The great national collection is the 'Collection de chroniques Beiges inedites,) published in 111 volumes at Brussels since 1836. The 'So ciety d'imulation de Bruges,' published be tween 1839 and 1864 the 56 volumes of the 'Recueil de chroniques, chartes, et autres docu ments concernant l'histoire et les antiquites de la Flandre occidentale.) In addition Wauters has edited the great collection of communal charters and Gachard has edited the foreign archives of the period since the 15th century. The great Catholic and Belgian counter-blast to Motley's work, as well as to that of Prin sterer, was contained in the work of Lettenhove on the 16th century. He condemned William the Silent and his Protestant supporters and defended the position of Spain and the Catholic party. His somewhat chauvinistic and ob scurantic work has been superseded by the admirable critical works of Fredericq and Pirenne. While Holland has not provided as complete a collection of national sources as Belgium, the Historical Society of Utrecht has been publishing important sources since 1863 the 'Werken uitgegeven door het Historisch Genootschap to Utrecht'— and Prinsterer has edited the voluminous archives of the House of Orange. In 1902 a royal commission of the most eminent Dutch historians was appointed to arrange for the systematic publication of the manuscript sources of the history of Holland. The most enthusiastic Dutch nationalistic nar rative history was that by Prinsterer in which Protestantism and the House of Orange received their vindication and eulogy. This has now been rendered obsolete by the scholarly mono graphs of Fruin, the greatest of Dutch his torians, and by the accurate and well-balanced general history of Blok. The Scandinavian nations have not been unproductive in the' field national historiography. The sources have been collected. in the f011owing series: the 'Scriptores rerum Danicarum medii mvi,) edited by Langebek and his successors; the matarium Norvegicum,> edited by Lange; and the 'Scriptores rerum Suecicarum,> edited by Geijer and his associates. The nationalistic his torical narrative was introduced in Denmark by Worsaae; in Norway by Keyser and Munch; and in Sweden by Geijer, Carlson and Fryxell. These works have been succeeded by the more recent and scholarly national histories of Steen strup on Denmark; Sars on Norway; and Hjarne on Sweden. If there were available space it would be easy to demonstrate the very great, if not determining, influence of the study of the glories of their national past upon the rise of the national aspirations of the Balkan peoples since 1820. The well-known influence of Alexandru Xenopol's des Rou mains de la Dacie upon Roumanian nationalism is but a typical illustration of the fertility of such an investigation.
Surely, no account of the interrelation of nationality and historiography in modern times would be complete without some reference to the national historiography of Judaism and Zionism. The rise of Jewish nationalism in the last century was intimately related to the general development of nationality in Europe during that period. This stimulated Jewish national spirit, both by the direct influence of imitation and through the persecution of the Jews, as a result of the growing chauvinism throughout continental Europe after 1870. The relation of this growth of Jewish national senti ment to the remarkable development of the in terest of the Jews in their national history is readily apparent. Historical societies were formed in all the leading modern states — the "Societe des etudes juives," founded in 1880• the Historical Commission of the "Union of German-Jewish Congregations," appointed in 1885; "The American Jewish Historical So ciety," 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 zur Geschichte der Juden im frankischen and 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 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 of his people, Graetz traced in an eloquent manner the history of the Jews from their origins to 1848, laying 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 especially 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 and to the growth of fixed diplomatic correspondence. From these sources a rich storehouse of historical material had accumulated in the national, eccle siastical and private archives by 1800. Before they 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 bas taken the lead, due chiefly to the large number of highly-trained archivists pro vided by L'Ecole des Chartes. At the present time only England is exceedingly backward among the European states in providing for a systematic arrangement 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 time 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.