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 English 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 medieval 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 Stription, 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 themselves and the truthfulness with which they 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 the moral signifi cance of all that took place in his day, 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. Medieval Historical The personal prowess of the great political and mili tary figures in the Middle Ages made attractive subjects for historical biography. Often the monarch subsidized or otherwise favored a biographer to ensure a properly flattering record of his deeds. Needless to say, strict impar tiality was never observed, and sycophancy often was added to the other defects of medieval historiography. In addition, the theological coloring of all medieval thought led the biog rapher to represent the great secular figures of the period as the chosen agents of Divine Provi dence in their age. Of these medieval biog raphies the most notable were 'The Life of Charlemagne' by Einhard; 'The Life of Louis the Fat,' by Suger; and Joinville's 'Life of Saint Louis,' one of the polished French historical works written in the vernacular. Here also belong, almost as much as in the field of sys tematic history, the works of Otto of Freising and Rigord. Among these medieval biographers, especially such as Einhard and Joinville, one finds some of the best examples of the rare emergence of secular interests in medieval his toriography.
Several facts stand out from even the fore going brief survey of medieval historiography. In the first place, like the most of classical his toriography, the historical works of the Middle Ages were for the most part concerned with strictly contemporary history. The treatment
of a remote period was almost invariably in the nature of a rude and scanty chronicle of events. In the second place, it is almost imposSible to differentiate sharply between chronicles, syste matic histories and biographies on account of a common methodology. Thirdly, it is notice able that the vast majority of the writers were churchmen. Therefore, while the ecclesiastics cannot be too severely criticised for their vitia tion of historical methods, it is well to remem ber that without them medieval historical lit erature would have been practically a blank Fourthly, it will readily be apparent that medie val history was almost exclusively episodical, there being almost no attempt to analyze the deeper social, economic and Intellectual forces in historical development. Finally, one can easily discern that, with the stimulation of in tellectual interests during and following the Crusades, there came an increase in the volume of historical output and an improvement in its quality that was a prophecy of a future recov ery of the lost historical standards of classical antiquity.
5. The Arabic Historians of the Middle The contribution of the Arabs to medieval culture was not insignificant in the field of historiography, but only a few of the more notable Arabic historians can be men tioned in this place. Orosius found his Ara bian counterpart in Tabari (846-932), who compiled the first universal history from the Mohammedan point of view. The events of history were adapted to the creation of a °Mo hammedan Epic° justifying the triumph of Islam. History and ethnography were com bined in the voluminous works of Mas'udi (d. 966), whose wide travels carried him over most of Asia, Africa and Europe. Not until the publication of the histories dealing with the discoveries of the 16th century was there an other work which contained as much dektip tive ethnographic material. The ablest contrib utor to historical biography among the Arabs was Ibn Khallikan (d. 1782), whom experts rank with the best biographers of classical an tiquity. The first Arab historian to possess any considerable philosophic grasp upon cause and effect in historical development was Athir (1160-1232). But far and away the ablest and most significant figure in Arab historiography Was Ibn Khaldun His import ance lies in the unique feat, for the time, of having been able to rationalize the subject of history and to reflect upon its methods and purpose. At the outset, in his 'Prolegomena to Universal History,' which was the system atic presentation of his theoretical views, he drew a sharp distinction between the conven tional annalistic and episodical historical writ ing of his time and history as he conceived of it, as the science of the origin and development of civilization. Anticipating Vico and Turgot, he comprehended the nature of the unity and continuity of historical development. In marked contrast with the static or eschatolog ical conceptions of contemporary Christian his toriography was his dynamic thesis that the process of historic growth is subject to con stant change comparable to the life of the in dividual organism, and he made clear the co operation of psychic and environmental factors in this evolution of civilization. Flint makes the following estimate of the significance of his work; °The first writer to treat history as the proper object of a special science was Mohammed Ibn Khaldun. Whether on this account he is to be regarded or not as the founder of the science of history is a ques tion as to which there may well be difference of opinion; but no candid reader of his 'Prolegomena) can fail to admit that his claim to the honor is more valid than that of any other author previous to Vico.*