The historiography of nationalism has not been less vigorous in England than in Germany or France. Its most conspicuous feature has been the expansion of the "Myth Teutonicus" regard ing the political superiority of the Anglo-Saxon peoples, which was so popular a tenet Of roman ticism and had been so fervidly expounded by Edmund Burke. It rested primarily upon the assumption that the Teutonic invaders of England had made a clean sweep of the Briton and Celtic inhabitants and had created a purely Germanic England in culture if not in race. The most vigorous and the earliest statement of this view appeared in Kemble's 'The Saxons in England,' which was published in 1849. It not only taught this notion to Englishmen, but was widely read in Germany and served to fur nish the German nationalists with a further basis for their convictions regarding the Ger manic "mission,* which had been drawn from their own mediaeval sources. Freeman carried the argument still further in his 'History of the Norman Conquest,' in which he not only accepted the Saxon theory, but, being an ardent lover 'of liberty like Michelet, espied the real' foundations of political liberty in the Ger manic folk-moot, and particularly in its English manifestation. This myth, dating back to Thoy ras and Montesquieu, so thoroughly punctured by Coulanges, has been one of the most persist ent and pernicious sources of error which have come down from a pre-anthropological stage in historical studies. Even the calm and cautious Bishop Stubbs and the charming John Richard Green were also seduced by this fiction of a Teutonic England, which was to be challenged by Seebohm and modified by Maitland and Vinogradoff. The greatest popular emotional iinpulse toward this Teutonic interpretation came from the notorious work of the poet-his torian, Charles Kingsley, on Roman and the Teuton,' which was first published in 1864. Highly entertaining but almost wholly un scientific and non-historical, it did more to pervert the interpretation of early mediaeval history than any other book of its time. He idealized the *young and Teutonic *Forest with the ardor of a Las Casas, and set them in marked and flattering contrast with the morally and physically de cadent Romans of the *Dying Empire,* and re joiced in the destruction of the latter by the *Human Deluge* from the• North. It is a sufficient commentary upon the accuracy of his work to note that the labors of scholarly mediaevalists for the last generation have chiefly centered about the rejection of every one of his main theses. The book, however, gained a great popular vogue and no Englishman could read it without desiring to trace his ancestry back to Arminius and Alaric. Passing from the Middle Ages, where the national grandeur of Britain had been laid by the Teuton, the most intensely nationalistic of English historians, James Anthony Fronde, described the glories of the English re *olt from Rome. Carlyle lauded the virtues of Cromwell and his associates of the Common Wealth period. The Whig apologists, Mackin tosh, Hallam, and above all, Macaulay, de scribed the salvation of the world's liberties by the *Glorious of 1688. Macaulay's 'History> is the English counterpart of Treit schke and Michelet, and marks the most bril liant of English contributions to historical lit erature, as well as a valuable, though prejudiced body of historical knowledge. Lecky's study of 18th century England could scarcely be called nationalistic on account of its impartial ity, but Napier praised English prowess in the Peninsular War in a work which was as frank an adulation of war as a process in human so ciety as was Bernhardi's work a half century later. Finally, Seeley, an example of both na tionalism and erudition, wrote with restrained pride of the development of the British Em pire in his 'Expansion of England' and 'Growth of British Policy.' Not only was Seeley a na tionalist, but along with Freeman he was chiefly responsible for turning English historiog raphy into the narrow and unnatural channels of political history. The growth of English national enthusiasm, which accompanied the work of Cecil Rhodes and the Boer War, did not fail to produce its nationalistic literature, which was as far removed from the scholarly grasp of Seeley as was the attitude of Bern hardi from that of Sybel. Bernhardi found his English counterpart in Prof. J. A. Cramb, who detected in England's past wars the governing principle *of that higher power of heroism which transcends reason.* Curiously enough, as it had fallen to a renegade Englishman, H. S. Chamberlain, to arrange the apotheosis of *Germania,* so it required an American, Homer Lea, to link up the future salvation of the world with the necessity of the universal triumph of (Britannia,* through the strengthen ing and preservation of the scarlet circle of power that the Saxon has marked around the earth as has no other race before him.* Italy shares the double honor of having been the first nation to provide a complete collection, of its sources of national history and of having produced the most indefatigable of all editors Lodovico Antonio Muratori (1672-1750).
From 1723 until his death in 1750 he brought together in the 25 folio volumes of the 'Rerum italicanim scriptores' nearly all of the extant sources of Italian history. So thorough was his work that it has only been deemed neces sary in recent years to undertake a new edition of his collection, which has been in progress since 1900 under the supervision of Giosue Carducci and Vitorio Fionni. It is scarcely to be doubted that the new edition is quite as much a sublimation of patriotic impulses as an enterprise entered upon in the interests of his torical scholarship.
While the national narrative history, like the collection of sources, dates back to a more re mote period in Italy than in the other states of Europe, it began in its modern phase with Botta's of Italy during the Revolu tionary and Napoleonic Wars,' which breathed forth the ardent liberalism which found ex pression in the politics of the period in the ac tivities of the Carbonari. Coletta condemned the corruption and incapacity of Bourbon abso lutism in Naples. Troya and Tosti surveyed the history of mediaeval Italy for evidence to support their plea for papal leadership in Ital ian unity, while D'Azeglio turned to contempo. rary Italy to prove papal incapacity and to call attention to the promise of leadership in the House of Savoy. More recently Luzio, De Cmsare and Chiala have dealt with the period of the eRisorgimentos and establishment of tional unity, but the Italian enthusiasm over their attainment of national independence and unity has scarcely cooled sufficiently to find his tory an effective method of expression; up to the present time it has been recounted chiefly in the patriotic poetry of Giosue Carducci and Gabriele D'Annun7io.
The first collection of Spanish sources was not the work of Spaniards, hut of the itinerant English scholar, Robert Beal (d. 1601), who published his 'Rem= hispanicarum scrip :ores' in 1579-81. Nearly two centuries later 1. A. C. Bertodano produced his extensive col lection of sources on diplomatic history (1740 52). The great national collection of sources, however, was not begun until the middle of the 19th century when Pidal, Salvi. and others started the 'Coleccion de documentos ineditos Para la historia de Espagria,' which was com pleted in 112 volumes (1842-95). In addition, the Royal Academy of History at Madrid has been publishing source material since 1851 in the collection entitled 'Memorial historica es pariol.' Spain found her great national his torian in Modesto Lafuente (1806-66). His monumental 'Historia general de Espafia,' which was intended to be a continuation of Ma riana, appeared in 30 volumes from 1850-67, and was continued after his death by J. Valera.
The sources of Austrian history were not only collected in the German 'Monumenta,' where the great scholar, Theodor Sickel, ren dered valuable editorial assistance, but also in national collections, the 'Fontes rerum Austriacarum,' published since 1849 by the Vi enna Academy, and the new edition of BIM mer's (Regesta imperii,' edited by Fickcr since 1877 at Innsbruck. The great national narra tive history of Austria was Arneth's monu mental work on the times of Maria Theresa, while Klopp has recalled the imperial heroes of the Thirty Years' War and conducted an attack on Frederick the Great.
In Bohemia, Czech nationalism did not initi ate interest in history as in other European states, but rather history aroused nationalism in the first instance. To the vigorous patriot ism of F. Palacky's 'History of Bohemia,' more than to any other source, the modern Czech national spirit owes its origin. The sources of Bohemian history have been collected by the greatest of Bohemian historical scholars, Anton Gindley, and are entitled 'Monuments Historic Bohemica' (1864-90). The Hunga rian government has been publishing the 'Mon nmenta Hungarim historica' at Budapest since 1857, and Hungary has found in Fessler and his continuators its national historians. Poland has published two large collections of sources, and Lelewel and Szajnocha have reminded the Poles of their ancient splendor and power. The ob scurantism of Czardom has prevented the de velopment of historical scholarship in Russia, a loss to Russia which can be appreciated by a survey of the great work of the exile, Vinogra doff. Karamsin's antiquated history presents an apology for the absolutism and Oriental cul ture of the early czars, while the more recent and scholarly work of Soloviev defends the in troduction of Western culture by Peter the Great. Further, it should not be forgotten that both Belgium and Holland are represented by extensive collections of sources and able na tional historians. Belgian enthusiasm for the collection of sources of national history began with the attainment of independence in 1830.