The French Ambassador in London discerned a fear that thernEstates General would lead to a revival of French strength as arnresult of royal power being more solidly based. In January 1789,rnthe Count of Aranda, formerly the Spanish Ambassador inrnParis, suggested that the Third Estate would support the crovn,rnin order not to be crushed b- the other two estates. He felt surernthat the wealth and numbers of this estate vsould be of greatrnconsequence; in short, that the crown could create a powerfulrnnew constituency of support.rnThis was not mere wishful thinking. Contemporaries didrnnot hae the advantage of reading future scripts that positedrnthe ine’itability, indeed necessity, of the revolution and thernimpossibility of reform in ancien regime societies. Instead, theyrnwere aware of the complexity of their circumstances, arncomplexity that itself affected contemporary attitudes, and ofrncontradictory developments. For example, Gustavus III hadrnconsiderable success in Sweden in seeking the support of thernThird Estate against aristocratic opponents. There was nothingrninevitable in Louis XVI’s failure in France.rnThe royalists lost in France, or did they? Republican radicalismrndid not survive the 1790’s and the rise of Napoleon, whilernthe Bourbons returned in 1814 and, more successfully, 1815.rnSimilarly, the Habsburg state in Spain is generally presented asrnin crisis and decline in the early 17th centurv. There is a massivernand famous study b’ J.H. Elliott on the rcolt of the Catalansrnin 1640, but no comparable work on the reconquest ofrnCatalonia. Spain still ruled the largest empire in the world inrn1700, and was subsequently to enjoy a revival in strength underrnPhilip V and Charles III. Yet that is generally forgotten or treatedrnas inconsequential in accounts focused on the decline ofrnSpain. “Lost causes” are often the product of historiographicalrnorthodoxies that can be challenged.rnYet there are also genuinely “lost” causes. These are specific,rnsuch as a greater Armenia including much of modern Turkey,rnor the worid of the Central and Eastern European Jews, and,rnmore general, the world of crown, church, and aristoerac’ thatrndominated so much of Europe until 1917. Even if details ofrnsuch a world can be preserved or restored, the attitudes of clearrnsuperiority and, especially prior to the late 18th century, littlernserious criticism, are gone. Such a shift can be treated as a failurernreflecting inherent weakness and redundanc’, but that isrnnot a verv helpful approach. For example, Spain is generallvrnheld to have been in “decline” after 1600, but of course she remainedrna mighty empire for another two centuries. By thernstandards of the modern world, that is a considerable achievement.rnAside from the issue of longevity, it is also the case that thernworid of the past was the worid of what have been judged successesrnand failures in hindsight, and often only in hindsight. Tornneglect the latter is to present an incomplete account thatrnmakes no sense of what have been judged successful. It is a majorrnchallenge for writers and teachers to know how best to incorporaternboth dimensions. Yet each—their relationships, difficultiesrnof assessing success and failure, and the problems andrndangers in assuming that such differences v’ere necessary andrninevitable—is critical to recovering the past and understandingrnthe present.rnProzacrnby Harold McCurdyrnThe common people thumb their Bibles,rnStudy repentance, seek in prayerrnStrength to endure the endless troublesrnTo which our mortal flesh is heir.rnThe elite, well-heeled, sophisticated.rnRepair to specialists who carernFor tangled DNA with Prozac,rnhe dernier cri against despair.rn22/CHRONICLESrnrnrn