The groWth of critical historical scholarship in France owed something to German influences and some of the leading French historians, such as Monod, were trained by the German masters, but on the whole the progress of historical scholarship in France has been primarily an in digenous development. To Niebuhr 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 Francois Mignet, which foreshadowed modern French historiography, not only by their high critical standards, hut also by their almost un canny powers of causal analysis and their re markable lucidity in exposition. The perfec tion of exact historical methods 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 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 medieval Europe. G. Bloch has contributed some striking monographs on the transition from Ro man to medieval 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. Seignobos 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 11 th, 12th and early 13th centuries. C. Langlois has 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 medieval England, though Ferdinand Lot has done notable work in early French and English medieval history. C. Bayet holds the same place with respect to the investigation of the Medieval 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 medieval history, the history of Nancy and the administrative policy of Henry IV. The 13th 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 17th and 18th centuries and the era of Napoleon. The 18th cen tury has also profited by the labors of H. Cure and P. Sagnac in the 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. Mariejol has covered the history of modern France and Spain, being especially an authority on the early Bourbons. The leading French authority on modern Germany and Austria is G. Blondel, while the similar posi 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 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. Chinon and Dibidour. Renan has found his ablest successor in Emile 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 bibliography 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 Durity, Ernest Lavisse, Charles Bimont 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 Durny. In 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 intelligible narrative he has but one rival, Aulard, and the objectivity of his work surpasses that of the Frenchman. The English have never, however, provided anything comparable to the Ecole 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 bridge Mediaeval History,' the 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 Medieval History.' The mediaeval history of both England and continental Europe has 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 medievalists, has contributed notable work on the whole field of medieval 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 medieval 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 Medieval 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 medieval 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 medieval to 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. Inns, 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 work of his continuator. That Lecky's great work on the 18th century did not doom his successors to barren efforts is shown by the works of L. S. Leadam and W. Hunt, C. G. Robertson's narra tive on the early Hanoverian, G. 0. Trevelyan's survey of the American Revolution and by the biographies of the elder Pitt by Rosebury 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.