Another important new development in his torical writing which grew more or less directly out of the effects of the industrial revolution was the origin of sociology and the influence of the sociological point of view upon historical writing. While there had been sociological tendencies in the writings of earlier publicists and historians, it is generally agreed that the science of sociology had its origin in the neces sity of providing a general °science of society' to criticize, evaluate and guide the various re form movements which sprang into existence as a result of the evils of the social and economic transition which accompanied the industrial revolution. Its two great original systematizers were Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer. The influence of sociology upon history has been varied and profound. One aspect of this influence was evident in Buckle's avowed desire to follow Comte's suggestion of the existence of well defined laws of historical development and to combine this with Quetelet's statistical method of measuring social phenomena, and thus to arrive at an exact science of historical development wholly comparable to the precision reached in natural science. While Buckle's sug gestions have been only moderately developed, it has long since been recognized that few valid laws of historical development can be discov ered which do not rest upon the firm basis of adequate statistical study. A much more far reaching reaction of sociology upon historiog raphy has been its influence in broadening the content of history, so as to include all of the important phases of social life and activity. This type of departure from orthodox procedure gained its first great success in the world famous work of John Richard Green. Less popular but equally able were Professor Dill's volumes on the social phases of Roman imperial history. While Green found few immediate followers among his countrymen, who, with the exception of Lecky, for the time being held faithfully to the canons of Freeman, Stubbs and Seeley, the younger generation, led by such scholars as Pol lard, Marvin, Zimmern and Slater have organ ized a powerful movement in favor of a re vival of Green's broad social mode of approach to historical problems. Germany has probably been most prolific in the production of his torians affected by the sociological movement. In the middle of the last century Riehl and Freytag gathered data for the first comperhen sive picture of the social history of Germany, Friedlander described the social life of the Roman Empire, and Buckhardt drew the classic picture of the civilization of the Renaissance. A quarter of a century later Janssen, from a warmly Catholic standpoint, described the so cial conditions of Germany in the epoch of the Reformation. Erman provided the first reliable and comprehensive account of the civilization of ancient Egypt. The great impulse to social his tory in Germany, however, came though the labors of the able Leipzig professor, Karl Lam precht, and his supporters and co-workers Gothein, Steinhausen and Breyssig. In France the effect of the new social impulses has been less apparent because the French historians have never been so narrowly political as the German and English schools of history — even such technical and ultra-critical mediaevalists as Luchaire, Giry and Monod finding time to dis cuss social conditions in the mediaeval period. Rambaud is probably the nearest French coun terpart to Green. The far greater breadth of view in French historiography than in Eng lish can best be appreciated by a comparison of the tables of contents of the 'Histoire generale) and the 'Histoire de with those of the 'Cambridge Medieval History) and the 'Cam bridge Modern History.) In Italy, Ferrero has upheld the social point of view in his history of ancient Rome. Worthy and successful imita tions of Green's sociological mode of interpre tation are to be found also in BloWs 'History of the Dutch People,) and in Kluchevsky's pub lication of his lectures on the development of the Russian national culture and political organization. Among American historians McMaster has followed most faithfully in the footsteps of Green, and Turner has exhibited a breadth of view not less notable than his exacting scholarship in tracing the colonization of the West. Cheyney's work in the field of English history has always been marked by a broad and well-balanced interpretation. Nor should one forget the promising beginnings in a social interpretation of American history by such writers as W. E. Dodd and Carl Becker, and the application of similar methods to modern European history by Hayes, Lingelbach and others. 'Professors Breasted and Jastrow have done notable work in reconstructing the civilization of oriental antiquity. Finally, Professor Shotwell of Columbia, while his own written contributions have not been extensive, has rivalled Maitland in stimulating an enthu siastic interest in social history on the part of an ever increasing group of disciples. Another very significant outgrowth of the sociological movement has been its reaction upon the field of constitutional history. While Moser had anticipated the recent movement in stressing the creative influence of social and economic forces in shaping political forms and institu tions, the first great modern school, of consti tutional historians, represented in Germany by Waitz and Gneist, in England by Stubbs, and in America by Hoist and Burgess, had been content to trace constitutional development in a purely external and formal legalistic manner, or had represented it as a product of the in fluences of powerful personalities. The spirit of M6ser first reappeared in the uncompleted work of Alexis de Tocqueville on the consti tutional developments in 18th century France, which forever discredited the cataclysmic inter pretation of the French Revolution by showing how it was the natural and logical culmination of fundamental social and economic forces which had been operating for centuries. A simi lar mode of approach was evident in the bril liant contributions of Fustel de Coulanges to the constitutional history of France in the early medieval period. The influence of social and psychic forces in legal and constitutional his tory was fully recognized in Otto Gierke's monumental work on perhaps, the most notable German contribu tion to the newer tendencies in constitutional interpretation, and also in Brunner's monu mental history of early Germanic law and Ihering's extensive studies in comparative jurisprudence. What Tocqueville and Cou langes accomplished for France was achieved for English constitutional history by the powerful, original and unbiased mind of Gierke's disciple, Frederick W. Maitland, who for the first time effectively demonstrated the social and economic background of English legal history and made clear the futility of a purely legalistic recon struction of constitutional development. Mait land's work in English legal history has been carried on by his fnend, Paul Vinogradoff, with a more impressive, if less subtle, scholarship, and with equal productivity. In America a worthy disciple of Maitland has appeared in Prof. Charles A. Beard, who not only shares Maitland's approach to constitutional problems, but rivals him in his disregard of traditional and orthodox opinions.
A direct outgrowth of the industrial revolu tion which has been of the utmost significance for both historical events and historiography has been the neo-mercantilism or national impe rialism which has developed since about 1875 as a result of the need for new markets and in vestment opportunities which was created by the increase of both commodities and capital through the great revolution in industry be tween 1800 and 1875. The process has repeated in a much more thorough-going way the com mercial revolution of three centuries earlier. European civilization was again brought into contact with different cultures of every conceiv able type, and the possession of the scientific knowledge that had been accumulating since 1650 was of the greatest value and assistance in appropriating the new discoveries. The re actions of this movement upon historiography have been nearly as diverse as the civilizations and cultures which have been discovered. Its more unfortunate results have been a perpetu ation of ardent national sentiment in historical writing and a stimulation of racial egoism on the part of European and American historians. Its more favorable effects upon historiography, as exhibited in the writings of the more thoughtful historians, have been a broadening of the knowledge of mankind, the enriching of the stores of historical information, an increase of tolerance for'cultures different from our own and the great stimulation of the attention of the historian and publicist to the new social, eco nomic and administrative problems created and to their solution in harmony with the principles of enlightenment and humanity. Among the historians and publicists who have given espe cial attention to these subjects have been Bryce, Douglas, Hobhouse, Hobson, Johnston, Keltie, Kidd, Lewin, Macdonald, Rose and Skrine in England; Bordier, Cordier, Gaffarel, Leroy Beaulieu, Piquet and Rambaud in France; Mei necke, Meyer, Peters and Zimmermann in Ger many; and Blakeslee, Harris, Hornbeck, Jones, Keller, Krehbiel, Latourette, Morris, Reinsch and Shepherd in America. On the whole, the
movement has tended to broaden the historical outlook not only with respect to geographical space, but also with regard to the scope of the historian's interests. Especially significant has been the interest that it has aroused in the his tory of international relations.
A further significant innovation, which was in part a product of the concentration of popu lation due to the industrial revolution and in part an outgrowth of the more scientific ap proach to the study of social and psychic phe nomena, has been the rise of social psychology and its reaction upon history. Voltaire had foreshadowed the psychological interpretation by his doctrine of
genius of a
but this concept in the hands of Voltaire was essen tially non-historical. He regarded national character as something fixed and immutable, and he made little attempt to explain its origin. The romanticists had improved somewhat on Voltaire's conception by viewing the develop ment of civilization as the product of obscure psychic or spiritual forces, but they even denied the possibility of discovering or analyzing the nature or operation of this process of psychic causation. Ranke and his school had borrowed from the romanticists the doctrine of the