The space saved by these omissions has been used for three main purposes. Institutions under which Europe has lived for centuries, above all the Church, have been discussed with a good deal more fullness than is usual in similar manuals. The life and work of a few men of indubitably first-rate importance in the various fields of human endeavor—Gregory the Great, Charlemagne, Abelard, St. Francis, Petrarch, Luther, Erasmus, Voltaire, Napoleon, Bismarck—have been treated with care proportionate to their significance for the world. Lastly, the scope of the work has been broadened so that not only the political but also the economic, intellectual, and artistic achievements of the past form an integral part of the narrative.
I have relied upon a great variety of sources belonging to the various orders in the hierarchy of historical literature; it is happily unnecessary to catalogue these. In some instances I have found other manuals, dealing with portions of my field, of value. In the earlier chapters, Emerton's admirableIntroduction to the Middle Ages furnished many suggestions. For later periods, the same may be said of Henderson's careful Germany in the Middle Ages and Schwill's clear and well-proportioned History of Modern Europe. For the most recent period, I have made constant use of Andrews' scholarlyDevelopment of Modern Europe. For England, the manuals of Green and Gardiner have been used. The greater part of the work is, however, the outcome of study of a wide range of standard special treatises dealing with some short period or with a particular phase of European progress. As examples of these, I will mention only Lea's monumental contributions to our knowledge of the jurisprudence of the Church, Rashdall's History of the Universities in the Middle Ages, Richter's incomparable Annalen der Deutschen Geschichte im Mittelalter, the Histoire Générale, and the well-known works of Luchaire, Voigt, Hefele, Bezold, Janssen, Levasseur, Creighton, Pastor. In some cases, as in the opening of the Renaissance, the Lutheran Revolt, and the French Revolution, I have been able to form my opinions to some extent from first-hand material.
Barrow's takes Beard seriously as a political theorist, while challenging many misconceptions. For example, Beard's method of economic interpretation has been dismissed as Marxist, but Barrow carefully reconstructs the sources of Beard's thinking to demonstrate that his method owes more to historical and institutional economics and that his concept of state-society relations was in fact derived from Madison's Tenth Federalist. Barrow reconstructs Beard's theory of American political development using his concept of realistic dialectics, which viewed the clash between democracy (Jeffersonianism) and capitalism (Hamiltonianism) as the engine of American political development. During the 1930s, Beard suggested that the United States was making the transition to a higher form of social and industrial democracy that would supersede the contradiction of American political development. Notably, Beard was a critic of the New Deal and the liberal welfare state, because they failed to reconstruct the economic relations that reproduce inequalities of income, status, and power.
Beard went on to voice his concern that at crucial junctures in American history, class struggle is diverted into international conflicts as popular leaders back down from a direct confrontation with the dominant capitalist elite. He analyzes American foreign policy as an extension of domestic economic policy and, in particular, a result of the failures of domestic economic policy. Beard's conception of American history plays itself out in a tragic cycle of imperialism and diversion that left him a disenchanted realist. This incisive study will be of interest to those intrested in the evolution of historical thinking.