+ – Am. Hist. R. 12: 135. O. ’06. 2270w. (Review of v. 9.)
Reviewed by W. E. Lingelbach.
+ + + Ann. Am. Acad. 28: 342. S. ’06. 1370w. (Review of v. 9.)
“It contains a great deal of good work by capable writers and if it does not reach Acton’s ideal, it does not fall far below that of M. Ernest Lavisse.”
+ + – Ath. 1906, 1: 691. Je. 9. 1990w. (Review of v. 9.)
“The weakest part of the scheme is its treatment of great men.”
+ + – Ath. 1906, 2: 725. D. 8. 1950w. (Review of v. 4.)
“In the assignments of topics to their European associates, the editors of this important series have been especially happy. The division of the subject-matter into topics has been accomplished satisfactorily.” Henry E. Bourne.
+ + + Dial. 41: 203. O. 1, ’06. 1580w. (Review of v. 9.)
“One is naturally tempted to compare the two volumes with the corresponding ones of their predecessor, the ‘Histoire generale.’ They are full of well-attested facts. But from the point of view of attractiveness of style and matter the English books fall behind the French. Its writers have not the French knack of dovetailing a striking incident or quotation into a perforce heavy narrative. All of them possess learning and industry; but taken as a whole their product is but dull reading, though there are exceptions.” W. E. Rhodes.