to mention on whose testimony he relies, no ground is left for suspicion in regard to his own veracity even when under the influence of superstition. Most of what is known of the century and a half of English history after the arrival of Augustine is wholly derived from Bede. Later annalists and historians treating of the same period have only repeated or amplified and altered his statements. The superiority of his work to that of Gregory of Tours as regards literary qualities is very marked. It is a true whole, although occasionally the connection of its parts is loose and the arrangement is determined by external suggestions. Its style is clear, flowing, attractive, suitable to the subject, and a natural reflection of the writer's mind. Particular incidents are often admirably presented. Bede was certainly not an historical philosopher, but he was as certainly an historical artist of very considerable merit. It may be added, that in his De ratione temporum' he at least set a good example, in occupying himself with chronology; and that, although no originality can be ascribed to his 'De sex ætatibus seculi,' it greatly helped to transmit and spread that general view of the development and stages of the history of the world which Augustine, Isidore of Seville, and others, had propounded.

We require to pass into another land and onwards into the eleventh century before we come to a writer who added to historical knowledge in anything like the same measure as Bede. Accordingly, I mention next the author of the 'Gesta Hamenaburgensis ecclesiæ pontificum,' generally known as Adam of Bremen. His work was written between 1072 and 1076. The archbishopric of Lund was not then founded, and all the Baltic regions-German, Scandinavian, and Russian-lay within the archbishopric of Hamburg-Bremen. Adam's history of this ecclesiastical province is the chief source of knowledge of the oldest history, both religious and secular, of the north of Europe. The information in it was drawn from books and documents now lost, as well as from personal research during its author's journeys for missionary purposes. It bears all the general marks of trustworthiness and truthfulness, although in parts much fable is mixed up with fact. Its style is natural and vigorous. Lappenberg says that if the author had only written in his own tongue he would have been "the Herodotus of the North."

In South Germany there lived a contemporary of the Canon of Bremen who was still more eminent as a writer,-Lambert of Hersfeld. Mr Freeman speaks of him thus: "He begins with annals; he gradually enlarges and warms, till his tale grows into that precious and admirable narrative of the great struggle between Pope and Cæsar, that narrative so clear, so full, so wisely treading the narrow path between partisan writers on either side, that it has won for a monk of the eleventh century his full right to a place alongside the foremost of the so-called ancients." Perhaps these words convey too high an estimate of Lambert's impartiality. He was, indeed, impartial as compared with most of his contemporaries, but that his impartiality was more than thus relative, may fairly be doubted, and has been denied after special examination by critical historians like Ranke, Flotto, Geisebrecht, and Wattenbach. Probably the Pope received considerably more, and Cæsar considerably less, than justice from him, notwithstanding the natural independence, moderation, and liberality of judgment which cause him to contrast so favourably with the partisan writers of his day. No one will deny to him rare literary talent. His general style is a fine combination of native force and cultured elegance. He portrays character and pictures incident with a masterly hand. Many of his pages once read can never be forgotten.

The most philosophical of the medieval chroniclers was Otto of Freisingen, the grandson of the Emperor Henry IV., halfbrother of Conrad III., and uncle, confidant, and chosen biographer of Frederick I., the famous Barbarossa. He was an earnestly pious man, a theologian, a monk, an ecclesiastical dignitary, but also a man of clear and sound judgment, conversant with political affairs, and deeply interested in the fortunes of the empire. He died in 1158. His Chronicon' was written between 1143 and 1146. It consists of eight books, the first six of which were largely a reproduction of the Universal Chronicle of Ekkehard of Aurach. The seventh book is original work of great merit and value. The two books 'De gestis Frederici I.,' which may be viewed as continuing it, are of equal quality, and of even higher interest. It is from these books that the author's rank among historians must chiefly be determined. They entitle

1 Methods of Historical Study, pp. 164, 165.

him to a high position. They are characterised by comprehensiveness of treatment, accuracy of statement, clearness of insight. They display a greater impartiality than the 'Annales' of Lambert. They are excellent in style and arrangement. They are lacking in no essential historical quality. The eighth book of the Chronicle' treats of the coming and dominion of Antichrist, of the end of the world, of the resurrection of the just and unjust, of the twofold judgment, of the condition of the lost, and of the life of the blessed in heaven. In the plan of Otto, it was a most essential portion of the work. To that work he himself gave a title which at once expressed its leading thought and indicated whence the thought was drawn,—“ De rerum mundanarum mutatione, sive de duabus civitatibus." All in it turns on the Augustinian dualism of the earthly and heavenly cities, the antagonism of the kingdoms of man to the kingdom of Christ. From beginning to end its aim is to make apparent the mutability, the vanity, and miseries of mundane life, and that heaven is the only true refuge and home of humanity. The contentions of the time, and especially the conflict between pope and emperor, while perplexing his mind and grieving his heart, served to confirm him in a belief which he shared with many of his contemporaries, that the consummation of things was at hand; that soon Antichrist would appear, and that then Christ would come to judgment and take to Himself all power and dominion. He wrote, accordingly, "ex amaritudine animæ," and "non curiositatis causâ sed ad ostendendas caducarum rerum calamitates." His steady contemplation of the course of history from a religious point of view has caused his work to be described as "the first and only attempt at a philosophy of history made in the middle age." But it was rather an attempt to establish by history a thesis in theology. Certainly if a philosophy of history at all it was a poor one. Instead of seeking to exhibit the intrinsic significance of history, it sought to show that history had no intrinsic significance. A pessimistic view of life in time is not made satisfactory by being conjoined with an optimistic conception of life in eternity.

In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries there flourished in England a school of writers who, if less than historians proper,

were more than annalists or chroniclers. They took the classical historians as their models; sought to trace the relations of cause and effect, instead of servilely following the mere sequences of time; treated the course of events in England as not unconnected with the movement of affairs abroad; and, in a word, attempted to interpret as well as narrate, while also aiming at artistic excellence. This school was inaugurated by William of Malmesbury, and found its greatest representative in Matthew Paris. "In Matthew the breadth and precision of the narrative, the copiousness of his information on topics whether national or European, the general fairness and justice of his comments, are only surpassed by the patriotic fire and enthusiasm of the whole. . . . With all the fulness of the school of court historians, such as Benedict or Hoveden, he combines an independence and patriotism which is strange to their pages. He denounces with the same unsparing energy the oppression of the Papacy and the king. His point of view is neither that of a courtier nor of a Churchman, but of an Englishman, and the new national tone of his chronicle is but an echo of the national sentiment which at last bound nobles and yeomen and Churchmen together into an English people." 1

It is unnecessary to trace further the course of Latin historiography. There is little to tempt us to linger on the Latin chronicles or histories composed in the later centuries of the middle age. I know of none of them not inferior to some of those which have been already noticed. The bonds of medieval Christendom had to be broken before there could be any marked advance. The next revival of Latin historical literature came only when it was on the eve of being generally abandoned. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries Polydore Vergil, Sleidan, De Thou, and others, reflected honour on its old age. Since the classic world passed away, Latin historiography never, perhaps, reached so near classic excellence as in the writings of these men. But they and their works do not fall to be considered here; they lie beyond the limits of the time to which this Introduction refers.

History can only be written adequately in the speech of the peoples who make history. Modern history required to be 1 Green's Short Hist. of the Eng. People, pp. 142, 143.

recorded in the languages of the modern nations. Away from contact with Latin and the remains and traditions of Roman civilisation, the Norse people grew up heroic and adventurous, and the Norse tongue developed itself in freedom. Nowhere in Latinised Christendom did men write as well as the Scandinavian scalds spoke and sang. Hence lonely Iceland can boast of its Heimskringla, that immortal story of the Kings of Norway, by Snorro Sturleson, murdered in 1241, compared with the pages of which those even of a Matthew Paris are pale and tedious. There the wild Viking life, as it moved on through gloom and light, calm and storm, by land and on sea, in domestic scenes, strange adventures, fierce battles, and cruel tragedies, for more than three hundred years, is portrayed with the truth and power of a master akin in genius to Homer, and Scott, and Carlyle.

England can claim the honour of having had the earliest vernacular chronicle; Russia of having had the earliest vernacular history; France of having had the earliest series of popular chroniclers; and Italy of having had the earliest historians eminent for political knowledge and philosophical insight. The general and intense interest excited throughout Europe by the Crusades was what gave the chief direct impulse to the writing of history in the speech of the unlearned. Once begun various causes favoured its perpetuation, and such causes continually increased in number and power as feudalism fell and modern nations became constituted and consolidated. The rise and growth, however, of historiography in the French, German, Italian, and English languages, must not be treated of at this point, but in connection with the development of historical philosophy in the French, German, Italian, and English nations.

Medieval Europe produced nothing worthy to be called a philosophy of history. And this was natural, for medieval Europe was extremely ignorant alike of the facts and the methods which an adequate philosophy of history pre

supposes.

First, there was in the middle ages a want of the necessary facts, and a want of knowledge of what facts there were. Sciences differ greatly from one another as to the number of facts which they require for a foundation, as to the number of