Meanwhile the emperor had set himself the task of doing for the German
fleet what his grandfather had done for the army. The acquisition of
Heligoland enabled a new naval station to be established off the mouth
of the Elbe; the completion of the canal from Kiel to the mouth of the
Elbe, by enabling ships of war to pass from the Baltic to the North Sea
greatly increased the strategic strength of the fleet. In 1890 a change
in the organization separated the command of the fleet from the office
of secretary of state, who was responsible for the representation of the
admiralty in the Reichstag, and the emperor was brought into more direct
connexion with the navy. During the first five years of the reign four
line-of-battle ships were added and several armoured cruisers for the
defence of commerce and colonial interests. With the year 1895 began a
period of expansion abroad and great naval activity. The note was given
in a speech of the emperor's on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the
foundation of the empire, in which he said, "the German empire has
become a world empire." The ruling idea of this new _Welt-Politik_ was
that Germany could no longer remain merely a continental power; owing to
the growth of population she depended for subsistence on trade and
exports; she could not maintain herself amid the rivalry of nations
unless the government was able actively to support German traders in all
parts of the world. The extension of German trade and influence has, in
fact, been carried out with considerable success. There was no prospect
of further territory in Equatorial Africa, and the hope of bringing
about a closer union with the South African Republic was not fulfilled.
On the Pacific, however, there were great gains;[7] long-established
plans for obtaining a port in China which might serve as a base for the
growing trade at Tientsin were carried out at the end of 1897; the
murder of two Catholic missionaries was made the pretext for landing
troops in the bay of Kiao-chau; and in amends China granted the lease of
some 50 sq. m. of territory, and also a concession for building
railways. The emperor showed his strong personal interest by sending his
brother, Prince Henry, in command of a squadron to take possession of
this territory, and the visit of a German prince to the emperor of China
strongly appealed to the popular imagination. The emperor's
characteristically rhetorical speeches on this occasion--particularly
his identification of his brother with the "mailed fist" of
Germany--excited considerable comment. In Turkey the government, helped
again by the personal interest of the emperor, who himself visited the
sultan at Constantinople, gained important concessions for German
influence and German commerce. The Turkish armies were drilled and
commanded by German officers, and in 1899 a German firm gained an
important concession for building a railway to Baghdad. In Brazil
organized private enterprise established a considerable settlement of
German emigrants, and though any political power was for the time
impossible, German commerce increased greatly throughout South America.
Naval programme, 1897.
Encouraged by the interest which the events in China had aroused, a very
important project was laid before the Reichstag in November 1897, which
would enable Germany to take a higher place among the maritime powers. A
completely new procedure was introduced. Instead of simply proposing to
build a number of new ships, the bill laid down permanently the number
of ships of every kind of which the navy was to consist. They were to be
completed by 1904; and the bill also specified how often ships of each
class were to be replaced. The plan would establish a normal fleet, and
the Reichstag, having once assented, would lose all power of controlling
the naval budget. The bill was strongly opposed by the Radicals; the
Centre was divided; but the very strong personal influence of the
emperor, supported by an agitation of the newly-formed _Flottenverein_
(an imitation of the English Navy League), so influenced public opinion
that the opposition broke down. A general election was imminent, and no
party dared to go to the country as the opponents of the fleet.
Hostility to England.
Pro-Boer movement.
Navy Bill, 1900.
Scarcely had the bill been carried when a series of events took place
which still more fully turned public attention to colonial affairs, and
seemed to justify the action of the government. The war between the
United States and Spain showed how necessary an efficient fleet was
under modern conditions, and also caused some feeling of apprehension
for the future arising from the new policy of extension adopted by the
United States. And the brewing of the storm in South Africa, where the
Boers were preparing to resist British suzerainty, helped to make the
nation regret that their fleet was not sufficiently strong to make
German sympathies effective. The government used with great address the
bitter irritation against Great Britain which had become one of the most
deep-seated elements in modern German life. This feeling had its origin
at first in a natural reaction against the excessive admiration for
English institutions which distinguished the Liberals of an older
generation. This reaction was deliberately fostered during Bismarck's
later years for internal reasons; for, as Great Britain was looked upon
as the home of parliamentary government and Free Trade, a less
favourable view might weaken German belief in doctrines and institutions
adopted from that country. There also existed in Germany a curious
compound of jealousy and contempt, natural in a nation the whole
institutions of which centred round the army and compulsory service, for
a nation whose institutions were based not on military, but on
parliamentary and legal institutions. It came about that in the minds of
many Germans the whole national regeneration was regarded as a
liberation from British influence. This feeling was deliberately
fostered by publicists and historians, and was intensified by commercial
rivalry, since in the struggle for colonial expansion and trade Germans
naturally came to look on Great Britain, who held the field, as their
rival. The sympathy which the events of 1896 and 1899 awakened for the
Boers caused all these feelings, which had long been growing, to break
out in a popular agitation more widespread than any since the foundation
of the empire. It was used by the Nationalist parties, in Austria as
well as in Germany, to spread the conception of Pan-Germanism; the Boers
as Low Germans were regarded as the representatives of Teutonic
civilization, and it seemed possible that the conception might be used
to bring about a closer friendship, and even affiance, with Holland. In
1896 the emperor, by despatching a telegram of congratulation to
President Kruger after the collapse of the Jameson Raid, had appeared
to identify himself with the national feeling. When war broke out in
1899 it was obviously impossible to give any efficient help to the
Boers, but the government did not allow the moment to pass without using
it for the very practical purpose of getting another bill through the
Reichstag by which the navy was to be nearly doubled. Some difficulties
which arose regarding the exercise by the British government of the
right of search for contraband of war were also used to stimulate public
feeling. The Navy Bill was introduced in January 1900. There were some
criticisms of detail, but the passing of the bill was only a matter of
bargaining. Each party wished in return for its support to get some
concessions from the government. The Agrarians asked for restrictions on
the importation of food; the Centre for the Lex Heinze and the repeal of
the Jesuit law; the Liberals for the right of combination.
Von Bulow, chancellor.
The murder of the German ambassador, Baron von Ketteler, at Peking in
1900 compelled the government to take a leading part in the joint
expedition of the powers to China. A force of over 20,000 men was
organized by voluntary enlistment from among the regular army; and the
supreme command was obtained by the emperor for Count von Waldersee, who
had succeeded Moltke as chief of the staff. The government was, however,
sharply criticized for not first consulting the Reichstag in a matter
involving the first military expedition since the foundation of the
empire. It was desirable in such circumstances that a younger and more
vigorous statesman than Prince Hohenlohe should be placed at the head of
affairs before the Reichstag met; and on the 17th of October he
resigned, and was succeeded as chancellor by Herr von Bulow, the foreign
secretary. (J. W. He.; W. A. P.)
Naval Progress.
It remains only to sketch the main features of German history in later
years. In spite of the denunciation by the Social Democratic leaders of
what they stigmatized as a "policy of brag," the general popularity of
the idea of establishing a strong sea power was proved by the rapid
extension of the Navy League, which in 1904 had already 3595 branches.
For an increase in the navy there was, indeed, sufficient excuse in the
enormous expansion of German oversea commerce and the consequent growth
of the mercantile marine; the value of foreign trade, which in 1894 was
L365,000,000, had risen in 1904 to L610,000,000, and in the same period
the tonnage of German merchant shipping had increased by 234%. In the
session of 1901 Admiral von Tirpitz, the minister of marine, admitted in
answer to a Socialist interpellation that the naval programme of 1900
would have to be enlarged. In 1903 Count Bulow declared in the Reichstag
that the government was endeavouring to pursue a middle course between
"the extravagant aspirations of the Pan-Germans and the parochial policy
of the Social Democrats, which forgets that in a struggle for life and
death Germany's means of communication might be cut off." At the same
time the emperor presented to the Reichstag a comparative table, drawn
up by his own hand, showing the relative strength of the British and
German navies. An inspired article in the _Grenzboten_ declared the
object of this to be to moderate at once the aggressive attitude of the
Pan-Germans towards Great Britain and British alarms at the naval
development of Germany. This gave a fresh impetus to the naval agitation
and counter-agitation. In 1904 Count Bulow again found it necessary, in
reply to the Socialist leader Bebel, to declare that the German naval
armaments were purely defensive. "I cannot conceive," he said, "that the
idea of an Anglo-German war should be seriously entertained by sensible
people in either country." On the 16th of November 1905 a new Navy Bill
amplifying the programme of 1900 was accepted by the Federal Diet. The
Navy League, encouraged by its success, now redoubled its exertions and
demanded that the whole programme should be completed by 1912 instead of
1917. Bebel denounced this agitation as obviously directed against
England; and the government thought it expedient to disavow the action
of its too zealous allies. A telegram addressed by the emperor William
to the presidents of the League, Generals Keim and Menges, led to their
resignation; but the effect of this was largely counteracted by the
presence of Prince Henry of Prussia and the king of Wurttemberg at the
annual congress of the League at Stuttgart in May, while at the Colonial
Congress in the autumn the necessity for a powerful navy was again one
of the main themes of discussion. That the government was, in fact, at
one with the League as to the expediency of pushing on the naval
programme was proved by the revelations of the first lord of the
admiralty, Mr McKenna, in the debate on the naval estimates in the
British parliament of 1909. From these it was clear that the German
government had for some time past been pressing on its naval armaments
with little regard to the ostensible programme, and that in the matter
of the newest types of battleships, Great Britain had to reckon with the
fact that, before the date fixed for the completion of the programme,
Germany might establish at least an equality.
Foreign policy.
The Konigsberg trial.
The same determined spirit which characterized German naval policy was
evident also in her relations with the other powers. The suspicions as
to the stability of the Triple Alliance produced, indeed, for some years
a kind of nervousness in the attitude of the government, whose
determination to assert for Germany a leading international role tended
to isolate her in Europe. This nervousness was, in 1903 and 1904,
especially evident in the efforts to weaken the Franco-Russian alliance
by the policy of what Bebel denounced as Germany "crawling on her
stomach before Russia." Germany not only backed up Russian policy in the
East, and at the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War took up towards her
an attitude of more than benevolent neutrality, but the cabinets of
Berlin and St Petersburg entered into an agreement under which political
offenders against either government were to be treated as traitors to
both. This arrangement, which made the Prussian police the active allies
of the Third Section in the persecution of political suspects, created
vast indignation among all shades of Liberal opinion in Germany, an
indignation which culminated with the famous Konigsberg trial. This was
a prosecution of nine German subjects for sedition, conspiracy and
_lese-majeste_ against the Russian emperor, and for the circulation of
books and pamphlets attacking him and his government. The defendants
were poor smugglers from the Esthonian border marshes, who in the course
of their ordinary avocations had carried bales of revolutionary tracts
into Russia without troubling as to their contents. The trial, which
took place in July 1904, excited widespread attention. The prosecution
was conducted with all the force of the government; the defence was
undertaken by some of the most brilliant Liberal advocates of Germany
and developed in effect into an elaborate indictment, supported by a
great weight of first-hand evidence, of the iniquities of the Russian
regime. The verdict of the court was a serious rebuff for the
government; after a preliminary investigation of nine months, and a
public trial of a fortnight, the major charges against the prisoners
were dismissed, and six of them were condemned only to short terms of
imprisonment for conspiracy.
The progress of the Russo-Japanese War, however, soon relieved Germany
of all anxiety as to the safety of her eastern frontiers, and produced a
corresponding change in her attitude. The Russian disasters in Manchuria
at the beginning of 1905 were followed by an extraordinary demonstration
of the emperor William's ideas as to "the world-wide dominion of the
Hohenzollerns," in a sort of imperial progress in the East, made for the
purpose of impressing the Mahommedan world with the power of Germany. In
1904 the German attitude towards Great Britain had been in the highest
degree conciliatory; the Anglo-French agreement as to Egypt was agreed
to at Berlin; a visit of King Edward VII. to Kiel was reciprocated by
that of the German squadron to Plymouth; in July a treaty of arbitration
was signed between the two countries, while in the Reichstag the
chancellor declared that, Germany's interests in Morocco being purely
commercial, the understanding between France and England as to that
country, embodied in the convention of the 8th of April 1904, did not
immediately concern her. This attitude was now changed. On the 31st of
March 1905 the emperor William landed at Tangier, and is reported on
this occasion to have used language which in effect amounted to a
promise to support the sultan of Morocco in resisting French control.
His visit to the Holy Land and the solemn pilgrimage to Jerusalem were,
in the same way, a striking _coup de theatre_ designed to strengthen the
influence won by Germany in the councils of the Ottoman empire, an
influence which she had been careful not to weaken by taking too active
a part in the concert of the powers engaged in pressing on the question
of Macedonian reform.
Meanwhile pressure was being put upon France to admit the German claim
to a voice in the affairs of North Africa, a claim fortified by the
mission of Count von Tattenbach, German minister at Lisbon, to Fez for
the purpose of securing from the sherifian government special privileges
for Germany. This aggressive policy was firmly resisted by M. Delcasse,
the French minister of foreign affairs, and for a while war seemed to be
inevitable. At Berlin powerful influences, notably that of Herr von
Holstein--that mysterious omnipotence behind the throne--were working
for this end; the crippling of Russia seemed too favourable an
opportunity to be neglected for crushing the menace of French armaments.
That an actual threat of war was conveyed to the French government
(through the German ambassador at Rome, it is said) there can be no
doubt. That war was prevented was due partly to the timidity of French
ministers, partly to the fact that at the last moment Herr von Holstein
shrank from the responsibility of pressing his arguments to a practical
conclusion. The price of peace, however, was the resignation of M.
Delcasse, who had been prepared to maintain a bold front. Germany had
perhaps missed an opportunity for putting an end for ever to the rivalry
of France; but she had inflicted a humiliation on her rival, and proved
her capacity to make her voice heard in the councils of Europe.[8] The
proceedings of the conference of Algeciras (see MOROCCO) emphasized the
restored confidence of Germany in her international position. It was
notably the part played by Austria in supporting the German point of
view throughout at the conference that strengthened the position of
Germany in Europe, by drawing closer the bonds of sympathy between the
two empires. How strong this position had become was demonstrated during
the crisis that arose after the revolution in Turkey and the annexation
of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria in October 1908. The complete
triumph of Baron von Aehrenthal's policy, in the face of the opposition
of most of the European powers, was due to German support, and Germany
suddenly appeared as the arbiter of the affairs of the European
continent (see EUROPE: _History_). German nervousness, which had seen
British intrigues everywhere, and suspected in the beneficent activities
of King Edward VII. a Machiavellian plan for isolating Germany and
surrounding her with a net of hostile forces, gave way to a spirit of
confidence which could afford to laugh at the terror of Germany which,
to judge from the sensational reports of certain popular British
journals, had seized upon Great Britain.
Internal difficulties.
The great position gained by the German empire in these years was won in
the face of great and increasing internal difficulties. These
difficulties were, in the main, the outcome of the peculiar constitution
of the empire, of the singular compromise which it represented between
the traditional medieval polity and the organization of a modern state,
and of the conflicts of ideals and of interests to which this gave rise;
these being complicated by the masterful personality of the emperor
William, and his tendency to confuse his position as German emperor by
the will of the princes with his position as king of Prussia by the
grace of God.
In general, Germany had passed since the war through a social and
economic revolution similar to that undergone by Great Britain during
the earlier half of the 19th century, though on a greater scale and at a
much accelerated pace. A country mainly agricultural, and in parts
purely feudal, was changed into one of vast industries and of great
concentrations of population; and for the ferment created by this change
there was no such safety-valve in the representative system as had
existed in England since the Reform Bill. In spite of the election of
the Reichstag by manhood suffrage, there existed, as Count Bulow pointed
out in 1904, no real parliamentary system in Germany, and "owing to the
economic, political, social and religious structure of the nation" there
could never be one. Of the numerous groups composing the German
parliament no one ever secured a majority, and in the absence of such a
majority the imperial government, practically independent of parliament,
knew how to secure its assent to its measures by a process of bargaining
with each group in turn. This system had curious and very far-reaching
results. The only group which stood outside it, in avowed hostility to
the whole principle on which the constitution was based, was that of the
Social Democrats, "the only great party in Germany which," so the
veteran Mommsen declared in 1901, "has any claim to political respect."
The consequence was the rapid extension and widening of the chasm that
divided the German people. The mass of the working-class population in
the Protestant parts of Germany belonged to the Social Democracy, an
inclusive term covering variations of opinion from the doctrinaire
system of Marx to a degree of Radicalism which in England would not be
considered a bar to a peerage. To make head against this, openly
denounced by the emperor himself as a treasonable movement, the
government was from time to time forced to make concessions to the
various groups which placed their sectional interests in the forefront
of their programmes. To conciliate the Catholic Centre party,
numerically the strongest of all, various concessions were from time to
time made to the Roman Catholic Church, e.g. the repeal in 1904 of the
clause of the Anti-Jesuit Law forbidding the settlement of individual
members of the order in Germany. The Conservative Agrarians were
conciliated by a series of tariff acts placing heavy duties on the
importation of agricultural produce and exempting from duty agricultural
implements.
Social Democracy.
The first of these tariffs, which in order to overcome Socialist
obstruction was passed _en bloc_ on December 13-14, 1902, led to an
alarming alteration in the balance of parties in the new Reichstag of
1903, the Socialists--who had previously numbered 58--winning 81 seats,
a gain of 23. Of the other groups only one, and that hostile to the
government--the Poles--had gained a seat. This startling victory of the
Social Democracy, though to a certain extent discounted by the
dissensions between the two wings of the party which were revealed at
the congress at Dresden in the same year, was in the highest degree
disconcerting to the government; but in the actual manipulation of the
Reichstag it facilitated the work of the chancellor by enabling him to
unite the other groups more readily against the common enemy. The most
striking effect of the development of this antagonism was the gradual
disappearance as a factor in politics of the Liberals, the chief
builders of the Empire. Their part henceforth was to vote blindly with
the Conservative groups, in a common fear of the Social Democracy, or to
indulge in protests, futile because backed by no power inside or outside
the parliament; their impotence was equally revealed when in December
1902 they voted with the Agrarians for the tariff, and in May 1909 when
they withdrew in dudgeon from the new tariff committee, and allowed the
reactionary elements a free hand. The political struggle of the future
lay between the Conservative and Clerical elements in the state, alike
powerful forces, and the organized power of the Social Democracy. In the
elections of 1907, indeed, the Social Democratic party, owing to the
unparalleled exertion of the government, had a set-back, its
representation in parliament sinking to 43; but at the International
Socialist Congress, which met at Stuttgart on the 18th of August, Herr
Bebel was able to point out that, in spite of its defeat at the polls,
the Socialist cause had actually gained strength in the country, their
total poll having increased from 3,010,771 in 1903 to 3,250,000.
Prussia and the Empire.
In addition to the political strife and anxiety due to this fundamental
cleavage within the nation, Germany was troubled during the first decade
of the 20th century by friction and jealousies arising out of the
federal constitution of the Empire and the preponderant place in it of
Prussia. In the work of pressing on the national and international
expansion of Germany the interests and views of the lesser constituent
states of the Empire were apt to be overlooked or overridden; and in the
southern states there was considerable resentment at the unitarian
tendency of the north, which seemed to aim at imposing the Prussian
model on the whole nation. This resentment was especially conspicuous in
Bavaria, which clings more tenaciously than the other states to its
separate traditions. When, on the 1st of April 1902, a new stamp, with
the superscription "Deutsches Reich," was issued for the Empire,
including Wurttemberg, Bavaria refused to accept it, retaining the stamp
with the Bavarian lion, thus emphasizing her determination to retain her
separate postal establishment. On the 23rd of October 1903 Baron
Podevils, the new premier, addressing the Bavarian diet, declared that
his government "would combat with all its strength" any tendency to
assure the future of the Empire on any lines other than the federative
basis laid down in the imperial constitution.
Personal intervention of the emperor.
This protest was the direct outcome of an instance of the tendency of
the emperor to interfere in the affairs of the various governments of
the Empire. In 1902 the Clerical majority in the Bavarian diet had
refused to vote L20,000 asked by the government for art purposes,
whereupon the emperor had telegraphed expressing his indignation and
offering to give the money himself, an offer that was politely declined.
Another instance of the emperor's interference, constitutionally of more
importance as directly affecting the rights of the German sovereigns,
was in the question of the succession to the principality of Lippe (see
LIPPE). The impulsive character of the emperor, which led him, with the
best intentions and often with excellent effect, to interfere everywhere
and in everything and to utter opinions often highly inconvenient to his
ministers, was the subject of an interpellation in the Reichstag on the
20th of January 1903 by the Socialist Herr von Vollmar, himself a
Bavarian. Count Bulow, in answer to his criticisms, declared that "the
German people desired, not a shadow, but an emperor of flesh and blood."
None the less, the continued "indiscretions" of the emperor so incensed
public opinion that, five years later, the chancellor himself was forced
to side with it in obtaining from the emperor an undertaking to submit
all his public utterances previously to his ministers for approval (see
WILLIAM II., German emperor).
The non-German nationalities.
Meanwhile, the attempt to complete the Germanization of the frontier
provinces of the Empire by conciliation or repression continued. In this
respect progress was made especially in Alsace-Lorraine. In May 1902, in
return for the money granted by the _Reichslander_ for the restoration
of the imperial castle of Hohekonigsburg in the Vosges, the emperor
promised to abolish the _Diktaturparagraphen_; the proposal was accepted
by the Reichstag, and the exceptional laws relating to Alsace-Lorraine
were repealed. Less happy were the efforts of the Prussian government at
the Germanization of Prussian Poland and Schleswig. In the former, in
spite of, or perhaps because of, the attempt to crush the Polish
language and spirit, the Polish element continuously increased,
reinforced by immigrants from across the frontier; in the latter the
Danish language more than held its own, for similar reasons, but the
treaty signed on the 11th of January 1907 between Prussia and Denmark,
as to the status of the Danish "optants" in the duchies, removed the
worst grievance from which the province was suffering (see
SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN QUESTION).
Resignation of Prince von Bulow.
Of more serious import were the yearly and increasing deficits in the
imperial budget, and the consequent enormous growth of the debt. This
was partly due to the commercial and industrial depression of the early
years of the century, partly was another outcome of the federal
constitution, which made it difficult to adjust the budget to the
growing needs of the Empire without disarranging the finances of its
constitutent states. The crisis became acute when the estimates for the
year 1909 showed that some L25,000,000 would have to be raised by
additional taxes, largely to meet the cost of the expanded naval
programme. The budget presented to the Reichstag by Prince Bulow, which
laid new burdens upon the landed and capitalist classes, was fiercely
opposed by the Agrarians, and led to the break-up of the
Liberal-Conservative _bloc_ on whose support the chancellor had relied
since the elections of 1906. The budget was torn to pieces in the
committee selected to report on it; the Liberal members, after a vain
protest, seceded; and the Conservative majority had a free hand to amend
it in accordance with their views. In the long and acrimonious debates
that followed in the Reichstag itself the strange spectacle was
presented of the chancellor fighting a coalition of the Conservatives
and the Catholic Centre with the aid of the Socialists and Liberals. The
contest was from the first hopeless, and, but for the personal request
of the emperor that he would pilot the Finance Bill through the House in
some shape or other, Prince Bulow would have resigned early in the year.
So soon as the budget was passed he once more tendered his resignation,
and on the 14th of July a special edition of the _Imperial Gazette_
announced that it had been accepted by the emperor. The post of imperial
chancellor was at the same time conferred on Theobald von
Bethmann-Hollweg, the imperial secretary of state for the interior.[9]
(W. A. P.)
_Bibliography of German History._--Although the authorities for the
history of Germany may be said to begin with Caesar, it is Tacitus who
is especially useful, his _Germania_ being an invaluable mine of
information about the early inhabitants of the country. In the dark and
disordered centuries which followed there are only a few scanty notices
of the Germans, mainly in the works of foreign writers like Gregory of
Tours and Jordanes; and then the 8th and 9th centuries, the time of the
revival of learning which is associated with the name of Charlemagne, is
reached. By the end of this period Christianity had been firmly
established among most of the German tribes; the monks were the trustees
of the new learning, and we must look mainly, although not exclusively,
to the monasteries for our authorities. The work of the monks generally
took the form of _Annales_ or _Chronica_, and among the numerous German
monasteries which are famous in this connexion may be mentioned Fulda,
Reichenau, St Gall and Lorsch. For contemporary history and also for the
century or so which preceded the lifetimes of their authors these
writings are fairly trustworthy, but beyond this they are little more
than collections of legends. There are also a large number of lives of
saints and churchmen, in which the legendary element is still more
conspicuous.
With regard to the _Annales_ and _Chronica_ three important
considerations must be mentioned. They are local, they are monastic, and
they are partisan. The writer in the Saxon abbey of Corvey, or in the
Franconian abbey of Fulda, knows only about events which happened near
his own doors; he records, it is true, occurrences which rumour has
brought to his ears, but in general he is trustworthy only for the
history of his own neighbourhood. The Saxon and the Franconian annalists
know nothing of the distant Bavarians; there is even a gulf between the
Bavarian and the Swabian. Then the Annals are monastic. To their writers
the affairs of the great world are of less importance than those of the
monastery itself. The Saxon Widukind, for instance, gives more space to
the tale of the martyrdom of St Vitus than he does to several of the
important campaigns of Henry the Fowler. Lastly, the annalist is a
partisan. One is concerned to glorify at all costs the Carolingian
house; another sacrifices almost everything to attack the emperor Henry
IV. and to defend the Papacy; while a third holds a brief for some king
or emperor, like Louis the Pious or Otto the Great.
Two difficulties are met with in giving an account of the sources of
German history. In the 7th, 8th and 9th centuries it is hard, if not
impossible, to disentangle the history of Germany from that of the rest
of the Frankish empire of which it formed part; in fact it is not until
the time of the dissensions between the sons of the emperor Louis I.
that there are any signs of demarcation between the East and the West
Franks, or, in other words, any separate history of Germany. The second
difficulty arises later and is due to the connexion of Germany with the
Empire. Germany was always the great pillar of the imperial power; for
several centuries it was the Empire in everything but in name, and yet
its political history is often overshadowed by the glamour of events in
Italy. While the chroniclers were recording the deeds of Frederick I.
and of Frederick II. in the peninsula, the domestic history of Germany
remained to a large extent unwritten.
Among the early German chroniclers the Saxon Widukind, the author of the
_Res gestae Saxonicae_, is worthy of mention. He was a monk of Corvey,
and his work is the best authority for the early history of Saxony.
Lambert, a monk of Hersfeld, and Widukind's countryman, Bruno, in his
_De bello Saxonico_, tell the story of the great contest between the
emperor Henry IV. and Pope Gregory VII., with special reference to the
Saxon part of the struggle. But perhaps the ablest and the most
serviceable of these early writers is Otto of Freising, a member of the
Babenberg family. Otto was also related to the great house of
Hohenstaufen, a relationship which gave him access to sources of
information usually withheld from the ordinary monastic annalist, and
his work is very valuable for the earlier part of the career of
Frederick I. Something is learned, too, from biographies written by the
monks, of which Einhard's _Vita Karoli Magni_ is the greatest and the
best, and Wipo's life of the emperor Conrad II. is valuable, while
another Carolingian courtier, Nithard, has a special interest as, almost
alone among these early chroniclers, being a soldier and not a monk.
The monastic writers remain our chief authorities until the great change
brought about by the invention of printing, although a certain amount of
work was done by clerical writers attached to the courts of various
rulers. Parallel with this event the revival of learning was producing a
great number of men who could write, and, more important still, of men
who were throwing off the monastic habits of thought and passing into a
new intellectual atmosphere. The Renaissance was followed by the fierce
controversies aroused by the Reformation, and the result was the output
of an enormous mass of writings covering every phase of the mighty
combat and possessing every literary virtue save that of impartiality.
But apart from these polemical writings, many of which had only an
ephemeral value, the Renaissance was the source of another stream of
historical literature. Several princes and other leading personages,
foremost among whom was the emperor Maximilian I., had spent a good deal
of time and money in collecting the manuscripts of the medieval
chroniclers, and these now began to be printed. The chronicle of Otto of
Freising, which appeared in 1515, and the _Vita_ of Einhard, which
appeared six years later, are only two among the many printed at this
time. The publication of collections of chronicles began in 1529, and
the uncritical fashion in which these were reproduced made forgeries
easy and frequent. There was, indeed, more than a zeal for pure learning
behind this new movement; for both parties in the great religious
controversy of the time used these records of the past as a storehouse
of weapons of offence. The Protestants eagerly sought out the writings
which exposed and denounced the arrogance of the popes, while the
Romanists attempted to counter them with the numerous lives of the
saints.
But before the raw material of history thus began to increase enormously
in bulk, it had already begun to change its character and to assume its
modern form. The _Chronicle_ still survived as a medium of conveying
information, though more often than not this was now written by a
layman; but new stores of information were coming into existence, or
rather the old stores were expanding and taking a different form. Very
roughly these may be divided into six sections. (1) Official documents
issued by the emperors and other German rulers. (2) Treaties concluded
between Germany and other powers and also between one German state and
another. (3) Despatches sent to England, Spain and other countries by
their representatives in various parts of Germany. (4) Controversial
writings or treatises written to attack or defend a given position,
largely the product of the Reformation period. (5) The correspondence of
eminent and observant persons. (6) An enormous mass of personal
impressions taking the form of Commentaries, Memoirs and Diaries
(_Tagebucher_). Moreover, important personages still find eulogistic
biographers and defenders, e.g. the fanciful writings about the emperor
Maximilian I. or Pufendorf's _De rebus gestis Friderici Wilhelmi Magni
electoris Brandenburgici_.
Through the dust aroused by the great Reformation controversy appear the
dim beginnings of the scientific spirit in the writing of history, and
in this connexion the name of Aventinus, "the Bavarian Herodotus," may
be mentioned. But for many years hardly any progress was made in this
direction. Even if they possessed the requisite qualifications the
historiographers attached to the courts of the emperor Charles V. and of
lesser potentates could not afford to be impartial. Thus new histories
were written and old ones unearthed, collected and printed, but no
attempt was made to criticize and collate the manuscripts of the past,
or to present two sides of a question in the writings of the present.
Among the collections of authorities made during the 16th and 17th
centuries those of J. Pistorius (Frankfort, 1583-1607), of E. Lindenbrog
(Frankfort, 1609) and of M. Freher (Frankfort, 1600-1611), may be
noticed, although these were only put together and printed in the most
haphazard and unconnected fashion. Passing thus through these two
centuries we reach the beginning of the 18th century and the work done
for German historical scholarship by the philosopher Leibnitz, who
sought to do for his own country what Muratori was doing for Italy. For
some years it had been recognized that the collection and arrangement of
the authorities for German history was too great an undertaking for any
one man, and societies under very influential patronage were founded for
this purpose. But very slight results attended these elaborate schemes,
although their failure did not deter Leibnitz from pursuing the same
end. The two chief collections which were issued by the philosopher are
the _Accessiones historicae_ (1698-1700) and the _Scriptores rerum
Brunsvicensium_; the latter of these, containing documents centring
round the history of the Welf family, was published in three volumes at
Hanover (1707-1711). Leibnitz worked at another collection, the
_Origines Guelficae_, which was completed and issued by his pupils
(Hanover, 1750-1780), and also at _Annales imperii occidentis
Brunsvicenses_, which, although the most valuable collection of the kind
yet made, was not published until edited by G. H. Pertz (Hanover,
1843-1846). Other collections followed those of Leibnitz, among which
may be mentioned the _Corpus historicum medii aevi_ of J. G. Eccard
(Leipzig, 1723) and the _Scriptores rerum Germanicarum_ of J. B. Mencke
(Leipzig, 1728). But these collections are merely heaps of historical
material, good and bad; the documents therein were not examined and they
are now quite superseded. They give, however, evidence of the great
industry of their authors, and are the foundations upon which modern
German scholarship has built.
In the 19th century the scientific spirit received a great impetus from
the German system of education, one feature of which was that the
universities began to require original work for some of their degrees.
In this field of scientific research the Germans were the pioneers, and
in it they are still pre-eminent, with Ranke as their most famous name
and the _Monumenta Germaniae historica_ as their greatest production.
The _Monumenta_ is a critical and ordered collection of documents
relating to the history of Germany between 500 and 1500. It owes its
origin mainly to the efforts of the statesman Stein, who was responsible
for the foundation of the _Gesellschaft fur altere deutsche
Geschichtskunde_, under the auspices of which the work was begun. The
_Gesellschaft_ was established in 1819, and, the editorial work having
been entrusted to G. H. Pertz, the first volume of the _Monumenta_ was
published in 1826. The work was divided into five sections:
_Scriptores_, _Leges_, _Diplomata_, _Epistolae_ and _Antiquitates_, but
it was many years before anything was done with regard to the two
last-named sections. In the three remaining ones, however, folio volumes
were published regularly, and by 1909 thirty folio volumes of
_Scriptores_, five of _Leges_ and one of _Diplomata imperii_ had
appeared. But meanwhile a change of organization had taken place. When
Pertz resigned his editorial position in 1874 and the _Gesellschaft_ was
dissolved, twenty-four folio volumes had been published. The Prussian
Academy of Sciences now made itself responsible for the continuance of
the work, and a board of direction was appointed, the presidents of
which were successively G. Waitz, W. Wattenbach, E. Dummler and O.
Holder-Egger. Soon afterwards as money became more plentiful the scope
of work was extended; the production of the folio volumes continued, but
the five sections were subdivided and in each of these a series of
quarto volumes was issued. The titles of these new sections give a
sufficient idea of their contents. The _Scriptores_ are divided into
_Auctores antiquissimi_, _Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum_, _Scriptores
rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum_, _Libelli de lite imperatorum et
pontificum_, _Gesta pontificum Romanorum_ and _Deutsche Chroniken_, or
_Scriptores qui vernacula lingua usi sunt_. The _Leges_ are divided into
_Leges nationum Germanicarum_, _Capitularia regum Francorum_,
_Concilia_, _Constitutiones imperatorum et regum_ and _Formulae_. Three
quarto volumes of _Diplomata regum et imperatorum Germaniae_ and one of
_Diplomata Karolingorum_ had been published by 1909. Work was also begun
upon the _Antiquitates_ and the _Epistolae_. The sections of the former
are _Poetae Latini medii aevi_, _Libri confraternitatum_ and _Necrologia
Germaniae_, and of the latter _Epistolae saeculi XIII._ and _Epistolae
Merovingici et Karolini aevi_. Meanwhile the publication of the
_Scriptores_ proper continues, although the thirty-first and subsequent
volumes are in quarto and not in folio, and the number of volumes in the
whole undertaking is continually being increased. The archives of the
_Gesellschaft_ have been published in twelve volumes, and a large number
of volumes of the _Neues Archiv_ have appeared. Some of the MSS. have
been printed in facsimile, and an index to the _Monumenta_, edited by O.
Holder-Egger and K. Zeumer, appeared in 1890. The writings of the more
important chroniclers have been published separately, and many of them
have been translated into German.
It will thus be seen that the ground covered by the _Monumenta_ is
enormous. The volumes of the _Scriptores_ contain not only the domestic
chroniclers, but also selections from the work of foreign writers who
give information about the history of Germany--for example, the
Englishman Matthew Paris. In the main these writings are arranged in
chronological order. Each has been edited by an expert, and the various
introductions give evidence of the number of MSS. collated and the great
pains taken to ensure textual accuracy on the part of the different
editors, among whom may be mentioned Mommsen and Lappenberg. Other great
names in German historical scholarship have also assisted in this work.
In addition to Waitz the _Leges_ section has enjoyed the services of F.
Bluhme and of H. Brunner, and the _Diplomata_ section of T. Sickel, H.
Bresslau and E. Muhlbacher.
The progress of the _Monumenta_ stimulated the production of other works
of a like nature, and among the smaller collections of authorities which
appeared during the 19th century two are worthy of mention. These are
the _Fontes rerum Germanicarum_, edited by J. F. Bohmer (Stuttgart,
1843-1868), a collection of sources of the 12th, 13th and 14th
centuries, and the _Bibliotheca rerum Germanicarum_, edited by Ph.
Jaffe (Berlin, 1864-1873). Another development followed the production
of the _Monumenta_, this being the establishment in most of the German
states of societies the object of which was to foster the study of local
history. Reference may be made to a _Verein_ for this purpose in Saxony
and to others in Silesia and in Mecklenburg. Much has also been done in
Prussia, in Brandenburg, in Bavaria, in Hanover, in Wurttemberg and in
Baden, and collections of authorities have been made by competent
scholars, of which the _Geschichtsquellen der Provinz Sachsen und
angrenzender Gebiete_ (Halle, 1870, fol.), which extends to forty
volumes, the smaller _Scriptores rerum Prussicarum_ (Leipzig,
1861-1874), and the seventy-seven volumes of the _Publikationen aus den
koniglichen preussischen Staatsarchiven, veranlasst und unterstutzt
durch die konigliche Archiverwaltung_ (Leipzig, 1878, fol.), may be
cited as examples. The cities have followed the same path and their
archives are being thoroughly examined. In 1836 an _Urkundenbuch_ of
Frankfort was published, and this example has been widely followed, the
work done in Cologne, in Bremen and in Mainz being perhaps specially
noticeable. Moreover an historical commission at Munich has published
twenty-eight volumes in the series _Die Chroniken der deutschen Stadte
vom 14. bis ins 16. Jahrhundert_ (Leipzig, 1862, fol.). Lastly, many
documents relating to the great families of Germany, among them those of
Hohenzollern and of Wittelsbach, have been carefully edited and given to
the world.
With this great mass of material collected, sifted and edited by
scholars of the highest standing it is not surprising that modern works
on the history of Germany are stupendous in number and are generally of
profound learning, and this in spite of the fact that some German
historians--Gregorovius, Pauli and Lappenberg, for example--have devoted
their time to researches into the history of foreign lands.
The earliest period is dealt with by K. Zeuss in _Die Deutschen und
die Nachbarstamme_ (Munich, 1837; new ed., Gottingen, 1904); and then
by F. Dahn in his _Urgeschichte der germanischen und romanischen
Volker_ (Berlin, 1880-1889) and his _Die Konige der Germanen_, volumes
of which have appeared at intervals between 1861 and 1909.
The Carolingian time is covered by E. Dummler's _Geschichte des
ostfrankischen Reichs_ (Leipzig, 1887-1888), and then follow Ranke's
_Jahrbucher des deutschen Reichs unter dem sachsischen Hause_ (Berlin,
1837-1840), W. von Giesebrecht's _Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit_
(1855-1888), and F. Raumer's _Geschichte der Hohenstaufen_.
For the reigns of Lothair the Saxon and Conrad III. P. Jaffe's books,
_Geschichte des deutschen Reiches unter Lothar dem Sachsen_ (Berlin,
1843) and _Geschichte des deutschen Reiches unter Conrad III._
(Hanover, 1845), may be consulted.
The chief histories on the period between the fall of the Hohenstaufen
and the Renaissance are: T. Lindner, _Deutsche Geschichte unter den
Habsburgern und Luxemburgern_ (Stuttgart, 1888-1893); O. Lorenz,
_Deutsche Geschichte im 13. und 14. Jahrhundert_ (Vienna, 1863-1867);
J. Aschbach, _Geschichte Kaiser Sigmunds_ (Hamburg, 1838-1845); K.
Fischer, _Deutsches Leben und deutsche Zustande von der
Hohenstaufenzeit bis ins Reformationszeitalter_ (Gotha, 1884); V. von
Kraus, _Deutsche Geschichte im Ausgange des Mittelalters_ (Stuttgart,
1888-1905), and A. Bachmann, _Deutsche Reichsgeschichte im Zeitalter
Friedrichs III. und Maximilians I._ (Leipzig, 1884-1894).
The two greatest works on the Reformation period are L. von Ranke's
_Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation_ (Leipzig, 1882) and
J. Janssen's _Geschichte des deutschen Volkes seit dem Ausgang des
Mittelalters_ (1897-1903). Other works which may be mentioned are: F.
B. von Bucholtz, _Geschichte der Regierung Ferdinands I._ (Vienna,
1831-1838); C. Egelhaaf, _Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der
Reformation_ (Berlin, 1893), and F. von Bezold, _Geschichte der
deutschen Reformation_ (Berlin, 1890).
For the years after the Reformation we have Ranke, _Zur deutschen
Geschichte--Vom Religionsfrieden bis zum 30-jahrigen Kriege_ (Leipzig,
1888); M. Ritter, _Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der
Gegenreformation und des dreissigjahrigen Krieges_ (Stuttgart, 1887,
fol.); G. Droysen, _Geschichte der Gegenreformation_ (Berlin, 1893);
A. Gindely, _Rudolf II. und seine Zeit_ (Prague, 1862-1868) and
_Geschichte des dreissigjahrigen Krieges_ (Prague, 1869-1880).
Gindely's book is, of course, only one among an enormous number of
works on the Thirty Years' War.
For the period leading up to the time of Frederick the Great we have
B. Erdmannsdorffer, _Deutsche Geschichte vom Westfalischen Frieden bis
zum Regierungsantritt Friedrichs des Grossen_ (Berlin, 1892-1893); and
then follow Ranke, _Zur Geschichte von Osterreich und Preussen
zwischen den Friedensschlussen von Aachen und Hubertusburg_ (Leipzig,
1875) and _Die deutschen Machte und der Furstenbund_ (Leipzig,
1871-1872); K. Biedermann, _Deutschland im 18. Jahrhundert_ (Leipzig,
1854-1880); W. Oncken, _Das Zeitalter Friedrichs des Grossen_ (Berlin,
1880-1882); A. von Arneth, _Geschichte Maria Theresias_ (Vienna,
1863-1879); L. Hausser, _Deutsche Geschichte vom Tode Friedrichs des
Grossen bis zur Grundung des Deutschen Bundes_ (Berlin, 1861-1863),
and K. T. von Heigel, _Deutsche Geschichte vom Tode Friedrichs des
Grossen bis zur Auflosung des alten Reichs_ (Stuttgart, 1899, fol.).
For the 19th century we may mention: H. von Treitschke, _Deutsche
Geschichte im 19. Jahrhundert_ (Leipzig, 1879-1894); H. von Sybel,
_Die Begrundung des deutschen Reiches durch Wilhelm I._ (Munich,
1889-1894); G. Kaufmann, _Politische Geschichte Deutschlands im 19.
Jahrhundert_ (Berlin, 1900), and H. von Zwiedeneck-Sudenhorst,
_Deutsche Geschichte von der Auflosung des alten bis zur Grundung des
neuen Reiches_ (Stuttgart, 1897-1905). These are perhaps the most
important, but there are many others of which the following is a
selection: K. Fischer, _Die Nation und der Bundestag_ (Leipzig, 1880);
K. Klupfel, _Geschichte der deutschen Einheitsbestrebungen bis zu
ihrer Erfullung_ (Berlin, 1872-1873); H. Blum, _Die deutsche
Revolution_ 1848-1849 (Florence, 1897) and _Das deutsche Reich zur
Zeit Bismarcks_ (Leipzig, 1893); W. Maurenbrecher, _Grundung des
deutschen Reiches_ (Leipzig, 1892); H. Friedjung, _Der Kampf um die
Vorherrschaft in Deutschland_ 1859-1866 (Stuttgart, 1897); C. von
Kaltenborn, _Geschichte der deutschen Bundesverhaltnisse und
Einheitsbestrebungen von 1806-1856_ (Berlin, 1857); J. Jastrow,
_Geschichte des deutschen Einheitstraumes und seiner Erfullung_
(Berlin, 1885), and P. Kloppel, _Dreissig Jahre deutscher
Verfassungsgeschichte_ (Leipzig, 1900).
For the most recent developments of German politics see H. Schulthess,
_Europaischer Geschichtskalender_ (Nordlingen, 1861, fol., a work
similar to the English _Annual Register_); W. Muller and K.
Wippermann, _Politische Geschichte der Gegenwart_ (Berlin, 1868,
fol.); the _Statistisches Jahrbuch des deutschen Reichs_, and A. L.
Lowell, _Governments and Parties in Continental Europe_ (1896).
A good general history of Germany is the _Bibliothek deutscher
Geschichte_, edited by H. von Zwiedeneck-Sudenhorst (Stuttgart, 1876,
fol.). Other general histories, although on a smaller scale, are K.
Lamprecht, _Deutsche Geschichte_ (Berlin, 1891-1896); O. Kammel,
_Deutsche Geschichte_ (Dresden, 1889); K. Biedermann, _Deutsche Volks-
und Kulturgeschichte_ (Wiesbaden, 1885); T. Lindner, _Geschichte des
deutschen Volks_ (Stuttgart, 1894); the _Handbuch der deutschen
Geschichte_, edited by B. Gebhardt (Stuttgart, 1901), and K. W.
Nitzsch, _Geschichte des deutschen Volkes bis zum Augsburger
Religionsfrieden_ (Leipzig, 1883-1885).
Special reference is deservedly made to three works of the highest
value. These are J. G. Droysen's great _Geschichte der preussischen
Politik_ (Berlin, 1855-1886); the _Deutsche Reichstagsakten_, the
first series of which was published at Munich (1867, fol.) and the
second at Gotha (1893-1901); and the collection known as the _Regesta
imperii_, which owes its existence to the labours of J. F. Bohmer.
Nearly the whole of the period between 751 and 1347 is covered by
these volumes; the charters and other documents of some of the German
kings being edited by Bohmer himself, and new and enlarged editions of
certain sections have been brought out by J. Ficker, E. Winkelmann and
others. Much useful information on the history of different periods is
contained in the lives of individual emperors and others. Among these
are H. Prutz, _Kaiser Friedrich I._ (Danzig, 1871-1874); F. W.
Schirrmacher, _Kaiser Friedrich II._ (Gottingen, 1859-1865); H.
Ulmann, _Kaiser Maximilian I._ (Stuttgart, 1884-1891); F. von Hurter,
_Geschichte Kaiser Ferdinands II._ (Schaffhausen, 1857-1864), and H.
Blum, _Furst Bismarck und seine Zeit_ (Munich, 1895). There is also
the great series of volumes, primary and supplementary, forming the
_Allgemeine deutsche Biographie_ (Leipzig, 1875, fol.), in which the
word _deutsche_ is interpreted in the widest possible sense.
Apart from political histories there are useful collections of laws
and other official documents of importance, and also a large number of
valuable works on the laws and constitutions of the Germans and on
German institutions generally. Among the collections are M. Goldast,
_Collectio constitutionum imperialium_ (1613; new and enlarged
edition, 1673); the _Capitulationes imperatorum et regum
Romana-Germanorum_ (Strassburg, 1851) of Johann Limnaus, and the
_Corpus juris Germanici antiqui_ (Berlin, 1824) of F. Walter.
Collections dealing with more recent history are J. C. Glaser's
_Archiv des norddeutschen Bundes. Sammlung aller Gesetze, Vertrage und
Aktenstucke, die Verhaltnisse des norddeutschen Bundes betreffend_
(Berlin, 1867); W. Jungermann's _Archiv des deutschen Reiches_
(Berlin, 1873, fol.), and the _Acta Borussica. Denkmaler der
preussischen Staatsverwaltung im 18. Jahrhundert_ (Berlin, 1892,
fol.). Mention may also be made of C. C. Homeyer's edition of the
_Sachsenspiegel_ and L. A. von Lassberg's edition of the
_Schwabenspiegel_; the many volumes of Wallenstein's letters and
papers; the eighteen volumes of the _Urkunden und Aktenstucke zur
Geschichte des Kurfursten Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg_ (Berlin,
1864, fol.); and the thirty volumes of the _Politische Korrespondenz
Friedrichs des Grossen_ (Berlin, 1879-1905). Modern writers on these
subjects distinguished for their learning are G. Waitz (_Deutsche
Verfassungsgeschichte_, Kiel and Berlin, 1844, fol.) and G. L. von
Maurer (_Geschichte der Stadteverfassung in Deutschland_, Erlangen,
1869-1871, and other cognate writings), their works being valuable not
only for the early institutions of the Germans, but also for those of
other Teutonic peoples. Other works on the German constitution and
German laws are K. F. Eichhorn, _Deutsche Staats- und
Rechtsgeschichte_ (Gottingen, 1843-1844); R. Schroder, _Lehrbuch der
deutschen Rechtsgeschichte_ (Leipzig, 1889 and again 1902); H.
Brunner, _Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte_ (Leipzig, 1887-1892), and
_Grundzuge der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte_ (Leipzig, 1901-1903), and
E. Mayer, _Deutsche und franzosische Verfassungsgeschichte vom 9.-11.
Jahrhundert_ (Leipzig, 1899).
Manners and customs are dealt with in J. Scherr's _Deutsche Kultur-
und Sittengeschichte_ (Leipzig, 1852-1853); J. Lippert's _Deutsche
Sittengeschichte_ (Vienna and Prague, 1889); O. Henne am Rhyn's
_Kulturgeschichte des deutschen Volkes_ (Berlin, 1886); the
_Geschichte des deutschen Volkes und seiner Kultur im Mittelalter_
(Leipzig, 1891-1898) of H. Gerdes, and F. von Loher's
_Kulturgeschichte der Deutschen im Mittelalter_ (Munich, 1891-1894).
Among the works on husbandry may be mentioned: K. Bucher, _Die
Entstehung der Volkswirtschaft_ (Tubingen, 1893); K. T. von
Inama-Sternegg, _Deutsche Wirtschaftsgeschichte_ (Leipzig, 1879-1901),
and K. Lamprecht, _Deutsches Wirtschaftsleben im Mittelalter_
(Leipzig, 1886). For antiquities see M. Heyne, _Funf Bucher deutscher
Hausaltertumer von den altesten geschichtlichen Zeiten bis zum 16.
Jahrhundert_ (Leipzig, 1899-1903), and L. Lindenschmit, _Handbuch der
deutschen Altertumskunde_ (Brunswick, 1880-1889). For the history of
the German church see A. Hauck, _Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands_
(Leipzig, 1887-1903); F. W. Rettberg, _Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands_
(Gottingen, 1846-1848), and J. Friedrich, _Kirchengeschichte
Deutschlands_ (Bamberg, 1867-1869). For finance see K. D. Hullmann,
_Deutsche Finanzgeschichte des Mittelalters_ (1805); for the
administration of justice, O. Franklin, _Das Reichshofgericht im
Mittelalter_ (Weimar, 1867-1869), and A. Stolzel, _Die Entwicklung des
gelehrten Richtertums in deutschen Territorien_ (Stuttgart, 1872); for
the towns and their people see J. Jastrow, _Die Volkszahl deutscher
Stadte zu Ende des Mittelalters und zu Beginn der Neuzeit_ (Berlin,
1886); F. W. Barthold, _Geschichte der deutschen Stadte und des
deutschen Burgertums_ (Leipzig, 1850-1854), and K. Hegel, _Stadte und
Gilden der germanischen Volker im Mittelalter_ (Leipzig, 1891); and
for manufactures and commerce see J. Falke, _Die Geschichte des
deutschen Handels_ (Leipzig, 1859-1860); H. A. Mascher, _Das deutsche
Gewerbewesen von der fruhesten Zeit bis auf die Gegenwart_ (Potsdam,
1866); F. W. Stahl, _Das deutsche Handwerk_ (Giessen, 1874); the
numerous writings on the history of the Hanseatic League and other
works. The nobles and the other social classes have each their
separate histories, among these being C. F. F. von Strantz,
_Geschichte des deutschen Adels_ (Breslau, 1845), and K. H. Roth von
Schreckenstein, _Die Ritterwurde und der Ritterstand_ (Freiburg,
1866).
The Germans have produced some excellent historical atlases, among
them K. von Spruner's _Historisch-geographischer Handatlas_ (Gotha,
1853); a new edition of this by T. Menke called _Handatlas fur die
Geschichte des Mittelalters und der neueren Zeit_ (Gotha, 1880), and
G. Droysen's _Allgemeiner historischer Handatlas_ (Leipzig, 1886). The
historical geography of Germany is dealt with in B. Knull's
_Historische Geographie Deutschlands im Mittelalter_ (Breslau, 1903);
in F. H. Muller's _Die deutschen Stamme und ihre Fursten_ (Hamburg,
1852), and in many other works referring to the different parts of the
country.
English books on the history of Germany are not very numerous. There
is a short _History of Germany_ by James Sime (1874), another by E. F.
Henderson (1902), and _A History of Germany 1715-1815_ by C. T.
Atkinson (1909). H. A. L. Fisher's _Medieval Empire_ (1898) is very
useful for the earlier period, and J. Bryce's _Holy Roman Empire_ is
indispensable. There is a translation of Janssen's _Geschichte_ by M.
A. Mitchell and A. M. Christie (1896, fol.), and there are useful
chapters in the different volumes of the _Cambridge Modern History_.
Two English historians have distinguished themselves by their work on
special periods: Carlyle with his _History of Friedrich II., called
the Great_ (1872-1873), and W. Robertson with his _History of the
Reign of Charles V._ (1820). There is also E. Armstrong's Charles V.
(London, 1902). Among German historical periodicals are the
_Historische Zeitschrift_, long associated with the name of H. von
Sybel, and the _Historisches Jahrbuch_.
In guides to the historical sources and to modern historical works
Germany is well served. There is the _Quellenkunde der deutschen
Geschichte_ (Leipzig, 1906) of Dahlmann-Waitz, a most compendious
volume, and the learned _Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im
Mittelalter_ (Berlin, 1893-1894) of W. Wattenbach; A. Potthast's
_Bibliotheca historica medii aevi_ (Berlin, 1896), and the
_Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen seit der Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts_
(Berlin, 1886-1887) of O. Lorenz and A. Goldmann. (A. W. H.*)