1921 REVIEWS OF BOOKS 603 is to say, each chapter begins with a bibliography and no sources are given for any particular statement or quotation. The volumes are not indexed separately, but no doubt, as in the previous case, the last volume will contain the general index. The gravest defect is the complete absence of maps and plans. If these were omitted on the grounds of expense, the illustrations, taken from contemporary prints and pictures, which are a new feature of the present series, might well have been sacrificed, although undoubtedly of interest and historical value. M. Pariset, who is responsible for the two volumes under discussion, contributed the chapters on the Consulate and Empire to the Napoleon volume of the Cambridge Modern History. Some comparison between the two histories is inevitable. The English series, with its volumes separately as well as generally indexed, its chronological tables and its book of maps, is superior as a book of reference, but from its general plan it is almost impossible to use for any other purpose. From the literary point of view the French series is far better. It is only necessary to compare M. Pariset's two chapters in vol. ix of the English series with vol. iii of the French, which covers exactly the same ground, to see how he gains in interest when he is free to arrange all his material and is not hampered by the conflicting claims of other specialists. M. Pariset is no dryasdust historian. His pages abound in lively sketches of the principal characters. One example will suffice : Cambaceres etait un meridional prudent et delie. II aimait la representation, la vie 1 arge et conf ortable ; sa table f ut la meilleure de Paris, ses allures etaient pleines de dignite. II avait le regard fauve et la voix aigue, mais son grand corps etait aussi solennel que son nom aux quatre lentes syllabes, et il avait les gestes si ceremonieuse- ment compasses qu'on lui donnait souvent plus de soixante ans quand il n'en avait pas encore cinquante. Though M. Pariset does not encumber his narrative with criticism of his sources, his conclusions are based on the latest research, and where they are a matter of opinion they are qualified by such phrases as * la preuve documentaire manque ' or ' l'histoire de ces evenements n'a pas encore ete ecrite '. His account of that most confused and difficult period from the opening of the convention to the fall of Robespierre is far the most convincing and consistent which has yet appeared. He insists that though the mass of the population was indifferent or secretly hostile to the government, yet throughout it had the support of the convention. The majority was Girondin till 31 May, Montagnard till the 9 Ther- midor, and Centrist from then till its close. The Gironde as much as the Mountain was responsible for the first revolutionary measures voted on 18-21 March 1793. The Centre was not a party of negative opinions, it accepted revolutionary government as a necessity, and its continuance was dependent on that acceptance. ' Le 9 thermidor n'a ete ni une revolution, ni un coup d'etat, mais un deplacement de majorite parle- mentaire.' M. Pariset's distinction between a revolution and a coup d'etat is interesting and ingenious, and. following his definition the revolution of 31 May should be more exactly described as the coup d'etat of 2 June. When the Directory took office there were four possible lines of foreign
