exaggerated, both by contemporary writers and modern historians, but it was very great in comparison with the population at that time. The lines of march of the various contingents took them through many parts of Europe and those who stayed at home frequently had opportunity to see or hear of the expeditions. The participation of the kings of France and of Germany in the second great Crusade occasioned interest in the movement throughout their dominions. The necessity of paying the ransom of Richard the Lion-Hearted, when on his return from the Third Crusade he was held as a prisoner by the Emperor Henry VI., brought the matter home to everyone in England. We are told that every man, woman, and child in his kingdom had to contribute to raise the enormous sum of £100,000 which the Emperor demanded. Also it must not be forgotten that other monarchs went on the Third Crusade, thus spreading interest in the movement throughout their lands. When we recall the large number of other expeditions Outre Mer and their continuance for nearly two centuries, we can realize the interest aroused in the West concerning these new lands and their inhabitants.

To satisfy this interest and the natural curiosity of the people histories were written and songs were sung. The best of the sources from a modern historian's standpoint, the so-called Gesta Francorum, written by an anonymous layman, was considered unsatisfactory by his contemporaries. They criticized it because it was a bare, unadorned narration of facts and because it did not tell of the beginnings at the Council of Clermont. Using the Gesta as a basis, writers attempted to popularize the history by writing it in a more literary form, by arranging the facts in a logical order, by demonstrating the causes and results of these facts. Molinier says: "French historiography was profoundly transformed and the true meaning of history began to emerge." But these works were written in Latin,. the language of the learned, and others had to get their information from the songs or oral accounts. To reach a wider audience, and sometimes for purposes of propaganda, some writers used the vernacular, the language of the people.

A change is to be noted in the kind of men who wrote the histories. In contrast with the humble, often anonymous, monks by whom the earlier chronicles had been written, clerical leaders, abbot and archbishop, took up their pens to write the account in a more literary form. Men of action recounted the deeds in which they had had a part. As examples may be cited: William, archbishop of Tyre and chancellor of the Kingdom of Jerusalem; Walter, chancellor of the principality of Antioch; Jacques de Vitry, bishop of

Acre and cardinal; Ville-Hardouin, one of the influential leaders of the Fourth Crusade; Joinville, the friend of St. Louis. It may be noted that the last two, and other writers as well, were not members of the clergy; history was becoming laicized.

Among the Arabs the Crusades had a similar influence on history and historiography. For a long time before the Crusades little or no attention had been given by Moslems to the study or writing of history. The glorious events under Nūr-ad-Din and Saladin awakened the enthusiasm of the followers of the prophet. History became popular and its scope was broadened. The authors were usually men of high rank who had participated in some of the events which they described. Ibn al-Athir was the son of an emir and served in the wars under Saladin; his position and prestige gave him access to the documents of the rulers. Imad ad-Din was secretary of state under Nûr ad-Din. Bahá ad-Din was cadi at Jerusalem and at Aleppo and was sent on diplomatic missions. Kamāl ad-Din was a vizier. Abu-l-Fida was a kinsman of Saladin and sultan of Hamah.

Have other wars, in later ages, had a similar influence? If so, what importance does this fact have for the present day? Let us first determine the facts.

After the Crusades ceased to arouse popular enthusiasm the character of historical writing changed. Western Europe was no longer conscious of having common interests and a common enemy. Local interests were dominant and writing local chronicles again became the prevailing fashion. In France historiography often was merely a tool of propaganda. This can be attributed, in part, to the Hundred Years' War when local feeling was strong and partizan writers used history to justify the alliances or defections of their lords.

The humanistic movement in its earlier period made little change in this respect; in fact, it emphasized the tendency to stress the history of a single locality and to glorify the policy of a ruler. To find a new impulse in history, a return to a larger canvas, we must go to Florence at the beginning of the sixteenth century. For, to restore history to a prominent position, to free it from its parochial tendencies, came after a long interval the invasion of Italy by the French king in 1494.

Florence went through a critical period, suffering terribly from the invasion and from the ensuing strife between the French and Spanish kings. Together with the other city states of Central Italy it lost its independent position in European affairs. It changed

suddenly from the rule of the Medici to a republic, and it was necessary to establish a new constitution. In this respect its position was not unlike that of the American colonies after the Revolutionary War. History was studied for instruction in politics. Historians eagerly scanned all past history to which they had access. Every political event of the past or present was analyzed and its consequences examined because they hoped to find material for the formation of their constitution. But in their study of universal history they paid heed only to wars and politics, there was no interest in the history of culture. In order to win a larger audience they wrote in the vernacular. The historians were usually men of affairs who had interests at stake. Machiavelli and Guicciardini are only the most striking examples among a number who had held high office in the state. It is interesting to note, that in Florence "this efflorescence of historical writing lasted only as long as the struggle for the constitution lasted".

In this case a war had the same three effects that the Crusades had had it caused history to broaden its horizon; it created a greater popular interest, and history was more widely read, because written in the vernacular; lastly, authors were statesmen who had themselves participated in the events.

Except in Florence the men of the early sixteenth century did not produce notable histories. There was great activity in historical work but mainly as a tool for propaganda, and the writings were not of a character to arouse popular interest. Renan's statement that "historical criticism is a daughter of Protestantism" has often been quoted and is partially true. But only partially true. Excellent beginnings in historical criticism had been made in the preceding period; for example, by Laurentius Valla, and by many opponents of the existing order in Church or State. But historical criticism was now used more extensively as a weapon to attack an adversary. It was very much like the search for historical precedents during the Investiture Struggle in order to prove that the other party was wrong. The great advance which history had made in the course of the centuries is clearly evident when the productions of the two periods are contrasted. The outstanding examples in the sixteenth century are the Magdeburg Centuries and the Annals of Baronius. A group of Protestant scholars in their zeal to prove that the Roman Catholic Church had been led astray by Anti-Christ and had become more and more corrupt throughout the ages, compiled and published at Magdeburg, in 13 folio volumes, a history of the Church from its origin till the close of the thirteenth century. To meet this

attack Cardinal Baronius published his Annales Ecclesiastici to 1198, in 12 folio volumes. Neither of these productions was intended for popular reading. At first the cardinal's work, filled with documents, drawn from the Vatican archives, seemed a crushing refutation of the Centuries. But Protestant scholars rushed to the fray; Casaubon published 12 folio volumes in refutation of the Annals; Holstenius is said to have detected more than eight thousand misstatements of fact in the cardinal's volumes. This strife determined the main line of historical work during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Scholars occupied themselves in controversy over religious history or dogma, in seeking for and publishing new documents, or in critical studies of the texts; sometimes in forging documents which were useful for their cause. They did not confine themselves to ecclesiastical sources, but also collected and edited medieval material on the history of their native lands. In Italy and France, in England and Germany, the productive work was mainly in "catalogs of writers, publication of sources, collections of sources ".

Yet the wars of religion did have an influence on history, as the Crusades did. The scope of history was broadened. While most of the works produced could not appeal to popular interest, and most of the men of affairs who participated in the movement did so as collectors or editors or critics, there were notable exceptions, especially in the seventeenth century. Bacon, Raleigh, Clarendon, de Thou, d'Aubigné, Grotius, Sarpi, and others, all of them men of affairs, produced valuable histories. Sarpi wrote the history of the Council of Trent, a polemical work. Bacon, de Thou, d'Aubigné, Grotius, and Clarendon wrote histories of their own times; Raleigh, during his imprisonment in the Tower, experimented in chemistry and wrote part of a history of the world, to while away the time. All of these authors were widely read and Clarendon, in particular, exerted a great influence on historical writing in England. The fact that the period of the wars of religion was not more productive of great historians can be attributed in part to the dominant interest in controversy over theological history and dogma, in part to the zest for collecting and criticizing documents.

The French Revolution and the wars of Napoleon had a profound effect upon history. In the early period, when for the young and enthusiastic it was bliss to be alive, privileges both feudal and ecclesiastical were abolished; the monarchy in France was overthrown; new constitutions were made; the rights of man were proclaimed; men of low degree rose to positions of power; but it is not necessary in this audience to catalogue the work of the Revolution. In the

ensuing period the inevitable reaction set in and much that had been striven for in the Revolution seemed to be lost. But new and powerful factors combined to kindle the imagination of the people; in France, the worship of Napoleon, the possibility of securing a marshal's baton by bravery, the ideal of glory, the pride in a victorious France against the world. In the other countries there was the seething of revolutionary ideas; there was the unwilling admiration and popular dread of the Emperor; Bonaparte, or "Boney ", became a bogey in England to terrify the children, as Richard the LionHearted had been in Palestine six hundred years before. People became keenly interested in other lands and their history. The formation of new constitutions and the rise to power of hitherto obscure individuals diverted attention from monarchs and nobles to the men of the third estate; the scope of history was broadened.

The great historians came only in the next generation and they were not, as a rule, men who had participated in the events; in fact, most of them were in their infancy during the period of the Revolution. They were not confined to any one country: Guizot, Ranke, Thiers, Macaulay, Bancroft, Grote, Prescott, Carlyle, Parkman, Motley, to name only a few, of especial interest to us. Some of them were men of affairs and held public office; but the office was sometimes attained because of prestige as an author. The ability which had made a man pre-eminent in his historical work marked him as worthy to represent his country in an administrative position or as a minister at a foreign court.

Evidently all wars do not create an interest in history or produce great historians. If they did Europe would have had a constant succession of great historians during the last four hundred years. It is not sufficient to beg the question by saying that only the great wars cause changes in historiography. Dynastic wars did not; nor did civil wars if we can judge from the Civil War in England or in our own country. The former did incite Clarendon and produce a great interest in history as is shown by the mass of pamphlets; and the latter is true of our own Civil War, witness the wealth of articles on history in the popular periodicals of the 'eighties. If an analysis is made of the wars which seem to have influenced historiography, certain facts emerge. They were wars which excited the popular imagination; wars in which men were conscious of common interests; wars which were due to or caused a change in the social polity; wars by which men's interests were broadened or directed into new channels. This is emphatically true of the Crusades and of the French Revolution and may explain their great influence on historiography.