The History Teacher's Magazine (Vol. I, No. 1)

---

The History Teacher’s Magazine

---

---

---

---

Editorial comment upon the plans for the conduct of the Magazine is unnecessary. A general statement of the character of the paper will be found on the first page of the cover, and a list of the editors is given on the second page. Professor McLaughlin’s letter shows the existing need, and the field which the paper should occupy. But the best introduction to their fellow teachers of history and civics which the editors can have, is to be found in the nature of the articles printed in this number. It has been the aim to make these articles stimulating, leading to higher professional standards; to make them practical, leading to valuable suggestions for the conduct of history classes; and to have them conduce to the formation of a stronger union, a better esprit de corps, among history teachers.

Leaving normal school, college, or graduate school, the young teacher of history, if he or she is fortunate enough to get a chance to teach his own subject at once, enters a high school, or small college, where, in many cases, he is permitted to work out his own pedagogical salvation. From alma mater he has brought a knowledge of certain methods of history teaching practised upon him by his own instructors, together with detailed information respecting several narrow fields of human history. Rarely has he received in college or graduate school any intimation of the best methods to be pursued in secondary school history teaching. Rarely does he in his new position receive much inspiration or advice concerning his actual class work from his administrative superiors.

Left to his own resources, often losing contact with his former instructors and intellectual leaders, he may lose energy, ambition, outlook, and become at last a dreaded teacher of a dreadful subject.

On the other hand the young teacher, if he succeeds, keeps in contact with the best thought in his profession, and grows as the profession grows. He will seek the acquaintance of other and more experienced history teachers, as a business man must be acquainted in his own line of business; he will keep in touch with new historical works, the latest reviews and magazines; and, if he can do it without sacrificing his duty to his class, he will engage in some original historical work. But best of all, he will remain a good teacher, opening the doors upon vistas which will delight and lure the student into many an untraveled intellectual path.

There is no more important time in the whole year’s work than the first few class exercises. In these days administrative details are to be attended to, new students are coming in late, the weather is hot, and the students are unaccustomed to study; all these and many other distractions tend to prevent the smooth running of the class work. There is a temptation to laxness both on the part of student and of instructor; and many a good instructor’s work is made more difficult in the next few weeks because he and his class did not begin aright. Instead of slighting the work of these opening days, the teacher should treat it more carefully, and plan it more definitely than any other part of the course.

In the first place the teacher must be sure to make a good impression upon his class in the opening days,—a good impression not in the purely personal sense, but in the pedagogical sense of winning respect for his position, maintaining the dignity of his subject, and awakening the interest of his students. Such a good impression is to be gained not by amusing the students, nor by witty cynicisms, nor by severe discipline alone. There must be a combination of tact and strength, of sympathy and precision; above all there should be nothing in the dress, attitude, or language of the teacher which will lead the students to ridicule him.

Secondly, the opportunity should be taken in the opening days to impress clearly upon the class the character of the work to be required of them. There should be a frank understanding between teacher and scholar upon the methods of acquiring knowledge, the methods of keeping notes, the forms of recitations, tests, and examinations, and the occasional use of reports, maps, debates, or lectures. The teacher should know exactly what he or she intends doing, and he should, so far as is necessary for the proper conduct of the class, explain his plans to the class. Better be too definite upon this point, than not to give enough. Of course, it is not best to take out altogether the element of surprise from the work; but this element can best be given by the nature of the subject matter as it unfolds before the class, rather than by sudden changes in the method of conducting the class.

Another important topic to be considered at the beginning of the course is the reason for the study of the chosen field of history. Of what value is this particular story? What influence has this country had upon the world’s history? How has this influence persisted down into the student’s own life? The pupil’s interest should be aroused by showing the relation of the period to be studied to the civilization of his own nation. If the study is Grecian history, for instance, the teacher can show the influence of Greek literature and religion upon our own literature; the influence of Greek philosophy and science upon the Middle Ages and ultimately upon ourselves; and the influence of Greek art, particularly in architecture, throughout this country, which, through its passion for Greek democracy, has copied extensively not only Greek names of persons and places, but also all of its styles of architecture and decoration.

Next, the teacher should take up the geography of the country to be studied; pointing out its situation upon the general map of the world, its coast-lines, its rivers and mountains, its natural products, its lines of trade and communication. In nearly all the countries he must study there will be seen a geographical unity which can be easily comprehended by the student. Mesopotamia, the Nile Valley, Greece, the Mediterranean world, and England all possess a geographical simplicity which appeals to the weakest student. In the case of European history and American history the case is somewhat complicated by the variety of geographical conditions; but this very variety should be shown to be one of the reasons for the subsequent splitting of Europe into separate states, and for the variation of political and social ideals throughout the United States.

Lastly, before approaching his proper subject, the history teacher should relate his chosen field of history to that of previous nations. This work is usually done for the teacher by the text-book makers. In English history we have chapters upon pre-historic man, the Britons, and the Romans, before the Anglo-Saxons are reached; in ancient history the relation of the Greeks to earlier civilizations is discussed; in European history, the Roman Empire or Charlemagne’s Empire will be presented; while in American history we have the great problem of the European background.

If the teacher has successfully thought out these several introductory topics, and presented them well to the class, then the pupils will be ready to enter upon their study with force and interest. They should have acquired respect for the instructor; have become certain of what is expected of them; have gained interest because the study touches their own life; and have obtained the antecedent geographical and historical knowledge necessary to a good understanding of the subject.

---

DISCUSSED IN A LETTER FROM PROFESSOR ANDREW C. McLAUGHLIN, HEAD OF HISTORY DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Editor The History Teacher’s Magazine:

A magazine devoted to the interests and the problems of the history teacher ought to be of service. We all have so much to learn, our tasks are so perplexing and trying, that we can profit much by the experience of others and gain something by discussion and exchange of opinions. This is true even if we admit that all can not follow the same route and use the same methods, and that, in history teaching, success depends in a peculiar degree on character, aptitude, and native skill. We are in special need of helpful discussion, because we are still considering the elementary phases of our profession; we are not confident of the curriculum; we have no clear common opinion as to the purpose and end of historical instruction; we are pondering dubiously the problems that have long since been solved for other studies in the program. In such respects we are notably far behind the teachers of the classics, mathematics or physics; in fact, we are probably behind the teachers of all other subjects commonly taught in the schools, for, despite the grumblings and complaints of the ubiquitous critic, English itself, our former companion in unhappiness, has found a régime and a method and is gaining in confidence and self-respect. We are further along, it is true, than we were a decade ago; but we are far from agreement and still further from perfection.

I sometimes think when I grow weary of the interminable discussion of the history curriculum that there is no need of our trying to establish anything like uniformity, and that the safest and easiest way is to tell every program-maker to go his own way and every teacher to do what he likes; but I know that such despondency is weakness, that in all probability we can reach substantial agreement, and that, until we have a general, if incomplete, consensus concerning the sequence of studies from kindergarten to university, we cannot discuss, as we should, many other topics that demand consideration. We must remember, too, when we find ourselves involved in wearying argument about the mere framework of the curriculum, that history as an educational subject is but a child of yesterday—or to-morrow; and that it has to find its place and justify itself by results, in competition with subjects like Latin, which have been taught ever since the Renaissance, or indeed ever since flogging Orbilius applied the stimulating birch to Horace. And so, we must be patient as well as eager and appreciate the difficulties of our problem.

There are so many topics pressing for immediate consideration that I am tempted to prolong what I mean to be a brief letter into a catalogue of our necessities; but I will allow myself only one word. There is a wide-spread complaint that, with all the time given to history, much more time than was commonly given ten years ago, pupils leave the high schools with indefinite knowledge—I had almost said with indefinite ignorance—of the subject. College teachers are perplexed and discouraged by the frailty and inaccuracy of the students’ attainments when the students first appear in their classes; perhaps there is like cause for discouragement when they disappear from their classes. The cold fact is that our boys and girls too often do not have distinct, decided, accurate information; but have aptitude in guessing, supposing, and approximating. The first thing, then, that we need to consider is this: Can we make the most and get the best from the newer methods of teaching? Can we teach students to handle books and to think as well as remember? Can we give them the historical idea and the historical point of view? Can we stimulate them to read and arouse their imagination? Can we do these things, and still be sure that this information is exact, that they have reverence for truth, and that what they have learned is firmly fastened in their minds? If we cannot, I fear that sooner or later we shall all slip back quickly into the old rote method and make each day’s lesson an unalloyed grind on an unvarying modicum of unadorned and unadorning fact; and when we do slip back thus far, we might as well slip out of the school room altogether, for there is no time or place in the school for history instruction that is content with stuffing minds with dates and names. Our task, then, is to get and to give all the educational value of history; and experience proves that the task is a heavy one. We all hope that the new journal will help us lift the load and carry it.

Cordially, A. C. McLaughlin.

---

The summer school admittedly is organized for the benefit of teachers who wish to gain intellectually, or advance themselves in their profession by study in the vacation time. There are indeed in the summer school regular students who are making up conditions, or ambitious undergraduates seeking to shorten their course; but these are a negligible quantity.

Glancing through the announcements of some twenty-five of these summer schools, located from Maine to California and from Minnesota to Louisiana, one notices that the history courses fall into three groups. First, and most numerous is the group containing the usual college work in history. In many respects these courses are valuable for the teacher-student; they ignore his official position, and treating him impersonally, simply place him as student before the historical material. He gains not only by virtue of the cultural value of his study, but by the reversal of his usual position.

In the second group of courses may be mentioned those which deal with American local history. Professor Dodd at the University of Chicago gives a course in the history of the South, and a seminar in the history of Secession; Professor J. L. Couger at the University of Illinois, gives a history of nullification; Professor W. L. Fleming, of the University of Louisiana, gives a course in the history of Louisiana, and Professor U. B. Phillips, at Tulane University, one in the history of the South. There are several announcements of classes in the Reconstruction period. The history of the West is presented by Professor Turner at Wisconsin, and Professor F. L. Paxson at the University of Chicago. Courses in the history of Mexico and of Spain are given by Prof. E. A. Chavey at the University of California.

The courses in the third group are concerned with the methods of teaching history and civil government. The purpose of such work is well expressed in Professor G. C. Sellery’s announcement of his course in the University of Wisconsin: “The primary object of the course is to lay the foundation for a method which will enable high-school teachers to assign and pupils to prepare history work with definiteness and effectiveness.” Broader in plan is the course of Professor George L. Burr at Cornell, which discusses “what history is, what it is for, what are its materials and its methods, what its relations to neighbor studies, how to read history, how to study it, how to teach it, how to write it.” Less of the theory and more of the practical is given in such courses as those of Dr. James Sullivan, at Harvard; Professor Scholz, at the University of California; Professor Trenholme, at University of Missouri; Professor Robertson, at Indiana University; Dr. Arthur M. Wolfson, at Tennessee, and that of Professor Fleming, at Louisiana.

Methods of teaching civil government are discussed by Dr. Reed, at California; Dr. Lunt, at Harvard; Professor Woodburn, at Cornell, and Prof. Schaper, at Minnesota.

---

PROFESSOR FRED MORROW FLING, OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA.

I have been asked to write an article explaining “just how a source book is to be used, its relation to the text-book, the kind of information and the kind of training a careful teacher can impart through it and the advantage it offers over the exclusive use of secondary material.” Instead of answering the whole question and treating of all the uses of the source book, it seemed wise to treat but one, the most characteristic use to which the sources could be put, namely, the critical study of sources as evidence, for the purpose of training the pupil in the methods of historical proof. The importance that I attach to this matter of method is due to my conception of educational theory and of the logic of historical science. About this broader basis upon which the teaching of history must rest, it may be well to say a word by way of preface.

Personally I am in hearty sympathy with the new educational theory that attributes more importance to method than to matter. Professor Lanson, of the University of Paris, the distinguished historian of French literature, has given so satisfactory a formulation of the aims of this theory in its application to secondary education that I cannot do better than reproduce his statement.[1]

“Now it is necessary,” he writes, “to prove that what we need to-day is minds scientifically trained. Let us understand by this word (scientifically) that sounds so ambitious, minds that have the taste or the sense for the true, that carry into all their actions a serious desire for clear and exact knowledge, that are conscious of the difficulties and dangers that one encounters in the pursuit of or in the elaboration of truth, that distrusting everybody, themselves as well as others, take all the precautions indicated in each case in order not to deceive themselves or to be deceived: these precautions are what we call methods. The methodical search for truth? There, in a word, is what the scientific spirit means and to make it dominate in secondary education is to subordinate all studies to the idea that their common end, their convergent directions ought to be to fashion minds that all their lives, in all things will know how to practice the methodical search for truth.... In every study and exercise, the aim of the master ought to be to develop in the minds of his pupils the sense and the taste for truth, to cause them to note how in each subject the truth is found or missed, to put them, finally, in possession of a certain method or discipline appropriate to a certain object. It is not a matter of having them learn a large number of laws or facts, but, by well-chosen examples, to learn what a mathematical truth is and how it is elaborated; likewise a chemical truth, a physiological truth, an astronomical truth and a historical truth. How does each of these truths of different orders come into existence? By what means does it separate itself from other truths? What are the signs by which we recognize it as truth? There is the knowledge that ought to be the principal result of their studies. The young people ought to leave the high school having learned well what the principal methods are by which human knowledge is formed and to what objects, for what results, each method is applied. They ought, on leaving school, to be trained to do nothing without method, without a method chosen with discernment, according to the object to be known or the end to be attained.”

This appeals to me as the application to education of the best recent thought in philosophy and logic. Now the interesting thing is that in this country, where the mass of the teachers would probably reject the theory and where supreme emphasis is being laid on the acquisition of information as the goal of educational effort, the teachers of natural science are doing the very thing the theory demands, namely, teaching methods or processes by which one can get at the truth or test what is supposed to be the truth in natural science, and giving along with the knowledge of these processes but a modicum of information. The information acquired in a laboratory course is not sufficient to justify the time given to the course. But it is not necessary to justify it on any such ground. M. Lanson has given the theory of which this natural science laboratory work is the application. It only remains to become conscious of what it means, to extend the same method to other studies and a great revolution has been wrought in education, perhaps the greatest in the history of pedagogy.

No subject would be more transformed in its teaching by the introduction of method work than history. But what is history? What are the materials with which the student works and what the method by which he arrives at historical truth? What is proof in historical study? The teacher of history must be able to give an answer to these questions, if he would do his work intelligently and effectively.

What is history? How does it differ in its aims and methods from natural science, from political and economic science, from sociology? According to the new logic, the differences are fundamental. History concerns itself with the unique evolution of man in his activities as a social being. It deals with human potentialities in their teleological connections. Out of past social facts it selects the unique facts that have a value for the period that is being studied and groups these facts in complex, evolving wholes. History does not seek for what is common to the social facts of the past; it does not attempt to generalize, to establish laws. It could not if it would, for it deals with facts that have occurred but once, that will not occur again, and a generalization assumes repetition. The natural sciences, on the other hand, including economics, political science and sociology, deal with substances and causal law. They select for their syntheses what is common to a group of facts; they generalize, they aim to establish laws, to formulate the conditions under which a thing will repeat itself. Their ideal is the organization of reality under the point of view of the general. There is, of course, but one reality and natural science and history are simply two logical methods evolved by the human mind for the purpose of organizing it that it may be comprehended. The ends of the two methods are different, and their methods of getting at the truth are different. The student trained in the one method is not necessarily acquainted with the other.

The natural science method consists of a direct study of the facts, and, as it is not concerned with the unique as unique, it may create situations and conditions, thus securing abundant data for generalization. For the historian this is impossible. He studies not the fact, as the natural scientist studies plants, animals and chemicals in the laboratory; he has only the record of the fact, the fact itself having gone never to return. His knowledge of the fact will depend upon the abundance and value of the records the fact has left behind it. Such records we call sources. Sources, then, are the remains of man’s social activities. They fall naturally into two groups: remains and tradition. Remains consist of objects that were parts of the past event, and have survived the destructive action of time; tradition embraces the impressions of the event recorded by witnesses, and may be oral, written or pictorial in form. The historical reconstruction, found in the narrative text, is based, in a large majority of cases, upon written tradition.

What is the method employed by the historian in restoring the past from a study of the sources? In simple language what he does is this: he selects a subject for investigation, searches for all the sources that can throw any light upon it, criticises these sources to determine their value and relationship, compares the affirmations contained in them to learn what the fact was, and, finally, groups these facts in a complex whole. It is only through an acquaintance with this process, through the practical application of it, that the pupil really learns what the grounds for historical belief are and is able to distinguish between fact and fiction. No amount of reading, even of the sources, can ever take the place of this critical training in the historical method, just as no amount of text-book work in natural science can ever take the place of the knowledge of method obtained by actual work at the laboratory table. I am aware that there are well-known teachers and even very distinguished writers of history in this country who treat this idea of training in historical method, even for undergraduates in colleges, as a matter not worthy of serious consideration. Notwithstanding this opposition in high places, I am of the opinion that the method can be taught and that it should be taught and that in teaching it results have been obtained that are quite as encouraging, it seems to me, as those obtained in the laboratories of the natural sciences. Most of the arguments made against the teaching of method in the secondary schools are quite aside from the question. It is not to the point to emphasize the difficulties of historical work, the impossibility of obtaining from young people results that can be obtained only by trained investigators, or the unwisdom of investigating subjects that have never been investigated before, although, for my part, I can see no serious objection to this last course. All that the sensible teacher, who knows what he is about, expects to accomplish by the critical study of the sources is to open the eyes of his students to the meaning of proof in history, to create an attitude of healthy scepticism and to put into their hands an instrument for getting at the truth that they will have occasion to use every hour in the day. If it is worth while to acquaint the student with the methods of the natural sciences—and I believe that it is—it is certainly imperatively important to give him some training in the use of proof touching the truth of things that he is constantly concerned with, namely, the facts of social life. This position seems so self-evident to me that I can hardly conceive it possible that a teacher, who accepts the new theory of education and realizes the meaning of historical method, would take any exceptions to it. It might, however, be objected that, while the method ought to be taught, it is not practicable to teach it. It is to this objection that the rest of the paper will be addressed.

It is well to concede at the outset that historical method cannot be taught successfully by a teacher who does not know what it means or who has never applied the method, i. e., done some research work. But perhaps nothing would contribute more to the development of a poorly-trained history teacher than to oblige him to teach the method; he would be forced to learn something about it! It is because we have not emphasized the method, because we have not required our candidates for positions as teachers of history to know how to investigate—what would we think of a teacher of chemistry who could not direct the work in the laboratory!—that we have so much absolutely impossible history teaching. The question is, then, can a teacher who knows what historical proof means successfully conduct exercises in historical method in a high school? I think there can be no doubt of it. It is being done.

To conduct the work successfully a source book, differing in some respects from the majority of source books, is needed. There are two kinds of historical facts: one class can be established by a single source, the other—and this is the more difficult, but at the same time the more valuable as training—can be proved to be true only by the agreement of independent sources or witnesses. For this last kind of work more than two sources treating of the same event are necessary. As the most of the source books are only intended to supply collateral reading, they contain little material that could be used for critical exercises. My source book on Greek history contains some such exercises, and it would be a matter of no great difficulty to supplement the sources in any of the books by two or three extracts dealing with the same topic.

Two exercises a week would be enough for intensive critical work. The sources should, of course, be in the hands of the pupils and the attention of the class should never be allowed to stray from the evidence in the text. It is not necessary that the work should be systematic at the outset or that it should be forced. It might be introduced in a very simple and natural way by an attempt to settle the truth of some point upon which two school texts disagree. It is a common practice, in schools where several narratives are used, to assign different texts to different pupils and in the recitation hour, to compare the statements of the writers. Suppose they disagree? I once asked a teacher who employs this method what she did in such a case. She answered that they discussed the matter, and, if they could reach no agreement as to which statement was correct, they dropped it. A more pernicious practice could hardly be imagined. The class was run into a blind alley and left there! The escape was easy enough, if the teacher had been master of the situation. It offered an excellent point of departure for the introduction of the study of historical method.

The problem should have been selected by the teacher, as one easy of solution, the trap laid and the class led into it. The texts disagree; which states the truth? Who wrote the texts? Suppose the event treated is from the French Revolution. How did the writers know anything about it? What were their sources? How could we find out what actually happened a century ago? Evidently through the records made by witnesses of the events. Have we any such on this topic and who are they? This question may be answered by the teacher, who might put the sources into the hands of the pupils, or a simple problem in bibliography might be set the class and the exercise postponed until the next meeting. Let the pupils bring into the class the statement of at least one man who, they assume, knew something about this event. Take up these sources in turn. How do the pupils know that this account was really written by this man? (Genuineness.) How do they know that the man really knew anything about the event? (Localization.) How do they know that he made a correct record of what he saw? (Value of the source, based on perception and memory.) Even if the man is a good witness, does his unsupported statement (affirmation) prove the fact? Dwell on the possibilities of error; show that even if he wishes to tell the truth, no man can be certain that his uncontrolled memory is not playing him false or that he saw the thing correctly in the first place. Will the agreement of two witnesses be sufficient to give us certainty? Show that this is true only when the witnesses are independent of each other. In the problem taken up by the class, are there two or more independent witnesses? Is the fact upon which the school texts disagree settled by the agreement of two independent witnesses? If so, why do the texts disagree? It may be due to the fact that each writer used but one source, and that the statement in that source was incorrect, or the witnesses may disagree and one writer may have accepted one statement, the other another. If the conclusions are not equally probable, try to show on which side the weight of probability lies. Point out, further, in conclusion, that where we are not certain as to what happened—where the witnesses disagree—we have only probability, not certainty, and the secondary text ought to make this clear.

The work may be continued in this way, the secondary text supplying the weekly problem, or the teacher may cut loose from the text and supply graded problems that increase in difficulty. In the latter case, the class should be supplied with the problem, the sources (two or three) and such biographical data as will enable the pupils to criticise the sources. Take each source up in turn and require written answers, with citation of proof, to the following questionnaire: 1. Is this source genuine? 2. Who wrote it and when and where was it written? 3. How much of it is first-hand evidence and how much second-hand, i. e., how much did the witness see and hear himself and how much did he get from some other person? 4. What is the value of the source as a whole, judged by the character of the source (speech, letter, newspaper, pamphlet, song, poem, etc.), the personality of the witness (intellectually and morally) and the time and place of making the records. 5. Make a note of what the witness affirms concerning the event (interpretation.) Let the independent criticism of the sources be followed by a comparison of them to learn whether or not they are independent. Finally, request the pupils to bring together under one head the affirmations of the different witnesses on the point under investigation and endeavor to determine by a comparison of their statements what the truth is. The result should be formulated in writing in the shape of a definite assertion, if the agreement of the independent witnesses justify us in regarding the fact as certain; otherwise it should be represented simply as probable.

As a specific illustration, take the extracts on the battle of Salamis given in my “Source Book of Greek History” (pp. 118-127). Here are three sources, Æschylus’ “Persians,” Herodotus’ “History” and Plutarch’s “Life of Themistocles,” containing almost all the information we possess upon the portion of the battle dealt with in the source book. The extracts are accompanied by the following questions that should be answered in writing by the pupils and form the foundation of the classroom exercise: “1. Compare the three accounts of the battle of Salamis given by Æschylus, Herodotus and Plutarch, noting in what they agree and in what they disagree. Are they independent? 2. Which account is the most valuable, and why? 3. Point out the myths in these accounts, i. e., things that could not have happened. 4. Make an outline of the battle, using the sources, and write a brief narrative, citing the sources. Where they disagree, explain why you follow one source rather than another.”

The answer to the first question should be given in the form of three parallel columns containing all the single affirmations found in the different sources, references to similar details appearing on the same line in the different columns, thus facilitating comparison. These columns should be followed by (1) a column containing the common details found in all the sources, (2) a second column of details referred to by two sources, and (3) other columns containing details given by but one source. In going through this operation all the pupils will have noticed that Plutarch made use of the “Persians,” and, consequently is not independent of Æschylus. Before the questions concerning the independence and value of the sources can be answered, the sources must be localized. Æschylus probably fought in the battle of Salamis and was thus an eyewitness. Note, however, the character of this source; a play performed before the Athenian people and presented some seven years after the event. A play does not offer a good opportunity to describe a battle in detail; the dramatist would be influenced by his desire to produce a work of art and to impress his audience; he would have forgotten much in the years that had passed since the battle. Although the record of an eyewitness, we cannot look upon this play as the best kind of evidence.

Herodotus was an infant, playing in the streets of Halicarnassus, when the battle of Salamis was fought. He wrote his account nearly fifty years later, basing it largely, almost wholly, upon oral tradition, although it is highly probable that he was acquainted with the “Persians” when he wrote. Nothing that Herodotus tells us here came from personal observation, nor do we know where he obtained his information, i. e., whether it was simply common report that he gathered up, or whether he talked with the most reliable witnesses of the battle. His account is less valuable than that of Æschylus as a second-hand record, but its form—a direct, detailed prose narrative—is more favorable to truth.

Plutarch lived five hundred years after the battle and obtained his information about it as a reader to-day would obtain information about the voyages of Columbus, namely, by reading what later writers had to say about them. He was not a critical historian—neither was Herodotus—and often based his narrative upon the poorest kind of evidence. He refers in this extract to four of the men of whose writings he has made use, and one of them is Æschylus.

The evidence is not, as a whole, of a satisfactory kind; the one witness says little, and that in an unfortunate form, written seven years after the battle; the second writer depends upon oral tradition, reproduced when it was so old that it had become unreliable; the third writer is five centuries removed from the event and an uncritical compiler. How much certainty can we reach about the battle of Salamis from such evidence as this? Possibly only the fact that the battle took place, for it is not even certain that the Greeks won the sweeping victory that is claimed in the “Persians.” The details of the battle are only probable, and the degree of probability is decidedly low. This will become very clear when the outline is made and it is realized how much of our information comes from Herodotus’ late oral tradition. The only safe basis of historical certainty, the agreement of independent witnesses, is lacking here.

After the class has written a narrative of the battle, let them compare it with the narrative in two or three of the best school histories. They will be somewhat surprised to learn that these accounts contain no suggestion of the uncertainty that surrounds the history of the battle, but describe it with all the confidence that might be displayed by a historian of events established by a cloud of witnesses.

It may be objected that this sort of source work will raise very serious doubts in the pupils’ minds as to whether we know anything with certainty about the history of the early centuries. But what if it does? What harm has been done, if the impression is a correct one? Is not much of our knowledge concerning the history of the Greeks and the Romans of the most fragile character? Why attempt to conceal it? Should not the pupils be taught by this kind of critical study that much of what is repeated with confidence as history has hardly a shred of valuable evidence to rest on? It is the first step toward the attainment of the ideal that M. Lanson has so clearly and convincingly set before us.

---

WILLIAM FAIRLEY, Ph.D., Editor.

What is said in the editorial of this number on “The Opening Days of a History Course” has a deep significance at the beginning of the work in Ancient History. Such work normally comes in the first year of the high school course. The pupils are fresh from the grammar schools, and unused to the kind of work they will have to do in the high school. The child of educated parents, from a more or less cultivated home, will take to the work readily enough. What about some of the others, who may ask, “Why do we have to study this stuff? We do not care about these old people.” The writer has to confess that, owing to a visit to the British Museum when he was about five years old, the first association of ideas that comes to his mind when the Egyptians are mentioned is of a lot of mummies. To many of our pupils is there not a danger that ancient history shall seem to them like an exhibition of mummies rather than of people who lived and moved and worked like ourselves?

It would seem, therefore, that the wise teacher will begin, not by plunging into a recitation on the first five or ten pages (I have heard of thirty-five pages being assigned in a city high school), but by being polite, and introducing the young strangers to their task and its meaning. Tell them that they have come to the high school to become educated people; that all educated people read a great deal; that in their later reading they will very often come across references to the old world peoples; with the rise and fall of their empires; their creeds, their superstitions, the wicked things some of them did, the good that is to be found in many of their codes. Above all, the young student is to be taught that from these early peoples have come directly the majority of the things that make up civilized life of to-day; we are their debtors. The antiquity of civilization needs to be impressed. Owing to the great mechanical advances of the time since steam power came in to use, I find that young people are prone to think of all the ages back of the nineteenth century as very crude and comfortless. But they should be made to feel that in many ways this is untrue. George Washington lived a comfortable life without the telephone and the Pullman car. And it is a fact that, barring the printed page and the use of gunpowder and the advantages of the compass, a high-class Citizen of ancient Babylon, Nineveh or Memphis, probably lived nearly as comfortably as did Washington; certainly the men of the Roman Empire had many more conveniences and refinements than he had.

The young pupil, then, needs to be stimulated to his task by a wise presentation of such facts as those cited.

This great development of civilization among the peoples we are to study, of course implies long preparatory ages of slow and bitter struggle upward from savagery. These stages may be hinted at enough to make the pupils reflect that there has been such a weary fight in unrecorded days. And now our story begins in the middle and not at the beginning of things. In our year’s work we are to take up the study of some eight or ten of the great peoples who have helped make our modern world what it is. We are to note what is like and what unlike our own ways of doing things; what we owe to these bygone folk.

Many mighty peoples are to be passed by. Why do we begin west of the Indian peninsula, and ignore the Hindoos, the Chinese, the Japanese? Because these peoples are out of the great stream of development. The progressive life of to-day’s world owes little to them, if anything. But the nations we are to take up have had a direct connection with us. One has handed on to another the torch of progress which now burns with electric splendor in our hands.

The old confident classifications of mankind into races, save for those made by the obvious test of color, have been given up. Yet it is wise to use the main lines of cleavage as a working basis. The Hamitic, Semitic and Indo-European distinctions are useful as guides. And the primacy of the last named must be taught, not as a thing whose causes we can trace, but as a sober fact. And while there is such a primacy I think one of the worthiest things the history teacher can do all through his work is to emphasize the good that has come from other races than our own. Probably every good history teacher has been appalled by the Chauvinism of Young America. The study of history is its best corrective.

To make these people of antiquity anything but mummies we must compare them and their doings constantly with ourselves. We speak much of our American resources: our broad prairies, our mighty water-powers, our fine harbors, our majestic rivers. These largely condition our lives. Before the coming of modern means of communication and transportation, natural surroundings had even more to do with the destiny of nations. The use of the map (preferably, by all means, the outline map, whether on board or paper, so that it may be drawn on) will be an early essential. And the study of the two great valleys, the Tigris-Euphrates and the Nile, will be emphasized. A good subject for special report in these connections would be a comparison of the Nile with the Hudson; of the Tigris and Euphrates with the Mississippi and the Missouri.

In many of our schools the whole Oriental period is merely skimmed, with the idea of leaving simply a general impression. The demand on time seems to render this imperative. What can we pick out from these earlier lessons and insist on its being retained?

The latest fashion is to regard the Babylonian or Chaldean Empire as antedating the Egyptian. Beginning with that, then dwell on the fact that this was a Semitic race. Relate them to the Jews of to-day, and to Abraham, a Semite from “Ur of the Chaldees.” Place Sargon the Elder at 3800 B.C. as marking, so we are told, the earliest verified date of history. Coming down to 2250 B.C., we reach Hammurabi, certainly the most interesting character of his people. Here again is a good occasion for special report. Some of the text-books give extracts from his code. Let one pupil find out from such extracts, or better yet, from the school library, some of the highly moral and kindly edicts. Let another show what trades and businesses these Babylonians had corresponding to our own, making special note of the fact that the commercial and business practices were highly developed.

The essential thing about the Assyrian Empire is that it was the first power to reach out broadly for world control and to subjugate its neighbors.

The Phœnicians are notable as the great traders of antiquity. Their skill in the arts gave them something to sell, and their location on the Mediterranean developed their powers of navigation. They seem to have been the first over-sea colonizers. Their trade routes and colonies would form a good report topic. By way of anticipation note Carthage, the coming rival of Rome. And our great debt to the Phœnicians is for the phonetic alphabet.

Religious prejudice, or the fear of touching in public schools anything bearing on religion should not be allowed to make us neglect the Hebrew people. True or false, right or wrong, religion is one of the prime forces with mankind. And here we have another Semitic race developing as a matter of fact, regardless of any theories as to its origin, the most sublime monotheism and the purest code of morals which the world had yet seen. Why this should have been so is as mysterious as was the flowering of Greece in the Periclean age. But there is the fact, and every young student should be made familiar with it.

What follows is simply an illustration of one method sometimes used. The whole class is directed to read the account of Egypt. The work is then subdivided for more minute study. Depending on the size of the class, it is divided into topics, one of which is assigned for special preparation to a student or a group of students. At the recitation period ten minutes are given in which each student or group is to write out what has been learned on the particular topic. It will probably not be possible in a large class for each pupil to read the work thus written. But one or two treatments of each topic may be read, and a different set of pupils called on at some other time. Thus the work will be participated in by all. As each topic is read criticisms and suggestions from the class are called for; and first of all from those who have not had that special topic; then in closing, from some student who has written but not read on that particular field. If note-books are used, the teacher may guide as to what shall be written down as the summary of each topic after it is read. A variation of the foregoing scheme is to send as many pupils as possible to the board to write out their topics. Appoint to each writer one or two critics. Let one criticize the English, the spelling, the punctuation (every lesson in history may be a lesson in English); and another the facts. A sample list of such topics for a lesson on Egypt is offered.

1. The Nile Valley.

2. The people; the one Hamitic race of prominence.

3. Periods of political history; the two capitals.

4. The government.

5. Classes of society.

6. Occupations and products.

7. Arts and sciences; specially architecture and sculpture.

8. Religion; ideas of immortality.

9. Decay of moral ideals.

10. Foreign conflicts.

11. Subjugation by Persia.

With the coming into view of Media and Persia, we get our first glimpse of a conquering Indo-European people. Their struggle to get into Europe is foreshadowed and we are brought to the threshold of the Greek story.

---

PROFESSOR GEORGE BURTON ADAMS, OF YALE UNIVERSITY.

There are many things which the college teacher of history may set before him to do: He may say, “the things most fundamental are the facts of history,” and devote his work to thorough drill in names and dates. He may have a keen sense of the valuable discipline of mind and faculties to be obtained in historical study and give himself to this. He may perhaps be under the influence of the reaction which has begun and seems certain to continue and believe in reviving the ancient maxim, “history is philosophy teaching by example,” seeking primarily in his teaching to enforce lessons of statecraft and political wisdom. More likely he may be imbued with the spirit of the generation just closing and be disposed to insist that the only proper method of instruction is that by which the scholar and specialist are trained. Or he may believe that the opportunity offered him in history to impart a broad and liberal culture is the one which he should least of all neglect. Any of these purposes, or more than one of them at once, are possible to the college instructor in history. His field of choice is bewilderingly wide. Is there any one of them which is more than another the proper object of college instruction?

Any satisfactory answer to this question must be sought by determining in the first place what is the proper object of the college course itself. Such a preliminary question would be absurd had we not by our educational reforms of the past fifty years gone far to put the college into a place in advanced education which does not belong to it, and in consequence to confuse all our ideas as to its natural functions. I am not finding any fault with these reforms. They were so necessary and have proved so valuable that they can never be called in question. But in bringing them about, some things were done, unnecessary and ill-advised. In consequence for one thing the duty lies upon the next generation, as one of its most important tasks, of restoring the college to its historical and to its logical position in the university. For the present purpose it suffices to say that the function of the college is general training and general preparation. It is the one department of the university which has, and which should have, no special object. Or it is more accurate to say that it can be adapted at the same time to a number of different objects to meet the needs of students whose ultimate purposes are different, and the possibility of doing this wisely and efficiently is one of the happiest results we have gained from the changes of the last generation. The work of the college is fundamental to that of all the other departments of the university, and in the normal university they should all require and build upon it. But it should also not be forgotten that the work of the college is not of necessity fundamental to any special line of advanced study. The number of students in our colleges who are not looking forward to professional or specialist work, but who are expecting to go into various lines of commercial activity, is already large and constantly increasing. They have no desire to follow out a course of study whose purpose is a technical preparation, nor is such a course well adapted for them. The demand which their presence in the college makes is for what we may call a general preparation for life, some knowledge of facts, some training of judgment and taste, sympathy with a variety of intellectual interests, such broadening and liberalizing of mind as is possible. To the instructor who teaches in the eager atmosphere of an active university such a demand may seem illegitimate, because it seems vague and weak. But this opinion is proper only to the narrow specialist who cannot see beyond the limits of his own field. The demand is perfectly legitimate; it is certain to be increasingly heard; and it is the duty of the college to meet it. It is to be remembered also that the best preparation for technical work does not omit all studies which are cultural merely, just as the best general preparation for life should embrace some training in technical lines.

With these considerations in mind let us ask to which of the two ways by which the college discharges its preparatory function, technical preparation or general preparation, the study of history is most naturally adapted, and which of the purposes already stated as those the instructor may have in mind is most likely to secure the desired end. It is not easy to specify a line of professional work to which the study of history stands in a technical relation, except that of the history teacher, whose numbers are at present so small, in proportion to the college as a whole, as to be almost negligible, and who perhaps needs above all others that point of view in regard to history which a general rather than a special training will give. Law and theology come the nearest perhaps to having a technical need of historical study, and yet it is also true of them that what they need of history is not technical but general preparation. The clergyman or lawyer may need a more permanent hold upon the facts of history than does the business man. They are to him more an end in themselves rather than chiefly a means for producing a result, as in the case of the other. But preacher and business man alike need to study the same facts in the same way each for his own purpose. It is in truth the later studies of the professional man which serve to keep alive the facts which he and his classmate in business once learned in the same class room.

The proper purpose then of the study of history in the college course is general preparation—preparation for life in general rather than for some special line of later study which builds upon it. To accomplish this purpose, and indeed every other, a certain amount of drill in names and dates is indispensable. Without it every result is insecure and all the instructor’s lessons hang in the air with no foundation to rest upon. But the teacher who makes drill in the facts his main object overlooks the almost universal experience that no matter how well a body of details may once have been learned they inevitably fade out of mind in later years unless the necessities of one’s daily occupation keep them fresh. What remains a constant possession is the general effect, the general impression once made by means of the details. The teacher who makes the general his main object, drawn from and enforced by a knowledge of the special which is for the moment clear and sound, deals with the most abiding of educational results.

The effectiveness of history as a means of mental discipline is so great that the teacher is constantly tempted to make this his main object. With one who does I have no great quarrel. I have only to say that at best it is the choice of an inferior good and that it is devoting oneself to what is already abundantly provided for in the curriculum of studies. There is so much in any college course with which discipline of the mental faculties is necessarily connected, mathematics, elementary language studies, many of the sciences, that it seems a flagrant waste of opportunities to use history for the same purpose.

Of the maxim, “history is philosophy teaching by example,” two different things are to be said. For the scholar and investigator it is a maxim full of danger, adding gratuitous perils to those which must beset his way, and it should be summarily discarded. For the teacher of history the danger is not so great, but he would be a very unusual man who could interpret the facts of history into political lessons for others without a very decided personal bias, or even succeed in disguising the influence of his private convictions upon his doctrines. It is doubtless more effective in most cases to let the facts speak for themselves, after a presentation of them which honestly endeavors to make them clear and to state them exactly as they are.

The belief that graduate and undergraduate students should be taught alike, that the best method for all is the method by which the scholar should be formed, that there should be no distinction in the study of history between general and special preparation, is in my opinion one of the most pestilent heresies accompanying the changes of recent years. It is a belief no more likely to be true because the particular change which produced it is that by which the true university has been created. There are certain studies in which I am ready to admit its truth. They are, however, those studies only in which training in the method of advance peculiar to the given subject is so necessary to an understanding of its nature that no real knowledge is possible without it, and their number is, I believe, decidedly less than is commonly asserted. Assuredly history is not one of them. To acquire a knowledge of the human past, especially if that knowledge is enriched, as it should be, with an imaginative conception of the process of the ages, is a large and worthy intellectual task for teacher and taught, indeed for the lifetime of a man. To confuse it for the great mass of college students with the effort to impart to them the method of the scholar, which is the proper technical training of the graduate school, is, I firmly hold, morally little short of a breach of trust.

This is only affirming in other terms my belief in the transcendent importance of that one of the special purposes which the teacher may set before himself which remains, the effort to make the study of history one that is directed to the broadening and liberalizing of the mind. The claim which I make for history is that of all college studies it most naturally and simply produces these results. Did instructors in physics and chemistry realize more clearly than they seem to me to do what they might accomplish of this sort, I should be disposed to admit their right to dispute this claim, but for the average of college students, as they come to us in masses, I am not now ready to allow any other exception. If history be taught with that degree of imagination without which no man should enter the teaching profession, it is not difficult to open the mind of the student to two impressions. One is of what may be called in simplest phrase the continuity of history, meaning thereby no mechanical continuity, but an organic and living unity—the continuous and cumulative progress of civilization which makes us to-day not in a poetic sense, but as a bald and literal fact, the heirs of all the ages. This needs especially to be imaginatively presented to induce an imaginative conception of it. The other is of the fact that somewhere in the past humanity has worked through crises which are essentially the same as those which now confront it. It is the especial privilege of the teacher of history to bring the mind of the student successively into contact with almost every species of political effort, of intellectual interest, and of moral struggle of which the race is capable. To the great majority of minds the optimistic inference is more natural than the pessimistic, and the conclusion almost draws itself that endeavor is not in vain, that the good result is in the end secure. If the student can be given in some degree these two things, a conception not merely intellectual, but imaginative, it may be more or less emotional, of the sweep of humanity onward, and a calm assurance of the ultimate good, I certainly believe he will confess that no step of his mental advancement has opened to him so wide a horizon or brought him to so steadying a confidence in the worth of individual effort and the final outcome of things.

I am perfectly well aware that in this I am stating the ideal. I am not foolish enough to believe that these results can be imparted to whole classes, or immediately in full perhaps to anyone, nor would I claim for every instructor the power to produce them. But though the ideal is unattainable, I do wish to say clearly three things. One is that to some students very much of these results, more probably than would at first be thought possible, can be given, and to nearly all something. Another is that history of all college studies leads to them most directly and naturally. The third is that the teacher who labors for them wisely and with proper balance of interest is laboring not merely for what is likely to be most permanent, but for the highest and best possible to him.

---

ARTHUR M. WOLFSON, PH.D., Editor.

American history in the secondary schools is, we feel safe in assuming, the crown of a course extending over at least three or more years. Students approach it after having devoted time and thought to an elementary course in American history—possibly even a course in English and European history—to a secondary course in some one or more phases of European history and to a course in English history. The teacher who undertakes to lead a class in American history in the secondary school should, therefore, approach this subject with higher ideals and broader purposes than he would set in any other history course in the curriculum. Here, if ever, the teacher may hope to train his students in the use of judgment and reasoning in the examination of facts.

From the beginning, the teacher should assume that his students have a fair knowledge of the elementary facts of American and of European history. The teacher will waste time if he attempts to teach the mere facts of American history without attempting to relate them one to another. American history in the secondary school should be a study of the relations of American history to the history of the rest of the world, and of the steady development of American political, social, and economic institutions. What we mean by this we trust will become clear as we go on in this work.

As to the methods by which these ends should be accomplished, it is our firm conviction that each teacher can best work these out for himself. Certain broad generalizations may, however, be of value. First, no text-book is so perfect that it can be accepted as a complete, an infallible guide. Of necessity, every text-book will approach the subject from the point of view of a single individual. The teacher, at least, should therefore be acquainted with the point of view of several other writers on the same subject. Again, because it is designed to meet the needs of many different minds, it will inevitably contain many facts that the teacher will want to omit; it will omit some things that the teacher may want to include. Finally, it will often present facts in an order or in a way that the teacher may desire to change. For these reasons, while we believe that a single text-book should be in the hands of every pupil, the teacher should insist from the beginning that the book is to be used merely as a guide, not as a Scripture, every page and line of which is to be accepted as infallible.

Second, both the teacher and the student, especially the teacher, should be familiar with the most important sources of American history and with the best secondary authorities on the period under discussion. It will be our aim as we go along to indicate from month to month what are generally considered as the best books in each period.

With these few generalizations in mind, we may now approach the particular subject of this article. The early history of North America divides itself into three more or less well-defined epochs. First, there is the period of discovery, exploration, and settlement extending over the two centuries from the time of Columbus to the end of the seventeenth century. Second, there is the century from 1664 to 1763 during which the various nations which had planted colonies in North America were struggling for dominion and supremacy on the continent. Third, there is the period of twenty years during which the English colonies were moving steadily, step by step, toward their complete independence.

Needless to say, none of these epochs is clear and distinct. Discovery, exploration, and settlement go on far into the eighteenth century, even into the nineteenth; colonial wars have their roots in national differences which have their beginnings in Europe and America long before the year 1700; and the causes for the American Revolution must be sought in colonial institutions which were in process of development from the day that the first Englishman landed on the continent. Nevertheless, for purposes of class room discussion, the teacher may safely insist upon this threefold division of colonial history.

In the study of the first epoch, certain subdivisions again become clear. First, it is necessary, if the student is to understand the meaning of early American history, that he be made to comprehend the conditions in Europe which led the Spaniard, the Frenchman and the Englishman forth on their voyages of discovery and colonization. Far too many teachers neglect almost entirely what Cheyney calls “The European Background of American History.”

Every one who has studied the history of the first voyage of Columbus knows that this voyage was but the culmination of more than four centuries of European commercial history. Ever since the time of the crusades, and even before, there had gone on in Europe an extensive trade in Asiatic wares; spices and gums, drugs, medicaments and perfumes, diamonds, pearls, rubies and ivories, silk, cotton and woolen fabrics had been imported in ever-increasing quantities by the Italian towns and distributed through them from Seville to Novgorod. Then in the fifteenth century came a time when the eastern trade routes were closed by the conquering Turks and the nations of Western Europe were forced in consequence to seek these luxuries by new and unaccustomed routes. The discovery of America was not an accident, nor was Columbus the only hero of his age—this the student should be made thoroughly to comprehend.

Second, a slight knowledge of the aborigines must be insisted upon. Here, however, the teacher will need to exercise care and judgment lest he waste time on unessential details.

Third in order comes the geography of the new continent. The study of the physiography of the North American continent, if properly handled, will prove to the students a fascinating, an almost inexhaustible subject. If properly led, boys and girls will study their maps with even greater interest than they do their text-books. One lesson at least the teacher should devote to the shore line, the water courses, the gaps and mountain passes, the portages and the wood roads, else the story of the exploration of the continent must ever remain to the students a blind story of purposeless wanderings in a trackless wilderness. (See Farrand “Basis of American History,” Chaps. I to IV.)

When the student has grasped these fundamentals it will be time, and then only, to begin to thread with him the labyrinth of voyages and explorations which mark the first century of American history. Here the teacher will need to exercise great ingenuity and considerable caution. Rather a few facts well co-ordinated, than a multitude of details without any unifying principle is the one infallible rule. The Norsemen, for instance, one is tempted to say, may with profit be entirely neglected. “Nothing is clearer,” say Fiske (“Discovery of America,” I, pp. 235-254), “from a survey of the whole subject, than that these pre-Columbus voyages were quite barren of results of historic importance.... [That they constituted] in any legitimate sense of the phrase, a discovery of America is simply absurd.” Columbus, De Soto, Cortez, Coronado are really the only Spaniards whose names the student need remember. Equally, the voyages of Verrazano, Ribault, Cartier, Champlain, La Salle, Marquette and Joliet tell the whole tale of French activities over a hundred and fifty years.

Throughout this period, the teacher should keep these guiding posts constantly before the eyes of his students: First, that the Spaniards, when once they realized that they had discovered a new continent and had not reached the longed for shores of Cathay, were lured farther and farther into the heart of the continent in search of gold; second, that, owing to the direction of their approach, they occupied the southern and southwestern part of the continent only; third, that their forward movement ended in the end of the sixteenth century because of (a) their loss of naval supremacy (the Armada), (b) their narrow internal national policy (the expulsion of the Moriscos and the Inquisition), (c) their struggle to subdue the revolted Netherlands.

Of the French, it should be noted: First, that they approached the continent from the north, entering it through the Gulf of St. Lawrence; second, that they rapidly turned their entire attention to the search for furs and to the conversion of the heathen Indian, “the quaint alliance of missionary and merchant, the black-robed Jesuit and the dealer in peltries,” as Fiske calls it (“Discovery,” II, p. 529); third, that the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes led them farther and farther into the continent, and consequently that the French settlements lacked the unity and compactness which is characteristic of the later English settlements with which they were soon to come into hostile contact.

Finally, of the history of this period of Spanish and French settlements, it may be said that it is better to follow the history of both nations down to the end of the seventeenth century before entering upon the English and Dutch settlements.

In studying the history of the English and Dutch settlements the way will again be a way through a trackless wilderness unless the teacher is bold enough to make a judicious selection among the many details which must appear in every text-book, neglecting all the others and insisting that his students obtain a clear comprehension of the two or three leading motives which are ever present in the colonizing efforts of both these nations. First, the student should be compelled to grasp clearly the significance of the trading and colonizing companies which were formed in such profusion in both England and Holland in the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century. Cheyney (“European Background,” pp. 137-139), mentions seventy of them. If teacher and student will follow carefully the activities of these companies in America they will find a key to the history of the founding of most of the Atlantic coast colonies.

Second, before attempting to follow the history of the English colonies in America, the history of the Protestant revolution in Europe must be reviewed and the attitude of James I toward all dissenters, Protestant and Catholic alike, must be made clear.

These two finger posts, the trading companies and the religious agitation in England will serve to guide many a student who might otherwise lose his way. To attempt at this time to introduce into the history of the colonies anything about the boundary disputes, the attempts at colonial union, the growth of colonial institutions or even the economic conditions which surrounded the life of the colonists is, it seems to us, a mistake.

A word or two in closing about the literature of this period. Of sources, here, as throughout American history, there are four collections which are extremely valuable for use in the secondary schools: (a) Hart’s American History Told by Contemporaries, (b) Macdonald’s Documents of American History, (c) The American History Leaflets, (d) The Old South Leaflets.

Of the works of secondary authorities, those especially fitted for use in secondary schools are (a) Thwaites, “Colonies,” (b) Fisher’s “Colonial Era,” (c) Fiske’s “Discovery of America” and his other works on the settlement and history of the Atlantic coast colonies, (d) Parkman’s “Pioneers of France in America” and his other works on the explorations of the French, (e) the earlier volumes of Harper’s “The American Nation,” and (f) the earlier chapters of Doyle’s and Lodge’s histories of the English colonies in America.

---

D. C. KNOWLTON, PH.D., Editor.

It may be superfluous to remind the reader at the beginning of the difficulties inherent in the presentation of medieval history. The appreciation of this fact, however, may serve somewhat to compensate the conscientious teacher who looks back upon his successive efforts to present the subject with anything but a feeling of satisfaction. When the German schoolmaster admits, as does Dr. Jaeger, after the reading of thousands of pages in preparation for his work that “the medieval world is essentially alien to our comprehension, and that vivid and realistic description—the most fruitful part of our instruction—is only possible here to a very moderate extent,[2]” the teacher on this side of the Atlantic has no reason to feel chagrined over his own failures. On the contrary he can approach his task with the satisfaction which comes from the feeling that he is assisting others in the solution of a most difficult problem. It must also be remembered that the German teacher has this advantage—of which he makes full use—that he is presenting the middle ages as the American teacher presents the colonial period, to furnish a background for the proper understanding of his own history.

The middle ages do not require the elaborate, detailed treatment of later periods; and yet it must be admitted that much time will often be consumed in securing anything like an intelligent comprehension of the rudiments or elements of the subject. The period may be approached from many points of view. Possibly the most fruitful are the culture side and the idealistic side. It is indeed possible to combine these two ideas. So much of our literature pictures medieval society, especially as it has to do with the castle and the monastery, that the first phase cannot fail to prove attractive. Dr. Jaeger further points out that the men of this period, intellectually so narrow minded, so uncultured and so limited, would go to any extreme, sacrificing their personal comfort, aye, even their lives in their devotion to an idea. At one extreme stands the warrior, at the other the monk, and yet how much they resemble each other. The monk penetrates the forests of Germany and braves unknown dangers in his devotion to mother church; the crusader, no less of a devotee, lays down his life under a foreign sky, far removed from home and friends. There is then much that is attractive in the period if we follow it with this second thought in mind. Although these men were living embodiments of ideas which may be “alien to our comprehension,” their very ardor and enthusiasm become contagious, once the teacher catches a little of the spirit which animated them. Around some of these great personalities, too, can be woven much of the life of the times. A Charlemagne not only becomes the embodiment of the imperial idea, but behind him looms the shadowy outlines of the imperial system; a Richard I suggests the castle, the tournament, the flower of chivalry, the knight-errant; finally a Gregory VII becomes the incarnation of a great ecclesiastical hierarchy, more terrible with its anathemas maranathas than the bloodiest battlefields. The culture phase is admirably presented in the recent text-books, e. g., in Robinson, Munro, West, Harding, and Myers. When once the teacher becomes saturated with the life and habits of thought of these times, it will not prove such a difficult task to point out and emphasize the ideals of the men of the period, many of which should enter into the warp and woof of American character. In this connection the teacher will find Professor Emerton’s address before the New England History Teachers’ Association on the Teaching of Mediæval History in the Schools most helpful and inspiring.[3]

The discussion for the first few weeks of the course must of necessity center largely about the new field upon which history is in the process of making, the empire of Charlemagne, its disruption as the result of its own inherent weaknesses and the renewed attacks of the barbarians and the growth of feudalism as a partial result of these and other forces which have been at work in the Europe of the early middle ages.

Three points will call for special emphasis: the field, the essential forces at work in this field, and the people who are responsible for their development. The student can best realize conditions in 800 A.D. by contrasting this new empire with the old Roman empire with which he is already familiar. Two maps might be made, one of the Roman empire at its greatest extent, the other of Charlemagne’s possessions, showing its Slavic neighbors on the east and its Saracenic on the south. The student should then grasp the fact that for the next five hundred years, with the exception of tiny England, the history of European progress is circumscribed by the narrow limits of this new empire, which although including portions of the old, has transferred the center of interest to the plains of central Europe. To the east and southeast are the Slavs and the remains of the eastern half of the Roman empire, which having played its part in history, remains merely as the storehouse of the intellectual, literary and artistic treasures of the remote past; to the south are the Saracens who one hundred years before had threatened to place the crescent above the cross, but were beaten back upon the sunny plains of France.

Out of this empire are to emerge the France, Germany and Italy of the distant future. Spain is not to be rescued from her infidel conquerors until a new and far distant era dawns, that of Columbus, Cortez and Pizarro. Christendom, as it is known will have no interests beyond these confines except as it is obliged to beat off the daring Northmen or to admit them as unwelcome guests; or as it forces its way eastward throwing out its outposts to check the Slavic tide moving westward; or as its enthusiasm is kindled by mother church to undertake the rescue of Palestine from heathen hands; or as the zeal of its traders, who even at this early date begin to long for new fields to conquer, stimulates them to open communication with the strange and distant East.

The two great forces at work are the two ideas of a universal church and a universal empire. The rise of the Christian church, its relations with Rome and the German invaders might profitably be reviewed here, especially its connection with the founding of this new empire, which differs from the old in its dependence on and union with the papal power. These are the ideals which men set before them; this will o’ the wisp of universal dominion was destined to lead many a man to his own ruin and that of the power upon which he relied to attain his end.

The personality of Charlemagne, so naïvely portrayed by Einhard, his desire not only to conquer but to serve the higher ideal of establishing a Christian state, cannot fail to attract the student, especially if the teacher emphasizes the fact that he was the hero par excellence of the middle ages. Ample material for a study of his arrangements can be found in the source books, and his system can easily be compared with the organization of the older empire.

Although the people who were working out these new problems were largely of German blood, it must not be forgotten that Rome’s influence had not been for naught, but was still to be seen in the survival of the Latin language and literature and the material aspects of its civilization—its roads, bridges, aqueducts and walled towns,—and above all in this very tradition of universal dominion. This last idea had been inherited on the one hand by the pope at Rome and on the other by the king of the Germans.

There is no one book which emphasizes the treatment which has been suggested for this first period. The teacher can easily follow this line of development with any of the better text-books. Freeman, “Historical Geography of Europe,” has a good chapter on the geographical development (Chapter VI), also Emerton, “Mediæval Europe,” Chapter I; Seignobos, “History of Mediæval and Modern Civilization,” Chapter VI, will be found very helpful on feudalism; also Emerton, “Introduction to the Middle Ages,” Chapter XV, and Adams, “Civilization during the Middle Ages,” Chapter IX. A good life of Charlemagne in English is Hodgkin, “Charles the Great.” There is an abundance of source material. Special mention might be made of Thatcher and McNeal, Nos. 7-9, 16-19, 191-194, 209-217; Robinson, Chapter VII, on Charlemagne, Chapter VIII on the Disruption of Charlemagne’s Empire, and Chapter IX on Feudalism; Ogg, Chapter IX, on the “Age of Charlemagne,” Chapter X on the “Era of the Later Carolingians,” and Chapter XIII on the “Feudal System.” Good maps may be found in such atlases as Freeman, Putzger, and Dow, which should be in the hands of every live teacher.

The following questions are selected from some of the recent examinations:

State as definitely as possible what you conceive to be the place of Charlemagne in European history.

What did the Holy Roman Empire include? How was it governed?

Trace the connection between the break-up of the Empire of Charlemagne and the beginnings of (a) France, (b) Germany, (c) Italy.

What connection was there between the break-up of the Carolingian Empire and the rise of feudalism?

A good vantage point from which to approach the subject is to look upon feudalism as the result of the need of protection in an age of disorder and confusion; then to follow this idea with an explanation of its relation to the holding of land. When these elementary facts have been made reasonably clear, they will serve as an excellent basis for what must necessarily follow, namely, an explanation of how the various factors involved each played its part in building up an organization which though called a system is very often extremely puzzling for its very lack of the same. The “feudal grant” has now been made clear and the entering wedge has been driven for an understanding of vassalage. It is now easy to explain immunity and to pass from this to the practice of subinfeudation, and the mutual responsibilities involved in the feudal relation. The diagram on page 115 of Robinson’s “Western Europe” will serve to give the student an excellent notion of the complexity of the feudal relation.

Finally it is suggested that before taking up the medieval period with the class the teacher make a careful study of every available analysis, e. g., the Syllabus of the New England History Teachers’ Association, or the Syllabus of the Regents of the State of New York (which contains the same outline), or the History Syllabus of the State of New Jersey (in press) or the numerous outlines of college lecture courses which have appeared in printed form from time to time as Richardson, “Syllabus of Continental European History,” and Shepherd, “Syllabus of the Epochs of History.”

---

C. B. NEWTON, Editor.

I. Through the Norman Conquest[4]

I have just finished reading “A Centurion of the Thirtieth,” “On the Great Wall,” and “The Winged Hats”—all from Kipling’s “Puck of Pook’s Hill” and I now feel in the proper frame of mind to begin the year’s work in English History. By the proper frame of mind I mean that what I know, and what I would fain have my class know, is illuminated and enlivened by a sense of reality without which my teaching and their learning would be as sounding brass and tinkling cymbals. The fundamental importance of beginning with this “proper frame of mind” is the first matter which I wish to emphasize, the starting point of the many matters which we may profitably consider together in our monthly discussions. For ponder the magnitude of the task before us, as we return from our vacation in this very modern world of ours to our very modern pupils. How shall we be true interpreters of the life of an early day, so remote, so utterly removed, so unreal, unless we can by some magic touch invest it all with reality? It is a solemn thing, fellow workmen in this noble field of English history, to think how many thousands of us shall endeavor, during the next few weeks, to impart some knowledge, some realizing sense of prehistoric man’s dwelling in the so different Albion which was the mother of England; of Celt and Roman and Saxon and Dane; of imperial Cæsar landing on the unknown barbarous coast of Britain; of Druids and of monks; and so on through those long, mysterious thousand years which bring us to a somewhat clearer day (though still remote enough for every exercise of the imagination!), when the great Duke became the last conqueror of the little island. A solemn thing, I say, for if we fail to illumine this mass of material with any ray of the imagination, if we merely cram facts and theories into the miserable minds of our victims until they are stuffed with names and dates, then are we become blind leaders of the blind of whom it may be said, as I once heard it said of a professor in one of our great colleges, “Think of the hundreds for whom he has ruined history.”

So I believe, in all seriousness, it shall profit us more to take down our Kipling or to cull out some of the very human episodes from our Green, or from Dr. Warren’s little book of selections, and to saturate our minds therein—insulating them, as it were, from the quick currents of the present—than to refresh our memories laboriously and conscientiously from sources and authorities until we are merely primed with facts. Need I say that this is no slur nor sneer at authorities and sources? Of course we have not neglected these—we must not, and we shall not, neglect them. My emphasis is simply on what is, too often neglected; my plea is for setting free the imagination, for letting the “magic” work which will help us to clothe the dry bones of fact with the flesh of life! We have all been taught to be conscientious and faithful and painstaking; that is the modern historian’s creed. But all conscience and no imagination make a mighty dull teacher! Let us never forget that.

If the imagination needs all the arousing and vivifying it can get in dealing with the early Britons and Romans of whom we receive vivid impressions in “Puck of Pook’s Hill,” how much more must it cry for help in beginning, as most text-books of English history do, with primitive man! I must confess I dread those opening lessons which deal with the origins of things. “Paleolithic, neolithic, metal age”—how glibly the names may be reeled off, but what do we really know about them, and who are we to try to penetrate the seclusion of those unfathomed ages! I confess my imagination gropes blindly here, and I must simply admit that I am baffled, that here I can summon up very little sense of reality. This should be made clear enough to the class—both that our sources of knowledge are limited, and that the “backward and abysm” of time baffles the staunchest traveler to the far past. Our pupils will value our sincerity from the outset if we make it plain that there is no humbug about us, that we are not pretending to a knowledge which their quick intelligence tells them must in the nature of things be very limited. Don’t let us be too “cock sure” about anything—still less about prehistoric times. For be sure the youthful mind, if it is worth anything, asks itself how “they” know so much when by our own admission there are no written records. You will permanently undermine confidence if you make a false start here. So it appears to me that all the period before the Romans came should be clothed in a haze of mystery, a few looming facts in the gloom, but nothing too clear cut or definite. So, too, throughout the course, let us be frank in acknowledging the many uncertainties which beset us, so setting an invaluable example of sincerity, and unconsciously inducing a spirit of honesty in the attitude of our pupils toward history.

With the landing of Julius Cæsar the fog begins to lift, and certain clear headlands of knowledge appear. This may be brought out very sharply by reading to the class, or getting the class to read to you, an extract or two from “De Bello Gallico,” say Chapter 8 of Book V, or a chapter from the end of Book IV. This brings home to the class the “barbarianness” of the Britons in contrast with civilized Rome, and incidentally gives the average pupil a new and almost startling view of “Cæsar”! This done, the next task is to prevent the class from unanimously jumping at the conclusion that Cæsar began the Roman conquest. The only thing to do is to hammer in the four conquests or invasions with their dates as landmarks, and to try heroically to get straight the difference between Celt and Roman and Teuton. No imagination here, but the sterner side of the year’s work—the absolute definite learning by rote of the essential dates and facts which must in no wise be slurred or passed by. I do not believe history to be a “disciplinary study,” but there is plenty of discipline in it, as there is in all substantial work, and the boy or girl who has, perhaps, had only some smatterings of elementary history before, might as well realize in the beginning that entering this large field of English history means, not only large opportunities for the imagination and for abounding intellectual interest, but means also real work for the memory and for the understanding. How to bring this about against the inertia, inaccuracy, and inefficiency of the class? There is no royal road—patience, reiteration, insistence on accuracy, and finally, where necessary, the rod, or whatever substitute our American delicacy along punitive lines allows, are the only methods open to us. A good means of reiteration in the matter of dates is to have one pupil put a set of dates on the board each day—for example, the dates of the invasions (marking the approximate dates with a plus or minus sign), and of such landmarks as the Landing of Augustine, the Treaty of Wedmore, etc., may well be put on the board every day while the class is studying the period before the Normans. The same thing may well be done during each dynasty, keeping the dates of that dynasty before the class without spending much time on them. The recitation of the class should not, of course, be halted while the dates are being written; a glance will serve to correct them when they are done.

A word in regard to map work and note books. The correlation of geography with history is, of course, indispensable. In certain places throughout our subject, which I shall point out from time to time, it is necessary that the geography of England and of Europe should be clearly in mind. During this early period these notable points are (1) the probable geographical conditions before “the channel” was cut; (2) the divisions of Great Britain and Ireland at the time of Roman occupation, showing the great walls and the Roman roads; (3) the Saxon period—the homes of the Saxons, and the Heptarchy; (4) the Danelaw and Alfred’s kingdom; (5) locations of battles and other points of historical interest (such as the “holy isle” of St. Columba, Wedmore, etc.) through 1066. I know no better way to make these five or more topics clear than by outline maps. In using outline maps, neatness and clearness are the two points to emphasize. Unless your text-book has good maps your pupils should get Gardiner’s “School Atlas of English History” (Longmans, Green & Co.).

As to note books, I believe they are very helpful in teaching English history; but do not overdo their use. If we insist on their being very elaborate we make a fetish of them. They have two very simple uses—(a) to emphasize important matters in each lesson; (b) to contain any points outside the text-book which the teacher gives the class. Also their by-products of concentration and accuracy and practice for college work are by no means to be despised. At the beginning, when a pupil is possibly taking notes for the first time, we must be very patient, speaking slowly and practically dictating the things to be “put down.” As a rule I would not put facts on the board to be copied. That is too easy. A class must learn to take notes from the voice, and gradually to catch matters worth setting down without special direction.

Two very useful books to which constant reference will be made during the coming months are Beard’s “Introduction to the English Historians” (MacMillan), and Cheyney’s “Readings in English History” (Ginn & Co.). Both of these volumes give well-selected quotations from many sources inaccessible to many of us, and with one or both of them in our possession we shall be tolerably well equipped for the year’s work. Then there are two old “standards” which most of us possess or may easily get at. First of all, in my opinion, is Green’s “Short History of the English People” (Harper’s one volume edition); and second, Gardiner’s “Student’s History of England” (Longmans, Green & Co.) is not only a good one-volume history, but is particularly rich in pictures of value and interest.

In explaining the missionary efforts of the Irish church, the fascinating career of St. Patrick should not be neglected. See “Ireland” in the “Stories of the Nations,” series, by Lawless, Chapter IV.

Anglo-Saxon government is an important subject. Gardiner has a good brief explanation of terms, pp. 29-33, and 72-75 of the “Students’ History.” Beard and Cheyney may be read quickly and with helpful results on this subject.

Alfred the Great, the noblest figure, shall we not say in all English history—certainly in this period, should be sympathetically studied. Of course Green paints him vividly, pp. 48-52, but if possible get Walter Besant’s “Story of King Alfred,” in the “Library of Useful Stories” (D. Appleton & Co.).

The colossus of the tenth century was Dunstan. Some text-books slight him. See Green, pp. 55-58 for his remarkable many sidedness.

Of course Freeman’s “Norman Conquest” is full of meat on this period before the Normans, as well as on the Normans themselves. A judicious use of the index will make these volumes of Freeman very useful if you have time for the search. The rise of Normandy and the wonderful career of Duke William should of course be made sunlight clear.

---

This society was organized out of the Department of History of the Missouri State Teachers’ Association at the Christmas meeting of that body in 1908. It is also affiliated with the State Historical Society, and a number of its members belong to the North Central History Teachers’ Association. The object of the society is to promote and improve the study and teaching of history in the State of Missouri through semi-annual meetings, with papers and discussions, of history teachers, investigations into the condition of history in the State schools, and the publication in the “Missouri Historical Review,” in which space is officially reserved for the society, of papers on the study and teaching of history, reports of meetings, and notes and news of interest to history teachers.

The society has held three successful meetings since its organization, the most recent being the spring meeting of 1909, held May 1, at the State University. At this meeting valuable papers were read by Professor E. M. Violette, of the State Normal School at Kirksville, on “Setting the Problem,” and by Professor C. A. Ellwood, of the Department of Sociology of the University of Missouri, on “How History Can be Taught from a Sociological Point of View.” The meetings ended by the election of the following officers: President, Mr. H. R. Tucker, McKinley High School, St. Louis; vice-president, Mr. J. L. Shouse, Westport High School, Kansas City; secretary-treasurer, Professor Eugene Fair, Normal School, Kirksville, and editor, Professor N. M. Trenholme, University of Missouri, Columbia. The next meeting of the society will be held at Christmas time in St. Louis in connection with the State Teachers’ Association meeting.

---

The semi-annual meeting of this organization was held in the rooms of the Missouri Historical Society at St. Louis, June 17-19.

The general subject of discussion was the historical importance of the physiography and ethnology of the Mississippi Valley, and the papers, presented by well-known middle western scholars, served to bring out the great importance of physical and racial factors in American development. This association is affiliated with the American Historical Association in an unofficial way, and is doing excellent work for the history of the region in which it is specially interested. The secretary-treasurer is Clarence S. Paine, of Lincoln, Neb.

---

---

ARMAND J. GERSON, Editor.

The “Type Lesson” in History.

Whatever may be said as to the evil effects of the present overcrowding of the elementary school curriculum, this condition has brought about at least one lasting benefit in that it has led through sheer stress of need to the invention of numerous pedagogic devices for the saving of time. As subject after subject has been added to the work required to be covered in the grades, stern necessity has developed in the grade teacher a wonderful faculty of class-room economy. While it is true that many of the time-saving devices which have thus found their way into our public schools have been unquestionably harmful, there are some among them which have proved themselves efficacious and which may be said to have constituted a permanent advance in educational practice. Among this class we must include the “type lesson” idea.

The idea of the type lesson is based upon the principle that since the increasing complexity of the modern elementary curriculum precludes the possibility of teaching with proper thoroughness all the details of the various subjects laid down in our courses of study, it behooves the teacher to select a few typical phases of his subject, teach these thoroughly, and use them as the basis for the rest of the work. Instead of a superficial survey of the entire field, which at best can leave but a hazy resultant in the child’s mind, let the teacher lead the pupil to evolve a certain number of consistent and intensive “type-ideas” to serve as the nuclei of the year’s instruction. To express this pedagogic principle in terms of psychology, this method will develop in the child’s mind certain fundamental concepts to which all later reading and instruction will naturally relate and in the light of which he may interpret all subsequent mental experiences.

In recent years the type lesson idea has found its chief exponents in the field of geography. Possibly the overwhelming mass of detail of which elementary geography is composed and the apparent separateness of the facts which constitute its subject matter have led educators to seek for their “short cuts” in this subject first. Be the reason for this activity what it may, teachers of geography have evolved an effective type lesson system for the teaching of their subject. The geographer has asked, “Why burden the minds of our young pupils with description of ALL the great rivers of the world, of ALL the great mountain systems, of ALL the great cities? Why not carefully select one or two typical rivers, two or three typical cities? In these we can interest the children without any difficulty. Moreover we can then require and expect a definite amount of definite information to be retained. For the rest, let us teach our pupils to read widely, let us cultivate a broad geographical interest, and trust to the seeds we have planted so carefully to yield in the course of time a plenteous harvest.” And the geographer’s forecast has not been far amiss.

Why should not the teacher of history apply the same mode of thinking? At first glance it is evident that the subject matter of history lends itself most admirably to the type lesson method of development. The average grade teacher is frankly dissatisfied with his results in history. In spite of his best efforts to string historical facts along the chain of cause and effect, in spite of his most carefully prepared topical outlines, the teacher of history in the grades is too often obliged at the end of his year’s work to acknowledge that his efforts to make the facts of history a real part of the child’s mental content have been largely futile. Let us see to what extent the type lesson might simplify the problem.

Let the teacher of a particular grade make a selection of a series of type lessons which shall constitute the core of the year’s work in history. Ten or a dozen such lesson units can be carefully planned in such a way that the rest of the work may be grouped about them. These type lessons are to be used throughout as bases for comparisons, relations and generalizations; in other words, they will constitute the framework of the history instruction for the year.

To take a specific instance, the teacher of a certain grade finds by reference to the course of study that his pupils are supposed to cover in more or less detail the period of American history from 1492 to 1763. This period falls naturally into three divisions: (1) the period of exploration, (2) the period of colonization, (3) the period of intercolonial wars. In teaching the period of exploration the various explorers naturally group themselves according to nationalities. One or two type lessons should suffice for each group.

Columbus might be chosen as the typical Spanish explorer. In that case his explorations should be taught with considerable detail, bringing out particularly those phases of his life and work which form the basis for the teaching of other Spaniards who took an active part in opening up the New World. This type lesson should furnish the pupils with definite notions of Spanish life, Spanish policies, Spanish motives, Spanish methods of navigation, etc. With this basis the subsequent Spanish explorations could be gone over very rapidly, the matter of results alone being emphasized.

Similarly the teacher might give a type lesson on Sir Francis Drake to form the basis for the English explorations of the sixteenth century. Marquette might be selected to represent the French missionary activity.

For the period of colonization one typical colony in each of the three groups could easily be selected. Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts at once suggest themselves. For the period of the intercolonial wars a typical battle or two might be taught intensively and realistically. Maps, pictures, literary descriptions will all help to vivify the picture so that the resulting concept may form a type or pattern for the comprehension of all other battles to which reference may subsequently be made.

The instance just cited will indicate the way in which the teacher of history in any particular grade may make a choice of topics for type lessons. More important, however, than the choosing of the topics will be the actual planning of the lessons so that they may be type lessons indeed. This department of the History Teacher’s Magazine will from time to time publish illustrative type lessons in history which it is hoped may be found of practical value. While the method is not put forward as something entirely novel, nor as by any means a panacea for all the troubles of the history teacher, it is our earnest hope that the lessons to be outlined in subsequent issues may contain some suggestions which teachers of history in the grades may find applicable in their daily work.

---

---

PROFESSOR MACE’S NEW BOOK REVIEW BY CHARLES A. COULOMB.

In spite of repeated attempts at producing a history suitable for class-room work in the fourth or fifth grades of the elementary school, the teaching public still awaits a satisfactory book. Children cannot be interested in a mere chronological narrative, nor are they capable of forming sound judgments from groups of facts. Since the days of “Peter Parley,” therefore, the most satisfactory histories of the United States for children have been biographical. In the present work Professor Mace has so far followed tradition. But in the endeavor to secure more continuity of narrative than would otherwise be possible, the stories have been gathered together in groups of two or three or more. Each man in the group appears in his proper historical perspective instead of being partially eclipsed by the fame of some great personage whose biography is used to cover a long period of time or several historical movements. The author has selected his stories from those in which he finds a certain element of heroism, the term being broad enough, however, to cover the lives of Penn and Samuel F. B. Morse, as well as those of Drake and John Paul Jones.

The heroism of some of our great men is shown by overcoming great obstacles just as that of others is indicated by fighting the enemies of their country. So we find William Penn and James Oglethorpe associated with Hudson, the explorer, and Stuyvesant, the fighting Dutch governor of New Amsterdam, in the chapter about “The Men Who Planted Colonies for Many Kinds of People.”

Out of the three hundred and ninety-six pages in the book, two hundred and twenty-nine are devoted to our history prior to 1789, leaving but one hundred and sixty-seven to our history under the Constitution. The division seems to give a disproportionate amount of space to our Colonial and Revolutionary history. This is justified to some extent by the plan of the author. There is no question as to the romance to be found in the voyages of Polo and Drake, and in the life of Captain Smith. At the same time there are other equally dramatic features of our later history that might have been included, and so have given a better distribution of space. More room is given to Washington’s activities before the Revolution than to the rest of his life, which did not, it is true, cover so many years, but is certainly of more importance. With the exception of the statement that Grant was twice elected president, and the story of Edison and his inventions, the history of our country from 1865 to the battle of Manila Bay contains nothing worth recording, so far as this book is concerned. Out of the sixty-six names we do not find one jurist; one feels that Chief Justice Marshall’s name is certainly not sixty-seventh in our history.

The attempt to fix the facts of each chapter by a list of questions for study is to be commended, as is the unusually satisfactory index. Professor Mace has, besides, done what few scholars succeed in doing. He has written his book in such simple, clear English that the pupils for whom it is intended will have little difficulty in understanding it.

Most of the pictures have been selected for their dramatic value, but many portraits and pictures of places and things of historic interest are included in the book. On the whole, the book is a step forward, and the inequalities in it are no greater than those of other books that have otherwise less to commend them. In classes where the course of study in history does not extend beyond the Revolution, the book should have a wide use.

[A Primary History: Stories of Heroism. By William H. Mace, Professor of History in Syracuse University. Cloth, 8vo. xxv+ 396 pp. Rand, McNally & Co. Chicago, New York.]

---

---

Ten years ago had a high school teacher received a copy of such a work as Professor MacDonald’s “Documentary Source-Book of American History” he would have read it with wonder that so many really significant historical documents could be bound together between the covers of one small volume. To-day, thanks to the efforts of Professor MacDonald himself, of Professor Hart, and of many others, we are well supplied with source-books for several periods of American history. Consequently, the latest volume of Professor MacDonald has been accepted as a matter of course; and frequently reviewers have contented themselves with saying that it contained some of the materials already printed in the author’s earlier volumes—“Select Charters,” “Select Documents,” and “Select Statutes.” Such passing notice fails to do the new work justice, and it is the purpose of this short review to tell the reader the classes of material which are contained within the six hundred pages of the Documentary Source-Book.

The extracts contained in the volume consist, in the main, of constitutional or statutory documents, and in this respect differ from the material which has been printed by Professor Hart in his “Source-Readers,” and his “History by Contemporaries,” where the emphasis is placed upon narratives, descriptions, and personal contemporary opinions.

Out of 187 documents, 32 are devoted to the colonial period down to 1764; about 22 deal with the revolutionary period from 1765 to 1789; and the remaining 133 numbers are concerned with the national period. For the colonial period, there are charters of eleven of the thirteen colonies; there are documents illustrative of popular government, such as the Mayflower Compact, the ordinance establishing representative government in Virginia, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, and of New Haven. The relation of the colonies to England is shown by the Navigation Acts, the Molasses Act, the Sugar Act, and the royal proclamation of 1763. The relation to other countries is shown by extracts from the treaty of Utrecht and the treaty of Paris in 1763. No person who is teaching the colonial period even to elementary students should be without the fresh contact with the documents which these extracts make possible.

On the Revolutionary epoch, Professor MacDonald gives us the Stamp Act, the Intolerable Acts, the Massachusetts Circular Letter of 1768, the resolves of the Stamp Act Congress, the Association and resolves of the Continental Congress, the principal acts of Parliament for the prosecution of the American war, and, of course, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Ordinance of 1787, and the Constitution.

The declarations of war and treaties of peace are given in all cases; and there is a complete documentary history of territorial acquisitions, for extracts are given from all treaties agreeing to the cession of territory to the United States, with the single exception of the treaty with England and Germany respecting the Samoan Islands. National problems which have entered into politics are fully illustrated. It is satisfying to find here in convenient form the Alien and Sedition Acts, and the counter-blast of the Republicans, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. The Missouri Compromise documents number seven, and are prefaced by an excellent introduction which gives the congressional history of the compromise measures. A similar treatment is given the six documents on the Compromise of 1850. The Civil War period furnishes twenty-three documents including secession ordinances, the Confederate States Constitution, military affairs, finance, and other matters. The difficult subject of reconstruction, with its ramifications in the impeachment of the President and the care of the freedmen, receives thirty-three extracts.

This short statement gives an idea of the scope of the book and the nature of the extracts. In addition to the documents themselves, another feature gives great value to the book. Many, almost all, of the documents are prefaced by short introductions which give the historical setting of the extracts. In the case of the United States statutes the account of congressional action is very valuable, and in many cases furnishes a succinct narrative of the movement culminating in the act under consideration. Abundant references to secondary works and primary sources are to be found in these introductory remarks.

Thus the book contains a large amount of pedagogical material; sources, bibliography, and analytical introductions combining to add to its usefulness. Such a work will protect the teacher and the scholar, whether in elementary school, in high school, or in college, from loose thinking and careless statements about the facts of American history. There need be few errors in class if such a work is on the teacher’s desk, or, better still, in the student’s hand. And, incidentally, many of our newspapers would profit by the addition of the Source-Book to their libraries. To teachers, journalists, and statesmen, who have not easy access to the Statutes at Large, the collections of treaties, and the congressional documents, or, who, having such access, desire the material in convenient desk form, this book will prove invaluable.

[Documentary Source-Book of American History. 1606-1898. By William MacDonald. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1908, pp. xii-616. Price, $1.75.]

---

REVIEWED BY PROFESSOR N. M. TRENHOLME, OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI.

The movement towards utilizing the remarkably rich and continuous source literature of English history in the secondary and higher teaching of the subject is well illustrated in the appearance of this full and interesting collection of source readings. Leaving aside the early and rather advanced collections of documentary sources by Stubbs, Prothero, Gardiner and other English historians, we have had during the last decade a succession of source-books for English history. No book, however, has brought together and organized for purposes of study and instruction so large an amount of diverse material as is to be found in Professor Cheyney’s “Readings in English History.” Although but recently published, it is becoming most popular and is proving invaluable to the earnest and enthusiastic teacher in search of profitable collateral reading.

The volume is a substantial one of nearly eight hundred pages, and is divided into chapters to correspond with the author’s “Short History of England,” which the “Readings” is primarily intended to illustrate. Right here, however, it should be said that the “Readings” can be used advantageously with any standard text-book of English history and that teachers who do not use Professor Cheyney’s text-book will find the “Readings” almost as valuable for illustrative purposes and collateral reference as those who do. The “Readings” can stand on its own merits as a book in every way. Each general chapter is divided into excellent topical divisions, while the extracts used are numbered consecutively throughout, showing a total of four hundred and fifty-seven selections, beginning with Julius Cæsar’s description of Britain and ending with an editorial from the “New York Times” on the significance of Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee. Could anything be more comprehensive?

In regard to the special contents of the volume, space will permit of only a very brief survey and mention. The selections to illustrate the geography of England, prehistoric and Celtic Britain, and Roman Britain have been admirably made and furnish enough collateral reading for any high school class studying this early period. Classical and early English sources have been skilfully drawn on and interestingly presented. For Anglo-Saxon England the great literary and historical writings such as Tacitus’ “Germania,” Bede’s “Ecclesiastical History,” the “Beowulf,” the “Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,” Asser’s “Life of Alfred,” and various collections of Anglo-Saxon laws and documents, have been freely used and furnish a scholarly and yet not too advanced a background for the ordinary narrative history. In selecting and organizing his material for Norman and Plantagenet England Professor Cheyney has likewise shown remarkable judgment and discrimination. It is in the modern part, however, that his skilful editorial work is seen to fullest advantage and the variety and breadth of selection is really remarkable. The light thrown on the great Puritan movement of the seventeenth century and on the struggle between the Stuarts and their parliaments is so interesting and valuable that no American teacher of English history can afford to ignore or overlook Chapter XIV on “The Personal Monarchy of the Early Stuarts.” Equally, if not more, important are the extracts contained in the three last chapters illustrating the foundation of the British Empire of to-day, the period of revolution in industry and in politics and government, and the growth of real democracy and social equality through the great reforms of the nineteenth century. All forms of public and private record have been drawn on for illustration, and it will be a poor teacher who cannot make more vital and interesting any lesson in modern English history by the aid of these illuminating and interesting selections. If any criticism is to be made of the contents of the “Readings,” it is of the sort that is sometimes made after too elaborate and substantial a dinner—that we have been perhaps a little over-supplied with rich and savory intellectual food by the efforts and industry of Professor Cheyney.

Teachers of English history in high schools and colleges can make most effective use of the “Readings” by having a copy in the hands of each pupil and requiring regular study of assignments in conjunction with the text-book. In this way the “Readings” will furnish a library of valuable illustrative material supplementary to the text-book and will meet the problem of outside reading. The extracts have been so selected and arranged that those for any given topic are not excessive in number or length. If for any reason, however, it is not possible or advisable to have each pupil own a copy of the book, a good plan would be to have available in the school reference library a considerable number of duplicate copies, which members of the class can study and consult. The teacher will, of course, be thoroughly conversant with the material in the “Readings” and can introduce it as a part of the recitation or discussion. An interesting and important extract read aloud in class is frequently of great value in giving life and meaning to the subject matter. The least desirable way for any teacher to use the “Readings” is that of restricting it to personal use alone, as many teachers are prone to do in connection with source-books and other reference works. In order to fulfil its proper function in education a book should reach both teachers and students and be the basis for discussion in the class room. A well-trained and efficient teacher is always anxious that the members of the class shall have every opportunity for reading and study outside of the text-book. We would, therefore, urge on all teachers of English history the great desirability of introducing into general class use this new and exceedingly valuable collection of source readings.

[“Readings in English History Drawn from the Original Sources,” intended to illustrate “A Short History of England,” by Edward Potts Cheyney, Boston, New York, etc.: Ginn & Co. Pp. xxxvi, 781. $1.60.]

---

WALTER H. CUSHING, Editor.

An important result of the increased interest in history teaching produced by the publication of the report of the Committee of Seven was the formation of associations of history teachers. In addition to various local and State groups, three associations, comprising history teachers of different sections of the country, are doing much to raise the standard of teaching in this subject: The North Central History Teachers’ Association, the Association of History Teachers of the Middle States, and the New England History Teachers’ Association. Besides these, there is the Nebraska Association, a branch of the State Teachers’ Association, probably the oldest of the history teachers’ organizations; the Mississippi Association of History Teachers, organized last year as an auxiliary of the Mississippi Historical Society; and the Missouri Society of Teachers of History and Government. In California there is under way a movement to create an association of history teachers, particularly of those engaged in primary and secondary work, and some definite results are expected this fall. In Washington it is proposed to establish a history teachers’ section of the Washington State Teachers’ Association at its next annual session. The Nebraska association, to focus its work more closely, is planning a separate and independent meeting for two days in April.

Of strictly local associations the Boston History Council may be taken as an example. This Council is made up of the heads of departments in the various high schools of Boston, and discusses such questions as changes in text-books, courses of study, fundamental aims and methods. During the past year the question of introducing English history in the first year of the high school has been discussed.

Membership in these associations is almost indispensable to the best work. Not only are the live questions of the classroom discussed, but reports of greater length are presented by special or regular committees; while not the least valuable benefit is that derived from personal association with other workers in the field. The social side of the meeting as found in informal receptions and luncheons is, however, capable of much greater development, especially to the end of reaching the new member.

The three sectional associations have effected an interchange of publications whereby a member of one association receives without additional expense the reports of the other two. Many of the articles and discussions of these associations are of more than local or temporary value. Space does not permit publication of a complete list, but mention should be made of a few: Middle States, 1907, “The Study of History,” Prof. W. M. Sloane; “Methods of Stimulating and Testing the Work of History Students in College,” Prof. Eleanor L. Lord; 1908, “History and Geography,” Rt. Hon. James Bryce; “Correlation of History with Other Subjects,” Sarah C. Brooks and others; North Central Association, 1907, “Influence of the Foreign Population on the Teaching of History and Civics,” Jane Addams and others; “Teaching of American History in Schools and Colleges,” Prof. Edward Channing; “Causes of Immigration During the Period 1830-1850,” Dr. W. V. Pooley; “An Illustration of Research Methods in the Study of English History,” Prof. N. M. Trenholme; 1908, “Results to be Obtained in the College Study of American History,” Prof. W. M. West; “History and Its Neighbors,” Prof. G. L. Burr; “Geography and American History,” Mr. W. H. Campbell and Mr. H. R. Tucker. New England Association, 1907, “The Fall of Rome,” Prof. J. H. Robinson; 1908, “Geography and History,” Prof. G. L. Burr; “Are Modifications in the Report of the Committee of Seven Desirable?” Blanche E. Hazard, chairman.

These associations meet annually in the spring, except the New England, which also meets in October. Information regarding membership, publications, and other details may be obtained from the secretaries: Mr. G. H. Gaston, Wendell Phillips High School, Chicago, Ill. (North Central); Professor Henry Johnson, Columbia University, New York City (Middle States); Mr. W. H. Cushing, South Framingham, Mass. (New England); Mr. H. M. Ivy, Jr., Flora, Miss. (Miss. Association); Professor C. N. Anderson, Kearney, Neb. (President, Nebraska Association).

The eleventh annual meeting of the North Central History Teachers’ Association was held at the Reynolds Club, Chicago, on Friday and Saturday, April 2 And 3, 1909. The Friday afternoon session was opened by Professor Samuel B. Harding, of Indiana University, who read a paper on “Some Concrete Problems in the Teaching of Medieval and Modern History.” The discussion was opened by Professor George C. Sellery, of the University of Wisconsin. In the evening a paper on “The Study of the Present as an Aid in the Interpretation of the Past” was read by Professor Edward A. Ross, of the University of Wisconsin, and discussed by Dean A. W. Small, of the University of Chicago; Professor Paul Shorey, of the University of Chicago, and Dean E. B. Greene, of the University of Illinois. The session of Saturday was devoted to the annual business meeting and to the presentation of the report on the Annual Bibliography and the Report of the Committee of Eight. Professor A. C. McLaughlin, of the University of Chicago, a member of the Committee of Seven, read a paper on “What Changes Should be Made in the Report of the Committee of Seven.”

The April meeting of the New England Association was held in the rooms of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston. The subject for consideration was the “Syllabus for the Study of American Civil Government in Secondary Schools.” A special committee of the association has been at work for several years in the preparation of a syllabus, which will be discussed in the next issue of this magazine.

At the last meeting of the Nebraska History Teachers’ Association a committee was appointed to consider the question of American history in the Grammar grades, with special reference to Nebraska history.

---

---

---

---