated their local concerns. The land of the district was divided into two parts, one for the tsar or noble, who was lord of the district, one for the peasants. The land of the peasants was held by them in common, and was aministered by the mir; for it they made payments to the lord. The other part they cultivated for the lord, working for him a certain number of days in the week. This was the old system of the manor, once the basis of economic organization throughout Europe, but now gone in the western portion. The serfs on the tsar's domain, like the villeins long before on the king's estates in England, were not badly treated, and, considering the low civilization of the country, their life was not hard. But the nobles, frequently spendthrift or bankrupt, often took from their serfs the uttermost penny, or sold them off like cattle, or put upon them exhausting and inhuman labor, caring nothing about them. Nor had these servants and peasants any redress. In 1767 Catherine II had taken from them all legal rights, and proclaimed the harshest punishment for those who complained against their masters. After that time, if the master chose so to treat them, they were no more than chattels or things. The tsar and reform

Alexander conservative

Discontent in Russia

One of the foremost principles of the French Revolution had been the equality of men, and one of the great Revolutionary reforms had been the abolition of such serfdom as remained. But Alexander, who had just attempted to abolish all war, and who had striven to effect the immediate abolition of the slave trade, found, as is often the case, that an actual reform in his own country, was more difficult than enouncing general principles for mankind. Furthermore, after a short time he ceased to champion liberalism and entered on a course of reaction.

Before the time of the Congress of Vienna he had undertaken some small reforms, planned a system of general education, and considered the best means of abolishing serfdom; but as he confronted the enormous mass of prejudice and ignorance with which he had necessarily to deal, he gradually became less ardent; and when a series of assassinations and uprisings by radicals alarmed him, he fell under Metternich's influence. A few of the serfs in the Baltic provinces were set free, but this was all, and liberal progress in Russia came to an end about 1818.

The later years of Alexander's reign were clouded with gloom and disappointment. Some of the Russians were hoping for better things. Soldiers, especially officers, who had served against France, had come in actual contact with French civilization and the liberal ideas of western Europe, and when they returned at the end of the wars they were disheartened because of the conditions in their country. At first there were high hopes of reforms to be made by the tsar, but when presently it was seen that he would do little and that he had joined forces with the leading reactionaries of Europe, the Russian reformers, like radicals in other parts of Europe then, formed secret revolutionary societies and plotted to overturn the government.

In 1825 Alexander died, and for a short time it was uncertain who would succeed him. After three weeks his brother, Nicholas, ascended the throne, but meanwhile the discontented had planned a revolt, which now broke out. It was almost immediately suppressed, for it was only the work of a handful of liberal reformers influenced by the life of western Europe, and had no support from the great body of the Russian people. This outbreak took place in December, and it was as Decembrists that the leaders were afterward remembered. The December rebellion, 1825

Nicholas I ( 1825-1855), who ruled Russia now for a generation, was not only prejudiced against liberalism and reform by the events at the beginning of his reign, but he was by temperament obstinately and narrowly conservative, and throughout the time of his power was resolutely opposed to all change. In his opinion, things in Russia were better than anywhere else in Europe. He believed that autocracy was better than the constitutional movements which had led to change and dissolution in other countries, and he determined that he would unflinchingly uphold the old system. So far as possible he would keep out of his dominions every trace of western influence and thought. Therefore, he became in Russia the steadfast supporter of autocracy and the age-old Nicholas I system, which the French Revolution had scarcely affected, but which its influence now threatened to disturb. Outside of Russia he was the great champion of conservatism, of reaction, of the old order, of resistance to any reform, revolution or change. This period was afterward known as Metternich's Age, and the Austrian statesman was the foremost leader in preventing change and upholding things as they were; but his position of leadership resulted less from what he was able to do than from the influence of his character upon the sovereigns of his time. Actually the principal instrument in preventing progress and causing revolutions to fail was Nicholas I of Russia, not only during Metternich's greatness, but for some years after 1848 when the Austrian leader had been driven from power. When Charles X fled from France in 1830, Nicholas would have intervened to restore him had a revolution not broken out in Poland about the same time; and in 1848 when the old system was finally overthrown in western Europe and seemed about to disappear in central Europe also, Nicholas hastened to give assistance to Austria. It was his intervention which crushed the Hungarian rebels. Supports the old order in Europe

The government of Nicholas was the most reactionary in Europe. Continuously and without remorse did he suppress every attempt of his subjects to have any freedom of action or thought. To effect this purpose an organization of terrible efficacy was set up. In 1826 he organized a secret police service under the direction of the Third Section of the Tsar's Private Chancellery, which after a while got, in and outside of Russia, as ominous and evil a renown as the Spanish inquisition so long had. At the head of the Third Section, and responsible only to the tsar, was a chief of police, with unlimited power to arrest, imprison, send out of the country, or even get rid of, any one, without any hindrance except for his own discretion. This device was accompanied by severe regula- Repression in Russia tions. Few Russians were allowed to travel abroad, so the people were kept from the contaminating influence of other countries; a strict censorship excluded nearly all foreign publications and made it impossible to publish in the Russian press foreign ideas for the few Russians who could read; attendance at universities was discourage and part of the teaching was put altogether under control of the church. All this was enforced by the activities of the secret police, who hunted down those who would take and spread about liberal and foreign doctrines, putting them out of the way or sending them to Siberia without trial.

For a while what was sought was attained. Western ideas did not come in. There was the vast, immobile calm of China; things went on as before. There was almost no effort to get reform or even to preach it; the people were without leaders, and remained in lethargy and dullness. When the Revolution of 1848 overturned European governments from Paris to Vienna, Russia went through the year unaffected The Old Régime continues in Russia

In one part, indeed, there was a despairing effort at revolution. In 1815, at the Congress of Vienna, Alexander I had succeeded in getting most of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, which Napoleon had constructed out of the Polish territory which he took from Austria and Prussia. This territory Alexander had made into the Kingdom of Poland, not to be a part of Russia, but united with Russia in that the tsar was to be its king. It embraced only a sixth of the former Polish kingdom and contained but three million inhabitants; but it was the most visible relic of the former state and did contain the old capital, Warsaw. In this country Alexander had begun with some of the reforms which he seemed desirous of introducing into Russia later on. In 1815 he granted the Poles a constitution, by which they were to have a legislature, or diet, with considerable powers, the members being chosen The Kingdom of Poland by an electorate wider than either England or France then had. Polish was to be the official language, and there was to be liberty of press and religion. The result of all this was that the Poles had freer institutions than the surrounding peoples of Russia, Prussia, or Austria had at this time.

But this did not last long. When the Poles attempted to make use of the powers which Alexander had so freely granted, he was alarmed. Events elsewhere in Europe were steadily bringing him under Metternich's influence. Moreover, the freedom given to the Poles was regarded with disfavor by Russians, some of whom disapproved it, while the rest repined because more had been given to the Poles than to themselves. Accordingly, in 1820 when the Polish diet rejected a measure proposed by the government, Alexander changed the constitution and took away much of the freedom given five years before. Privileges withdrawn

The Poles now yearned to throw off the Russian yoke. Under Nicholas I the weight of oppression increased. Then came the Revolution of 1830 in France, with its influence on peoples more remote. Particularly did this influence react upon the Poles, between whom and the French there were traditional and long-standing sympathy and attachment. Therefore, in November 1830 a mutiny broke out in Warsaw, and the Poles rising in rebellion, appealed to other peoples for aid. But the rebellion was hopeless from the start. No aid came from outside, and the country, which is part of the far-extending plain, had no strong natural frontiers and made no obstacle to the invader's advance. The revolutionists fought bravely, but were soon crushed, and the Russian government, in taking its revenge, resolved to make another revolution impossible. The constitution was abolished, and Poland was made part of Russia. Many of the leaders were put to death or sent into exile, and the country was occupied with a Russian army. The Polish REbellion of 1830

After that year throughout the tsar's dominions there was the quietness which he so greatly cherished. Those who were troublesome or restless were suppressed silently and at once. The censorship was constantly made more severe. Punishments became harder. The activity of the secret police never waned. In the course of twenty years, it is thought, about a hundred and fifty thousand persons were dispatched to Siberia. It was difficult to get passports for foreign travel; it was difficult for foreigners to travel in Russia. So there were in all parts of the vast domain what Nicholas thought were the goodness and the order that Heaven had ordained. It was presently seen that they brought stagnation and decay. Nicholas long successful in Russia

Actually the administration and the government became constantly more corrupt and inefficient, successful only in holding down the people. All initiative was crushed, all progress made impossible. While the rest of Europe was being slowly transformed, Russia remained unaffected. The people had no control over any part of their government, except the smallest local concerns, and the officials who governed them, and who were appointed from above, usually got their positions by purchase, and, being paid no salaries, lived upon bribes and exactions. Sometimes they made fortunes by wringing money from the wretched people, much like the proconsuls of the later Roman Republic. The public funds were constantly stolen. It was impossible to get justice in any court without bribing the judges. There was no one to whom the people could complain. The Russian people themselves understood something of the miserable condition of affairs, but they were sunk in apathy and ignorance, and knew no means of redress. Furthermore, the prestige for military greatness, which had come from the long career of success against Sweden, Poland and Turkey, and especially from the destruction of Napoleon's power, remained undiminished. Abroad the Russian army was believed to be far stronger than it actually Inefficiency and corruption was; at home the people thought with much pride of the power and majesty of their ruler. Actually, however, the military organization was as poor and corrupt as the civil government. All this became evident in the disasters of the Crimean War, and the results brought disillusionment and discontent which could not any longer be ignored.

Hitherto Russia's progress westward had been attended with great success. The Swedes had been driven across the Baltic back to the Scandinavian peninsula; Poland had disappeared. In these directions, however, not much further advance could be expected, since Russia's frontiers now touched the powerful states of Austria and Prussia. To the southwest it was different. Already much gain had been made from the Turk, and the decaying power of the Ottoman Empire seemed to invite further aggression. Russian rulers had long hoped that some day they might annex the Balkan provinces, largely inhabited by kindred Slavs, and then, pressing on, take Constantinople. Even in the minds of the simple and ignorant Russian peasants there was some idea of getting this city from which their religion once had come, and some yearning for the greatness which they believed would follow. Alexander I had hoped to obtain it when he made the secret treaty with Napoleon at Tilsit; but Napoleon had answered, "Never! That would be the mastery of the world." Nicholas I cherished the same purpose, and tried to come to an understanding with the British government. "We have on our hands a sick man," he told the British ambassador in 1853, "a very sick man. It will be a great misfortune if, one of these days, he should slip away from us before the necessary arrangements have been made." And he suggest that the powers agree about the division of Turkish possessions. Nothing came of the proposal, for Britain, always fearful of the appearance on the Mediterranean of a strong state which might threaten her own power there, stood by Turkey, as she did later on, Russia and Turkey

"The Sick Man of the East"

in 1878. Nicholas, however, went on with his designs, and presently raised up against him both England and France.

The fundamental cause of the Crimean War was fear that Russia might seize the territory and possessions of the Turk. In June 1853, Russia demanded that the sultan recognize her right to protect all the Greek Christians in the Ottoman Empire. When this was refused, she sent troops into the Danubian principalities, afterward Rumania, and war began between Russia and Turkey. A far greater conflict followed with Great Britain and France. Causes of the Crimean War

The war was very disastrous to the reputation of all the contestants, but especially to that of Russia. The principal effort of the allies was against Russia's great naval base at Sevastopol, in the Crimea, her most important position on the Black Sea. They effected a landing, and won some battles, and began the investment of the fortress, but there had been too much delay and the defences had been wonderfully strengthened by the great Russian military engineer, Todleben. The English and the French battered the fortifications with powerful artillery, but their forces were insufficient to surround the city, and scarcely enough even for the work of the siege, so that during the winter of 1854-5 they suffered horribly and accomplished little. But meanwhile the Russians suffered no less. Their great armies, assembled to drive the invader into the sea, fell to pieces on the march, and most of those who struggled on were without supplies and equipment. The people were patriotic, and militia regiments were everywhere raised, but the funds to support the soldiers were shamelessly stolen. In September 1855, after a memorable siege, Sevastopol was taken. Soon after, Russia, approaching, as it seemed then, near to her ruin, made peace. For the present her military reputation was gone; and the wrath of the people at the The Crimean War, 1854-6 maladministration and repression in their country, now burst forth the more wildly because it had slumbered so long. In the midst of the struggle Nicholas I had died, broken in spirit at the collapse of his greatness. His successor was a man of very different character and intentions, and evidently a new era was at hand.

Alexander II ( 1855-1881) was a man of humane and liberal disposition. At once he reversed the policy of his father. He allowed such of the exiled Decembrists as were still alive to return to Russia, and pardoned other political offenders. The universities were given freedom again, and Russians allowed to travel abroad. Ardent and enthusiastic people now believed that all the ills of Russia would be cured. Allexander II

At once Alexander turned to the great problem waiting to be solved. Serfdom had already been abolished in Poland, and there were many free peasants in the north and the Cossacks in the south, but over most of the Russian Empire serfdom prevailed. He began by freeing the twenty-three million serfs on the royal domain or crown lands. They had a much better position than any of the others, being practically free and merely owing to the tsar payments which were the equivalent of rent. Whenever he wished, he could declare them free, proclaim that they were the owners of the lands they had formerly cultivated under the crown, and abolish the dues they had previously paid. In 1859 this was begun and the process was complete seven years later. Meanwhile he was busy persuading the nobles not to resist the freeing of their serfs also. The change was bound to come to pass, he told them, and it was much better that it be granted from above than forced by revolution from below. The noblemen made no determined resistance, and in March 1861 an Edict of Emancipation was proclaimed which abolished all serfdom in the empire, thus emancipating the twentysix million serfs of private owners. This edict was of Abolition of serfdom, 1859-66 immense importance in the history of the freedom of the human race. By no legislation had so many people ever before been made free. It brought serfdom in Europe to an end. Thereafter of the status of servitude there was very little left anywhere in the world, except for the four million negroes held as slaves in the southern commonwealths of the United States.

In England serfdom had disappeared gradually, as the result of the working of economic causes. This was mostly the case also in France, for when serfdom was formally abolished there in 1789, most of the peasants were already free. In Russia now, as was the case in the United States two years later, the unfree population was being freed almost at a stroke. In Russia this would be very apt to bring about considerable dislocation and confusion, as indeed it did in the United States, for society was being altered not by gradual development, but artificially, by law. In the Southern States of America the enfranchised negroes, made completely free, sank back after a while, many of them, into a condition of economic servitude, from which the utmost efforts of their Northern friends could not save them, and from which they have only gradually and in part escaped after many years when they have been able to get the ownership of some of the land. In England the decline of serfdom had made many villeins free, then driven them away from the land which they had cultivated, and often reduced them to a worse economic position than before. This the Russian government now strove to avert. Not only were the old services abolished, but to the free peasants was given that portion of the land which formerly they had cultivated, that is to say, a part of what had belonged to the nobles or the crown. For the most part the ownership of this property was vested not in the individual peasants, but, in accordance with communal ideas which had long prevailed in Russia, in the village communities or mirs. The former owners were Method of the emancipation to be paid by the communes, to whom the government would advance the money necessary for this, the communes for forty-nine years to pay back to the government six per cent of the amount thus advanced.

Emancipation involved less alteration than might have been expected. It conferred on the peasants the status of free men and women; but it did not make much change in the condition of most of the peasants, and doubtless nothing could have produced much difference in any short time. They had formerly cultivated land, for which they made payments and rendered service; now they cultivated the same land, of which they collectively were owners, but for which they had to make yearly payments nevertheless. The peasants were bitterly disappointed. They had long hoped that some day the lands on which they lived would be given to them free of any encumbrance. Furthermore, with the rapidly increasing population of Russia it became more and more evident in the years which followed that not enough land had been given. Most of them continued to live in very abject poverty, and in ignorance and filth. The peasants now began to hope for a day when more of the lands that remained to the nobles and the crown might be given to them. Only so would such benefits result as gradually came to the peasantry of France from the French Revolution. Results of emancipation

Other great reforms followed. In 1864 the Russian judicial system was radically changed, in accordance with principles long before gradually developed in western Europe. Judges were made independent; jury trial was introduced; judicial and administrative powers were separated, and a system of courts established, with appeal from the lower to the higher. The vast mass of petty cases, which in all countries always make up the bulk of judicial business, were now to be handled in Russia by justices, elected by the people of the locality. Judicial system reformed

In the same year also a decree of the tsar established a greater measure of local self-government. In their pettiest concerns the peasants had some self-government in the village communities or mirs, but this was all. Russia was already divided into thirty-four "governments" which were composed of provinces and districts. Selfgovernment was now given in these larger administrative divisions, the provinces and districts. Each of these sub-divisions was to have an assembly, zemstvo, made up of the large landed proprietors of the district, and of delegates indirectly elected by the peasants and people of the towns. Substantially, the nobles, the peasants, and the bourgeoisie were represented in the zemstvos. The district council or zemstvo, was to be elected by the people of the locality; the district councils themselves were to choose the members of the provincial zemstvos. These councils were to impose the local taxes and make the local regulations, which were to be carried out by standing committees. In 1870dumas, or councils, were established in the Russian cities, the members being elected according to the Prussian three class system, by the citizens in proportion to their wealth. Local government reformed

Other changes were made, and it seemed that much improvement must result, but disappointment and reaction soon clouded the prospect. The Russian liberals were at first filled with all sorts of pent-up hopes. Some of them were idealists and enthusiasts who had no real conception of the difficulties besetting any program of reform in the country, weighed down as it must be by the dead hand of centuries of ignorance and oppression gone before. Only very gradually could the lot of the Russian people be changed by any reforms. Hence the first boundless hopes were soon disappointed. The peasants saw little difference between their former position and that in which emancipation now placed them. The liberals and the radicals were grieved that conditions Disappointment in Russia in Russia were not speedily made like what they knew of in England and France. Furthermore, the reforms which had been made could not be well administered at first. Local government could not be very efficient until there had been a time of training and experience, and the new courts could not give fair and cheap justice until upright and capable judges could be procured.

Alexander himself changed also. It is said that he was not really a liberal, but one who believed that changes were inevitable, and preferred to make them while there was time. Furthermore, he was surrounded by reactionary officials, who had grown up in the reign preceding. In course of time their influence was felt. And finally, in 1863, came another rebellion of the Poles, after which the tsar soon ceased making changes. Alexander becomes conservative

It was another, despairing effort of the Poles to win freedom. The spirit of nationality, which was rising again strongly in Europe, had reached certain classes of this people. The Italians had just achieved their unity, and the Germans were about to make a united nation. Now Polish patriots began to dream of a free Polish nation once more. Moreover, the tsar had made some concessions, enough to raise expectations, but less than what they desired. Suddenly an insurrection broke out. The Poles appealed to the free nations of Europe for assistance, and much sympathy was aroused in England and France, and elsewhere. But actually the movement was never formidable. The Prussian government offered help to the tsar, but this was not needed. The Polish population generally remained passive. Through long previous centuries this peasantry had been bowed under the most degrading serfdom, in hopeless poverty, without attachment to the masters who oppressed them, and without any feeling of patriotism for a state which did nothing for them. Therefore now they looked on with indifference, having not yet learned to care enough for Poland, and Rebelliono of the Poles, 1863 caring little who were their masters. When rebellion was crushed the Russian government took measures to crush permanently the power of those who had made it. The monasteries of the religious orders were suppressed and their lands taken away from them. About half of the lands of the nobility was taken and given to the peasants, so as to make them friendly to the Russian government. These lands were to be paid for, but by a tax not only on the possessions of the peasants but on those of the nobles as well. The results of this were important. The influence of the upper classes, among whom the spirit of Polish nationality had been strongest, was crippled. Furthermore the condition of the Polish lower classes was improved, and, contrary to what was sometimes believed in other parts of the world, the economic condition of most of the Polish people under Russia was better than in Galicia, where the Austrian government had done little to interfere with the privileges of the Polish nobles but where the peasants continued in low degradation. On the other hand, the Russian government, resolving to make a Russian province out of Poland, now forbade the use of the Polish language in any government business, in university lectures, in newspapers, in theaters, in schools, and in churches. Against this the Polish people made vigorous resistance, and in the struggle that ensued the spirit of nationality was strongly awakened at last in the hearts of the people.

Some of Alexander's reforms were put into effect after this time, but he now became conservative and suspicious, for he had begun to feel that autocracy might be weakened by further concessions. Discontent increased. Not enough had been done, and expectation was aroused by what had been granted. Moreover, the mere passage of time and the changes going on elsewhere created greater demands. So, in the despair that now came to the liberals, violence and extreme radicalism took the place of a progressive Discontent increases liberal movement. Nihilists, extreme socialists, and terrorists supplanted the liberal reformers.

The term nihilist (nihil, nothing) is said to have been first used by Turgeniev in his novel, Fathers and Sons, published in 1862, to signify one who accepted nothing without critical examination, nothing on authority merely. It was soon applied in Russia to intellectuals who accepted nothing in Russia as good, contrasting what they saw there with conditions in other countries. They accepted neither the autocratic government, nor the Greek Catholic faith of their fathers. Turgeniev described his character as one who believed that there was no institution which ought not to be destroyed completely and at once. What was, ought to be overthrown, in order to construct society anew. At first all this was merely held by intellectuals, who talked about it, but were not prepared to go further. After a few years, however, it was translated into action. About 1871 there was a great stirring in the minds of economic radicals in Europe. The Commune of Paris had just attempted to institute a new social and political order, and even its failure had attracted much attention. The socialism of western Europe was beginning to have its effect upon Russian thinkers, and, more important still, the doctrines of violence which the anarchists taught. The nihilists

Active anarchism had been largely developed by the Russian Bakunin. He believed that capitalism and autocratic government ought to be destroyed through violence, and, where this was not possible, through secret assassination and terror. Now in Russia, when the efforts of the peaceful radicals were checked by the government, and many were punished or sent into exile, the movement of reform and opposition--after changing into nihilism, a doctrine held by philosophers and students, and then into socialist propaganda--got into the hands of the anarchists, who attempted to create a reign of terror, and The anarchists paralyze the government, or at least take vengeance on their oppressors.

An attempt had been made to assassinate the tsar in 1866. Thereafter he hearkened more than ever to the reactionaries, and in the ten years after the Polish revolt a great number of people were sent to Siberia. In 1878 a secret committee was established at St. Petersburg to carry on war against the government. Literature was printed for secret distribution, and bombs were manufactured for the assassination of officials. In a short time prominent officials were done to death by members of the society, and renewed attempts had been made to kill the tsar. Martial law was proclaimed, and a minister was appointed with the fullest powers of a dictator. In 1881 the tsar, yielding somewhat, gave his consent that a general commission, partly representative, should be summoned to consult about reforms. But on the day that this decree was signed, a fourth attempt was made to assassinate him, and he was blown to pieces by a bomb hurled as he was passing through the streets. Thus perished the Tsar Liberator, author of the most important reform made in Russia for generations, victim very largely of the conditions which older times had bequeathed to him. The terrorists at once published a manifesto in which they promised to cease their activities, if freedom of speech, of the press, and of meeting, was allowed in Russia, and if a national assembly was elected by manhood suffrage. But their deed was about to usher in a period of sterner and more terrible reaction, and when at last changes were made in Russia, they were to come, as in France, not through constitutional amendment but through destruction of the old system, by revolution. Assassination of Alexander II


General: it is more difficult to make a satisfactory bibliography about Russia because a great part of the best historical writing about her is in the Russian language, and many of the works have not been translated-- R. J. Kerner, Slavic Europe: a Selected Bibliography in the Western European Languages ( 1919); Sir D. M. Wallace, Russia (ed. 1912), the best to give the beginner an acquaintance with the Russian people and their life. For the history: Raymond Beazley, Nevill Forbes, and G. A. Birkett, Russia, from the Varangians to the Bolsheviks ( 1918), the best recent account in English; Alfred Rambaud, Histoire de la Russie depuis les Origines jusqu' à Nos Jours ( 6th ed. completed to 1913 by É. Haumant), 3 vols. ( 1914), English translation, 3 vols. ( 1881), the best history of Russia; A. Kornilov (English trans. by A. S. Kaun), Modern Russian History, 2 vols. ( 1917); James Mavor, An Economic History of Russia, 2 vols. ( 1914), best economic history; W. R. A. Morfill, History of Russia from the Birth of Peter the Great to the Death of Alexander II ( 1902); F. H. Skrine, The Expansion of Russia ( 3d ed., 1915).

Particular periods: Grand Duke Nicholas Mikhallovitch, L'Empereur Alexandre Ier, 2 vols. ( 1913); T. Schiemann, Geschichte Russlands unter Kaiser Nikolaus I, 4 vols. ( 1904-19); H. G. Samson von Himmelstjerna (English trans. by J. Morrison ), Russia under Alexander III and in the Preceding Period ( 1893); Alphons Thun, Geschichte der Revolutiondren Bewegungen in Russland ( 1883).

Russian government and institutions: Wiatscheslaw Gribowski , Das Staatsrecht des Russischen Reiches ( 1912); Maxime Kovalevsky , Modern Custom and Ancient Laws of Russia ( 1891), Russian Political Institutions ( 1902), excellent, scholarly accounts. Poland: E. H. Lewinski-Corwin, The Political History of Poland ( 1917), best account in English; W. A. Phillips, Poland ( 1915).


If this is the day of great Empires it is also preëminently the day of little nations. . . . Their destiny is interwoven with that of humanity.

Speech of MR. LLOYD GEORGE at Birkenhead, September 6, 1917

IN ANY brief account of Europe since 1789 attention can be given only to the most important things which affected the European peoples, or else to the history of the greater powers. But the student should remember that during all the time that mightier events were transpiring, there were lesser nations living their lives, taking part in the great things around them or beholding them from aside, as spectators. All through the nineteenth century Portugal and Spain, Switzerland, Belgium, and Holland, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, and the peoples of the Balkans, were making a history of their own, important to themselves and interesting enough. The history of the Balkans can be told better in a later chapter of this book, since in the latter part of the period, the destiny of the Balkan peoples was intertwined with greater affairs, and with the causes leading to the gigantic struggle which brought the period to an end. What is to be told about the other small countries, whether in the earlier or the later part of the period, can be told and concluded in this place. The Lesser states

It was rather through accident than otherwise that Portugal was ever important. She was the only one of the small states in her peninsula not incorporated into the Portugal in the past Spanish monarchy, but while she retained her independence, she was too small to become powerful and great in Europe. Yet, the daring of her sailors and the advantages of geographical position raised her for a short while to a splendid position. In the fifteenth century her seamen slowly explored the west coast of Africa, and at last got to the Cape of Good Hope. In 1498 Vasco Da Gama reached India, and afterward the Portuguese built up a colonial trade and a colonial empire which made them important and wealthy. But the grand age soon passed. It was beyond the resources of the nation to hold such possessions. In 1580 Portugal was conquered by Spain. During the period of subjection the Dutch, who were at war with the Spaniards, took away the Portuguese possessions in India and especially in the wealthy Spice Islands, thus laying the foundations of their own prosperous colonial empire. Encouraged by France Portugal became independent again in 1640, but her greatness and her power were gone. In 1703 by the Methuen Treaty, she entered into intimate commercial relations with England, and after that time she became more and more a satellite of Britain. In 1807 Napoleon sent an army to occupy the country. British troops sent to the rescue, however, under Sir Arthur Wellesley, soon drove the invader out. The British continued to occupy the country for a while after 1814, but presently they withdrew, and Portugal like the other countries of western Europe was the scene of a struggle between progress and reaction. Maritime greatness

No great advance was made and not much was possible, for the country had no large national wealth and no great industries or trade. Its finances were hopelessly tangled, taxes were very high, and the debt of the nation was large. Brazil had proclaimed independence in 1822, but Portugal still possessed a colonial empire, mostly in Africa, much beyond her resources to maintain. Her debt increased and her affairs became more embarrassed. In the nineteenth century

Therefore it was not possible to improve education or economic conditions, and most of the people remained poor and illiterate, with small understanding of political matters and no experience in self-government. So the Portuguese people, in their out-of-the-way corner of Europe, lived on in the quiet decay of their country, in the midst of monuments of old grandeur, attracting little foreign attention, except when other countries, like Germany or England, hoped some day to inherit their colonial possessions. It is said that in 1898 Great Britain and Germany did make a secret agreement about how these possessions might be divided between them later on, if Portugal were persuaded to sell.

In 1910, when the reigning dynasty had sunk into complete disrepute, the young king was driven from the throne and a republic proclaimed. A constitution modelled on that of France was adopted, providing for it legislature, cortes, with a ministry responsible to it, and a president. But it with evident from the start that it would take generations of education and training in self-government before the Portuguese people could make it work successfully, and the new government was compelled to sustain itself by force. Furthermore, there were violent disputes between the clericals and friends of the republic, for notwithstanding that the entire population was Roman Catholic, the republican government at once proceeded to separate church from state, suppress the wealthy religious orders, and confiscate their possessions. The Portuguese Republic

In the sixteenth century Spain was the leading power in Europe and she had attained such greatness that she was dangerous to all of her neighbors. Then, for a while, she was mistress of the entire Iberian peninsula; she held the southern part of Italy and controlled the rest; she had the rich provinces of the Low Countries, and had got great influence throughout German lands; and she was mistress of mighty colonial possessions. Seldom had Greatness of Spain in the past any empire in the past been more powerful or extensive. Her soldiers were the best in Europe; she was a strong naval power; she drew great revenue from the industrial districts of the Netherlands; from Mexico and Peru she received the greatest quantity of gold and silver that had ever come to any people in the world; while her poets, her dramatists, and her generals made this era her golden age.

Much of this was lost in the seventeenth century; it was mostly gone in the eighteenth; and in the nineteenth, Spain, shorn of nearly all her colonies, had sunk far below the rank of the first-rate powers. The causes of this terrible decline have often been explained, but they still continue to be instructive. Spain, like Portugal and Sweden, undertook far more than her strength permitted. She had neither population nor natural resources enough to enable her to hold a great empire; and the parts of her empire in Europe were so scattered that it would have been very hard to hold them in any event. She exhausted her resources trying to win back the revolted Netherlands, and in 1588 she lost a great fleet in the waters about England. From this time her decline is often dated, but actually it resulted from far greater causes. Much of her soil is not rich or well watered, and could only be made to yield by irrigation and intensive agriculture. The best places were in the south, where agriculture and industry had been developed by the Moors and the Jews. The Christians, who had during some hundreds of years slowly reconquered the country from the Moors, had come to love fighting for its own sake, and now they scorned any labor. It was, indeed, their skill and aptitude in fighting that enabled them to make their conquests in Italy, but meanwhile they left the work of the country largely to the Moors and the Jews. Unfortunately the Spaniards had become the most bigoted people in Europe. Their leaders determined to stamp out all heresy, and soon they drove

Decadence of Spain

out the Jews and the Moors, thus giving a death-blow to the basic industries of the country. The inquisition made such war upon freedom of thought that all the bolder and more enterprising intellects were suppressed or compelled to conform. There was indeed no heresy, but there was also no more of activity and progress. Meanwhile Spain constantly lost the best and most vigorous of her people, who went out as emigrants to America. Vast amounts of treasure in silver and gold continued to come from the American mines; but it went out of the country almost as soon as it entered, for there was little industry, and the people of Spain, no longer able to win wars and disdaining to work, sank further and further into economic stagnation, using their money to buy, at high prices, what others, who worked, could provide.

All the seventeenth century was a period of slow, fatal decline. At the end of that time the old dynasty came to an end, and the great powers quarrelled about how the Spanish Empire should be partitioned among them. This led to the War of the Spanish Succession, concluded by the Treaty of Utrecht ( 1713). By this treaty the outlying dominions of Spain in Europe went to Austria and Holland; and Spain, now under a line of French Bourbon kings kept only her colonial dominions. After this time there was some revival and on several occasions no little success, but to a considerable extent the Spanish people continued in torpor and decay. Partition of the Spanish Empire

When the French Revolution came, it affected the Spaniards but little. But the French under Napoleon conquered the country and brought the reforms which they were spreading over Europe. It was in this moment that the Spanish people had their awakening. They remained, even in their poverty and loss of power, a people of high and strong character. Now when their position seemed hopeless they rose fiercely, and fell upon the invader to save their country. They were greatly Revival of national spirit assisted by the topography of their country and also by a British army, and gradually their guerilla fighting wore the invaders out. In 1812 the liberals among the revolutionists proclaimed constitution, patterned after the French constitution of 1791, and for a long time afterwards a model for the liberals of southern Europe.

Two years later the reactionary king, Ferdinand VII, returned. He set aside the constitution and abolished the cortes, or national legislature. He was able to do this because the constitution was hated by the conservatives and nobles and not supported by the peasants. There was now a period of reaction as in France and other European countries, but in 1820 a revolution suddenly broke out and Ferdinand had to accept the constitution again. This was contrary to the wishes of the Continental powers in the Quadruple Alliance, and in 1822, at the Congress of Verona, they resolved that France should intervene to restore the absolute rule of the king. The reign of terror which followed was long afterward described in a terrible denunciation by Castelar, the greatest orator of Spain. For the next ten years the king ruled with power unchecked. In 1833 his daughter, Isabel II, came to the throne. Three years before, at the time of her birth, the Salic Law, which forbade the succession of women, had been set aside so that she might succeed; but this brought it about that Don Carlos, the king's brother, previously heir presumptive, was debarred. He refused to give up his claim, and for the next forty years the country was plagued by uprisings and attempts of his partisans, the Carlists. Reaction And confusion

During the long reign of Isabella the Bourbon reputation sank lower and lower, until in 1868 she was driven away by a liberal uprising, and a provisional government was set up while the revolutionists sought a new monarch. It was during this search for a sovereign that the crown was offered to a relative of the king of Prussia, thus caus- The Spanish Republic ing the tension between Prussia and France, the immediate occasion of the Franco-German War. In 1871 Amadeo of Savoy accepted the throne, but after two years he abandoned his attempt to rule the country. Then in 1873 the liberals set up a republic, but Spain now fell into the greatest confusion, from which she was saved only by the stern rule and the military despotism of the president, Emilio Castelar. Most of the Spanish people cared nothing for a republic, and in 1874 the Bourbon line was restored, when the son of Isabella was made king.

A period of improvement and reform now began, which slowly produced good results. In 1876 a constitution was adopted which in form gave the people a government like that of Italy or Belgium, vested in a parliament or cortes elected by the people. In 1890 the principle of manhood suffrage was adopted for electing members to the lower house of the cortes. As in Great Britain, the ministry is dependent upon a majority in the cortes; and as in France, this majority is formed by a combination of political parties willing to act together. Parliamentary majorities were made by the ministry, and a government could always control the elections. The extension of the suffrage to the mass of the people strengthened the conservative and reactionary elements in the state, especially the church, since many of the voters, who were illiterate as well as inexperienced, voted entirely at the dictation of the priests. Nevertheless, after 1880 a period of change began, in which jury trial was introduced, taxation reformed, and obstacles removed from industry and trade, obstacles which had survived in Spain longer than almost anywhere else in Europe. The liberal leader, Sagasta, wished also to improved education and take it out of the hands of the clergy, and effect such a separation of church and state as was afterward brought about in France; but notwithstanding considerable hostility to the religious orders because of their wealth and possessions, the body Slow Progress of the people supported the clericals and enabled them to prevent all such changes.

The decline of centuries was not easily to be made up. The country was poor, agriculture languished, there was little industry and not much trade. Most of the people were ignorant and superstitious, and more than half of them could not read or write. Taxation was heavy and the national debt almost too great to be borne. None the less, gradually there has been an improvement in the last generation. What seemed at first like a great disaster, the loss of the remaining Spanish colonies to the United States in 1898, soon proved to be a blessing, since it removed great trouble and expense. Of late the population has been increasing more and more rapidly, and some wealth and prosperity with it. The land has been getting more and more into the hands of peasant proprietors, and manufacturing and commerce have once more begun to flourish. The country remains poor, and in the midst of their splendid cathedrals and lonely palaces the people have memories of the past more than possessions in the present. Nevertheless, there may still be a prosperous future before them. Recent conditions

In the sixteenth century the Low Countries, which for centuries had been the seat of the most thriving industry and the richest burghers in Europe, were provinces of the king of Spain. During the Reformation many of the people became Protestants. Philip II of Spain, then the leader of Catholicism in Europe, tried to stamp all heresy out; and, partly because of the persecutions, partly because of oppressive exactions, the people rose in revolt. A terrible struggle followed, in the course of which the western provinces, which long after became the Kingdom of Belgium, went back to the Spanish allegiance; but the eastern and northern provinces, the greatest of which was Holland, persisted in rebellion, and, aided by England, at last achieved independence. This was got after the death The Netherlands of Philip II, though not formally acknowledged until 1648 by the general European settlement in the Treaty of Westphalia.

From this struggle the Dutch emerged as the greatest sea power in Europe. They had obtained a splendid colonial empire in the Far East; during the earlier part of the seventeenth century they did a great part of the carrying trade of Europe; and they so developed the herring fisheries of the North Sea that the waters yielded them greater wealth than Spain got from her mines in Peru. But England now began to rise as a great commercial power, and her geographical position was more favorable than that of the Dutch, since she lay across the routes of the Dutch to the outside world, and could, if she desired, always close them. Sea wars followed, resulting largely from commercial and colonial competition, in which the Dutch failed to hold their own. Worse still they were exposed to attacks from France--then, under Louis XIV, the greatest military power in Europe--and they were not, like England, protected by the sea. The Dutch did save themselves, and afterward together with England they checked the aggressions of France; but by 1713 when this was achieved, they were exhausted by a task which had been far beyond their strength, and from being one of the principal European powers, in the eighteenth century they sank to the second class and no longer played a great part. The Dutch still possessed a large colonial dominion, mostly in the Far East; and they continued to be industrious and successful workers. They played a lesser part now because neighboring powers had grown far greater and more rapidly than themselves, so that relatively they were much less than before. The United Provinces

During the French Revolution Holland was overrun, and in 1795 it was made into the Batavian Republic. In 1806 this was superseded by the Kingdom of Holland under Louis Bonaparte, Napoleon's brother, which four The Kingdom of the Netherlands years later was annexed directly to France. But when Napoleon's power was falling, and when the Dutch saw departing the French soldiers who had so long ruled and plundered their country, they rose and proclaimed a kingdom under William I, son of the last stadholder who had ruled before the Frenchmen came. The Congress of Vienna determined to strengthen Holland against possible aggression from France in the future, and in 1815 what had, before the French Revolution, been the Austrian Netherlands was joined to the new Dutch kingdom, now called the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

This union was not destined to last. The Dutch were mostly Protestant and Germanic, while the population of the Belgic provinces was Catholic and influenced by France. The Belgian population was more numerous than the Dutch, but while Belgium was compelled to contribute the larger part of the taxation, the places and power in the government were reserved for Dutch officials. William I outraged the feelings of his Belgian subjects by trying to impose on them the Dutch language and laws. In 1830, after the revolution in Paris, the Belgians rose against their masters, and demanded a separate legislature. William refused any concessions, so they proclaimed their complete independence. The Dutch people, inflamed by strong national feeling, supported their monarch, and he would have easily reconquered the rebels, had it not been that England and France intervened. Thus Belgium won independence. Separation of Belgium from Holland

Western Europe slowly became more liberal and progressive. William himself did not change, but becoming more and more unpopular he abdicated in 1840. His son shared his feelings, but was wise enough to yield to the tendencies around him. In 1848, when the revolutionary movements were overturning so much in Europe, he quietly granted a more liberal constitution, which with slight changes satisfied his people thereafter. The minis- Liberal progress try now became responsible to the states general, the Dutch parliament, though the representatives in the lower chamber were still elected by a small number of voters. In 1887 and in 1896, the franchise was extended to larger number of voters, but as late as 1914 more than a third of the men were not yet permitted to vote.

The political history of the country was now uneventful. The Dutch were intensely conscious of their nationality, and passionately resolved to keep their independence. They had no great love for England, who had once beaten them in great trade wars, and taken some of their possessions; but France had been the great enemy, and they had only been saved by assistance from Britain. During the nineteenth century these conditions no longer existed, but at the beginning of the twentieth, a new danger appeared. Some German writers asserted that the Dutch were closely related to the Germans, and could properly be citizens of a Germanic federal union, and that Holland, lying across the mouths of Germany's great river, the Rhine, ought to be brought into such union. More and more did the Dutch come to dread incorporation with their powerful neighbor. In 1890 Queen Wilhelmina, a girl of ten, came to the throne, and for a while her subjects feared that the dynasty might die out, and their country lose its independence. After the birth of an heir, however, this fear abated; though the Dutch continued to guard with great jealousy against any infringement on their freedom, and, after the beginning of the Great War, they guarded their neutrality likewise. Political history

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the Netherlands lost some of their colonies to England, and as a result of the Napoleonic Wars, Ceylon and South Africa also, but they still continued to retain one of the wealthiest of colonial empires, especially in the Spice Islands off southeast Asia. This empire was until recently administered with less consideration for the welfare of the The Dutch colonies natives than for the development and advancement of commerce.

The history of the Belgian people is a long record of prosperity and misfortune. In the Middle Ages they had the most thriving industry in Europe, and the splendid guildhalls and bell-towers still attest the magnificence of that era. But the country was also the battleground in many wars now long forgotten. The sovereigns of France strove to add these provinces to their dominions, as they built up the Kingdom of France; but they got only part of what they tried for, since England in the fourteenth century--as in the sixteenth and the seventeenth, the nineteenth and the twentieth--dreaded to see the country right across the narrow waters from her, and almost at the mouth of the Thames, in the hands of some powerful rival. The Belgian provinces joined the other Netherlands in the revolt against Philip II, but the population, being almost entirely Roman Catholic, accepted the overtures of Spain, and in 1579 abandoned the contest. Under the languishing rule of Spain, and afterward under the ineffective administration of Austria, these provinces suffered decline. By the Treaty of Münster ( 1648) the Scheldt was closed, and the commerce of Antwerp ruined, to promote the interests of Holland. During the Revolutionary period the Austrian Netherlands were easily occupied by the French and presently annexed to France. In 1815 Austria preferred resigning her Belgian possessions, since they were too distant to be easily defended, and in exchange for them she took territory in the northern part of Italy. Belgium was then added to the Dutch Netherlands, partly to make a strong state on the French frontier, partly to compensate Holland for the colonies she had lost to England. In 1830 the Belgian people rebelled, and, by the assistance of Great Britain and France, got their independence. In 1831 Belgium was established as a state The Belgian people independent and perpetually neutral; and when in 1839 Holland at last accepted Belgian independence, the provision of neutralization was again confirmed by the five great powers, Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia. Thus Belgium was made a neutralized state as Switzerland had been in 1815. The country now went forward with its development in safety. Shortly before the Franco-German War, it is true, Napoleon III entered into secret negotiations with Prussia, apparently in hope that he might be able to add Belgium to France; but this came to nothing; and when later, in 1870, Bismarck revealed the proposal, the British government made treaties with France and with Prussia, engaging to join forces with either one if the other violated Belgian neutrality.

After 1831 the little country went forward in great industrial development, its population and prosperity increasing. Unlike Holland, which remained an agricultural and a commercial country, Belgium possessed great resources of coal and iron, and became one of the greatest industrial regions of Europe. The constitution, adopted in 1831, was the most liberal at the time in continental Europe. As in Great Britain the ministry was responsible to a parliament. As elsewhere then the franchise was narrow, being allowed only to those who paid a considerable tax. In 1848 it was extended a little, but thereafter for nearly half a century no change was made. Meanwhile great industrial populations had been assembled in the cities, and after the franchise had been widely extended in all the neighboring countries, still in Belgium only one man in ten could vote. At last, in 1893, the labor leaders called a general strike, and the legislature, soon yielding, provided for manhood suffrage, though with double votes or even triple votes to men of property and at the head of a family or with unusual educational attainments or experience in public office. Progress and pros perity

The Swiss in the midst of their mountains got their freedom from Austria in the Middle Ages, and after first defending themselves successfully, presently became renowned as the best mercenaries in Europe, fighting in most of the great wars for pay. The government was a federation of smaller units, or cantons. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries Switzerland and the United Provinces ( Holland) were the only two important republics in the world. They were also two of the principal places of refuge for the oppressed and those who sought religious freedom. During the French Revolution Switzerland was first penetrated by the new ideas and then overrun by French soldiers, and in 1798 the Helvetic Republic was established. During the Napoleonic period other cantons were added, still more were joined to the Confederation in 1815 when the Congress of Vienna re-established it and guaranteed its neutrality. The cantons remained, as before the French Revolution, united in a loose confederacy, each with complete local autonomy, much as were the American commonwealths before the constitution of the United States. Switzerland

In the first half of the nineteenth century the cantons which had so long remained in partnership began to develop a division which after a while threatened to disrupt the confederation. Some of the cantons were agricultural and Catholic and under clerical influence; others were Protestant, and contained large cities, and in 1830 they liberalized their governments and tended toward radical ideas. Thus Switzerland, like the United States of America about the same time, was split into two parts, in which the people had different ideals and purposes, and seemed unwilling to continue in the old association. In 1843 the Roman Catholic cantons formed a Sonderbund, or separate league, to protect clerical interests wherever they should be attacked. In 1847 the federal diet of the confederation ordered the Sonderbund to dissolve. Sonderbund and union

Metternich and the governments which he influenced would have intervened, but the separatist movement was soon crushed, and, shortly after the Revolution of 1848, made it impossible for them to interfere. The triumphant party now remodelled the constitution, and what had before been a loose confederation became a federal republic. By this constitution of 1848 a federal assembly of two houses was established, an upper house, the council of states, consisting of two delegates from each canton, chosen by the legislature of the canton; the lower house, the national council, consisting of representatives elected by voters in electoral districts, all adult males having the franchise. The executive was vested in a federal council of seven members and a president, chosen by the federal assembly. The cantons, like the states of the American union, had their own constitutions and governments.

The Swiss people continued, as for a long time before, to show that it was possible for men of different races and religions to live under the same government, each having large measure of freedom, unmolested by the others. Most of the population was German, but considerable portions were French and Italian. Some were Protestants and some were Catholics. There was no attempt to enforce uniformity of language or customs, as in Russia and Austria-Hungary, but so much freedom was left to all that the Swiss Confederation was reckoned to be the most successful democracy in the world. And while its people perfected their educational system until their schools were as good as any in Europe, and while they were developing great industrial prosperity, they continued to teach other nations the art of self-government. In attempting to work out devices by which the people might more directly control their government they perfected the referendum and originated the initiative. The referendum, or referring back for popular vote measures already Progress in self-government passed by the legislature, had been employed by some of the American states in the latter part of the eighteenth century, and afterward was put into one of the provisions of the French Revolutionary Constitution of the Year I; but its use was extended by the Swiss Constitution of 1848 and it has since been frequently employed. The initiative, by which legislation or an amendment is brought forward by petition of a certain number of voters, was invented in Switzerland, then established in their constitution of 1848, and since widely extended.

The Scandinavian countries were usually outside the great currents of European history, though twice they greatly affected neighboring countries. In the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries, sailors and pirates from Norway and Denmark spread terror of the Northmen's name all over Western Europe, and some of them established themselves on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. The Danes ravaged Ireland, and conquered England for a while; the Northmen sailed to Iceland, Greenland, and even Vineland or America, and established themselves in northern France and afterward in southern Italy. Meanwhile bands of Swedes entered Russia. After these great Scandinavian wanderings came to an end, the northern peoples for a long time affected the rest of Europe but little, for neither their population nor their resources made it possible for them to take a great part among wealthy and powerful peoples. In 1397 the three countries were loosely united under the headship of Denmark, but from this union Sweden broke away in 1523, and presently rose to a position of considerable greatness. The highest point of her eminence came during the seventeenth century. When central Europe was torn to pieces by the Thirty Years' War, Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, saved Protestantism from the Counter-Reformation. He also established the greatness of his country, for the settlement made in 1648 left the shores of the Baltic under Scandinavia Swedish control. But during the eighteenth century greater neighbors, like Russia and Prussia, rose up against her, and Sweden's resources were wasted in vain struggles to keep her possessions. In 1814 Denmark, to which Norway was still joined, was an unimportant country, and Sweden had lost her possessions outside the Scandinavian peninsula.

The Congress of Vienna took Norway from Denmark and joined it to Sweden. The Norwegian people declared their country a sovereign state, but they yielded to the great powers, and the two countries were loosely joined each having its own constitution, but united under one king. This arrangement lasted throughout the nineteenth century, because of the moderation and prudence of the rulers, but the two peoples were incompatible and divergent in their interests. Sweden was larger and more populous; she was also richer, but wealth and power were concentrated in the hands of nobles and aristocracy, leaving the mass of the people without property or political power. The government was vested entirely in the hands of the king, checked, when at all, only by an assembly of estates, something like those which had disappeared in England and Spain long before, and like those resurrected in France in 1789. In Norway, while the resources of the country were small and the soil was poor, the land had become divided among a large number of small farmers; there was much democratic feeling; and the constitution adopted in 1814 put the government in the hands of a storthing or legislature, in which the representatives were elected by voters whose franchise depended upon a low property qualification. In the nineteenth century the Industrial Revolution gradually became important in Sweden, and then manufacturing was added to her agriculture; in Norway commerce was developed until the Norwegian merchant marine was the fourth largest in the world. In foreign relations Norway was drawn more and Sweden and Norway more toward England and France, while Sweden, resenting the Russian seizure of Finland, and always fearing further Russian expansion toward the sea, more and more imitated Germany's methods and sympathized with her purpose and desires.

So the peoples draw increasingly apart. In 1863 a Swedish constitution was granted, with a parliament like those of western Europe, but great power was left to the king and also to the wealthy upper classes. Meanwhile Norway became increasingly liberal and democratic. In 1884 manhood suffrage was established. In 1901 she gave the municipal franchise to women tax-payers, and six years later followed this by granting the parliamentary franchise to women and allowing them to sit in the storthing. Moreover, in Norway a great literary national revival was carried on, so that the people became more conscious of their nationality and more eager for complete independence. For a long time tension increased, though there was never a resort to arms, and finally, in 1905, the storthing declared the independence of Norway. The Swedes, more powerful though they were, wisely decided not to try to force their neighbors back into a distasteful allegiance of no use to themselves, and so they acceded to the separation. A Danish prince was invited to be king, but the monarchy was as limited and as democratic as in England. In 1907 Great Britain, France, Germany, and Russia signed a treaty with Norwegian representatives guaranteeing the integrity and the neutrality of Norway. Good relations with Sweden were soon resumed, and the two countries proceeded on their separate ways. Separation of Norway from Sweden

Denmark had gradually become the least important of the northern nations. Norway had been taken from her in 1814; Schleswig-Holstein, containing some Danish population, had been lost in 1864. Across the base of the Jutland peninsula, which had previously been hers, the great German Kiel Canal was cut, and through it went Denmark

EUROPE in 1870

ships which would formerly have gone around through the Danish channels. She still had Iceland and Greenland, far away and unimportant, and a few island in the West Indies, which she finally sold to the United States. Furthermore, her territory seemed to some of the ambitious German leaders to be properly a German outpost like Holland or Belgium; and increasingly the people of the country lived under the shadow of their mighty neighbor to the south. Meanwhile democracy and constitutional government made progress, though much less rapidly than among the Norwegians. In 1849 a constitution was granted, establishing a rigsdag or parliament, but actually government remained in the hands of the king and the upper class, and the ministry was not responsible to representatives of the people any more than it was in Russia. In the latter part of the nineteenth century money was frequently collected as a result of royal decree, and not because appropriation was made by the folkething or lower chamber. But the people developed their intensive agriculture and their dairy farming, and established a remarkably successful system of coöperative enterprise, by which middlemen were largely eliminated, and so far improved their economic position that they really became more and more important. According in 1901 the king granted what he knew they desired, that the ministry should be dependent upon the majority elected to the folkething by the people.


Portugal: Gustav Diercks, Das Moderne Portugal ( 1913); Angel Marvaud, Le Portugal et Ses Colonies ( 1912). Spain: C. E. Chapman, A History of Spain ( 1919), based mostly on Don Rafael Altamira, Historia de España y de la Civilización Española, 4 vols. ( 1900-11), the best general work; for the more recent period: Butler Clarke, Modern Spain, 18151898 ( 1906); Gustave Hubbard, Histoire Contemporaine del'Espagne l'Espagne, 6 vols. ( 1869-83), best work on the period 18141868; Yves Guyot, L'Évolution Politique et Sociale de l'Espagne ( 1899); Angel Marvaud, La Question Sociale en Espagne ( 1910), L'Espagne au XXe Siècle ( 1913); E. H. Strobel, The Spanish Revolution, 1868-1875 ( 1898); David Hannay, Don Emilio Castelar ( 1896); J. W. Root, Spain and Its Colonies ( 1898).

Holland: P. J. Blok, Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche Volk 4 vols. ( 2d ed. 1919-15) trans. by Ruth Putnam and others, History of the People of the Netherlands, 5 vols. ( 1898- 1912), the work of a great scholar, the best; H. W. van Loon, The Rise of the Dutch Kingdom, 1795-1813 ( 1915); Clive Day, The Policy and Administration of the Dutch in Java ( 1904). Belgium: R. C. K. Ensor, Belgium ( 1915); Léon van der Essen , A Short History of Belgium ( 1916).

Switzerland: W. D. McCrackan, Rise of the Swiss Republic ( 2d ed., 1901); Wilhelm Oechsli, Geschichte der Schweiz im Neunzehnten Jahrhundert, vols. I, II ( 1903-13), covering the period 1798- 1830; La Suisse au Dixneuvième Siècle, a coöperative work edited by Paul Seippel, 3 vols. ( 1899- 1901). The Scandinavian countries: R. N. Bain, Scandinavia, a Political History of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, from 1513 to 1900 ( 1905); J. Carlsen, H. Olrik, and C. N. Starke, Le Danemarck ( 1900); Sweden, Its People and Industries, published by order of the Swedish government, edited by Gustav Sundbärg ( 1904); A. A. F. Aall, Die Norwegisch-Swedische Union, Ihr Bestehen und Ihr Lösung ( 1912); L. Jordan, La Séparation de la Suède et de la Norvège ( 1906).


The old political science was mistaken when it regarded the Army as nothing but the servant of diplomacy. . . . Such a conception . . . has vanished from our age of universal military service; for we all feel nowadays. . . that the very constitucontion of the State reposes upon the nation's share in bearing arms.

- TREITSCHKE, Politics (trans. 1916), ii389

The military becomes . . . the true type of human society; some pitiless strategist is a hero; some unscrupulous conspirator is a statesman; and the nation which is the best drilled and the best armed in Europe is to go to the van of modern civilization . . . this we owe to Prussia.

- FREDERIC HARRISON in The Fortnightly Review, December, 1870.

Und Trommeln und Pfeifen, das war mein Klang,
Und Trommeln und Pfeifen, Soldatengesang,
Ihr Trommeln und Pfeifen, mein Leben lang,
Hoch Kaiser und Heer!

- LILIENCRON (who served as an officer in 1866 and 1870-1)

SHORTLY after the middle of the nineteenth century there was a succession of wars which seemed important in connection with the unification of Germany and the founding of the German Empire; but seen now, in longer perspective, they have a greater importance, because they shifted the center of power in European affairs, and because the conditions which decided their outcome soon affected the life of every great people in the world. They were the Danish War (1864), the Austro-Prussian War (1866), and the Franco-German War (1870-1). The The German triumphs first is relatively unimportant now, but the second marked a new era in the history of modern Europe, and the third made the definite ending of an old one. Prussia was seen invincible in battle and of matchless military might.

Afterward the reputation of German military power was held almost as the legend of something strange, uncanny, superhuman. But actually, after it had risen to the height of its power and then been broken to pieces, it was seen to have been the carefully wrought work of men who introduced a new principle into military usage and then perfected their work with wondrous organization and care. German military reputation

In the Middle Ages, when the "feudal system" flourished, armies were composed largely of tenants who held land partly on terms of service in war. As the feudal system decayed, armies came to be composed much more of mercenaries or paid soldiers, hired by the ruler of a country, or assembled by some captain who made war a business. Such mercenaries served in the Hundred Years' War between England and France; they did most of the fighting in the wars between the Italian states; and they played a great part in ruining Germany in the Thirty Years' War. As great national government arose these mercenary soldiers were gathered together under direct authority of the central government. In the seventeenth century Louis XIV of France had a numerous army of paid soldiers; the German princes had smaller ones; and a very small force was maintained in England. It was by building up the largest and best army of this kind in central Europe that Prussia laid the foundations of her greatness. In this system, which continued in effect until the period of the French Revolution, the armies were small in numbers, compared with the total number of people in the country; the soldiers made war their profession, and they were paid for their military service. The armies of an earlies age

An innovation came during the Revolution, when the republic was saved by great new armies drawn from all of the nation. "All France and whatsoever it contains of men and resources is put under requisition," said the decree. In so far as this was carried out it substituted the idea of the men of the nation in arms for the older idea of a small force of hired soldiers. The National army in the French Revolution

It was the Prussians who really effected this revolution in the organization of war. By the terms of the treaty which followed Jena, Napoleon, desiring permanently to cripple Prussia's military power, limited her army to 42,000 men. But in the years from 1807 to 1813, while Stein and Hardenberg were freeing the serfs and abolishing class distinctions, the army was reorganized by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, who in order to evade Napoleon's restriction, kept under arms the 42,000 men only long enough to give them the proper military training, and then summoned in succession other forces of equal size. The result of this was that when, in 1813, Prussia rose against the French Empire in the War of Liberation, she was able to put into the field 270,000 well-trained soldiers. In 1814 the principle that military service was the obligation of the citizen and that the army should be a national force, was embodied in the Military Law of Boyen, which, proclaiming that "Every citizen is bound to defend his Fatherland," provided for universal military service. Every man in Prussia was liable, on becoming twenty years old. He was to serve for three years in the standing army and two years in the reserve; then for fourteen years afterward he might be called to serve in the landwehr, and for eleven years thereafter in the landsturm. That is to say, there was now organized in Prussia an army of the men of the nation, part of whom were in active service and ready for sudden emergency, while the rest might be mobilized or called out from the various reserves, if the country should need them. Developed by Prussia

Boyen's Law, 1814

For a long time the importance of this system was not realized outside of Prussia. Even there it was not fully applied, for not all the young men were called to the colors when they came to be twenty years old, and as numbers increased, the proportion of those not called grew steadily larger. In 1860, when the population of Prussia was 18,000,000, with 150,000 young men reaching military age each year, she called into service only 40,000, as had been arranged in 1814 when the population was about 11,000,000. The bitter struggle in 1862, between the king and the Prussian parliament, had to do with enlarging the army by calling each year 65,000 youths. Bismarck was brought into the ministry, and under his guidance the desired reforms were made: the standing army was now increased to 400,000, with double that number of trained reserves in the landwehr. The Prussian army increased

In 1857 Von Moltke was appointed chief of staff of the Prussian army and two years later Von Roon became minister of war. They were the greatest masters of military organization and preparation since Napoleon. During the nineteenth century European railway systems had grown up and communications had been much altered and improved. Von Moltke realized clearly the importance and the military meaning of these changes and began training the commanders of the Prussian armies in great schemes of maneuver, mobilization, and attack worked out in advance. Not only were plans elaborated in minutest detail for the carrying on of possible wars with other great powers near by, but under Von Roon the most careful arrangements for rapid mobilization were prepared, so that when the hour came each man might quickly know what to do. Military stores and equipment were got together, a splendid artillery was provided, and the "needle-gun," a breech-loading rifle, was adopted for infantry use. By 1864 Prussia had the largest and bestequipped army in the world. Much of this was little Von Moltke and Von Roon noticed or understood at the time. France was still regarded as the greatest power on the Continent, and most people considered Austria more important than Prussia. But a series of wars now changed all opinion and altered the history of Europe.

The first contest, the Danish War, needs little attention. South of Denmark were the two duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, peopled largely by Germans, but joined with Denmark by a personal union, since the Danish king was also duke of Schleswig and of Holstein. Holstein was a member of the Germanic Confederation. Many people in the provinces preferred some connection with their kinsmen in the German Confederation, but the Danish kings desired to attach the provinces more closely to their kingdom. In 1852, the so-called London Protocol provided that while the king of Denmark might be duke of Schleswig, the duchy should not be made part of Denmark. In 1863, however, the Danish government attempted to do this very thing. The Germanic diet protested, and, indeed, the Germans desired that Schleswig be admitted to the confederation. Bismarck began now to plan, as he afterward declared, to annex the duchies to Prussia. He contrived to bring it about that Austria, whose measures he had just been opposing, acted with Prussia, and in January 1864, the governments sent an ultimatum demanding that within forty-eight hours the Danish government repeal the constitution which decreed that the provinces be annexed. This demand was purposely so contrived that it could not be accepted, and war was begun. The armies brought against Denmark were more than sufficient to overwhelm her. The Danes attempted to defend themselves behind the Dannevirke, a fortified line of defence across the narrowest part of Jutland, but this was soon forced, and the entire peninsula overrun. The Danes soon lost command of the sea, and the invaders carried the war into the islands, which are such SchleswigHolstein an important apart of the kingdom. In August the contest was abandoned; in October the Treaty of Vienna sealed the surrender of Denmark; and Schleswig and Holstein were yielded to the joint possession of Austria and Prussia.

Bismarck was about to bring to a crisis the long contest between Austria and his country for leadership among the German peoples. He now plotted to get the duchies for Prussia, and rapidly the relations between Austria and Prussia were strained to the breaking-point. Austria was not well prepared to maintain her contentions, so she agreed to the Convention of Gastein, by which Prussia was to administer Schleswig and she would administer Holstein. Bismarck regarded this merely as a temporary measure, and busied himself so that when the conflict began Austria would be obliged to fight single-handed. He knew that Russia was friendly, and that Great Britain was not disposed to interfere in Continental matters. With France he carried on secret negotiations, which have never been fully revealed but which may have seemed to promise Napoleon territorial gains on the Rhine, and so he made it probable that France would be neutral. With Italy he concluded an alliance early in 1866. This was a dangerous period in Bismarck's career, for his war policy was not popular in Germany; and Austria might make terms with Italy, or else France might intervene. But the hazard passed, as the crisis moved swiftly forward. Austria mobilizing her forces, demanded that the disposition of Schleswig and Holstein be referred to the diet of the confederation. Bismarck declared this a breach of the convention and seized Holstein. Almost all the German states supported Austria, the members voting in the diet that the federal forces should be used against Prussia, and the Austro-Prussian War began in June, 1866. The contest with Austria

The available Prussian army numbered 660,000 men, well trained. The infantry was armed with the needlegun, which could be fired three times as rapidly as any AstroPrussian War, 1866 other gun then in use. The artillery numbered 1,000 guns. Opposed to this the Austrians could bring into the field 600,000 men. Their army was based not on universal service like the Prussian, but on the conscript system, in which men could hire substitutes if they wished. Their infantry was armed with muzzle-loading rifles, inferior to the Prussian, though with longer range. Their artillery, 800 guns, also had longer range. Actually, in the contest that followed, the Austrian artillery was effectively handled, but the campaign was decided by infantry fighting. The Prussians had to use part of their forces against the smaller German states, but the Austrians were compelled to detach part of their army to act against the Italians in the south.

The great contest was fought between Austria and Prussia. The Austrians might have taken the offensive, but they resolved to await the attack. What followed astonished the world. With great skill the Prussian armies were moved through the mountain passes into Bohemia, and despite all the efforts which the enemy could make they were united at Königgrätz. There, after stubborn resistance, the Austrians were totally defeated. A few days more and Vienna was at the mercy of the invaders. In less than six weeks Prussia had overcome all the smaller states and destroyed Austria's military power completely. Not since Napoleon's time had such rapidity of movement and such appalling strength been shown. In reality Prussia was now the first military power in the world. As a result of the Treaty of Prague which followed, the old confederation was dissolved. Prussia became the head of a new confederation of the north German states, she annexed Schleswig and Holstein, and various other territories from those who had opposed her, and Venetia was acquired by Italy. Königgrätz

Out of this war presently emerged the causes of a third great struggle, this time between Germany and France. Prussia and France

Such a war ought never to have come between civilized peoples; but such were conditions that it is hard to see how it could have been avoided. Among the French there was growing uneasiness that their leadership in Europe was being taken by a new, upstart state. The government of Napoleon III had passed the days of its popularity, and Bonapartist leaders believed that only some great success in foreign policy or in war could restore it in the people's estimation. Napoleon and French statesmen had expected Austria to win in 1866, and had probably never intended to allow her to be so badly defeated that the political balance in Europe would be altered; but the struggle ended before they could intervene or protest. They were bitterly disappointed that France was not allowed to get territorial compensations, when Prussia had just made such gains; for not only did France get no German territory along the Rhine, but when Napoleon strove to acquire Luxemburg, Bismarck opposed it and assisted in bringing about the neutralization of that country in 1867. The position of France in Europe had diminished through mere change of circumstances elsewhere, and the French people felt instinctively that something was wrong. Among them, therefore, arose the idea that there must be "Revenge for Sadowa'' (Königgrätz). It is probably true that the great majority of the French people had no desire for war with Prussia, but the demand for action was skilfully cried about by the press which was controlled and cleverly manipulated by those who preferred to have war. Actually the French leaders tried to form an alliance with Austria and Italy, and some arrangements were made for coöperation between Austrian and French armies against Prussia, to take place in 1871. Policy Napoleon III

The machinations of Bismarck were more culpable and far more cold-blooded. Desiring the completer union of the German states, he believed that a successful war, particularly against France the traditional enemy, would serve The plotting Bismarck to bring them together in a burst of patriotic ardor. He afterward said he had not believed the unification of Germany would be accomplished so long as France could prevent it, and that it would be necessary first to overthrow her in battle. He felt certain, moreover, that Prussia would win, and so be raised higher in Europe than ever before. So, he desired war with France, and plotted with all his craft and skill to bring it about. These feelings were not yet shared by most of the German people; but in Germany also the press was so controlled and manipulated as to hasten on the contest as much as could be.

The direct cause was not an important matter. The throne of Spain becoming vacant was offered to a member of the Hohenzollern family. France fearing Prussian influence in Spain, when it was elsewhere growing so rapidly, dispatched an arrogant note demanding Prince Leopold's withdrawal. Bismarck believed that this was the opportunity which he had been seeking to get war with France, but the king of Prussia caused his relative's name to be withdrawn. The leaders of the French war party now gave Bismarck the opportunity he sought. The French government demanded that under no circumstances should Leopold be a candidate in the future. The king of Prussia, then at the village of Ems, rejected this demand, firmly but courteously enough, and then telegraphed to Bismarck an account of what he had done, authorizing him to publish the news. Bismarck deliberately, as he afterward boasted, condensed the king's words so cunningly that the result was certain to seem insulting to the French, while at the same time the Prussian people would believe that their sovereign had been insulted by the insolence of the ambassador of France. The French people easily fell into the trap, for immediately on publication of what seemed to them such an affront, war was declared. And so well had the thing been contrived that the war was very popular in Germany. All the The Ems Dispatch North German Confederation immediately gave support to Prussia, and the south German states followed after them also. It was war between France and a Germany united.

Seldom has any country ever been so quickly triumphant as Prussia, and seldom has any people been humbled and overthrown as were the French. In after days nothing so convinced men that German armies were unconquerable as memory of their victories in the Franco-German War. Not until the Battle of the Marne, forty-five years later, was the legend of German invincibility disturbed, and not till the very end of the Great War could it be completely destroyed. Actually, however, it is evident that the German military organization, with its system of universal training, had been developed with the most careful arrangement for the contest, while France went into the struggle almost unprepared. The FrancoGerman War, 1870-1

Although a new law had just been passed to some extent adopting the Prussian system, yet the French army, like the Austrian, was still based on the old principle of conscription and hiring of soldiers, which produced a standing army without the great mass of reserves behind it which came from the Prussian method. The total force was supposed to be about 600,000 men. The French did, indeed, have a better rifle than the Germans; and they were beginning to use the mitrailleuse, an early type of the machine or rapid-fire gun, but this weapon was not yet generally effective nor a decisive factor in war. The entire French military organization at this time was suffering from decay and poor administration. Plans of mobilization had not been effectively worked out, and supplies and munitions were lacking. Actually when the war began France was able to move down to the frontier 270,000 men with 925 cannon; and during the first phase of the war not many more were ever put into the field. These forces were moved quickly, in the hope of taking the France not prepared offensive, but there was considerable confusion, in which troops were moved without supplies and officers could not find their detachments. A slight offensive into Germany was begun, but in face of the ominous movements of German troops, it was at once abandoned, and the French troops prepared to try to repel the German invaders.

The French leaders had mistakenly boasted that their army was ready "to the last button," but the Prussians were completely ready. Everything apparently had been thought out beforehand, and every emergency provided for. The entire plan was ready, and all details of the mobilization worked out. It was well known that a French advance must take place along the railroad through Alsace and the railroad through Lorraine. With extraordinary accuracy the German staff predicted in its calculations ust how far the French could be by a certain time. Calculations about their own movement were made no less truly. While the French were beginning to discover how little ready they were for the war into which they had gone so rashly, the German troops were brought down to the frontier with speed and precision almost never seen before. The Germans had, all told, a million well-trained troops. Of this number they moved forward nearly 500,000 with 1,584 guns, and had them across into France in little more than two weeks. The way had been prepared by an army of spies, who did all they could to confuse the French movements and collected information for the Germans. Prussia ready

Outnumbered two to one in men and in cannons, and fighting against an enemy as brave and resourceful as themselves, the French were overwhelmed from the start. They were in two armies, one under the emperor in Lorraine, the other, under MacMahon in Alsace. The advancing Germans fell upon them both, to keep them from uniting, and on the same day won two victories, at Wörth in Alsace and at Spicheren in Lorraine. The French fought bravely, though they were not led with aggressive- ness and skill, but they were smothered by the superior artillery, and crushed by the masses of German infantry. Their northern army now retreated toward the fortress of Metz, while the southern one abandoned Alsace, the Germans following with little delay. August 18, the northern army now commanded by Bazaine, was defeated in the battle of Gravelotte-St. Private, and took refuge within the fortifications of Metz. A smaller army was left to surround it, while all the rest of the German forces hastened after the other French command. By a series of magnificent strategic moves Moltke presently drove MacMahon into the town of Sedan on the Meuse, where he was pushed back until his huddled troops were commanded by the German artillery, placed on the surrounding hills. Vainly the French strove to break through the ring so swiftly put about them. September 1st, their entire army surrendered, and the emperor was among the captives.

France was now completely defeated, and, had the conditions of modern warfare been more clearly understood then, the French people might have abandoned the struggle. One of their armies had just surrendered. The other was surrounded; and the event was to prove that Bazaine's army could not escape. The German armament and equipment were so powerful that, as in the Great War, it was found almost impossible to break their lines when they occupied entrenched positions. Accordingly, the regular army of France was now lost, and she had no trained reserves like the Germans, because she had had nothing like the Prussian system of universal military training. None the less she had not lost her courage. In 1918, when the German armies were tottering, but not yet completely beaten, Germany did not prolong the struggle, but drew back her soldiers and surrendered her ships without any further attempt. In 1870 it was not so with the French. The government of Napoleon was overturned, The second phase a republic established, and the new government sought peace; but it refused to cede a stone of the fortresses or an inch of the soil of France. Bismarck was resolved to have conquests in France, and so the struggle continued. The German armies closed in upon Paris, while detachments spread conquest wide over the country.

The effort made by the French people was amazing. They called out the manhood of the nation, and raised armies of 1,800,000 men. But they were armies only in name. The men had had no military training. It was impossible to get enough capable officers and commanders, and most of the military stores and equipment had been lost. In vain did they try to purchase supplies and munitions abroad; they got inferior goods at outrageous prices, and there was not sufficient time to get enough of anything, even so. Such was their energy that they did put large forces in the field; but during the awful winter of 1870-1, while France suffered fearfully and her soldiers endured terrible losses, the new armies never gained against the inferior numbers of the German troops a single substantial victory. It was not even necessary for the Germans to draw to any extent on their reserves across the Rhine. They held the fortresses, Belfort, Strassburg, Metz, and the fortified camp of Paris in grip of iron; and directed their principal effort to the taking of Paris. For four months that great city held out through a dreadful siege, and finally a heavy bombardment. Provisions gave out and there was appalling suffering from the cold of winter and increasing famine. The old people and the young children died, as is ever the case. One by one, save for Belfort, the other fortresses surrendered. In Paris a great citizen army was raised, but it was ill-trained and insubordinate, and not able to break the lines of the besiegers. Gradually all hope of deliverance from outside was abandoned. The Germans everywhere defeated and scattered the raw levies raised against them, and occupied The rising of the French people more and more of the country. They acted with much harshness and severity, attempting to discourage the formation of the new armies, shooting down as franc-tireurs those who tried to defend their country without uniform or part in regular military organization, taking hostages, imposing fines and ransoms, and burning some places in reprisal; not so hardly and so terribly as when they reentered France in 1914, but in a manner that was ominous of the future.

January 28, 1871, Paris surrendered, and the war was brought to an end. The triumph of the Germans was complete. By the Treaty of Frankfort (1871), France ceded Alsace and most of Lorraine, agreed to pay an indemnity of $1,000,000,000, and granted favorable commercial terms to her foe. The result was that France lost for the next two generations the primacy in Europe she had so long enjoyed; that her frontier was now weaker and Paris the capital left much more exposed than before; that she was to crouch in fear before an all-powerful and arrogant Germany for the next forty years; that German manufactures, because of the favorable terms which were granted, were to make it impossible for France to enter upon great commercial development; that Germany would thereafter feel invincible and superior and so behave; and that since the entire cost of the war, at the utmost, had been to her not so much as $500,000,000, she, receiving double that sum, would believe in the future that all her wars would bring conquests, and that the defeated enemy would always pay and reward her with booty.

The Treaty Of Frankfort

January 18, 1871, just before the surrender of Paris and the culmination of their triumph, William I, king of Prussia, was proclaimed German emperor in the Hall of Mirrors of the Palace of Versailles. The South German states were now willing to join the North German Confederation, and so, form an empire, the Deutscheg Reich. Thus was accomplished the task for which German patriots Founding the German Empire


and statesmen had so long been striving. Fulfilment was possible now because of the unbounded enthusiasm of the German people in the midst of their common triumph, and because of the ardent spirit of nationalism which their efforts and victories called forth. Expectation of this was one of the principal reasons why Bismarck had hoped for the war. Culmination Of Bismark's work


The Austro-Prussian War: H. M. Hozier, The Seven Weeks' War, 2 vols. ( 1867). The Franco-German War, origin: Hans Delbrück, Der Ursprung des Krieges von 1870 ( 1893); Edmond Palat [Pierre Lehautcourt], Les Origines de la Guerre de 1870 ( 1912).

The War: Der Deutsch-Französische Krieg, 1870-71 (ed. by the General Historical Section of the Great Staff), 5 vols. and 2 vols. of maps ( 1874-81); Arthur Chuquet, La Guerre de 1870-1871 ( 1895); Hellmuth von Moltke, Geschichte des Deutsch-Französishen Krieges ron 1870-71 ( 1891), trans. by Clara Bell and H. W. Fischer , 2 vols. ( 1891); E. Palat, Histoire de la Guerre de 1870, 7 vols. ( 1901-8), to the surrender of Metz, Guerre de 1870-1871, 2 vols. ( 1910); Krieg und Sieg, 1870-71, ed. by J. A. von PflugkHarttung ( 1895), trans. ed. by Major-General Sir F. Maurice ( 1914); A. Sorel, Histoire Diplomatique de la Guerre FrancoAllemande, 2 vols. ( 1875), based on accounts of participants. The Treaty of Frankfort: Jules Favre, Le Gouvernement de la Défence Nationale, 1871-1872, 3 vols. ( 1871-5); G. May, Le Traité de Francfort ( 1909), best, based on studies in the archives.

Contemporary accounts: Dr. Moritz Busch, Bismarck in the Franco-German War, 1870-1871, authorized trans., 2 vols. ( 1879); Eduard Engel, Kaiser Friedrichs Tagebuch ( 1919); Lord Augustus Loftus, Diplomatic Reminiscence, 1862-1879, 2 vols. ( 1894); Lord Newton, Lord Lyons, a Record of British Diplomacy, 2 vols. ( 1913), the British ambassador to France during the period of the Franco-German War; E. B. Washburne, Recollections of a Minister to France, 1869-1877, 2 vols. ( 1883), the American minister.


Die deutsche Nation ist trotz ihrer alten Geschichte das jüngste unter den grossen Völkern Westeuropas.

HEINRICH VON TREITSCHKE, Deutsche Geschichte im Neunzehnten Jahrhundert ( 1879), i. l.

Seldom, if ever, has a country experienced such a tremendous economic development in such a short time as the German Empire. . . .

PRINCE BERNHARD VON BÜLOW, Imperial Germany (translated by M. A. Lewenz, 1914). pp. 248, 249.

TO THE people of the new German Empire the period following their military triumphs brought unparalleled prosperity and power. The years from 1871 to 1914 were like a mighty epic, or a paean of triumph, grander and more splendid in time's progress. Such increase had probably never been seen anywhere else before. In modern times it was rivalled only by the rise of Japan, and the growth of the United States. Sometimes there comes in a people's life vast quickening of spirit and hope, when it seems that youth will never depart, and boundless confidence and boundless ambition accompany limitless strength. Such a time had come to Italians in the days of the Renaissance; Englishmen had it under Elizabeth and Pitt; Frenchmen in the French Revolution. It came to Germans after 1870. In industry, in commerce, in population, in wealth, and in power they went forward with amazing strides, until they believed that before them lay the destiny of men who would rule all of the world. Greatness of the German Empire

This success came from many causes: from the union at last achieved; from the splendid qualities of the people themselves; from the excellence of their educational system; from altered conditions respecting industry and trade which were working now in their favor; and from the German genius for organization, applied now to winning triumphs in peace as it had been used to get victory in war. The system of government established was very interesting. Apparently control was vested in representatives of the people, but in reality the constitution was carefully devised to retain actual power for the upper class supporting an autocratic ruler at the top. Causes of success

The government of the empire

Like most nineteenth-century constitutions in Europe, it followed the form of the English system of ministry and elected legislature. Generally speaking, wherever the cabinet system prevails in any form, the test of the government being controlled by the people is that the executive shall depend upon the support of the majority of representatives elected by the voters, and that these representatives shall really make the laws, grant the taxes, and control the spending of public money. Ministerial government

In respect of these things it is instructive to study the government of the German Empire established in 1871, which was substantially the government of the preceding North German Confederation made in 1867. The Deutsches Reich was a federation consisting of twenty-five states and the reichsland, Alsace-Lorraine. It was ruled by the kaiser (emperor), who was the king of Prussia, the bundesrat (council of the federation), and the reichstag (representative assembly of the empire). The only part of this system which was directly or indirectly controlled by the people was the reichstag; and the effect of the constitution was to concentrate a great part of all the power in the hands of the kaiser. The German system

The reichstag was elected by the voters, men of twentyfive years or older. Its functions were to assist in making The reichstag the laws and to pass appropriations of money. But it was defective in its representation and it had not very much real power. There was no reapportionment of representation as population shifted from one district to another, notably from country to the cities, so that after a while there were as striking inequalities in representation as had prevailed in England before electoral reform. Moreover, appropriations of money were often made by the reichstag for periods of years, so that it lost much of the power which comes from steady control of the purse; and no important piece of legislation could be passed without the consent of the bundesrat. Parliamentary representation

The bundesrat was not, properly speaking, an upper house of the legislature. It was composed of members sent by the various states of the federation, representing not the people but the rulers and governments of these states, bound to vote in accordance with instructions given by these governments, and acting really as ambassadors of the princes who sent them. No law could be passed without the assent of the bundesrat, and as laws usually originated there, legislative power was in the bundesrat, not in the reichstag. But as Prussia could always control enough votes in the bundesrat to prevent the passage of a measure, government was really in the keeping of Prussia, which had, indeed, three fifths of the population and two thirds of the territory of the empire. The bundesrat

Prussia had the most backward government in the empire. The legislative power was vested in the landtag (assembly) of two chambers or houses. The upper consisted of princes and others appointed by the king as hereditary members or for life. The lower contained members elected by the voters under the famous system of threeclass voting. "The primary voters," said the Prussian Constitution of 1850, "shall be divided into three classes in proportion to the amount of direct taxes they pay, and in such a manner as that each class shall represent a third of The government of Prussia the sum total of the taxes paid by the primary voters. The result of this was that two thirds of the representation and the control of the lower house were given to one sixth of the voters, who composed the upper and wealthiest class. In Berlin it came to be that a rich man's vote was worth the votes of fifty poor ones. Moreover, the king of Prussia had an absolute veto upon legislation, and, in practice, initiated such laws as were passed. That is to say, the government of Prussia, which in effect controlled the government of the empire, was in the hands of the king of Prussia and the upperclass. This class was made up of the industrial magnates and especially of the nobles and great landowners, the junkers.

The junkers were among the most aristocratic and conservative people in Europe. They constituted an upper class apart from the people, having the social superiority of the aristocracy in England, but much more influence and power. If they could retain their privileges, they would support the king without flinching. Accordingly, in last resort the real power in the government of Prussia was in the hands of the king, and the real government of the empire was also in his hands as emperor. The Prussian constitution implied the doctrine of divine right, which the emperor often asserted. "Looking upon myself as the instrument of the Lord," he said in 1910, "without regard to contemporary opinions and intentions, I go my way." He possessed the executive power, he appointed the important officials, he controlled in effect the bundesrat, and his ministers were not responsible to the reichstag. In 1913 the chancellor told the members of the reichstag explicitly that he was responsible to the emperor, not to them. Junkers and kaiser

In 1871, William I, already for ten years king of Prussia, became first emperor of the new state. He was an elderly man when he came to Prussia's throne, already conservative with age, but always he had been slow, steady, and William I 1871-1888 strong, honorable and just as he saw the right. He had served against Napoleon in the War of Liberation, and all through his life he was fond of his army and delighted in military things. He was filled with the old Prussian idea of the high position of kings, and believed thoroughly in divine right of monarchs. "The kings of Prussia receive their crowns from God," he said. The gigantic success of Germany during his years threw a halo about his person and added to the prestige of the crown. Actually during his reign the destinies of the empire were guided by his trusted servant, Bismarck, whose ideas about government were always much like his own.

During the long, splendid reign of William I, then, there could be little tendency toward a parliamentary system of government or greater control by the people. It seemed that this might come about in the time of his son, Frederick III, who disliked Bismarck, and was disposed to alter the Prussian conception of kingship, and favor parliamentary control. But he had long been suffering from cancer in the throat, and when at last, in 1888, he came to the throne he reigned only three months, and his ideas left no permanent trace. Frederick III, 1888

The third and last of the sovereigns of the German Empire was William II. He had been a great admirer of Bismarck and his system and he cherished the olden ideas. "The king's will is the supreme law," he declared on one occasion. Strong in mind, vigorous and aggressive, he tried to take part in all things. It is difficult to estimate his ability, and his character remains an enigma. So brilliant was his success for a time that some considered him a genius, while there were not a few who whispered that he was headstrong, irresponsible, and rash. There can be no doubt, however, that like his grandfather, he tolerated the reichstag, looked upon the ministers as his ministers, and was resolved to abate his prerogative not a bit. He loved to conceive of himself as medieval lord or William II, 1888-1918 strong knight. Accordingly, during his time there was little change in the German constitution, or in the spirit of administering it, which tended to bring greater participation or control by the German people.

The German system had developed from circumstances very different from those which prevailed in England and the United States. The English-speaking peoples, protected by the sea, were generally safe from the attacks of their foes; and in this favorable condition slowly they developed government controlled by the people. It was very different in Germany and in Prussia. Prussia had no natural frontiers to protect her. For ages Germany was despised by her enemies because she was weak and divided, and in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries her people endured almost everything that invading armies and lawless soldiery could inflict upon them. Small wonder that at last they desired above all things the strength of union, and prized much more the security which a strong ruler could give than a system of parliamentary self-government. It had been so in France before the Hundred Years' War was over, and in England after the fifteenth century. In both countries strong, centralized, and despotic government arose and flourished for a long time, and divine right was cherished by many of the people. Evil conditions had continued longer in Germany, and the consequences had persisted longer. At the end of the nineteenth century there were many who desired the greater liberalization of their government, and hoped that soon there might be a system more like that of England, with ministers responsible to the will of the people; but there were a great many who declared that the German system was not only better for the German people but really superior to the other. They said that the personal liberty of the Anglo-Saxon peoples was only license, that parliamentary control could never make Germany so strong or well fitted for the greatness before her; that while their government might be Origin of the German system "autocratic," it was far more efficient than the "democratic" systems of America and Britain; and that it was able to give to its subjects far greater happiness and good. They were governed from the top, but they were governed well and were better off, so they said, than any other people in the world. Many things were forbidden (verboten) but this was only restricting the behavior of individuals for the greater good of them all.

It should be said that in one respect the Germans undoubtedly had more success than Americans, though not more than the British. The government of their cities was clean, efficient, and well-administered, as British municipal government came to be. It is well known that the people of the United States have been far less successful, and that especially since the Civil War the government of their cities has frequently been characterized by poor management, corruption, graft, and wasting of public money. Excellent municipal government

The unification of Germany brought wonderful prosperity, and this strengthened and justified the government which had been set up. After the Zollverein was formed, and especially after the North German Confederation and Empire, in almost every form of endeavor the German people went forward so far, that it seemed at last only a matter of time when they would be first in whatever they attempted. Economic advance

In the middle of the nineteenth century Germany was mainly an agricultural country. For most people living was hard, since the soil was poor; and accordingly in spite of the industry of the people the wealth of the country was low. All through the following period, however, the most careful fertilizing and the best methods which science devised were applied, so that as time went on yields were increased. Moreover, Germany imposed protective duties to aid the agricultural classes. This was done not only because of the political influence of the junkers, but because the government desired that the country continue Agriculture to raise as much of its food as could be. The result was well seen when the Great War came. Germany, blockaded though she was, held out for more than four years.

Far more important was industrial growth. In the second half of the nineteenth century the German people left their hamlets and towns, and went to the cities, which increased so wondrously that whereas in 1871 half of the population had been engaged in agriculture, in 1914 it was less than a third. Berlin grew as fast as Chicago in the New World, and cities which had been quiet places since the Thirty Years' War awaked and expanded and became vast emporiums in a lifetime. Up and down the valley of the Rhine, in Saxony, and in Prussia, there were huge factories and forests of chimneys as in central England, or in Pittsburgh, or Detroit. Industrial growth

The Germans were fortunate in having the basis of great industrial development in great stores of coal and iron. After 1871 coal production was prodigiously increased; and in course of time Germany came to be the greatest producer, except for the United States, of pig-iron and steel. Before the Franco- German War the German state had no great supply of iron ore, but in Lorraine the new empire acquired a part of the Briey Basin, the greatest deposit of ore in Europe. The deposit, which is "lowgrade" was not deemed very valuable until the later discovery of a new process of extraction of iron from the ore. In 1910 the German Empire drew from the Lorraine fields some 4,870,000 metric tons out of 7,000,000. It was afterward said, with some reason, perhaps, that had the Germans realized the value of this possession, they would have taken all of it when they made the Treaty of Frankfort. Coal and iron

The Germans entered upon their industrial revolution later than the English or the French, but they could thus profit by the experience of those who had gone before; and it was soon found that the genius of the German for organization and study of details was admirably adapted Causes of industrial success for the large-scale production of the later stages of the Industrial Revolution. German workmen were accustomed to work for low wages industriously for long hours. The rapidly increasing population furnished an abundant supply of labor, while the excellent system of education, particularly of technical instruction, made these workmen able to sustain any competition. In no other country was there such immense scientific activity and especially such successful adaptation of science to practical uses. The Germans made few brilliant discoveries, but by enormous industry and patient research they greatly extended scientific knowledge and then used it in furthering their industry and arts. Soon German goods were being sold all over the world. At first they were sold because of their cheapness rather than their worth, but presently they were so much improved that their reputation was everywhere known. The result of this was that in industrial output Germany finally exceeded every one of her rivals save only the United States.

The rising industry was protected by high customs duties. This device had been common in the Middle Ages and later, and was well-known in the United States. England somewhat earlier had adopted the policy of free trade, but Bismarck was convinced that laissez-jaire was wrong and that industry and commerce should be regulated and fostered by the state. In 1879 he abandoned free trade and caused the adoption of a protective tariff. The result was tremendous stimulation of the industries of the empire. Protection

Along with this industrial expansion went enormous increases in commerce. Some Germans in the Middle Ages had been great mariners and merchants, and masters of the Hanseatic League were long renowned. But with the discovery of America, the change of trade routes, and the decline of German power, all of this completely disappeared, and in the early part of the nineteenth century Commercial development

German ships were seldom seen in foreign ports. After the middle of the century came a change. Gradually a vast fleet of ships was created, the government assisting by subsidies and state supervision. After 1900 the. HamburgAmerican and the North German Lloyd steamship companies had few rivals anywhere in the world. Hamburg was the greatest sea-port on the continent, and from a lowly position Germany had in shipping and commerce passed all her competitors except England.

As a consequence of this development great quantities of German goods were sold all over the world. Gradually the Russian market came largely under German control, immense progress was made in South America, and there was no part of the world where German merchants and traders were not seen. They displayed great ingenuity and skill in opening new markets. They not only tried to make cheaper goods, and sometimes better goods, but they took great pains to study their customers' desires and then suit their wishes. The attitude of the English and others was that the customer, if he bought, must buy the goods as the manufacturer made them. The Germans sent out commercial representatives to study the markets, find what customers wanted, and offer them easy terms. As the most enterprising young men of Britain went out to govern or work in the colonial possessions, so from Germany they went out to reside in other countries, learn the language of the inhabitants, their customs, and wishes, and establish business connections with them. Not all the success that followed came merely from the care of German merchants and their representatives abroad. Not a little of it was the government constantly lent powerful assistance to forwarding and increasing German trade; and some of the methods by which this was accomplished afterward seemed insidious and unfair, not unlike those by which "trusts" and monopolies were built up in the United States. Trade expansion

This making and selling of goods was accompanied by tremendous growth in population and wealth. Before the empire the Germans were a poor people. The wealthy states were Great Britain and France, with the United States of America rising up like a giant and presently surpassing them both. But in the two generations after 1871 Germany accumulated vast stores of wealth until she overtook and passed older rivals. Just before the Great War it was estimated that the wealth of France was perhaps more than 50 billion dollars, that of Great Britain between 80 and 90, that of the German Empire between 80 and 90, that of the United States about 200 billions. By that time indeed, it was believed that Germany had passed every rival except the United States, though she always remained at immeasurable distance behind that wealthy and fortunate country. National wealth

Marvellous achievement and increasing wealth were partly the cause and partly the result of increase in number of people. In 1816 there were within the limits of what afterward became the empire 24,000,000 people. In 1837 the number had risen to 31,000,000; the German Empire began in 1871 with 41,000,000; by 1890 there were 49,000,000; in 1900, 56,000,000; in 1910, 65,000,000; and in 1914 the number was believed to be little short of 70,000,000. By that time the increase was nearly a million a year. During the nineteenth century the population of Great Britain had risen from 10,500,000 to 36,000,000; that of France from 27,000,000 to barely 40,000,000. At the beginning of that Century France had been the most populous of the highly civilized states of Europe; but just before the war she had been so far displaced that Germany had nearly twice as many people. This increase made Germany more powerful, and also richer, since it constantly gave her a larger number of workingmen who labored and produced goods and wealth. The country seemed well able to support them. Once Growth of population there had been a large emigration of Germans to America and other places, but this had come altogether to an end, and all her people now found employment. None the less, it was increasingly apparent that so large a number, as was the case with England, could not be fed from the country's own resources, and that they could be maintained only so long as Germany made goods which she was able to sell in other countries. As time went on this was more difficult, and, as will be seen, there was increasing belief that she must have more territory to accommodate her enlarging population, that she required colonies, and ought to have her own sources of supply of raw materials. Belief in need for more territory

The first of the great domestic problems which confronted the new empire was a struggle with its Catholic subjects. The Reformation made Germany Protestant, but the Counter-Reformation won many of the people back to the older faith, and a little later the result of the Thirty Years' War left the German people partly in Protestant and partly in Catholic states. After 1648 there was little trouble, since with respect to religion the different states went their own way, unhampered by the weak government of the Holy Roman Empire which bound them together so loosely. But the empire founded in 1871 bound firmly together Protestant north Germany and the Catholics of the Rhine and the south, and brought them all under a strong central power. It is said that Bismarck wished to assert the supremacy of the state power over the church. The occasion was ready at hand. In 1870 the Vatican Council affirmed the doctrine that the pope, speaking ex cathedra, or in the capacity of pontiff, was infallible, not able to err. This doctrine, so counter to many of the tendencies of the time, was not assented to by some of the German Catholics. Accordingly, they were excommunicated, attacked by the orthodox Catholic clergy, deprived of positions, and denied participation in the rites of the church. They appealed to the government Contest with the church for protection, and at this point Bismarck intervened. It seemed to him and to others that the doctrine of papal infallibility implied superiority of the church over the state. Accordingly a religious conflict began, famous then and since as the Kulturkampf (struggle for civilization). Strong measures were taken: religious orders were forbidden to teach and Jesuits were expelled from Germany. Then in the Falk Laws, passed in Prussia, 1873-5, the state was given control over the education and appointment of clergy, and some control over the dismissal of priests; a law was passed making civil marriage compulsory; and all religious orders were suppressed. The Kultur-

A bitter conflict ensued. Catholics protested; the pope declared the laws of no effect; the clergy refused to obey them and were supported by the strict Catholics in their congregations. Those who disobeyed were punished by fine and imprisonment, and the most recalcitrant were expelled from the country. Soon many bishoprics were vacant; everywhere churches were closed and religious services suspended; and presently there was the trouble and disturbance of life that had used to follow conflict between church and state in the Middle Ages. The contest was hard and prolonged. "We shall not go to Canossa," said Bismarck, recalling the old-time victory of Pope Gregory VII. But Bismarck could not win complete triumph. Under persecution the Catholics rallied and strengthened their resistance. In 1871 a Catholic Party had been organized, and, as the party of the Center, had become important in the reichstag. Now it became the largest one in that body. The policy of sternness accomplished but little. Bismarck antagonized one of the most conservative elements in the empire, and presently he needed the assistance of conservatives against what seemed to him the rising tide of socialist and radical agitation. Accordingly most of the anti-clerical laws were repealed, though civil marriage and state regulation of schools were retained. By Bismarck retreats 1887 the conflict was at an end, the Catholic Party abandoned opposition and gave Bismarck the support which he needed for policy which it proved. After that time the Center Party, the strongest and most solid in the empire, remained on guard, ever watchful of its own peculiar interest.

The conflict to which Bismarck and German conservatives now turned was with socialism, which had lately been making rapid progress. The socialists were considered dangerous and unpatriotic. These were the first glorious years of the new empire, when Germans were aglow with patriotic pride; but Liebknecht and Bebel and others had opposed the North German Confederation, the empire, the war with France, and the taking of Alsace-Lorraine. They cared not for military glory and greatness of dominion but the rise and betterment of men and women. They had no admiration for Bismarck or Moltke and not much for the emperor and his court. As these radicals got to be better known they became more hated and feared. The governing and conservative classes dreaded the undoing of the great work just accomplished; the emperor looked upon socialists as enemies of himself, and Bismarck longed for a chance to repress them completely. It was largely for this reason, because he regarded socialists as more dangerous than clericals, that he ended the Kulturkampf. In 1878, in swift succession, two attempts to assassinate William were made by socialist adherents. Socialists denounced these deeds and disclaimed all responsibility for them; but there was a great wave of anger, and it seemed that the time was at hand for crushing socialism in Germany completely. The socialists

Bismarck now entered upon another campaign of persecution and repression, like that against the Catholics, from which he was just drawing back. In 1878 a drastic law forbade all publications, all gatherings, all associations having "socialistic tendencies." Martial law might be Repression of the socialists used so that the government could easily get rid of socialists by removing them from the protection of the civil courts. This legislation reënacted remained in force un? til 1890. During that time it was sternly applied, a great number of socialist publications were stopped, and many socialists imprisoned or expelled from the country. But again this whole policy of repression was a failure. Under persecution, leaders and their disciples became bolder and more active; and their doctrines, now brought to the attention of more people, won many new converts. The Socialist Party grew steadily in this time of degradation, and by 1890 was thrice as large as in the year when the persecution began. By that time it was so clear that Bismarck's policy was a failure that the repressive measures were dropped.

Yet he was largely successful because he employed another method against them. He himself became one of the foremost leaders in social reform in Europe, and undertook to have the state do the best of what he thought the socialists were striving to bring about. In effect be went further than any statesman before him in establishing state socialism and so leaving the socialists with nothing to fight for. He and the emperor strongly believed that the best interests of the state lay in advancing the welfare of the working class, that the state should interest itself more than previously in assisting those who needed help, and that then the workingmen would cease to go after socialist leaders. The measures which Bismarck proposed encountered almost as much opposition as, thirty years later, the reforms of Mr. Lloyd George in England; conservatives were alarmed at such innovation, and socialists denounced them as not touching the root of the evils which they promised to cure. Gradually, however, the program was carried through. In 1883 a Sickness Insurance Law was passed, the employer to pay a part and the employee a larger part of the necessary premiums. In 1884 and 1885 Accident State socialism

Insurance Laws were passed, the employer to insure all his employees entirely at his own expense. In 1889 came an Old Age Insurance Law, the premiums to be paid by the employers, the employees, and the state.

This legislation was revolutionary in the nineteenth century. It was afterward widely studied, and was being more and more followed before the Great War temporarily ended social amendment. In Germany it had great success. The Socialist Party, it is true, constantly increased the number of its adherents. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that by 1914 a great many Germans considered themselves better taken care of by their government than any other people in the world; and it is probably true that nowhere else had the state been so successful in getting rid of the worst forms of misery and distress. There were many poor people in Germany, toiling for scanty wages and working for very long hours, but nowhere the fearful poverty and physical deterioration to be seen in the slums of the English cities or the worst places in the United States. The German government was guaranteeing a certain minimum to its people, to make them content, and to provide that the state might not be weakened by losing their service. All this contributed, moreover, to the centralization of the powers of the government and the greater supremacy of the state. Government and people

Usually the progress of industrialism, which caused large numbers of people to come together in manufacturing centers, and the spread of education, which made the masses of the people more capable of self-government and also more interested in governing themselves, had brought about larger participation by the people in their government and increasing desire for more share. So it had been for a long time in England and in France, in the Scandinavian countries, in Belgium and Holland, and there had long been persistent efforts made by a few people in Russia. In Germany, where one of the widest and most Slow progress of democracy in the emphire effective systems of education had prevailed throughout the nineteenth century, and where for the past fifty years there had been unceasing drift of people from the farms to the cities, the progress of democracy always seemed very slow before the disasters of the Great War.

This was partly because of old associations and traditions. In England self-government and democracy grew up slowly and painfully through a long course of time; they were inherited by the English colonists of America and there developed under still more favorable conditions; in France they were violently begun during the time of the French Revolution, and then after repeated failures they were gradually established. Germans, too, had sought these things and tried to bring them about, but they were always confronted with the more pressing problem of unification, which England and France had long before achieved. When finally German unity was effected, it was brought about under the leadership of Prussia, always less influenced by democratic tendencies than the south and the west. It was the ideas of Bismarck and the conservatives which predominated in making the constitution of the empire. It was a pity that the unification could not have been accomplished by liberal and peaceful Germans instead of through conquest and force. In 1870 Émile Ollivier, French premier, who strove so hard to avert war with Prussia, urged his countrymen not to oppose "the natural movement of German unity.""If," he said, "we allow it to complete itself quietly by successive stages, it will not give supremacy to the barbarous and sophistical Germany, it will assure it to the Germany of intellect and culture. War on the other hand, would establish, during a time impossible to calculate, the domination . . . of the junkers and the pedants." So it was. Great success in the wars strengthened the conservatives who had brought them about and disarmed their opponents. Afterward it seemed to many Germans that their country, Causes surrounded by older powers and, perhaps, by enemies, could only keep her position by being strong and ever on guard. All through Bismarck's period, therefore, the central government retained its power and its hold on the affection of most of the people. As conditions altered and a larger number desired some change, it was always possible for the ruling class to divert their attention or thwart their wishes. So long as the immense prosperity and expansion of the German Empire continued, there were not a great many who would resolutely oppose the rulers; and generally the prosperity continued.

Moreover, Germany of the twentieth century had mighty ambitions, constantly taught to her people, which alarmed other European powers, and in the years 1904-7 a combination of France, Russia, and England was effected. To the inhabitants of these countries this agreement seemed necessary because of probable danger from the German Empire; but German leaders easily persuaded the people that neighboring powers had combined to encircle and crush the Fatherland, which could be saved only if the army remained powerful and the government strong. These arguments were ridiculed by socialists and they became less effective in time. It was partly because of the increasing demand for more democratic control that the Social-Democratic party increased so greatly. In 1912 it received more than four million votes, getting its support not only from socialists but from liberals who did not greatly favor socialist doctrines. Nevertheless, little was really accomplished. The movement to make ministers responsible to the reichstag came to nothing; the demand that represention be reapportioned in accordance with charges of population went unheeded year after year; and the antiquated Prussian constitution continued to keep power and privilege for the few. In the midst of the Great War, when the government, failing in its design of winning a grand victory quickly, was compelled to seek the The government resists reform utmost assistance from its people in a long and exhausting contest, the beginning of reform was made at last, and promise was given that after the war something more would be done. But all this came too late; for presently Germany went down in defeat, and the old system crumbled to pieces. Whether the Germans really desire to establish a democracy, can only be known in the future.

It was so with the army. By war, it seemed, Prussia had risen; the army had been the foundation of the empire. Furthermore, Prussian universal military service had created a national army, in which most of the young men had some part. For these reasons the army was cherished and generally high in esteem. And it was so entrenched in the organization of the state that it seemed to have impregnable position. Its officers and leaders, drawn mostly from the aristocratic class, constituted a military caste, who on occasion assumed such privileges that they seemed to be above the law. Officers sometimes treated civilians with violence or with the utmost contempt, and it was always difficult in such affairs to get any redress from the courts. In 1913 a certain Lieutenant von Forstner at Zabern in Alsace declared that instead of punishing a soldier who had stabbed an Alsatian he would have given him a reward for his trouble; and he himself struck a lame cobbler on the forehead with his sword. The matter went to the reichstag, where it was bitterly condemned. Von Forstner was tried by court martial but no punishment followed. There were mass meetings in Germany to protest and much feeling was aroused; but that year the government was teaching the people that great danger threatened the country, especially from the Russians, and the German army was increased to greater size than ever before. Militarism

Essentially autocratic rule associated with militarism caused the treatment accorded to the alien subjects in the empire. The British Empire had grown great largely Treatment of subject races through generous toleration. French Canadians were never troubled about their religion or their language, and the Boers within the British Empire kept all the rights which they had fought to defend. Even in Ireland, where England's greatest failure had been, Irishmen were never coerced into abandoning the Gaelic language, though in the course of time most of them of their own accord adopted English. But in countries like Russia and Germany, of the régime before the Great War, it seemed to the rulers all-important that all their subjects should be Russian or German. Accordingly, in Russia the Poles and the Finns were subjected to grievous persecution. In the German Empire Frenchmen in Alsace-Lorraine, Danes in Schleswig, and the Poles of Posen, were treated as inferiors and subjected to great discrimination.

When in 1871 Alsace-Lorraine was annexed to the empire the inhabitants protested at the forcible separation from France. Bismarck believed that, with the passing away of the generation that had known French rule, attachment to France would disappear. The strongest French sympathizers left the country, and their places were taken by emigrants from the German states of the empire. But Alsace-Lorraine was given a dependent and inferior status, as the reichsland, or imperial territory. It had neither influence in the empire nor sufficient self-government for itself. Therefore, as time passed the feeling of discontent did not wane, love for the old memories of France did not die, and German immigrants themselves denounced the position of the reichsland. The German authorities strove to compel obedience and contentment; but they only increased the irritation. Then they added to the garrisons and subjected the provinces to very strict military rule. This was resented still further. As far as possible French things were proscribed, and one boy of twelve was imprisoned for whistling the tune of the Marseillaise. German rulers did not realize as clearly as AlsaceLorraine some foreigners that what the inhabitants of the reichsland wanted most of all was not return to France, but selfgovernment. In 1911 a new constitution was granted, but it was not satisfactory to the people. After forty years nothing, aside from force, really held the population to the empire except their increasingly prosperous industrial life, which was closely connected with German industry and mostly dependent upon it.

The German authorities so dealt with these provinces largely from strategic considerations, and they would have felt safer if the reichsland had been inhabited entirely by Germans. The same reason had much to do with their treatment of the Poles in West Prussia and Posen. The Polish districts of Prussia lay right where Russian invaders might strike deep into the empire. Their country, which had once been taken from Poland, had contained many people who spoke German, and with good treatment in time all of them might have been made loyal subjects. It was considered necessary, however, to make them thoroughly German. Bismarck wished to prevent the use of Polish in their public schools, and he desired to populate the country with German peasants; but presently more lenient treatment was accorded. Repressive measures were undertaken in earnest, however, after a while, when it was seen clearly that the Poles were not giving up their own national feeling. As in Alsace-Lorraine newspapers were suppressed and many people fined and imprisoned. In 1901 it was ordered that religious instruction in the schools should be given in German. Polish teachers were taken from their positions, school children were forbidden to pray in Polish, and Poles were forbidden to use their language in public assemblies. In 1907 the Prussian government passed a law by which Polish owners might be compelled to sell their land, so that their estates might get into German possession; and in 1913 a great sum of money was appropriated for the purpose of colonizing Prussian The Poles Poland with Germans. Polish peasants were even forbidden to built houses upon their own land. Little more was accomplised, however, than making the Poles burn with hatred and desire to be free from the masters who oppressed them.


General accounts: J. E. Barker, Modern Germany ( 1905, last ed. 1919); H. Blum, Das Deutsche Reich zur Zeit Bismarcks ( 1893); W. H. Dawson, The Evolution of Modern Germany (ed. 1919); R. H. Fife Jr., The German Empire between Two Wars ( 1916); Karl Lamprecht, Deutche Geschichte der Jüngiten Verangenheit and Gegenwart, 2 vols. ( 1912-13); Henri Lichtenberger , L'Allemagne Moderne; Son Évolution ( 1907), trans. by A. M. Ludovici ( 1913); H. von Sybel Die Begründung des Deutschen Reichs durch Wilhelm I, 7 vols. ( 5th ed. revised, 1889-94), biassed, but based upon the sources; Charles Tower, Germany of To-day ( 1913).

Bismark: the best biography in English is C. G. Robertson, Bismarck ( 1919); in German the best is Erich Marcks, Otto von Bismarck: ein Lebensbild ( 1918), a masterly study, and a larger work, Bismarck: eine Biographie, vol. I ( 1909); G. Egelhaaf , Bismarck, Sein Leben und Sein Werk ( 1911); J. W. Headlam , Bismarck and the Foundation of the German Empire ( 1899); H. Kohl, Fürst Bismarck: Regesten zu einer Wissenschaftlichen Biographie, 2 vols. ( 1891-2), containing important parts of letters and speeches; Mortiz Busch (English trans.), Bismarck-Some Secret Pages of His History, 2 vols. ( 1898), the diary of one who had official and private intercourse with Bismarck; Max Lenz , Geschichte Bismarcks ( 1902); Paul Matter, Bismarck et son Temps, 3 vols. ( 1905-8), perhaps the best of the longer biographies at present; J. Penzler, Fürst Bismarck nach Seiner Entlassung ( 1897-8); Munroe Smith, Bismarck nach German Unity ( 2d ed. 1910). Recent studies are: J. V. Fuller, Bimarck's Diplomacy at Its Zenith ( 1922); Hans Plehn, Bismarck's Auswärtige Politik nach der Reichgründung ( 1920). Bismarck's utterances and writings: Otto Fürst von Bismarck , Gedanken und Erinerungen, 3 vols. ( 1898- 1919), vols. I, II trans. Reflections and Reminiscences, 2. vols. ( 1899); L. Hahn , Fürst Bismarck, Sein Politisches Leben und Wirken, 5 vols. ( 1878-91), for speeches, dispatches, and political letters; H. Kohl , Die Politischen Reden des Fürsten Bismarck, 14 vols. ( 18921905); Hermann Hofmann, Fürst Bismarck, 1890-1898, 2 vols. ( 1913), contains Bismarck's important critical contributions to the Hamburger Nachrichten.

Other biographies: Erich Marcks, Kaiser Wilhelm I ( 5th ed. 1905), excellent.

Government: if the student finds it desirable and convenient, he will obtain a vast amount of curious and interesting information from the proceedings of the Reichstag, Stenographische Berichte über die Verhandlungen des Reichstags ( 1871- ); B. E. Howard , The German Empire ( 1906); Paul Laband, Das Staatsrecht des Deutschen Reiches, 4 vols. ( 4th ed. 1901), the standard treatise, Deutsches Reichstaatsrecht ( 6th ed. 1912); H. G. James , Principles of Prussian Administration ( 1913); Gaëtan (Vicomte) Combes de Lestrade , Les Monarchies de l'Empire Allemand, Organisation Constitutionelle et Administrative ( 1904), excellent; Oskar Stillich, Die Politischen Parteien in Deutschland, vols. I, II ( 1908, 1911); W. H. Dawson, Municipal Life and Government in Germany ( 1914). The Kulturkampf; Georges Goyau, Bismarck et l'Église: le Culturkampf, 1870-1887, 4 vols. ( 1911-13), best on the subject; Ludwig Hahn, Geschichte des Kulturkampfes in Preussen ( 1881), containing documents.

Socialism and the state: Charles Andler, Les Origines du Socialime d'État en Allemagne (ed. 1911); W. H. Dawson, Bismarck and State Socialism ( 1891), The German Workman ( 1906), Social Insurance in Germany, 1883-1911 ( 1912), all excellent; August Bebel, Aus Meinem Leben, 3 vols. ( 1910-14), abridged trans. My Life ( 1912). Alsace-Lorraine: Barry Cerf, Alsace-Lorraine Since 1870 ( 1919.); C. D. Hazen, Alsacer-Lorraine Under German Rule ( 1917).

[ Previous | Continue to Ch.XV ]