4. Nationality and The commercial revolution not only 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 chief 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 the 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 officialdom and military 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 16th century it took on its modern form after the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars and the regeneration of Prussia 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 ticism 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 l'inegalite des races hu mines,' 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 Barris and the Saxon pmans of Kipling and Homer Lea. Not only was this doctrine effective in developing a still greater degree of chauvinism upon the part of the governing "faces,' but it also led to the persecution of ininonty "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 Preising. Irenicus, Peutinger and Beatus Rhenanus (1486-1547) exhibited the spirit of Elondus 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 medieval German history and public law, known as the tMonarchia romani imperil,' which was the standard German collection until the
the greatest landmarks in the development of scientific historical writing, as it alone made possible the productivity and accuracy of the succeeding generations of historians.
National history in Germany was not lim ited to the collection of sources, but received expression in glowing narrativds which usually found their theme in the glories of the Ger man imperial past of the mediaeval period or in laudatory accounts of the Hohenzollern 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. Waken initiated the nationalistic narrative by an account of German prowess in the period of the Crusades. Luden, under the spell of Jo hannes Muller'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 medieval Ger many. 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. Gicsebrecht analyzed the formation of the medimval empire with a display of scholar ;hip not less remarkable than his Teutonic fervor. Though his history of the Reformation was a powerful influence in making Luther the ereat 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 Droyseu (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 emissions 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 bv Heinrich von Treitschke (1834-96). His of Germany in the Nineteenth Cen tury' ranks with the histories of Michelet and Macaulay as one of the literary masterpieces of modern historiography. While it was charged with all of the vivid enthusiasm for Prussian leadership which marred the work of Droysen, Treitschke'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 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 Sybel 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 work on The Foundation of the German Empire by William P showed wonder ful power in the clear presentation of a mass of political and diplomatic detail, but was fatally disfigured by downright dishonesty in its presentation of Bismarcic's foreign policy, from which all the criminal duplicity was care fully excluded. By the time Sybel had finished his work, history in Germany had become too weak a vehicle to serve as a leading instrument for advancing national aspirations. Its place was taken by the literary products of Peters, Tannenberg and the Pan-German expansionists; of Bernhardi and the ultra-militarists; and of Chamberlain and the blatant Teutonists. The complete complicity of the Prussian historians in the production of this state of national exalta tion has been clearly revealed by Guilland.