| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 110.4

You have not been recognized as a subscriber to the AHR online. About 270 words from this article are provided below; about 529 words remain.

If you are a individual member of the American Historical Association, you may:: • login here if you have already registered for online access.; • Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time. AHA members can go to the AHA individual membership section to locate their member numbers.
If you are not a member of the American Historical Association, you can:: • Join the AHA and receive many member benefits including print and electronic issues of the American Historical Review.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the American Historical Review (104.3-present). Note: the Research Pass does not provide access to JSTOR's holdings of the American Historical Review.
Instititutions can:: • Subscribe to this journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.

| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 110.4 | The History Cooperative

Book Review

Comparative/World

Giulia Guazzaloca. Fine secolo: Gli intellettuali italiani e inglesi e la crisi tra Otto e Novecento. (Ricerca storia.) Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino. 2004. Pp. 338. €24.00.
A historical comparison of parliamentary politics at the turn of the twentieth century in Great Britain and Italy seems an unlikely enterprise. Britain's parliament was widely taken as the model (in theory if not always in practice) of a well-balanced system of crown, nobility, and commoners—and frequently self-glorified by its supporters as the "mother of all parliaments"—whereas Italy's system, following unification in the 1860s, was despised by its own citizens for introducing an unscrupulous political class and the discredited practice of "transformism," whereby parliamentary opponents were bribed into supporting otherwise unstable governing coalitions.	1
Crucial differences notwithstanding, Giulia Guazzaloca uncovers some fascinating points of convergence. The turn of the century, from the 1890s into the first decade of the new century, saw both systems gravitate toward institutional crisis. In each case, crisis was anticipated by a widespread commotion amongst "intellectuals" in the moderate-liberal and radical press who noted the demise of deference toward, and independence of, institutional politics. The 1890s were, of course, a period of transformation outside of parliaments across Europe as socialist parties came into existence and the pressure intensified for democratic and social reform. For Guazzaloca, crisis was thus a reflex of irreversible social transformations generating dislocation amongst liberal elites apprehensive of "mass politics." Increasingly, observers in both countries claimed parliamentary representatives were succumbing to "external" influences and identified a loss of deliberative autonomy in democratic chambers as partisanship substituted for disinterested cooperation.	. . .

There are about 529 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.