B 332. UC-NRLF B 4 SDb MbT 00 O Q HISTORY ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT A Survey of the Progress of Historical Writing from Its Origins to the Present Day BY HARRY ELMER BARNES, Ph.D. Associate Professor of History, Clark College, Clark University, Worcester, Mass. REPRINTED FROM THE 1919 EDITION OF THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA 77- V P'-^./^c p^/'Y Cc^i'O-f-o? v\ HISCOCK — HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT 205 HISCOCK, Frank, American legislator: b. Pompey, Onondaga County, N. Y., 6 Sept. 1834; d. 18 June 1914. In 1855 he was admitted to the bar, in 1860-63 was district attorney of Onondaga County, and in 1867 a member of the State constitutional convention of New York. He was a Republican representative in Congress in 1879-^7, and obtained recognition as a party leader and speaker. In 1887-93 he was United States senator from New York and chairman of the appropriations committees and then returned to professional practice. HISPANIA, hTs-pa'm-a. See Spain. HISSAR, one of the mailed catfishes of northern South America, noted for its monogamous habits, and the fact the eggs, a few at a time, are voided by the female into a pouch made by the folded membranes of her ventral fins. Here they are fertilized by the male, and then are taken by the faithful pair to a secluded place and deposited. This opera- tion is repeated until about 250 eggs are placed in the nest which is then guarded. The hissar and several other species belong to the genus Callichthys. HISTOLOGY, the science of animal and vegetable tissues. It investigates by means of the microscope the various tissues of man, ani- mals and plants in their anatomical relations and compositions. Topographical histology considers the more minute structures of the organs and systems of the body; normal his- tology deals with the healthy tissues; and pathological histology investigates the changes they undergo in disease. Marie Frangois Xavier Bichat (1771-1802) is generally credited with the foundation of the science of histology. Un- fotunately the imperfect condition of the microscope in his time prevented Bichat and his contemporaries from carrying their investiga- tions to the point which Schleiden, Schwann, Johann MiJller, Virchow, Von Recklinghausen, Cohnheim, etc., have reached. It has been found that all structures however complex are made up of cells, and that the parts of a body may be resolved into a small number of ele- mentary tissues now grouped as: (1) epithel- ium, which lines almost all the cavities of the body and is directly or indirectly in communi- cation with the atmosphere ; (2) the nervous tissues, which as nerve cells originate and as nervous fibres transmit all nervous impulses ; (3) muscle, which produces motion whether voluntary or involuntary; (4) glandular tissue which consists of cells standing in close relation with the blood-vessels which take from the blood certain substances and secrete them; (5) connective substances which support and hold together the more delicate and important struc- tures, especially forming the cartilages and bones. See Plants, Structure of. Many tissues have the power of repairing injuries that happen to them. This power is called regeneration, and is found especially in the lower animals, in polvps, worms and in many amphibious creatures" and reptiles. In other cases the lesion is supplied by a new growth of connective substance. In diseases the tissues undergo many changes and many of these diseases in the organism are shown also by the changing of color. Thp science of such Kanges is generally called pathological his- ''Ogy. It is a comparatively youngs science and has been cultivated by Virchow, who was the founder of cellular pathologv. Vegetable histology' is that department of botany which deals with microscopic phytotomy or the anatomy of plants, especially investigat- ing the plant cells and plant tissues. It is prop- erly subordinate to morphology and is a dis- tinctively descriptive science. It deals with the question in what relation the cells or forms of tissue stand to the vital activity of plants, what functions they perform, and in what respect they are constituted for the fulfilling of those functions. (Compare Cytology). Owing to the excessive minuteness of the cells which form the tissues of all plants the investigation relies almost entirely on the microscope, and naturally has made its advance in proportion as the microscope has been made more perfect. Microscopes that are now used magnify at least l.CKX) diameters, and the materials used have to be carefully prepared and mounted. Many of them have to be colored with haematoxylin, fuchsin, saflFranin, and other alcoholic or aqueous dyes. Consult Bailey, F. R., ^Text-Book of Histology* (4th ed., New York 1913); Chamberlain, C. J., 'Methods in Plant Histology* (2d ed., Chicago 1905) ; Lee, A. B., "^Microtomist's Vade-mecum* (6th ed., Philadelphia 1905) ; Strasburger, E., i the events rather than as the events in ',v selves. In this latter generally accepted c ;i- notation given to the term history, two d i":::- tions may be offered. In an objective -ense history is, to use the words of Professor Robinson, "all we kn^w about everything maJi has ever done, or thought, or hoped, or fell/" Subjectively or psychologically expressed, his- torj' may be regarded as a record, of all that has occurred within the realm of human con- sciousness. In this sense ot a record of the acri of the human race, history has been reg -Q Q < J no A ■-'06 HISTORY. JTS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT )\ mc, particularly in earlier periods, as ily ail art — a branch of lilcratiire. By imially incriising minilur of autlioritifs tcndtci, however, in lis modern form, to isidered as in the main a genetic social ', which i- concerned with reconstruct- ■ past thoughts and activities of human- 1 the present article history will he re- ip the sense of a science rather than as ; Ht is the thesis of the writer that his- :\ an lay no more claim to being an art ;; ..i; .mv other branch of social science and iliat while artistic achievement may be desired in history it is quite subordinate in importance ! ■ -I'tntific accuracy and constructive thought. M t, progress in historical writing may al- ■ ! lie regarded as a development from an art lu a ^ciencc. It is this which constitutes the progress from Livy to Ranke or from Herodo- tus to Gardiner. 2. Fallacy of the Term Pre-historic— Be- fore the important developments in anthropology and pre-historic archa'ology, which have done so much to extend our knowledge of human activities in the distant past, it w-as the con- veiitii nal practice to limit the term history to a fee : of those events which were described or pri ved in literary remains. Now, however, w !" archaeology tells one much more of cer- tain jihascs of the early life of man than was one known of even more recent periods through literary evidence, it is no longer ac- cunce nor logical to use the term «pre-his- t'.ri ,» unless it is employed to designate that xi^'ie and hypothetical period in the beginnings ! 1 iman development of which there exists ■ ■ :• sitive and tangible record, or unless one is :i.i;. ig his conception to history as a branch = ' erature. In the place of the now gen- ail v discarded and discredited term '^pre-his- u.ric' there has been substituted the concept of "pre-Iiterary history," as descriptive of the records of that period of human development :i-i<; the information is revealed by archseol- .;'. rather than literaxy evidence. In short, :. Iia^ been agreed that a fundamental fallacy and < ontradiction is involved in the use of the term "pre-historic" for any period of which there is any considerable record preserved, h. ;ber in writing or in the artifacts of daily t. With recent writers "pre-historic" has il'ved the term "pre-Adamite" into that cbiiyion of discarded categories which is being continually expanded as an' inevitable result of the growth of the khowledge of human activi- ties in both time and space. It has been deerncd inadvisable at this point 'n *.h'. article to discuss the various interpre- '.' ' •; of what history" means or should be lui'il/ concerned with narrating. It is in great ! .ti ihe task of this whole article to reveal the liverse interpretations of history, and this niihh debatcd^Jroblem of what ■hist'or\' means ; has been thought to mean will be shown in '•istorical mutations and transformations. • 1 ' IE F.ssF.xTi.M. Prelimivaries to the ' Rir.IN AND nK\'^Uj!'ME.\T Ol HiSTORV. 1 Archaeology as the "Threshold" of His- tory — Pre-literary History.— Having seen that liistory in the modern sense of the term ''• ' the b^r:*"!'?^'^' '^f rtnv rr-rord of net and .. Mate origin ' artifacts which were sufficiently distinctive in' form and durable in material composition to have been preserved through the ages as evi- dence of what mankind was accomplishing in the vast expanse of time before the art of writing was mastered. History, thus, may probably be said to have had its real origin in the disputed eolithic period, and the first his- torical document may be accurately held to have been the first indisputable eolith, or if the eolithic period be denied, the first definite paleolith of the river drift period. Space does not here allow even the briefest resume of that most interesting story of the early development of mankind as revealed by the artifacts which have been preserved. The thrilling evidences of man's interests and activities in that almost inmcasurable period of a quarter of a million years which are revealed by the "coup dc poings" of the river drift period, the remarkable flaked flints of the cave period, as well as the engraving on animal bones and the early paintings from such sites as Altamira and Font-de-Gaume and the wonderful products of the bronze and iron ages, are all subjects of the most compelling interest, for the complete treatment of which the reader must^be referred to the article on "Archaeology." i^uflfice it to say at this point that these archaeological products of the pre- literary period mark the real threshold of his- tory. Nor can one, in the space, allotted to this article, do more than to refer to the origin in modern times of the science of pre-historic archaeology, so inextricably connected with the work of such men as Boucher de Perthes, Sir John Evans, de Mortillet, Rutot, Dechelette, Cartailhac, Breuil, Schmidt, Obermaier, Montelius, Peet, Schliemann and Sir Arthur Evans, and which has rediscovered what is, from the standpoint of the time which elapsed, the greater portion of human history. Even less can be said concerning the work of geolog- ists like Lyell, Le Conte, Winchell, Sollas, Geikie, Penck and Chamberlain; of biologists such as Darwin, Wallace, Huxley and Haeckel; and of anthropologists of the type of Tylor, Ayebury, McLennan, Morgan and their more critical successors, all of whom have recon- structed the prevailing notions of the origin of the human race, of chronologv and the eras of human development earlier fixed by Julius Africanus, Eusebius, and Jerome, and have made it possible for the present genera- tion to interpret the real significance of the archaeological remains, rather than being com- pelled to view them in fhe manner of earlier generations as "thunder stones," or some other object of fancv and superstition. 2. The Mastery of the Art of Writing.— Though the non-literary archaeological remains of early man are of the utmost aid and im- portance in reconstructing his modes of life and activity, no extensive or ample record of past events was possible until some progress had been made in the way of being able to give uni- form objective and permanent expression to human thought and action, in other words, until the art of writing had been mastered. The obscure origins of the art of w^riting must be regarded as dating back to the picture writing which first appears on the implements and the cave walls of the middle and later HISTORY. ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT 207 paleolithic periods. Before these pictograms, however, could be regarded as real writing, it was necessary that they should pass through three well defined stages of development. In the first place, the pictures had to become conven- tionalized, so that they always had the same appearance and designated the same object. Next, it was necessary that they should not only refer to a concrete object, but also be- come the symbols of abstract conceptions. Finally, it was essential that the conventional- ized symbols should pass into that stage where they combined a representation of an abstract conception and the sound of the human voice. This last stage itself passed through a num- ber of developments. In the simplest^ and most elementary form of this *sound writing" each symbol represented an entire word. Some languages, such as the Chinese, have never passed beyond this monosyllabic stage. Nor- mally, however, the symbc-ls usually came to represent not a whole word but a syHable. Sooner or later, the various possible sounds of the human voice were anal}'zed and came -to be represented by separate sj'mbols or letters, and the alphabet thereby came into existence. The first known exam.ple of a true alphabet ap- peared among the Phoenicians about 1000 b.c. Of its origins little is known further than that the Phoenicians borrowed most of these signs from their neighbors in Egypt, Babylonia and Crete. The Phoenician alphabet contained twenty-two consonants and it remained for the Greeks later to perfect the modern alphabet by adding the vowels. There seem to have been at least five independent centres of the origin of writing, namely, Crete, Egypt, Mesopotamia, China and Central America. Along with the mastery of the art of writ- ing went the provision of materials on which to set down the desired letters and words. Stone columns and walls and even the clay tablets of the Babylonians, whatever their virtues from the standpoint of permanence, were clumsy, awkward and restricted writing materials. The Egyptians solved the difficulty by utilizing the membrane of the papyrus reed. Later, parch- ment was fashioned from the skin of animals for the use of those peoples where papyrus was not available. Paper, made originally from silk, first appeared among the Chinese about 200 B.C. The Arabs devised a paper made from cotton fibre, about 750 a.d. This was brought into Spain, where flax was substituted for cotton and the modern linen paper came into use about 1250. With the provision of an alphabet and writing materials, historical writing could begin that long course of development which was to bring it from Herodotus and Thucydides to Ranke, Aulard, Gardiner and Osgood. Pro- fessor Breasted has well stated the importance of this step in the evolution of civilization in general andof historical writing in particular, /*The invention of writing and of a convenient ^y^tcm of records on paper has had a greater influence in uplifting the human race than any other intellectual achievement in the career of man. It was more important than all the bat- tlesever fought and all the constitutions ever devised. » Before a true historical perspective could develop, however, it was indispensable that some method of measuring time should be discovered and a scientific system of chronology evolved. 3. The Development of the Conception of Time and the Provision of a Chronology. — Indispensable as some method of measuring time was for chronicling the thoughts and ac- tions of man, it was not for this purpose that the calendar was originally developed. As Pro- fessor Shotwell has remarked, and Professor Webster has shown in greater detail, it was the deeds of the gods and not of men that the early calendars were designed to fix and record. The methods of measuring time grew up about the need for determining the dates of tabooed or holy days and for fixing and recording the occurrence of unusual natural phenomena which were believed to have some religious signifi- cance. In other words, the concept of time was born with the dawn of the consciousness of the repetition of natural processes and phenomena and the necessity of differentiating between day^ on the basis of their particular virtue or quali- ties. The perfection of the methods of measur- ing time has been a gradual proce&s^of transi- tion "from luck to mathematics." Tit was not until long after crude calendars haa~t)een pro- vided for these religious uses that they were utilized to fashion a chronology for recording historic events. The simplest and most primitive type of cal- endar was the lunar calendar based on the phases of the moon. The basis was the lunar month of 29 and one-half days. From this it was possible to provide roughly for convenient units of measurement, both longer and shorter than the month. The lunar fortnight was a widespread unit of time, and weeks were se- cured from the quarters of the moon or from a division of the months into three periods of 10 days each, the latter being closest mathemat- ical solution. Twelve lunar months produced a lunar year of 354 days, and to keep the months synchronized with the seasonal divisions, a thir- teenth month was interpolated at appropriate intervals. A longer interval was the lunar cycle of about 19 years, w'hich came into use among the Greeks about 750 B.C. Though the lunar calendar provided no exact divisions of time, either long or short, and was continually getting out of adjustment, it was tolerated and re- tained by all the peoples of antiquity except the Egyptians, who share with the aboriginal in- habitants of Mexico the honor of having first evolved the solar year and the beginnings of the modern calendar. The- agricultural life of the dwellers in the' Nile valley and the importance of the Sun-God in Egj^pt tended to increase the importance of the sun at the expense of the moon. Accordingly, as early as 4241 B.C., the earliest fixed date in history, the Egyptians had devised a solar year of 365 days, with 12 months of 30 days each and five feast days at the end of each year. The seven-day week of the mod- ern calendar, cutting thfou,gh both month and year, was the product of the ingenuity and reli- gious arrangements of the Hebrews. As early as 238 B.C. Alexandrian scientists had devised the quadrennial leap year, and during the Hel- lenistic period the TTebrew week wa'^ adapted to form the planetary week of the modern cal- endar. In 46 B.C. Julius Caesar prescribed for the Roman world this solar year, but the planetary week did not come into general use in Rome before the 2d century a.d. The final step in perfecting the calendar was taken by the authority of Pope Grcgor\' XIII in 1582. 208 HISTORY. ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT Eleven days were dropped fri)m the calendar and centennial years were re^^arded as leap years only when divisible by 40U. The provision of some sort of a crude cal- endar was an essential prerequisite of systematic history, but the process had to be carried on a step further before the mechanism for measur- ing and recording time was sulliciently perfected to be of any considerable service to the histo- rian. It was not enough to be able to measure time by the year and its fractions; it was neces- sary to have some method of identifying suc- cessive years, in other words, to provide a chronology. While the Egyptians had an ad- mirable instrument for fashioning a scientific chronology in the astronomical "Solhic cycle" of 1461 years, they made no use of it and never provided a scientific chronology. The earliest Egyptian approximation to a chronology was the annalistic expedient of naming the years by some great event which happened therein. The famous "Palermo Stele" constitutes the earliest remaining record of these year-lists and is sup- posed, in its original complete form, to have identified the seven hundred years from 3400 B.c to 2700 B.C. An advance in methodology was made when the years were named from the regnal years of a particular king. The only great list of Eg>'ptian regnal years which has been preserved, even in a fragmentary condi- tion, is the precious "Turin Papyrus," which has to be supplemented by the lists inscribed on the temple walls of the later dynasties. _ About 275 B.C. Ptolemy Philadelphus commissioned a learned Eg\-ptian priest, Manetho, to collect and translate into Greek all the Egyptian annals and regnal lists. The fragmentary remains of the labors of Manetho have constituted the skeleton upon which modern Egyptologists have recon- structed the chronology of ancient Egypt. The Babylonians never passed beyond the annalistic stage of chronology — namely, the identifying of years by some conspicuous occurrence. A contemporary of Manetho, Berossos, a Babylo- nian priest at the court of Antiochus II, tried to do for Babylonian chronology what Manetho had done for Egyptian, but to judge from what remains of his work in the fragments of copy- ists, he seems to have been less successful. _ A far greater exactness was given to Assyrian chronology by the fact that the years of a given king were identified by the annual appointment of an official known as a /mimu. As the name of the contemporary limmu was given in the notices of events contained in the clay records, the lists of limmi. dating from 892 b c. to 704 B.C., enable the historian to establish with a high degree of accuracy the Assyrian chronology. In the later period of Assyrian and Babylonian his- tory there developed some conception of an "era," which dated from the reign of Nabonassar. 747 B.C. The Ik'brcvv chronology never developed further than the crude genealogical system of reckoning by generations, the conventional length of which was 40 years. Some vague con- ception of eras seems also to have arisen, as, for example, the period from Abraham to David, or from David to the "captivity." The classic examples of the Hebrew chronological system are to be found in the opening of the first book of Chronicles and in the first chapter of Matthew. The early Greek historians, in spite of an admirable starting point for the Greek era in the semi-mythical siege of Troy and an unusually ingenious mechanism for measuring lime in the "Cycle of Melon," did no belter than their predecessors in creating a chronology. Down to the middle of the 5lh century u.c. the only chronological records po.s- sessed by the (ireeks were ihe local genealogies and the names of archons, priests and priest- esses. The early attempt of Hellanicus of Lesbos, in the latter half of the 5th century B.C., to fashion a chronology from genealogies and name lists has been described by Bury as "an ingenious edifice erected on foundations that had no solidity," but even the attempt had some significance. i!^eilher Herodotus nor Thucydides made any attempt at solving the problem of chronology, and the later Greek his- torians finished their work with no more satis- factory system of chronology than the clumsy method of reckoning by Olympiac years intro- duced by Tima^us about 300 n.c. The Olympic "era" was dated from the alleged Olympic games in 776 b.c The laudable effort of Era- tosthenes, about 80 years after Timaeus, to put Greek chronology on the firm basis of astro- nomical measurements was little utilized or en- couraged by the historians, though the astro- nomical researches of the Alexandrian scientists were of the utrtjost importance for the future of chronology. Y The practical minded Romans were the first people of antiquity to devise a rational and reliable system of chronology. They dated their years from the mythical foun- dation of Rome in 753 b.c. The monstrosities of the Christian chronology introduced by Julius Africanus, Eusebius and Jerome, as well as the real "foundations of modern scientific chro- nology with Scaliger's *De emendatione tem- porum' and Dom Clement's 'L'Art de verifier les dates) will be dealt with later. It is suffi- cient here to bear in mind the fact that only the Roman chronology enabled an historical writer of antiquity to deal with assurance with' anything save contemporary history. Th's serves in part to explain why the great histori- cal works of Greece were strictly in the field of recent and contemporary history. Now that the development of the indispensable prerequi- sites of historical writing has been briefly touched upon, attention may be turned to the origins of historical writing in antiquity. III. Oriental Beginnings of Historicai. Writing. While the climatic conditions have made Egvpt a veritable archaeological museum, or, as Professor Breasted has termed it, "a vast his- torical volume," and have made possible the preservation of very valuable and extensive sources of historical information in the remain.s of the architecture, the engineering feats, the plastic art, and even the inscriptions cut on the stone surfaces of tombs, palaces, temples and monuments, there have been few or no Egj'p- tian historical writings preserved. With the exception of a few fragmentary annals, such as the "Palermo Stele" no native Egyptian histori- cal writings have been discovered except the garbled and incomplete work of Manetho re- ferred to above. One may safely agree with Professor Hall that "no real historian is known to us in Pharaonic Egypt, nor is it likely that one will ever be discovered." HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT 900 While the true historical narrative can scarcely be held to have originated with the Babylonians or Assyrians, they certainly made a closer approximation to this achievement than the Egyptians. The earliest historical writings of the Babylonians, dating back to the third millenium B.C., were the votive inscriptions, giv- ing the names of the kings, their genealogies and a record of the buildings they erected. The great cylinder inscriptions of Gudea (2450 B.C.) are a valuable source for the contemporary manners and customs, while the Code of Ham- murabi (2150 B.C.) is probably the most irnport- ant sinele document in the history of jurispru^ dence. {jn the period following Hammurai)i there were important writings of the kings set- ting forth their achievements, but in an 'epic rather than a truly historical mannerTj The sec- ond Babylonian kingdom of the 6th century B.C. contributed some important chronicles epitomiz- ing some much earlier narratives, which are now preserved only in fragments, and lists of the Babylonian kings. While the Babylo- nians were concerned mainly with the arts of peace, the Assyrians dealt primarily with the feats of war in their annals and campaign and votive inscriptions. A most important histor- ical document, ascribed by some to Babylonian and by others to Assyrian sources, is the 'Syn- chronous History, > compiled in the 8th century B.C. This describes the successive boundary dis- putes between Babylonia and Assyria from 1600 to 800 B.C., with a list of the kings who participated. Finally, from Assyrian sources there are the above mentioned lists of limmi or the eponym canon, covering the period from 892-704 B.C. The Babylonian counterpart of Manetho's work, Berossos' history of Babylonia in three books, written about 280 B.C., was the first systematic historical narrative produced by a Babylonian or Assyrian scribe. It has, un- fortunately, been lost and only survives in scanty references in Josephus, Eusebius and a few other later historians. Whatever its value, its date shows that real historical narrative was not a product of the period of the height of either Babylonian or Assyrian culture. ^he honor of having first produced a true historical narrative of considerable scope and high relative veracity must be accorded to the Hebrews of ancient Palestine^] The conventional assumption of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and the synchronous nature of its books, questioned by Hobbes in 1651 and by Spinoza in 1670, was riddled by the French physician, Jean Astruc in 1753, and the German theologian, Karl David Ilgen in 1799. The true nature of the composite authorship of tlie Pen- tateuch and the widely divergent dates of the composition of its various books were estab- lished as a result of the work of a number of courageous and brilliant scholars, the most prominent of whom were Professor De Wette of Jena, Professor Hupfeld of Halle, Pro- fessor George of Berlin, Bishop Colenso of Natal, Professor Kuenen of Leyden, Professor Robertson Smitfh of Cambridge. Professor Bacon of Yale, and, above all, Professor Julius Wellhausen of Greifswald and Gottingen. Their labors have revealed the fact that the PentJPteuch was the work of some five different authors, or groups of authors, writing between 900 and 450 b.c.,« their diverse writings were consolidated in the Pentateuch, as it is now VOL. 14 — 14 arranged, some time before 400 B.C. The oldest, or "Jahvist" source, was written about 900 B.C., the next, or "Elohist," about 725 B.C., the third, or "Deuteronomist," from about 700 to 620 B.C., the fourth, or "Holiness Code,** about 575 B.C., and the last, or "Priestly Book,** about 450 B.C. Their union, upon the fifth source as a basis, was accomplished some time in the 5lh century B.C. The beginnings of the historical narrative among the Hebrews were stimulated by the great expansion of Hebrew prosperity and pres- tige under Saul, David ami Solomon. As Pro- fessor Moore has said,T^the making of great history has often given ''a "first impulse to the writing of history, and we may well believe that it was so in Israel, and that the beginning of Hebrew historical literature, in the proper sense of the word, was made with Saul and David.** This origin of Hebrew historical writing, which marks the earliest appearance of true historical narrative of which any record has been pre- served, is to be found in the work of the un- known author of the "Jahvist** sources of the Pentateuch, Joshua, the Books of Samuel and the opening of the first Book of Kings. Of the labors of this writer, who, though he can claim the honor of being the first of the line of true historians, is known only to students by the recently acquired appellation of "J,** Professor Breasted makes the following comment, j^ey are the earliest example of historical writings in prose which we possess among any people,'? and their nameless author is the earliest hi^ torian whom we have found in the early world.** The "Jahvist** narrative reaches its highest \ point in 2 Samuel, ix-xx, which is probably the best example of both Hebrew and Oriental his- i torical writing. Of this passage Edouard Meyer says : "It is astonishing that historical literature of this character should have been possible in Israel at this time. It stands far above everything which we know else- where of ancient Oriental historical writing.*^ The remaining historical books of the Old Testament Canon were the Books of Kings, which were written about 575 B.C., and Chron- icles — Ezra — Nehemiah, written about 300 b.c. The Books of Kings were the first practical illustration of Polybius', Dionysius of Halicar- nassys' and Lord Bolingbroke's view of history as r^philosophy teaching by example,** for the aumor sought primarily to convince his people by historical illustrations of the disasters that had come to the Hebrews by deserting their national religion. 7 Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah constitute the woi4slof a single author, who by genealogies and narrative surveys the whole of Hebrew history with the aim of glorifying through tremendous exaggerations the splendor of the Hebrew kingdom under David and Solo- mon, and of re-emphasizing the warning of the author of Kings respecting the penalty of deviation from the true religion. Both Kings and Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah are distinctly in- ferior to "J** from the standpoint of accuracy and lucid narrative. One of the greatest prod- ucts of Hebrew historiography is a work, which, for .some curious reason, has not been included in the Protestant canon of the Bible — the first Book of Maccabees. This narrative, w-ritten about 125 B.C. by a devout and vigorous Sad- ducee and an ardent admirer of the Asmonean house— ;a sort of a Ju^ean Tmtschke — tells the ' stirring'story oT Hebrew fustory'from the con- 810 HISTORY. ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT quest of Palestine In- Alexander the (ireat to the accession of lohn Hvriamis. The work centres ahoiit the deliverance of Palestine from Syrian domination throii^'h the military ex- ploits of Judas Maccalueus and liis successors. While fired hy the thrills of patriotic pride, the author produced a uni(iue work for his time, in that he explained the victories of the Hebrews as having resulted i rom the personal ability and couraKC of the Asmoncans and not from the direct inlvervcntion of the Deity in behalf of the Jews. [Un fortunately, however, the Christian histori:m>- of meili;eval Kurope took as their Hebrew model not the brilliant secular nar- rative of First Maccabees, but sou^,'ht to strengthen their followers' zeal and to terrorize their opponents by imitation of the more con- ventional Hebrew talcs of the miraculous iiUer- position of the Deity in rewarding the faithful and punishing the sinner^^hc last of the dis- tinguished Hebrew historians was Flavins Jo- scphus (c. 37-105 a.d.). He was the national historian of the Jews and, writing after the destruction of the power of his people in 70 a.d., he tried to compensate for the contemporary distress of the Jewish people by emphasizing the glories of their past. Consequently, he almost outdid the author of Chronicles-Ezra- Nchcmiah in his exaggeration of the wealth, population and international prestige of ancient Palestine. His two chief works were the 'War of the Jews' and the 'Antiquities of the Je\ys.> In his treatment of the Old Testament period his narrative is highly unreliable, but the dis- cussion of the post-Maccabean era is a most valuable source of information, though not wholly free from exaggeration and credulity. He wrote in Greek with a considerable degree of JiWerary skill and he has been referred to as thel^ivy of the Jews,** but, while the com- parison is not without some basis, Josephus did not equal the national historian of Rome in either literary merit or in accuracy of statcmcnt~\ Though the Hebrews brought into being tWc' historical narrative, Hebrew historiography did not afTect the general current of the develop- ment of historical writing until after the Chris- tians had taken over the sacred books of the Jews and used them as the basis, not only of rnuch of their theology, but also as the founda- tion of their chronology and their synthesis of the history of the past. It is to the Greeks that attention must lie turned in describing the chief source of the origins and development of the type of historical writing which dominated classical antiquity and prevailed to the time of Julius Africanus, Orosius and Eusebius. IV. Historical Writing Among the Greeks. 1. The Intellectual Setting of the Origins of Greek Historiography.— The birth of his- torical writing in Greece retiiiired several essen- tial conditions which did not exist before the B.C., namely, the i the critical rejection ofTfie current mythology 6th century writing of prose. concerning Greek origins and the stimulation of interest in social origins and instifutionsTl By the middle of the 6th century these indisnrrr^able prerequi>ites of historv had come into being in the city of Miletus in Ionia. Cadmus of Miletus, at the beginning of the 6th century, had intro- duced the practice of writing prose instead of poetry and ranks as one of the earliest of Greek prose writers or lofiugraphoi. At the same I)erio(l there was coming into existence that speculative Ionian philosophy to which the world owes the origin of free thought and critical phi- losophy. As Professor Bury has said. "Our deepest gratitude is due to the Greeks as the originators of liberty of thought and discussion. Ionia in Asia Minor was the cradle of free speculation. The history of Europe^i}^ science and European philosophy begins in^oiiia. Here in the 6th and .^th centuries B.C. the earliest philosophers by using their reason sought to penetrate into the origin and structure of the world-^They began the work of destroying orthodox views and religious faiths." Finally, the Pjsrsian absorption of Ionia tended to break down the provincialism of the Ionian Greeks, through that all-important factor of the contact of cultures, and to arouse their interest in the civilization of the diverse peoples who dwelt in the great empire of which they had recently become a part. The origin of Greek historical literature, then, was a part of that great in- tellectual movement conventionally known as the rise of the logograplioi and of the critical Greek philosophy in Ionia. To these more general or cultural explanations of the appearance of the first Greek historical literature, there should be added the personal impulse from the dominating desire of the more prominent citizens of the time to link up their families with a distin- guished genealogy. Hesiod had favored the Greek gods by providing them with a respectable ancestrj', and a similar service was rendered to the nobles by the logograplioi. 2. The Origins of Greek Historiography.— In view of the foregoing sketch of the intel- lectual _ environment of early Greek critical prose, it seems but in the natural course of events that the first Greek historian should have been Hecatseus (born 550 b.c. ), a native of Miletdy, Ihe birthplace of both Greek prose and Greek critical philosophy. His main signifi- cance lies in the fact that he foreshadowed two sicnificaijt developments of scientific historical mcthod(_Hy setting up truth as the ideal of his statements and by assuming a frankly critical attituck toward the conventional Greek creation mythsT^The opening paragraph of his 'Genealo- gies* ts the first approximation on the part of any writer to a consciousness of the function of historical criticism, "What I write here," he said, "is the account which I considered to be true ; for the stories of the Greeks are numerous, and in my opinion ridiculous." The influences which had produced Hecata^us grew more powerful and the necessary develop- ments between his 'Genealogies* and the 'His- tory* of Herodotus were rapidly consummated. Charon of Lampsacus and Dionysius of Miletus compiled histories of Persia during the middle of the 5th century and Scylax of Caryanda pro- duced the first historical biography. In the latter half of the 5th centur>- Antiochus of Syracuse composed the first history devoted to the peoples of Greece, and Hcllanicus of Lesbos opened the way for Herodotus by the breadth of his interests. He not only covered the his- tory of Persia and Greece from a broad social point of view, but also was the earliest di the Greek historians to recognize the necessity of a comprehensive system of chronology and to attempt to supply it. HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT 211 3, The Systematic Historical Works of Greek Writers, — The first, and in the estimate of modern exponents of "Kuhurgeschichte," the greatest of the systematic Greek historians was Herodotus of HaUcarnassus (c. 480-^25 B.C.). By his interest In geography and in the civiliza- tions of the East he gave evidence of his Jonic antecedents, while by his dominant concern with the Athenian democracy he gave proof of the transfer of historical attention to Hellenic so- .ciety. His ^H istory' was a narrative of Grxco- Asiatic relations and contacts from the reign ^-of Croesus of Lydia (560-546 b.c.) to the defeat of the Persian invasion in 478 B.C. The central theme was the destruction of "the forces of Xerxes by the Greeks. But his work was not like that of his great successor, Thucydides, nar- rowly political and military. It was the story of the struggle of two fundamentally opposed types of civilization, and to prove this antag- ,onism, Herodotus surveyed the foundations of these two cultures to locate the deeper causes of the conflict. It combined, thus, the charac- teristics of a "Kulturgeschichte* and a "Welt- geschichte,^^ though both were strictly limited in point of time. An ardent admirer of Athenian <^democracy^^ he eulogized Athens and its tri- umph over autocratic Persian imperialism with the epic fervor of a Bancroft. /'vVhile recog- nizing and stating the fundamental principles , of. historical criticism, he often deserted them, especially in his credulity in accepting the tales he heard on his travels. On the whole, however, modern historical, archaeological and ethno- graphic research has tended to confirm rather than to discredit his statements, and no subse- rqjicnt historian has been more keen or sym- pathetic in his analysis of human natur^ As the scope of history has been broaderrea in recent years through the reassertion of the . value and position of "Kulturgeschichte,^' the slogan has come more and more to be "back to Herodotus'' rather than ^"^back to Thucydi- des,'* as was long so popular. As much as subsequent historiography owes to Herodotus with respect to an illustration of the proper scope of history, it is equaljy. in- debted to Thucydides (c. 465-395^ b.c.) for. con- tributions to the methodology of historical rcr search and to the construction of a coherent ^historical narrative. His theme, the Pelopon- "nesian War (431-404 b.c), was as much more narrow and restricted a field than that covered by Herodotus as the American Civil War would be as compared with the evolution of civilization in the 19th century. As his his- tory was in part prepared by Thucydides dur- ing the course of the conflict, it was the work of a scholarly and philosophic war correspond- ent -^n. antique Ililaire Belloc,:;— rather than ^ of the dispassionate historian reconstructing the events of a distant past from a study of the documents. His sketch of the rise of Greece shows, however, that he had rare power in portraying the past if he had seen fit to utilize it. His greatest contribution to historiography was in the field of criticism and methodology. He set forth with great vigor the thesis that tlie permanence and enduring fame of an historical work should deoend rather upon the accuracy of the statements than upon the entertainment furnished by the narrative. Ranke, at the opening of the 19th century, did not state more effectively than Thucydides had at the close of the 5tih century b.c, that accuracy of data was the foundation of history. The second great historical canon of Thucydides was "relevance" of material, something widely at variance with the long and numerous digressions of Herodo- tus. To these should be added his ability in the mastery of details and their subordination to the movement of the whole narrative. In these respects Thucydides may rightly be held to have been the founder of scientific and critical history. Finally, while Thucydides has received much credit in this respect which really belongs to Polybius, he was probably the first historian clearly and definitely to state the alleged "pragmatic" value of the writing and study of history. In the opinion of Thucydides, "the accurate knowledge of what has happenei' will be useful, because, according to human probability, similar things will happen again." Though his writings must not be judged by the canons of Lamprecht's Historical Institute, the Sorbonne or L'ficole des Cha^tes, they were not free from major defects. t^He was unable to grasp the concept of time arm to view his facts in their true historical perspec- tive. He narrowed the field of history not only to a consideration merely of contemporary political phenomena, but even to the external military and diplomatic phases of political activity. He missed the vital significance of the deeper social and economic forces in his- tory, a weakness perhaps over-emphasized by Mr. Cornford.J It can scarcelv be doubted, moreover, that he carried the element of "relevance" too far and omitted as much ma- terial that was pertinent as Herodotus had included w^hich was not germane to the subject. Again, he^illustrated Carlyle's weakness in his dramaticflnterpretation of events in terms of great personalities, and he did not possess the latter's ability to portray a personality in its en- tirety. 7 Lastly, there appeared little or none of Maoillon's profound discussion of the critical use of documents; his sources were carefully concealed in order that the style of the narra- tive might not suffer. One may agree entirely with Bury that ^^^e work of Thucydides marks the longest and most decisive step that has ever been taken by a single man towards making history what it is to-day,"r without re- garding that statement as an unmixed com- pliment. [Thucydides certainly was influential in bringing historiography under the domina- tion of the "political fetish" and the spell of episodes trom which it suffered from classical times to the end of the 19th century, and from which it is only now beginning to escapel It must not be forgotten that, as Lamprechrhas insisted, historical accuracy means as much the presentation of the complete analysis of an event, p-riod or movement as it does the mere truth of such facts as are narrated. From the standpoint of this broader and more funda- mental view of historical accuracy Thucydides will scarcely rank as superior to Herodotus. The ardent admirers of the former have for- gotten that scope and content are quite as im- portant in history as refinement of the methodology of research. An historian far inferior to Herodotus or Thucydides was Xenophon (c. 430-354 b.c). His literary ability was of a high order, but his capacity ror profound historical analysis was most limited. He was a good memoir I- n 212 HISTORY. ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT I deep writer and his 'Anahasis' was one of the most al)sorl)inK of Greek memoirs. In his *HcI- lenica' he attempted to continue the narrative of Thucydidcs from 411 to 362 b.c. While this work is most valuable as an historical source for the period, it is superficial and owes what historical merit it possesses primarily to its imitation of the inethod^ml arrangement of the work of Thiu ydides.YOn the whole, it is safe to agree with Bury*thai he owes his reputation to trhe fact that an uncritical genera- tion later preserved his writings, while allow- ing more meritorious works to perish and that "if he had lived in modem days, he would have been a high-class journalist and pamphleteer and Nyould have made his fortune as a war-correspondcni,^^ It would not he fair, however, to overlook the remarkable versatility of Xenophon's literary talents, which were ex- hibited in memoirs, biography, systematic his- tory, constitutional analysis and economic theory. The last of the major Greek historians was Polybius (c. 198-117 h.c). From the stand- point of either productivity or profundity he was superior to Thucydidcs andTjvas 'fully equal to him with respect to accurar>- of state- ment, but his style being labored and diffuse he has been less popular than his two great prede- cessors/JHis 'History* was a vast work in 40 books*'fl?aling witl" the expansion of the Roman Empire to 146 B.C. As Herodotus had mir- rored the interest of early Greek historians in the East, and Thucydidcs had written of Athens at the height of its civilization, so Polybius testified to the decline of Hellas and the shifting of interest to the new empire of the West. His scholarship was equal to that of the great historian of British expansion, but he lacked the latter's power of compression and lucid statement. In the 12th book of his work is found, as a critique of the antiquarian, Timaeus, the first great treatise on the methodology of scientific history. Conceived independently of Thucydidcs, this discussion has scarcely been surpassed, and his impartial- ity is a model for all historians. Especially ^teworthy was his Ritter-like insistence upon the valueof a knowledge of topography to the fifstorianrTHe intended his history to be in- tensely pragmatic — to be "philosophy teaching by example," but he never allowed the philos- opher in him to overcome the historian. Greatly interested in the problem of causation, he went deeper in his analysis of impersonal causes than cydides, though his interpretation was cal rather than economic and social. The Tollowing brief qtioLation from his 12th book admirably epitomizes his views as to the scope, methods and purpose of history. "The science of history is three-fold: first, the dealing with writteii documents and the arrangement of the material thus obtained ; second, top<:)graphy, the appearance of cities and locali'ties, the descrip- tion of rivers and harbors, and, speaking gen- erally, the peculiar features of the seas and countries and their relative distances; thirdly, political affairs. . . . The special province of hisloi-y is, first, to ascertain what the actual words used were; and secondly, to learn why it was that a particular policy or arrangement failed or succeeded. For a bare statement of an occurrence is interesting indeed, but not in- structive; but when this is supplemented by a statement of cause, the study of history be- comes fruitful. For it is by applying analogies to our own circumstances that we get the means and basis for calculating the future; and for learning from the past when to act wi/th caution, and when with greater boldness, in the present.'^ All in all, one may agree with Pro- fessor Botsford that "a careful reading of this author is the l>csl possible introduction to the spirit and method of history as we of to-day regard it." 4. Minor Contributions to Greek His- toriography. — Polybius was unique in his age as an historian. Long l)etore he composed his great work Hellenic historiography had begun to decline from the standard set by Thucydidcs and was brought under the influence of rlietoric in the 4th century. With their tendency to in- sipid moralizing, the interpolation of florid speeches, and their "passion for panegyrics,* the historical works of the rhetorical school, like those of Froissart and Lamartine "ex- hibited artistic but not historical genius." This capitulation to the popular demand for rhetoric Hermann Peter believes to have been the main cause for the decline and stagnation of Greek history and its Roman imitations. Of the "Rhetoricians" of the 4th century the leader was Isocrates and the chief historians of the school were Ephorus and Theopompus. The work of Ephorus was probably the nearest ap- proach in Greek historiography to a "national history" of Hellas. Of quite a different char- acter was the work of Timaeus of Tauromenium who devoted a lifetime of labor to the patient compilation of a vast repository of reliable facts concerning the history of Sicily and Italy. He was the first and the greatest of the anti- quarians that flourished in the 3d century and he may be regarded as the prototype of Blondus and Mabillon. Two later ambitious compilations — the ' Weltgeschichte' of Dio- dorus of Sicily (c. 90-21 b.c.) and the Roman history of his younger contemporary', Dionysius of Halicarnassus, were of a far inferior order, though, perhaps, superior to the work of the "Rhetoricians." Historical biography among the Greeks was founded by Isocrates, the leader of the "Rhetoricians," and one of the earliest products was the biography of Agesilaus by Xenophon. Subsequent historians devoted considerable space to biography. Plutarch's (c. 50-123 A.D. ) polished 'Parallel Lives* have remained [at the head of the world's biographical product on account of their compelling interest, if not for their entire historical accurac>^^^ Indeed, it must be remembered that Plutarch was a mor- alist and wrote his "Lives" not as strictly his- torical biographies, but in order to furnish con- crete illustrations of his ethical principles for the moral edification of his readers. In the period of the Hellenic revival in Rome a number of Greek historians made con- tributions to historical writing of widely dif- ferent merit. Among the less notable produc- tions were the 'Anabasis of Alexander' by Ar- rian (c. 95-175 A.n.) and the 'History of Ronie' by Appian, in the same period. Far superior to these were the incisive 'Historv of Rome' of Dio Cassius (c. 155-240 .ah.), and the broadly conceived history of the later Roman empire, in its social as well as its political conditions, bv Ammianus Marcellinus (c. 330-401 a.d.), the HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT 213 last of the long and honorable list of Greek historians who, curiously enough, wrote his work in Latin. V. Roman Historiography. Rome added no original contributions to historiography. As in all other phases of its culture, Rome here followed the model set up by the Greeks. While there were distinguished Roman historians, none equalled Thucydides or Polybius for careful adherence to critical method and only Livy and Tacitus approached the best of the stylists among Greek historians. The immediate dependence of the Roman historiography on the Greek is evident from the fact that down to the 2d century B.C. all the Roman historical literature was even written in Greek. These early historical works in Greek were chiefly ^Annals* of which the first and most famous were those of Fabius Pictor (c. 250 B.C.). The first Roman historical litera- ture in Latin was the'T'jOrigines^ of Cato the Censor (c. 234-149 B.c.Tpm which he narrated the history of Rome interpreted according t^r his notorious bucolic and aristocratic prejudicesj The first real historian among the Romans m point of time was that leader of all Romans in ablity, Julius Caesar (100-44 B.C.). Generally accurate and always clear, forceful and direct in his style, Caesar's apologies for his public career — the ^Commentaries^ and the ^Civil War> were the best historical memoirs produced in the ancient world and rank well with those of any period. A more systematic historian was Sallust (c. 86-34 b.c.) the Roman disciple of Thucydides. His chief work, a history of Rome from 78 to 67. B.C. has never been re- covered, but from his monographs on the ^Conspiracy of Catiline* and the ^Jugurthine War> one can appreciate his vigorous and graphic style and his power in the analysis of personalites and social forces, but he was not able wholly to conceal his pessimism with re- gard to the future of the Roman state in the last years of the Republic. The great national history of Rome was that of Livy (59 B.C.-17 A.D.).V|ljis work was a massive epic of the growtPT^f the Roman world-state. While he had a general appreciation of the value of accuracy of statement, he subordinated this element to that of perfection of style, and the Greek ^'RhetoriQians*' rather than Thucydides were his model/lThe great literary merit of Livy's history7~Tts ministry to the national vanity of the Romans and their cult of modern admirers, and its great popularity with the humanists have given it a position in his- toriography higher than its purely historical value would warrant. A less successful ex- ample of the Roman historical writing of the rhetorical school was the history of Rome under the early empire by Velleius Paterculus in the period of Tibeirius. The last of the major Roman historians was Tacitus (c. 55- 120 A.D.). Like Polybius, he was a" man of action, and, being an ardent admirer of the aristocratic Republic, his view of contemporary Roman society \\ps, even more pessimistic than that of Sallust.) While he wrote with great vigor, had rare power of portra3''ing personali- ties and was generally accurate, the subjective moralizing element in his writings, while add- ing to their literarv renutation, greatly reduced their historical value. fTo him and to Juvenal V renutatioi ue.jTo hit is primarily due that notorious and venerable myth of the "moral causes" for the decline of the Roman Empire, which was later revived and elaborated with such deplorable results by Kingsley. In addition to his purely historical works — the ^Annals,* the ^Histories' and the biography of Agricola, dealing with Roman his- tory in the 1st century of the Christian era, the ^Germaraia* was one of the earliest excursions into the field of descriptive soci- ology. Being the only extensive source of information regarding the institutions of the Germans of that time, the *Germania" has ac- quired a great importance in later years. It has been the most controverted historical docu- ment in existence, excepting only the Penta- teuch and the Synoptic Gospels. Recovered in the period of the humanists and brought before the learned public by Poggio, Enoc of Ascoli, and Conrad Celtis, it has been the centre of his- torical conflict between the modern Teutonist and Galilean historians, as much as Alsace- Lorraine has been the pivotal point in the polit- ical and military rivalry of their respective national States. More than this, the tendency of Tacitus to idealize the early Germans at the expense of the Romans originated that humor- ous but disastrous perversion of the interpreta- tion of the "invasions" which culminated in the vagaries of Charles Kingsley's "The Roman and the Teuton." The last Roman historian of any repute, unless it be the vague figure that Kornemann has endeavored to reconstruct, was Suetonius (75-160 .A.D.), the erudite secretary of Hadrian. His dTffuse ^Lives of the Caesars,' while reliable in its description of public affairs, was one of the earliest examples of_ historical "muckraking'' and "scandal mongering." His chief significance in historiography Hes in the fact that he became the model in style and arrangement for the historical biography of the period of humanism.^ Thougia the Roman historians were not original and were always more or less under the spell of the Greek "Rhetoricians," Roman historiography was incomparably higher in the sphere of reliability than the type wliich was to succeed it and was to bring historical writing back under the spell of mythology and religious prejudices from which it had escaped with Hecataeus of Miletus eight centuries earlier. VI. Patristic Historiography. 1. The Christian Synthesis of the History of the Past. — One of the most effective agen- cies in allaying suspicion and attracting con- verts to a movement is the ability to point to a glorious past. The Christians felt this keenly, and, having adopted the sacred books of the Jews as the official record of their antecedents, they were faced with the immediate and press- ing necessity of giving to ancient Hebrew his- tory a prestige which it had entirely lacked in the works of pagan historians, who had assigned to the history of the Jewish people only that slender allotment of space and attention to which their inconspicuous political history had entitled them. Therefore, the two world his- tories, which had already been produced by Dio- dorus Siculus and Pompeius Trogus, and which were immensely superior to any universal his- tory compiled by Patristic historians, were ut- terly unsuited to the requirements of Christian 814 HISTORY. ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT propaganda. Neither was the yeiieral Jewish history of Josephiis acceptable, fur, while it exaggerated tremendously the jolc of the Jews, ~it was distinctly aniagoiii^lic u: the Christians. I Therefore, the Christian "literau" set about to produce a synthesis of the past which would give due weight to the alleged glories of He- brew antitjuily and wduUI, at :lie same time, show why the Jews were no hjnger worthy of their heritage, which had now passed to the Christiansl/frhc fir-,t writer to essay the task was ScxTus Julius Africanus (c. lSl)-250) whi composed a history of the world in live books bringing the stoiy to 221 ad. In this lie tried to harmonize and synchronize Hebrew and Christian history with that of the four great successive pagan monarchies — the Assyrian, Persian, Macedonian and Roman. This was carried further in the * Chronicle* of Eusebius (c. 260-340), and Jerome was able to find scrip- tural sanction for this synthesis in the prophecy contained in the last chapters of Daniel. "That long history," says Professor Burr, "which was now their preamble was the sacred story of the chosen people, with its Jacob's ladder forever linking earth to heaven. The central actor was Jehovah, now the God of all the earth. About that story and its culmination all other history must now fall into place ; and from the sacred record — for the record too is sacred — may be learned the plans of the Omnipotent. It was Jerome who now found them in the interpreta- tions and the visions of Daniel — in the image with head of gold and belly of brass, in the four great beasts that came up out of the sea — and from his day on almost to ours the chang- ing empires of earth have Jjeen forced to find a .place within that scheme. .Whatever in non- sacred annals was found in conflict with Holy Writ must be discarded. ^Vhat was left must be adjusted to its worS^. Man's career on earth became a fall. Nor might human wit exalt itself : Pythagoras and Plato had learned from Moses; Seneca from Paul.'^_jrhe Chris- tian synthesis received its great philosophic statement aad defense in Augustine's *City of God' (426). ^t was finally systematized in the grotesque tHTt fiery < Seven Books of Histoiy directed against the Pagans* (417) of Orosiiis, which was the standard text on universal his- tory- until the revival of the appreciation of pagan culture with the advent of "Humanism,® when it was riddled by the scholarship of Fla- vins Blondus (1388-1463) and was superseded bv the 'Enneades' of Sabelljcus (1436-1506), the humanist affempt at a universal history. An important part of the Christian synthe- sis was the synchronizing of the events in the history of the Gentile and Hebrew nations and the establishment of an official Christian chro- nology. The initial step was taken in this proc- ess by Julius Africanus in his 'Chronographia.' In this, the period of the creation was set as having occurred 5499 years before Christ, and subsequent events in world history were dated through an ingenious combination of the various syslc-ms of chronology used by the different nations, Eu^bius expanded the work of Afri- canus in his famous 'Chronicle,* in which he epitomized universal history in a set of parallel synoptic and synchronous chronological tables giving the rcicrns of the rulers of the "four great monarchies'* synchronized with the events of Hebrew history. "In these tables," says President White, "Moses, Joshua and Bacchus, — Deborah, Orjiheus and the Amazons, — Abi- melech, the Sphinx, and Oedipus, appear to- gether as personages equally real, and their positions in chronology equally ascertained.*' The chronology of Eusebius was adopted by Jerome in his 'Chronicle,' and in Jerome's ver- sion it became the authoritative Christian chronology until it was slightly revised by Scal- iger in 1.S.S3 and Usher in 1650. It entered sys- tematic church history in the 'Hisloria Tripar- tita* of Cassiodorus and was the introduction to every authentic mediaeval chronicle. On this Christian synthesis of world history, asute from the artificiality of its chronology and synchronisms, two characteristics are note- worthy, namely, the absurd relative importance attached to Hebrew history and the serious bias against pagan civilization which made an objective historical narrative absolutely impossible>70f the former tendency Pro- fessor ItGbinson has said, "this theological unity of history was won at a tremendous sacrifice of all secular perspective and accuracy. The Amorites were invested with an importance denied the Carthaginians. Enoch and Lot loomed large in an age which scarcely knew Pericles.** It is a curious but incontestabk fact that the Jewish nation owes its prominence in world history, to these distortions of the early Christian histo- rians. Always on the defensive in the Patris- tic period, the churchmen were compelled to answer the charge of having been the cause of the calamities which came to the Roman Empire in the 4th and 5th centuries. The calamities could not be denied, and so the only procedure possible was to prove a greater prevalence of misery before the Christian era. "This was par- ticularly the task assigned by Augustine to Oto- sius and performed with great thoroughness in the latter's above mentioned work. Deliberately shutting his eyes to all the cultural contribu- tions of antiquity, he gathered a veritable "his- toria calamitatum** by combing pagan histor>' to present an unrelieved picture "of all the most signal horrors of war, pestilence and famine, of the fearful devastation of earthquakes and innundations, the destruction wrought by fiery eruptions, by lightning and hail, and the awful misery due to crime." "All the achievements of Egypt, Greece and Rome,** says a leading his- t torian, "itended to sink out of sight in the mind of Augustine's disciple, Orosius, only the woes of a devil-worshipping heathendom lingered.** W^hen one remembers that this work was almost the sole source of information during the Mid- dle Ages regarding the history of pagan an- tiquity, it is little wonder that Blondus could remark in the 15th centur^^ that since Orosius there had been no histor>'. Yet. in spite of the external and conscious bias of the "Fathers® against pagan culture, they_ could not escape the unconscious sources of influence springing out of their environment of paganism. Thus, by a curious irony of fate, it came about that the classical culture they assumed to abhor actually influenced their cosmic and historical philosophv as much, if not more, than the cul- tural traditions of Judaism. The "Fathers" used the classical languages and were always under the spell of classical rhetoric; many of HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT 215 them were educated as pagans; their syncretic theology was deeply colored with pagan ele- m^ents; and their political ideals and practices were so thoroughly modelled after those of the Roman Empire that Professor Burr has very aptly described the origins of the Christian ecclesiastical polity as ^^the rise of the new Rome." This much is evident from such sources of information as have been preserved. If the great mass of early Christian historical writing which has been lost were available for study it might well be that an even greater amount of infiltration of pagan culture could be detected. 2. The Christian Philosophy of History.— Almost as wide as the break with the classical historiography with respect to the status of pagan culture was the difference in the great emphasis placed pn pragmatism and teleology in the Patristic historical literature! To the early Christian historiaris the "process of his- tory* had a real significance and meaning, it was a part of a greater cosmic process in which God and man were the chief participants. "The Christians were perhaps the first to suspect a real grandeur in history,* says Professor Rob- inson, "for to them it became a divine epic, stretching far back to the creation 'of man and forward to the final separation of good and eyil in a last magnificent and decisive crisis.* E^is Christian philosophy of history, which has been so felicitously termed by Santayana the "Christian Epic,* was gradually evolved by the "Fathers* and received its final and decisive systepi^tic expression in Augustine's 'City of God.M This philosophy, drawn more from Per- sian "and Hellenic than from Hebrew sources, considered the historic process as a part — the consequential portion — of a' great cosmic struggle between the forces of good and eviL In its earthly and historical significance this conflict was a struggle between the City of God — the community of the elect believers in the Hebrew and Christian God — and the City uf Satan — the collective name of the previous and contemporary adherents to paganism. Its final outcome was to issue in the glorious triumph of the former and the utter destruction and discomfiture of the latter. With such a philo- sophical background it is not ditBcult to under- stand that Christian historiography was prag- matic to a degree not dreamed of by either Polybius or Dionysius ; it was "philosophy teaching 'by example* with a real vengeance. With such issues at stake the most insignificant event could not fail to have its vital import. This "epic,* which received its philosophical exposition from Augustine, was illustrated from history by Orosius and was given an elegant literary form in the ^Chronica' of Sulpiciu-; Severus (363-423). 3. Historical Method in the Patristic Period.-VThe Christian historians also departed widely ffOm the canons of historical method laid down by Thucydides and Polybius. In addition to their tremendous bias against pagan- ism, which made objectivity out of the ques- tion, it was necessary to devise a s£ecial method for handling "inspired* documents^ To assume towards the Hebrew creation taTe? the critical attitude that Hecataeus maintained toward the Greek mythology would have been impious and sinful. Therefore, if the obvious content of the inspired statement was preposterous and unbe- lievable, some hidden or inner meaning must be found, and, in response to this necessity, alle- gory and symbolism replaced candor and critic^L, analysis as the foundations of historical methodT/ "Not even Holy Writ,* says Professor Burr, "was prized for the poor literal facts of history, but for those deeper meanings, allegorical, moral, anagogical, mystical, to be discerned beneath them.* The allegorical method of in- terpreting the Old Testament had been intro- duced by the Alexandrian Jew, Philo Judaeus, and appeared in early Christian writings in the Book of Revelations, in "The Epistle of Barna- bas* and in "The Shepherd of Hermas.* Its main early impulse among the Fathers came from Origen (186-255). According to Origen, says Conybeare, "Whenever we meet with such useless, nay impossible, incidents and precepts as these, we must discard a literal interpretation and consider of what moral interpretation they are capable, with what higher and mysterious meaning they are fraught, what deeper truths they were intended symbolically and in alle- gory to shadow forth. The divine wisdom has of set purpose contrived these little traps and stumbling blocks in order to cry halt to our slavish historical linderstanding of the text, by inserting in its midst sundry things that are impossible and unsuitable. The Holy Spirit so waylays us in order that we may be driven by passages which taken in their prima facie sense cannot be true or useful, to search for the ulte- rior truth, and seek in the Scriptures which we believe to be inspired by God a meaning wor- thy of him.^^ T^his allegorizing tendency, which vaulted oveir-eriticism, was almost universally accepted by the "Fathers^^nd received its clas- sical expression in the ^Moralia,^ or ^Commen- tary on the Book of Job,^ of Gregory the Great (540-604), and the ^Allegoriae quaedam sacrae Scripturae^ of Isadore of Seville (d. 636), which gave in chronological order the allegorical significance of all the persons mentioned in the Old and New Testaments. These became stand- ard mediaeval manuals on allegory?7 Another element which enteretftrtto the his- torical attitude and methodology of the Patris- tic period was(^eoplatonismJ With its thesis of the superiority of the emotions and intuition to reason and intellect and its advocacy of "un- bounded credulity,* it fitted in admirably with the Patristic mental reactions and became an integral part of the psychic complex of the Patristic and rnediaeval historians and philoso- phers. Augustine flirted with it in his youth and it loomed large in his later philosophy. Its great mediaeval impulse came mainly from the philosophical and literary activities of Erigena. ^'long with the allegorizing tendency tt served To make quite impossible any sceptical and crit- ical attitude towards the sources of historical knowledge'."] Not only were these two standards for the use and imerpretation of historical documents erected, .'^ but there were also delimited two sharply Itefined field^^s of history, the sacred and the profane, -the first relating^p religious and the latter to secular activitiesj It is needless to remark that an incomparaBly greater im- portance was attached to sacred history and that the working of a miracle was considered much more significant than the making of a constitu- 316 HISTORY. ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT tion. The '•^Fathcrs," were willing to devote the most extended hihur to the allegorical explana- tion of dubious and contradictory blalemenis in' scripture, hut it is impossible to imagine one gathering and analyzing the conlcnts of 158 ooiistit'uiiuns. It is only fair to state, however, that the evident decline ul historical scholarship in the Patristic period cannot be wholly as- signed to the Christian attitude towards his- torical data and problems. Though there wore the reasons enumerated above why the Chris- tian historiography was bound to be less sound than its pagan counterpart, it cannot be denied that the period of the "Later Roman Empire^* was one of general iiuellectual dtT.line, and the lapse of the ideals of the height of classical culture affected pagan, as well as Christian, writers. 4. Systematic Ecclesiastical History in the Patristic Period. — The most creditable per- formances in the realm of Patristic historiog- raphy were achieved in the field of syste- matic history of the Christian Church. Though the 'Weltanschauung' of the writers marred their perspective and warped their interpreta- tion, the resulting damage to historical scholar- ship was least in this department. While the anti-pagan bias, the lust for the miraculous, the pious credulity of the writers and the Christian philosophy of history were all in evidence, the very nature of the subject made their operation less disastrous here than in the synthesis of the history of antiquity; attention was centered; almost entirely upon ecclesiastical matters and the writers dealt in a large degree with their co-religionists of the immediate past who scarcely received the reverence accorded to per- sonages who had figured in scriptural events — the Church Fathers, like the makers of the American constitution, were not always canon- ized by their own generation^ The earliest semi-narrative sources of the history of the foundations of Christianity are to be found in the * Epistles' of the 1st century and in the 'Synoptic Gospels,' written probably in the last quarter of the century. Of the former, the most important, naturally, are those of Paul, the great^organizing missionary and theologian of the early Church. Of the Gos- pels, the earliest and most reliable is the straight-forward narrative of Mark, written about 70 A. II. The 'Acts of the Apostles,' the remaining canonical historical workof the Apos- tolic period, was written by the author of Luke about 100 A.D. The "Apologists" of the 2d and 3d centuries are also valuable sources of infor- mation, though their writings were highly con- troversial. The first, and the most erudite and scholarly systematic ecclesiastical history of the Patristic period was the work of Eusebius of Cacsarca (c. 260-340). His 'History of the Christian Church,' which, in 10 books, brought the story to 324, was a work of massive erudi- tion and relatively high impartiality, but was compiled without literary skill and was most superficial in its analysis of the underlying; causes of the great social and religious move- ments. Though he was not a profound thinker, Eusebius was a real scholar and the literature he examined in the execution of his work was enormous, ^fany of the most important docu- ments he usi '1 were copied in cxtcti'so in his history; this niakcs the work a most valuable source book which contains the only extant por- tions of some highly important early Christian writings. A vast gulf exists between the level of the histories of Eusebius and Orosius. The 'History' of Eusebius was continued by the historians Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret in the 5th century. The whole was combined and translated into l^alin under the direction of Cassiodorus (477-570) in the 6th century, and the narrative was continued to 518. This product of Cassiodorus and his disciples, known as theT'Hisioria tripartita,' was the general manuarT)f church history throughout the middle ages. Though confused, inc(jherent, inaccurate, and annalistic, it was certainly superior to the oompanio^i text-lxjok on secular history by Orosius. |he greatest defect in the early Church TiHtories was their failure to analyze the deeper forces and the more significant events in the great religious movement which they were describing. This was due in part to the belief that Christianity was being advanced through divine favor and in part to the fact that the writers all 'Succumbed to the tempta- tion to treat primarily of wonders, miracles, martyrs and saintsj Christian biograpny was founded by Jerome's *De viris illustril)us,' a brief sketch of the lives of all who had contributed to the body of Chris- tian literature, and by the biographies of the earlier saints and hermits. Jerome's work was continued by Gennadius (c. 495), a priest of Marseilles, and by Isadore of Seville in w'orks of the same title. Isadore's compilation was, in turn, supplemented by that of Ildcphonsus of Toledo (d. 667), and the process of addition continued ithrough the mediseval period to cul- minate in the collection of 963 biographies in the * Liber scriptorum ecclesiasticorum' of Johannes Tritbemiuis (1462-1516), abbot of Sponheim. The astonishing credulity of even tlie most learned of these early biographers, and their zeal for ^^mlracle-mongering'^ can best be appreciated by a perusal of such a work as Jerome's 'Life of Paul the First Hermit^ or Athanasius' ^Life of Saint Anthony.^ VII. Historical Literature in the Middle Ages. 1. Its Relation to Patristic Antecedents. — It will be evident from the foregoing discussio'n that Orosius and Cassidorus w^ere the standard historical authorities for the Middle Ages and that there was no break with the Patristic philosophy of history or historical methods. "The Middle Ages,'^ says Professor Burr, "did not dissever history and theology. Nay to for- bid it there grew to completeness that con- summate preserver of the unity of thought, the procedure against heresy. And to the end of that long age of faith history did not escape t^e paternal eye." The chief representatives of his- toriography in the Middle Ages, as of other phases of mediaeval culture, were churchmen of one sort or another. The same zeal for the miraculous and diabolical and disregard of such non-essential "commonplaces" as the foundation and disruption of states and epoch-making po- litical, economic and social movements still per- sisted unimpaired. The "Christian Epic" kept its prestige unshattered and almost unchallenged for 14 centuries, disturbed only slightly by the 13th century "revival," the growth of humanism and the controversies of the Reformation period. It never received its first staggering blow until. HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT 217 in the 18th centur>', the English and French "Deists" and «Philosophes» revealed its weak- nesses and inconsistencies by their penetrating and disconcerting criticism. If anything, in at least_ the first centuries after the close of the Patristic period, t'here was a decline in. scholar- ship. The mediaeval writers not only retained th-e Patristic defects but added to them the ab- sence of the great erudition of many of the "Fathers* and the presence of those crudities incident to a recent emergence from barbarism. This assimilation of the Patristic outlook and methodology and its adaptation to mediaeval capacities was primarily the work of Rhabanus Maurus (776-856), his pupil and disciple, Wala- frid Slfabo (c. 809-^849) and John Scotus Eri- gena (d. 877). Heinrich von Sybel thus sum- marizes the outstanding characteristics of mediaeval histoftogra-phy in a manner which brings out clearly its close relation to Patristic historical literature: H^'his period . possessed no idea of historical judgment, no sense of historical reality, no trace of critical reflection. The principle of authority, ruling without limi- tation in the religious domain, defended all tradition, as well as traditional dogma. Men were eveiywhere more inclined to believe than to examine, everywhere iipagination had the upper hand of reason. fNo distinction was made between ideal and real, between poetical and historical truth. ; Heroic poems -were con- sidered a true and'tofty form of history and history was everj^where displaced by epics, legends or poetical fiction of some kind. A course of slow historical development was traced back to a single great deed, a single personal cause. Almost no one scrupled to give to existing conditions the sanction of venerable age by means of fabricated history or forged documents. TTlie question whether the as- cribed derivation was true interested no one; it was enough if the result harmonized with existing rights, dominating interests and prev- alent beliefs.* 2. Mediaeval Annals and Chronicles. — An excellent illustration of the primitive nature of mediccval culture is the fact that during the first centuries the main form of historical writ- ings was the ^Annals' which had been common in early Eg\'pt and Bab^donia. The mediaeval example of this type of historical writing origi- nated in the early Carolingian period as an in- cident of the mediaeval desire to locate the exact occurrence of Easter. The absence of a general knowledge of astronomy and chronology made it necessary for the more learned church- men to prepare and distribute to monks and- priests Easter tables giving the dates upon which Easter would occur for many years in advance. An almost universal practice arose of indicating on the margin opposite each year, the event, which, in the mind of the recorder, seemed to make that year mast significant in the history of the locality. LN ot only were these early annals very scanty m the information they con- tained, on account of mentioning only one or two conspicuous events which occurred during the year, but they were rendered still less valu- able because the mediaeval annalist frequently considered most important some insignificant avowed miracle or the transfer of the bones of a saint, information of little or no value to the modern investigator"} In time, however, entries were more frequdit and the interests of the annalist grew wider, until the annals became, with such a work as Roger of Hoveden's 'An- nals of English History, > in the early 13th cen- tury, a valuable record of the development of a nation. The origin and development of the < Chron- icle^ was immediately related to the growth of the annals. The annals were primarily a yearly record set down by a contemporary- The chronicle was more comprehensive. TTt normally consisted in the summarizing of th^ history of a considerable period on the basis of one or more sets of annals, preserving^^^the chronolog- ical arrangement of the annals/J Many of the events transcribed by the chronMer might have occurred before his period and he might com- bine the records contained in several annals in order to obtain a more complete and compre- ^ hensive story. To this compilation of annals was usually added, as an introduction, Jerome's translation of Eusebius' ' Chronicle, > which linked up the local chronicle with the Christian synthesis of world history from the beginning of creation. With the expansion of the basic annals in scope and pertinence, the chronicles became more and more an approximation to a history, until in the < Anglo Saxon Chronicle,' the 'Chronicle' of Hermann of Reichenau (d. 1054), the 'Universal Chronicle' of Ekke- hard of Aurach in the earlv 12th centurv, the 'Chrorficle' of Otto of Freising (d. 1158) and the 'Greater Chronicle' of Matthew of Paris (d. 1259) this characteristic vehicle of mediaeval historiography became one of the most thorough and reliable sources of information available in that age. The following were the most important of the_ mediaeval annals. For the Carolingian period the 'Greater Annals of Lorsch' and their continuation to 829 in the 'Rojal Annals,' the 'Annals of Fulda',and the excellent 'Annals of Saint Bertin' and 'Saint Vaast,' coming down to the beginning of the 10th century, are the most valuable. The most important annals deal- ing with early French history are those of Flodoard (d. 966). For English mediaeval his- tory there is the above mentioned work of Roger of Hoveden coming down to 1201. For mediaeval Germany the great annalistic sources are the elegantly written but prejudiced 'Annals of Lambert of Hersfeld,' covering the period to 1077, and the more valuable 'Greater Annals of Cologne,' wliich come to 1237. The chronicles dealing with mediaeval Ger- man history begin with those of Fredegarius *" the Schoolmaster in the 7th century and of Regino of Priim^'in the 10th, and include the authoritative 'Chronicle' of Hermann of Reichenau (d. 1054), Ekkehard of Aurach's 'Universal Chronicle,' compiled at the begin- ning of the 12th century and the most com- prehensive of all mediaeval chronicles, the 'Chronicle' of Otto of Freising (d. 1158), the most notable of 12th century historians, and the valuable 'Chronicle' of Arnold of Liibeck (d. 1212). For France the more famous chron- icles arc the 'Chronicle of Nantes,' ctiming to 1049, those of Hugh of Flavigny and Sige- hert of Gemhloux in the 12th century and of William of Nangis at the beginning of the 14th century. The 'Chronicles' of Froissart (1373 ff) are attractive but highly colored and prejudiced and they illustrate to some extent the transition from the mediaeval chronicle to the historical 218 HISTORY. ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT narrative. Fur I'.iiKlaiid tlic great media'val chronicles arc the 'Angl' '-Saxon Clironidc,' dcscriliing cvtnts to 1154; Roger of Wcndovcr's 'Flowers of History,* coming down to 1235, and their continuation to 125'^ in Matthew of Paris' 'Greater Chronicle.* From Italy is the valnahlc and voluminous 'Florentine Chronicle' of Giovanni Villani, dealing with events to 1348. 3. Attempts at Systematic History.— The efforts lo produci' >^omelhiiig like a systematic historical treatise during the mcdia-val period varied greatly in their success. Their nature was, on the whole, closely correlated with the changes in the general level of culture. The earliest were usually slovenly and labored in style, sadly inaccurate in grammar and entirely ^ credulous and uncritical in method. In the latter part of the period, however, the level of scholarship was raised, and in tlic works of such an historian as Otto of Freising, in the middle of the 12th century, one mect5 for fhe first "lime with an author who will compare favorably with the second-rate figures in classical historiography. [IDn the whole, there were few attempts at a general or international history of a period, and the histories chiefly " concerned local or national events and movements or the deeds of a conspicuous national monarcir\, The following w^ere the more inT^ortant works dealing with German history from the period of the "Invasions.** The first of these, and the earliest product of mediaeval historiog- raphy, was the 'Ten Books of Frankish His- " tory* of Gregory of Tours (540-594), vvhich is the main source of information regarding the origin of the Merovingian dynasty. It was naive, credulous and prejudiced against the Goths, but was an exceedingly straightforward and human document, and was based, to a considerable degree, on Gregory's direct ob- servations. The Lombards found their national V historian in Paul tlie Deacon (725-800), an erudite member of the group of scholars at the court of Charlemagne. His 'History of the Lombards* was greatly superior to Gregory's work with respect to both accuracy and style. The first layman to produce an historical work in the mediaeval period was Niijiard, whose 'Four Books of History* present an able and lucid narrative of the civil wars among the grandsons of Charlemagne and offer one of the few examples of vivid secular interests on the part of a mediaeval historian. The Saxon emperors had as their dynastic historian the monk Widukind, whose 'Deeds of the Saxons* gave an able survey of the reigns of Henry I and Otto »he Great. A more penetrating ac- count of the culture of this period is found in the 'Book of Retribution,' the 'History of Otto* and the 'Legatio' of Liutprandt of Cre- mona (d. 973). The finest products of mediaeval German historiography from the standpoint of style, accuracy and philosophic grasp were the 'Deeds of tlie Emperor Frederick the First' and the above mentioned 'Chronicle* of Bishop Otto of Freising (c. 1114-58). While his lack, of any scientific canons of criticism, his revival of the Aii;,'ustine-Orosius philo.sophv of hi'^tory in his 'Chronicle* and his bias in favor of his royal patron all combined to prevent his rank- ing with, the greatest historians of classical antiquitv, [his work illustrates the highest point to whichV-tfte strictly mediaeval German his- tt)riograi)l)y attained^ The eminent authority, Wegcle. says of the work of Otto: "A waiter possessing such extraordinary literary talent as Otto of Freising did not appear again in Ciermnn history for many a century. However much Lambert of Hersfeld may have excelled him as a polished narrator. Otto more than made up for this by the deep seriousness of his world-philosopJiy and the loftiness of the view- point which he invariably mainlaincd.rVVhai- cvcr anyone may think of his philosophy', he is t'he only mediaeval German historian who was able to grasp in a philosophical manner the march of world-histor>- and who sought to give it a judicious cxpositionT^And he occupies no less conspicuous a position as a narrator of the history of his own times." For France, alleged historical works began with the prolix and highly prejudiced 'Four ( Books of History* of Richer, who wrote at the very close of the 10th century and is almost tlie sole source for the establishment of the Capctian dynasty. An even less reliable and a thoroughly mediaeval work with the same title 1/y Raoul Glaber carried the storv down for a half century further. Somewhat better w^as t'he 'Gcsta Dei per Francos' of Guibcrt of Nogent (1053-1124), which tells the story of the First Crusade, but it is based largely on an earlier Norman narrative and the author is hopelessly confused when he loses his guide. In the 12th • century a superior work appeared in the lively and attractive 'Ecclesiastical History' of Or- dericns Vitalis (1075-1142). Something like a real history is to be seen in Rigord's (c. 1150- 1209) 'Deeds of Philip Augustus,* in the prep- aration of which the author made some ele- mentary use of the available documents, letters and ardiives. The 'Conquete de Constanti- nople,* by Geoff roy de Villehardouin (c. 1160- 1213), was one of the more »etable historical products of the Middle A.ges.\ It was the firs^ mediaeval historical work of any consequenoejl which was written in the vernacular. While it--* was somewhat of an apology for Villehardouin's policy in the Fourth Crusade, it is much the best extant source for an interpretation of the real spirit of the Crusaders. It was a straight- forward account, written in a vigorous an.d concise style being full of personal touches and throbbin.g with virile human interests. The 'Chronicles of France, England, Scotland and Spain,* originally written by Froissart (1338- 1410), a 14th century Lamartine, about 1375, have been mentioned above. They were the work of a poet and chronicler and were avow'edly written to "delight and please" his readers, and in this he succeeded wholly. It is episodical history at its best for literature and near its worst for history, though it is the fullest extant source for the Hundred Years' War. An incomparably superior historical work was the 'Memoires* of Philippe de Corn-, mines (c. 1445-1511), dealing with the period of Louis XI. It was a vigorous narrative ex- hibiting almost all of the traits of the true historian — a good grasp on the meaning of events, penetrating analysis of motives, a de- scription of contemporary culture and sound generalizations. Especially did Commines em- phasize the political and pragmatic value of history and advised all statesmen and diplo- mats to "study it well, for it holds the master key to all types of frauds, deceits and per juried'' HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT 210 With this work French history enters on the modern period. Aside from the above mentioned chroniclers, the avowed mediaeval English historians were few. The confused and gloomy description of the invasions by Gildas (c. 516-570) has ac- quired an undeserved fame because of its being the only available source for that important period. A fine product of the lingering classical "culture in the north of Europe is to be found in Bede's (c. 672-735) famous < Ecclesiastical History of the Englisli Nation.' The work of a real literary artist and scholar, it was a remi- niscence of a fast passing culture rather than a promise of a new era in historiography. On the Anglo-Saxon and Norman monarchs a work of interest and merit was *The History of the Kings of England,' by William of Malmesbury (d. 1142). It is generally agreed that the lead- ing English mediaeval historian was Matthew of Paris (d. 1259) His 'Greater Chronicle' dealt with the troubled times in the middle of the 13th century just preceding the beginnings of the English parliamentary system. The cautious English historian and critic, James Gairdner, thus summarizes the characteristics of Mat- thew of Paris and his historical writings : "His narrative is plain, straightforward and lucid, with here and there a little bit of graphic de- scription, but it contains nothing that is highly coloured or introduced as a mere embellish- ment. The whole interest of the history arises simply out of the facts th^emselves and the truthfulness with which dhey are depicted. The writer was far too much interested in what he had to tell to adorn it with meretricious graces. He was a politician who felt ithe moral signifi- cance of all that took place in his daj', whether in England, at Rome, or in the distant East; and he expresses his judgment without the least reserve, alike on the acts of his own sovereign, of his countrymen, and of the court of Rome. He is, in fact, the most distinctly political historian with whom we have yet had to do. He has, no doubt, his feelings as a monk, resenting the presumption, in some cases, of these new orders of friars, though even here his complaints seem very fair. But his thoughts rise altogether above mere class and party considerations. He is not so much a monk as an English politician, and yet not English exclusively, but 'cosmopolitan. His merits, even in his own day, as a man of great judgment and impartiality seem to have been renowned over Europe." 4. Mediaeval Historical Biography. — The personal prowess of the great political and mili- tary figures in the Middle Ages made attractive subjects for historical biography TT)f ten the monardh subsidized or otherwise savored a biographer to ensure a properly flattering record of his deeds. 'TNeedless to say, strict impar- tiality was never observed, and sycophancy often was added to the other defects of mediaeval historiography. In addition, the theological coloring of all m.. -liaeval thought led the biog- rapher to represent the great secular figures of the period as the chc. en agents of Divine Provi- dence in their ageQ Of these mediaeval biog- raphies the most notable were '. 2. Characteristics of the Historiography of Humanism. — Though there were great dif- ferences in the quality of the product of the historians of this period, as, for instance, be- tween the works of a Poggio and a Guicciardini, certain fundamental characteristics of the his- toriography of humanism were sufficiently general and universal to justify enumeration. The reaction of humanism upon historical writ- ing was strictly in accordance wUh the funda- mental aspects of the movemcnt.yit meant, in the first place, a search for classhrtrl texts and the comparison, criticism and improvement of those recovered. Again, it greatly reduced the element of the miraculous in historical interpre- tation and lessenedthc "emotional thrilP* of the "Chri'^tiati Epicl Pagan history was to some extent rc^toredTt) the position from which it had been excluded by the Christian writers in general, and by Augustine and Orosius in particular. This was due in part to the ad- miration of the humanists for classical culture, and in part to the fact, thaL_4or the first time since the passing of Romc.Va majority of the leading historians were lajTiTtn and practical men of alTairs rather than churchmen and theologians."! Naturally, also, the classical models of hilrtoriography were cfTective in lead- ing to an improvement in style and, what was more importantMo a greater attention to politi- cal and social cvci\ts and forces — it meant the re-secularization of historyj^ A powerful im- pulse in this latter direction^ame from the be- ginnings of modern nationalism in the Italian city-states. Also, the criticism of literary texts produced at least an elementary sense of the value of a critical handling of historical documents. Finally, with the humanists his- tory became more historical. With their cen- tre of interest in the culture of a period long past, historical writing could no longer be limited entirely to contemporary history or to a mere repetition of the threadbare *Chronicle> of Jerome. In the large, however, humanism meant to historical writing a great literary and cultural improvement but much less of an ad- vance in scientific method — it was a great im- pulse to history as literature but in no such degree to history as a critical science. The canons of Isocrates, Livy and Tacitus rather than of Thucydides and Polybius, were the guide of humanist historians. Nor did human- ism bring to historical writing that freedom from subserviency to vested interests and au- thority that is commonly supposed. Vlt emanci- pated it to a large degree from the'theological bias, but substituted a secular restraint which was often as damaging to objectivity and ac- curacy.* \ As Professor Burr has well stated the case; "When the Middle Ages waned, the revived study of the ancients and the rise of a lay republic of letters did not at first, one must confess, greatly advance the freedom of his- tory. The courtier humanist charged with a biography of his princely patron or a history of his dynasty, the humanist chancellor com- sioned by the city fathers to write the history of the town, was perhaps less free to find or tell the truth than had been the churchlv chronicler unhampered by hereditary- lords or local vanity. The audience, too, was humanist, and the tyranny of rhetoric, never wholly dispelled throughout the Aliddle A^fs, now reasserted itself with double power. jT It was the humanist historian's very function K^make the glories of his prince or of his city a vehicle for the displa>KQf the Latin style to which he owed his postj And if history, thus again an art, a branch crfnitera- ture, dared in a field so secular to shun the mention of ecclesiastical miracle and even to forget the great plan of salvation, it was too often to borrow from the ancients j,. strange varnish of omen and of prodigy-.*' VJVhile it bore no causal relation to humanism, it should be remembered that it was d-..ring this period that the printing press was 'Tivcnted and intro- duced into general u^e. /It gave a great stimu- lus to the "making of booUs** in the field of his- to^\^ as in other branches of literary cflFort. In its largest significance for the future of histori- cal science, the invention ( f printing can be com- pared only to the origi.ial mastery of the art of writing. It is not too much to say that neither Thucvdides, Pr.lvbius, Blondus, Mabillon HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT nor Ranke was as consequential or indispensable in making possible the present status of his- toriography as the inventor of the art of print- ing by movable type, be he Coster, Gutenberg or someone yet to be discovered. 3, The Chief Contributors to the His- toriography of Humanism. — Aside from the scholars whose activity lav solely in the search for classical texts, the first important product of humanist historiography was 'The Twelve Books of Florentine History^ by ' Leonardo Bruni (1369-1.444). yn this and his lafer'^om- nTentanes^ are to be found nearly all of the characteristics of the historiography of the humanist school — a moderate adherence to the canons of style of the Greek and Roman Rhetoricians, the opinion that classical rather than contemporary culture was the most promis- ing field for historical inspiration, the elimina- tion of pagan and Christian miracles and le- gends, and a primary attention to the pnactical analysis of political events and activities^ The standards of Bruni were adopted by hisvene- tian disciple, Marcanton Lo Coccio - ( 1436-1506) , know n as ^ Sabelljcus.^ in the production of the only serious humanist attempt at a world his- tory, his 'Enneades.^ Though he took his chronology from Eusebius, he restored to the history of antiquity some degree of proportion in dealing with the various nations by depart- ing from the almost exclusive concern with Hebrew history, which had been the fashion for a millennium. Again, while he in no way foreshadowed Voltaire, that he made some progress toward rationalism and criticism may be seen from his placing the legend of Sam- son on a parity with that of Hercules. The great gulf between the historiography of the Patristic period and that of humanism can best be appreciated by a comparison of the ^En- neades> with 'The Seven Books of. History against the Pagans. > If Bruni was the Hero- dotus of humanist historiography and Sabellicus its Diodorus, Poggio (1380-1459) was fts Ephorus. His 'Eight Books of Florentine His- tory^ illustrate in its extreme form the influence of classical rhetoric on humanist historical literature and one may agree with Fueter that "what he gained as a literary artist he lost as ' an historian.'* Of a widely different character from the work of Poggio was that of the most distin- guished historical critic of the period, Lauren- tius yalla ( 1407-57). Valla's only systematic historical work,~^The History of Ferdinand I of Aragon> was not conspicuously successful. It proved the author to be a "scandal-monger* rather than a historian in the field of narrative, though it may have been a slight methodological advance to have substituted scandals for mira- cles. His achievement, for which he has re- ceived undue fame in the field of criticism, was the final proof of the forgery of the 'Donation of Constantine,' the authenticity of which had already been doubted by Cusanus and Bishop Peacock. As Fueter has clearly shown, Valla acquired fame by virtue of the venerable nature of the document he attacked rather than by the skill or erudition he displayed in its analysis. It was a testimonial to his courage rather than to his critical powers, which could be matched by several other humanists. As Emerton has said, "The most interesting thing about the ex- posure is the amazing ease of it. It does not prove the great learning or cleverness of the author, for neither of these was needed. The moment that the bare facts were held up to the world of scholars the whole tissue of absurd- ities fell to pieces of its own weight.*' More skill was shown in his 'Duo Tarquinii,* an attack on Livy's treatment of a certain phase of early Roman history. This work also showed that the most highly esteemed of secular authorities was no more immune from critical examination than venerable ecclesiastical docu- ments. Valla's methods were applied by his Venetian contemporary, Bejmardo Giustiniani .(1408--89 ), to dissipate theTegencIs connected with the founding of Venice. Far the greatest historical scholar that Ital- ian humanism produced was ^lavius Blondus (1388-1463), the Timaeus of humanism, who de- voted his life to a study of the antiquities of ancient Rome and the rise of the mediaeval states. His chief work was 'History since the DecHne of the Power of the Romans,* in 31 books. The most notable thing about this work, aside from the careful scholarship, was the original attitude that its author displayed in his interpretation of the significance of the mediaeval period. "The novel element in the attitude of Blondus,** says Professor Burr, "is that instead of thinking of the Middle Ages as the continuous history of a Roman Empire, as mediaevals had been wont to do, he left Rome to the past and told the storv of the rising peoples who supplanted her.** "rHe contributed' more,** says Fueter, "to our ko^rwledge of the Middle Ages and of Roman antiq^y than all the other humanists combined^** It is the best possible illustration of^Tne canons of humanism that its greatest historical scholar and savant was never given formal recognition or reward for his great con- tribution to scholarship, because he did not possess an elegant literary stjde. In a more fundamental sense, perhaps, his work was given the greatest testimonial possible, in that, of all products of the historical scholarship of the period, it was the most plagiarized for informa- tion by later writers. In this way it contributed indirectly to the improvement of historical scholarship. The unpopularity of scholarship for its own sake, as shown by the experience of Blondus, explains whv he had but one true Italian disciple, Calchi (1462-C.1516), the his- torian of Milan. Blondus was the true precur- sor of Mabillon and Tillemont. The humanist Pope, .'Eneas Sylvius Pic- cqlomjni (1405^^), deserves mention m" a sicetch oT humanist historiography more from the nature of his personal career and the in- fluence he exerted on later German writers than from the value of his contributions to systematic history or to the improvement of historical method. His numerous historical works, 'Commentaries on the Council of Basel*; 'The History of Frederick IIP; 'The History of Bohemia* ; 'The History of Europe* ; 'L^niA-ersal History,* and 'Commen- taries,* or his autobiography, were superficial, without deep philosophical grasp, fragmentary and incomplete. Contrarj"^ to the usual view, he did not even equal Bruni as an historical critic, to say nothing of Valla and Blondus. On the other hand, he was a man of action in politics to a degree scarcely equalled by Polybius or Tacitus. No contemporary knew more of .Mi. HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT European politics and culture than he, and the most valuable aspect of his historical works is the fact that they arc full of personal memoirs. As a memlicr of the imperial chancery of Frederick HI and throu^'h his later ecclesiasti- cal relations with the empire, his interest in German history and culture was greater than that of any of his Italian contemporaries. His siKiiihcance in the development of historiograph} rests primarily upon his works on German his- tory and his influence on later German his- torians. In his history of Frederick III he made large use of Otto of Freising and brought him to the attention of contemporaries. His history of Bohemia was probably the first at- tempt of a humanist historian to Jjitroducc ethnography into historical literaturetJFinally, his history of Europe and his universal history sought to bring out theJ^nterrelation between history . and geograph^\/lt was in these re- spects^ chiefly, that he inTluenced later German historians. Fuetcr says on this point: «^neas Sylvius was mainly responsil)le for the later appearance in the works of many German humanist historians of the tendency to introduce into works on history excursions into the origin and growth of law and the relations of geog- raphy to historical development, to assume at least a semi-critical attitude toward the legends of racial origins, and to display a boisterous chauvinism in matters touching the question of nationality." Historical biography among the humanists was founded bv Filippo V illani (c. 1325-1405) in his survey of the mo'st illustrious citizens of Florence. Always handicapped by the crude- ness of their classical model, Suetonius, the biographical products of the period were not as successful as the more systematic historical works. The only notable work was Giorgio Vasari's (1511-1574) *Lives of the Mos't Emi- nent Painters, Sculptors and Architects.* This lacks almost every characteristic of a good his- torical work, but has become famous because of its subject matter and the scarcity of other sources. It w^as the first real history of art. 2T"he transition from strictly humanist histo- riography to the beginnings of modern political and national historical writing in Italy was well illustrated by the works of the Florentine his- torians, M^chiavelli and GuicciardimQ The cul- tural supremacy of Florence at the' time, and the intensity of its political life, cornbined to make it a particularly favorable environment to stimulate the production of works of high value. With Blondus they valued truth more than rhetoric, but they were saved from the former's obscurity and unpopularity by avoid- ing a labored and pedantic style. With them history became wholly secular and was limited primarily to a straight- forward narrative and analysis of political events. Some attempt also was made to substitute a psychological and material theory of causation for supernatu- raii'^m. Ma chiay clli (1469-1527) was primarily a poliircaT phifosopher without any particular emotion for history unless it was utilized in the interests r;f political theory. It is this tendency which giv<;s his major historical work, ^The History of Florence,' its distinctive characteris- tics. From the standpoint of style or accuracy il was not superior to some other histories of the period, but is it doubtful if any previous historian since Polybius, with whom Machia- velli was thoroughly familiar, had exhibited the power of grasping the nature of historical caus- ation or of presenting a clear picture of the process of historical development that Machia- velli displayed in his analysis of the political evolution of the city of Florence. It was as a political thinker and organizer of causal factors that Machiavclli excelled, and not as an ob- jecliio- narrator of political events. /Not at -all philosophical, but more truly hi.s- toncal, was Gujc ciardin i (1483-1540). His 'History of Florence' is one of the truly orig- inal works in historiography in that the author broke almost completely with both Patristic and humanist historiography and even went beyond the classical historical conventions in one par- ticular, namely, that he eliminated the introduc- tion of direct discourse in his narrative^ In his lucid style, free from digressions and-trrelevant details, there was no trace of florid rhetoric, and his primary concern with contemporary po- litical history allowed him, in the latter part of the work, to dispense, to some extent, with the annalistic and strictly chronological arrangement of the conventional historical writing of his time. He made no attempt at philosophic anal- ysis, but devoted himself solely to a vigorous and incisive narrative of events and a candid criticism of men and policies. "With the 'Flor- entine History,'" says Fueter, "there began modern analytical historiography and political ratiocination in history." Most critics contend that with Guicciardini's 'History of Florence' historiography in western Europe had again at- tained to the level of Thucydides and Polybius. It had, however, no influence on contemporary historiography as it was not published until 1859. From the standpoint of style and ar- rangement Guicciardini's other major work, 'The History of Italy,' was less original be- cause here he compromised with those rhetori- cal conventions of humanism which he had so rigorously excluded from his first work. But with respect to its breadth, scope and original mode of approach, thye latter work was even more epoch making. < For the first time a his- torian had been able 1?6T)reak with tradition and free himself from primary concern with any particular state or dynasty and to devote his attention to a much broader field — "the history of a geographical unity?^ This gave him an unprecedented opportunity to study the growth and decline of states, the interaction between states in all the phases of international relations, and the processes of political evolution. In other words, the subject-matter offered rare opportunities for the study of universal history reproduced on a small scale, and, though Guic- ciardini almost entirely lacked that philosophical insight into social and political processes that distinguished Machiavelli and was thereby pre- vented from making the first great study of social and political evolution, the very novelty of his program constituted a great advance in historical method. Few will deny that Guicciar- dini reached the highest level to which post- classical historiography attained until the time of Mabillon, but the great progress that waS necessary 'before modern scientific political his- tory could be reached is best appreciated bv a perusal of the rather over severe criticism of Guicciardini by Ranke, the earliest, but by no means the most cautious and scholarly of the HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT modern school. ^The modern standards might more quickly have been reached had not the Reformation set back the progress of historical writing by the resurrection of theological inter- ests and religious bias and controversy which humanism was gradually and peacefully smoth- eringn[Not until the theological monopoly had been "crushed by the rationalism of the 18th cen- tury and secular interests had been reinforced by the commercial revolution and the rise of modern nations could any fundamental advance be achieved. Outside of Italy, humanism found many distinguished converts, and not the least of them in the field of history. In general, the conventional canons of humanist historiograph}' were faithfully followed, though there were some variations introduced as a result of chang- ing conditions. As the movement was some- what belated beyond the Alps, it became com- plicated by the religious conflicts of the Refor- mation period and took on a concern with ecclesiastical matters which was quite foreign to the Italians of the 15th century. Again, the literary tastes remained less purely classical, and, in the. zeal for florid rhetoric and sharp invective,]|Tacitus, rather than Livy, became the model of many of the northern humanists in the 16th centuryT\ As in Italy, so in the north, humanist historffal literature gradually evolved into the beginnings of modern political his- toriography. The most scholarly product of the historiog- raphy of Swiss humanism was the history of Saint-Gall by Jo achim von _Watt. better known as Vadianus (1484-1551). He li generally rated as a historian superior to Blondus. He not only rivalled Blondus in textual criticism, but also advancedj^step further toward Ranke by making some rudimentary progress toward the internal criticism of th^ tendencies of the au- • thors of the document_£J He was able, further, to combine erudition with a clear and vigorous style and good grasp upon the general factors of historical development. Fueter regards his work as the most broadly conceived product of the historiography of humanism on account of the wide scope of the subjects and interests embraced. It was, however, doomed to an even longer period of obscurity than awaited Guicci- ardini's ^History of Florence,* because it was not published until the third quarter of the 19th century. In Germany the list of distinguished human- ist historians begins with the name of Albert Krantz (1450-1517), who, following Aeneas SylvTus, was one of the first to apply the literary and historical methods of humanism to a study of primitive peoples, in his histories of the early Saxons and Wends. More famous was Johannes Turmair, known as Aventinus (1477-1534). In hir^istory of Bavaria> and his ^History of Early Germany* he tried to combine the literary canons of Bruni with the scholarshinof Blondus, but fell far short of either, and\h|s bitter Protestant bias prevented any objective treatment of contemporary affairs] Few writers of the period, however, "equalled him in his ability to analyze and interpret the manners and customs of a people. Ulrich von Hutten (1488-1523) \vas more distinguished for njs t5Tilliant satire in his campaign against bigotry than for his contributions to historical literature, but his recovery and publication, with extended comments, of a manifesto of Henry IV against Gregory VII was both a shaft of Protestantism against Rome and a valuable addition to historical knowledge. The only dis- tinguished representative of the erudite and critical tendencies of Blondus among the Ger- man humanist historians was Beatus Rh enanu s (1486-1547), the friend and disciple of Erasmus. He examined the sources of early German his- tory with the same exact and objective scholar- ship that Erasmus had applied to the ecclesi- astical records and doctrines. While he lacked the ability to organize his work into a coherent exposition of its results, his labors represent the highest level of scholarship to which the historiography of German humanism attained. Of all the publicists who have a place in the historiography of German humanism, Samuel .Pjii^ndorf (1632-94) was the leader as a his- torian. His works included a ^History of Sweden,* a ^History of Frederick William the Great Elector* and ^An Introduction to the History of the Leading Powers and States of Europe.* He had a fine classical style, but ex- hibited to its fullest extent that fundamental fault still common to publicists when they enter the field of historical literature, namely, a con- cern only with the few distinguished figures in international relations and with that hitherto most superficial field of political history, the record of international relations when unaccom- panied by any attention to internal political or social history. As in the later work of Droy- sen, one searches in vain in the mass of refer- ences to external politics for even the slightest appreciation of those deeper popular movements and forces of which diplomatic history can give only the most scanty and unreliable reflection and information. A more distinguished scholar and publicist than Pufcndorf, but not so noted an historian, was the Dutch writer, Hugo Grotius (1583- 1645), the founder of modern international law. His chief historical work was ^The History of the Netherlands.* Though his style, in imita- tion of Tacitus, w^as pompous, prolix and in- volved, he displaj'ed great ability in psycholog- ical anab'sis and in dissecting the problems of military and political history connected with the struggle between Spain and the Nether- lands. That humanist historiography in England was closely related to the origins of that intel- lectual movement in Italy is to be seen in the fact that the first product of this U~pe of his- tdical literature in England was the scholarly and well-written ^History of England in the Reign of Henry VII* by Polydore Vergil (1470-1535), an Italian ecclesiastic who had made his home in England. His scholarship was not matched in the British Isles until the time of Camden, a century later. England's earliest native humanist historian of note was Sir Thomas More (1478-1535), who-e pol- ished style found expression in his ^History of Richard III.* Of all the British historians of this period, it is probable that the truest repre- sentative of humanism was the erudite Scot, George Buchanan (1506-82). Few of the best Italians equalled him for the purity of his Latin diction and the vigor and clarity of his narrative, but his ^ History' of Scotland* was 804 HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT most uiKiitical and credulous, utterly lacking' in ratiynalistic tendencies and marred by ,i narruvi( chauvinism. Machiavelli and Guicci- ardini found lluir linglish disciple in the phi- l(M(bplu'r and stalesman, Francis Bacon (1561 I620i His 41istury of the Keign of Kin,; Henry the Seventh • was especially notable for bold criticism, "judicial severity," and the frank expression of the author's opinions. The Eng- lish representative of the erudite and critical school of Blondus was the court historian, Wil- liam Camden (1531-1623), an avowed admirer of Polybius. In his * Annals of English and Irish History in the Reign of Elizabeth' he showed, like his French contemporary Uc Thou, that the political history of the 16th century could not be wholly divorced from ecclesiastical questions. The transition from humanism to 'modern political history in England was illustrated by the works of Lord Clarendon (1609-74) and Bishop Burnet (1643-1715). While the general arrangement of Clarendon's * History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England' re- sembled the French "memoirs,** and though it was most superficial in its analysis of the fundamental social and political causes of the civil wars, it is doubtful if any previous his- torian, classical or humanist, possessed Claren- don's power of vivid delineation of personali- ties. Bishop Burnet, in his 'History of the Reformation of the Church of England* and 'History of My Own Time,* was the first his- torian of parly intrigues and parliamentary de- bates, a subject scarcely available for any pre- vious writer. An ardent Whig and Anglican, he belonged more to the forerunners of modern political history than to the list of disciples of humanism. Spain contributed three important figures to humani.^t historical literature in Diego Hurtado de Mendoza (1503-75), Juan de Mariana (1535- 1625) and Ger6nimo dc Zurita (1512-80). While Mendoza wrote his 'History of the War with Granada* in a pompous, archaic and involved style, he equalled Bacon or Guicciardini in his sharp criticisms and acute judgments. Mariatia, a Spanish Jesuit, was a writer of quite a dif- ferent sort. He has been called the Spanish Buchanan by Fueter, and his 'History of Spain' in 30 books resembled the work of the Scot in its excellent style and cautious criti- cisms of Christian legends. His liberal allot- ment of space to ecclesiastical matters was a breach with humanist conventions. Much less able in narration, but a far more critical scholar, was Gcronimo dc Zurila, the historian of the kingdom of Aragon and the most prominent and faithful disciple of Blondus among the Spanish historians of this period. He was espe- cially significant through the fact that he was one of the first historians to make an extensive and fairly critical use of the diplomatic corre- spondence in reconstructing the record of polit- ical events in the distant past. The most notable product of the historical schola'ship of the French humanists was the work of Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609) in the field of historical "chronology. His 'De emendatio-'c temporum' was a bold attemnt to put chronolo^ry on a scientific basis by revising the "sacred' chronology in the light of the evidence from the history of the "gentile** and "pagan" nations of antiquity. His 'Thesaurus temporum' was a most notable performance of scholarship, which provided a general history of the development of chronology and included a most valuable reconstruction of the lost 'Chronicle' of Eusebius. Scaliger's publicist contemporary, J^aiiBodin (1530-'^6), in his 'Methodus ad"^ Facilem historiarum cogni- tionem,' produced the first extensive treatise on historical method, with the emphasis on mter- pretation rather than upon criticism of sources. Especially significant was the emphasis which Bodin placed upon the influence of geographical factors in historical development, thus opening the way for Montesquieu and Ritter. It was, therefore, to a much greater degree a fore- runner of the first chapter of Buckle's 'His- tory of England* than of Bernhcim's 'Lehr- buch.* A widely different contribution to his- toriography was contained in the work of Jac- ques Auguste de Thou (1553-1617), conven- tionally known as Thuanus. He was probably the most notable French contributor to the sys- tematic historiography of humanism. His 'His- toria sui temporis,' designed as a continuation of a work of the same title by the Italian humanist, Paulus Iqvus (1483-1552), described the civil and religious wars in France in the latter part of the I6th century according to the spirit of an enlightened and tolerant French Protestant. He introduced into historiography the laudable tendencies displayed by his royal master and friend, Henry IV, in statesmanship. As might be expected in the work of one of the jurists who aided in drafting the "Edict of Nantes,** he was scarcely fair to the extreme Catholic party, but his message was a lofty and noble plea for mutual religious toleration in the larger interest^of France. His work ex- hibited great powers of extended intellectual labor and uniformly maintained a great dignity of tone. He might have equalled Machiavelli . and Guicciardini if he had not reintroduced the theory of the divine determination of political causation, and if he had possessed the con- structive literary ability which would have enabled him to organize his work into a coherent narrative. He may be said, however, to have improved upon them in one regard, namely, that he showed how essential a proper consideration of ecclesiastical affairs may be to a thorough understanding of political and con- stitutional development. The contributions of de Thou's contemporary, Isaac CasauI)on, will be discussed in another connection. The finest literary product of the historiography of French humanism was the polished '^Icmoires* of Saint-Simon (1675-1755) dealing with France under the early Bourbons. IX. The Protestant Reform.vtion .\nd the Counter-Ri:fokm.\tion in HisroRior.R.M-HY. 1. Its Effect upon the Subject-matter and the Interpretation of History.— In the same year that Machiavelli received his commission to write his 'History of Plorcnce* Luther burned the papal bull' at Wittenberg and the Protestant Reformation was soon in full swing. (A rude shock was given to the great impulse hrf humanism toward the healthy secularization of historical literature, and the centre of his- torical interests was again forced back into the rut of theological controversies from which HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT 225 it had been trying to free i^tself since the days of Augustine and OrosiusTy Again to quote from Professor Burr, "To tRe freedom of his- tory there came a sudden check with the great rehgious reaction we call the Reformation. Once more human affairs sank into insignifi- cance. Less by far than that of the older church did the theology of Luther or Calvin accord reality of worth to human effort. Luther valued history, it is true, but only as a divine lesson ; and Melanchton set himself to trace in it the hand of God, adjusting all its teachings to the need of Protestant dogrna. Had either Papist or Lutheran brought unity to Christendom, history again must^have be- come the handmaid of theology." | Not only were ecclesiastical matters, dealingLwith both dogma and organization, deemed the all essen- tial sphere of historical investigation, but also irely leviT? acea universal history was again regarded as pure a great struggle between God and the D Two new "Cities of Satan," however, repl the pagan "City" of Augustine and Orosius, — the 'Teufels Nest zu Rom,* and the followers of "the crazy Monk of Wittenberg," respec- tively. The struggle was now limited to Chris- tendom, which became "a house divided against itself.» It is scarcely necessary to point out the fact that this revival of the religious orientation of historical interest was as fatal to the fine ob- jectivity of Guicciardini's type of historical product as it was to the maintenance of the secular point of view of the Florentine school. iTSere was no longer any thought of prosecuting mstorical studies for the mere love of acquiring information or of enriching the store of knowl- edge regarding the past, a^Blondus had labored for these purposes aloneTl History again be- came as violently pragmattc as with Augustine and his disciples. The past was viewed merely as a vast and varied "arsenal" from which the controversialists could bring unlimited supplies of ammunition for the conflict and put their enemies to an inglorious rout. The embryonic canons of criticism which had been in part re- stored by the best of the humanist historians were lightly ignored, and each party consciously strove to produce the most biased account of past events possible, in order to exhibit their opponents in the most unfavorable light. y_3ources of information were not valued for their authenticity, but for their potential aid in polemic exercises, and invective replaced the calm historical narrative. Finally, it should be emphasized that since the period of the Ref- ormation there has been little opportunity for a completely free and impartial study of the mediaeval period. An epoch, the interpretation of which was so vital to the two great re- ligious groups of Christendom, could scarcely again become a field for calm and dispassionate analysis. It would be inaccurate, however, to hold that the Reformatiori gave no impulse to historical investigation. fNever in the palmiest days of classical or Kijfrianist historical writing" was there a more feverish energy exhibited in scanning the records of the past ; the great de- fect was not in the nature of a decline in activ- ity or interest, but in the character of the im- pulse that led to this vigorous quest for in- formation and the manner of use to which the knowledge was put after it had been acquired./ VOL. 14 — 15 ' " Protestant historians were "aided by the God of Saint Paul" in the search for evidence that would prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the elaborate ritual and body of dogma of the Roman Catholic Church had been wholly an extra-scriptural and semi-pagan growth, and that the Pope was the real Anti-Christ; and Catholic investigators were "specially guided by the Blessed Virgin" in their counter-demonstra- tion that the Church and all its appurtenances were but the rich and perfect fulfillment of Scripture, and that the Protestants were in- viting a most dreadful and certain punishment by their presumptuous and sinful defection from the organization founded by Saint Peter in direct obedience to the words of Christ. The only real contributions made by the controversy were the recovery and publication of important early documents on Church histor}' and the production of telling criticisms by both factions which could be combined a century later by the rationalists to their mutual discomfiture. 2. The Chief Products of the Controversial Period, — The first serious contribution of the Protestant camp was *The Lives of the Popes of Rome> by Robert Barnes (1495-1540), an Anglican Lutheran who had fled to Germany for protection. Composed under Luther's di- rect supervision, it endeavored to prove the popes responsible for all the disasters of the Middle Ages and praised the virtues of their secular opponents. At last, the methods of Orosius had been turned against the Church . itself. Much more important were the vol* f uminous ^Magdeburg Centuries, > a composite work planned and edited by Matthias Vlacich (1520-75), better known by his latinized name of Flacius. He was aided by a number of prominent Protestant scholars, such as Aleman, Copus, Wigand and Judex. The history of the Church and of Christian doctrine was reviewed by centuries down to 1300 in the effort to prov? direct historicity in the Lutheran position and to show that the Catholic doctrines and organ- ization had been an exotic and unhol}^ growth juvay from the purity of Apostolic Christianity. jWhile the authors displayed considerable critical aFility in dissecting the papal doctrine and dogmas, they exhibited an equal gullibility in accepting preposterous tales to bolster up their side of the controversTrj Its significance lies / chiefly in the fact thaf^t founded Church his- / tory in its modern phase. Another Protestant 1 polemic appeared about this time in England ' and met with great popular success. This was 4ng a rnarvelous precision and sureness in the selec- tion and presentation of the significant and striking details." Nor did he fail to condemn 226 HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT in the most vigorous terms those who adopted Calvinism as a means of gaining selfish ma- terial ends or resorted to violence in the name of religion in order to revenge political or personal grievances. A work which can scarcely be regarded as a part of the campaign of theological polemic that is being described, but which calls for some brief notice on ac- count of its great interest and significance for the history of the Reformation, is the "Corn- mentaries on the Political and Religious Condi- tions in the Reign of limperor Charles V" by lohanncs Philippi (1506-66), more generally known by his latinized name of Sleidanus. JThc great importance of his work is that it was the first political analysis of the Reforma- tion movement and the Protestant revolt. He w^as the official constitutional apologist of the Lutheran states of northern Germany, and his task, not unlike that of Jefferson, was to justify at the bar of public opinion the entire legality of the secession of the Protestant princes from the Empire' He, therefore, approached the his- tory of the movement from a political and con- stitutional rather than a theological point of view^IiN'hile he limited himself wholly to authentic documents, his work was the product of an advocate; though not a polemic, it was a lawyer's brief carefully selecting and mar- shalling the evidence to be presented. As might be expected from such circumstances, his "Commentaries" exhibited great power in the organization and concentration of material, an admirable lucidity of expression and a dignified tone, designed to make an appeal to the learned public of Europe. While it contained none of Ranke's religious fervor and in no way anticipated the social studies of Janssen, his work was of the greatest significance as a direct foreshadowing of the now generally ac- cepted thesis of Professor Robinson that the Protestant revolt was far more a political than a religious movement — that it looked more toward the political adjustments of the Peace of Augsburg and the Treaty of Westphalia than to the triumph of the theology of "justification by faith." ITHe anticipated this interpretation, not only through the general mode of his ap- proach to the problem, but also by specific com- ments upon tne underlying political causes of the revoltT*! The CStholic counter-blast was initiated by the monumental *.A.nnalcs ecclesiastici' of Car- dinal Caesar Baronius (l.'>38-1607), the director of the Vatican library. By the use of an enor- mous mass of evidence he tried to prove the New Testament origin of Catholic Christianity and to show its logical development from Scrip- tural foundations. While he was more critical in his use of sources than the authors of the 'Centuries' and introduced more unpublished documents, the work was purely a polemic and marked no advance in historical method. In one way it was decidedly a retrogression. As the most authoritative critic of the historiography of this period has clearly shown, Baronius was mainly re-^ponsible for the introduction into his- torical CdiMroversy of the method of shufHing, quibbling a' d evasion, which has particularly characterized the Jesuit controversialists. He endeavored to avoid meeting dangerous issues by trying to confuse and obscure the vital ques- tion through turning the discussion into secon- dary and irrelevant channels. The crudities and errors in the work of Baronius were re- vealed in the searching criticism of the great humanist scholar, Isaac Casaubon (1559-1614), to wliom Baronius' weaknesses due to his in- ability to handle Greek were readily apparent. He devoted the last years of his life to a refu- tation of Baronius in his 'Exercitationes in Baronium.' The 'Annales' were later continued with much greater scholarship by Odoricus Raynaldus (1595-1671), a learned Italian ec- clesiastic. The second great Catholic cham- pion was the French bishop, Jacques Benigne Bossuet (1627-1704). In his 'History of the Differences among the Protestant Churches* he endeavored to convince the Protestants of the error of their ways by showing them that there could be no logical end to sectarian divisions once the crucial initial break had been made with ecclesiastical authority. P Bossuet's im- portance lies in the fact thatTTe alone of the controversialists, Protestant or Catholic, was able to get beneath personalities and events and to view the conflict in its deepest philosophical aspects as a struggle between liberty and au- thority, in which the victory of liberty mea nt tg him indifference, atheism and religious ana n^hy^ In his 'Discourse on Universal History' he apS* peared as the Orosius of the Counter-Reforma- tion. Though incomparably more able and philosophic than the 'Seven Books against, the Pagans,* it was less critical and less historical than the 'Enneades' of Sabellicus. "His 'Dis- course,* ** says Fueter, "was not an historical work. It was merely a sermon in which t!he biblical text was supplanted by historical sub- ject-matter carefully edited and prepared in the interest of the Church." It was the last serious attempt at an interpretation of universal his- tory in terms of the old theolog}'. After Vol- taire had published his 'Essai sur les Moeurs* in the middle of the next centurj', no one dared to risk his reputation by a revival of the doc- trines of Orosius and Bossuet. The above-mentioned works of controversy are only the more notable ones selected from the great volume of lesser contributions to the historical literature of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, but they sufficiently illus- trate the general tendencies in method and in- terpretation. It has not entirely ceased at the present day as one can readily perceive by a comparison of the works of Ranke and Schaff with those of Bollinger and Janssen. While humanists and religious controversialists were writing, a new Europe was being shaped by the effects of the commercial revolution, out of which was to come modern civilization and with it the birth of scientific historiography. / X. The Chief Influences in the Shaping of MoDER]^ Historiography. 1. The Era of Discoveries and the "Com- mercial Revolution." — Inasmuch as history down to very recent times has been regarded as primarily the domain and province of the theologian or litterateur, it was but natural that either the Reformation or the Renaissance should be taken as marking the origin of the modern phase of the development of historiog- raphy. Now that it has come to be generally conceded that, in its broadest interpretation, L his tory is a branch of social science and related HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT 227 generically to the whole body of science, it has become necessar>' to search for the causes which brought modern historical writing into being in the results of that great period of transformation which marks the beginnings of the present social and intellectual order, namely, thd'^ommercial Revolution.*^ By this term is mraTvt that vast movement of exploration and discovery, which occmred in the three cen- turies from 1450-1 75077and its almost incal- culable social and intellectual consequences. The isolation, repetition, stability and provin- cialism of the old order could not endure in the face of the widespread contact of different cultures — that most potent of all forces in arousing intellectual curiosity and promoting radical changes of every sort. The reaction of the commercial revolution upon historiography was in no way more not- able and far-reaching than in regard to the scope of the historian's interest. The narrow- ness and superficiality of the field of historical investigation since the canons of Thucydides and Orosius had come tp prevail could no long- er endure unimpaired /it meant the beginning of the return to the field~lhat Herodotus had to some extent marked out for the historianj Writers to some degree ceased to be absorbs by those most superficial phases of political and ecclesiastical history, which had hitherto claimed all of their attention, and became for the firsts time interested in the totality of civ- ilization, jit meant a much greater impulse to that broatiening and secularizing process which had been revived by humanism. Not only were there great stores of knowledge to be obtained from the contact with the older civilizations of the East, but in the natives, historians and phi- losophers at last found the "natural man,*' who had hitherto only existed in the mythical period before the "Flood.** No greater contrast could be imagined than the vast difference in the type of subjects which interested such an historian as Pufendorf and those with which Oviedo con- cerned himself. Again, the new range of his- torical interests offered some opportunity for originality of thought; there were fewer er- roneous notions to handicap the writer at the outset. Neither Thucydides, Polybius and Livy, nor Augustine and Aquinas had provided the final authoritative opinion on the marriage cus- toms of Borneo or the kinship system of the Iroquois. The only exception in this respect was the prevalent doctrine of a "state of na- ture,** which had come down from the Stoics and Roman lawyers and now- seemed to have practical concrete confirmation. While the influence of the commercial revo- lution upon historiography was most effective indirectb', through the intellectual and social changes which it produced, and the reaction of these changes upon historical interests and methods, there were some important immedi- ate and direct results apparent in historical writing among thosejiho dealt with the record of the discoveries. I In the first place, tliere were radical change?-in style and exposition. The old arrangement in the form of annals was no longer suitable ; what was needed now was a vehicle for comprehensive description and not for chronological narration. The majority of the early historians of the movement of explora- tion and discovery were practical men of af- fairs and wrote in a direct and unpretentious style. Though there was later, with such writers as Herrera, a tendency to lapse into the lit- eral canons of humanism, an important breach had already been made with both the form and the sMe of the conventional historical litera- ture. jTne content of historical products was also ^eatly altered by these writers; political and ecclesiastical intrigues were replaced by a comprehensive account of the manners and cus- toms of a peopJigT/This tendency reacted strong- ly even on those writers 'who dealt exclusively with European affairs. The 'Chronicle* of Eusebius or the genealogy- of reigning mon- archs, as the introduction to historical works was generally displaced by a description of the land and its inhabitants. Excepting only the feeble advances of ^neas Sylvius and his numerous German disciples, for the first time since the days of the Ionic historians of the 5tli and 6th centuries B.C., ethnography and geog-. raphy began to make a feeble appearance in his- toriography. Finally, though the earlier of the members of this school of writers were prima- rily collectors of descriptive information, they later became speculatiyfe, and with Voltaire and Herder there appear attempts at a world his- tory conceived according to the new orientation and possessing some degree of comprehensive- ness and grasp of causal forces. As historiography was completely dominated by the canons of humanism at the beginning of the period of discovery, it was natural that the earliest of the historians of the commercial revo- lution should be humanists who turned their at- tention to the new movement. Their style and arrangement of material, however, had to be al- tered to some extent, and the centre of inter- est was profoundly changed. The first of these writers was^ gjer Martyr d'Ang hiera (d. 1526), an Italian humanist "who devo'redHbimself to a description of the new world which had just been revealed. His lOgcades of the New World * showed a fine power "of descfipfive composition, which sacrificed humanist conven- tions when necessary. While exhibiting no pro- funditj- and little critical ability, it was a well- proportioned and fairly complete summary of the extant reports regarding the new civiliza- tions. /Its great significance lies in the fact that it was me first work bj- an historian which de- scribed the civilization of a people without founding it upon the narrow and cra.niped basis of political life or religious activitlesTT A more truly historical work and the most objw:tive pro- duction of the period was the 'General and Nat- ural History of the Indies* of Gonzalo Fer- nandez de Oviedo (1478-1557), a Spanish nat- uralist who turned historian — a sort of_ e arly 3 Alfred Russell \\'aUace.._He was highly critTcal in reco'rdTrig 'Ins own observations, but was equally credulous in accepting tales told to him by others. His work contained a vast amount of information which was generally reliable. In his direct and matter-of-fact narrative there was nothing of the form of humanism, but hi-; style was slovenly and the organization of material miserable. It was the least artistic and the most scientific work of this early group. At the opposite pole as to accuracy stood the notorious work of the Dominican bishop, Bartholomew de Las Casas (1474-1566)— the "William Lloyd Garrison of the 16th century.*' He was a biased and pedantic scholastic doctrinaire of a thoroughly mediaeval type. His 'Historj' of the HISTORY. ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT Indies,* idealized the natives without bounds and tremendously exaggerated the cruelty of the conquerors. It was worse than worthless for cither history or ethnography and did not even possess the merit of an agreeable style. Infinitely superior was the 'General History of the Indies' of Francisco Lopez dc Gomara (151(>-c.l560). the ablest historian of this school. He showed an admirable combination of excellent descriptive style with relatively high critical ability. His work would have been the great history of the discoveries had it not been vitiated by personal considerations. He was employed by the family of Cortes and was compelled to devote more space to the history of the conquest of Mexico than to all other events combined, and was also compelled to re- frain from candid criticism in this major por- tion of his work. The great '^popular*' history of the period of discovery was the 'General History of the West Indies' of Antonio de Herrera (1549-1625), the official historian of Philip II. This work was tlie best example of the lapse of the early descriptive narrative into the conventions of humanist style. He even adopted the annalistic arrangement and every- where subordinated subject-matter to external form. This meant that his work was greatly inferior to some of the earlier ones in its de- scriptive material as well as in critical method. It became the popular authority and did more than any other work to establish the generally accepted ideas concerning the discoveries and the great figures connected with them. Next to the work of Las Casas the least meritorious product of this school was the 'Commentaries on the Incas,' by Garcilaso de la Vega (1540- 1616), the son of a Spanish adventurer by a na- tive Peruvian mother. He was honest but en- tirely destitute of critical powers. Adopting the stye of the humanists, he constructed an Uto- pian picture of ancient Peru which was exag- gerated beyond comparison. His almost worth- less picture of the Incas gained great vogue in the I7lh and 18th centuries when such idealistic views of native populations were so popular. In passing, there might be mentioned the bump- tious and boastful 'General History of Virginia and New England' by Capt. John Smith. The first work to deal with the exploration and settlement of India and the "Far East" by Europeans was the 'Da Asia,' of the Portu- guese colonial official and historian, Joao de Barros (1496-1570). Published in fragmentary form in 1552, it described the Portuguese ex- plorations in Asia. It was, perhaps, the best literary product among the histories of the period of discovery, and, though somewhat apologetic in tone, remained for a long time the chief source of information on the subject. / A century and a half later Engelbrecht Kacmp- fer (1651-1716) provided the first systematic account of the early European contact with Japan. He was a German physician who visited Japan and his manuscript 'History of Japan,' published in 1727, remained the chief popular source of European knowledge re- garding that country for a century, and was extensivelv used by Charlevoix. The French Jesuit, Pierre Fran<;ois Xavier de Charlevoix (1682-1761) not only compiled histories of the Jesuit missionary enterprises in Japan on the basis of the works of Kaempfer and others, but also wrote voluminously of the French ex- plorations in America from personal observa- tion and first hand contact. His 'Histoire et description generale de la Nouvelle-France' (1744), though prolix and uncritical, was highly interesting and enjoyed a long popularity. The general reaction of the influences growing out of the period of discoveries and the commercial revolution upon this school of historians was best summed up in 'The Philosophical and Political History of the Settlements and Trade of Europeans in the East and West Indies,' by the promoter and pamphleteer, Guillaume Thamas Raynal (1713-96). Published in 1771, it was not only somewhat of a synthetic com- pilation from earlier works, but also indicated the reaction of the commercial revolution upon European thought by its emphasis upon the significance of commerce in modern history and by its surcharge of 18th century political philosophy concerning the rights of man, lib- erty and the state of nature. But import- ant as some of these writers may have been in altering the conventions of style and the interests of the historian, the general effect of the commercial revolution upon historiography was less vital in the production of historians of the discoveries than in the alteration of all phases of life in the succeeding centuries which grew more or less directly out of it and indi- rectly wrought great changes in historical con- cepts and methods. 2. The Reaction of the New Scientific Philosophy upon Historiography. — None of the indirect influences of the commercial revo- JLution upon historical writing were more im- /portant and more obvious than its aid in pro- micing that new philosophy of nature of which Bacon and Descartes were the most conspicuous exponenJ^sTy The results of the explorations of all the rtrajor ^gortions of the earth's surface had not onl^^emonstrated the great extent of the habitablepDrtions of the globe, but had also shown that the supposed marvels and terrors in the unexplored regions were but an unfounded myth which quite failed to materiaji||7 At the same time that De Gama, Columbus and Ma- gellan were revealing the extent and nature of the surface of the globe, less picturesque fig- ures were devoting themselves to an explora- tion of the universe, with results equally disas- trous to the older theological traditions. _ The vast and immeasurable extent of the universe was apprehended to an elementary degree by Copernicus, Galileo and Tycho Brahe. The no- tion of an orderly arrangement and functioning of the universe was established by the great laws of mechanics, discovered and formulated by Galileo, Kepler and Newton. To these ma- jor advances in science should be added the ex- planation of the now commonplace natural phenomena through the great advances in every field of natural science in the I7th century. The net result of all these notable advances \yas a serious challenge to the old theological inter- pretations, based primarily upon the concept of 'a "God of arbitrariness," who was continually varying or suspending the laws of the universe to punish a recalcitrant prince or to answer the prayer of a faithful bishop. The general implications of the above scien- tific discoveries were reduced to a systematic body of philosophical thought by Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes. Bacon especially empha- sized the necessity of following the inductive HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT method and Descartes attempted a mechanical interpretation of the universe. The new discov- eries and the new philosophy tended to produce a rationalistic interpretation of natural and so- cial phenomena which abruptly challenged the older and generally accepted view of miracles and wonders that had been so popular with Christian historians during the mediaeval period. The English Deists, such as Cherbury, Blount, Locke, Shaftesbury, Woolston and Hume, for- ever discredited the doctrine of the miraculous. Finally, with the attacks upon the traditional views of the composition of the Old and New Testaments by- Hobbes, Spinoza, Astruc and Reimarus, itKe philosophy of wonder-working was underiTliTted, not only through the evidence of natural science, but by questioning the au- thenticity of the Scriptural accounts in which the miracles were recordeo^ The gradual growth of toleration, especiallyin England, dur- ing the latter part of the I7th century and the opening of the 18th centuries enabled these rev- olutionary ideas to obtain an adequate expres- sion and a general currency. It was also inevitable that the new scientific discoveries and the new philosophy of nature should react profoundly upon the contemporary social philosophy. The idea of orderly devel- opment and continuity in social as well as nat- ural processes was comprehended by Vico, Hume and Turgot. The older idea of social evolution as a gradual decline or retrogression from a primordial ^'golden age" was replaced in the writings of Vicq^. Voltaire, Hume, Turgot, Kant, Godwin an3~Condorcet by the concept of continual j)rogress from lower stages of civil- ization. Vrhe need for miracles to justify his- tory and me other sciences dealing with human activities was lessened by the growing preva- lence of the Deists' doctrine of the inherent and reasonable ^'decency" of man — a notion widely at variance with the older views of the "Fathers'' and of Calvin, which jriaintained the hopeless depravity of mankindTj Finally, the new discoveries and the secularization of nat- ural and social philosophy produced a great ex- tension of the interests of the historian beyond the field of politics and religion. In the writ- ings of Voltairgj Raynal, Montesquieu and Hee- ren it became apparent that the impulse to a broader and sounder scope of histor>' had be- gun to affect others than those who described the course of the explorations. Though this healthy tendency toward a wider field of his- torical investigation and narrative was to some extent checked by the renewed impulse to poli- tical history with 18th and 19th century nation- alism, it had gained a foothold from which it was not entirely dislodged until it was over- whelmingly reinforced by the expansion of in- terest in social, economic and intellectual topics after the industrial revolution and its social and intellectual consequences in the 19th century. The reaction of this philosophv of the new natural science and of the new social philosophv upon historiography appears in the writings of what is conventionally known as the < generally regarde d as the fir,^t univer- sal history - in the true sense ot the term. TF ^a'§ planned as a vast "Kulturgeschichtc" of all ages and peoples, j^hile Voltaire did not possess the knowledge 'or the leisure requisite for its execution and the work was ill-propor- tioned and marred by serious and almost fatal omissions, it was, nevertheless, one of the great landmarks in the development of historiographyj It was the real foundation of the history of civilization in its modern sense; it was the first work in which credit was given to the non- Christian contributions, especially of the Arabs, to European civilization ;_ it first put political history in its proper relations to economic and social history in the general development of humanity ; and it silenced forever the theological and providential interpretations which had pre- vailed from Orosius to Bossuet. The most fundamental point in his philosophy of history, the notion of the "genius of a people, ^^ was later adopted by the Romanticists, with some grotesque exaggerations, in their conception of a "folk-soul.** Voltaire's point of approach found several distinguished representatives in England. There was one important difference, however; among the English writers there was no underlying im- pulse towards reform. In the case of the Eng- lish historians of the period there was that same complacent self-satisfaction over the final perfection of English institutions that was evi- dent in the legal works of Blackstone which aroused the fury of Bentham. The best ex- ample of this tendency was David Hume (1711- 76). His 'History of England from the In- vasion of Julius Caisar to the Revolution of 1688' gave Englishmen an interpretation of their national history conceived in the spirit of an urbane and dispassionate sceptic. Unlike the work of Voltaire, Hume's history was most su- perficial in its content and analysis. It was in no way a history of English civilization, and even the political history was superficial and in- accurate. The section on the mediaeval period was practically worthless. Its onlv merit was in its treatment of the Stuart period, for which it provided the first truly historical and analvtic interpretation of the great^ Civil War. His point of view was wholly insular and he was probably the least universal of the rationalist historians. A much abler historian was the Scotchman, William Robertson (1721-93), the most avowed of Voltaire's English disciples. Of his three major works, 'The History of Scotland'; 'The History of America'; and 'The History of the I^cign of the Emperor Charles V,' tne latter, especially its introduction, was the most significant in the development of historical writing. Its lack of exhaustive schol- arship is revealed by the fact that the author never learned to read German, but he made the best possible use of the sources he employed. He was the first to make clear the major out- lines of the constitutional development in the Middle Ages and was one of the earliest to ap- preciate the cultural contributions of the mediae- val Church. He was, however, the most de- cided of the exponents of the catastrophic theory of historical causation and to him is mainly due the prevalence of the exaggerated notion of the importance of the Crusades in every phase of tne later culture and politics of Europe and also the further elaboration of Baronius' notion of the special significance of the year 1(X)0. The member of the English- school who has gained the most enduring and • general fame was Edward Gibbon, (1737-94). ' Generally estimated by critics as less able than Robertson, he was a classic example of the at- tainment of great success through ministering to the prevailing sentiments of his time, in the possession of an appealing subject, a fine classic style and the current complacencv and mild rationalism. His 'Decline and Fall of the Ro- man Empire' dealt with a topic which was charged with an age-old thrill and a compelling interest. Less profound than Voltaire and much less significant for the history of histori- ography, Gibbon has won a more permanent reputation as a historian on account of causes readily understood. In addition to the more attractive and universally interesting subject with which he dealt, it was also a much more restricted subject, and, possessing abundant means and leisure, Gibbon was able to master : most of the then availaible sources on his topic. 4 The outstanding„siE^'fi''anrp nf Jus_iy£irk_£Qii- \ sisteTl m the fact that it contained the first !| wholly secular and impartial study of the rise jand expansion of Christianity. Possessing a ^cold and reserved personality he was not bit- terly hostile, but divested Christianity of _ its traditional envelope of unique supernaturalism and treated it as he later dealt with the spread of Mohammedanism. The general outlines of his picture have never been superseded. In Germany Voltaire found three followers in Schlozcr, Schmidt and Spittler. While Au- gust Ludwig Schlozcr produced a minor at- tempt at a universal history, his main work was done in- the history of Slavonic Europe, where he found his ideal in the enlightened despotism of Catherine II. He had very limited powers of criticism, especially in regard to biblical mat- ters ; had no imagination and an unattractive style; but he was far the greatest philologist of the rationalist school. What Voltaire did for France, Hume for England, and Robertson for ScDiland, was done for Germany by Michael Ignatz Schmidt (1736-94). His 'History of Germany' was one of the most finished prod- uct> of rationalism in historical literature. His style was excellent; he was cautious and accurate in the use of his sources and was free from all chauvinism ; he was the first to handle HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT 231 the German Reformation in an impartial man- ner; and the scope of his work resembled Vol- taire's in being a true history of civilization. The smaller German states and the Christian Church found their rationalist historian in Lud- wig Timotheus Spittler (1752-1810). His work was best in dealing with very recent times. He idealized the Middle Ages, and to him is primarily due the origin of that rosy and ro- mantic conception of the mediaeval period as one in which the main events were tournaments and the chief figures were the trouveres, trou- badours and minnesingers. He was the first writer to handle th.; whole history of the Church from the rationalist standpoint. His criticism was relatively mild, but he adopted the peculiar attitude of judging the Church from the viewpoint of an instrument for ad- vancing the cause of rationalism. The discussion of the contributions of the school of Voltaire would not be complete with- out a brief reference to the work of two writers not technically historians. Though the ^Scienza nuova> of Vico (1668-1744) undoubt- edly contained the first definite anticipation of the modern dynamic theory of progress, he was too pious in his theology to be listed among the colleagues of Voltaire. Such was not the case with Turgot and Condorcet. In his dis- course at the Sorbonne in 1750 on The commercial revolution not onl^- was the main factor in arousing historical interest in non- European peoples and a powerful impulse in the development of the new natural science and its accompanying sceptical philosophy, but was also the chi-f force in bringing to completion the process of shaping the modern national states out of the great feudal monarchies of the later Middle Ages^ "^By its contributions to ihe increase of the capital and resources at the disposal of the monarch, and its creation of a loyal middle class, it enabled the kings to pro- vide a hired oflicialdom and militarj' force, by means of which they could crush the opposition of the feudal nobility and bring to perfection the modern national state. The psychological impulses arising from the welling-up of national pride in the newly fashioned states led to the production of narratives glorifying the national past and to feverish activity in collecting the sources of information which preserved the priceless records of the achievements of the nation from the most remote period. While this movement, in its earliest phases, goes back to the 16lh century it took on its modern form after the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars and the regeneration of Priissia had con- tributed so greatly to the creation of an ardent national self-consciousness in most of the European states. Coming at this time, it was reinforced by the then popular tenets of roman- tioism emphasizing the importance of national character and the imperishable "genius of a people." The nationalistic impulse was re- freshed from another source in the middle of the 19th century by the vicious influence of the notorious 'Essai sur I'inegalite des races hu- maines,' published by Count Joseph Arthur of Gobineau (1816-1882) in 1854. It proclaimed the determining influence of racial differences on the course of historical development, as- serted the inherent superiority of the "Aryan" race, and held that racial degeneration was the inevitable result of its mixture with inferior races. His now utterly discredited doctrines gained great vogue among French, English, and especially among nationalistic German, histor- ians and publicists, culminating in the Teutonic rhapsody of Charles Kingsley and Houston Stuart Chamberlain, the Gallic ecstasy of Mau- rice Barres and the Saxon paeans of Kipling and Homer Lea. Not only was this doctritie effective in developing a still greater degree of chauvinism upon the part of the governing "races," but it also led to the persecution of minority "races," and the consequent stimulation of their nationalistic sentiments. Perhaps the earliest state to begin a national history was Germany in the days of humanism and the old empire. The cultured Emperor Maximilian I (1493-1519) followed the example of Charlemagne in gathering to his court at Vienna some of the leading historical scholars of German humanism. Conrad Celtis revived an interest in the 'Germania' of Tacitus. Johannes Spiessheimer (1473-1529), better known as Cuspinian, made a critical study of the historical works of Jordanes and Otto of Freising. Irenicus, Peutinger and Beatus Rhenanus (1486-1547) exhibited the spirit of Blondus in their researches into German antiqui- ties. Their activity was soon smothered, how- ever, in the controversies of the Reformation, and interest in secular and national history waned. A century later Melchior Goldast (1578-1635) produced his famous collection of documents dealing with early and mediaeval German history and public law, known as the 'Monarchia romani imperii,' which was the standard German collection until the *Monu- menta' had covered th : same period and mate- rial in a more thorough fashion. The distin- HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT 235 guished philosopher G. W. Leibnitz (1646-1716) was ambitious to provide a collection of the sources of German history which would rival those on French history which had been gathered by Duchesne. He was not, however, able to obtain the necessary imperial support and the project had to be abandoned. He merely produced a collection on the history of the Guelfs as a by-product of his history oi the dynasty of Brunswick. The great rnodern collection of the sources of German history, the justly famous *Monumenta Germanise His- torica,* was a product of the spirit of the War iof Liberation and was begun by that greatest of 'all the German statesmen of his time, Baron vom Stein. Discouraged by the reactionary tendencies of the period following the Con- gress of Vienna, Stein devoted his energies to the stimulation of popular interest in German history. Failing to obtain government support for a collection of the sources of German his- tory, he raised the funds from the resources of himself and his friends, and with rare good for- tune secured an editor of great scholarship and energy in the Hanoverian archivist, G. H. Pertz. Pertz carried the burden of the editorship for a half century, aided by the best of German scholars, most prominent of his colleagues t)€- ing the constitutional historian,£Georg VVartZj This magnificent and colossal contpilation in- cludes all the important sources of information regarding German history from the time of the Roman writers on the inyasions, and is still in process of execution. '^i;^ was, perhaps, one of the greatest landmarks m the development of scientific historical writing, as it alone made possible the productivity and accuracy of the succeeding generations of historiarrs:^ National history in Germany vvas not lim- ited to the collection of sources, but received expression in glowing narratives which usually found their theme in the glories of the Ger- man imperial past of the mediaeval period or in laudatory accounts of the HohenzoUern achieve- ments, which served as the basis of enthu- siastic proposals for a Prussian revival of the glories of the empire. Schmidt had written a history of Germany from the rationalist stand- point, but his cosmopolitan outlook made his work quite unsatisfactory to the patriots. Wilken initiated the nationalistic narrative by an account of German prowess in the period of the Crusades. Luden, under the spell of Jo- hannes Miiller's views of the mediaeval period, produced a ^History of the German People,* in which he aimed to arouse national enthu- siasm for the magnificence of mediaeval Ger- man3^ Voigt contributed an epic dealing with the conversion and conquest of Prussia by the Teutonic knights. Raumer pictured the achieve- ments of the Hohenstaufens, and Stenzel por- trayed the deeds of the Franconian emperors with critical skill as well as patriotic edifica- tion. Giesebrecht analyzed the formation of the mediaeval empire with a display of scholar- ship not less remarkable than his Teutonic fervor. Thoughhis history of the Reformation was a powerful influence in making Luther the great German national hero, it must be admitted that Ranke and his immediate disciples shared something of the universal outlook of the ra- tionalists, but with the rise of the "Prussian School" nationalistic history became even more chauvinistic and dynastic. Haiisser contributed a voluminous epic on the War of the Libera- tion in his ^History of Germany, 1786-1815.* Duncker, the historian of antiquity, from his work in editing the state papers of the great Hohenzollerns developed a fervid admiration for the dynasty which convinced him of its fit- ness to revive the imperial glories of old Ger- many. The first massive panegyric of Prussian- ism was the work of Johann Gustav Droysen (1808-84), who deserted his early liberalism to become an almost sycophantic eulogist of the Hohenzollerns. His monumental ^History of Prussian Policy* was marred not only by its grave prejudices in favor of the "mission** of the dynasty he admired, but also by the fact that it was almost wholly limited to the super- ficial field of Prussian foreign politics with little attention even to domestic policy, to say nothing of its total omission of the deeper social conditions and economic forces. The story was picked up where Droysen had left it by^Heinrich von Treitschke (1834-96). His /History of Germany in the Nineteenth Cen- tury* ranks with the histories of Michelet and Macaulay as one of the literary masterpieces of modern historiograph^ While it was charged with all of the vivid enthusiasm for Prussian leadership which marred the work of Droysen, Trcitschke's work at least had the merit of de- voting adequate attention to the fundamental cultural forces in national development. Hein- rich von Sybel (1817-95), the third of the three leaders of the Prussian school, began his work as a disciple of Ranke by a brilliant work on the First Crusade and by a profound study of the origins of the German kingship, but the stirring political situation in the middle of the century led him away from the poise of his master and he became a thorough advocate of German unity through Prussian military leader- ship. His ^History of the French Revolution' was a massive polemic against the whole move- ment, and its central theme was the old roman- ticist dogma of the political incapacity of the French. From this spectacle of alleged political ineotitude Sj^bel turned to an account of the events which demonstrated the supreme capacity of his nation in political affairs — the founda- tion of the German Empire by Bismarck. His voluminous worjc on ); the *Annales Francorum ' of Pierre Pithoii (1588) ; the 'Reihcrches dc la France' of Etienne Pas- quicr (1611), and the material on the Crusades in the *Gesta Dei per Francos* of Jacques \. Bongars (1611-17). The true begiiniing of the .X critical collection of sources was marked by ■' ' the work of Andre Duchesne (1584-1640) in compiling the 'Histori;e Normannorum scrip- tores antiqui' (1610) and the 'Historiae Fran- ct)rum scriptores coaetanei* (1636f.) ; the "geneologics" and the ^Gallia christiana* of the brothers Sainte-Marlhe (1572-1650, 1655); the critical editions of Villehardouin and Joinville by Charles du Frcsnc du Cange (1610-88); and the 'Capitularia reg/im Francorum* of Etienne Baluze (1630-1718). During the last half of the 17lh century and the first half of the ISlh this work of collecting sources was car- ried on almost entirely by the scholarly Bene- dictine monks of the Congregation of Saint Maur at Saint-Germain-des-Pres in Paris, which was founded between 1618 and 1630 by Doms Martin Tesniere and Gregoire Tarisse, and whose leader in historical scholarship was the great Jean Mabillon (1632-1707). Only a few of their more notable collections can be mentioned here. Dom Thierry Ruinart (1657- 1709) prepared critical editions of Gregory of Tours and Frcdegarius ; Dom Edmond Mar- tene (1654-1739) the 'Thesarus novus anecdo- torum vc^rum je p ip t ota * and the *Veterum scriptorum et monumentorum amplissima col- lection ; Dom Bernard Montfaucon (1655- 1741) *Les Monuments de la monarchic fran- gaise*; Dom Martin Bouquet (1685-1754) the famous *Rerum Gallicarum et Francicarum scriptores,' which is still being continued by modern scholars under the title of the *Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France;* and Dom Antoine Rivet de la Grange (1683-1749), aided Ly Duclou, Poncet and Colomb, began that unique *Histoire litteraire de la France 'j^' which wgLS-«««ipi«**i-by the French Institute m thcvef'y close of the last century. The Mau- rists also turned their attention to the history of the French provinces and gathered many valu- X able collections, the most famous of which was ^ the 'Histoire generale de Languedoc* of Doms Vaisette and Vic (1730-49), recently revised by Molinier. In the latter part of the I8th century the laymen again came to the front, the most notable center of their activity being the Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres, which had been founded by Colbert in 1663. The most valuable product of their labors was the great collection of *Ordonnances des rois de France* by T. de Lauriere, Denis Secoussc and L. G. de Brequigny (1714-1794). Thev also continued the 'Histoire litteraire' and the 'Gal- lia Christiana.* A further stimulus came when P. C. F. Daunou was appointed national archi- vist by Napoleon. He brought many foreign ar- chives to Paris and also continued the work on the ^Histoire litteraire* and the other great Benedictine collections. The first monumental collection r.f sources produced in the 19th cen- tury was the voluminous ^Collection de memoires r edited by Picker since 1877 at Innsbruck. The great national narra- tive history of Austria was Arneth's monu- mental work on the times of Maria Theresa, while Klopp has recalled the imperial heroes of the Thirty Years' War and conducted an attack on Prederick the Great. In Bohemia, Czech nationalism did not initi- ate interest in history as in other European states, but rather history aroused nationalism in the first instance. To the vigorous patriot- ism of P. Palacky's < History of Bohemia,* more than to any other source, the modern Czech national spirit owes its origin. The sources of Bohemian history have been collected by the greatest of Bohemian historical scholars, Anton Gindley, and are entitled 'Monumenta Historise Bohemica> (1864-90). The Hunga- rian government has been publishing the > created in 1892; and "The English Jew- ish Historical Society," founded in 1895. These societies have done valuable work in compiling sources of Jewish history and in arousing in- terest in its study. Especially to be noted is the • Regesten zur Geschichte der Juden im frankischen und deutschen Reiche bis zum Jahre 1273,' published by the German Jewish Historical Commission since 1887. Including an account of the Jewish persecutions in the mediaeval period, it has tended to arouse their national resentment at past, as well as present, oppression. The Jews have also been stirred by the work of a great national historian, Hein- 4 rich Graetz (1817-91). Isaac M. Jost (1793- 1860), in his < History of the Israelites,* and his * History of Judaism,' had surveyed the history of the Jews, but he was too liberal, rationalistic and impartial a writer to serve as a truly national historian. Widely different was the work of Graetz, sometimes called the Jewish Treitschke. Conservative and generally orthodox, and fired with a warm enthusiasm for the past and future ot his people, Graetz traced in an eloquent manner the history of the Jews from their origins to 1848, laj-ing special stress upon their literary and spiritual development, in other words, upon the elements which contributed the most to the development and persistence of their national culture. Graetz's work was especiallv in line with the development of "Zionism,'' for he insisted that the true Messiah was the national spirit of the Jewish people and he discouraged further delay through awaiting the coming of a personal Messiah. In addition to the general history of Graetz, there should be mentioned the many histories dealing in a comprehensive fashion with the history of the Jews in the different European states. In connection with this brief summary of the reaction of nationalism upon historiography in Europe some passing reference should be made to the growth and accumulation of archival material and its accessibility to students. The development of the national states and their ad- ministrative bureaucracies led to a great amount of administrative "red tape" and to the growth of fi;:ed diplomatic correspondence. From these sources a rich storehouse of historical material had accumulated in the national, eccle- siastical and private archives by 1800. Before theu could be generally useful to historians, however, the sources in the archives had to be classified and centralized and made public to creditable historians. In the matter of central- ization and classification of archival material • France has taken the lead, due chiefly to the large number of highly-trained archivists pro- vided liy L'ficole des Chart es. At the present time only England is exceedingly backward * among \ho European states in providing for a systematic rarangement and classification of its archival material. In the same way that na- tional pride and competition led to the compila- tion of the great source collections of national history, it forced the several European states at various dates during the 19th century to open the national archives to historical scholars. In addition, the liberal-minded Pope, Leo XIII, opened the Vatican archives in 1881 and secu- lar scholars for the first -tttne had the privilege of examining the treasures that Baronius had made use of. Even at the present time, how- ever, complete freedom is not accorded any- where in the use of archival material, scholars being excluded from the more recent documents. For instance, the Vatican archives are accessible • only to 1815, those of France to 1830, and those of England to 1867. In America, scholars like Gaillard Hunt are laboring to put the archival material of the United States upon the same high plane that it has reached in most European countries. _ The United States has never provided a/ great official collection of the sources of its na- tional history comparable to those prepared by the European countries. This has been due in part to the particularism inherent in the Amer- ican Federal system and in part to the fact that the American central government has been too much absorbed in the details of routine legisla- tion to be able to concentrate its attention on the furthering of intellectual interests. The true American counterpart of the movement of collecting sources of national history, which was associated in Europe with the names of Pertz, Guizot, Nicolas, Hardy and Stubb.s, is to be found in the rather pathetic attempt of Peter Force (1790-1868) to obtain adequate government support for his "American Arcliives," which were designed to constitute a complete collection of the sources of the his- ' tory of the United Slates from the period of discovery to the formation of the constitution. Its psychological and historical affinity with the European movement is clearly indicated by Force's statement of his aims. "The under- taking in which we have embarked is, emphati- cally, a national one ; national in its scope and object, its end and aim." After a painful proc- ess of protracted importuning. Force received a Federal appropriation which allowed him to begin publishing his "Archives" in 1837, but the, government aid was soon withdrawn and the published material was but an insignificant frac- tion of what it had been planned to include. Owing to the fact that American historical scholarship was then a generation behind that of Europe, Force was primarily a hard-work- ing antiouarian compiler rather than a scholarly editor like Pertz, W'aitz, Mignet, Guerard, Hardy or Stubbs, and the national loss from the cessation of his work was infinitely less than would have been occasioned bv a discontinuance of the "Rolls Series," the "Monumenta" or the "Documents Inedits." The collections which have been made have been primarily the result of the enterprise of individuals, publishing companies and the historical societies of the ■ several commonwealths. The process began w'ith the publication oT~ Jared Sparks' writings of ~\Vashington ' between 1834 and"lS38. The most ambitious at- tempt to make a thorough collection was the work of Mr. Hubert Howe Bancroft in the last '^ half of the I9nrceritur>', in his gathering of the HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT 241 sources of the history of the Pacific States. Un- fortunatelj-, he did not follow the example of Stein and secure the aid of a Pertz, but trusted to his own untrained guidance the execution of the project, with the result that the work lacked in critical scholarship and careful edit- 'ing. An incomparably more scholarly work was the co-oj)erative history of the colonization of America, edited by Justin Winsor, but, though this contained much source material, it was primarily a narrative work giving a critical re- view of the sources rather than including them. Parallel with this movement went the publica- tion of source material by the various common- • v.-ealths in the vast collections of colonial rec- ords and archives, but in the great majority of cases these collections were prepared by eru- dite antiquarians rather than by men trained as critical historical editors, and there was no uniformity in the methods employed. Some of these state collections have, however, been of a very high order, the "most notable being, perhaps, the extensive series dealing with the exploration and settlement of the middle West by Reuben G. Thwaites of Wisconsin. Another mode of collecting sources was exTubited in the editions of the messages and papers of the presidents and the writings of the chief states- ■. men by numerous scholars, which have varied widely in quality, reaching the highest level in W. C. Ford's * Writings of Washington' ; Gail- lard Hunt's 'Writings of James Madisoji* aild P. L. Ford's * Writings of Jeftersoo.' The United States has not been lacking in editorial ability of the highest order, for in Worthington • C. Ford, James Franklin Jameson, Paul Leices- ter P'ord and Gaillard Hunt are to be found the equals of Pertz, Waitz, Guizot or Stubbs. The great defect has been the lack of concerted planning and continued and adequte govern- ment aid. Promising beginnings in the right • direction are to be seen in W. C. Ford's edi- tion of the 'Journals of the Continental Con- gress' and the scholarly products of the Car- negie Institution under Dr. Jameson's direc- tion. John Bassett Moore has labored with almost Benedictine patience and productivity in the preparation of his monumental series /dealing with the documentary history of diplo- macy'. There also should be mentioned the mon- umental collection of sources dealing with the history of labor in America which has been prepared By Professor Commons and his asso- ciates._ Miss Adelaide Hasse has bcgim an in- valuaBle series of volumes describing and classi- fying the sources for American economic and social histor>' which are available in the public docufirents of the various commonwealths. On the whole, however, the Ignited States has been incomparably dcnnquent in the thorough and scholarly collection of the sour^res of its na- • tional history, and it cannot seek refuge be- hind any assertion that this has been due to a lack of rabid nationalistic emotions. If this countr>- has not kept abreast of Eu- ropean development in the editorial aspect of national historiography, it can lay claim to hav- ing produced historians enthused with as ardent a patriotism as fired a Treitschkc, a Michelet or a Froude. Nationalism in American Jiistoriog- raphy has, nat'u rally, centred matnTv aTiou't the romantic period of colonization and the strug- gle for American ind epende nce, and American VOL. 14 — 16 historians have surrounded this period with the halo given to the early national history of Ger- many and France by Johannes Miiller and Chateaubriand. The chief figure in the crea- tion of this national epic of migration and de- liverance was George Bancroft, whose early years fell in that period of national bumptious- ' ness and florid democracy in the "thirties" and "forties." ToBg^croi'i. the history of the formation (Tf^lhc American Republic was no m63esf seculaT'achievement of ordinary mor- tals, but a veritable *.£neid in which Augustus was replaced by Washington and which ex- hibited in its succession of scenes "the rnoye- ment of the divine power which gives unity to the universe, "and order and connection to events." His history of the L^nited States through the period of the Federal Constitutional Convention represented the process of coloniza- tion as the flight of brave spirits from oppres- sion, characterized the American Revolution as a crusade of wholly virtuous and disinterested paTnols in behalf of the liberties of civilized hu- manity, described the American constitution as the creation of a group of "unfque mental giants, never before equalled and not to be matched at any later epoch, and regarded their work as even more notable than its makers. The pa- thetic inaccuracy of all of his major premises can only be appreciated by a careful perusal o-f the scholarly treatment of the same topics Ijy Beer, Van Tyne, AI. C. Tyler, Osgood, Alvord, Andi^ews, Fisher, Farrand and Beard, and the damage done to proper perspective in American history- by his works has been almost incalcula- ble and irreparable. The myth was perpetuated in Palfrey's long Puritan apology and was repeated in a less vigorous form in Air. Lodge's discussion of the English colonies in America. From his pride in American exploits in behalf of liberty and democracy, Alotley was encour- aged to study the analogous movement among the Dutch, when they rebelled against Spanish tyranny and established a republic. Francis Parkman, turning from the Anglo-Saxon pho- bia' of Bancroft, first gave full credit to the work of France in colonizing the New World. He found that the record of heroism had not been wholly monopolized by the English and German colonists. While Parkman had turned his attention to the French in the North and West, William H. Prescott found his theme in the conquest and colonization of Central and South America by the Spanish, and in a bril- liant description of the splendor of the native American civilizations of Mexico and Peru. Mahan, enthused by the exploits of the small American navy in the wars of the Revolution and 1812, was encouraged to make a study of the influence of naval supremacy upon the his- < lory of the past. Few works have been more influential in stimulating the disastrous growth of modern armaments. The period of cement- ing the national union through th^ efforts of the Federalist? was glorified in the works of HIl- dreth and John Church Hamilton, and the bfess- ings of the "pure" democracy of the Jacksonian epoch were set forth in the essays and addresses of Bancroft, who believed that he detected the very ^'voice of God" in the acclaim of Jackson's followers. R oose velt described the process of American expansToiT westward with the buoy- ant and ill-concealed pride of an admirer of the 242 HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT West and an ardent patriot and national im- perialist. Von Hoist beheld in the struggle over slavery one "more great episode in thai eternal conflict between righteousness and iniquity. Professor Burgess saw in the suc- cess of the North in the Civil War, not only a justification of his own nationalistic political philosophy, but also a sure manifestation of Teutonic genius in the field of political unifica- tion and organization. On the whole, however, by the time that the achievcrnents of the Civil War and Reconstruction periods had come to be subjects for historical analysis the objective scholarship of the critical and erudite school had begun to prevail and the "American epic" passed, to be preserved only in the school texts of succeeding generations. The task of rationalizing the "Bancroftian epic'* and adapt- ing it to the prevailing tendencies of the latter part of the 19th century fell to the philos- opher-historian, John Fiske (1842-1901). By his amiable SpenTerian rationalism and his eulogy- of the rise of the middle class he best summed up the prevailing spirit of the educated Americans of his time, and by his lively and attractive style and his primary concern with the period of discovery, colonization and revo- lution he attracted a following which probably entitled him to the position of the popular national historian of tlie last generation. He was the prophet of the new era in the interpre- tation of Anglo-American relations which re- placed the Puritan and American epic of Ban- croft by an account of the rise and triumph of the middle class in both England and America — **an epic of the English-speaking Peoples.'' He was as fully convinced as Bur He pictured it as the work of Whigs on both sides of t*he Atlantic in the heroic effort to check and crush the autocratic tendencies of a Tory squirearchy and the unconstitutional tryanny of a "German King," and to preserve for the world the liberties embodied in the Bill of Rights. He dwelt with pride upon the establishment of the American Federal Repub- lic and regarded it as the great contribution or the Western Hemisphere to the solution of political problems, by reconciling the liberty of the New England town-meeting with the exist- ence of large political aggregates. He con- templated with unmixed pleasure the progress of the middle class in its political and economic conquest of the American continent in the 19th century, and, just before his death at the open- ing of the 20th, he was deeply gratified to see his own country at last assume its part of the "white man's burden" by the retention of the Philippines. Not at all a militarist, he looked upon this as a most significant step in that pro- cess of bringing the world under the peaceful dominion of "the two great branches of the English race which have the mission of estab- lishing throughout the larger part of the earth a higher civilization and a more permanent political order than anv that has gone before." -. Even the more progressive Latin American ^ states have begun to produce extensive collec- tions of the sources of their national history. The ^Documentos para la Historia Argentina,* which have been edited by L. M. Torres and the faculty of philosophy and letters of the National University of Buenos Aires since 191]L>e a typical example of this process. y- The net result of the growth of nationality ge§s of the supreme political capacity of the^^nd of nationalism upon historiography has Teutonic branch of the "Aryans." He held that the first instance of self-government in recorded history was to be seen in the Teutonic village-community, which was an "inheritance from pre-historic Aryan antiquity,'' and he be- lieved that "American history descends in un- broken continuity from the days when stout Arminius in the forests of northern Germany successfully defied the might of imperial Rome." Fiske, however, stressed the element of liberty^ as the surest criterion of political capacity rather than the aspect of order and authority which found favor with Burgess. England under Gladstone seemed far better adapted . than Germany under Bismarck_ for furnishing an edifying example of the attainment of com- plete political liberty, and the then popular theory of a wholly Teutonic England was an ethnic argument in favor of such an under- taking. Therefore, instead of conducting the muse of liberty directly from the "German forest primeval" to the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787, Fiske arranged a detour in her migration to the new world whic^h would guide her to America by the way of the "Glorious Revolution of 1688," in which, as the work of the English "bourgeoisie," "freedom both political and religious was established on so firm a foundation as never again to be shaken, never again with impunity to be threatened, so long as the lanL,'uage of Locke and Milton and Sydney shall remain a living speech on the lips of men." Working hand in hand with George Otto Trevclyan, he tried to show how the American Revolution was but the perfect fulfilment of the spirit of 1688^ been greatly varied and a mixed blessing. Its fortunate results have been, above all, the pro- vision of great collections of source material which would otherwise never have been made available and the training of many excellent * historians in the process of the compilation and editing of the sources. The deplorable effects have centered about the creation of a danger- ous bias of patriotism, which not only prevented* a calm, objective and accurate handling of his- torical facts, even by highly trained historians, but also contributed in no small degree to the great increase in chauvinism which led to the calamity of 1914. The responsibility of the nationalistic historians in this regard has been well stated by Prof. H. Morse Stephens, prob- * ably the most thorough student of this particu- lar subject: "Woe unto us! professional his- torians, professional historical students, pro- fessional teachers of history, if we cannot see written in blood, in the dying civilization of Europe, the dreadful result of exaggerated nationalism as set forth in the patriotic his- tories of some- of the most eloquent historians of the 19th century." It would be fortunate, indeed, if this were all, but for every patriot made by a Treitschke, a Michelct. a Fronde or a Bancroft, hundreds have been enthused by the petty chauvinism of the third-rate text- book compilers who have imitated their bias without their literary virtues. The nature and effect of these textbooks upon the past genera- tion has been indicated for this country by Mr. Charles Altschul and for France and Ger- many by Dr. J. F. Scott. England has not fallen behind any of these nations in this re- HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT 243 spect. Some optimism for the future may, how- ever, be discovered in the fact that there is an ever greater tendency for the textbook writing to be handed over to reliable and relatively unbiased professional historians. It should be pointed out in passing that the zeal for collecting historial source material was not limited to the sources of secular history. In the same way that the gathering of the sources of national history was begun by Duchesne in the 17th century, so activity in collecting the sources of ecclesiastical history was initiated at this same period and has been continued to the present time. The first complete collection of the writings of the Church Fathers was gathered and published by Migne in 382 volumes between 1844 and 1864. While, 'like Bancroft's ^History of the Pacific States,' it was a publisher's rather than a scholar's enterprise, it has been of immense value to students. The failure of Migne to use the best texts in all cases has led to the attempt to produce better collections of Patristic literature. Since 1866 the Vienna Academy has been publishing a carefully edited collection of the writings of the Latin Fathers, and in 1897 the Berlin Academy began to issue an edition of the Greek Fathers. The collection of ma- terial dealing with the lives and deeds of the saints, which was begun by Bolland in the middle of the I7th century, is still in progress. A collection of the acts of the Church councils by Labbe and Cossart appeared in the latter half of the 17th century and was continued by Etienne Baluze in 1683. In 1685 Jean Har- douin started a new collection, and in the middle of the 18th century Mansi compiled the largest of all collections of the councils, a new edition of which is now appearing in Paris. At the same time that Mansi was preparing his collection of conciliar material Mainardi published the collection of papal bulls. In the latter half of the 19th century Jaffe and Potthast produced scholarly collections of papal "Regesta'^ to the year 1304, and Kehr is now engaged in the publication of the latest and most complete compilation of this type of ma- terial. On the whole, the collections of source material for the history of the Church are fully equal if not superior to those for the secular history of Europe. 5. The Rise of Modem Critical Historical Scholarship,— Professor Gooch, in his scholarly and informing account of the development of historiography in the 19th century, points out that prior to the beginning of the last century historical science labored under four serious handicaps — the catastrophic theory of historical causation and the contempt for the mediaeval period, which had characterized the rationalist school ; the absence of any extensive collection of original sources; the lack of critical methods in handling historical materials; and the failure to provide for any systematic and competent teaching of the subject-matter or methods of history. It has already been pointed out how the tRomanticists" had corrected the faults of the rationalists by insisting upon the law of continuity in historical development and by looking upon the mediaeval period as the most 'fruitful age for historical researchi and it has also been briefly shown how the ^ride of ex- uberant nationalism had led to the provision of magnificent collections of source material for the history of every leading modern nation. It now remains to trace the rise of critical scholar- ship in the field of history and to show how critical methods were widely disseminated through the development of the professional teacher of history. It was shown above that the promising rise of critical methods in the use of historical ma- terials as an incident of humanism and ex- emplified in the work of Blondus, Beatus Rhenanus, Vadianus and Zurita had been checked and smothered in the fierce religious controversies of the period of the Reformation. By the latter part of the 17th century, however, the volume of polemic had tended to decline and it was again possible to assume to some extent an objective attitude and to begin a dispassion- ate search for truth. This development of sci- entific historical method passed through two natural and normal stages : first, the develop- ment of those auxiliary sciences, such as diplo- matic, chronology, palaeography, epigraphy and lexicography, which would enable the historian to ascertain the genuineness of a document; and, second, the growth of internal or interpre- tative criticism, which passes beyond the mere establishment of the authenticity of the docu- ment and examines into the degree of the credi- bility of its author. The first of the above steps in the growth of modern historical science was primarily the work of those same Benedictine monks of the Congregation of Saint Maur who had been so active in the preliminary period of the collec- tion of the sources of French history. Their priority in this movement seems to have been due to the fact that not being a militant order they did not have to appear as vigorous apolo- gists for Catholicism and that they also had the advantage over lay writers in not being com- pelled to glorify a particular city, province, family or dynasty. In the quiet libraries of their monastery they brought into existence an indispensable portion of the mechanism of the modern historian. TiieJe.adcr of the historical scholars of the Order was Jean Mabillon (1632- 1707), who created the science of diplomatic — or the critical method of determining the au- theniicity. of- documents. In 1675 a Jesuit his- torian, Papefefoch, made a sweeping claim that many of the documents upon which the Maur- ists had relied were worthless. Mabillon de- voted the next six years to the preparation of his reply, and in 1681 his opponent was crushed under the erudition of the *De re diplomatica,' which remained the standard treatise on the subject until it was displaced in the present generation by the volumes of Sickel, Ficher and Giry. The basis of modern paleography and archaeology was laid by Dom Bernard Montfaucon (1655-1741) in his ^Palaeographia graeca> and his ^L'Antiquite expliquee et rep- resentee en figures.' While a layman, Charles du Fresnc Du Cange had founded historical lexicQgraphv in his ^Glossarium mediae et in- fimae latinitatis' (1678), the Benedictines left their impress upon this field in the famous re- vision of Du Cange's work by Dom Carpentier (1768). Finally, in a great co-operative work, begun by Dantine and Durand, and finished in 1790 by Dom Clement, *L'Art de verifier les dates,' chronology was at last taken from the hands of Eusebius and Jerome and put on a scientific foundation. Of course, the Benedic- 244 HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT tines did not limit their cfTorts wholly to the perfecting: of methods of research, but applied these methods in the production of volnminous works and sonrce collections on Chnrch and national history. The advance in scientific method which they hronght into existence can scarcely he overestimated. Before this time there had either been no attempt to cite sources or the citations had been hopelessly confused; there had been no general practice of estab- lishing the genuineness of a text; and there had been no hesitancy in altering the text of a document to improve the stvle. Now docu- ments were searchinglv examined as to their authenticity, the text was quoted with exactness, and the citations were invariably included and given with scrupulous accuracy. It is, however, easily possible to overestimate the modernity of the Maurists ; they were as near to Timseus as to Ranke or Gardiner. Their critical methods were almost entirely limited to external or textual criticism — to an examination of the genuineness of the document. They were greatly inferior to the school of Voltaire in examining the crediliility of contemporary au- thorities and generally regarded the contents of an authentic primary source as entirely iden- tical with absolute truth. Neither did they pos- sess anything of the romanticist conception of historical development and the continutiy and organic nature of cultural evolution. They were nearer to scientific antiquarians than to modern historians. Nor were they sceptical of ecclesiastical tradition. They labored under the pious opinion that the truth would sub- stantiate the contentions of the Church, but in reality provided their rationalist contem- poraries and successors with a supply of scholarly information with which to rout the ecclesiastics. Almost identical in method with the Bene- dictines was the work of the Jansenist, Louis , Sebastian de Tillemont (1637-1698), on the his- tory of the Church and the Roman Empire to 600 A.D. His product was highly objective, being primarily a mosaic pieced together from sources which were selected to harmonize but were not altered. It was one of the earliest of modern historical \yorks to include a critical discussion of the principal sources for each period. His solid work, designed as a pillar of Christian doctrine, was one of the chief sources used by the sceptical Gibbon. A similar example of the new erudite methods was the researches into the history of the Guelfs car- ried on by the German philosopher, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646-1716) in his < Annals of the House of Brunswick.* A step was taken towards the development of internal criticism by the great Italian, Muratori (1672-1750), who made a number of advances over his mas- ter, Mabillon. He was as critical of miracles as Blondus and departed widely from the Bene- dictine practice of regarding contemporary sources as infallible. The methods of Mabillon and Muratori were combined with some faint anticipation of the romanticist conception of historical development in Rapin Thoyras' (1661- 1735) 'History of England,* which long re- mained the chief source on the Continent for the history of 17th century England. Finally, in the co-operative 'Universal History* pro- duced by the English scholars, Campbell, Sale, Swinton, Bower and Psalmanazar, the erudite school pulilished the most scholarly universal history since the humanist attempt in the 'En- neadcs^ of Sa!)ellicus. While thoroughly pious in its approach, it has been called by no less authoritative a critic than Fueter "the first universal history worthy of the name.** ]3^ hile Vadianus, Muratori and Thoyras had shown at least an embryonic power of criti- cizing the credibility of contemporary or "pri- mary,** sources and documents, the real begin- ning of the searching internal criticism of his- torical docurnents must be assigned to the work' of the Jesuitsa Having been put upon the de- fensive l)y thel'rotestant onslaughts, they were compelled to examine the sources of ecclesias- tical history to discover what portion of the old traditions and legends would bear the test of scientific scrutiny. By this means they hoped to eliminate the damaging criticism of the Church by Protestant historians who ridiculed the many crude and obviously false legends connected with the Catholic past. The chief example of this Jesuit criticism was the monu- mental 'Acta Sanctorum,' begun by the Belgian * Jesuits under Bolland's direction in 1643. Here the sources bearing on the lives of the various saints were arranged according to their age and authenticity. A much more healthy spirit of criticism was exhibited by -i^ierre Bayle (1647-1706) in his 'Historical and Critical Dic- tionary^ and in his criticism of the history of Calvinism by Maimbourg. Bayle took especial delight in pointing out the grave discrepancies between the views and opinions of contem- porary authorities and did not hesitate to ex- tend his methods to the examination of "sacred*^ history. Since the period of humanism the his- torians of classical antiquity had been regarded with a reverent confidence second only to the "Fathers.** Valla had questioned some asser- tions of Livy, but it was left for Louis de Beaufort (d. 1795) in his 'Dissertation sur I'incertitude des cinq premiers siecles de I'his- toire romaine,* to prove that the divergence in the accounts of the period by the great classical authorities indicated that the history of Rome before the third century B.C. rested almost wholly on legendary material. The work of Beaufort marked a break with humanism in attitude and method as well as in style. The most obscure member of this critical school, but perhaps the ablest historian before Niebuhr was Jean Baptiste Dubos (1672-1740). His 'Histoire critique de I'establissement de la monarchic francaise dans Ics Gaules* was the first attempt to turn the new critical methods upon the study of institutions. In as objective a spirit as that exhibited by Ranke he examined the documentary sources for the early history of France and anticipated Fauriel and Cou- langes in proving that the Merovingians had merely adapted and not displaced Roman cul- ture in Gaul. He also anticipated the roman- ticists in possessing a grasp upon the concep- tion of the gradual and organic development of civilization which was vastly superior to the catastrophic theory of the contemporary ration- alists. In this respect he marked an advance in the direction of Moser. Less critical, but more truly historical was the 'History of Osnabriick> by Justus Moser (1720-94), regarded by many as the first real constitutional history, in that it showed the manner in which political institutions develop out of the deeper social HISTORY, ITS RISK AND DEVELOPMENT 346 and economic forces in the life of a state. It was a disciple of Moser, Barthold Georges Niebuhr (1776-1831), who is conventionally re- garded as the creator of modern historiography, but if the foregoing discussions have shown anything they have proved that no single per- sonality or school can be regarded as having brought into existence the totality of modern historical science. Niebuhr, a Dane called to the new University of Berlin bv Humboldt in 1810, is one of the best examples of this tend- ency to synthesize the progressive methods of his predecessors. He was influenced by Savigny's romanticism in the study of the evolution of legal and political institutions. He followed Moser in his profound conception • of the development of political institution's. Finally, he applied to the sources of early Ro- man history the critical methods which had been adopted bj^ Wolf in his epoch-making studies of the authorship of the Homeric poems. His 'Roman History* was the first book to combine the best of the newer critical methods with the constructive principles of synthetic in- stitutional history, and it was the chief source of inspiration for the historical work of his greater successors, Leopold von Ranke and Theodor Mommsen. Von Baalia (1795-1886) first became inter- ested in history through his studies in classical literature, the influence of romanticism and the reading of Niebuhr. His immediate activity as a historian was initiated by his discovery of the wide divergence between the accounts of the events of the 15th century in Italian his- tory as presented by the leading contemporary authorities. This led to the publication in 1824 of his 'History of the Romance and Germanic Peoples, 1494-1535.' Its most significant por- tion was the appendix, entitled *'Zur Kritik neuerer Geschichtschreiber,^ and devoted to an analysis of the sources of information for the period that he had covered. This did for in- ternal and interpretative criticism what Mabil- lon's treatise on diplomatic had done for ex- ternal criticism, or the critical study of texts, It was Ranke's great contribution to historical method to have insisted that the historian must not only use ^rictlv c .Qnipm[>nra.vy snnyr.Qs pf > information, But must also make a thorough ^"sTiidy of the personality, "tendencies'' and ac- , tivities of the author to determine as far as / possible the personal equation in his record of |, events. There were two more fundamental characteristics in the historical mechanism of Ranke, namely, the conception derived from the romanticists that every nation and a.^e is domi- nated by a pre^lent set of ideas, designated by Ranke, the *xeitgeist," and the doctrine that the historian must view the past wholly freed from the prejudices of the present and must narrate the events of the past-'^wic es eig^ntlich ge- weseiT;^/Tfis"'derects have been pointed out by later writers as the failure to exhaust the sources available for any subject upon which he wrote and a primary concern with political events and dominating personalities to the neglect of the more fundamental facts of economic and social, and even of political, life. While he ranged over the entire history of Europe and the world and left an enduring mark upon every field, it was his contributions to historical methods and teaching which were mainly significant for the growth of historiog- raphy. To historical method he contributed primarily through his formulation of the prin- ciples of internal criticism and his insistence upon entire objectivity in the treatment of the past. His influence upon historical scholarship through his teaching was probably greater than through the exemplification of his methods in his written works. That fundamental instru- ment for the advancement of historical scholar- ship in the academic world — the Historical Seminar — was founded by Ranke in 1833 and if served to train not only the leading German historians, but historical students from all over the world who came to serve in the historical laboratory which he maintained during the period of half a century. When Ranke became too aged to conduct his seminar with effective- ness, his greatest pupil, George Waitz, adopted the methods of his master at the University of Gottingen, where nearly every leading mediaeval- ist of the last generation received at least a part of his training. With the work.oi.-JS^uike thcfauiwiations of modern historical scholarship wcrgj^nally laid. The progress since his time has consisted pri- marily in a further refinement of critical meth- ods and their general dissemination among a continually growing body of historical scholars. This progressive expansion of scientific his- torical scholarship has been in part the result of the direct imitation of Ranke's methods by his students and in part the outgrowth in every country of those same preliminary conditions and developments which made the work of Ranke possible. In Germany the growth of the critical school of historiography was primarily the result of the work of Ranke. Among his pupils were Kopke, Jaffe, Waitz, Giesebrecht and Von Sybel who perpetuated the methods of their master in their own writings and teaching. Waitz prob- ably surpassed Ranke in the thoroughness and exactness of his scholarship. The existence of independent sources of the new scholarship is best seen in the case of Mommsen, who was a product of the same general circumstances that made the work of Ranke possible, and who fully equalled Ranke in the field of schol- arship. In the generation since Droysen, Treitschke and Svbel, the works of the younger contributors to German hislorj- have shown more perfectly the objectivity of Ranke and have eliminated the errors due to the rabid patriotism of their predecessors. Moriz Ritter has produced the most detailed and scholarly treatment of the Thirty Years' War and the events of the Counter-Reformation. Bernhard Erdmannsdorffer has dealt with great scholar- ship and candor with the period from the Thirtv Years' War to the accession of Fred- crick the Great and has rejected Droysen's laudatory picture of the early Hohenzollerns and their "mission." R. Koser, in what is probably the most scholarly biographical pro- duct of modern critical historiography, has re- moved from Frederick the Great the halo with which he was adorned by Droysen and Carlyle. The period from Jena to the Revolution of 1848 has been studied by Hans Delbriick, Alax Leh- mann and F. Meinecke with much greater fair- ness, poise and scholarship than was exhibited Iiy Treitschke. Erich Marcks and Max Lenz have removed from Bismarck the "Sunday clothes® with which he was dressed by Sybel HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT and have laid bare his policies and intrigues. Alfred Stern is engaged upon what is by far 'the most exhaustive and scholarly history of Europe in the 19th century. Further, the influ- ence of the ficole des Chartes in improving the exact methods of handling documents has been evident in the Germanies in the work of such men as Sickel and the foundation of the Vienna Historical Institute in 1854. The general nature of German historical scholarship as exemplified in the adoption of critical methods is best ob- servable in the co-operative work edited by f W. Oncken, *Allgemeine Geschichte in Einzel- darstellungen' ; and in the which has been in pro- cess of publication by the Historical Commis- sion of the Munich Academy since 1862. The most erudite and complete synthesis of scien- tific historical methodolog>' ever prepared has been produced by E. Bernheim, though G. Wolf ' has more recently made a creditable contribu- tion to this field. The discussion of the ap- plication of this new critical scholarship to the field of German political history should not cause one to lose sight of the fact that equal progress has been made in the field of Church history since the days of the Centurians. In- terest in this subject was revived by Neander in the first half of the 19th century. In the work of Hinschius, Richter and Sohm on the canon law; Hauck's history of the German Church; the labors of Hefele and Hergen- rother on the councils; Pastor's history of the Popes of the "Renaissance^^; Harnack's monu- mental history of Christian dogma, and Kraus' history of Christian art, are to be seen v^^orks which rank with the best products of critical political historiography. The growth of critical historical scholarship in France owed something to German influences and some of the leading French historians, such as Monod, w-ere trained by the German masters, but on the whole the progress of historical scholarship in France has been primarily an in- digenous development. To TSflAl^^ihr might be compared Fauriel, who was the inspiration of Guizot and his associates. While Guizot never , equalled Ranke with respect to exact scholar- ship or productivity he was far superior to Ranke in analysis and more capable and active as an editor, and his influence in stimulating historical scholarship in France was fully com- parable to that exerted by Ranke in Germany. The precise scholarship of Waitz found its first French counterpart in the works of . FranQois Mignet, which foreshadowed modern French historiography, not only by their high critical standards, but also by their almost un- canny powers of causal analysis and their re- markable lucidity in exposition. The perfec- tion of exact historical rnethods in France was not due to an individual, as in Ger- many, but to the labors of many scholars and teachers in the greatest of the world's schools for the training of historians in the re- fined methods of criticism, L'ficole des Chartes, which began its work in 1829. The names of Delisle, Guerard, Monod, Luchaire, Molinier, * Giry and Viollet are indicative of the quality of work produced by the institution. In Aulard, France possesses a scholar whose de- ' tailed and masterly knowledge of a brief period of national history can be equalled among the world's historians only by Gardiner, and the myths surrounding the French Revolution have at last been put to rest. The finest representa- tive collection of French historical scholarship is to be found in the co-operative *Histoire generale' edited by Lavisse and Rambaud and in the *Histoire de France^ edited by Lavisse.' Space forbids more than a brief enumeration of some of the leading members of this recent generation of French scholars who have made the most notable contributions to historical knowledge. C. Jullian has carried the methods of his master, Coulanges, into a thorough survey of ancient Gaul under the Roman Empire. A. Berthelot has distinguished himself by studies in the later Roman Empire and the beginnings of mediaeval Europe. G. Bloch has contributed some striking monographs on the transition from Ro- man to mediaeval civilization. C. Diehl has de- voted himself to the period of the revival of the Eastern Empire under Justinian. Feudalism has been analyzed by C. Seignobos and A. Luchaire. Seigii,gbos has also rendered valu- • able service to modern history and to the gen- eral history of civilization, while Luchaire is the peerless authority on France of the 11th, 12th and early 13th centuries. C. L apgl ois ha^ traced the decline of the Capetians. Town life in the Middle Ages has received the atten- tion of A. Giry, who has also contributed the , standard treatise on diplomatic. C. Bemont is easily the leading French student of mediaeval England, though Ferdinand Lot has done notable work in early French and English mediaeval history. C- Bayet holds the same place with respect to the investigation of the Mediaeval Empire and has also done signal work on the Byzantine Empire. A. Coville is the mas- ter of the period of the Hundred Years' War. C. Pfister has contributed important mono- graphs to mediaeval history, the history of Nancy and the administrative policy of Henry IV. The 15th century has received the attention of C. Petit-Dutaillis. H. Lemonnier is the un- disputed authority on the history of France in' the 16th century. Hanotaux has analyzed the France of the opening of the 17th century. E. Lavisse has also claimed the 17th and holds the first place among French editors of co-operative historical works. H. Vast has surveyed in a brilliant fashion the political history of France in the later I7th and 18th centuries and the era of Napoleon. The 18th cen- tury has also profited by the labors of. H. Carre and P. Sagnac in th^ political his- tory of France and Europe, while A. Sorel has mastered the international relations of this cen- tury to an unparalleled degree. Aulard's unique work on the French Revolution has been men- tioned above. A. Debidour and A. Malet have synthesized the recent scholarship dealing with France in the last century and have done notable work on the history of modern European diplo- macy, while H. Marieiol has covered the history of modern France and Spain, being especially an authority on the early Bourbons. The leading French authoritv on modern Germany and Austria is G. Blondel, while the similar posi-i tion with respect to Hungary, Bohemia and Poland must be assigned to E. Denis and L. Leger. A. Rambaud. perhaps the most erudite and versatile figure in French historiography, ^ has earned for himself an enviable position in HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT 247 many fields. Winning his reputation by a monograph on the Byzantine Empire, he has since become the leading French authority on Slavonic Europe and has contributed brilliant surveys of French civilization and the growth of the French colonial empire. All students of the ecclesiastical and political history of Europe are immensely indebted to the masterly reviews of the relation between the Church and the State throughout the history of France by E. Chenon and Debidour. Rcnan has found his ablest successor in fimile Faguet whose survey of French thought cannot be matched in any other country. Nor should one forget the contributions of E. Levasseur to economic history; of P. Tannery to the history of science; and of C. Langlois to the subject of historical l)ibliography and methodology. The contributions of other recent French historians will be mentioned in the treatment of special phases of modern historiography. What Ranke achieved for the improvement of the teaching of history in Germany was accomplished in France by Jean Victor Duruy, Ernest Lavisse, •Charles Bemont and Gabriel Monod. Monod, probably the most scholarly and stimulating teacher of history who has yet lived, brought to perfection the seminar method which had been introduced by Duruy. In conclusion, no sketch of French historical scholarship would be complete without proper recognition of the unparalleled ability of French historians to unite careful scholarship with a broad inter- pretation of historical material, an admirable lucidity of expression and rare powers of syn- thetic organization. Even more than was the case with France, critical historical scholarship in England was a native product. Beginning in the work of . such men as Freeman, Stubbs, Green, Lecky, Creighton and Seeley, it has reached its highest point in the work of Samuel Rawson Gardiner on the stirring events of the first half of the 17th century. For a thorough mastery of all the available sources for a limited period and the ability to organize these in an inteJligible narrative he has but one rival, Aulard, and the objectivity of his wcrk surpasses that of the Frenchman. The English have never, however, provided anything comparable to the ficole des Chartes or the Historical Institute at Vienna for the training of young historians in the most recent methods of exact critical scholarship. The great repertory of the best products of recent English historical scholarship is the co-operative works — the incomplete 'Cam- bridge Mediaeval History, > the 'Cambridge Modern History, > and the less pretentious series edited by Hunt and Oman. Any cata- logue of the modern leaders of English critical historical scholarship would certainly include the following names. N. H. Baynes has dealt with the Eastern Roman Empire, a field which has been more extensively cultivated by J. B. Bury, whose thorough and versatile scholarship •has also been demonstrated by work on the later Roman Empire, by his critical edition of Gibbon and by his planning of the 'Cambridge Mediaeval HistDry.' . The mediaeval history of both England- and continental Europe fias profited by the labors of C. W. Oman, who has also distinguished himself in the field of modern history by a comprehensive work on the Peninsular War. H. C. W. Davis, one of the most brilliant of the younger present-day mediaevalists, has contributed notable work on the whole field of mediaeval history, but partic- ularly upon the 11th and 12th centuries. T. F. Tout has dealt with England in the 13th and 14th centuries, as well as with the relations be- tween the Church and empire in the Middle Ages, from a broad and well-balanced point of view. J. H. Round has exhibited exceptional scholarship by his studies of English feudalism and mediaeval legal institutions. The work of the late F. W, Maitland on the social inter- pretation of English legal institutions marked^ the greatest advance in that field since the time' of Stubbs. The work of James Bryce on the Mediaeval Empire has never been superseded,, though H. A. L. Fisher has more recently turned to that subject with both insight and scholarship. Ernest Barker has contributed a number of scholarly monographs on diverse phases of mediaeval history. G. M. Trevelyan.. has dealt with England in both the 14th and the 17th centuries in works which not only ex- hibit original scholarship, but also the finest mastery of English prose to be found among critical English historians of the present day. The careful scholarship of Richard Lodge has been displayed in the treatment of the transi- tion from the mediaeval to the modern period in both England and continental Europe. J. A. Doyle's account of English colonization in . America is, perhaps, surpassed only by the American work of Professor Osgood. James Gairdner's calm and scholarly work on the 15th century and the Tudor period has been carried on by A. D. Innes, H. A. L. Fisher and A. F. Pollard, the latter one of the most original and promising writers now engaged in the field of English history. G. W. Prothero has sketched the later 16th century and has secured for him- self a position as an historical editor com- parable to that held in France by Lavisse. It is a sufficient commentary on the work of C. H. Firth on the history of the middle of the 17th century to observe that the' scholarship of Gardiner has not suffered in the w'ork of his continuator. That Lecky's great work on the 18th century did not doom his successors to barren eff^orts is shown by the w-orks of L. S. Leadam and W. Hunt, C. G. Robertson's narra- tive on the early Hanoverians, G. O. Trevelyan's survey of the American Revolution and by the biographies of the elder Pitt by Rosebury and Williams, of Burke by Morley, of Fox by Trevelyan and of the younger Pitt by Rose. Stanley Leathes has no English competitor as an authority on the political history of France. F. C. Montague and J. R. M. Macdonald have investigated the history of 18th century France, and H. Morse Stephens contributed the first, scholarly synthesis of the French Revolution before he left his native<-land to win academic distinction in the United States. J. H. Rose is the undisputed English authority on the ' Napoleonic period, while H. A. L. Fisher has been attracted by Napoleon's administrative re- forms. The 1 9tl| ce ntury has been covered by the works of Spencer Walpole, Herbert Paul, G. Slater and J. A. R. Marriott and by a num- ber of notable biographies, such as those of Francis Place by Graham Wallas, of Cobden and Gladstone by Morley, of Bright by G. M. Trevelj'an and of Disraeli by Mon\-penny and Buckle. The history of the British Empire has 248 HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT V received detailed attention from Egerton, Lucas Innes and H. H. Johnston. F.uropean politics and international relations in the last century have heen dealt with by W. A. Phillips, G. L. Dickinson and J. A. R. Marriott; In addition, there should he mentioned the exhaustive scholarship of A. W. Ward with respect to all things connected with the political history of modern Germany and the detailed studies of W. H. Dawson on the modern German Empire; the scholarly work of R. N. Bain, R. W. Scton- Watson, D. M. XVallace, F. H. Skrine and W. Miller on Scandinavian, Slavonic and eastern Europe; the studies of Italian unification by Bolton King and G. M. Trevelj^an ; and the comprehensive work of Martin Hume on modern Spain. Cluirch history has not been neglected in England, the more notalile products in this field being the works of H. M. Gwatkin and F. .1. Foakes-Jackson on the early Church; of H. B. Workman on the Mediaeval Church and the preliminaries of the Reformation; of C. Beard and T. M. Lindsay on the Reforma- tion in general, and of James Gairdner and R. W. Dixon on the Reformation in England; of R. W. Church and F. W. Cornish on the re- ligious movements of the last century; of H. W. Clark on the Non-Conformists; and the monumental co-operative history of Stephens and Hunt on the whole period of English ecclesiastical history. The contributions of Cunningham and Ashley to economic history and of Morley, Stephen, Benn and Merz to intellectual history will be dealt with in another place. Finally, no student of historiography could fail to commend G. P. Gooch for his ex- cellent execution of Lord Acton's long-deferred plan to sketch the development of modern his- torical writing. Of the teachers of history in England who have done the most to inspire their pupils with the ideals of modern criticism and with an interest in historical investigation Freeman, Seeley, Actorr and Maitland have had the widest and most salutary influence. The beginning of modern critical scholar- ship in the field of American historv dates back only to about the period of the close of the American Civil _War. It owed its origin very largely to the influence of Germany. In the first cjuarter of the 19th century George Ban- croft liad attended the lectures of Heeren and had later been a friend of Ranke. Not having been an academician, Bancroft had little in- fluence on scientific historical methods in the United States. The real beginning of the sys- tematic introduction of the improved methods of German historical scholarship into the United States began in the vear 1857 when Henrj- Torrey succeeded Sparks at Harvard, Francis Lieber assumed his professorship at CQlumbia, and Andrew D. White accepted a chair of history at Michigan. All of these men had been trained in Germany and estab- lished a direct contact between German and American scholarship. Professor White had also been profoundly influenced by Gui^ot , and his teaching was never limited to tne narrowly episodical and political historv which attracted fhe extreme disciples of Ranke and the Prus- sian jichool. A still greater impulse to the sound establishment of historical scholarship in ^ America came when Herbert Baxter Adams instituted the teaching of history in Johns Hopkins University in 1876 immediately after the conclusion of his studies in Gottingen, Ber- lin and Heidelberg. To Prof. H. B. Adams was due not only the establishment of the "seminar" method of instruction in America, but also the organization and creation of the first great training school for historians in Arnerica. There is scarcely a great American university at the present day which does not have in its department of history one or more men trained in the Johns Hopkins seminar, and the literary products of this seminar were the first conspicuous exemplification in America of the newer critical historical schcjjarship. Much the greatest personal influence in the in- troduction of the German methods and ideals was that of Professor John William Burgess, who began his work at Amherst in 1873 after having studied in Gottingen, Leipzig and Ber- lin and who founded in 1880 the famous faculty of political science at Columbia, w'hich came to rival and later to overshadow Johns Hopkins. Professor Adams, while appreciating the value of the exact German methods, had a healthy confidence in the ability of American scholars to interpret and apply the new methods, but Professor Burgess was convinced that at best Americans could be but lame and halting imi- tators of Germanic genius and induced most of his students to finish their studies in Germany. As Prof. H. B. Adams has expressed it. "The students of Professor Burgess went to Berlin in shoals. They went in such numbers that they began to be called the ^Burgess School.* They all went to hear Droysen lecture; and came home with trunks full of Droj-sen's 'Preussische Politik' and of the writings of Leopold von Ranke.** In addition to the work of Johns Hopkins and Columbia, Michigan ad- vanced the new methods under Charles K. Adams, and Cornell under President White, Moses Coit Tyler and George Lincoln Burr. About this same time Edward Channing, . at Harvard, carried to completion the beginnings in the newer historical scholarship which had been made by Henry Adams in the "seventies.** At the present time the new scholarship has permeated the whole American university world and the American students of history need no longer, as Professor Gooch would seem to indicate, seek their training abroad. In the seminars of such scholars as Herbert L. Osgood, William A. Dunning, George Burton Adams, J. F. Jameson, Frederick Jackson Turner, George Lincoln Burr, Edward Channing, Ed- ' ward G. Bourne, Dana C. Munro and Charles H. Haskins the serious American student has received or may receive training in refined critical methods quite equal in most respects to anything to be obtained abroad. The French influences have to some degree displaced the German in recent years and most American mediaevalists finish their training in the ficole des Chartes, a substitute for which scarcely ex- ists in America. A number of American scholars, such as H. B. Adams, E. G. Bourne, B. A. Hinsdale, N. M. Trenholme, F. M. Fling, • Henry Johnson, H. E. Bourne, W. H. Mace, J. M. Vincent and F. H. Foster, have made worthy contributions to the systematic elabora- tion of historical methodology, but nothing has appeared in this field in .\merica that in any y^ay rivals the works of Bernheim or Langlois and-Seignabo*;. Any account of the introduc- tion of the modern methods of historical re- HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT search in America would be incomplete with- out some mention of the work of Prof. Albert Bushnell Hart of Harvard. While he has not contributed notably to the further refinement of critical methodology in historiography bj' his own works, there can be no doubt that he has been easily the leader in promoting the produc- tion of scholarly contributions to the field of ^American history and government, in his ca- pacity as an editor, and in popularizing the more scholarly methods. The application of the more critical methods to the field of American history has resulted in works worthy to rank with the best European products and has quite reconstructed the earlier notions of American national develop- ment. The period of colonization has been ex- amined by Professor Osgood a student of Pro- fessor Burgess and Ranke, and his monumental seven volume work on the American Colonics constitutes the highest point to which exact American scholarship has attained, and is worthy to rank with the writings of Gardiner and Aulard. The relation of the colonies to British foreign policy has been recast by Pro- fessor Osgood's disciple, George Louis Beer. Professor Alvord, in a scholarly and original work, has for the first time shown the full significance of the problems of British im- perial administration west of the Alleghenies for the preliminaries of the American Revolu- tion, and has finally rescued the study of the beginnings of that conflict from the octopus of Boston Harbor. Fisher, Flick, Siebert, Ty- ler and Van Tyne have at last dealt fairly with the Loyalists. The study of the period of the formation and adoption of the American con- stitution has finally been secularized through the detailed and critical research of Prof. Max Farrand and the brilliant essay of Pro- fessor Beard. Professor McMaster has sur- vej'ed— the first 70 years of national develop- ment with not only scholarship, but a broader and more synthetic approach than has been attained in any other comprehensive American historical work. Much more super- ficial and narrow in its scope, but equally scholarly is Henrj^ Adams' detailed account of American foreign policy in the administra- tions of Jefferson and Madison. Professor Turner and his students have applied some- thing of Che scholarship of Osgood and the originality and the breadth of interest of Mc- Master to a study of the colonization of the West, and their work has in many ways super- seded the vigorous and interesting survey by Roosevelt. Professor Turner's "schooP' is the brst illustrationlrl America of the combination ol' exact scholarship with the synthetic leiidcncy in modern historiography. The period of the' Civil War and Reconstruction has been dealt with in a calm and temperate fashion by Mr. Tames Ford Rhodes in a detailed work _which for objectivity and scholarship fur- nisher the only rival to that of Professor Os- t^ood. The same period and the subsequent generation hafH-becn covered in an exhaustive manner by Professor Dunning and his students. Or K. P. Oberholtzer, a disciple of Professor McMaster, has made a promising beginning in the attempt to present a detailed analysis of the histor>- of the people of the l^'nited States since the Civil War, interpreted in the original and coniprehciisive spirit of his master. The whole period of national history has been sketched in a careful and dispassionate manner by James Schouler, and Professor Channing is engaged on an ambitious attempt to trace the history of the United States from the period of colonization to the present in a work designed to synthesize the results of the critical studies of the present generation of historical scholars, and which, if completed, bids fair to become the great national history in the better sense of that term. The character of the best American historical scholarship in the first generation of those who had imbibed the newer critical methods is to be discovered in the co-operative < Narrative and Critical History of America,* edited by Justin Winsor. A much more com- prehensive and representative repertoire of American scholarship of a slightly more recent type is to be found in the ^American Nation,' edited by Professor Albert Bushnell Hart. In addition to investigation of the history of their own country, American historians have made important contributions to manv other periods and phases of history. Professor Breasted has earned a place among the leaders of modern Egyptology and Rogers, Hilprecht, Jastrow, Olmstead and Goodspeed have done creditable work on the history of Babylonia and Assyria. Professor Ferguson is the world's foremost authority on Hellenistic Athens, Westermann has dealt in an original fashion with the prov- inces of the Roman imperial system, and Bots- ford ranged over the whole period of classical antiquity with both insight and the most exact- ing scholarship. In the field of mediaeval his- tory Professor Burr has mastered the Carol- ingian period and is easily the leading author- ity in Europe or America on the history of toleration ; Larson has investigated the early mediaeval htSTOTy~bf England and Thompson has dealt with the growth of the French mon- archy under Louis VI ; Munro had devoted himself particularly to a sttrdy^of the Crusades; the part played by the Normans in the history of mediaeval Europe has been investigated by Haskins with a thoroughness not equaled by anj^ other American or European scholar; few if any English scholars can rival G. B. Adams' knowledge of the constitutional history of mediaeval England; Henderson has summarized the results of modern scholarship dealing vvi{h mediaeval Germany; Emerton has contributed scholarly and detailed manuals covering the entire mediaeval period ; Lynn Thorndike has recently presented an original synthesis of the best modern scholarship dealing with the Middle Ages, and H. O. Taylor has furnished the best survey of the intellectual history of this period. The original and now generally accepted thesis that the "commercial revolu- tion*^ rather than the "Renaissance" or the "Reformation** marked the dawn of the mod- ern world has furnished the centre of orienta- tion for the stimulating works of Abbott, Shep- herd, E. G. Bourne, Merriman and Chc>-ney. The French Revolution and the Napoleonic pe- riod have profited by the works of H. M. Stephens, Fling, Sloane, H. E. Bourne and Johnston. Thayer has written in an interest- ing fashion on the history of Italy from the end of the Napoleonic regime to the comple- tion of unit'ication; Henderson, Schevill, Ford and Fay have treated the history of modem Germany; Lybyer has been the only American 250 HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT historian to devote special attention to the mod- ern history of southeastern Europe ; and C. M. Andrews and Hazen have contributed standard political narratives on the history of modern Europe. In Prof. John Bassett Moore the United States has the most productive and authoritative student of the history of interna- tional law and diplomacy, and D. J. Hill, J. W. Foster, A. C. Cooli'dRe, C. R. Fish and E. S. Corwin have been some of the other American writers who have contributed to this field. Church history has attracted a large number of American students. H. C. Lea\ monographs have entitled him to rank with European scholars like Harnack and Duchesne. G. P. Fisher and Philip Schaflf .sketched the whole history of the Christian Church. Mc- Giffert won an international reputation by his edition of Euscbius and has since made im- portant contributions to the history of the early Church. The rise of the mediaeval Church has received the attention of Ayer and Flick. The period of the "Reformation^^ has been covered by the monographs of Preserved Smith, Emer- ton, Faulkner, Jackson and Jacobs. W. Walker has provided a survey of Church history in both Europe and America. David Schaff, S. M. Jackson and W. W. Rockwell have contributed to this field by valuable editorial labors, and Professor Rockwell has been especially active in keeping Americans in touch with the latest developments in European scholarship in this field. The primary attention of European his- torians to ancient and mediaeval history — a lingering effect of humanism and romanticism — has left its impress upon American scholar- ship and has led to a neglect of modern his- tory. The younger generation of American historians, however, by devoting their energies primarily to modern history, have tended to make a salutary break with tradition and are promising to equal in volume and quality the contributions that their former teachers made to the study of the "Middle Ages.» Historical biography in the United States has tended to take the form of a great number of brief biographies, such as the "American Statesmen Series" and the "Riverside Biograph- ical Series," rather than being limited to a few notable products. Some fine biographies have appeared, however, such as the voluminous documentary biography of Lincoln by Nicolay and Hay, the excellent biographies of Buchanan and Webster by G. T. Curtis, and the more recent ones of Douglas by Allen Johnson, of Andrew Jackson by J. S. Bassett, and of Stephen Girard by J. B. McMaster. XI. The Industrial and Scientific Revolu- tions AND THE Leading Tendencies in ■^ Modern Historiography. 1. The Persistence and Development of Earlier Trends. — While the major portion of the progress in historiography since Ranke has consisted in rise of new and sounder tendencies there have been important improvements in the earlier and traditional lines of development. In the first place, while little ^as been achieved that was not implicit in the methodo- logical system of Ranke, there have been some important improvements in both the critique and the technique of historical methodology since_ Ranke's time. The fundamental principles of historical criticism have been refined and systematized in the admirable works of Bern- , heim and Langlois and Seignobos, so that the beginner may now have at his disposal a more extended discussion of all phases of historical method than Ranke was ever acquainted with. There has also been a great improvement in the mechanical accessories of historical scholar- ship. Elaborate bibliographies of the historiog- raphy of the various countries have been pre- pared, of which those by Langlois, Molinier, , Monod, Dahlmann-Waitz and Gross are the' more notable. These are supplemented by cur- rent lists of the new works which appear, pub- lished in the various technical historical jour- nals, and the student is enabled to keep thor- oughly abreast of the literature in his field. Remarkably thorough and accurate guides to the vast collections of sources of national and ecclesiastical history which were gathered dur- ing the 19th century have been provided, and the modern student may locate in a few minutes in any great library sources which might have occupied any earlier generation in months of fruitless searching. Of this invaluable type of aid the monumental works of Potthast and Chevalier are most worthy of mention. Again, archives, public and private, have been opened more freely to the historical scholar, though he is still excluded from the more recent material. Nor should one neglect to point out the great contribution to efficiency, expedition and accu- racy in historical investigation which has come about from the general introduction of card catalogues, filing systems, loose-leaf note books and elaborate schemes for indexing and cross- reference. This important type of innovation* and improvement has been chiefly the W'ork of American scholars. As important as the ad- vances in bibliographical and other mechanical aids has been the great extension and im- provement of the teaching profession in the department of history. Under the guidance of trained scholars, the members of historical seminars, though of mediocre literary talent may contribute more exact knowledge to the field of history in their dissertations than was contained in many volumes of the older and popular literary history. Finally, historical science has, after two centuries of delay, followed the lead of natural science and be- come co-operative in the true sense of the word. National historical societies have been formed in all the kading countries, each su^ porting one or more technical journals. It is also rare now that a single authoritative his- torian attempts a comprehensive survey of a wide field of history; it has rather come to be the general practice to produce extensive his- tories on the co-operative plan in order to ' utilize to the full the ability of specialists. It would seem that historiography can make little more progress in the refinement of critical methodology. It only remains to bring modern history as far as possible under the control of the same exact apparatus of research that has already been provided for mediaeval and church history. A less salutary type of persistence of older tendencies has been the perpetuation of the political fetish of Ranke and his school. A number of causes have accounted for this rather curious survival of a strange distortion of historical interests. In the first place, a great impulse was given to the political orienta- HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT »51 tion through the students and disciples of Ranke who held steadfastly to the tenets of their master. This was superseded in Germany by the more violent nationalism and political pre- dilection of Droysen, Treitschke, Von Sybel and the others of the Prussian school. The rise of nationalism and political interests in France under the Third Republic kept alive the earlier nationalistic political history that had before been stimulated liy the interest in the episodes of the French Revolution and the conquests of Napoleon. In England the univcr- . sal conviction as to the supreme political capacity of the Anglo-Saxon seemingly im- posed a moral obligation upon English his- torians to concentrate their attention upon the proofs of this superiority. In America the political and episodical historiography was stimulated by the thrills of a great and success- ful war in behalf of national unity and was perpetuated by the introduction of the tenets of Ranke and Droysen by their returning pupils, who became the leaders and organizers of his- torical study in this country. Finally, this type of history received a last source of inspiration from the recrudescence of nationalism through- out the world as an inevitable accompaniment of the imperialism or '^neo-mercantilism^^ which developed more or less universally in the period of the **seventies*^ and the following years. That the adherents of this form of history will gain at least momentary strength and encourage- ment from the revived importance of national- ism and militarism growing out of the present World War is scarcely to be doiibted. 2. New Developments in the Study and Interpretation of History. — Important as has been the further development of earlier tenden- cies in historiography during the 19th century, this has been dwarfed into insignificance by the great advances made in totally new directions or in channels which had been only slightly foreshadowed and anticipated in earlier epochs. The critical political historians provided modern historiography with its accurate methods of research and its vast compilations of primary sources. But, as Professor Shotwell has very aptly said, these scholars were so intensely ab- sorbed in the task of perfecting the method- oiogy oi research that they failed to discrimi- nate in the importance of the events which they narrated. It has become the task of an ever-increasing group of progressive historians to promote the synthetic tendencv in the hope of giving history a more natural content and a better balanced body of subject-matter. While there can be no doubt that the basis for many of the new developments was laid by the progress of earlier periods in the way of creating the national constitutional state, ex- panding the European consciousness throughout the world by the commercial revolution, and en- croaching upon the field of the mysterious through the great scientific discoveries in the field of natural science during the 17th and 18th centuries, there can be no question that most of the novel elements introduced into the writ- ing and the outlook of the historian in the last century were the product of the va^^t transformations in social conditions and intel- lectual interests and attitudes since the first quarter of the 19th century. The chief reason for the great transformation in the historical outlook in the last century has been the fact that the "Industrial Revolution" and the pro- gress in natural and social science have com- pletely altered not only the material conditions of human life, but also the whole "Weltan- schauung" of the civilized world. A more com- plete reconstruction of the whole mode of life and of the intellectual orientation of civilized peoples has been achieved in the last century " than had previously taken place since the be- ginning of the Christian era, and this great change could not but at?ect historical concepts viewed as an important branch of intellectual interests. By the industrial revolution, which was effected between 1750 and 1850, the whole basis of life was profoundly modified and the former ideas and interests quite uprooted and dis- located. The old period of rural stability and repetition was broken up and with the growth of cities the possibilities of invention, imitation and progress were immensely increased. The changes in the centres of population and in the mode of life gave rise to new and strange social problems on a scale hitherto unknown, and demanded the provision of some adequate "science of society*' to serve as a guide in their solution. As in the period of the so-called "Renaissance,* humanity again loomed larger than the state and social rather than purely political interests forged to the front in his- torical as in other social sciences. Not less consequential and epoch-making were the notable advances in natural science in the 19th century which were much more destruc- tive to the traditional philosophy of life than the great discoveries of the 16th and 17th cen- turies, in that the scientific work of the earlier period centered chiefly in the realm of mechanics and other fields which did not directly concern the problem of the origin and destiny of man, while those of the 19th century had a direct and inevitable bearing upon the interpretation of the derivation and origin of the human race and its relation to the rest of the organic world. Lyell and his fellow geol- ogists revealed the undreamed-of antiquity of the earth and of various forms of animal life. Lawrence, Lamarck, Chambers, Darwin and Wallace, w^orking from both geology and biology, suggested and later proved the gradual and "naturaP* development of man from the lower varieties of the animal kingdom. The chronology of Africanus, Eusebius and Jerome was discredited for all time through the revela- tions of pre-historic archa?olog>' in the hands of Boucher de Perthes and Sir John Evans, and the 'Chronicle' of Jerome was replaced by the 'Classification ethnologique' of de Mortil- let. "Adam" was reduced, in the new pcrspec- . five of time, from the originator of the race to a fairly close contemporary of Darwin himself. Man was revealed as the product of natural causes and not of a mysterious creation, in the old and obscurantic sense of the term, and he became, thereby, a legitimate subject for analysis, particularly at the hands of psy- ' cholog>^ Along with this progress in natural science went a much further development of critical philosophy and the subjection of scrip- tural authority and sacred history, already weakened by the established conclusions of scientific investigations, to the same candid and critical investigation which has been accorded to secular history much earlier. The spirit of HISTORY. ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT Voltaire, Hume and Gibbon had at last per- manently come to its own. It was inevitable that these sweeping altera- tions in man's outlook upon life should pro- foundly affect his attitude toward the study of the past, as well as his interests in the present and future, i In view of the fact that the indus- trial rcvolut'To'n was the prime mover in the social transformations of the period it was not surprising that the first vigorous reaction again.it the conventional political historiography should come through the avenue of a greater emphasis , upon the economic factors and the commonplace facts of daily life, the primary importance of which was demonstrated by the historical events of the 19th century^T To be sure, the rationalist school had laid coiisiderable stress upon eco- nomic influences, Heeren had shown the im- portance of the commercial activities of antiq- uity, and Moser had insisted upon the vital re- lation of economic factors to the development of political organization, but these were only isolated instances of more than the usual con- temporary insight and profundity which were almost totally overshadowed and engulfed in the episodical and biographical historiography of ro- manticism and in the political bias of national- istic historiographv. Economic history, as a general and universal movement of revolt from the narrow political historiography, dates from the publication of Karl Marx's pamphlet enti- ' tied, the *Holy Family,^ in 1845, and his joint work with Engels three years later, the ^Com- munist Manifesto.^ While few of the leading figures in modern economic history would de- fend the economic determinism of Marx, they would at least contend that economic events have an historical significance not second to any other category of facts, and that to pass over them in silence, as did writers like Droysen and . Sybel, Stubbs and Freeman, and Burgess and Hoist, is to miss much of the significance of any period and inevitably to yield but an im- perfect and distorted picture of any epoch. It is important to note that the new economic history was not a break with the exact scholar- ship of the school of Rankc, but was rather an application of critical scholarship to the recov- ery of our knowledge of the economic life of the past in its relation to the totality of civili- zation. In the names of Roscher. Knies. Inama- Sternegg, Nitzsch, Schmoller and Bucher in Germany; of Rogers, Cunningham, Ashley, Gib- bins, Hammond and Webb in England; of Lc- vasseur, LePlay, Leroy-Beaulieu, Avenel and Jaures and his associates in France; of Koval- evsky and Vinogradoff from Russia; and of Bolles, Veblen, Bogart, Coman, Dewey, Clark, Commons, Gay, Callender and Day in America, the student of historiography recognizes scholars worthy to rank with the best disciples of Rankc in the field of critical methodology. In addi- tion to the epoch-making work of the avowed economic historians, this new emphasis upon economic factors in history has filtered into the works of the orthodox school, and few serious . historical works are now attempted which do not give at least grudging recognition to the im- portance of the industrial and comm^ial life of a people. ^ / Another important new development in his- /" torical writing which grew more or less directly out of the effects of the industrial revolution was the origin of sociology and the influence of the sociological point of view upon historical , writing. While there had been sociological tendencies in the writings of earlier publicists and historians, it is generally agreed that the science of sociology had its origin in the neces- sity of providing a general "science of society'* to criticize, evaluate and guide the various re- form movements which sprang into existence as a result of the evils of the social and economic? . transition which accompanied the industrial revolution. Its two great original systematizers were Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer. . The influence of sociology upon history has been varied and profound. One aspect of this influence was evident in Buckle's avowed desire to follow Comic's suggestion of the existence of well defined laws of historical development and to combine this with Quetelet's statistical method cf measuring social phenomena, and thus to arrive at an exact science of historical development wholly comparable to the precision reached in natural science. While Buckle's sug- gestions have been only moderately developed, it has long since been recognized that few valid "laws of historical development can be discov- ered which do not rest upon the firm basis of adequate statistical study. A much more far- reaching reaction of sociology upon historiog- raphy has been its influence in broadening the content of history, s o as t o include all of the important phases of social life and activity. This type of departure from orthodox procedure gained its first great success in the world famous work of John Richard Green. Less popular but equally able were Professor Dill's volumes • on the social phases of Roman imperial history. While Green found few immediate followers among his countrymen, who, with the exception of Lecky, for the time being held faithfully to the canons of Freeman, Stubbs and Seeley, the younger generation, led by such scholars as Pol- lard, Marvin, Zimmern and Slater have organ- ized a powerful movement in favor of a re- vival of Green's broad social mode of approach to historical problerns. Germany has probably been most prolific in the production of his- torians affected by the sociological movement. In the middle of the last century Riehl and Freytag gathered data for the first comperhen- sive picture of the social history of Germany, Friedlander described the social life of the Roman Empire, and Buckhardt drew the classic picture of the civilization of the Renaissance. A quarter of a century later Janssen, from a warmly Catholic standpoint, described the so- cial conditions of Germany in the epoch of the . Reformation. Erman provided the first reliable and comprehensive account of the civilization of . sncient Egypt. The great impulse to social his- tory in Germany, however, came though the labors of the able Leipzig professor, Karl Lam- , precht, and his supporters and co-workers Gothein, Steinhausen and Breyssig. In France the effect of the new social impulses has been less apparent because the French historians have never been so narrowly political as the German and English schools of history-;- even such technical and ultra-critical medirevalists as Luchaire, Giry and Monod finding time to dis- cuss social conditions in the mediaeval period. » Rambaud is probabl}' the nearest French coun- terpart to Green. The far greater breadt!i of view in French historiography than in Eng- lish can best be appreciated by a comparison of HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT the tables of contents of the 'Histoire generale* and the 'Histoire de France' with those of the ^Cambridge Alediaeval History' and the 'Cam- bridge Modern History.' In Italy. Ferrero has upheld the social point of view in his history of ' ancient Rome. Worthy and successful imita- tions of Green's sociological mode of interpre- tation are to be found also in Blok's ^History of the Dutch People,' and in Kluchevsky's pub- lication of his lectures on the development of the Russian national culture and political organization. Among American historians McMaster has followed most faithfully in the footsteps of Green, and Turner has exhibited a breadth of view not less notable than his • exacting scholarship in' tracing the colonization of the West. Cheyney's work in the field of English history has always been marked by a broad and well-balanced interpretation. Nor should one forget the promising beginnings in a social interpretation of American history by such writers as W. E. Dodd and Carl Becker, and the application of similar methods to • modern European history by Hayes, Lingelbach and others. Professors Breasted and Jastrow have done notable work in reconstructing the ■ civilization of oriental antiquity. Finally, Professor Shotwell of Columbia, while his own written contributions have not been extensive, has rivalled Maitland in stimulating an enthu- siastic interest in social history on the part of an ever increasing group of disciples. Another very significant outgrowth of the sociological movement has been its reaction upon th? field of constitutional history. While Moser had anticipated the recent movement in stressing the creative influence of social and economic forces in shaping political forms and institu- tions, the first great modern school, of consti- tutional historians, represented in Germany by Waitz and Gneist, in England by Stubbs, and in America by Hoist and Burgess, had been content to trace constitutional development in a purely external and formal legalistic manner, or had represented it as a product of the in- fluences of powerful personalities. The spirit of Moser first reappeared in the uncompleted work of Alexis de Tocqueville on the consti- tutional developments in 18th century France, which forever discredited the cataclysmic inter- pretation of the French Revolution by showing how it was the natural and logical culmination of fundamental social and economic forces which had been operating for centuries. A simi- lar mode of approach was evident in the bril- liant contributions of Fustel de Coulanges to the constitutional history of France in the early meiliseval period. The influence of social and psychic forces in legal and constitutional his- ton was fully recognized in Otto Gierke's monumental work on "Genossenschaftsrecht," perhaps, the most notable German contribu- tion to the newer tendencies in constitutional interpretation, and also in Brunner's monu- niCTital history of early Germanic law and Ih(.riiig's extensive studies in comparative jurisprudence. What Tocqueville and Cou- laiiuc s accomplished for France was achieved for Enijlish constitutional history by the powerful, orie nal and unbiased mind of Gierke's disciple, Frc'.erick W. \[aitland, who for the first time ctfc- ivcly demonstrated the social and economic background of English legal history and made clea- the futility of a purely legalistic recon- struction of constitutional development. Mait- land's work in English legal history has been carried on by his friend, Paul Vinogradoff^, with a more impressive, if less subtle, scholarship, and with equal productivity. In America a worthy disciple of Maitland has appeared in Prof. Charles A. Beard, who not only shares Maitland's approach to constitutional problems, but rivals him in his disregard of traditional and orthodox opinions. A direct outgrowth of the industrial revolu- tion which has been of the utmost significance for both historical events and historiography has been the neo-mcrcantilism or national impe- rialism which has developed since about 1875 as a result of the need for new markets and in- vestment opportunities which was created by the increase of both commodities and capital through the great revolution in industry be- tween 1800 and 1875. The process has repeated in a much more thorough-guing way the com- mercial revolution of three centuries earlier. European civilization was again brought into contact with different cultures of every conceiv- able type, and the possession of the scientific knowledge that had been accumulating since 1650 was of the greatest value and assistance in appropriating the new discoveries. The re- actions of this movement upon historiography have been nearly as diverse as the civilizations and cultures which have been discovered. Its more unfortunate results have been a perpetu- ation of ardent national sentiment in historical writing and a stimulation of racial egoism on the part of European and American historians. Its more favorable effects upon historiography, as exhibited in the writings of the more thoughtful historians, have been a broadening of the knowledge of mankind, the enriching of the stores of historical information, an increase of tolerance for cultures different from our own and the great stimulation of the attention of the historian and publicist to the new social, eco- nomic and administrative problems created and to their solution in harmony with the principles of enlightenment and humanity. Among the historians and publicists who have given espe- cial attention to these subjects have been Brj'ce, Douglas, Hobhouse, Hobson, Johnston, Keltie, Kidd, Lewin, Macdonald, Rose and Skrine in England; Bordier, Cordier, Gaffarel, Leroy- Beaulieu, Piquet and Rambaud in France; Mei- iiecke, Meyer, Pcicrs and Zimmermann in Ger- many; and Blakcslee, Harris, Hornbeck, Jones, Keller, Krehbicl, Latourette, Morris, Reinsch and Shepherd in America. On the whole, the movement has tended to broaden the historical outlook not only with respect to geographical space, but also with regard to the scope of the historian's interests. Especially significant has ■ leen the interest that it has aroused in the his- tory of international relations. A further significant innovation, which was i'l part a product of the concentration of popu- lition due to the industrial revolution and in I art an outgrowth of the more scientific ap- proach to the study of social and psychic phe- nomena, has been the rise of social psychology and its reaction upon historj-. Voltaire had t'circshadowed the psychological interpretation hy his doctrine of *thc genius of a people,'' btu this concept in the hands of Voltaire was es.sen- tially non-historical. He regarded national character as something fixed and immutable,- i354 HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT and he made little attempt to explain its origin. The romanticists had improved somewhat on Voltaire's conception hj- viewing the develop- ment of civilization as the product of obscure psychic or spiritual forces, but they even denied the possibility of discovering or analyzing the nature or operation of this process of psychic causation. Ranke and his school had borrowed from the romanticists the doctrine of the 'Zeit- geist,*' but they had been content to describe its varied manifestations in different periods and made no attempt to anah'ze its content or to account for its origin or mutations. With the growth of cities and the means of commimica- tion during the industrial revolution and the re- sulting increase of social contacts and of the volume of psychic interstimulation, and with the development of modern science wath its empha- sis upon the amenability of human activities to psychological analysis, there gradually arose a science of collective or social psychology, which first made its appearance in the work of Lewes, Bagehot, Lazarus and Steinhal and was de- veloped by Wundt and Dilthey in Germany; by Fouillee, Guyau, Tarde, Durkheim and Le Bon in France, by Sighele in Italy; by McDougall, Trotter and Wallas in England; and by Gid- dings, Sumner, Ross, Cooley and Ellwood in America. While this novel development of psychology was at first applied either to abstract , or contemporary problems, it soon began to re- act upon historical interpretations. If the col- lective psychology was so all-important a factor in recent times it was natural for the original historian to ask the question as to why it had not been of fundamental significance in every age. From a semi-obscurantic view of a "Welt- geist'' and a "Zeitgeist,*' which were either held to be unanalyzable or were left without analysis, the progressive historians turned to an attempt to discover and evaluate the factors which have produced the particular collective psychology of various ages and peoples, and to an effort to account for the transformations of intellectual reactions through the centuries. This line of approach was foreshadowed by Comte's famous formulation of the three stages of the develop- ment of psychic reactions. _ The transition from romanticism to the more scientific collective psy- chological approach was best exemplified by Taine, who was never quite able to free himself from the obscurantic trends of romanticism. The first and the most distinguished exponent of this newer line of approach to the interpre- tation of historj^ through the genetic study of the transformation of the collective psychology was the original Leipzig professor, Karl Lam- * precht, who not only set forth an elaborate the- oretical justification of his methods, but also illustrated them in a monumental survey of German history. Lamprecht's principles have been valiantly defended by some enthusiastic and progres.sive scholars in every civilized country. While the avowed exponents of the value of an interpretation of history in terms of the changinj,^ attitudes of the intellectual classes have as yet been relatively few, the volume of literature which has been produced by them and others w-hirh serves to substantiate their thesis has already become considerable. In England Lecky's youthful but . brilliant study of the development of rational- ism in modern times ; John Morley's voluminous appreciation of the contributions of the French "Philosophes" of the 18th century; Leslie Steph- en's masterly sketch of the intellectual history of England in the same period; Poole's study of ^ mediaeval thought; the solid contributions of' Barker, Figgis and Carlyle to political thought from classical to modern times; the studies in the history of the heroic struggle against ob- scurantism which have been produced by Bury, McCabe and Robertson ; A. W. Benn's survey of English rationalism in the last cen- tury ; and, above all, J. T. Merz's monumental, exposition of the progress of thought and science in 19th century Europe, have been the more notable examples of the growing estimate of the significance of intellectual history. All students of historiography and intellectual his- tory are indebted to the Scotch savant, Robert Flint, for erudite contributions to the history ' of the philosophy of history. In Germany the more important contributions to this new field have been the massive work of Theodor Gomperz on Greek thought; the brilliant and original contributions of Wilhelm Dilthey and Wilhelm Windelband to the history of philos- ophy; Adolph Harnack's unique study of the development of Christian dogma ; Otto Gierke's , great survey of the evolution of certain phases of political theory; and the studies in the his- tory of sociological thought by Paul Barth and Ludwig Stein. France has been creditably rep- resented by the essays of Renan and fimile Fag- uet ; the stimulating studies of the development of human thought from primitive times to the present by L. Levy-Bruhl ; the many brilliant monographs of fimile Durkheim and his school on the most diverse phases of intellectual his- tory; Solomon Reinach's encyclopedic contri- butions to every department of. the history of thought and culture; and the notable works of A. Franck, Faguet and Paul Janet in the field of the history of political theory. Jn Italy Vico has found a worthy successor in Benedetto Croce, and the Scandinavian nations are ably represented by the labors of Georg Brandes and Harold HoflFding. In America this fertile field was first cultivated by John W. Draper, whose once popular works have long since become antiquated. The most widely read American work on intellectual history was Andrew Dick-, son White's powerful polemic against obscuran- tism, which probably did more than any other single influence to bring American thought into a proper orientation with the progress of mod- ern science and criticism in every field. Since that time Mr. Henry Osborn Taylor has pro- vided the public with a scholarly survey of the intellectual history of Europe from the period of Roman decadence to Dante. Mr. Henry C. Lea has dealt with several phases of the rela- tion of the mediaeval church to intellectual progress. Prof. George L. Burr has de- • voted his life to an investigation of the history of toleration, the results of which he has fore- cast in a number of precious articles and mono- graphs. Prof. William A. Dunning has pre- sented the first complete survey of the his- tory of political theory since the publication of the classic work of fanct. Professors W. C. Abbott and W. R. Shepherd have devoted them- selves to an investigation of the reaction of the commercial revolution on European thought and culture. McGifTert has sketched the history of HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT 255 modern religious thought in a brilliant fash- ion. Finally, Prof. James Harvey Robinson has not only aroused an ardent interest in intel- lectual history on the part of the large number of enthusiastic students who have attended his stimulating lectures at Columbia University, but is now engaged on what promises to be the first complete summary of the transformation^ in the intellectual reactions of humanity. In this same field of intellectual history probably belong the valuable researches into the histor\ of natural science in its relation to the progress of civilization which have been carried on by Karl Pearson, Shipley and Whetham in Eng- land; Du Bois-Reymond, Mach, Ostwald and Dannemann in Germany; Sarton in Belgium; Tannery and Duhem in France ; and Sedgwick, Tyler, Libby, and L. Thorndike in America. Here also belong the contributions to the field of the history of aesthetics which has been cul- tivated by Symonds, Ruskin, Mahaffy and Mur- ray in England; by Winckelmann, Burckhardt, Gervinus, Gregorovius, Woltmann and Liibke in Germany; by Renan, Sainte-Beuve, Taine and Reinach in France; and by Charles Eliot Nor- ton and Ralph Adams Cram in America. Nor should one forget the many stimulating con- tributions of such writers as James, Royce, Dewey, Hall and Santayana, in the effort to make the more original and helpful trends in philosophy and psychology the common prop- erty of the intellectual classes. The discussion of the extraordinary develop- ment of intellectual history in the last half cen- tury furnishes the logical transition from a dis- cussion of those recent trends in historiography which have grown primarily out of the indus- trial revolution to those which have been a product of the remarkable progress in natural science in the last hundred years. As the in- dustrial revolution was the great event in the economic and social history of the 19th century, so the discovery of the Darwinian theory of evolution was the central fact in the develop- ment of natural science in this period. While, as Professor Osborn and others have shown, the idea of evolution is an old one which orig- inated in a certain crude and formal sense, at least, with the same Ionic Greeks that began the writing of prose and of history, its true significance as a fact in science and philosophy began with the publication of Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' in 1859. With the subsequent controversies over the details of the doctrine of natural selection one is not here concerned. Its reaction upon the outlook of the alert and pro- gressive historical student was profound. Spen- cer worked over the whole field of social sci- ence from the evolutionary standpoint and gave it a genetic trend and meaning from which it could never escape. Enterprising biologists and sociologists like Schallmayer and Ammon in Ciermany, Lapouge in France, Galton in Eng- land and Keller in America have attempted to v.ork out a science of social evolution con- ceived in terms of biological evolution carried ever into the social field. Others, among them ^;■veral distinguished historians, have essayed histories of religion and ethics based upon the lu'w revolutionary conceptions and criteria. In th:s field the work of Spencer, Leck-y, Leslie Stephen, Kidd, Hobhouse, Fiskc and Suther- land has been most notable. Finally, an at- tempt to put the history of law and politics upon an evolutionary basis was initiated in the suggestive writings of the "organic" school of sociologists and political scientists and of Maine, Bagehot and Ritchie. On the whole, however, the outstanding reaction of the new evolutionary conceptions upon historiography did not consist so much in the various special phases of their application to historical prob- lerns which have been mentioned above as in fixing upon the historian's mind the perception of the genetic nature of the social process and in giving him a firm basis upon which to develop a sound theory of progress. With the general acceptance of the evolution- ary hypothesis as to the origin and development of the human race it was inevitable that much greater attention would be given to the in- fluence of the physical environment upon his- torical development. The general notion of the effect of physical environment upon human types and their behavior was an exceedingly old one which had originated with Hippocrates and had been passed on through the ages by Aristotle, Strabo, Vitruvius, Aquinas, Ibn Khaldun, Bodin and Montesquieu. While their general observations had some rough similarity to the conclusions of modern students, their ex- planations of environmental causation were most crude, being based primarily upon the doctrine of the alleged planetary influences upon the physiological processes of the human body. The foundations of a scientific study of the relation between geography and history were laid by the monumental studies of Karl Ritter in the first half of the 19th century, which were interpreted to the public in a more popular form by Guyot. Ritter found a worthy successor in Friedrich Ratzel whose profound and voluminous works are conventionally held to have founded the science of anthropogeog- raphy. His researches were rivalled^ in France by those of filisee Reclus and were interpreted to the English and American world by his pupil, Miss Ellen Semple. In addition to the systematic works of Ratzel and Reclus. many suggestive contributions have been made to special phases of the influence of geography upon histo^y^ Metchnikoff has pointed out the significance of the great river systems of the world in the development of the chief historic civilizations. Demolins has dwelt in detail upon the great importance for liistory of the configuration of the land which has determined the routes which the peoples have travelled in their various dispersals from original seats of culture. Especially noteworthy has been the suggestive, if not entirely convincing, work of Professor Huntington, whose investigations in Asia Minor have enabled him to ascertain the existence of considerable climatic oscillations in the past which throw new light on the hitherto unexplained problems of the shifting of the centres of civilization from Eg\-pt to north- western Europe and of the invasions of Eurooe by successive waves of .Asiatic peoples. The net result of this work of students of anthropo- geography has been to compel every self- respecting historian to acquire some knowledge ' of the geographical setting of a nation before attempting to narrate its history. Historians have not been slow to appreciate the value of these significant studies upon the relation of geography to the development of civilization. Professor George has produced a stimulating 256 HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT attempt to indicate the general dependence of histon-, particularly in its military aspects, upon geographical conditions. Professor Myres has sketched in a brilliant fashion the geographic background of the rise of the earliest seats of civilization. The signififrnce of geographical elements in the history ^of antiquity has been abundantly recognized by Professors Hogarth, Olmstead" and Breasted. Ernst Curtius, a disciple of Ritter, for the first time made clear the geographical basis of the history of Greece. Freeman described in great detail the topog- raphy of Sicily. Nissen has shown with admir- able thoroughness the effect of Italy's topog- raphy and situation upon its historical develop- ment. The importance of local geographical conditions for the development of national his- tory was made apparent in the case of France by Michelet ; with regard to England by Green ; for Germany by Riehl ; and with respect to the settlement and history of North America by Payne, Shaler, Semple, Hulbert, Brigham and Turner. Finally, Buckle and Hellwald have, with less succcbs, attempted general surveys based upon the conception of the interdepend- ence of nature and the human mind, while Hel- molt has presided over the production of the first extensive co-operative history which has made a consistent attempt to emphasize the anthropological and geographical factors in his- torical development according to the general doctrines of Ratzel. The above bald enumer- ation of the chief phases of progress in modern anthropo-geography and its contributions to his- torical interpretation, perhaps, calls for some critical reservations. In no field has there been greater exaggeration of a single set of "causes,*^ or a more persistent flouting of the rules of critical methodology. Particularly have the adherents of this type of interpretation failed to distinguish between a ^'conditioning^^ and a "determining*^ influence. Finally, it is a gen- erally accepted doctrine _ among all critical students of cultural evolution that environmen- tal influences decrease in importance in propor- tion as the progress of science and civilization enables man to subdue nature to his own pur- poses. For these valuable criticisms of too enthusiastic an acceptance of the geographical interpretation students are more indebted to the analytical anthropologists, such as Boas, Wissler, Lowie and Goldenweiser, than to the criticism of historians. Even more direct and vital in its influence upon historiography was the new science of anthropology, which, in its modern form, was a product of the new evolutionary concepts applied to the study of mankind as a unity. While not ignoring the contributions of earlier ' students, modern anthropology owed its origin primarily to the researches and writings of Tylor in England, Bastian in Germany and Boas in America. Its purpose, according to Professor Boas, is "to reconstruct the early history of mankind, and, wherever possible,^ to express, in the form of laws ever-recurring modes of historical happcninf^s." The chief point of contact between an' and his- tory is found in the attempt of the former to ' discover and formulate the laws of cultural evolution. With the controversies between the older school of unilateral evolutionists, repre- sented by Spencer, Avebury, Morgan and Frazer, the more recent advocates of the doc- trine of "diffusion, » such as F. Graebner, Rivers and Elliott Smith, and the exponents of the so-called theory of "convergent develop- ment" of cultural similarities and repetitions, among the most important of whom are Ehrenreich, Boas, Lowie and Goldenweiser, it will be impossible to deal in this place. It will be sufficient to insist upon the fact that no historian can regard himself as competent to attempt any large synthesis of historical ma- terial without having thoroughly acquainted himself with these fundamental attempts to /bring definite laws of development out of the '' chaos of historical facts. An attempt to link up cultural anthropologv with a dynamic his- tory has recently been made in two thoughtful books by Professor Teggart of the University of California. .Dr. Goldenweiser in a recent" brilliant article has endeavored to provide a systematic methodological point of departure for scientific history and critical anthropology. Several other significant influences of anthropology in altering the attitude of the historian should be noted. In the first place, nothing could be more destructive of chauvinism or more important for acquiring a proper perspective for the interpretation of his- torical development than a perusal of the com- parative surveys of legal, political, social and religious institutions by such writers as Lippert, Ihering, Tylor, Westermarck, Hobhouse, Durk- heim and Sumner. The greatest blow to the venerable myth of the origins of political democracy in the Germanic folk-moot, which it ever sustained, was the discovery that it could be matched among primitive peoples the world over and that it was not the sole posses- sion of the "noblest branch of the Aryans." Again, while the laws of cultural development which have been formulated by anthropology and the breadth or view inseparable from the handling of anthropological data are of the utmost value to all fields of history, anthropol- ogy has a particularly close relation to the field of ancient history in that the beginnings of civilization cannot be properly understood and interpreted without a thorough acquaintance with the background of the primitive culture which preceded the dawn of written history. Finally, anthropology, by its study of mankind as a unity in time and space and especially through its basic premise developed by Bastian of the fundamental unity of the human mind, has for the first time provided a firm ba.sis io^ ^ a rational conception of the real unity of history. ' Closely related to the subject of anthropol- ogy, and by some considered a branch of that science, is the relatively recent science of pre- historic and proto-historic arch?eolog>'. Work- ing in co-operation with geologists and students of paleontology and comparative anatomy the archzeologists. such as Boucher de Perthes, Rutot, Breuil, Boule, Dechelcttc, Cartailhac, Schmidt, Obermaier, Peet and Munro, have revealed the existence of mankind on the earth during a space of time almost beyond the range of human conception. The origins of the race have been pushed back from the few thousand years comprehended in the exact chronologies of Eusebius, Jerome, Usher and Lightfoot to a vague and uncertain period not less than a quarter of a million vears ago. The profound modification in the historical perspective which this epoch-making discovery has necessitated HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT 257 is obvious. As Professor Robinson has pointed out, Thales and Herodotus can no longer be regarded as among the <'ancients," but in the new scale of time must be viewed as our con- temporaries. Not only has the discovery of the remoteness of human origins fundamentally altered all previous conceptions of the time cle- ment in history, but it has given a new impulse to a dynamic theory of progress, in that it has shown that mankind have advanced further in the few centuries that have elapsed since the dawn of written history than they had in the tens of thousands of years previous to that time, and also because it has demonstrated that the .rate of progress seems to be accelerated almost beyond comparison as one approaches extremely recent times. Not only have the archaeologists rendered almost revolutionary services to 'his- tory in lengthening the historical perspective, but they have also been of the utmost assist- ance in increasing the historian's knowledge of ^Most civilizations'* within what are convention- ally regarded as ^historic" times. Winckler and Garstang have rediscovered the lost Hittite civilization of ancient Syria. Schliemann, Evans and Dorpfeld, among others, have re- vealed a flourishing Aegean civilization coeval with the civilization of Egypt in the "Pyramid Age'* of the third millenium B.C. The pro- genitors of the historic Greeks no longer ap- pear as the builders of civilization but as bar- barous destroyers who ruined a civilization which they were unable to match for five centuries. Equally significant, though less familiar, are the researches of Dechelette, Jullian, Rice Holmes and others in the history and culture of ancient Gaul, which have ex- hibited an early north European civilization which was in touch with the Aegean civiliza- tion at its height and have thrown into high relief the relative savagery and backwardness of Teutonic culture as it appeared in western Europe at the beginning of the Christian era. No adequate historv of Europe can any longer ignore the vital importance of this ancient Celtic culture. In this same department should be placed the epoch-making discoveries in philol- ogy and archjeologA' which have allowed scholars to arrive at an accurate and compre- hensive knowledge .of the civilizations of the ancient East, which had been hitherto known only by allusions in the literature of the Hebrews, Greeks and Romans. About 1825 Champollion deciphered the Rosetta stone, mastered hieroglyphics and laid the foundations of Egyptology. Egyptian chronology and I'hilology were firmly established bv Lepsius and lirugsch. Mariette, Maspcro and" Petrie have Kd in the excavations that have produced I LO'Ptian archaeology,'. Meyer has rcvi.sed 1 uyptian chronology- and Breasted has produced 'he best synthesis of the history of Egyptian ivilization. Erman has provided the only de- •lilcd study of the social history of Egypt. What Champollion achieved for EgAT)tolo,g>- was ac- c inphshed for the history of Babylonia and A syria by Henry Rawlinson through his read- ii- of the Behistun inscription in the middle of the 19th cciUury. Schrader, Dclitzsch and l.i-rarde perfected Assyriolocry and Semitic piiilolog>-; Botta, Layard. Sarzec. Hilprecht and Winckler have supervised the all-important ■ excavations of this region; and Maspcro. !^kyer, Rogers, Goodspeed and King have pro- VOL. 14 — 17 vided the most reliable narratives of Assyrian and Babylonian history, while Jastrow has drawn the best picture of the culture of these ancient nations. Another most important development in his- toriography in the last century has been the gradual but sure secularization of "sacred** his- tory and the consequent removal of the last ob- stacle to the scholarly and objective treatment of every field of history. This progress has been in part a product of the brilliant advances in the critical methods in the last century, and in part has been due to the philosophical de- struction of the whole basis of the conception of "sacred** history, which has resulted from the unparalled discoveries in natural science since 1800. On the whole, it is probable that the latter has been the most important influ- ence because the difference in the skill in handling documents on the part of Mabillon and Wcllhausen was infinitely less than the di- vergence between their "Weltanschauung.** The process through which the sources of the Old Testament were discovered and separated has been briefly discussed in an earlier section of this article and need not be repeated here. Upon the basis of this crijicism of the sources there has grown up a critical history of the Jewish nation and its religion which had been impossi- ble of attainment since the inclusion of Hebrew history as the corner-stone of the Christian synthesis of the history of antiquity by Euse- bius. Jerome and Orosius. A rather lame and halting beginning of a critical and objective history of the Hebrews, upon the basis of the biblical criticism of the early 19th century, was made by the Gottingen professor, Heinrich Ewald, whose 'History of the People of Israel* was published in the years following 1843. The first straightforward and thorough-going crit- ical history of the religious development of the Jews was contained in the 'Religion of Israel,* published by the Leyden professor, Abraham Kucnen, in 1869. Even more advanced was the epoch-making 'History of Israel* of Julius Wellhausen, a professor in Gottingen and the greatest of Old Testament scholars. Wellhau- sen's work, published originally in 1878, was but a brilliant fragment, and the preparation of a systematic history of Israel in accordance with the advanced views of Wellhausen was the work of the Giessen profes.sor, Bernhard Stadc, whose 'History of the People of Israel' was published in 1887. The results of these works from the new critical mode of approach were utterly to destroy the exaggerations regarding the glories of ancient Israel, which had been set forth in Kings and Chronicles-Ezra-Nehe- miah, had been repeated by Tosephus, and were thoroughly embodied in Christian tradition. For the first time the history of Palestine was revealed in its proper perspective in the larger history of the ancient East. Not less damag- ing was the effect of the work of Wellhausen and his associates upon the doctrine of a unique, primordial and revealed monotheism among the Jews. It was clearly shown that monothe- ism had been a gradual and precarious develop- ment out -of an original polytheism, and that its maintenance was always diflficult and sub- ject to serious lapses. The late origin of the alleged laws of Moses was no less clearly es- tablished. The secularizing process was carried 258 HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT still further by the brilliant Cambridge pro- fessor, Robertson Smith, in his 'Religion of the Semites,' which showed the many points of similarity between the religion of the Hebrews and the religious beliefs and practices of the other branches of the Semitic peoples. Finally, Delitszch, Wincklcr and Rogers have made clear the profound iniluence of the Babylonian his- torical and religious traditions upon the religion of Israel. While the work of the most of these writers was highly technical and intended pri- marily for scholars, its general significance was popularized through Renan's brilliant and wide- ly-read 'History of the People of Israel.' No less startling has been the result of the inva- sion of the "sacred** history of the Christian era by the critical methods. Building on the basis of the textual criticism of the sources of the New Testament by such scholars as Strauss, Baur, Loisy and Harnack, and the study of con- temporary religions by Renan, Hatch, Cumont, Glover, Dill and others, Percy Gardner, Weiz- sacker, Conybeare, Wernle, Harnack, Duchesne and McGiffert have explained with great schol- arship and lucidity the syncretic nature of Apostolic and Patristic Christianity, the his- toric causes for the final success of Christian- ity, and the nature of the gradual developtnent of Christian dogma and ecclesiastical organiza- tion. Henry C. Lea, in a series of massive , monographs, which constitute the most notable contribution of America to Church history, has dealt with the most diverse phases of the his- tory of the medi.-eval Church in a fine objective and secular spirit. Beard and Troltsch have , traced the rise and development of Protestant- ism with insight and candor. Three Catholic scholars of the highest rank in the field of scholarship, Dollinger, Huber, and Reusch, have made as great contributions to the battle against ecclesiastical obscurantism as any his- torians from the Protestant or sceptical camps. Dollinger totally demolished the alleged his- torical foundations of ultra-montanism and in- fallibility in his work on - in that country. Even this brief and hasty review of a few of the more conspicfOus innovations in the de- 260 HISTORY. ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT velopment of historiography in the last century will convince the reader that the progress in this field has not been less than in the othci branches of human knowledge. It will serve to convey the full significance of Frederic Har- rison's statement that Freeman's conception of history as exclusively "past politics** ignored nine-tenths of human history. A synthesis of the various modes of approach to the subject- matter of history must l)e the ideal of all future historians, but the difiliculties inherent in this endeavor will make it hard to be attained. An attempt at a synthetic review of the de- velopment of civilization has been essayed by Professor Seignolios. A less complete, but a more stimulating and' suggestive outline has been supplied bv Professor Marvin. An able and original, if not wholly objective, synthesis of the history of the modern world has been supplied by the detailed manual of Professor Hayes. Prof. W. C. Abbott's recent attempt to indicate the significance of the commercial revolution for the development of modern civil- ization is probably the best harbinger which has appeared of that synthetic tendency which must characterize the "new history.** Professors Robinson and Shotwcll have long urged and predicted a larger synthesis of historical ma- terial. Whatever success daring individual scholars may achieve in 'this synthetic move- ment, it will be apparent that the history of the future must be more and more a co- operative work. The complete mastery of all the newer points of attack will be denied to most individuals and each must contribute through his own speciality. The understanding of this vital fact has contributed more than anything else to a growing spirit of mutual toleration and appreciation among the various "schools** of historians. In much the same way that the truth has been replaced by truth in recent years, so the history of various enthusi- asts has been supplanted by a broader and sounder history. Again, in view of the fact !that it has now become apparent that the prog- ress of the human race in a cultural sense since 1500 has been greater than the advancement in 50 or more preceding centuries, the supreme (importance of modern history has come to be generally recognized, and the primary at- tention of the previous generation to mediaeval history has become a thing of the past. The earnest labors of the mediaevalists cannot be deplored for they have furnished the younger generation of historical scholars with not only a sound methodolog\', but also with the indis- pensable background for interpreting the origins of the modern age. Out of the labors of the last half century has come a "new history** which will not only furnish a mental discipline for training in the methods of exact scholarship, but will also enable one to know the past and interpret its significance. As Professor Robin- son has said: "The 'New History' is escaping from the limitations formerly imposed upon a study of the past. It will come in time con- sciously to meet our daily needs; it will avail it- self of all those discoveries that are being made about mankind by anthropologists; economists, psychologists and sociologists — discoveries which during _ the last 50 years have served to revolutionize our ideas of the origin, progress and prospects of our race. . . . History must not be regarded as a stationary subject which can only progress by refining its methods and accumulating, criticizing, and assimilating new material, but it is bound to alter its ideals and aims with the general progress of society and the social Sciences, and it will ultimately play an infinitely more im- portant role in our intellectual life than it has hitherto done.** Bibliography.— I. The Nature of His- tory. — Adams, E. D., *The Power of Ideals in American Histor\'* ; Adams, G. B., 'History and the Philosophy of History* (in The Amer- ican Historical .Review, 1909) ; Adams, H. B., 'Methods of Historical Study* ; Barth, P., 'Die Philosophic der Geschichtc als Soziologie* ; Beard, C. A., 'An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States* (Chap. I) ; Rernhcim, E., 'Lehrbuch der historischen Methode* (Chap. I) ; Berr, H., *La Synthese en Histoire* ; Bourne, H. E., 'The Teaching of History* ; Bristol, L. M., 'Social Adapta- tion* (Chaps.- Ill, VI, VIII. IX); Buckle, H. T., 'History of Civilization in England* (Chap. I) ; Burr, G. L., 'Freedom in History* Hn The American Historical Review, 1917) ; Bury, J. B., 'The Science of History* (Inau- gural Lecture as Regius Professor of Modern History at Cambridge) ; Carlyle, T., 'Essay on History* ; Comte, A., 'The Principles of A Positive PoUty* (Vol. Ill); Croce, B., 'In- torno alia Storia della Storiografia* ; 'II Con- cetto della Storia* ; Dalberg-Acton, J. E. D., 'Inaugural Lecture as Regius Professor of Modern History at Cambridge* ; Dilthey, W., 'Einleitung in die Geisteswisscnschaften* ; Droysen, J. G., 'Precis of the Science of His- 'tory*; Dunning, W. A., 'Truth in History* (in The American Historical Reziew, 1914) ; Eucken, R., 'Die Einheit des Geistlebens* ; Flint, R., 'The History of the Philosophy of History* (2 vols.) ; Freeman, E. A., 'The Methods of Historical Study' ; George, H. B., 'Historical Evidence*; Giddings, F. H., 'Prin- ciples of Sociology* (Book I) ; 'A Theory of Social Causation* ; Goldcnweiser, A A., 'His- tory, Psycholog>' and Culture* (in Journal of Philosophy, Psvchologv and Scientific Methods. 1918) ; Green, J. R., 'A Short History of the English People* (Preface) ; Harrison, F^ 'The Meaning of Histor\'* ; Haskins and Bourne, 'History* (in Cyclopccdia of Education) ; Lamprecht, K., 'What is History?* ; Langlois and Seignobos, 'An Introduction to the Study of History*; Lowie, R. H., 'Culture and Ethnologj^* ; Macaulay, T. B., 'Essay on His- tory* ; Matthews, S., 'A Spiritual Interpreta- tion of History* ; Meister, A., 'Grundriss der Geschichtswissenschaft* ; Monod, G., 'Portraits et Souvenirs* ; 'La. Methode en Histoire* (in La Revue Blcuc. 1908) ; Ranke, L., 'Zur Kritik neuerer Geschichtschreiber* ; Ratzel and Scm- ple, 'The Lifluence of Geographical Environ- ment* ; Rhodes, J. F., 'Historical Essays'; Ritter, K., 'Geographical Essavs* ; Robinson, T. H., 'Readings in European History* (Vol. I. Chap. I): 'The Nev.^ History*; Scligman, E. R. A., 'The Economic Interpretation of His- tory* ; ShotwelL J, T., 'The Interpretation of History* (in The American Historical Reviczv, 1913) ; 'History* (Eleventh edition of Encyclo- pccdia Britannica) ; Simmel, G.. ^Die Problcme der Gcschichtsphilosophie* ; Small, A. W., 'The Meanine of Social Science' ; Spencer, H., 'What Knowledge is of Most Worth' (in West- HISTORY. ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT minister Review, 1859) ; Tainc, H., ^History of English Literature^ (Introduction) ; Tarde, G., ^Thc Laws of Imitation' (Chap. IV) ; Teggarl, F. J., 'Prolegomena to History'; 'The Process of History' ; Thorndike, L., 'History of Medi- aeval Europe'; (Chap. I) • 'The Scientific Pre- sentation of History' (in Popular Science Monthly, 1910) ; Todd, A. J., 'Theories of So- cial Progress' (Part III) ; Treyclyan, G. M., 'Clio, A Muse' ; Troeltsch, E., 'Historiography' (in Hasting' s Encyclopcedia of Religion and Ethics) ; Vincent, J. H., 'Historical Research' ; Wolf, G., 'Einfiihrung in das Studiuni der neueren Geschichte' ; Woodbridge, F. J. E., 'The Purpose of History.^ II. The "Threshold of History." — Arthur, J., 'Time and its Measurement' ; Breasted, J. H., 'Ancient Times> (Chaps. I-II) ; 'The Development of Religion and Thoueht in An- cient Egypt'; Dechelette, J., 'Manuel- d'Arche- ologie prehistorique' ; Dussaud, R., 'Les Civil- isations prehellcniques' ; Fowler and Wheeler, 'Greek Archaeology'; Haddon, A. C., 'A His- tory of Anthropology' (especially Chap. VIII) ; Hall, H. R., 'Ancient History of the Near East' (Chap. I, Section 6) ; Hawes, H. B., 'Crete, the Forerunner of Greece' ; Lubbock, J., 'Prehistoric Times'; Macdonald, J. C, 'Chro- nologies and Calendars' ; Marett, R. R., 'An- thropology' (Chao. V) • Marti, K., 'Chronol- ogy' (in Encyclopcedia Biblica) ; Meyer, E., '^gyptische Chronologic' ; Morgan, J. de, 'Les premieres civilisations' ; Mortillet, G. de, 'La Prehistorie' ; 'La Classification ethnologique' ; Munro, R., 'Palaeolithic Man and Terremare Settlements in Europe' ; 'The Lake Dwellings of Europe'; Oshorn, H. F., 'Men of the Old Stone Age' ; Peet, T. E., 'The Stone and Bronze Apes in Italy' ; 'Rough Stone Monuments and their Builders'; Robinson, J. H., 'The New History' (Chap. Ill) ; Sedgwick and Tyler, 'A Short History of Science' (Chaps. I-VI) ; Shotwell, J. T., 'The Discovery of Time' (in Journal of Psychology, Philosophy and Scien- tific Methods, 1915) ; Sollas, W. J., 'Ancient Hunters and their Modern Representatives' ; Tylor, E. B., 'Anthropology' (Chaps. IV, V, VII, XIII, XV) ; Webster, H.. 'Rest Days> (especially Chap. VI) ; 'Ancient History' (Chap. I); White, A. D., 'A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology' (Vol. I, Chaps. I, V-X). III. Historiography in Oriental Antiquity. — Bacon, B. W., 'The Genesis of Genesis'; Breasted, J. H., 'Ancient Records of Egvpt' (Introduction); Charles, R. H., 'Between' the Old and New Testaments' ; 'Apocrapha and Pscudepigrapha' ; Chcyne. T. K.. 'The Found- ers of Old Testament Criticism'; Corv, I. P.. 'Ancient Fragments' ; Duff, A., 'History of Old Testament Criticism'; Hall, H. R., 'The An- cient History of the Near East' (Chap. I) • Harper. R. F.. (ed.) 'Assyrian and Babylonian Literature'; Jacobs, J., 'Historiography' (in Je-,i'tsh Encyclopedia) ; Johns, C. W. H', 'An- cient Babylonia' (Chap. I); 'Ancient Assyria' (Chaps. I-II) ; Kent. C. F., 'The Students' Old TcMament logically and chronologically Ar- ranged ; King, L. W.. 'Chronicles Concerning the Early Babylonian Kings' ; Moore, G. F , 'The Literature of the Old Testament' ; Rogers.R.W., 'History of Babylonia and Assyria' (Vol l' espiv-ially Chap. X); 'Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament'; Sayce, A. H.. and others (ed.), 'Records of the Past'; Torrey, C. C, 'The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah> ; Wellhausen, J., 'The History of Israel'; 'Die Composition dcs Hexateuchs.' IV. Historiography among the Greeks and Romans.— Boissicr, G., 'Tacitus' ; Botsford, G. W., 'A Source Book of Ancient History' (Chaps. VI, XXVIII); Botsford and Sihler. 'Hellenic Civilization'; Bury, J. B., 'The An- cient Greek Historians' : Cauer, F., 'Thukydides und Seine Vorganger' (in Historischc Zcit- schrift, W)9) ; Christ. \\'.,'Geschichte der griech- ischen Literatur' ; Cornford, F. M., 'Thucy- dides Mythistoricus' ; Croiset, A., 'Histoire de la Litteraturc Grccque' ; Cruttwell, 'History of Roman Literature' • Cuntz, O., 'Polybius und scin Wcrk' ; Drerup, E., 'Die historische Kunst der Griechen'; Duff, J. W., 'A Literarj^ His- tory of Rome' ; Gomperz, T., 'Greek Thinkers' ; Grundy, G. B., 'Thucydides and the History of his Age' ; Holmes, T. R., 'Julius Caesar's Con- quest of Gaul'; Kornemann, E., 'Thukydides und die romischc Historiographie' ; 'Kaiser Hadrian und der letzte grosse Historiker von Rom' ; Mackail, J. W., 'Latin Literature' ; Ma- haffy, J. P., 'History of Classical Greek Litera- ture' ; Murray, G., 'A History of Ancient Greek Literature' ; Myres, J. L., (ed.) 'Anthro- pologv- and the Classics' (Chap. V) ; Peter, H., 'Wahrheit und Kunst, Geschichtschreibung und Plagiat im Klassischen Altertum'; 'Die ge- schichtliche Literatur fiber die romische Kaiser- zeit bis Thcodosius I und ihre Quellen'; Sus- cmihl, F., 'Gcschichte der gricchischen Litera- tur in der Alexandrinerzeit' ; Teuffel and Schwabe, 'History of Roman Literature' ; Wachsmuth, C, 't)ber Ziele und Mcthoden der gricchischen Geschichtschreibung. ' V. The Historical \\ ritings of the Apos- tolic AND P.\tristic Pi:Rions.— Ayer, J. C, 'Source Book for Ancient Church Histor\-' ; Bacon, B. W., 'The Making of the New Testa- ment' ; Bardenhewer, O., 'Patrology'; 'Gcs- chichte der altkirchlichen Litteratur' ; Bury, J. B., 'The History of the Freedom of Thought' (Chap. Ill) ; Church, R. \\., 'Cas- siodorus' ; Conybeare, F. C, 'Myth, Magic and Morals'; 'History of Ne\y Testament Criticism' ; Duchesne, L., 'The Early History of the Christian Church'; Ebcrt, A., 'Histoire generale dc la litterature du moyen age' (Vol. 1 ) ; Flick, A. C, 'The Rise of the Mediaeval Church'; Gibbon. E., 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' (Chaps. XV-X\'I); Gwatkin, H. M,, 'Selections from the Early Christian Writers' ; Hamack, A., 'A History of Dogma' ; 'Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur' ; Kirch, J. P., 'Histor>'' (in Catholic P^ncyclopccdia) ; Kriiger, G., 'Historv- of Early ("hristian Literature' ; Loisy, A., 'Les fivan- i.reles synoptiquc.s' ; McGifFert, A. C, 'The Church History of Eusebius' ; 'Histon.' of the .\postoHc Age' ; Muzzey, D. S., 'The Rise of the New Testament': Nash, H S., 'The His- tory of the Higher Criticism of the New Testa- ment' ; Ogdcn, C. J., 'Orosius' Seven Books of History Against the Pagans' ; Rcnan, E., 'History of the Origins of Christianity' ; San- tayana, G.. 'Reason in Religion' (Chap. VI); Schaff and Wace. (cd?.). 'The Ante-Nicene, Nicene. and Post-Niccne Fathers' ; 'A Dic- tionary of Christian Biography' ; Stanton, y. H.. 'The Gospels as Histnrical Documents'; Taylor, H. O., 'The Mediaeval Mind' (Chaps. HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT TII-\M: Vincent, M. R., ; Hayes, C. J. H., 'An Introduction to the Sources relating to the Germanic Invasions' ; Jahncke, R., 'Guilelmus Neubrigensis' ; Jones, W. L., 'Latin Chroniclers from the Eleventh to the Thirteenth Centuries' (in 'Cambridge History of English Literature' Vol. I, Chap. IX) ; Langlois, C. V., 'L'historiographie' ; Lasch, B., 'Das Erwachen und die Entwicke- lung der historischen Kritik im Mittelalter' ; Manitius, M., 'Geschichte der lateinischen Lit- eratur des Mittelalters' ; Masson, G., 'Early Chroniclers of Europe: France'; Molinier, A., 'Lcs sources de I'histoire de France' (Vol. V, Introduction) ; Otto of Freising, 'Die Taten Friedrichs* (in Die GcschicliiscJircibcr) ; Pae- tow, L. J., 'A Guide to the Study of Medie- val History' ; Paris and Jeanroy, 'Extraits des chroniqucurs frangais' ; Potthast, A., 'Weg- weiser durch die Geschichtswcrke des euro- paischen Mittelalters'; Ritter, M., 'Die Christ- lich-mittclalterliche Geschichtschreibung' (in Historische Zeitschrift, 1911) ; Robinson, J. H., 'Readings in European History' (Chaps. I, IV, X-XII) ; Sandys, J. E., 'A History of Class- ical Scholarship' (Vol. I) ; Schulz, M., 'Die Lehre von der historischen Mcthode bei den Geschichtschreibern des Mittelalters' ; Steven- son, W. H., 'Six English Chronicles'; Taylor, H. O., 'The MediiEval Mind' (Chaps. X-XIII, XXI, XXXI); Teuffcl, R., 'Individuelle Per- sohnlichkeitschilderung in deni Dcutschen Ge- schichtswesen des 10 und 11 Jahrhunderts' ; Wattenbach and L( renz, 'Deutschlands Ge- schichtsquellen im Mittelalter.' VII. Humanism and Historiography. — Beck, F., 'Studien zu Leonardo Bruni' ; Benoist, E., 'Guichardin' ; Brandi, K., 'Das Werden des Renaissance' ; Brown, P. H., 'George Buchanan, Humanist and Reformer' ; Cirot, G., 'Mariana historien' ; Clarke and Fox- croft, 'A Life of Gilbert Burnet' (Introduction by C. H. Firth) ; Emerton, E.. 'The Begin- nings of Modern Europe' (Chaps. IX-X) ; Firth, C. H., 'Clarendon's History' (in Eiiplish Historical Reviezv, 1904) ; Fueter, E.. 'L'His- toire de I'Historiographie Moderne' (Books I- II) ; Gebhardt, E., 'Les historiens florentins de la Renaissance et les commencements de la economic politique et sociale' ; Gcrvinus, G., 'Geschichte der florentinischen Historiogra- phie' ; Hulme, E. M., 'The Renaissance and the Reformation' ; Joachimscn, P., 'Ge- schichlsatiflfassung und Geschichtschreibung in Deulschland unter dem Kinfluss des Human- ismus'; Loomis, L., 'Mcdia?val Hellenism'; Masiu.s, A., 'Flavins Blondus' ; Mayer, E. W., 'Machiavellis Gcschichtsauffassung' ; Morley, J. 'Critical Miscellanies' (Vol. IV); Pattison, M., 'Essays' ; Ranke, L., 'Zur Kritik neuerer Geschichtschreiber' ; Ritter, M., 'Studien zur Entwickelung der Geschichtswissenschaft' (in Historische Zeitschrift, 1912); Rodding. 'Puf- endorf als Historiker und Politiker' ; Sandys, J. E., 'A History of Classical Scholarship' (Vol. I); Schwahn, W., 'Lorenzo Valla: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Humanismus' ; Vil- lari. P., 'Niccolo Machiavelli' ; Voigt, G., 'Die Wiederbelebung des classischen Alterthums' ; Walser, E., 'Poggius Florentinus, Leben und Werke' ; Wegele, F. X., 'Geschichte der deut- schen Historiographie' ; Whitcomb, M.. 'A Literary -Source Book of the Renaissance* ; Wolff, M., 'Lorenzo Valla: sein Leben und seine Werke.' VIII. The Protestant Reformation and Historiography.— Baur, F. C, 'Die Epochen der kirchlichen Geschichtschreibune' ; Beard, C, 'The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century in its Relation to Modern Thought and Knowl- edge' ; Berger, A. E., 'Die Kulturaufgaben der Reformation' ; Bury, J. B., 'A History of the Freedom of Thought' (Chap. IV-V) ; Calen- zio, G., 'La vita e gli scritti del cardinale Cesare Baronio' ; Floquet, A., 'Bossuet, precepteur du Dauphin' ; Fueter, E., 'L'Histoire de l'histori- ographie moderne' (Book III) ; Lang, A., 'John Knox and the Reformation'; McGiffert, A. C, 'Protestant Thought before Kant' ; Maurenbrecher, W., 'Studien und Skizzen zur Geschichte der Reformationszeit' ; Robinson, J. H., 'The Study of the Lutheran Revolt' (in American Historical Review, 1903) ; Scha- fer, E., 'Luther als Kirchenhistoriker' ; Schaum- kell, F., 'Beitrap- zur Entstehungsgcschichte der Magdeburger Centuries' ; Smith, P., 'The Life and Letters of Martin Luther' ; 'Luther's Correspondence and Other Contemporary Letters'; Weltz, P., 'fitude sur Sleidan.' IX. The Foundations of Modern Histori- ography. — (1) The Commercial Revolution and Historiography, — Abbott, W. C, 'The Ex- pansion of Europe' ; Bourne, E. G., 'Spain in America' ; Cunningham, W., 'Western Civiliza- tion in its Economic Aspects' (Book V) ; Fueter, E., 'L'Histoire de l'historiographie mod- erne' (Book III) ; Hayes, C. J. H., 'A Political and Social History of Modern Europe' (Chap. II); MacNutt, F. A.. 'Bartholomew de las Casas' ; Merriman, R. B., 'The Rise of the Spanish Empire' ; Moses, B., 'The Establish- ment of Spanish Rule in America' ; Prescott, W. H., 'The Conquest of Mexico' ; 'The Con- quest of Peru' (Notes) ; Seignobos, C, 'Medise- val and Modern Civilization' (Chap. XVII) ; Shepherd, W. R., 'Unpublished Lectures on the Expansion of Europe.' 2. The Rise of Rationalism and Historiog- raphy.— Benn, A. W., 'A History of English Rationalism in Nineteenth Century' ; Brougham H. P., Robertson'; Burv, T. B., 'A History of the Freedom of Thouo^ht' (Chaps. VI-VII) ; Daisches, 'Das Verhriltniss der Geschichtschrei- bung Humes zu seiner praktischen Philoso- phic' ; Delvaille. L. 'Essai sur I'histoire dc I'idee dc Progres' ; Fester, R., 'Rousseau und die deutsche Geschichtsphilosophie' ; Flint, R., HISTORY, ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT -' (Chap. V, VIII-XXII) ; Guerard, B.. 'Notice sur Daunou' ; Guilland, A., 'Modern Germany and Her Historians' ; Hausrath, A., 'Treitschke' ; Hayes, C. J. H., 'The War of the isations' (in Political Science Ouarterlv. 1914) ; Hanotaux, G., 'Henri Martin'; Krchbiel. E.. 'Nationalism. War and Societv' ; Marcks. E.. Treitschke. cin Gedenkblatt' '; 'Heidelbcrger Professoren'; Meinecke. F.. 'Heinrich von SvheP (in Historische Zeitschrift, 1895) ; Mer- nam, C. c, ' at Paris' (in American Historical Revien', 1898) ; Hoflfmann, M., 'August Bockh'; Jadart, 'Dom lean Ma- billon^; Langlois. C. \^, 'Manuel de Biblio- graphie historique' ; Langlois and Seignobos, 'Introduction to the Study of History' (Appen- dix II) ; 'Melanges et Documents publics a 264 HISTORY, ANCIENT I'occasion du deuxieme centenairc dc la mort dc Mabilloii* ; Molinicr, A., *Lcs Sources de I'histoire dc France' ; Monod, G., 'Gcorg Waitz ct Ic Seminairc historique de Gocttin- giie*; 'Bibliographic de I'histoire de France'; Neumann, K. J., 'Entwickelung und Aufgaben der alten Geschichte' ; Pattisoii, Mark, *Es- says*; Petit, E., ^FrauQois Mignet'; Pitra, Abbe, 'fitudes sur la collection des Actes des Saints'; Renan, E., 'fitudes d'histoire reli- gieusc' ; Ritter, M., ^Leopold von Ranke' ; Roscnminid, R., *Die Fortschritte der Diplo- matik seit Mabillon' ; Schulte, J. F., 'Karl F'ricdrich Eichorn'; Shotwell, J. T., 'The ficole des Chartcs* (in American Historical Re- view, 1906) ; Stubbs, W., 'Lectures on Mediae- val and Modern History' (I-IV) ; Vincent, J. M., 'Historical Research'; White, A. D., 'European Schools of History and Politics' (in Johns Hopkins Studies in Historical and Po- litical Science, Vol. V) ; Wyer, J. I., nite time. But for the convenience of study tu:- tory is more or less arbitrarily divided into periods, during each of which the resultant of changes in the life of mankind, or of a particu- lar part of it, is supposed to be a determinable movement of progress or decline which the his- torian takes as characteristic of the period. The familiar division of general history into ancient, mediaeval, and modern may be ac- cepted as the most practical, though it is ex- ceedingly difficult to define these long and com- plex ages. Most obvious is the geographical characteristic. Leaving out of account India and the farther East, which have contributed little to the progress of the rest of the world, ancient history has to do (1) with the fertile >x<- T.O T "-P f.T TTT^ ^ 04 ■lOAM I i IC EER'^ELEY I'EBfiRIES CDDflM3M37fi RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT TO— ^ 202 Main Library LOAN PERIOD 1 2 3 1 HOME USE 4 5 6 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS Renewals and Recharges may be made 4 days prior to the due date. Books may be Renewed by calling 642-3405. DUE AS STAMPED BELOW JM 7 1991 AUTO DISC JAN 22 'S 1 FORM NO. DD6 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY BERKELEY, CA 94720