In Germany Voltaire found three followers in Schliizer, Schmidt and Spinier. While Au gust Schrozer 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 Scotland, was done for Germany by Michael Ignatz Schmidt (1736-94). His of Germany) was one of the most finished prod ucts of rationalism in historical literature. His style was excellent; he was cautions and accurate in the use of his sources and was free from all chauvinism; he was the first to handle 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 medieval period as one in which the main events were tournaments and the chief figures were the trouveres, trou badours and mmnesingers. He was the first writer to handle the whole of the Church from the rationalist standpoint. His •criticism was relatively mild, but be 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 nova) 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 Suc cessive Advances of the Human Mind,' Tur got (1727-81) first set forth clearly the doc trine of continuity in history, the cumulative nature of progress and the causal sequence be tween the different periods of history—theories later so greatly emphasized by Mr. Freeman. An equally notable work was Condorcet's (1743-94) 'Historical Sketch of the Progress of the Human Mind,' which contained the best statement of the 18th century doctrine of prog ress and perfectibility. Lese thorough-going echoes of this doctrine were heard from Kant in Germany and Godwin in England.
The rather advanced rationalism of Voltaire and his school could scarcely gain a general acceptance and a sustained success in the 18th century, when it was greatly beyond the general level of contemporary thought. It had also many crudities inseparable from the first courageous attempt to reconstruct history and bring it in harmony with the contemporary progress in scientific thought. It was natural, then, that there should be a reaction against many of its premises and methods, which was in ,part a recrudesence of obscurantism and in part an effort to correct some of the errors of the school of Voltaire. The stages in .this re
action were gradual and clearly marked. It passed through the more moderate and con servative rationalism of Montesquieu to the al most irrational sentimentalism of Rousseau, and ended in the mystic and idealistic vagaries of romanticism. The school of Voltaire did not come to its own until it was revived with greater profundity by Buckle, Lecky, Morley, Stephen and White, as a result of the reaction of 19th century science upon historiography.
While Montesquieu's works as examples of historical criticism and accuracy are almost worthless, his broader attitude toward general methodology was of the utmost significance. He was not at all violent or revolutionary in his political theory, and his literary were with humanism rather than rationalism.
He did, however, present certaih phases of thought which were a marked improvement over Voltaire. Accepting Voltaire's unanalyzed doc trine of the aspirit of a people,a he tried to show how this was produced by the operation of natural forces, particularly of climate, and first brought out clearly the fundamental propo sition that the excellence of social institutions must be judged, not by an arbitrary and ab solute standard, but by their relative adapta bility to the spirit of the people for whom they serve or are intended to serve. Again, where Voltaire and his followers had dropped only casual reflections, Montesquieu offered a syn thesis of the various factors of historical de velopment, which, though crude, marked a con siderable methodological advance. Finally, while the school of Voltaire had introduced the treatment of commercial factors in connection with political development, Montesquieu and his, followers laid much more stress upon the great influence of commercial activities in the life of the state. The school of Montesquieu most faithfully represented the reaction of the coin mercial revolution on European historiography.
Being primarily a political philosopher rather than a historian, Montesquieu's disciples were more numerous among the political theorists than among the avowed historians. J. L. Delolme's 'Constitution of England); Adam Ferguson's 'History of Civil Society,' and Joseph Priestly's 'First Principles of Govern ment were works that clearly exhibited the principles of Montesquieu in the field of polit ical philosophy. But if Montesquieu had few disciples among historians, he had at least one of the highest order in Arnold Hermann Lud wig Heeren (1760-1842), one of that brilliant group of Gottingen professors of the period. His great work was entitled 'Thoughts Con cerning the Intercourse and Commerce of the Leading Nations of Antiquity.' Its prin ciples were those of Montesquieu improved by the more scientific analysis of economic life in the works of Adam Smith. With great skill he attempted to reconstruct the commercial life of antiquity and to indicate its hitherto unsus, pected influence upon the course of the his tory of the various nations. Heeren was one of the beat writers among historians. Abandono ing all attempts at rhetorical flourish, he pro duced a most thoughtful work written with great clarity and coherence. Edouard Meyer, the greatest of authorities on the history of the ancient nations, has called Heeren the leader of all who have subsequently attempted to deal with this field.