The History Teacher's Magazine, Vol. I, No. 4, December, 1909

---

---

---

---

The History Teacher’s Magazine

BY WALTER L. FLEMING, PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY.

A well-constructed syllabus is a useful aid to the instructor and to the student of history in high school and sometimes in college classes. A good syllabus usually contains not only an outline of the essential topics in orderly sequence with numbered divisions and indentations to indicate the value of the topics and their relation one to another, but also definite and more or less complete references to the best reading on each important subject. A complete syllabus should contain also lists of additional topics for extra work or for advanced students, with suitable references to the proper reading necessary to develop this extra work. In syllabi designed for use in high schools and the lower classes of college, references to good historical maps and atlases are usually found, as well as suggestions for map work, lists of historical pictures and other illustrative material, suggestions to teachers and to students, and “thought questions” or “problems.”

Among the published syllabi designed for high school work are the following: “A History Syllabus for Secondary Schools” (New England History Teachers’ Association, published by D. C. Heath), arranged in four divisions—ancient history, medieval and modern history, England, and the United States—with full reference lists and estimates of the percentage value of each section of the course; “The History and Social Science Syllabus” of the New York State Education Department, a slight modification of the New England syllabus that omits the bibliographies; Leadbetter, “Outlines and Studies of Ancient, Medieval and Modern History” (Ginn & Co.), based on the texts of Myers, with good outlines, a few well-selected references, and very good “studies” or “thought questions.” Several publishers of history texts have issued outlines or manuals to accompany them. The best of these for school use are the “Teaching of American History,” etc., published by Appleton to accompany the Twentieth Century texts. The New York State Education Department has prepared numbers of outlines on special fields of history, all of which are helpful to teachers and some of which can be used to advantage with high school and college classes. Nearly all the history syllabi for schools follow the division of the subject into periods recommended by the Committee of Seven.

Several published outlines for use in college classes are worthy of note. Among them are: Shepherd’s “Syllabus of the Epochs of History,” used in the first year work at Columbia University; the two outlines used for the same purpose at Dartmouth College; Munro and Sellery’s “Syllabus of Medieval History,” and Ames’s “American Colonial History” (University of Pennsylvania); Sheldon’s “Teachers’ Manuals” (Heath); the Columbia University (New York) Extension Syllabi, especially those prepared by Professors Shepherd, Shotwell and Beard; and the University of Chicago Extension Syllabi, which are very useful for short periods. All of these outlines can be procured through the book dealers, while many others privately printed can also be obtained. For nearly every competent instructor in history in the colleges and universities has found that in some part of his work there is no proper guide, and to supply the lack has constructed a syllabus.

The general use in high schools of good syllabi such as the New York or the New England outlines with their useful suggestions as to essentials, proportions and methods tends to raise standards, to make uniform the quantity and quality of history work, and to cause the adoption of good methods of teaching.

The advocates of the syllabus have much more than this to say in favor of its use. They claim that it is a guide to study, to the use of a text, to the use of reference works, to the proper division of a subject; that it is a good basis for class discussion, recitation, and examination; and that it keeps topical work from producing confused results, etc. Whether the syllabus will do all this is doubtful, but that it is a valuable aid is certain. When no satisfactory text can be had, the only thing that an instructor can do—formal lectures to immature students being out of the question—is to construct a syllabus or to procure a good one made by some one else. This outline is necessary to give proportion, connection and organization to the course. By making his own syllabus an instructor can secure proper attention to the points that he thinks should be emphasized, and he has in his outline a definite plan of the work to be done, something that many of the texts do not offer.

With the syllabus constantly before him the student will see the subject in its proper proportions; he will not get lost in the mass of detail which must cumber even the best books, but with this guide to the essentials he will be able to collect information from his readings, from explanatory lectures, etc., and to organize it about the framework of the syllabus. Knowing what he is looking for, having a more definite aim than one working out an assignment of “the next fifteen pages,” he can get more satisfactory results.

Not only is it worth while to a young student to have the main topics logically arranged, and ordered in their proper relations, but the practice in the collection and organization of information gained from different authorities will tend to foster the habit of comparison, will cultivate the judgment even though slightly, and will assist the development of the critical faculty. The old system of using one text with “by heart” recitations, though it gave accurate information, did not do this.

With high school and elementary college classes the syllabus should be used in close connection with a text or texts, reference being made to other authorities for differing views, additional information, or wholly new material. No ordinary manuals cover all the parts of a field that a teacher believes should be treated; while the syllabus based on several texts, outlines a more comprehensive plan than any one text has ever done. The proportion observed in the syllabus may correct the text that is too diffuse, too overloaded with details, or too condensed.

For classes pursuing the study of history by the topical method a syllabus is a good thing to bind the work together, to give it connection and definite form. The syllabus is something more than a mere list of subjects; it aims to show relations, to bridge the space between one large topic and another. Too many topics should not be suggested by the syllabus; the fewer and larger the topics the freer the student is to arrange his information about each topic; while too minute analysis makes the work tedious and keeps a student from exercising originality in the arrangement of his material.

In my work in school and college I have found the syllabus useful not only with classes using texts, but with more advanced classes having no prescribed texts. I prefer to make the outlines myself, but find that the published syllabi give valuable hints. In assigning class work, a certain number of topics are given to the class as a lesson. Each individual is required to work out a single topic for extra work. The students read the text and the recommended reference books on each topic, gather the information in note-books, and then are ready for recitation, discussion, or report in class. At least once a month I give to my classes a list of “problems” or “studies” similar to those found in Leadbetter’s “Outlines” and Botsford’s “Greece” and “Rome.” The working out of these aids causes the student to assimilate the information that he has gained and to see the subject in its different aspects; and also tends to prevent indifferent work with the syllabus.

---

The following list of titles makes no pretense of being exhaustive. It was put together from the notes of several of the editors of the Magazine in order to furnish a timely supplement to the article by Prof. Fleming.

It is hoped to publish in the near future a more extended bibliography of those syllabi now in print and on sale for general use. Additions or corrections may be sent to the managing editor, or to Howard M. Stuckert, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Alvord, C. W., and Paetow, L. J.—“Syllabus of Mediæval European History” (from the fourth to the sixteenth century). Champaign, Ill., D. H. Lloyd.

Ames, H. V.—“A Syllabus of American Political and Institutional History During the Colonial and Revolutionary Periods.” Philadelphia, Department of History, University of Pennsylvania, $1.

Burr, G. L.—“Outlines of Studies in the History of the Middle Ages, with Suggestions as to the Sources of Knowledge.” Ithaca, N. Y., Department of History, Cornell University.

Channing, E., and Hart, A. B.—“Guide to the Study of American History,” Boston, Ginn & Co.

Cubberley, E. P.—“Syllabus of Lectures on the History of Education,” with many reproductions of contemporary prints. New York, Macmillan Co.

Dow, E. W.—“Outlines and References for an Introductory Study of European History, from the Third to the Thirteenth Century.” Ann Arbor, George Wahr.

Fish, Carl.—“Syllabus for United States History.” Madison, Wis.

Foster, H. D., and Fay, S. B.—“Syllabus of Continental European History.” Hanover, N. H., Dartmouth College.

Hart, A. B.—“Handbook of the History, Diplomacy, and Government of the United States.” Cambridge, Mass.

Haskins, C. H.—“Topics and References for History, I (Middle Ages).” Cambridge, Harvard University.

Lingelbach, W. E.—“A Syllabus of the History of Europe in the Nineteenth Century.” Department of History, University of Pennsylvania, 60 cents.

Munro, D. C., and Sellery, G.—“Syllabus of Medieval History.” Department of History. University of Pennsylvania. $1.

Richardson, O. H., Ford, G. S., and Durfee, E. L.—“Syllabus of Continental European History from the Fall of Rome to 1870.” Boston, Ginn & Co.

Shepherd, W. R.—“Syllabus of the Epochs of History, with Reference to the Forms of Government and Changes in Social Conditions.” Department of History, Columbia University.

Smith, Don E.—“Syllabus on Historical Geography.” Berkeley, University of California.

Stephens, H. Morse.—“Syllabus of a Course of Lectures on Modern European History, 1600-1890.” New York, Macmillan Co.

Thompson, J. W.—“Reference Studies in Mediæval History (from the fourth to the sixteenth century).” Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Allen, F. J.—“Topical Outline of English History.” Boston, D. C. Heath & Co. 25 cents.

Allen, W. F.—“History Topics for High Schools and Colleges.” Boston, D. C. Heath & Co. 25 cents.

Barnes, Mary S.—“Studies in American History: Teachers’ Manual.” Boston, D. C. Heath & Co.

Barnes, Mary S.—“Teachers’ Manual to General History.” Boston, D. C. Heath & Co. 85 cents.

Committee of Eight, The.—“The Study of History in the Elementary Schools.” New York, Scribners’. 50 cents.

Cornman, O. P., and Gerson, O.—“Topical Survey of United States History.” Boston, D. C. Heath & Co. 60 cents.

Dodge, S. S.—“Outlines of English History.” New York, A. S. Barnes & Co. 25 cents.

Ensign, S. Laura.—“Outlines of Ancient, Medieval and Modern History.” New York, A. S. Barnes & Co. 75 cents.

Ensign, S. Laura.—“Outline Tables and Sketches in United States History.” New York, A. S. Barnes & Co. 25 cents.

Fleming, Walter L.—“Syllabus of High School Course in History,” in “State Course of Study for High Schools of Louisiana.” Baton Rouge, La., Department of Education.

Heckel.—“Topics and References for Ancient History (based on Morey and West).” Indiana, Pa., State Normal School.

Gordy, W. F., and Twitchell, W. I.—“A Pathfinder in American History.” New York, Lee and Sheppard.

Kemp, E. W.—“An Outline of History for the Grades.” Boston, Ginn & Co.

Knowlton, D. C.—“Studies in English History Prepared for the Use of High Schools and Academies.” New York State Teacher, Ithaca, N. Y. 35 cents.

Leadbetter, Florence E.—“Outlines and Studies to Accompany Myers’ Ancient History, and Medieval and Modern History,” 2 volumes. Boston, Ginn & Co. 35 cents each.

Lewis, L. B.—“Pupil’s Notebook and Study Outline in Oriental and Greek History.” New York, American Book Co. 40 cents.

McMurray, Charles A.—“Special Method In History.” New York, the Macmillan Co.

New England History Teachers’ Association.—“Outlines for Ancient, Medieval and Modern European, English and American History,” four parts. Boston, D. C. Heath. 15 cents each.

New England History Teachers’ Association.—“Syllabus in Civil Government.” Macmillan. (Ready late in 1909.)

New Jersey Department of Public Schools.—“History Syllabus.” (In press.)

Newton, C. B., and Treat, E. B.—“Outlines for Review in History for American, English, Greek, Roman History.” New York, American Book Co. Each 25 cents.

New York, City of—“Course of Study and Syllabuses In Ethics, English History and Civics for the Elementary Schools of the City of New York.” Department of Education, New York City.

New York, Regents of the State of—“History Syllabus” (outline similar to that of the New England History Teachers’ Association, with the exception of English History).

Riley, Franklin L.—“Methods of Teaching History in Public Schools.” University of Mississippi. Published by the author. 25 cents.

Trenholme, N. M.—“Syllabus for the History of Western Europe (Medieval and Modern).” Boston, Ginn & Co. 60 cents.

Wilson.—“Compendium of United States and Contemporary History.” Boston, D. C. Heath & Co. 40 cents.

---

BY PROFESSOR WILLIAM MacDONALD, BROWN UNIVERSITY.

It would seem to be a truism that the facilities which are to be regarded as indispensable to the proper study of a subject, and which ought, therefore, to be provided as a matter of course, should, like the methods of teaching, be determined by the nature of the subject, or, in other words, by the kind of material with which it has to deal; but the disparity in the equipment of the various departments of study and research commonly to be observed in even the best and richest American colleges and universities seems to indicate that, so far at least as the so-called “humanities” are concerned, little provision of appliances, save modest shelter from the weather and seats enough for the class, is generally thought absolutely necessary.

No one who knows at close range the “plant” of a typical American university will be at a loss for striking and even painful illustrations of the unequal distribution of material equipment. Broadly speaking, the departments of physical and natural science and engineering do not seriously lack the primary facilities which the nature of their work demands. Upon these departments, in the last twenty years, the wealth of the State and of individuals has been poured out like water, while more than one institution, spurred by a demand for “practicality” and “efficiency,” has gone to the length of drawing upon its capital to supply what was wanting. Our institutions of learning abound in well-contrived laboratory buildings for physics, chemistry, biology, and engineering, containing not only lecture rooms for the various instructors and laboratories for students elementary and advanced, but also private laboratories and offices for the professors, exhibition and photographic rooms, libraries, lockers, and other special apartments. The rooms themselves are commonly well supplied with apparatus and material, distributed and apportioned according to the number of students and investigators, and increased by regular appropriation, and as a matter of course, as the number of users grows. There is usually a special janitor or caretaker for the building, and often one or more skilled persons regularly employed in making or repairing apparatus, preparing or caring for specimens or stock, and the like. It has long been a matter of common observation that the cost of maintaining the scientific departments of a university, or even of a small college, is out of all proportion to the cost of the other departments of instruction, that it is met by governing boards with comparative readiness, and that it is often afforded, it must bluntly be said, at the cost of deplorable and systematic niggardliness in other directions. Other things being equal, no scientist to-day would consider for a moment a call to an institution which could not afford him all of these things, nor would the scientific world reckon the instruction of an institution not so equipped as worth while.

When, however, we turn to those other departments of study still graciously referred to as the “humanities,” departments which older graduates and commencement orators still tell us embrace the subjects of the deepest human interest, the disparity in material equipment is commonly so great as to be almost ludicrous. Who, of the thousands that yearly are driven or besought to drink deep at the wells of literature, or history, or philosophy, in our American colleges or universities, can fail to recall the desolate class-rooms, their bare and dingy walls, relieved at the most by a few old maps, or a faded photograph or two in heavy wooden frames, the floors swept once a week and washed once a term, the hand-carved chairs and benches, the chalk-dusted platform and desk, and the foul air, which, in the majority of such institutions, enshrine the daily life of academic culture? Where the teacher of science is freely accorded a lecture room for his department alone, the teacher of language, history, or economics must, as a rule, share his quarters, poor as they are, with those of his colleagues whose principal apparatus is books, and must vacate his room promptly to make way for another class at the next hour. Many a high school does better for its teachers than this; indeed, the best of our modern high schools, bearing in mind the grade of their work, offer almost infinitely superior facilities for work in these departments than does the average college or university.

Widespread and depressing as this condition is, in general, in all of the departments named, the particular illustration which I wish to use at this time is that afforded by history and the related subjects of political and social science and political economy. Applying the test that the equipment of a department should be determined by the nature of the material with which the department deals, it is obvious that we have here a subject in which printed matter of a variety of forms, manuscripts, maps and charts, pictures and casts, and actual historical objects or reproductions, form the material basis for the student’s work. Where the chemist uses books and apparatus, the historical student uses books and other material as apparatus. For the modern study of history, even of the elementary sort, one must be enabled to examine not only single books, such as may be got from a library and perused at leisure in one’s home, but also extended sets and collections of books and papers, and this under conditions which will admit of comparison and note-taking and the use of the volumes in the actual work of the class-room. For the preparation of maps and charts, facilities in the way of tables and instruments are required entirely beyond what the student can fairly be expected to have in his own room; while especially is there need of abundant space for the permanent display of wall-maps, charts, pictures, and illustrative material, like coins, casts, and models, if the active use of such aids is to be secured.

Acquaintance with a considerable number of colleges and universities, large and small, in this country fails to disclose any appreciable number in which the material equipment of the historical department has passed much beyond the stage of crude beginnings. With exceptions so few as almost to be counted on the fingers, the most generous provision, always excepting the general library of the institution, goes no further than the use, prevailingly in conjunction with other unrelated departments, of one or more lecture-rooms; a “seminary room,” furnished with a table and some chairs, and housing such odds and ends of books as the industry of the instructors or the intermittent generosity of friends has got together, reënforced by loans from the main library; and possibly an office frequently shared by all the members of the department, where students may come for consultation. If, as seems rarely to be the case, the department has any adequate supply of maps, they have often to be kept in some out-of-the-way place, and carried about from room to room as needed; and almost never are there tables and instruments for the drawing of maps and charts. Meagre as is such equipment, some of our leading institutions do not have even this. If it be true, as it seems to be, that student interest, particularly among men, in literature, history, and philosophy, has declined markedly in recent years, may not something of the cause be found, not in the inherently greater attractiveness of mixing chemicals or dissecting cats and birds, but in the utter poverty and bareness of the quarters in which students of the humanities are commonly asked to do their work? If professors of history have fallen too much into the habit of lecturing, instead of teaching, may it not be due in part to the failure of the university to give even the ablest of them facilities for doing anything else?

I venture to suggest the following as the minimum equipment of an historical department in a university or large college. First, two or more suitable lecture-rooms, with ample blackboard space, map racks or cases, book shelves, and a lantern and screen. The rooms should be contiguous to the other rooms of the department and reserved exclusively for its uses. It is time that there were opportunity for a professor to put up a map without having to take it down again at the end of the hour. Second, a combined seminary room and library, available for study when not in use as a class-room; equipped, like the lecture-room, with adequate blackboard and map space, and housing a permanent library of duplicates reënforced by such temporary loans from the main library as are from time to time needed. Included in the furnishings of the room should be a sufficient number of small tables to accommodate each individual student, and file cases for photographs, cards, newspaper clippings, and temporary notes. For the supervision of this room, there should be provided a special attendant, preferably a trained library assistant, responsible to the librarian of the university as well as to the head of the department. Third, a room for map drawing and chart-making, with tables and instruments for draughting. Fourth, a typewriting room, supplied with machines for the use of instructors and students. Fifth, private offices or studies for the instructors.

Elaborate as such a provision of apartments may well seem to the teacher who to-day, like the wandering scholar of the Middle Ages, lectures wherever he can find a vacant room, it nevertheless is smaller than that generally allowed to the chemist or physicist. Of all the evils which present-day criticism of the college has brought to light, none is more serious than the evil of waste. The history teacher who, under the conditions common to most American institutions of higher learning, should teach his subject as he would like to teach it and as he knows it ought to be taught, would spend in useless mechanical drudgery more hours than he spent in lecturing. Most institutions with endowment enough to entitle them to a place on the “Carnegie list” have ceased to expect this waste from professors of science, and there is no reason why the time of the professor of history, political science, or political economy should not be regarded as equally valuable. If under the influence of a general demand for at least the minimum of what is due, the governing authorities of all our universities could even be brought to realize that a ground plan of the city of Rome and a Rand-McNally map of North America are not a sufficient equipment for the teaching of modern history and diplomacy, one might face the future with a new hope.

Of the many advantages to the teaching and study of history which might be expected to accrue from the general provision of such facilities as have here been indicated—economy of physical effort, more accurate study of texts, improved note-taking and care of material, wider use of books and illustrative helps, general compulsory map-drawing, and many others—one in particular deserves more than passing mention. I refer to the change which would thereby be furthered in the prevailing conception of the nature and function of the university library. With only the exceptions that prove the rule, our libraries are supported and administered on the assumption that one copy of a book is sufficient for the needs of the whole institution, and that every one who has occasion to use the book must seek it at the main or central repository. It would seem to be obvious, however, that wherever books form the fundamental material for study, and, from the nature of the case, cheap reprints of selected texts or a few duplicates of inexpensive volumes will not suffice, the library has need of as many copies of a book as there are departments to use it; and that if, with but a single copy available, resort must be had by every one to the central library, the conflicting and often irreconcilable demands of different departments present one of the most serious barriers to the development of proper methods of instruction in non-laboratory subjects. No modern department of biology is asked to get along with one microscope, and that, perhaps, of ancient pattern and in bad order. Scientific apparatus in all lines is freely duplicated as a matter of course, the adequacy of the supply being not seldom used as an advertising argument to attract students; though, as a matter of fact, there is but little greater need for duplicate apparatus than there is for duplicate books. Practical considerations, of course, will preclude extensive duplication of large or costly sets, but a multiplication of copies far beyond what is now usual, and their distribution among the various departments having constant need of them, are necessities to be met if waste is to be stopped.

I hope that I do not make the mistake of supposing that, given such historical laboratories as have here been briefly described, the universities would forthwith produce historians. I make no plea for the application of the specific methods of any science to the study of history. But the student of history, like the scientist, has to collect and classify his material, examine and criticise his sources, compare and weigh his authorities, and study his locale. What a proper equipment can give him is, not the intellectual power and insight of the great historical writer, but the opportunity to do a student’s indispensable work under the best conditions and with effective guidance, instead of doing it, as is too often the case to-day, under conditions of great disadvantage. That provision of such equipment would also stir the teacher to a more telling presentation of a subject to his class, and enable him to vitalize and dignify a department which, in this country especially, is too often thought of as but little related to current human interests, is not the least of its advantages.

---

BY NORMAN MACLAREN TRENHOLME, PROFESSOR OF THE TEACHING OF HISTORY, SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI.

The most vital thing in history teaching is the recitation, for no matter how well the teacher has been prepared in the subject matter or how admirably the field of study has been mapped out, poor work in the class room will mean general failure. The reason for this is not hard to discover; the recitation is that part of the work of the teacher in which closest relations are established with the minds of the pupils, and it is above all things important that teachers should realize this and make the most of their opportunities to guide and direct the pupils’ thought and study. Too often the recitation is made a mere repetition of facts in the text-book, poorly organized and presented in an uninteresting and unconvincing way. History that is taught without understanding and enthusiasm and without proper organization of the subject matter had better not have been taught at all, as it results in dislike and contempt for the subject as being nought but a catalogue of meaningless names, dates and events. Yet how few history teachers seem to realize their opportunity to make history mean more than this. How frequently one sees even well-meaning teachers plodding along in the same old rut, painfully extracting unrelated facts from boys and girls, emphasizing the external events and neglecting what lies beneath, asking direct questions and getting “yes” and “no” answers, and being generally satisfied that they are good history teachers and fulfilling their mission in life. The recitation conducted by such a teacher usually will begin abruptly with some question on the assignment for that day and will probably end abruptly by the gong sounding its warning and a hurried assignment for next day being made as the class prepares to leave. All the important qualities of a good recitation, relation to the previous day’s lesson, careful study by teacher and class of the new lesson, and a well-considered assignment of work for the next day are in whole or part absent. It is not as if it were difficult to make the recitation a success, or meant more work for the teacher, for, on the contrary a well-organized recitation is easier to handle than one conducted without organization, and the work of the teacher is made pleasanter through the interest of the pupils in the work. History when properly taught is bound to hold the interest and attention of the average boy or girl. If it does not do so, then the presumption is that it is not being properly taught and that the teacher needs to bring more understanding and method into the work.

The fundamental idea in the organization and conduct of the history recitation should be that of building a little more on foundations already laid, of adding new knowledge and ideas of historical importance to those already a part of the pupils’ background, and of preparing the minds of the pupils for further additions in the near future. The most discouraging thing that a history teacher has to face is the seemingly evanescent character of the pupils’ background. It slips away and there is nothing to build on or add to, and so the relation of events to each other and the growth of important movements are not understood or appreciated. This discouraging aspect of history teaching can only be remedied by careful attention to the background of the day’s lesson, and therefore the first ten or fifteen minutes of the period should be devoted to a general discussion or recitation on the lesson or lessons previously studied that are most closely connected with the new lesson of the day. Then should follow a careful study of the new lesson itself, occupying the main part of the period. Towards the close, however, five or ten minutes should be allowed for the assignment of the work for the next meeting of the class. Thus the general organization of the recitation will consist of: (a) The recitation or review on the previous lesson or lessons; (b) the study of the new lesson; and (c) the assignment for next day’s work.

In the main, this should be done by the pupils rather than by the teacher, as a more lasting impression is made on their minds by leading them to recall and associate past events and movements with what they are then studying. The points in the previous work that should be especially emphasized are those of general importance and significance in historical development rather than the minor details and incidents. The recitation can thus be made to serve as a summary of previous ones, and particularly of the one just before. The teacher must be careful not to give too much of the period to such a review, however, unless a special general review has been planned for. There is always the temptation to prolong the review beyond proper limits. It should be rigidly confined to subject matter that has importance as a background for the new lesson of the day. If the previous lesson does not stand in close connection with the new lesson little or no time should be spent in reviewing it, but attention should be given to other more closely-related events that have been studied. The utility of this part of the recitation in giving background for the new lesson is easily seen. If the lesson is a part of a series of recitations on the same general topic, then one introductory review will serve for the series, and each separate lesson can be reviewed in connection with the succeeding one. A broad and comprehensive attitude in reviewing is always desirable, and no opportunity to establish ideas of continuity with past and future should be neglected by the teacher.

If the opening part of the recitation has been properly done, the transition to the new lesson will be an easy and natural one, and the connection with the past will be well established. The teacher now has the opportunity to test the pupils’ understanding of the new topic and to draw them out in discussion concerning the information in the text-book, source book, and collateral reading assigned for the day. The teacher’s questions should be carefully thought out, and should call for answers in which the information is given in connection with its historical importance and significance rather than as mere facts that have been memorized for recitation. All direct questions, calling for a “yes” or “no” answer should be avoided, for with such a question before him the student has an equal chance to be right as well as to be wrong. Almost equally bad are questions that call merely for a name or a date. Instead of asking: “Was Rome able to defend herself from the Visigoths?” time will be saved by asking: “Why did Rome find it difficult to meet the Visigothic attack,” and, instead of asking “Who was the leader of the Visigoths?”—a fact which every pupil should know—a better question would be: “What caused the Visigoths to invade Italy?” While it is important that the teacher’s questions should be clear, yet it is not a bad thing pedagogically to ask a question that requires some thought on the part of the pupil before it is answered. Pupils frequently say: “I don’t understand your question,” and sometimes this answer is justified, more frequently, however, it is the pupil’s own inattention, and the majority of the class will understand the question and be able to answer it correctly. The harder questions a teacher asks in the way of calling for thoughtful interpretation the better training students are getting.

In the matter of the relative contribution of teacher and class to the discussion, it may be said that a teacher who talks too little is as bad as a teacher who talks too much. As a general rule the college graduate teaching history who is well informed in his subject matter tends to talk too much in the class room, and his study of the new lesson is more of a lecture than a recitation. As an observer of such a teacher remarked, “The young man made a very good recitation himself, while the class listened.” On the other hand, the teacher who has less background of historical knowledge is inclined to make the class do all the work while he or she acts as inquisitor and perpetual question mark. Nothing is contributed in the way of information or interpretation save what the pupils have acquired from the text-book, and the result is an unscholarly and rather barren drill. The true history teacher will mingle knowledge with method, and will add to and amplify the subject matter by taking part sympathetically in the recitation, without, however, monopolizing the discussion. In calling on members of the class to take part in the discussion, attention should be given to those who need it most, rather than to the bright and well-informed pupils. The dull or inattentive pupil, who is whispering to his neighbor or not paying proper attention, needs more real teaching than the bright boy or girl. The interest of all members of the class should be aroused, and voluntary questions, discussions and debates encouraged rather than discouraged. If the pupils are inattentive and uninterested, it is certainly a criticism of the teacher and of his or her power of exposition and interrogation.

Much of the success of the recitation on the new lesson will depend on the way the subject matter is handled. Some leading idea or problem should form the center of the discussion, which should take the form of saving or explaining the question in an historically true manner by bringing out the main points of development. In the course of such a discussion the application of the topic to present conditions and its relation to the past should be kept in mind and questions asked from both viewpoints. This applies particularly to topics in medieval and modern, English and American history fields which are, on the whole, more closely connected with modern civilization than the field of ancient history can possibly be. If the problem studied is practically completed in the lesson for the day, and a new topic to be taken up next time, then a summary should be made at the end of this part of the recitation. If, however, the same line of historical development is to be studied next day, such a summary will form part of the next recitation. Thus the question of a summary at the close of the recitation on the new lesson depends on the nature of the next lesson to be studied.

The assignment of the work of the class for its next meeting should be very carefully and systematically attended to by the teacher. This assignment is best made at the close of the period because it concerns the review of the lesson just studied, as well as the new lesson. It should be taken down in note books by the pupils so that they will know definitely what is expected of them when they next meet. As far as practicable the teacher should put the assignment for the preliminary recitation on the previous lesson or lessons in the form of problem questions calling for causes and results that explain historical phenomena. Problem questions can also be given in connection with the assignment on the new lesson, though here a topical assignment is not so much out of place if the topic is well selected so as to suggest the main problem. Questions of detail in an assignment are out of place, and, of course, an assignment of so many pages, irrespective of problems or topics, is absurd. If collateral reading is assigned in source books or secondary works, it should be done understandingly and carefully, and only in such amounts as can be effectively used by the teacher and class to supplement the text-book. A question on the collateral reading will also be desirable.

In following out such a plan of organizing the recitation as has been just described, the teacher should, for some time at least, plan out the recitation period and its various phases in advance.

---

BY ALEXANDER L. PUGH, CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, HIGH SCHOOL OF COMMERCE, NEW YORK CITY.

One of the things that makes the course of study of the High School of Commerce unique is the emphasis laid upon the preparation of the boy for the economic and civic environment in which he will live. Two courses are given solely with this end in view. The first is the course in city industries which has as its object the realization of the economic environment; and the other is the course in municipal activities, which in a similar way prepares the boy for his civic environment. These are both two-hour courses given for one term or one-half year. Like most New York City high schools, Commerce has about one-half of its boys in the first year, so these courses are given then, when both will be taken by nearly every boy. The course in industries is given first, as it deals more with the boys’ immediate surroundings than does the other.

Shortly after the school was organized, Dr. John L. Tildsley, at that time chairman of the Economics Department, now the principal of the De Witt Clinton High School, proposed to the principal, James J. Sheppard, that a course of one hour a week be given to all boys in the first year on local commercial geography and government. He contended that there was much that was complex in the surroundings of the boy in the greatest commercial city in America, yet the schools were doing very little to make this understandable. The work would have also an immediate value to the boys who would leave to take the minor positions of the business world before completing the course. Mr. Sheppard recognized the value of the course, and it was put into effect at once. The importance of the work demanded more time, and when history was taken out of the first year, two hours a week were allotted in the first term to industries, and two hours in the second term to city government.

The material of the course was gathered by Dr. Tildsley, the teachers in his department, and by the boys taking the course. Dr. Tildsley is a strong advocate of the problem question as a means of making the boy think. At first memorandum books were given to the pupils in which they noted definitions, local statistical tables and the problems, the written answers to which they brought into the next recitation. At present mimeographed sets of notes are given to the pupils containing this matter. The course was revised from time to time, and two years ago, on account of the accumulation of material, Dr. Tildsley and the author decided on a thorough revision of the course. The course had come to be grouped around two main ideas which furnished a basis for the division of the work into two parts to be given in each half term of ten weeks into which the school work is divided at Commerce. During the first half New York was considered as a manufacturing city, and in the second half as a commercial city. A sentence from De Garmo to the effect that commercial geography should be taught to furnish the concrete background for economics, gave us the touchstone. We reviewed the material and rejected all topics that did not illustrate any economic principle, law, or problem. A few topics were rejected because they were too difficult for first-year pupils. Then the standard secondary economic texts were gone over rapidly to see if we had omitted anything that could be used. Seager and Seligman were found to be the most helpful in this respect. The material selected was divided into two groups, as already indicated. As a result of our efforts we have now in Commerce a course in elementary economics that we believe to be unique.

The subject is begun with a report on the occupations of the boy’s family, his friends, and neighbors, and a study of the industrial life on his block. The boy is given the problem of classifying these occupations and grouping the workers according to his classification. He is then given as standards the figures from the United States and State census for gainful occupations in the United States, New York State, New York City, Manhattan and Bronx Boroughs, which he must express graphically. Then he combines the figures collected by the boys of his section (some forty) and his class (some five hundred). The results show, of course, that the manufacturing and mechanical pursuits and trade and transportation are the great groups of city industries.

We take manufacturing first as being nearer the boy, and we begin the study of the problem of the manufacturer, from a table specially prepared by us from the census report on the concentration of important manufactures in forty-seven cities. The problem is formulated as being the assembling of raw material, power, labor and capital at a place most convenient to its market. Each of these factors is studied in detail. The following are some of the topics discussed under labor: population; its composition, its growth from immigration, from migration and from excess of births over deaths; the effect of an increase from each source upon the efficiency of the workers of the city; the location and distribution of the labor force throughout the city; the effect of the sanitary regulations of the Board of Health and housing regulations of the Tenement House Department, etc.; the systems of employment; why the help, handicraft and the domestic systems still survive in this city; the important manufactures of this city, together with the kind of labor they use; and how the labor supply has affected them; what manufactures are leaving the city on account of the labor; what manufactures are coming in because of an abundant supply of cheap labor; the distribution of manufactures throughout Manhattan and the greater city; and how this distribution is related to the distribution of labor; how transportation improvements modify this distribution, etc. In a similar way are treated the problem of a supply of power, of a supply of capital, of a supply of raw material and of access to a market. The natural advantages New York has for commerce, its harbors, its inland water-ways, its situation, and its hinterland, with its products, is the first topic taken up in the second half-term. The improvements of these natural advantages and the sharing of the work of improvement on the high seas, throughout the hinterland and in the harbor by the national, State and city governments respectively is the second topic. The general idea of a great seaport that the boys formulate from a study of the great ports of the world, is that it is favorably situated on the coast, where it can draw unto itself the products of the near hinterland and distribute them over the world, and that it gathers together the products of the lands beyond the seas, and distributes them over the near and far hinterland. These topics are worked out in detail like that of the labor supply, already described. The course is concluded with a simple outline of the works of banks, trust companies and stock exchanges in supplying the necessary capital for manufacture and for trade.

The boy has now secured a generalised and systematic view of the trade and manufactures of his city and has obtained a lot of detailed and specific information about the part he and his neighborhood play in making New York a great city. The boy is studying an economic unity, the metropolitan district, and he is comparing it whenever possible with the United States and the world. He has learned to use statistics compiled by others, and he has helped compile some of his own. His generalizations are economic generalizations, he has learned to formulate economic principles, and he has observed the operation of economic laws. We believe that this study has supplied him for his future study of economics with a concrete background which will be filled out in the later years of the course, by the study of his civic environment and his more formal study of commercial geography of the United States and of the world.

This method of beginning economics can be applied in almost every school. The local economic unit will furnish all the material that the teacher can utilize. It means work for the teacher, but the trained and enthusiastic teacher will find the work full of interest to himself and to the pupils.

---

REVIEWED BY H. W. EDWARDS, OF BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA.

This book represents the prevailing tendency to make instruction in civil government minister to good citizenship. The author states his purpose in these words: “While preparing this book I have constantly kept in mind the truth that instruction in civics should have for its highest aim the indoctrination of the learner in sound notions of political morality, and I have attempted to assist the teacher in achieving this aim whenever such assistance has seemed to be practicable.” A careful examination of the book, followed by a two years’ test in the class-room, has convinced the present reviewer that Dr. Forman has achieved his purpose and that the book is admirably adapted for use in the upper grades of secondary schools.

The book is divided into three parts. Part I is entitled “The Essential Principles of American Government. The Spirit.” In a way that is at once thorough, vital, and practical, the author explains the origin and raison d’être of democracy, representation, separation and balance of powers, federalism, local self-government, political parties; viewed in the light of American conditions. The treatment is clear, and abounds in allusions that an alert teacher can apply to present circumstances, developing interest and stimulating thought. This portion of the book affords a good introduction to the study of government for classes that can devote an entire year to the subject. It is especially useful where pupils have missed previous training in English history and government. Used in connection with American history, it furnishes a helpful interpretation of the political institutions whose development the pupil is studying.

Part II is headed, “The Organization of the American Government. The Form”; and gives what is usually found in manuals of civil government. This is compressed into one hundred and twenty pages, and while non-essentials are excluded, it does not appear that any important topic is neglected. Four chapters are devoted to local government, and one chapter to party organization. Some of the topics discussed are: “The President as a Political Personality,” “The Supreme Court and the People,” “The Citizen and His Country,” “The Sphere of Municipal Activity.”

The third part deals with “The Functions of the American Government. Its Services.” Here the author describes the government, national, State and local, in action. Included here are such topics as “Laws,” “Taxation,” “Money,” “Commerce,” “Elections,” “Corporations,” “Labor,” “Crime,” “Charity.” The treatment of controverted problems is dispassionate and conservative, and free from dogmatism. The method is to state the origin of the problem, indicate suggested solutions, and lead the pupil to reach his own conclusion in the light of the facts.

At the end of every chapter is a list of “suggestive questions.” Unlike the pedagogical apparatus found in many text-books, these questions are really useful. They are well calculated to lead the student to pursue the subject farther, by research and by independent thought. Many of them involve the application of principles to concrete instances, and are useful to train the judgment. Properly handled, they will enable the student to experience the pleasure of independent discovery, and thus serve one of the main purposes of all education.

In general, the problem of proportion is well solved. At first glance, one is tempted to criticize the relatively brief treatment of Part II and the large space given to Part III. But the suggestive questions at the ends of chapters will enable the teacher to treat of the organization of the government as fully as he desires, while some of the chapters dealing with the functions of government may be omitted without violating the unity of the subject. To the present reviewer, however, the arrangement is very satisfactory, for he believes that teachers have erred in sacrificing the live activities of government to the dry details of form. If, instead of compelling pupils to master the functions of the Fourth Assistant Postmaster-General, or to learn the appellate jurisdiction of each of the courts, we could lead them to watch a State purify its elections or a city secure a water supply, fewer of them would find civil government “dull.”

The criticisms that may be made are of minor importance. School books should be bound in part leather. The book would be more usable if the paragraphs were numbered. An occasional misstatement appears, e. g., that only eleven colonies were present in the First Continental Congress (p. 45). Chapter IX, a narrative of the expansion of American territory might well be omitted, as belonging more properly to another subject.

The index is adequate. The appendix contains some useful documents, including the New York law of 1892 for the prevention of bribery, and the provision of the California Constitution which permits cities to frame their own charters.

President Nicholas Murray Butler has indicated in the following sentence the ultimate object of civics teaching: “He who truly understands the meaning of liberty and the meaning of law, and the relation of one to the other, is ready to face his full duty as an American citizen.” To impart this understanding, the present volume seems especially well fitted. The high responsibility of citizen training rests upon the teacher and cannot be shifted, but he should find in this book a most serviceable tool.

[“Advanced Civics. The Spirit, the Form, and the Functions of the American Government.” By S. E. Forman, Ph.D. New York. The Century Co.]

---

---

The days of isolation are passing. It is no longer possible for college professors to conduct classes and give lectures upon subjects unrelated to the student’s ability or to his year in the college course. All the world knows what each instructor is doing; questionnaires quiz him about methods and subjects; associations require him to talk about his work and consciously to face its problems.

Neither is it possible for a high school teacher to drag listlessly along, or arrange his history topics as he wishes. College entrance requirements, the criticism of the high school inspector, the rising standards of State educational systems, are holding him to more definite and more accurate work. He has not the earlier liberty to be careless and slovenly; he has still in almost all cases the liberty to do his work well in the way best suited to himself and to his class.

History teaching to-day is entering upon the period of conscious endeavor, and neither college professor nor high school instructor can afford to ignore this fact. By far the strongest element in raising the standards of history teaching has been the historical associations and the organizations of history teachers, which, during the past twenty years, have faced many problems of the history teacher. It is well nigh impossible for all of us to solve all these problems individually, although some of us may solve some of them. We need the comparison of ideas and of experiences which can be gained in the organizations; we need the inspiration coming from association with the strongest minds of the profession; we need the personal acquaintances which grow out of such meetings.

The alma mater,—generous, inspiring, appreciative,—of historical study and teaching in America, is the American Historical Association. For twenty-five years its stronger members have given of their strength, its weaker members have received inspiration, and its younger members have been encouraged to higher work by its appreciation of their labors. Its membership is open to all interested in the study, the writing, or the teaching of history, upon the payment of a small fee. The best work which the association performs for its members is the holding of the annual meetings, which are not only opportunities to hear learned or practical discussions of historical questions, but also a means through which the history teachers and writers of the country can be brought in personal contact with one another. It is this social element, say all who have attended the meetings, which constitutes their most valuable feature. Members of the association receive a quarterly magazine, “The American Historical Review,” containing original contributions to historical knowledge, and reviews of recent historical works in all the modern languages; and also two volumes of annual reports of the association. For the convenience of members living in the extreme West, a Pacific Coast branch has been organized, the members of which meet annually in the West, but they receive all the publications of the parent society.

Not history teachers alone, but all interested in the subject, are eligible to membership in the national association. Not so with the principal sectional organizations,—the New England, the Middle States and Maryland, and the North Central history teachers’ associations. These are designed primarily for the stimulation of those engaged in teaching the subject; their meetings discuss not so much the content of history and its sources, as the form and method of presentation, the choice of subject-matter, and the relation of history teaching in the school to that in the college. The associations have arranged to exchange publications, so that the teacher who is a member of any one of the associations receives the publications of each of the others.

A third form of associations is that made up of State associations of history teachers. In some cases these have grown out of the sectional bodies, but in most cases they are an outgrowth of the State teachers’ associations. The State associations are now growing in numbers and in membership. They are accomplishing much good, not only in raising the State standards, but also by turning attention to the study of local history in the State schools.

Local conferences of history teachers are now meeting in a number of cities. The most recently-formed is the San Francisco Conference; the oldest, probably, is the New York City Conference. Such meetings are often of a social nature, including informal round table discussions of topics of current interest to the history teacher.

The existence and growth of these local and general societies show that there is a strengthening of interest in history, and that the work of the history teacher is becoming more conscious and more highly organized. They indicate also that under new standards the comparison of ideas and the stimulus of personal intercourse are needed to hold the history teacher to his work. There is no excuse for back-sliding with these associations in the field; and if local organization has not yet been perfected in any district, the success of the local conferences already organized should lead to the founding of many more.

In another column of this number of the Magazine will be found a partial list of history associations and conferences, together with the names and addresses of their secretaries. This list will be printed each month; and it is hoped to make it a complete directory of history teachers’ associations in the country. Readers who are interested in joining any of these organizations should correspond with the respective secretaries.

Shall not the school year 1909-1910 be made notable by increased usefulness and enlarged membership of all these associations?

---

In commemoration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the founding of the societies, the joint meetings of the American Historical Association and the American Economic Association, to be held in New York, December 27 to 31, will be the occasion for a more elaborate program than has been arranged for previous meetings, and the participants will include not only the officers and members of the Associations, but many other persons of local, national or international standing. New York, in many respects an ideal convention city, and accustomed to entertaining associations of all kinds, is outdoing its record in order to make this meeting of the historical and economic bodies memorable in their history.

In addition to the American Historical Association and the American Economic Association, a number of allied societies will hold meetings at the same time and place. Among these bodies are the American Political Science Association, the American Statistical Association, the American Sociological Society, the American Association for Labor Legislation, the American Social Science Association, the American Society of Church History, the Bibliographical Society of America, and the Mississippi Valley Historical Association. There will be a Conference of Local and State Historical Societies and a meeting of the Public Archives Commission. The New York State Teachers’ Association will also be in session at Columbia University on these days, and will hold at least one joint meeting with the American Historical Association. There will be meetings of the working committees and boards of the several societies, and a conference of the editors and correspondents of The History Teacher’s Magazine.

Such an association of active organizations is a worthy tribute to the work of the two parent societies during the past twenty-five years; but it is not the members of these societies alone which will join in celebrating the anniversary. Public-spirited citizens of New York, national officials, including the President of the United States, and many representatives from foreign states and learned societies abroad will have a part in the general or special programs.

It is not possible here to give in detail all the announcements already issued concerning the meetings. For convenience it is necessary to group them into three divisions: Meetings of a general nature, arranged by New York citizens as a recognition of the worth of the associations, and joint public meetings of several societies; meetings of the several societies in which matters of special interest to their own members are discussed; and social meetings and events prepared by the local committees of arrangements in which the liberal hospitality of the city is well shown.

The general program will open on Monday afternoon with a joint meeting of the Sociological, the Statistical, and the Social Science Associations in the Metropolitan Building as guests of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, at which will be delivered the presidential addresses of the presidents of the three societies. In the evening of the same day there will be held the principal public meeting arranged by citizens as an official welcome to the associations. The meeting will be held in Carnegie Hall, and addresses will be made by Chairman Joseph H. Choate, President Taft, Governor Hughes, Mayor McClellan and Dr. Nicholas M. Butler. Tuesday morning and afternoon will be devoted to joint meetings at which will be given the presidential addresses of the Historical, the Economic, the Political Science, and the Labor Legislation Associations; these will be delivered respectively by A. B. Hart, D. R. Dewey, A. Lawrence Lowell and Henry W. Farnam.

The detailed programs of the several societies contain a long list of topics to be treated by trained specialists. Only the more important can be mentioned. The Tuesday evening meeting of the Historical Association, held at the New York Historical Society Building, will be devoted to a discussion of the work of historical societies in Europe. Delegates from England, Germany, Spain, France and Holland will describe their respective national historical activities. The Wednesday morning joint session of the Historical and Political Science Associations will have as topic “British Constitutional and Political Development, with Special Reference to the Centenary of Gladstone,” and papers will be read by Ambassador Bryce, Prof. Dennis, of Wisconsin; Prof. Wrong, of Toronto; Mr. Porritt, and by Mr. Fisher, of Oxford.

Thursday, December 30, will in many respects be the most valuable for the history student. Morning and afternoon there will be conferences at Columbia University upon special historical topics. In the morning the following conferences will be held: Ancient History, Prof. Westerman, of Wisconsin, chairman; Medieval History, in join session with the American Society of Church History, Prof. Emerton, of Harvard, chairman; American History, in joint session with the Mississippi Valley Historical Association, to discuss the Westward movement, Prof. Paxson, of Michigan, chairman; Conference of Archivists, Prof. Ames, of Pennsylvania, chairman. In the afternoon the conferences will be continued: Modern European History, with Prof. Robinson, of Columbia, chairman; American History, Ethnic Elements in United States History, Prof. Greene, of Illinois, chairman; Conference of State and Local Historical Societies, Prof. Sioussat, of the University of the South, chairman.

Historical conferences will be held also on Friday morning as follows: American History, the Contributions of the Romance Nations to the History of America, Prof. Shepherd, of Columbia, chairman; History in the Secondary Schools, with reports upon history in French and German schools, and preliminary report of the Committee of Five, Prof. Salmon, of Vassar, chairman; History in the Grades, with discussion of the report of the Committee of Eight, Prof. James, of Northwestern University, chairman. The program for each of these conferences has been carefully outlined and a series of short papers will be presented followed by a general discussion. In addition to these meetings for the discussion of historical subjects proper, many allied topics will be treated in the sessions of the other associations.

Prof. Johnson, of Teachers’ College, Columbia University, is directing an exhibition of aids to the visualization of history, mentioned in another part of this number of the Magazine which promises to be one of the features of the meeting. Columbia University Library will exhibit plans for libraries, and architectural plans of interest to members of State and local historical societies.

But, after all is said about the scientific and technical conferences, it must be admitted that the greatest value of the annual meetings is to be found in the personal friendships formed and renewed, and in the purely social features of the meetings. In this respect New York is preparing to give the members of the associations a most hearty welcome. The headquarters of the associations will be in the Waldorf-Astoria, and many of the meetings will be held in the several assembly rooms of the hotel. On Monday luncheon will be tendered the members by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; on Tuesday, Columbia University will give a luncheon, and Tuesday evening a club dinner will be given at the University Commons, and later in the evening a smoker. On Wednesday there will be a breakfast for members at the Waldorf-Astoria; a tea at the residence of Mrs. Clarence W. Bowen, and in the evening a reception and entertainment at the Waldorf-Astoria by the Ladies’ Reception Committee of New York, Mrs. Robert Abbe, chairman, at which a number of historical tableaux will be presented. On Thursday, Teachers’ College will entertain the members at luncheon, and in the evening Mr. and Mrs. William K. Vanderbilt will give a reception at their residence. In addition to these features of entertainment of all the associations, there will be luncheons and social meetings for many of the smaller groups composing the larger societies.

From a scientific, a popular, and a social standpoint the New York meetings should be a marked success. The several local committees have worked unremittingly upon the many details of program and entertainment; and with metropolitan zeal and generosity they have outlined the most interesting program the associations have known.

---

ARTHUR M. WOLFSON, PH.D., Editor

THE CONSTITUTION—ITS ANTECEDENTS, ITS FORMATION, AND ITS ADOPTION.

The study of the Constitution of the United States involves two more or less distinct processes. If the student is to comprehend it perfectly, he must consider it, first, as an historical document, studying its antecedents, the process of its creation, and the method of its adoption; second, he must consider it as it exists at present, the ground plan upon which our national institutions have been reared, and under which the Government of the United States is still being operated.

A generation ago the opinion was almost universally received that our present constitution was the result of the superhuman skill of the two or three score men who sat and deliberated in the State House in Philadelphia from May 25th to September 17th, 1787. Even Gladstone, whose knowledge of history and politics should have taught him better, seems to have lent himself to this theory, for in contrasting the English and the American Constitutions, he declares that, “As the British Constitution is the most subtle organism which has proceeded from progressive history, so the American Constitution is the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.” To-day this theory has been entirely abandoned. For this reason, the student must be brought to consider the Constitution as an historical as well as a political document, seeking its origins in the institutions of England and the English colonies, acquainting himself with the personality and the theories of the men who sat in the Convention, following the debates and the newspaper discussions which in every State were the preliminary steps to its ratification.

For the boys and girls who have studied their English history and their Colonial history with care and intelligence, only a brief review of the antecedents of the Constitution will be necessary. Nevertheless, this review should not be neglected. Once more the teacher should insist upon the fact that the roots of American civil and political institutions are to be found in English soil. Transplanted to America in the seventeenth century, these institutions were affected and modified by local conditions, but in their origin they were essentially English. The study of the Constitution should therefore begin with a brief reconsideration of the English system of government, its origin and development, especially in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Far more important than the system of government, however, was the system of law and the theory of the right of the individual to freedom from unjust impositions by the government which the colonists inherited from the mother country. Not until the student is able to state again, and accurately, the fundamental principles of Magna Carta, of the Petition of Rights and of the Bill of Rights should the teacher proceed to the consideration of other subjects, for the very language of these documents will appear again in the first nine amendments to our present Constitution.

Next, the teacher should review with his students the history of the establishment of the various groups of colonies, their forms of government, the various methods of colonial legislative, executive, and judicial procedure, the rights and duties of the governor, the method of election and the powers and functions of both houses of the colonial assemblies, the rights and duties of the judiciary: one and all, these served as models which were freely studied and adopted by the members of the Constitutional Convention.

Most important of all precedents, however, were the colonial forms of union. Beginning with the process of amalgamation which is to be observed in the history of Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, proceeding through the history of the New England Confederation, “a consociation for mutual help and strength in all their future concernments,” through the history of the Albany Plan, the acts of the Stamp Act Congress, the Committees of Correspondence, the Continental Congress, and the Articles of Confederation, the student should be made to see that the Constitution of the United States is but the last step in a century and a half of political development. In the Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England (Article 8), for instance, is to be found the germ of the constitutional provision for mutual rights of citizenship and for the return of fugitive slaves and criminals. In the Albany Plan we find at least two provisions which in later days were to be incorporated in the Federal Constitution: (1) that a single officer should be charged with the general administration of the affairs of the union, and (2) that representation should be proportional, not equal, among the members of the union.

The study of the Articles of Confederation should, of course, be thorough and exhaustive. Too many teachers are content to leave their pupils with a hazy notion of the form of government submitted to the States in 1777 and finally adopted in 1781. Because so much is regularly said about the defects of the Articles, so much about the perfection of the Constitution, the teacher must be warned and warned again against the almost universal custom of belittling the importance of this instrument of government. With all its imperfections, it is nevertheless true, considering the troublous times during which it was in operation, and the spirit of separatism which existed among the States, that this earliest bond of union among the States served as a strong link without which the present Constitution would never have come into existence. Under these Articles, the States severally entered into “a firm league of friendship with each other for their common defense, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare.” They guaranteed that “the free inhabitants of each of these States ... shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States”; “that full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, etc., of every other State.” The provisions of the Articles concerning the three departments of government should also receive careful attention, especially the executive and judicial departments, because it is here that most high school students are left with exceedingly vague and inaccurate conceptions. A thorough analysis of the document will show that while there were abortive provisions for the creation of a separate executive and an attempt to establish a limited national judicial department, all real power was vested in the Congress. Congress gathered to itself all the active functions of government, and yet even it could take no definite action unless the delegates from at least nine of the States consented, and none of its acts could be enforced except through the good will and the active coöperation of the separate States. In these two circumstances and in one other, namely: that Congress had no power to regulate interstate commerce, lay the serious, the fatal weakness of the Articles of Confederation. Nor did there seem to be any way of remedying conditions, for no amendment could be made to the Articles unless every State consented. Three times the attempt was made, but each time it failed, and the experiment of a union among the States seemed doomed to failure.

Then, in 1786, upon the invitation of Virginia, delegates from five of the States met at Annapolis to consider the subject of interstate trade without consulting the members of Congress. Instead of taking any action, however, this convention issued an address to the States inviting them to send delegates to a convention to meet in Philadelphia May, 1787, “to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union.” Though many States still hesitated, as a result of this address, delegates from all the States except Rhode Island met at the appointed time in what came to be known as the Constitutional Convention.

Having led his pupils thus far in the study of the history of the Constitution, the teacher is now prepared to discuss with them the second stage of its story. First he will need to insist, and that unrelentingly, that they become acquainted with the names and the personality of at least the most prominent members of the Convention: Washington and Madison and Randolph, from Virginia; Franklin and Wilson and Gouverneur Morris, from Pennsylvania; Hamilton and Lansing, from New York; Gerry and King, from Massachusetts; Ellsworth and Sherman, from Connecticut; the two Pinckneys, from South Carolina; and Patterson, from New Jersey. The personality of these men, their plans and preparations, are all of profound importance; each contributed something, positive or negative, to the new instrument of government.

The history of the convention itself falls roughly into three stages: during the first month the delegates were busy presenting their plans of union, each party attempting to enforce its will upon the minds of the others. Then followed a month during which the parties gradually came to an agreement, each waiving some of the things which it regarded as essential in return for concessions upon the part of the others. Finally, during the third month, though the debates still went on, they were occupied mainly with the settlement of details, none of which was of primary importance. If this threefold division of the work of the Convention is kept in mind, the teacher will find it comparatively easy to bring order out of the apparent chaos of the deliberations of the three and a half months’ session at Philadelphia.

Taking each period in its order, we find that during the first month there were two radically opposed opinions in the Convention. On the one hand, were those who believed that a strong central government should be established; on the other, those who believed that all that was necessary or proper was that the Articles of Confederation should be amended by giving to Congress more power, and by creating a strong executive and a judicial department. The plans of the first party were set forth in the Virginia Plan, which was probably drawn up by Madison and presented to the Convention by Randolph; those of the other in the New Jersey Plan, which was presented by Patterson. Each of these plans should be carefully and thoroughly studied. Beside them, the student will do well to acquaint himself also with the proposals laid before the Convention by Hamilton and by Pinckney.

After a month of debating propositions and counter-propositions, the differences narrowed themselves down to the single question of what should be the method of representation in Congress. For a time it seemed as though no agreement could be reached upon this subject. Then came the compromise offered by Ellsworth and Sherman, of Connecticut, which the Convention finally adopted—the first great compromise of the Constitution. Next followed the debate between the Northern States and the Southern States upon the question as to what should be the basis of representation. This, too, was finally settled by what is known as the second compromise of the Constitution. Finally there remains to be studied the debates over the questions of the slave trade, and foreign and interstate commerce. Here again the Convention divided on sectional lines, till the difference was settled by the third great compromise of the Constitution.

Now the Convention entered upon its third stage. Debates and differences of opinion were still frequent, but they related almost entirely to questions of detail, not to fundamental principles, so that by September 17th the Convention was able to adjourn after having transmitted the Constitution to the Congress of the Confederation for action.

With the work of the Convention behind us, there remains the third stage of the history of the Constitution to be studied. Instead of acting finally upon the document, after a brief period of deliberation, Congress on September 29th submitted it to the States for ratification. This ratification was not accomplished without difficulty. Opposition to the new form of government was active, often virulent. The grounds for this opposition should be carefully studied. Unless we understand it clearly, we shall be in no position to understand the basis of the constitutional strife which raged in the United States for the next seventy years, which culminated when the eleven Southern States finally seceded from the Union. The objection to the new Constitution was based first upon the feeling that the central government outlined in the Constitution was too strong and would ultimately overshadow and destroy the State governments; second, upon the fact that the Constitution contained no Bill of Rights, and that therefore the sacred rights of the people for which they had fought in the Revolution might be interfered with. The first objection was finally overcome by the argument and by the feeling among the people that life in America would soon be impossible unless a stronger federal government than then existed could be established; the second, by the promise that a series of amendments embodying the principles known as the Bill of Rights would speedily be adopted. Thus the Constitution was finally ratified, and in April, 1789, the new government went into operation.

The further history of the Constitution belongs to a later period of American history and is therefore outside the limits of this article. It remains only, then, to indicate to the teacher the sources where he may profitably seek further information on this subject. For the story of the development of the English Constitution, specific references can hardly be given, any one of the half dozen standard text-books on English history should be adequate for the study of this subject. The three great charters of English liberty may be found in any of the source books of English history, such as, for instance, Kendall’s or Colby’s or Lee’s; while, for the history of colonial institutions, the student is referred to the works on colonial history already mentioned in previous articles. The basis for the study of the work of the Convention is to be found (1) in the “Journal of the Convention,” published in Elliot’s “Debates,” and, especially, (2) in Madison’s “Notes,” which are much fuller and much more satisfactory. Of the secondary histories of the period, only some half dozen need be mentioned: (1) Fiske’s “Critical Period,” (2) Curtis’s “Constitutional History,” Vol. 1; (3) McLaughlin’s “The Confederation and the Constitution,” (4) Walker’s “Making of the Nation,” (5) Landon’s “Constitutional History,” and (6) Hart’s “Formation of the Union.” There are others, of course, but these are more than sufficient for the ordinary student.

---

The period of transition, 1788-1789, is one of much interest for the student and the teacher of American history. After the Constitution had been ratified by the requisite number of States there remained many details to be attended to before the new government could be put into operation. Hasty generalizations have been made respecting this period; and many a student has found his queries upon the precise mode of transfer to the new government unanswered. Frank Fletcher Stephens, Ph.D., has published in the “University of Missouri Studies” a monograph, which covers this transitional period. Treating first the action of the old Congress, Dr. Stephens follows the action of each of the States upon the election of senators, of representatives, and of presidential electors, closing with the determination in 1789 of relations between the national government and the State governments. While the chapters upon the first elections for national officers are of value, the closing chapter upon federal and State relations is particularly so. The author shows how the United States revenue system took the place of the State tariffs, and how the change was made successful by appointing to the national offices many of the customs officials trained in the State service. Other subjects over which the authority of the new government was paramount were admiralty matters, naturalisation, and paper money; and upon each of these the authority of the national government superseded the action of the States. Respecting pensions and light-houses, we have a voluntary surrender to the nation of the obligations incurred by the States in caring for their veterans or in promoting commerce. The monograph throws much light upon a neglected period of our history. E. K. Y.

---

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

THE RENAISSANCE.

Before opening the discussion with the class there should be a clear conception in the mind of the teacher as to what the Renaissance really was. Is it to be regarded, for example, as an era, embracing within its limits the Babylonian Captivity and the Great Schism, the Hundred Years’ War, the struggle for Italy and the rise of Spain, and ending finally with Luther’s attack on the Church in the sixteenth century; or is it to be restricted to a narrower field, marked largely by a revival of art, literature, and science and followed by an age of discovery? “The period of the Renaissance,” says one writer, “in its proper and most comprehensive meaning, may be regarded as the age in which the social and political system of the Middle Ages came to an end, in which medieval restrictions upon liberty of thought and inquiry were abolished.” He then proceeds to explain that it includes all the events which lie between 1273 and 1494, or, in other words, two centuries and a quarter of European development. A little further on, however, he refers to the “two movements with which the Renaissance has been preeminently and sometimes exclusively associated—the revival of letters and the revival of art,”[2] and discusses it from this second point of view, showing how even with this narrower conception of the movement it may properly include the reform of religion, the extension of geographical knowledge and new discoveries in the realms of science, both these conceptions were evidently before the minds of the committee of the New England History Teachers’ Association as they framed their syllabus. The efforts of the secondary teacher must of necessity be confined to the Renaissance as a revival of letters and art. This does not preclude the teacher from regarding the events from 1273 to 1494 as symptoms of changes which were bringing the Middle Ages to a close and inaugurating a new era. In fact, these events may serve as an introduction to the Renaissance proper, as has already been shown.[3]

The simple question, “What was the Renaissance?” will serve to open the subject, and the various answers which may be drawn from the students can be made to fit the teacher’s conception of the movement; or, better still, the questions may be so framed as to draw from the students themselves the teacher’s preconceived notion of what is to be understood by the term. At the close of the discussion, the teacher’s definition or conception, framed in simple language and dictated to the class will fix it clearly in the student’s mind and serve as a guide to further study and discussion. The following conception, which is made up of statements borrowed from several sources, will serve as an illustration: “The Renaissance was an intellectual and scientific transformation of Europe, a great and fundamental change in thought and taste, in books, buildings and pictures, for which the world had long been preparing and in which we still participate.”

This question suggests a second. “When did this movement begin and when did it end?” This question may be treated separately or regarded as a fundamental part of the first query. If an English and a German Renaissance are to be recognized, as well as an Italian Renaissance, care must be taken to select the dates accordingly. Following the plan of some of the text-books, it might be well in this connection to point out the fact that, although the movement began in Italy in the middle of the fourteenth century and lasted there until about 1550, its dates for England were approximately 1500 to 1600, and for Germany, 1450 to 1520.

It is a natural transition from these considerations to a discussion of why the movement first showed itself in Italy and why it became so widespread. The answer to this query will naturally depend somewhat upon the conception of the movement which has already been agreed upon by teacher and class. If the Renaissance is to be considered, as has been suggested, as primarily a revival of learning, care should be taken to point out the fact that learning had not entirely died out in the Europe of the Middle Ages, but that considerable progress had been made back in the days of Charles the Great and again in the thirteenth century in the rise of universities and the development of the scholastic philosophy. The greater stimulus which followed the revival of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries was due rather to a more favorable set of conditions than had heretofore prevailed in Europe. This was especially true of Italy. “It is no mere political mutation,” says Symonds, “no new fashion of art, no restoration of classical standards of taste. The arts and the inventions, the knowledge and the books, which suddenly became vital at the time of the Renaissance, had long lain neglected on the shores of the Dead Sea, which we call the Middle Ages. It was not their discovery which caused the Renaissance; but it was the intellectual energy, the spontaneous outburst of intelligence which enabled mankind at that moment to make use of them.”[4] The enumeration of these favoring circumstances will make necessary a return on the part of the teacher and class to the time of the crusades; and the nearer they approach the fourteenth century, the closer will appear the relation between such phenomena as the passing of feudal conditions, the rise of the bourgeoisie and the awakening of the individual man to a consciousness of his latent powers and resources. The weaving of this chain of circumstances will bring up among other things the rise of national literatures, the founding of universities, the development of town life, the appearance of the Ottoman Turks in Europe, the political and economic condition of the Italian cities, the work of Dante and Petrarch, and the timely invention of the printing press.

The class is now ready for the final question, “What did the Renaissance really accomplish?” The following headings are suggested for developing this phase of the subject; (1) the revival of learning; (2) the new art; (3) commerce or discovery; (4) science and invention; (5) religion. This order offers an easy and at the same time a natural transition to the Reformation.

Several methods are open to the teacher for expanding these sub-topics. One is to select a single individual, or a small group of individuals and to present their lives and work in sufficient detail to illustrate the various activities of the age and its leading characteristics; or to present a series of contrasts, placing the achievements of these men over against the attainments of the great thinkers and doers of the Middle Ages. Either method does not require an elaborate library equipment for its success.

If the former plan is adopted, Petrarch becomes the embodiment of that passionate love for antiquity, that zeal for the collection of ancient manuscripts, and that bitter opposition to those masters of the Aristotelian logic, the ancient schoolmen, which marked especially the revival of learning. A Raphael, a da Vinci, a Titian, and a Michelangelo mark the highest pinnacle of achievement in painting; Michelangelo, many-sided and versatile, like so many of his brother artists, is the type of the great sculptor; and Bramante of the great architect. The extension of geographical knowledge is so intimately associated with the life and work of Prince Henry the Navigator, that it has led one writer to declare that “the change which has revolutionized European trade and has drawn the whole world within the influence of Western civilization was indirectly the doing of this Portuguese prince.”[5] Science needs no better exponent than a Copernicus; the name of Gutenberg has always been associated with the printing press and finally, religion is ably represented in the person of a Valla and an Erasmus. The consideration of the life and work of the two last-named writers brings us face to face with the reform movement of the sixteenth century.

If the second method commends itself to the teacher, the schoolmen, limited both as to material and method, with their appeal to authority, can be presented in sharp contrast to the critics and scoffers of the Renaissance with their final appeal to the reason. There is some danger of over-emphasizing the follies of the former and of failing to estimate their work at its true value. (On this point see Adams, p. 368, and footnote.) If it is true that St. Peter’s suffers by contrast with the great achievements in the Romanesque and the Gothic, not so a Raphael, a da Vinci, and a Titian when placed side by side with a Cimabue, a Giotto and a Fra Angelico; or the rude reliefs on the doors of Notre Dame and the Strasburg Cathedral, when placed beside the bronze doors of a Ghiberti, “worthy to stand as the gates of Paradise.” The discoveries of a Columbus, a Magellan and a Vasco da Gama, when contrasted with the medieval conception of the world as depicted by their greatest cartographers, emphasize the remarkable progress of this later age in “discovering the world,” as well as man. Finally the misconceptions and pseudo-scientific treatises of the medieval schoolmen sink into insignificance beside the work of a Galileo and a Copernicus and the far-reaching results of the printing press.

Whichever method may be followed, it will be found that illustrations will add much to the interest of the class and make clearer the characteristics of the painting and sculpture of the period. A few pictures carefully selected will serve the purpose much better than a larger number. The “Madonna and Christ-Child,” by Cimabue;[6] the “Death of St. Francis,” by Giotto, and the “Coronation of the Virgin,” by Fra Angelico, will serve as illustrations of some of the faults of medieval painting. Care should be taken, however, to point out the fact that some of these artists are classed among the early Renaissance painters and their work marks a decided advance over that of their predecessors. The “Last Judgment,” by Michelangelo; the Sistine “Madonna,” by Raphael; the “Assumption of the Virgin,” by Titian, and da Vinci’s “Last Supper” are numbered among the “World Pictures,” and illustrate that mastery of technique and conception which has made their names so famous. Pictures of Michelangelo’s Moses, his David, and his figures on the tombs of the Medici, and Ghiberti’s bronze doors for the baptistry of Florence can easily be secured to illustrate the work of the Renaissance sculptors. A suggestion has already been made as to medieval sculpture. The Perry Picture Company or the Cosmos Picture Company can probably supply such pictures as may be needed at a very moderate cost. That teacher is especially fortunate who has access to a good art museum. The Metropolitan Museum of Art of New York City offers special facilities to teachers and classes wishing to use their collections.

Reference has already been made from time to time to helpful literature. Burckhardt’s “Civilisation of the Renaissance in Italy” is often cited as the best book in English on the Renaissance in Italy, but it offers comparatively little in the way of suggestive treatment for the secondary teacher. His point of view is psychological and therefore quite beyond the comprehension of the secondary student. This fact, however, should not discourage the teacher from a perusal of his pages, as he throws new light on many a vexed question connected with the movement. Symonds’s “Short History of the Renaissance in Italy,” an abridgement of his larger work, though more popular and less scholarly, portrays the more attractive and the more intelligible side of the period and makes it glow with life and enthusiasm. Placed in the hands of the young reader, it may be the means of inspiring him with some of the writer’s enthusiasm for the labors of the men of that period, and possibly stimulate a stronger desire for some of that culture of which they were such worthy exponents. The chapter by Adams on the Renaissance in his “Civilization During the Middle Ages” is most suggestive and helpful. He not only summarizes the various revivals which culminated in the Renaissance proper, but traces the movement from its inception in Italy to its appearance in Italy and Germany, pointing out clearly its leading spirits and characterizing their special contributions to the movement. Lodge, in the concluding chapter of his “Close of the Middle Ages,” deals with the main features of the Renaissance and presents some admirable contrasts between the old and the new. Mention should also be made of the chapters in Seignobos’s “History of Medieval and Modern Civilization” on the “End of the Middle Ages,” “Modern Times,” “Inventions and Discoveries,” and the “Renaissance.” Beazley’s “Prince Henry the Navigator,” contains much more than a biography of this great pioneer in the field of discovery, and will be found useful for its summary of earlier achievements. Seebohm’s small volume on the “Era of the Protestant Reformation,” though brief, contains an excellent summary of the conditions which prevailed during the Renaissance and their relation to the movement for religious reform. Van Dyke, “History of Painting,” and Marquand and Frothingham, “History of Sculpture,” are useful handbooks for the artistic side of the Renaissance. Whitcomb’s “Source Book of the Renaissance” probably contains the greatest number of readings from the Renaissance authors, both Italian and German. Special mention might be made of his extracts from Petrarch and Benevenuto Cellini in Part I.; and from Erasmus and the “Letters of Obscure Men” in Part II. Part II. is preceded by a short account of the Renaissance in Germany. Robinson’s “Readings,” Vol I., contains much that is helpful, particularly in contrasting the culture of the Middle Ages with that of the Renaissance. In this connection should be noted Chapter xix, on the “Culture of the Middle Ages,” with its subdivisions on “Mediæval Natural Science,” “Historical Knowledge in the Middle Ages,” “Abelard and the Universities,” “Supremacy of Aristotle in the Mediæval Universities,” “Scholasticism,” and “Roger Bacon and the Beginning of Modern Experimental Science.” Chapter xxii contains extracts illustrating the Renaissance in Italy, with subdivisions on the Italian despots (quoting from Machiavelli), “Humanism,” and the “Artists of the Renaissance.” Ogg devotes one of his concluding chapters (xxvi) to the “Beginnings of the Italian Renaissance,” in which he quotes from Dante and Petrarch.

The following questions, gleaned from various sources, may serve the teacher as a guide in presenting some phases of the movement.

In what respects were the Crusades responsible for the Renaissance?

What is meant by the “revival of learning,” and through what agencies was it brought about?

Trace the causes leading to the Renaissance and name four persons prominent in art or literature during this period.

Set forth the limitations and the value of scholasticism and the meaning and results of the revival of learning.

What contributions to the Renaissance movement were made by Italy, Germany and England respectively?

State the part taken in promoting the Renaissance by Copernicus, Petrarch, Raphael and Erasmus.

State some of the effects of the Renaissance as they appear (a) in government; (b) in literature and art; (c) in industries.

Show a relation between the Renaissance and (a) the fall of Constantinople (1453); (b) the invention of printing; (c) the discovery of America; (d) the Protestant revolt.

Discuss the accuracy of the following statements, mentioning the facts upon which you base your conclusion:

a. The fall of Constantinople did not cause the Renaissance, but it did give a great impetus to it.

b. Without the Renaissance the Reformation would not have occurred.

---

WILLIAM FAIRLEY, Ph.D., Editor.

THE GLORY AND THE RUIN OF GREECE.

With the work of the present month we come to a period of Greek history marked by the extreme of contrast. We are to study the crowning glories of Greece in the realm of mind, and her downfall on the side of political strength and success. Both facts should be emphasized. This section is specially well fitted for topical study. A series of such topics may well be as follows:

1. Map of Attica and the Athenian Empire at its widest. Plan of Athens. Pictures of Athens. Side topic: the sources of the wealth of Athens. (Mines, taxes, tribute).

2. Athenian public life. Intense devotion of citizen to state affairs. Opportunity for every citizen to hold office.

3. Social, industrial and private life. Aspasia, as throwing a side light on position of woman.

4. Greek art—sculpture, architecture, painting.

5. Greek drama: its development and power.

6. Greek philosophy. The attempt to read the problems of life. Special reference to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.

7. Athenian democracy under Pericles. The Constitution.

8. The career of Pericles: born leader of a democracy.

9. The Peloponnesian War.

10. Military and naval affairs. Athenian naval supremacy. The Theban phalanx.

11. Spartan and Theban control. Military rule of conquered sections.

12. Greek political failure.

Here is a good month’s work; and one which will test the teacher. Remark has already been made in this series of articles on the surpassing debt of modern civilization to Greek thought. The present is the opportunity for the pupil to grasp the extent of this debt. The value of such grasp will depend on the teacher. It is easy to imagine the dullness of mere text-book work here. The student may be led through such a period, and have no more impression left on him than he would by learning the boundaries of our forty-six States. On the other hand, he may be so impressed by the marvellous activities of the Greek mind as to be able always hereafter to understand why literature makes so multitudinous references to this petty people.

The better text-books are admirable in their restraint in dealing with such topics as the Peloponnesian War. One fine book gives only six pages to it, and omits all trivial details. Another good book gives only about eight pages. This is as it should be. That war, and the later attempts at control by Thebes are to be taken, not as studies of heroic endeavor, but as melancholy examples of human foolishness. The bitter costs and heavy losses of war can find no more striking illustration than in the period of the great struggle for control in Greece. These were essentially civil wars from our point of view. It is true there was no political unity in Greece, save of the fleeting federations; but for all that the wars of the fifth century and the first half of the fourth were wars among peoples who should have been brothers. Historians tell us that there are no “lessons” to be drawn from past occurrences. But, spite of that dictum, the political fate of Greece points plainly to the evils of unnecessary war. Some wars are unavoidable race conflicts; others center about the struggle for freedom from tyranny; others come from the clash of older and newer ideas. But fratricidal war, such as the internal conflicts of Greece, is only horrible. The recent ebullition of temper between England and Germany, peoples of the same stock, is an illustration of the sort of thing that the Greek example may well warn against.

It is a relief to turn away from war and its evils to the living interests of peaceful life. The young student will come across many references in his later reading to Athenian democracy. That democracy reached its flowering under Pericles. In the outline of topics given at the beginning of this article, number 7 calls for a period devoted to the study of this democracy. How shall such a lesson be taught?

In a preceding article it was suggested that the pupils make an outline of the older Athenian constitutions. This outline may well be supplemented first of all by one of the various assemblies, courts and offices of the Periclean time. But that is only the bones of the study. The lesson might proceed by a series of comparisons with modern conditions. First of all, What did an Athenian mean by “democracy,” and what do we mean? The answer to this question will show the mighty advance of the modern idea over the best of the older world. The growth of the power of the popular assembly as over against that of the senate and Areopagus should be pointed out. And its modern counterpart in the growing distrust of legislatures and the demand for the referendum may be used to illustrate the same tendency among us.

The degree of intelligence among the Athenians who constituted the assembly must be noted. Probably so able a body of citizens would be hard to match in a modern state of a thousand times the size of Athens. But was this excellence, founded on slave labor, and the idea that the worth of the true citizen is measured by his political activity too dearly bought?

The long control of Pericles, “the leader of the people,” illustrates finely the fact that the great man is sure to assert himself and to be used by his fellow citizens under whatever system of government, and whether he holds office or not. On the other hand, the theoretic division of executive responsibility, rising from distrust of one-man power, was a weakness. States must use and trust their great men, putting heavy responsibilities on them.

Contrast may well be drawn between a court at Athens and one in any part of the United States. Here will be opportunity for finding out how little the average youth really knows about our jury system.

Another topical lesson suggested is number 5, on the Greek drama. The growth of drama from the old chorus may be traced with its addition of an actor—then two actors—then three. The names of the chief dramatists, Æschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, should be linked with our Shakespeare and Molière, (What American playwrights fit worthily in such a class?) The difference between tragedy and comedy can be shown, tracing the etymology of the two words as given in any standard dictionary. Set the pupils to discussing the difference between a good play and a bad one. Why do these few old Greek plays live, and their characters become commonplaces of literature, with the characters of Goethe and Shakespeare? What characters of modern plays are likely or worthy to live? And at some time in the all-too-short period there might be short illustrative readings from a translation—Browning, or Shelley. Only by some such enlivening method will our charges ever get any grasp on the fact that Greek drama was epoch-making in its importance. We might well compare the open-air theater of Greece with our modern play-house; and also the different spirit in which the Greek took his drama.

Again attention is to be focused on the fact that the Greeks were leaders and masters in art. And the surpassing wonder is that when the rest of the world had been satisfied with winged bulls and sphinxes and grotesquely conventional forms of men these people arrived in a century or two at a perfection which is the delight and the despair of the world. Their supremacy in carving the human figure in marble needs to be connected with their devoted attention to the development of the living form by athletic exercise. In our larger schools will be found casts, perhaps, at any rate, pictures, of the best pieces of Greek art. Their restraint, their simplicity may be dwelt on. In the country where the one lone teacher, not an expert, either in history or art, has not even a “pallid bust of Pallas,” he or she can at least make use of the illustrations in the text-book. Above all, let us try not to let this period be one of dull memorizing of names. It needs interpreting to the young folks so that they may see the wonder of it all, and the controlling influence it has exercised on the ages since.

That same lone teacher just referred to may feel that it is absurd to ask for a lesson on philosophy with children. But, is it not true that in childhood some of us have been more curious about the problems of existence than we have since had time or taste to be? So if we cannot read to the boys and girls passages from the Phædo or the Apology, we can stir our pupils to a sense of the pressing nature of the problems which the Greeks first (save the Hebrews) strove rationally to solve. They asked and tried to find rational answers to such questions as, What is the relation of mind to matter? What is God? What is man? Does man die as the beast dies? And to these questions the men of this period found not unworthy answers. So in every field of human thought we find them pioneers and teachers of the world.

---

C. B. NEWTON, Editor.

IV. VARIOUS PHASES OF THE FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH CENTURIES.

One of the best-known professors in Princeton Theological Seminary, some years ago, was locally famous for his curious mannerisms. It was said that at certain crises in his lectures he would put his watch in his mouth, to the huge delight of his class. But one is a great teacher in spite of one’s mannerisms, not because of them, and with most of us peculiarities in the class-room greatly detract from and handicap our usefulness as teachers. I am moved to a friendly word of warning at this point because we are approaching the time of year when subtle and imperceptible class-room peculiarities are apt to creep upon us unawares. The first freshness of the year’s work has worn off, “the daily round, the common task” is perhaps beginning to tell on us. Little ruts of expression, little oddities of speech or manner begin to creep upon us unawares. Only eternal vigilance—vigilance tempered, however, with humor and a due sense of proportion—will save us from the danger of establishing some unhappy mannerism which may grow into a beam in comparison with some of the motes we see in our pupils’ eyes!

I remember having this brought home to me very forcibly, some years ago, when I had an unusual opportunity of seeing myself as others saw me in the class-room. A lad with an unusual gift of caricature, took off several teachers at an informal evening gathering. After recognizing, with considerable amusement, clever take-offs of several of my colleagues, I suddenly recognized, with equal amusement, myself! In a flash I recognized an unnecessary trick of speech into which I had fallen, hitherto all unconsciously. There were other mannerisms, apparently harmless, but I saw in an instant how useless and objectionable the trick of speech was; and I inwardly blessed the boy for revealing it to me. I have never once used it since. More than this, I was put on my guard, and I have since caught myself at some seedling idiosyncrasy, which I was able to weed out before it took root.

It may be that some teachers are immune from this danger, but I believe it is a real one with most of us, and—“let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall!”

In addition to the great conflict which occupies an important position on the stage of the fourteenth century, there are several important and interesting phases of this period which have much to do with the development of the English nation. The growth of trade, the development of national spirit, and, above all, the breaking up of villeinage and the social and religious unrest of the last half of the century are all signs of the times well worth noting. So far as I know there is no illuminating fiction to help the laggard imagination to picture the days of Wat Tyler, John Ball and John Wyclif. But there is Langland’s “Piers the Plowman’s Dream,” there are Chaucer’s vivid word pictures of the life of his day, and there is much about the life and work of Wyclif. On this last subject the quotation in Beard’s “Introduction,” pp. 221-230, is very full, but contains too much detail for the average school boy or girl. Green, pp. 235-244, contains much that may be used in notes. The close connection between Lollardry and the prevailing social unrest is well brought out by Green.

Care must be taken, however, not to attribute the root of this social unrest to the religious teachings of Wyclif. Undoubtedly the shortage of laborers produced by the great plague, and the unsettled political conditions of the time were more important factors in the breaking up of villeinage and the shifting of the lower strata of society than the preaching of the Lollards. The causes of the peasant revolt and of the upheaval of ancient custom are discussed very lucidly by Green, pp. 244-255 and pp. 255-260.

The points to be emphasized, it seems to me, are the great facts of the overturning of the old system of employing labor, and the fact of the brief Protestant movement. The former was a permanent change, wrought by the currents which move slowly, but mightily, in the history of every nation; the latter was the blazing up of a light that was to die back into darkness, that was only a forerunner of the Reformation of the future. The emancipation of the serfs has no parallel in any modern emancipation of slaves. It was not brought about by acts of parliament, but rather in spite of them. The old system was outworn and was sloughed off amid the throes of natural development. Feudalism, like Charles II, was an “unconscionable time a-dying,” but, like Charles, too, it died a natural, not a violent, death.

One other phase of the fourteenth century not to be forgotten is the beginning of the English language in anything like its modern form, and the beginning of English literature with Chaucer. Out of the conflict between French and Anglo-Saxon which set in with the Norman Conquest there at last emerged, two hundred years later, the new English language, with its Teutonic foundations and its Latin-Gallic adornments. From this time on the English language, ever growing, but always English, is the general language of England.

There is little in England’s story during the fifteenth century which is memorable or striking. The brief glories of Agincourt, to be sure, inflated the national pride, but whatever the splendors of Henry V’s reign, they were swallowed up in the gloom and disaster of the following decades—the loss of French possessions, the helplessness of the crown, the turbulence of the nobles, the cruel strife of the Roses, the selfish reign of Edward IV, and the monstrosity of Richard III. No new light in literature or religion, no really great name in statecraft appears—nothing until the end of the century, when the first rays of the renaissance were beginning to lighten the horizon, to relieve the dullness and darkness of this profitless century. It has always seemed to me the proverbial dark hour before the dawn.

In spite of their inglorious and useless character, the Wars of the Roses have, undoubtedly, considerable historical significance. The comparative situation of the crown and of the nobility before and after this strife is very striking. In the forties we find the king financially and politically weak, the barons wealthy from the spoils of France, strong in their armed retainers, and unbridled in their turbulence and arrogance. In the eighties all this is changed; the king is supreme, the baronage at his mercy. The change is easy to account for—the contrast in character between Henry VI and Henry VII accounts in part for it; but the bloody struggle which decimated the ranks and exhausted the resources of the nobility was evidently the main cause of their humiliation.

As to the Wars of the Roses themselves, I think many text-books lack clarity in bringing out the fact that rather than a straggling war there was a distinct series of conflicts, which makes this peculiar civil strife not a war, but literally the Wars of the Roses. Some such outline as follows is of practical use in bringing out this fact in the class-room:

First—Beginning of the wars, 1455. First battle of St. Albans, Richard of York triumphant. Armed truce of five years.

Second—Outbreak brought on by intrigues of Queen Margaret, 1460-1461; battles of Northampton, Wakefield (only Lancastrian success; Richard killed), second St. Albans, and Towton. Triumph of the new Duke of York, Richard’s son, Edward, now crowned Edward IV.

Third—After nearly decade of peace, revolt headed by Warwick. Brief restoration of throne to poor Henry VI; battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Return of Edward IV.

Fourth—Final struggle, victory of Henry Tudor, 1485, Bosworth Field.

Such an outline brings out plainly the intermissions in the wars, and the happenings during these considerable stretches of time (much longer than the periods of fighting) can be filled in very easily.

In the opening chapter of James Gairdner’s “Henry the Seventh” (Macmillan), the author gives a brief and interesting account of the early life of Henry VII which brings out both the uses of adversity which moulded his character, and the pedigree which, if heredity means anything, must have been one of the causes of the Tudor personality.

The facts that Henry’s grandmother, Katharine, widow of Henry V, was a French princess, that his grandfather was a Welsh knight, and that his mother was lineally descended through John of Gaunt from Edward III are both interesting in themselves and of importance in connection with his claims to the throne. Finally his marriage with Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV, was of vast importance in helping to end the long feud and to establish beyond all question the royal supremacy of subsequent kings.

The structure of the Tudor absolutism, then, so carefully reared by Henry VII, had two very substantial foundations, first in the king’s own position by heredity, marriage and character; second, in the demoralization of the barons. On those foundations the new king began building after 1485 according to methods of his own, or by means already invented. By shrewd economy and rather unregal thrift; by the heavy fines for which the Court of the Star Chamber was so useful; by following Edward IV’s illustrious example in levying benevolences, with the expert help of Cardinal Morton; by politic relations at home and abroad, Henry built financial power and made himself master of the barons.

The pathetic figure of Henry VI, such a contrast to his immediate successors, is portrayed with simplicity and charm, pp. 296-297 of Cheyney’s “Readings.” Speaking of Henry VI naturally suggests the close of the Hundred Years’ War, and tempts me to refer again to Joan of Arc. There is a particularly sympathetic and charming account of her in the November (1909) “St. Nicholas”—an account which more than one “grown up” must have read with delight.

It is well to make clearer than most text-books do just what “benevolences” were. This may be done by making them concrete rather than by definition. The extract from Fabyan’s “Chronicle” in the “Readings,” pp. 300-301, does this excellently. For concreteness, too, Henry VII’s diary quoted at some length in the “Readings” gives an intimate view of Henry, one would hardly expect of a mere account book. It contains a quaint mingling of expenditures of state and the smallest items, from £12,000 “for the king’s wars,” to 2s. “to a woman for a rede rosae.”

The beginnings of printing, and especially the pioneer work of Caxton, are not only of immense interest as an invention, but of immense importance as one of the great mediums of spreading abroad the new ideas which were about to flood Europe. Green, as usual, is very full of interesting information, the gist of which is useful for notes on this subject, pp. 295-299.

---

ARMAND J. GERSON, Editor.

THE JAY TREATY.
A TYPE LESSON.

Since treaties, unlike explorers and land-claims, are not peculiar to any one period of our history, the selection of a particular treaty for our type-lesson presents more difficulty than we met in the case of our earlier lessons on Columbus and the Spanish claim. At first glance the mere matter of priority in time might seem to decide the question for us. Why not take the first treaty that comes into our story and use it as the topic of our treaty lesson?

To this basis of selection there are two serious objections. In the first place, treaties find their way into our history narrative at an early stage of the child’s mental development, at a time, that is to say, when he is neither best fitted for, nor most interested in, the constitutional points involved in a real understanding of the making of a treaty. The study of the treaties that closed the inter-colonial wars, for example, would constitute an unwarranted interruption of the narrative which at that time should be occupying the pupil’s whole attention.

A still graver objection, however, to the use of any of these early treaties for our type-lesson lies in the fact that they are in no sense typical. While they, of course, concerned the colonists very directly, they were nevertheless treaties between foreign nations; our country was not a party to them. Neither can we consider as typical the early treaties into which we entered in the first days of our national existence,—that with France in 1778, and that with England in 1783. Both of these were negotiated under authority of a constitution widely different from that which prescribes the treaty-making process in our nation to-day.

Our treaty with England in 1794 was the first important treaty (important, that is, from the point of view of our elementary course of study) to which the American nation in the present significance of that term was a party. It answers admirably the purpose of a type-lesson. Here are to be found all the important elements necessary for the proper grasp of later treaties. Moreover, the history work in most of our elementary schools is so graded that pupils come to the study of the post-Revolutionary period with sufficient maturity of mind to grasp and to enjoy the international and constitutional questions around which the story of the Jay Treaty develops.

The topic of our type-lesson having been selected, the mode of presentation next demands the teacher’s attention. We must keep clearly in mind that our purpose is the development of a type-idea, a regulating concept which will help in the firm and instant comprehension of later treaties when they shall find their way into our story. It becomes necessary, therefore, to select with great care and present with special emphasis those elements which have most real and far-reaching significance. The following questions may help us in our selection: What should the pupil’s notion of a treaty include when he leaves the elementary school? How much of this desired understanding can be developed by means of our lesson on the Jay Treaty? In a word, what are the type-elements of our lesson?

The essential elements of the idea we are striving to develop through our type-lesson fall naturally under two heads:

1. The pupil should receive from the study of the Jay Treaty a clear notion of the treaty-making process as prescribed by the Constitution. He should further have some idea of the way in which the constitutional provision has worked out in practice.

2. The pupil should gain from the lesson a definite knowledge of the essential, significant, or typical parts of a treaty. This knowledge should include some idea of the general form and arrangement of the document.

Our type-lesson should be developed with the purpose of impressing these two type-elements.

A lesson, however, which concerned itself exclusively with type-elements would be a very dull and lifeless affair. In fact, the events which make up the greater part of the story of the Jay Treaty are by no means typical of treaties in general. It must be borne in mind, however, that to them attach a value and an interest of their own. Local color, objective reality, in a word, everything which makes history actual and living depends on the proper use of specific, characteristic, but not necessarily typical, details. The teacher’s task is to make such use of this auxiliary material as will bring into strong relief the type-elements. He must strive to effect a combination of the typical and the specific, the general and the particular, so that in the end he shall have developed in his pupil’s mind a consistent and complete type-idea, vivified and enriched by a wealth of local incident and illuminating detail. The introductory stage of the Jay Treaty lesson should consist of a brief review of our relations with Great Britain since the Revolutionary War. The treaty which closed that war, besides recognizing the independence of the United States, had placed both countries under certain definite mutual obligations. There is no real inconsistency in this reference to the treaty of 1783 before the full development of our type-lesson on the Jay Treaty. We are not assuming that the pupil has the sort of grasp which the type-lesson aims to secure; we are simply taking for granted his general understanding of a treaty as a formal agreement between nations, a simple enough notion and one which can hardly fail to have been developed incidentally in the earlier course of the work. To return, then, to our preparatory consideration of the treaty of 1783, it should be pointed out that certain articles of that treaty[7] had provided for the payment of debts contracted before the war, for the restitution of all confiscated Tory estates, and, on the other side, for the withdrawal of English troops from United States territory. These provisions had not been carried out. Hard feeling between the two countries was further aggravated by England’s serious interference with our commerce. Her vessels persisted in searching our ships and impressing our seamen. The limit of patient endurance seemed reached when in 1793 the English government ordered the seizure of all neutral vessels carrying provisions to French ports. What was to be done? Clearly either one of two things: resort to war or enter into a new agreement. The class is presumably familiar with the fact that in spite of the advocacy of an alliance with France by certain of our leaders and their insistence on a renewal of the war with England, our government had definitely decided on a policy of neutrality and peace. Since we were not to fight England, it remained to settle our difficulties by means of a new treaty.

How can our government make a treaty with a foreign nation? With this question we bring our pupils face to face with the first type-element in the Jay Treaty lesson. The class has not long since taken up the story of the making of our Constitution, and may be assumed to realize its significance as the “fundamental law.” What has the Constitution to say on the subject of treaty-making? The President “shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.” The significance of this provision can easily be cleared up by a brief explanation of the organization of Congress, the chief general powers of that body, and the most important points of difference between the functions of the two houses.

We are now ready to resume consideration of the situation in 1794. Washington’s policy of peace necessitated definite negotiations with England. He accordingly looked about for an agent specially fitted to carry on the difficult task. He decided upon John Jay, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Washington’s choice was approved by the Senate, and Jay set sail for England as envoy extraordinary of the United States. It is important that the class should realize that this sending of a special ambassador is not necessarily typical of treaty-making. Washington might have used as his agent our regular minister to England. On the other hand, the negotiations might have taken place in Philadelphia, our Secretary of State taking up the matter with the English minister to this country. In other words, the selection of Jay is not a type-element, and must not be so regarded by our pupils.

The details of Jay’s negotiations in London should not be presented to an elementary class. They are of little value or interest for young pupils and have practically no bearing on the treaty-making process. Suffice it to say that Great Britain was represented by Lord Grenville (“His Majesty’s principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,” and son of the Grenville of pre-Revolutionary notoriety), and that Jay found it impossible to secure all the concessions he desired. On November 19, 1794, after five months of negotiation, the articles were signed by the two plenipotentiaries.

The class is now ready to give some time and attention to the treaty itself with a view to noting its typical or significant parts.[8] Attention should first be directed to the preamble, which, as typical of modern treaties, should receive considerable emphasis. It should be read at length (it is not very long), and the wording carefully noted. The preamble serves three purposes: (1) It names the contracting parties, (2) it specifies the object of the negotiations, and (3) it names the agents of both countries and indicates their mode of appointment.

The general arrangement of the document, that is to say, the division into articles taking up the special points covered by the treaty, should next be pointed out. The teacher might rapidly run through some of the chief topics considered, in the twenty-eight articles of the treaty. Finally, the formal dating and signing at the end of the document should receive passing notice.

The special provisions, in so far as they need be taken up in an elementary treatment of our topic, next call for attention. In no sense do these constitute a type-element. They should be given to the class in their simplest form and without any undue detail. The general statement that most of the difficulties between the two nations were adjusted by the treaty of 1794, but that nothing was settled on the disturbing question of impressment, comprises about all that we can expect an elementary pupil to retain concerning the special provisions of this treaty.

When, however, we come to the subsequent history of the treaty in the Senate, we reach a more essential part of the story. Ratification by the Senate has already been pointed out as part of the constitutional provision on treaty-making, and here we come upon our first typical instance of its application. The Senate was called into special session, and took up the matter of the treaty on June 8, 1795. The two-thirds vote is both interesting and important as typical of the treaty-making process. The teacher should impress it by reviewing the number of states in the Union at the time, the consequent membership of the Senate, and the vote necessary for the ratification of the treaty. It is well here to work with actual numbers so as to lend vividness to the presentation. The final ratification took place June 24, 1795.

The reservation in regard to Article XII, which the Senate refused to confirm, and the later struggle for an appropriation in the House obviously will find no place in an elementary lesson. They are in themselves far too complicated for the purpose of history teaching in the grades. Moreover, they are in no sense typical of treaties in general and would tend to confuse rather than clarify the notion we are seeking to develop.

Having taken the class through the process of treaty-making as exemplified in the Jay Treaty, and having developed an adequate notion of the nature of a treaty, it will be advisable for the teacher to formulate with his pupils an outline or synopsis of the most important points of the lesson. This type-lesson is different in character from the lessons we have previously considered on explorers and claims in that it does not typify an epoch. As before mentioned, treaties are not peculiar to any one period of our history. It is, therefore, of importance that the results of the lesson should be put into some concise, permanent form to which the pupil may easily refer when, now and again in the course of his history work, various treaties are under discussion. While the lesson as here outlined may seem to enter into an undue amount of detail, it is our thought that the effort expended will be more than repaid by the definiteness of the notion which we have developed and by the greater ease of comprehension with which our pupils will approach the treaties lying in wait for them later in the course.

---

WALTER H. CUSHING, Editor.

For the convenience of its readers and to stimulate the work of organization, The Magazine will print each month a list of the associations, with the names and addresses of the secretaries. The following list is admittedly incomplete. Will our readers help us fill in the gaps, and keep us informed of changes in the secretarial offices?

American Historical Association.—W. G. Leland, Carnegie Institution, Washington, D. C., secretary.

American Historical Association, Pacific Coast Branch.—J. N. Bowman, University of California, Berkeley, secretary.

California.—Professor J. N. Bowman, Berkeley, secretary.

Indiana.—Professor Harriet Palmer, Franklin, secretary.

Maryland.—Mr. Robert H. Wright, Baltimore, secretary.

Middle States.—Professor Henry Johnson, Teachers’ College, New York City, secretary.

Mississippi.—Mr. H. M. Ivy, Flora, secretary.

Missouri.—Professor Eugene Fair, Kirksville, secretary.

Nebraska.—Professor C. N. Anderson, Kearney, president.

New England.—Mr. W. H. Cushing, South Framingham, Mass., secretary.

New York (N. Y.) Conference.—L. R. Schuyler, City College, New York, secretary.

North Central.—Mr. G. H. Gaston. Wendell Phillips High School, Chicago, secretary.

Trenton (N. J.) Conference.—Sarah A. Dynes, State Normal School, secretary.

Wisconsin.—Gertrude Hull, West Division High School, Milwaukee, chairman.

In Colorado, Professor James G. Willard is chairman of the Committee on Organization. In Louisiana, Professor Walter L. Fleming is most in touch with the movement. In North Dakota, Professor John M. Gillette, of the University of North Dakota, writes of steps taken to organize. The Washington teachers will organize at their next annual meeting.

At the meeting of the Wisconsin State Teachers’ Association, held at Milwaukee on November 4, 5, 6, it was voted to organize a Wisconsin History Teachers’ Association, to meet at the same time and city as the State Teachers’ Association. The following committee was appointed to draw up a plan for the organization and to prepare the programme for the next meeting:

Miss Gertrude Hull, chairman, head of History Department, West Division High School, Milwaukee.

Professor George C. Sellery, professor of History, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Professor Carl E. Pray, History Department, State Normal School, Milwaukee.

Teachers of the State who are interested are invited to correspond with the chairman.

The Indiana History Teachers’ Association meets annually, jointly with the Indiana Historical Society. The next meeting will be held at Indianapolis on April 29 and 30, 1910. The officers for the present year are as follows:

President, Harlow Lindley, professor of History, Earlham College.

Vice-president, J. Walter Dunn, Indianapolis.

Secretary-Treasurer, Miss Harriet Palmer, Franklin College, Franklin, Ind.

A feature of the coming meeting of the American Historical Association in New York will be an exhibit, at Teachers’ College, of special aids to visualization in the teaching of history. The exhibit will consist of casts, models, pictures, historical albums, visualization charts, maps, plans, and other similar material, and of such apparatus as the stereoscope, the ordinary lantern, the “reflectroscope,” the “microscope,” and the motion picture lantern. The interesting and inexpensive models found in Germany and the French and German charts and albums will have a prominent place. A few types of recent foreign text-books will also be included. In the main, only such aids as are now actually available for school use will be shown. The names of dealers and the cost of material will in each case be indicated. The aim of the exhibit is to answer as specifically as possible the questions usually asked by teachers who feel the need of greater emphasis upon this aspect of historical instruction.

A revision of the New York State Syllabus in Civics is under way, in charge of a committee consisting of Dr. William Fairley, of the High School of Commerce, Brooklyn; Superintendent Frank D. Boynton, of Ithaca, and Principal John L. Tildsley, of the De Witt Clinton High School.

The following figures are taken from the Secretary’s Report of the June, 1909, examinations of the College Entrance Board:

The annual meeting of the New England History Teachers’ Association was held in Boston on Saturday, October 16, 1909, Professor W. B. Munro, of Harvard, presiding. The Massachusetts Historical Society again generously placed at the Association’s disposal Ellis Hall and its rich and interesting collections.

The subject of the morning session was “The Extent to Which Teachers Should Emphasize the Ethical Side in History Teaching.” The phase of the subject selected by Professor Henry Jones Ford, of Princeton University, was “Militarism and the Peace Movement.”

After adverting to Herbert Spencer’s dictum that an industrial society and militarism are incompatible, Professor Ford demonstrated the falsity of that statement by instancing the cases of Switzerland and of Germany, where the harmonious development of both types is in progress. In Great Britain there is a movement to promote military efficiency for the very purpose of promoting industrial efficiency. While many details of wars may with profit be omitted from our teaching, we cannot afford to ignore those great forces in the development of national life and character.

The Association was also fortunate in having present Professor Eduard Meyer, of the University of Berlin, who, in continuing the discussion, heartily-endorsed Professor Ford’s views, at the same time wondering how the question of eliminating the study of wars could ever have become so general in this country. We must not confound sentimentalism with ethics. The great responsibility laid on statesmen in a country of universal compulsory military service is a guarantee of no war except for good and unavoidable causes. The danger of war is less, he believed, than in a country with voluntary military service or in one with an army recruited from the lower orders of society. Germany’s militarism is a guarantee of peace, as was shown by her attitude last year in the acute stage of the Austro-Servian controversy.

Professor William MacDonald, of Brown University, taking up Professor Meyer’s question, how the movement against militarism has come about, suggested that it was owing in part to a movement to make things easy and agreeable, resulting, in the case of history teaching, in eliminating dates, memorizing, hard study of facts. Furthermore, the growth of emphasis on economic and social elements has tended to lessen the attention to political and military events. It is due, also, to a tendency to carry reform movements to extremes.

Still, there is a question of what shall be done with the ethical side of history. Professor MacDonald doubted the value of singling out any study and making it the basis of ethical instruction. In teaching civil government, for instance, for “good citizenship,” we may fail to teach civil government. How shall the teacher deal with cases of the “lie direct” in history, followed by highly beneficial results? Or characters who have violated the laws of personal morality and the results have apparently not been injurious to public welfare? These and similar questions the teacher would better leave untouched. History, except in advance work, does not afford a good field for ethical instruction as such.

The discussion was continued by Dr. Jessie M. Law, of Springfield, and Mr. J. C. S. Andrew, of Lynn, the last speaker strongly combatting the views of Professors Ford and Meyer.

The guest of the Association at the luncheon was Professor Albert Bushnell Hart, of Harvard University, who spoke of the educational systems of certain places which he had visited in his recent trip around the world, especially speaking of the northwestern United States, the Philippines and Japan.

The following officers for the ensuing year were chosen: President, Professor L. B. Evans, of Tufts College; vice-president, Professor Susan Kingsbury, of Simmons College; secretary, Mr. W. H. Cushing, of the high school, South Framingham, Mass. These, with Miss Margaret McGill, of the Newton High School; Miss Harriet Tuell, of the Somerville High School; Professor W. S. Ferguson, of Harvard University, and Mr. Arthur C. Boyden, of the Bridgewater Normal School, constitute the council.

The next meeting of the Association will be held on April 16, 1910. In all probability the meeting will be held outside of Boston, some place in New Hampshire being under consideration.

In response to the request of the Committee of Five of the American Historical Association for recommendations of changes in the report of the Committee of Seven, the New England Association undertook a careful study of the situation in its section. Miss Blanche Evans Hazard was chairman of the committee, whose finding is ably summed up by Professor Kingsbury, of Simmons College, in a report of which the following are excerpts:—

“1. It seems to be the general opinion that a modification of the report of the Committee of Seven, making more definite recommendations as to the work to be accomplished in ancient history, is most desirable. Contrary to the spirit of the Committee of Seven, the college entrance board examinations have presupposed, and the teachers have attempted an intensified study of the entire field of ancient history down to the time of Charlemagne. That this field of ancient history should be curtailed at the beginning, that topics be selected to be given at the end, and that certain periods should be treated less thoroughly, are illustrations of solutions submitted.

“2. The question of a limitation of the course in medieval and modern history is practically answered by the statement that comparatively few of the schools do cover the entire field, and the printed report will reveal the changes actually made, some schools emphasizing medieval history, others modern or nineteenth century history. Furthermore, English history is often omitted altogether. It would seem desirable, therefore, that some more definite division and limitation of courses might be outlined than is now given in the report of the Committee of Seven.

“3. The appointment by this organization of a committee to prepare an outline for the study of American civil government in secondary schools shows that this association favors the separation of the study of American history and of American civil government, and this committee, therefore, submits to the national committee the printed pamphlet containing sample chapters of this outline, as evidence of the endeavor it is making to improve the instruction in this subject.

“4. The college entrance examinations seem to render the work of the secondary schools burdensome and to force two years’ work in ancient history upon college preparatory classes, the second year being given in the third or fourth year of the high school as a review or more intensified study of the subject, thus precluding the opportunity for work in any other field of history. But this hindrance should not be credited to the system of college entrance examinations. This association suggests that the difficulty is rather in the diversity of college entrance examination questions than in the fact that such an institution exists, and seems to favor uniform examinations and to approve a type of question which shall occupy middle ground between the character of the present Harvard entrance examinations and those of the College Entrance Examination Board.

“5. In general, the critics of the recommendations of the Committee of Seven complain of the length of the field covered, and to it attribute the apparent present failure of the teacher of history to impress upon the student a knowledge of fact, and do not feel that such a weakness is due to the emphasis placed by that report upon the value of generalized knowledge, but rather believe it has been of especial value in leading our teachers of history to develop power in our pupils.

“Two suggestions are made by this committee which may be considered constructive rather than critical. It is proposed that a modification of the work given in the second and third years of the high school might be made along the following lines: that the entire treatment of medieval and modern history to the close of the eighteenth century should be based on English history, at the same time developing such important medieval institutions as feudalism and the Church, but with English history in the foreground rather than, as heretofore, with continental history in the foreground; and that the third year should be devoted to a study of nineteenth century history with continental history in the foreground, English history being treated incidentally. Such a suggestion is made not as having the unanimous approval of the Association, nor of the majority of the members of the association, for such a ballot has been impossible, but is presented to the National Committee by a vote of the October meeting as worthy of its consideration.

“It is quite proper, and in fact to be expected, that the Association of New England History Teachers should raise the question of industrial history. Since the report of the Committee of Seven was drafted a new type of school, the industrial school, has come to the front, and is at the present moment being urged in Massachusetts and in New Jersey by State commissions, and is being favored also by city and State boards of education in various parts of the United States. The New England Association, therefore, raises the question as to what history should be given in such schools.”

The purpose of these directions is to save time and strength from so many oral explanations—half of which are forgotten; to save the time and nerves of the teacher in correcting papers; and to help the English work, as it is assumed that correct technical form is largely a matter of habit, and when once acquired needs so little attention that the entire thought of the student may be given to the subject matter.

Each set of directions is mimeographed, and every student given a copy to keep in her history notebook.

To make them a success takes time and persistent effort for the first few weeks, but the results yield large dividends for the remainder of the year. While, if one is so fortunate as to have the same students for more than one year, the results are even greater.

Mary Shannon Smith.

I. Make a bibliography of your subject on cards and arrange by authors alphabetically, indicating source and secondary material.

A. Make as complete a list of available material as possible before taking any notes.

B. Copy this later with annotations, leaving a line between each reference, and hand in with paper.

II. In taking notes keep in mind what you will use.

A. Follow directions for note-book work.

B. Put notes at the end of the paper.

III. Before writing, look over a copy of the “American Historical Review” for form.

IV. Make an outline of what you are to write, leaving a line between each large topic. Hand this in with completed paper.

V. In writing, try to know your subject so that you will be able to express yourself with ease.

VI. Be careful for margins and paragraphs. Write on one side of the sheet only.

VII. Leave the last four lines on each page for footnotes.

Note.—In writing footnotes, skip one line and use the last three. Make the references as definite as in note-book work. Number your footnotes from “1” on each new page.

VIII. Use ruled paper and fasten all your work together with a brass fastener.

Preparatory Department.

I. Do not crowd the top of the page or begin to write before the first ruled line.

II. The first page should contain:—

A. The subject of the paper.

B. Books consulted.

1. These should be arranged alphabetically with a line between each reference giving:—
Author. Book. Pages read.

2. The student will need to read many more pages than she intends to write in order to get enough good material for the paper.

III. The second page should contain an outline of the paper, with important points in large topics and minor points in sub-topics.

A. Leave a line between each large topic.

B. Have each sub-topic indented and equally distant from the margin.

IV. Try to know your subject so that you will be able to express yourself with ease.

A. Write a brief paragraph of introduction.

B. Get your facts from books, but tell them in your own words.

C. Give most space to what is most important.

V. After writing your paper, add definite references in the margin to the sources from which you gained your material, giving author, title of book underlined, and pages cited.

I. All history students must use loose leaf note-books.

II. All notes in and out of class must be taken in ink. Do not take notes with pencil and then copy—it wastes time! The book is for use.

III. Outline your work.

A. Put the heading of each new chapter at the top of a fresh sheet and begin each distinct subject on a new page.

B. Leave a margin of an inch and a half, and indent each paragraph one inch more.

C. Leave a line between each large topic and allow several lines after each subject for note-taking in the class.

IV. Take most of your notes in “abstract” form. Take only important points in exact words, and then use quotation marks.

A. When taking “reading notes,” put in the margin author, title of book underlined, and pages cited.

B. When quoting from a compiled “source book” give the real author and work from which the extract is taken, then the “source book” and pages.

C. Every history student should be familiar with Perry’s “A Punctuation Primer, with Notes on the Preparation of Manuscript.” Am. Book Co. Thirty cents.

Note.—Pages 24-47 and 73-93 required.

Proportion of time to be spent in note-taking:—
Preparatory Courses, one-third of the time.
College Courses, one-half of the time.

Note.—This does not apply to specially-prepared history papers.

---

---

Editor History Teachers’ Magazine.

Let me express the pleasure which at least one California teacher finds in the new History Teachers’ Magazine. It certainly satisfies a long-felt need. In the October number I noticed the repeated statements of the lack of organization in history work, all of which is lamentably true; but I do believe we are improving here, due to the persistent and intelligent efforts of a wise and enthusiastic History Department in the University of California. Our school authorities are demanding trained history teachers, even though they have to handle some other subject.

Miss Elizabeth Briggs’s remarks regarding the weakness in geography and biography are, alas, the instructors’ fault, and I am sending you a couple of suggestions that I have found valuable in those lines, in case you have opportunity or inclination to pass them on. I have found that pupils become interested in these two “eyes of history.” They usually have a hazy memory of seemingly endless drill in grammar school, and consider geography as one of those childish things which they have put away, but when their attention is called to the geographical causes for location of cities, its influence on the development of a country, plans of campaigns, strategic boundaries, they grow interested, and enjoy indicating these things, as well as treaties and territorial growth on outline maps. I use a McKinley wall map for Roman history, and we “paint it red” as we progress in the study of the Roman conquests. The members of the class become enthusiastic, and are able to appreciate the growth of the great empire, with its military roads and administrative system.

Miss Mary North’s Ancient History Social reminded me of something that I have found good for arousing a class, and aiding in the biographical work,—the old-fashioned game of “Who Am I?” We send a pupil from the room, and the class chooses some person whom he is to represent. Then he is re-called, and from my seat behind the desk begins to quiz the class, up and down the rows, asking questions that must be answered by “Yes” or “No.” Sometimes they have to appeal to me for information, or consult books, but in the end they know considerably more than when they began. When given warning of the exercise, they study well. They enjoy it, and ever after seem to feel a personal friendship for the characters we have studied in this fashion. They develop quickly a wonderful capacity for finding leading questions.

Occasionally I try another scheme,—charades. This gives a wider range, as it may include places, persons, or events. Each pupil must be ready to explain the importance of that place, person, or events which he presents.

Minds worked quickly, originality was encouraged, and solid facts were assimilated. I have found that such things stimulate and interest, and give new life to a class, often attaining results that I could not get in any other way.

With best wishes for the cause, and for a great future for the new magazine,

Respectfully,
Lou Irene DeYo.

Ventura, Cal., Oct. 30, 1909.

Editor History Teacher’s Magazine.

I wish to express my appreciation of the value of your new magazine. It is brimful of good things for Civics and History teachers, and I can hardly see how we got along without a magazine of our own for so long. I am glad you are devoting so much space to the problems of the elementary and secondary schools. Since they furnish the material for the colleges, it seems but just that they should receive the generous consideration you are giving them.

Will you please publish (1) the membership requirements, fees, etc., of the History Teachers’ Association of the Middle States; also (2) publishers and price of Cheyney’s “European Background of American History”?

Wishing your magazine abundant success,

Respectfully, M. E. C.

(1) Membership in the History Teachers’ Association of the Middle States and Maryland is open to any person teaching history in a school or college within the territory. The membership fee is one dollar a year. Members receive not only the reports of the Middle States Association, but also those of the New England and North Central Associations. Application for membership should be made to the secretary, Professor Henry Johnson, Teachers’ College, New York City.

(2) Cheyney’s “European Background” is the first volume of Hart’s “American Nation”; the volume retails for about two dollars.

Editor History Teacher’s Magazine.

The History Teacher’s Magazine has given me new inspiration in my work in history, and I find it a great pleasure and help. Please give me the following information:

(1) Where to obtain Murray’s Classical Maps, (2) the American History Leaflets, (3) is there a book or series of leaflets giving sketches of early explorers and chief men in American history? H. B. N.

Ans.—(1) Murray’s Classical Maps can be obtained from the Oxford University Press, American Branch, New York City; (2) The American History Leaflets are published by A. Lovell & Co., New York; (3) We know of no series of leaflets giving sketches of early explorers. There are, however, several books giving such sketches and among them are: Tappan, “American Hero Series”; Gordy, “American Leaders”; Southworth, “Builders of Our Country”; Bass, “Stories of Pioneer Life”; Sparks, “Men Who Have Made the Nation.”

---

---

---

---