The History Teacher’s Magazine

Volume I.
Number 2.

PHILADELPHIA, OCTOBER, 1909.

$1.00 a year
15 cents a copy

CONTENTS.

Published monthly, except July and August, by McKinley Publishing Co., Philadelphia, Pa.

Copyright, 1909, McKinley Publishing Co.

Good Words from Correspondents Concerning the Magazine

“The first number of the ‘Magazine’ is exceedingly interesting, and the program for the October number promises just as good a one.” J. C. E.

“I am delighted with it. There is a great field for just such a magazine.... If future numbers are as good as the first, I shall have spent few dollars to as good advantage.” R. O. H.

“It is an opportune publication, and merits all encouragement.” J. W. B.

“I am very much interested in your new magazine. Think it will be very helpful in my work.” M. S.

“Am delighted with the copy I have seen, and trust it will fill a longfelt need.” M. E. E.

“The copy of ‘The History Teacher’s Magazine’ reached me this morning, and I am very much interested in and pleased with it. I wish you all success in the undertaking.” M. M.

“After looking carefully over sample copy of ‘The History Teacher’s Magazine,’ I find that I can use it to a great advantage in many instances. It is the only magazine I have ever seen that dealt with the subject of History from the teacher’s standpoint.” F. F. M.

“I have received ‘The History Teacher’s Magazine,’ and like it very much.” L. R. H.

“‘The History Teacher’s Magazine’ is to the point. It will meet a very real need.

“I am glad that the problems of college history teaching will find space in the magazine. No teachers need more to exchange ideas at this time than do college history teachers.” R. W. K.

“‘The History Teacher’s Magazine’ is excellent, and I have every reason to believe that the following numbers will be just as good. This sort of magazine is just what is needed by every teacher of history.” H. C. S.

“I am delighted with your first copy of ‘The History Teacher’s Magazine.’ It has long been needed. Every teacher of history will welcome it.” R. R.

“The magazine is exactly what I want. I am an ambitious history teacher, and I find in it the needed help.” N. E. S.

“Allow me to congratulate you upon the idea of the magazine and upon the excellent first issue. It ought to find a welcome everywhere.” C. L. W.

“The first number of ‘The History Teacher’s Magazine’ reached me in due course. Allow me to congratulate you on its practical value. I read every word in it, and only wished there was more to be read. It will do an untold good to teachers of history, young and old alike. For several years I have been seeking just such a magazine, and am much gratified now to find one that will meet so universal a need.” G. B. B.

Of Interest to Teachers of History and Geography in Schools, Academies and Colleges are

THE McKINLEY OUTLINE MAPS

The series now comprises

OUTLINE WALL MAPS

of the Continents, the United States and its subdivisions, of Europe and its several countries, of Palestine and of other parts suitable for the study of geography and secular or church history. The maps are printed upon strong paper, about 32 by 44 inches in size, and cost singly only twenty cents each (carriage 10 cents each); in quantities the price is as low as fifteen cents each (carriage 2 cents each). Especially adapted for use in geography classes in elementary schools, and in history classes in high schools, preparatory schools, and colleges.

OUTLINE DESK MAPS

Three sizes of skeleton and outline maps for use by students in geography or history classes. Sold in any desired quantity; small size (5 by 7 inches), 35 cents a hundred; large size (8 by 10 inches), 50 cents a hundred; double size (10 by 15 inches), 85 cents a hundred. The list includes the Continents, the United States, sections of the United States and of Europe, and many maps for the study of ancient, medieval, and church history.

OUTLINE ATLASES AND NOTEBOOKS

Composed of outline maps bound together to be filled in in colors by students; arranged for nine periods of history.

Samples cheerfully furnished upon application by mail to

McKINLEY PUBLISHING COMPANY, PHILADELPHIA, PA.

The History Teacher’s Magazine

Volume I.
Number 2.

PHILADELPHIA, OCTOBER, 1909.

$1.00 a year
15 cents a copy

Gain, Loss, and Problem in Recent History Teaching

BY PROFESSOR WILLIAM MACDONALD, OF BROWN UNIVERSITY.

The newer methods of history teaching which were authoritatively set forth for the first time in this country in the report of the Committee of Seven of the American Historical Association, and which during the past ten years have increasingly made their way in the better secondary schools, have had for their aim the emancipation of history from the bondage of mere mechanical routine, the clearer discrimination of essentials and non-essentials, the use of comparison and judgment as well as of memory in the mastery of historical knowledge, the systematic exploration of books other than the textbook, and the intelligent correlation of the subject with literature, art, economics, geography, and other kindred fields.

That there should have been criticism, not seldom unfriendly, of the new methods and their results is only natural. The new procedure had to be learned by teachers as well as by pupils, and its application to the conditions of particular schools determined by careful study of local possibilities and needs. What was possible in a large and generously supported school was not equally attainable in a small and poor one; and it was inevitable that mistakes should be made even by those most interested in making the new work a success. No more in history than in language or mathematics, both of which have undergone pedagogical reformation in our day, was perfection to be won at the outset.

All things considered, however, it seems to me indisputable that, wherever there has been an honest and earnest attempt to make the new methods successful, a gratifying and very considerable measure of success has been attained. Broadly speaking, the formal recitation, based mainly upon the study of a textbook, has been given up. The history of England is no longer generally studied by the reigns of sovereigns, nor the history of the United States by presidential administrations. There is wide use of source books and documents, and much intelligent reading in narrative histories, biographies, journals, letters, travels, and other literature. Map-drawing is extensively required, and illustrated lectures or talks and historical excursions have been made to contribute their wealth of information and interest. From every point of view, the position of history in the school curriculum is more dignified and rational than it used to be, its pedagogical method more intelligent, its fruition in knowledge and power more valuable.

No method of teaching, however, is ever so bad that its abandonment is not attended with some loss to the pupil. In spite of all the success which has undeniably come about in these ten years of thoughtful and friendly effort, there still remain a number of steps imperatively to be taken before the teaching of history in secondary schools can, without serious qualification, be pronounced satisfactory. There is still a woeful need of trained history teachers. While the larger city high schools and many private schools are praiseworthy exceptions, it nevertheless remains true that the majority of schools do not yet think it necessary to choose for the historical department a teacher specially trained for that work. The subject is still too often assigned to this teacher or that who happens to have the necessary free time, but whose serious equipment lies in some other field. Nothing short of sound and extended college training in history should be deemed a sufficient preparation for the teaching of history in a secondary school, just as nothing short of such training, and the frank recognition of its importance by school authorities, will overcome the unfortunate reluctance of the best college graduates to enter secondary school work. No graduate of Brown University can receive from the department of history a certificate of fitness to teach history in a high school or academy who has not completed with credit at least four courses, each of three hours a week for a year, and one of them a course of research; and I should be glad did conditions in the schools make it possible to raise, as they do make it increasingly easy to enforce this minimum requirement.

A second crying need is for better equipment of the historical department. The development of school libraries has not yet made much progress, and the use of public libraries by large classes has obvious practical limitations. Schools which willingly spend money for scientific apparatus decline to spend money for books, pictures, and other illustrative material. The equipment of wall-maps is often exceedingly poor, historical maps being often lacking altogether except in the field of ancient history. Until this lack is supplied, we must expect that the teacher will from necessity rely mainly upon the textbook, at the cost of failing to meet the most fundamental condition of the newer methods of history teaching.

Perhaps the most serious charge that is lodged against the new method is that it fails to give the pupil exact knowledge, and even discriminates against exactness and precision. My observation as an examiner of applicants for admission to college leads me to believe that there is force in this charge. Undoubtedly the amount of ground which is expected to be covered by those who take any one of the four fields recommended by the Committee of Seven is very great, in the field of medieval and modern European history quite too great. Where the time allotted to the course in the curriculum is insufficient, as it often is, or where the teacher is incompetent, or where the facilities of the department are inadequate, it is inevitable that the work should be slighted and the results upon examination appear unsatisfactory. Undoubtedly, also, in our zeal for the broad view and the vivifying treatment, we have tended unconsciously to depreciate the value of exact knowledge, and have allowed ourselves to think that because the function of memorizing may easily be overworked, the memory has no place in the study of history at all.

The examiners in history for the College Entrance Examination Board have learned that, unless they ask for dates, no dates will be given; that the treatment of specific questions of limited scope is prevailingly slovenly, indicative of loose thinking and tolerated looseness of expression; and that the simplest questions will often be carelessly misread. I am sure that we have not yet solved the problem of examining in history either in school or in college, but I am also compelled to think that the greatest weakness of history teaching at present, in those schools in which the new program is being applied, is that it so often fails to give the pupil a definite knowledge of anything. I do not despair, however. There are signs of improvement, growing in number and significance every year; and with the increased employment of skilled teachers, the provision of better facilities for teaching, and the more generous recognition of the importance of the subject, we may, I think, confidently look for results commensurate with those admittedly attained in other branches of the school curriculum.

Training the History Teacher
The Organization of His Field of Study

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

Provided that the text-books have been selected and the courses to be given arranged for by some higher power, the first problem that faces the history teacher in the fall is that of properly organizing the field or fields of study. Now we all know that many teachers do not realize this problem or that if they do they shirk it and adopt a sort of go-as-you-please plan of so many pages each day, irrespective of topical or any other sort of unity, that usually results in careless recitation work and an incomplete course. In some cases the teacher seeks aid and guidance from a printed syllabus or outline of the course to be covered, and if these are available and properly constructed in connection with the text-books used, they can be of great service, but they cannot wholly relieve the teacher of responsibility as to the length and character of topics to be considered.[1] Even the best teachers are inclined to adopt a day-to-day plan of organization and so work blindly, not knowing how much of the text-book will, in the end be left unstudied. Such unsatisfactory conditions as are here referred to are totally unnecessary if history teachers will only learn to organize their courses in advance of giving them and thus be able to round out their work in a thoroughly satisfactory manner. The reason that this is not done is that most of our high school teachers of history have had little or no training in the teaching of their subject and have not learned how to handle and interpret the subject matter to the best advantage. What some lack in training they make up for in enthusiasm and interest in their work, but there are, unfortunately for the profession, many teachers of history who have neither training nor enthusiasm. On the other hand, the number of trained, earnest and enthusiastic teachers of history is constantly increasing, and there are opportunities offered for every teacher to improve his or her methods and enter more understandingly and more successfully into the work of teaching the subject. The greatest danger in history work in schools is the prevalence of matter over spirit, of facts over thoughts and ideas, of mechanical memory work over constructive thinking and reasoning. If teachers of history will learn to enter into their work with more spirit and understanding the subject will soon be regarded with respect on account of the vital interest that the development of the present out of the past must always have. One way of emphasizing historical unity or continuity is by a well-planned series of recitation or discussion topics based on the text-book used in the course, and it is the question of such organization of the field of study that I wish to discuss in this article.

General Suggestions as to the Organization.

The history teacher who wishes to make a success of the courses given must plan the work in advance according to certain common sense rules and conditions. In the first place, the extent of the subject matter to be covered must be carefully considered in connection with the time allotted for its completion, and the relative emphasis to be placed on the different portions of the period to be covered. Instead of a haphazard assignment of so many pages each day irrespective of time and subject matter, the length and character of the lesson assignments should be plotted out in advance. If the number of pages of text-book subject matter be accurately ascertained (many text-books have pages of outlines, review questions, references, and so forth), and compared with the number of recitation hours available, from which it is well to deduct one-third or one-fourth for reviews, a mechanical basis of assignments can be had. But a mechanical basis is not alone sufficient, a topical one is necessary also. This is the most difficult and at the same time the most vital part of organization and the part in which most teachers fail on account of poor perspective as to important and unimportant topics and a failure to realize the inner meaning and significance of the external events with which they are dealing. Fortunately most history text-books have been constructed on a skeleton of topics, and even a poorly-trained teacher can, with a little care, discover the proper lesson divisions. Some of the newer text-books go so far, indeed, as to give a series of lesson topics which the teacher can follow.[2]

A competent history teacher, however, should not need to depend entirely on the text-book, outline, or syllabus, but should be able to select his or her own topics with judgment and success. A teacher properly trained to interpret the subject matter of the different fields of study who will take into account the length of time available and the extent of the text to be covered, can successfully plan out any desired course of study from beginning to end. This plan does not need to be absolutely rigid, but it will be a valuable guide for the work of the year or half year and will lead to a successful completion of the course of study. Instructors in normal schools and in college departments of education can easily train the students in courses on the teaching of history to make such topical outlines based on standard text-books. It will be time well spent, as the student will afterwards find in active teaching, as one such experience in enlightened planning out of a field of study will lead to competent handling of other fields.

Organization of the Ancient History Field.

If we say that this field of study should deal with the political, governmental, social, and cultural development of the western portion of the Ancient World under the three main divisions of (a) the Oriental nations, excluding, of course, India, China and Japan; (b) the Greek world, and (c) the Roman world—then we have a fairly comprehensive definition of what is to be covered. If we add to this that the chief teaching problem of the course is so to organize and interpret the subject matter as to bring out in a clear and connected way the really significant and essential movements and developments during ancient times in connection with the leading historical peoples, we are giving greater definiteness to the teaching work of the course. But what are the really significant and essential movements in the history of the ancient world from the pedagogical viewpoint? Can it not be said that they are those that have most continuity with and exerted most influence on later Mediterranean and European history? To this end emphasis should be especially laid on the Greek world, centering in Athens, and on Rome, centering in her great imperial system. As a general rule, teachers of ancient history are inclined to give too great a proportion of the time at their disposal to the Oriental empires and their civilizations, to early Greek history and archæology, to Roman legendary history, and the petty politics and mythical conflicts of the early Roman republic, and the governmental organization of the decaying republic, while Athenian life and thought, Macedonian imperialism and its results, the rise and organization of the great Roman empire, the causes of its strength, and of its weakness and decline are not given sufficient time and attention.

In the general organization of the Ancient History field the topics should be so planned that the teacher and class will work from a broad study of the Oriental peoples of the eastern Mediterranean world and of the early history of the Greek peoples and States to a more careful and intensive examination into the Athenian world as typical of the best of classic Greece, of Alexander and Macedonian imperialism, as promoters of Hellenic culture. The early Roman period should be rapidly covered and far less time spent on the republic and its government. The object in organizing the Roman portion of the Ancient History field should be to emphasize the growth of the Roman empire and the creation of an imperial system. To this end as much attention as possible should be directed to the provinces and to the general problems of the imperial government. The influence of the Roman historians, Livy, Suetonius, and even to some extent of Tacitus (I refer to the annals and histories), and of teachers of the classics is responsible for much wrong perspective in the teaching of Ancient History. Nor have we one really well-proportioned textbook for this field, though several of the existing ones are fairly satisfactory. The success and interest of the ancient history course depends largely on the teacher’s power of selection, organization, and interpretation.

Organization of the Field of Medieval and Modern History.

In organizing this field of study, while following the general rules of organization, the teacher should remember that the object of this course is above all else to make the student familiar with his present historical environment and its immediate background. To this end it is desirable that a large proportion of the time should be devoted to bringing out and emphasizing movements and institutions that have distinctly modern significance, and that recent European history should be carefully studied. This does not mean, however, that the medieval portion of the field should be neglected as an important contributory factor in modern civilization. Emphasis should be laid on the continuity of Roman influence, as seen in the imperial Church and the imperial State and in Roman law, on the Christian religion as a factor in advancing civilization, and on the contribution of political, social and economic importance made by the Germans. The medieval world is more foreign to the schoolboy mind than even that of Greece and Rome, and the struggles of popes and emperors, the intricacies of feudalism, and the ascetic and adventurous aspects of the Crusades are hard for him to understand. But the feelings of nationality against imperial control by Church or State, the growth of the towns and commerce, the gradual development of representative government, the struggles against despotism—these are things he can understand and appreciate and in connection with which he can see the present emerging from the past. Nor should the great personalities of medieval and modern history be neglected, for they have historical interest and importance and serve to give greater interest and definiteness to movements of which they are a part. A little thought and care on the part of the teacher in planning the lesson assignments and conducting the recitation will keep the course from becoming dull and meaningless. The attention of the class should always be drawn to the bearing of what they are studying on present conditions and particular emphasis should be directed to great international movements as well as to the growth and development of the leading European countries. In no field of high school study does careful previous organization lead to more satisfactory results than in the medieval and modern field.

Organization of the English History Field.

The organization and treatment of this field should be based on the idea of bringing out clearly the origin, growth and larger developments of English political, social and economic institutions. The field offers especial advantages for developmental study, as the history is well connected throughout, and can be easily organized into topics and problems. All that the teacher needs is a little insight into the fundamental factors and influences in English history, and this should be obtained from any well conducted general course in English history. The history of England should always be organized and treated as being the study of the growth of a great imperial nation out of various elements and through different policies. The idea of the growth of free, representative government (the power of the people, or democracy, in government) is the predominant note, but the broader viewpoint of the growth of national civilization as shown in policies, industry, art, language and letters is also desirable and important. Among the dangers to be avoided in teaching English history, and in teaching how to organize it, is the temptation to emphasize the minor political details relating to royalties, wars and so forth. The history of England is after all closely related to the history of Europe, and the two great questions of interest in her story are those of her internal development along national lines and of her external policy and growth along imperial lines. More attention than is now given could well be bestowed on the British empire, and it is a pleasure to find one text-book at least that attempts to do justice to this important phase of English history and government.[3]

Organization of the Field of American History and Government.

Probably all teachers of American history will admit that broadly stated the course in American history and government should be organized with special emphasis on the national period, and should represent an attempt to show how out of the diversity of the colonial period there finally emerged the spirit of federal union, and how American history largely centers around the erection of a sovereign federal state, in face of English opposition, and the maintenance of the union, in the face of internal dissensions, and finally, the growth and expansion of the United States as a world power. The European background, the native or American background, exploration, colonization and colonial development must all be touched on lightly. Then a careful study should be made of the steps leading up to union and to independence, though the military side of the revolutionary struggle is frequently over-emphasized, and the beginnings of national government as we know it to-day can be studied in connection with the formation of the constitution. Territorial expansion, foreign and civil wars, colonial expansion and problems of internal development can all be treated in relation with the central problem of successful federal government and in relation with the present. Interwoven frequently with American national history is the history of one’s own state, and teachers can frequently use local interests to make the story of some particular phase of national development more real and significant.

There is quite a marked tendency to separate American government from American history in the fourth year of the high school, and to give a half year’s work in each subject. If American government is taught as a separate subject a text-book should be selected which allows the teacher to organize the course so as to work from the familiar to the unfamiliar aspects of government, from the local to the national aspects of the field of study. Several good text-books of this character have been recently published.[4]

The attempt has been made in this article to show how the history teacher can be trained, or can train himself, to organize thoroughly the field of study to be covered so as to complete the course in the time allotted and also bring out the meaning and importance of the study undertaken. Proper organization of the field of study will undoubtedly aid the teacher greatly, but such organization must be followed by successful recitation and class-room work. The next paper in this department will therefore, be devoted to a discussion of the training of history teachers in the organization of the recitation.

Instruction in American Government in Secondary Schools

A COMMENT ON THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF FIVE.

By William A. Schapes,
Chairman of the Committee of Five, Professor of Political Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

The American Political Science Association has taken an interest, not only in the investigation and discussion of the scientific questions arising within the field of Political Science, but has also paid attention to the problem of improving the instruction in Government in our schools and colleges. To further this work a section on instruction in Political Science was organized at its first annual meeting. In 1906 the committee of five, originally of three members, was appointed to complete certain investigations which had been started in the section on instruction, the partial results of which had been published in a paper by the writer in the proceedings for 1905. The committee was required to ascertain the amount and kind of instruction in American Government being offered in the secondary schools of this country and make recommendations for the consideration of the association. In accordance with these instructions the committee undertook to collect its information directly by correspondence with the teachers in about 600 high schools distributed throughout the United States. The work extended over more than two years, the final report being read at the Richmond meeting in December, 1908, and published in the proceedings for that year.

The point on which the report lays greatest stress, namely, the necessity of teaching Government as a distinct subject in the secondary schools, was expressly approved by the association without a dissenting vote. It does not follow, of course, that the report expresses the views of every member of that association, in every particular. In fact it does not. The report does represent the views of the entire committee after making an exhaustive study of the question.

The report covers 38 pages of the proceedings, and is therefore too elaborate to be properly presented in a brief article. Only a few of the essential features will be referred to.

At the very outset the committee was confronted with the pedagogical question as to whether Government should be taught as a distinct subject or whether it should be taught in connection with history. The teachers are still somewhat divided on the subject, and practice varies. The information collected indicates that the teaching of American Government, Civil Government or Civics as it is still barbarously designated, is suffering from a lack of proper recognition in the school curriculum, for want of especially trained teachers, from lack of a working school library on Government and from inadequate text-books. It seems a curious thing that our public schools, which were instituted and are operated by governmental agency to maintain an enlightened citizenship, have taught every other subject excepting Government. There can be little doubt that the rather confused and contradictory recommendations of the Committee of Seven ten years ago helped materially to spread the impression among high school teachers that the subject of Government could not be successfully studied apart from History, and that it is a sort of poor relation to it on which little time need be spent. The suggestion of the Committee of Seven that the subject might be taught in connection with American History was adopted by a large number of schools. The results obtained are generally considered to be unsatisfactory. In the West out of 240 schools heard from, 153 were offering separate instruction in Government, 47 taught the subject in connection with History, and 40 failed to specify the plan in use. The teachers or principals in these schools personally preferred the separate course by 158 to 30, 54 failing to commit themselves.

In the South 85 schools reported a separate course in Government, 53 a combination course with History. The teachers or principals reporting preferred the separate course by 111 to 33.

In the East and Mid-West 98 schools reported a separate course on Government and 74 a combination course. The teachers or principals expressed a personal preference for the separate course by 110 to 42.

It should be noted that the committee divided the States into three more or less arbitrary sections; the West, embracing all the States west of the Mississippi, excepting Missouri and the States to the south; the South including all the States south of the Ohio River and Mason and Dixon’s line and east of the Mississippi, but including Missouri and the States to the south; the East and Mid-West including the States east of the Mississippi and north of the Ohio River line.

The reports from all the sections show that experience is demonstrating that the plan of teaching American Government and American History as one subject is bad pedagogy and false economy. The fact that the teachers personally prefer the separate course in Government by a large majority in all three sections is significant. It means that experience is a little ahead of practice, and that when practice has caught up with the best experience, the combination course will be relegated to the scrap-heap of discarded methods.

In its recommendations the committee urges the need of more and better instruction in Government, throughout the entire school system from the fifth grade up. There can be no question that improvements in the administration of the government have not kept pace with the advances, for example, in industry, in commerce, in transportation, or even in pure science. It is a well-known fact that foreigners find much to learn from this country in the organization of industry and in the methods of conducting business, but they do not find so much to commend in the administration of our governments. Yet it is in this very field of politics and government that this country was long supposed to have completely outstripped all the older countries. In the framing of constitutions and in the inauguration of new systems of popularizing political institutions America has led and contributed much, but in the careful, efficient management of public affairs we have not been so successful. In the management of our cities it is conceded that our mistakes and failures are rather more conspicuous than our successes. The question naturally arises whether the public schools have not contributed to these mistakes and failures by neglecting to provide adequate instruction in matters of Government. It may be difficult to demonstrate that school training in the science of Government does result in purer political methods and more efficient administration of public business, but surely a citizenship whose political information has been gleaned from election posters, stump speeches, newspaper head lines, and highly colored magazine articles will not furnish a model of civic enlightenment and success.

The duty of fitting the youth for the services and responsibilities of citizenship in the Republic under the complex conditions which now prevail, belongs primarily to the public school. It has not discharged its highest function until it provides for every child adequate instruction in the government of this country. So far the public school has failed to do this. There are large cities in this country in which no systematic instruction in Government is given in the otherwise splendidly equipped high schools, nor is the subject taught in the grades. Some of these cities are in the boss-ridden class. The question naturally presents itself to our minds, is one circumstance the cause of the other? Certainly a high school, situated in a large city, that does not lead its boys to study the complex organization and functions of the community in which they live fails in performing its first and highest duty.

The Committee of Five therefore recommends that the instruction in Government begin with the fifth grade. In the fifth, sixth and seventh grades the subject should be presented in general school exercises, in the subjects selected for language lessons, in connection with geography and other exercises. In these grades the method of instruction must be largely oral without a text. Such topics as the fire department, the police, the water works, the parks, garbage collection, the health officer, the light housekeeper, the life saving station suggest subjects for discussion. The aim being to lead the child to think of the community and realize that it has rights, obligations, property, that it does certain kinds of work and that every individual citizen has a part to play in the life and activities of this community.

In the eighth grade more formal instruction on local, State and national government may be given. A simple text should be selected, and this should be supplemented. The main emphasis must be placed on the study of local government to make the subject concrete and bring it home.

The committee recommends that in the high school Government be presented as a distinct subject of instruction following one semester of American History. At least one-half year should be devoted to the subject with five recitations per week or an entire year where the three-recitation plan is in use.

Some high schools are indeed devoting an entire year to American Government with excellent results. In fact, if the instruction in all the high schools could be brought up to the level of a few conspicuously advanced schools the main desires of the committee would be fulfilled.

In selecting a text the teacher should avoid the old style manual, consisting of the clauses of the constitution with comments. Such books are entirely out of date. They represent the first attempts at textbook making in this field. They never were good texts. It is rather surprising that more than a score of high schools reporting still use these useless books. The teacher should equally avoid the new hybrid text which attempts to combine in one, a treatment of History and Government. In the very nature of things such books must be confusing and distracting to the beginner.

It is equally important that superintendents and principals stop the practice of assigning the subject to any teacher on the force whose time is not fully taken up with other duties. No one can hope to teach Government with the best success who has not a genuine interest and an appropriate training for the work.

Lessons Drawn from the Papers of Candidates of the College Entrance Examination Board

BY ELIZABETH BRIGGS, TEACHER OF HISTORY AND CIVIL GOVERNMENT IN SACHS’ SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, NEW YORK.

In studying the reports of the secretary of the College Entrance Examination Board, the history teacher learns the disheartening fact that less than 60 per cent. of the candidates in history get 60 per cent. or over in the examinations. The proportion of the whole number of candidates in history who have received over 60 per cent. for the past eight years is as follows:

It should be noted in passing that the lessening number of successful candidates characterizes not only history, but the whole group of entrance examination subjects. But further disquieting statistics prove that history has generally fewer successful candidates than most of the other subjects; in 1907 it was surpassed in this respect only by physics; in 1908, by German, mathematics and zoölogy. Also in the class of high ratings, 90-100, history comes near the foot of the class; in 1907, all the other subjects ranked higher except physics and chemistry; in 1908, all except Spanish, chemistry, botany, geography and music. That is to say, history makes a poorer showing than all the other large subjects, those offering a thousand candidates or more.

Granting that the demands of the examiners are reasonable, history teachers must conclude that the necessary equipment is not being furnished to their pupils. Although the questions are designed to test something more than a superficial knowledge of events, such a superficial knowledge, provided it be complete as to the whole field, would enable a candidate to obtain a rating of 60. The papers of the candidates are evidence that instruction has been generally omitted on one point, and has been slighted on three others.

In all conferences of history teachers, much time is spent in considering how best to inculcate historical mindedness, accurate thought, cultivation of the imagination, and clear reasoning; primarily it is acknowledged that there must be acquired a stock of definite information, but the discussions seem to assume that the acquisition of the information is an easy matter, and that the exercise of observation, analysis and judgment, may occupy the greater part of the time of pupil and teacher. In the classroom, however, both teacher and pupil while trying to respond to the multiplicity of demands have been unable to divide the time into enough fractions to go round, and the teachers seem to have reached a consensus that the topic to be crowded out shall be geography. In spite of the fact that the requirements in history state that geographical knowledge will be tested by requiring the location of places and movements on an outline map, in spite of the fact that almost every set of questions for nine years has demanded map work, the papers of candidates have shown that instruction in geography, including the use of maps, has been signally neglected. Year after year answers in this subject have been marked uniformly low, seldom attaining a passing mark, being rated 1, 2 and 3, on a scale of 10. In answers to questions which asked that Philadelphia, Constantinople, Alexandria, Delos and Delphi, be marked on the map and their historical importance be explained in the answer book, Philadelphia was placed in North Dakota, Constantinople in India, Alexandria on the Adriatic, Delphi in Italy, and Delos near Genoa; and yet the answer books told correctly the historical importance of each. How completely geography may be divorced from map work was illustrated in a few answers to a question that asked for the marking on the map of the English frontier on the European continent in the time of William I, Henry II, and Henry V; several candidates wrote out their answers in addition to indicating them on the map, with the curious result of a correct list and an incorrect map, that is to say, the memorizing of French provinces had been carefully done, but there had been no practice in map work. A more vicious example of unintelligent memorizing it would be hard to find. Countries as well as cities have been misplaced; Ireland in Norway, Wales in Germany, China in Egypt. That the ignorance here is due to the teachers and not to the pupils is made apparent by the failure on this point in otherwise excellent papers. There could have been no instruction, or the intelligent pupil would have met the requirement. Another proof besides the mass of incorrect answers that map work is neglected in the schools is the fact that when the options permitted a choice between map work and an explanation of geographic control, the choice fell on geographic control. This choice was made not because the candidate was qualified to write about the effect of geographical conditions on the history of the early settlements in America, or on the Revolutionary struggle, but because guessing seemed easy.

As for the other “eye of history,” chronology, there is a respectable showing. The examination questions have not asked for lists of dates, though a knowledge of dates has been frequently demanded by the nature of the questions, and such demands have not found the pupils wanting. An occasional anachronism has occurred, and has served to enliven the reading, as the statements that the barons of the time of William the Conqueror spent most of their time smoking and drinking, and that Milton was effective by means of his efforts in the daily papers. Occasionally a candidate would show what he could do by prefacing or concluding his answer book with a chronological table for the whole subject.

Answers to what may be called sweeping questions such as “Trace the rise and fall of the naval power of Athens,” show a lack of practice in reviewing by topics; though meagre, they suggest more acquaintance with the subject than is written down, giving evidence of considerable drill on isolated points, if not on the continuous story. All the history papers since 1901 have had questions of this sort, and it would seem likely that teachers would take the hint and exercise their pupils in following a train of events from reign to reign, from administration to administration, from century to century. The general failure with this type of question and the general success in timing isolated events leads to the fear that the history is studied wholly by reigns or administrations without regard to the “ceaseless course” of Time.

The history examiners have also made a point of introducing questions characterized by their timeliness, about Alfred the Great in the year when the thousandth anniversary of his death was being celebrated, in 1904 on the Louisiana Purchase, in 1909 on Grover Cleveland, questions which it was expected would receive unusually full treatment. The expectation was disappointed, possibly because their “timeliness” did not exist for the candidate; because current events have had no share of his attention, though they might be taking the form of celebration of the past. As for current events pure and simple, those that belong to the present per se, any option on them is avoided. The only subject of current interest on which information has seemed to be widespread was the melodramatic experience of Miss Ellen Stone. Allied to this ignorance of current events, is the ignorance of the nineteenth century in Modern history and in English history. A candidate could write a passable account of Charlemagne and fail on Bismarck, could be accurate about Wolsey and yet state that Gladstone wrote standard law books. For this knowledge of the remote past and ignorance of the recent present, Dr. James Sullivan says that the text-books should be held responsible, as few teachers are any better than their text-books.

In biography, whenever the options made it possible to write on several persons rather than on one, the greater majority of the candidates found it easier to present a few meagre facts about several individuals than an extended account of one individual. Evidently biography in school is confined to the foot notes or the descriptive introductory paragraph on the page that mentions a new leader for the first time. In fact one student apologized for his limited knowledge of Pitt and Nelson on the ground that Montgomery gives no extended biographies. Like Dr. Sullivan, he blamed the text-book. It should not be implied that the reader finds no evidence of collateral reading. Indications of it do appear, but they are rarer than oases in Sahara. Far from hinting at collateral reading, many answers showed inadequate attention to the slender material offered in the text-book. It seems not unreasonable to expect that every student going up for examination in English history should be able to place Milton and Nelson correctly, yet their names have brought out such statements as, there is nothing recorded in history showing any personal service that Milton did for the Roundheads and that personally he was a Tory, that Milton wrote books of travel and wild improbable adventures of sea and land; that Nelson explored for England and went furthest north, that he sunk the Spanish Armada, that he defeated the combined French and Spanish navies at Waterloo, and that he signaled, “Don’t give up the ship.” The only satisfactory item to be credited to these statements is the fixed association of these names respectively with literature and the sea. Any hint as to the personality of the subject is seldom found, yet William the Conqueror, Henry VIII, and Cromwell, seem to have had some hold on the imagination.

To summarize experiences as a reader is not a happy task for the secondary school teacher. As regards what may be termed the New Learning in history—geographic control, economics, and the exercise of observation, analysis, and judgment, the teacher need not blush at his failure to render his pupil able to observe, analyze, and judge in clear and correct English in fifteen-minute sections of a two-hour examination, or to deal successfully even in an elementary way with subjects that have either only recently become part of a college course or are not generally studied by freshmen. But what history teachers do need to concern themselves with is the failure to supply their pupils with a reliable store of facts. If the statistics of the Board seem to imply that history teaching is inferior to teaching in most other subjects, it would be consoling to accept the suggestion that the poor returns are not the result of poor teaching, but of no teaching, since many candidates have tried the examination without instruction, an experiment they would make in no other subject.

The Study of Western History in Our Schools

BY PROFESSOR CLARENCE W. ALVORD, OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS.

The West has always been self-assertive. This may sound somewhat banal, but no adjective describes so exactly that principal characteristic of her vigorous youth. Commercially, politically, socially she has displayed her egoism and has continually demanded from her elder sister, the East, praise for her achievements. Youth is, however, passing away; over a century of political life has been left behind; age has brought with it a new pride in the consciousness of accomplishment. To-day the West realizes that she has had a history that is no mean part of the national story. The cry from the prairies is no longer: “See what we are doing;” but, “See what we have done.” Self-assertion again! Yes, perhaps bumptiousness, but such is the fact. On every side there are signs of this new phase of western self-consciousness. In no part of the Union is there such an interest in local history. State-supported departments of history, State historical societies, county and city historical societies, even women’s clubs and public schools, and larger unions such as the confederation of the societies of the Ohio Valley and the Mississippi Valley Historical Association, are all active in collecting material for and exploiting western history. Some of the efforts are misdirected, many of the papers presented before these learned societies are absurd; but even the aimless gropings of the historical amœbæ indicate the innermost yearnings for a knowledge of the past and the consciousness of deeds worth recording.

In developing this consciousness of her past, the West, naturally enough, has found a grievance against the historians of America who have somewhat neglected this important phase of the national development. Before the eyes of the historian educated under the shadow of the gilded dome of the Puritan Capitol, the landing of the Pilgrim Fathers looms larger on the historical horizon than the occupation of the Old Northwest during the Revolutionary War, so that he gives a more careful and extensive description to the former than to the latter event. The westerner gazes upon another horizon, where the relative importance of events are differently grouped. To him many events confined to New England, the description of which fills pages of our national histories, appear of local interest; and events belonging to other parts of the country assume national importance.

This grievance is not altogether fictitious, as a glance at any of our large histories and particularly at the text-books used in our schools will disclose. The signs of the times, however, point to a healthful change; for in the last many-volumed American history, chapter after chapter is devoted to the history of the West. The correction of the error in proportion, moreover, lies in the hands of the western historians, who can bring to prominence the events of their section only by producing serious and scientific studies on the development of the West; and consciously or unconsciously the recent movement in the study of western history is directed toward that end. Besides the popular interest in the subject, already noted, the universities are turning the attention of their graduate students to the field; the scientifically-trained instructors of these institutions are conducting researches into the history of the valley; in other words, western history is already recognized as a legitimate field for research work. Time alone is needed for the results of this activity to become a part of the national consciousness, when the relative importance of western events will be correctly given in our larger histories and be finally disseminated through text-books and popular works to the public.

The Teacher’s Duty.

The development of a popular knowledge of the history of the West will largely be the work of the teachers in our public schools. This is fortunate, for the subject is suited in a remarkable degree for the purposes of instruction. In the great central valley the romantic, religious, political, and economic growths have been luxuriant, and every student, whatever his character, will find events to arouse his historical imagination. The glamour around the wild life of the forest and prairie appears most brilliant to children. The lurking Indian, the silent Jesuit, the song-loving voyageur, the hardy trapper—these are figures that give a picturesque touch to our early history which never fails to retain the attention of the class.

Fortunately the earliest phase of western history inspired the brilliant pen of Francis Parkman, and his accounts of the discovery and occupation of the Mississippi Valley have become parts of the common knowledge of our people, so that the figures of Marquette, Lasalle, and Frontenac stand out relatively clear in the memories of the school days. Since, in Parkman’s works, literature, romance, and good historical narrative are so well combined, the teacher should make the most of these, for where he ends, there is no work or set of works, comparable to his, to continue the narrative.

Many have been the attempts to tell the story of the advance of the English pioneers across the mountains, but we still await the well-equipped and inspired historian. There are, of course, books to which the pupils can turn with profit and interest. Particularly has the frontiersman with gun and axe been glorified, and his picturesque figure is fully as attractive as Jesuit priest or French voyageur. But the fundamental motives of the westward movement should not be lost in the romantic story of a Boone or Sevier. The first impulse westward came from the Englishman’s desire to participate in the fur trade which the French threatened to monopolize. During the reign of Charles II the movement, extending from Hudson Bay to the Carolinas, was started. Almost as early as Lasalle, Virginians were on the waters of the Upper Ohio, and were trading among the Indians of the Southwest. The fight for the fur trade had begun.

Land speculation was a second impulse for the westward movement. Boom towns were not an invention of yesterday. The far-famed American pioneer played his part in these enterprises, but he was often only a pawn in the hands of the gentleman speculator of the East, who is to be found in every period of western development. The speculative energy of such men as George Washington, the Lees, and George Morgan advertised the advantages of the valley lands far and wide. Then followed the wild rush of homeseekers which rapidly built the Western States.

The story of the West in the Revolutionary War is not well told in the usual text-books of the schools, for the description of the events which decided whether this vast territory should be British or Spanish or belong to the United States are generally relegated to a few lines of a paragraph. The settlement of Kentucky and Tennessee, the occupation of the Old Northwest by the Virginians, the successful campaigns of Governor Galvez which gave the Floridas to Spain, the defeat of the various British campaigns to recover their hold on the central Mississippi; these are all events of stupendous importance for the future development of the American people.

Western Tendencies.

The first and most marked characteristic in the history of the West is its unity. This sets it off from the East, where particularistic development was the rule. On the seaboard, well marked peculiarities separate the inhabitants of the different sections. In the Mississippi Valley, State boundaries have little meaning, and divide in no way the people living on either side. Even when broader areas than those of the States are considered, diverse development is not so well marked as it is east of the mountains. Throughout the early pioneer period the emigration westward was the same in character north and south of Mason and Dixon’s line. The Ohio River was the great channel by which the tide of immigration flowed over the prairies of the Old Northwest and the blue grass region of Kentucky; and accident frequently led one man to the slave-holding States and his neighbor to the North.

If the Ohio was the gateway to the West, the Mississippi was the great central avenue upon which the western people from all sections met in friendly trade, so that the original feeling of solidarity was strengthened by continuous intercourse and the realization of mutual interests. The different environment at the headwaters and mouth of the river never succeeded in separating completely the western people. Here the idea of the unity of the country took deeper root than in the East, where statehood meant more and nation less. It was in the Middle West that, as the struggle between North and South drew near, national leaders were developed and where the strongest efforts were made to hold the country in unity.

Western Democracy.

The West has moulded our national character even more than New England with her far-famed and narrow Puritanism; for the West has been the cauldron into which the nations of the world have poured their streams of immigrants and from which has come the national type. This amalgamation of character began in the oldest West, when Irishmen, Englishmen, Scotch-Irish, and Germans settled in the region between the falls of the seaboard rivers and the mountains, stretching from Vermont to Georgia. Here was moulded the new type of man, who was to populate the greater West across the mountain ridges. In an environment of primeval conditions, in the struggle with the Indians and the forests there was developed a self-reliance of character, differing in many ways from any single European type. This new man of the West admired the doer of deeds, condemned all reliance on traditional or family position, scorned State authority, and loved independence. In the soil of the new West, created by these men, the doctrines of Rousseau flourished luxuriantly. All unconscious, the frontiersmen were putting into practice the most radical philosophy of the French Revolution. It was on the frontier that those conservative traditions of Europe, which lingered years afterwards in the more settled East, were swept away, and American democracy was really bred. It was on the border of the older frontier that the spokesman of this democracy, Thomas Jefferson, lived; and it was out of the new West that the hero of democracy, Andrew Jackson, came.

The Newest State Association and an Older One

THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF HISTORY TEACHERS.

BY H. W. EDWARDS, OF BERKELEY.

The first meeting of the California Association of History Teachers was held in Berkeley, July 14, in connection with the summer session of the University of California. The following papers were read:

“History in the Grammar School”—J. B. Newell, University of California.

“Emphasis in Ancient History”—R. F. Scholz, University of California.

“Emphasis in Teaching of History”—Roger B. Merriman, Harvard University.

Prof. Newell urged that in the grades, history be taught with more attention to the great fundamental facts and elimination of details. He considered that great contests, such as the American Revolution, should be used by the teacher to train the pupil in a broad tolerance, by calling attention to the merits of both sides of the question. He would have the teachers do more reading for themselves, and called attention to the need of more money for providing the schools with books.

The burden of Prof. Scholz’s essay was the neglect of the Orient as a constant factor in Ancient History. Many teachers and most text-books assume that the East ceased to exert a great influence after the time of Alexander. This tendency to divide Ancient History into “compartments” ignores the solidarity of the ancient world, and is essentially unscientific. Oriental influence was a powerful element throughout the whole of the ancient period. In conclusion Prof. Scholz called attention to certain parallels between the race questions of antiquity and those of the present day.

Prof. Merriman made four principal points:

1. Make history interesting—“better be flippant than dull.”

2. Compare and correlate. Example—the date 1492 becomes increasingly significant when one considers Lorenzo de Medici, Charles VIII of France, the conquest of Granada, Pope Alexander VI.

3. Relate the past to modern events and conditions.

4. Make the development of mental power a constant purpose.

In addition to these papers, two short talks were given. Prof. J. N. Bowman narrated the origin of the Pacific Coast Branch of the American Historical Association, and urged the claims of both parent Association and Branch.

Dr. S. H. Willey, a member of the California Constitutional Convention of 1849, and the first President of the University of California, was present, and was called upon by the chairman. To the history teachers, it was most interesting to listen to one who had done much to make history, and to hear of the birth of the State from one of her “fathers.” Dr. Willey gave an interesting account of the conditions leading up to the convention, and of the making and adoption of the Constitution, together with references to the great struggle in Congress. He urged that the children of the State be made familiar with the facts of her history, and expressed a hope that the teachers would devote more attention to the subject.

The officers of the Association are:

President—Superintendent E. M. Cox, of San Rafael.

Secretary—Prof. J. N. Bowman, Berkeley.

THE HISTORY TEACHERS’ ASSOCIATION OF MARYLAND.

BY DR. ELEANOR L. LORD, Professor of History in Woman’s College, Baltimore.

The organization of the Maryland Association can hardly be described as the result of spontaneous enthusiasm or of voluntary action on the part of the teachers themselves; rather, it was somewhat in the nature of an experiment in historiculture undertaken by request. There are reasons, partly geographical, partly economic and partly political, it may be, why many of the history teachers, especially in the rural districts of Maryland, working a little apart from the main currents of educational progress, need an awakening or a lift or both.

The Origin.

At the annual meeting of the Association of History Teachers of the Middle States and Maryland, in 1905, the difficulty everywhere experienced in reaching teachers who are prevented by duties or by geographical remoteness from attending the conventions was pointed out, and it was voted to authorize and encourage the foundation of local conferences of history teachers, with a view to minimizing the obstacles to closer contact with the more remote teachers and stimulating interest in local history and in local problems. The primary purpose of these local organizations was declared to be the same as that of the main association, viz., “to advance the study and teaching of history and government through discussion,”—a wider discussion than is possible at the annual meeting. Mr. Robert H. Wright, of Baltimore, who was present at the meeting, was requested to attempt the formation of a local association for Baltimore. A few weeks later, as the result of a conference of five individuals interested in the matter, an invitation was extended to a number of local teachers and students of history to attend a meeting in the Donovan Room, Johns Hopkins University, the very room, as it happened, in which the Association of History Teachers of the Middle States and Maryland was organized. This meeting, held May 19, 1906, was well attended. The objects of the proposed association were stated and a temporary organization effected. It was voted to extend the geographical scope of the association so as to include the State of Maryland as well as Baltimore City. The constitution subsequently adopted stated the purpose of the association to be, in addition to the objects already mentioned, the promotion of personal acquaintance among teachers and students of history, and, as far as practicable, the furtherance of the interests of the main association.

Progress of the Association.

The Maryland Association has made fair progress in the three years of its existence. The membership, numbering at present about thirty-five, includes university, college, normal, high and elementary school teachers of history, as well as school superintendents and supervisors.

The activities of the Association may be summarized briefly. Since the date of organization seven regular meetings have been held and the following subjects have been discussed:

“Historical Aspects of the United States Navy,” by Hon. Charles J. Bonaparte, Secretary of the Navy.

“Fundamental Principles in Teaching History,” by Prof. Charles M. Andrews, Johns Hopkins University.

“The Best Methods of Controlling and Testing the Students’ Work in History,” by Principal R. H. Wright, Eastern High School for Girls, and Prof. Eleanor L. Lord, Woman’s College of Baltimore.

“The Correlation of History and Geography,” by Miss Elizabeth Montell, Teachers’ Training School.

“The Correlation of History and English,” by Miss Annette Hopkins, Teachers’ Training School.

“Essentials in Teaching History,” by Supervising Principal H. M. Johnson, Washington, D. C.

“Sources of American History in the British Archives,” by Prof. C. M. Andrews, Johns Hopkins University.

“Public Libraries as an Aid to Students and Teachers of History,” by Dr. Bernard Steiner, Librarian of Enoch Pratt Free Library.

“Management of Collateral Reading in Connection with the Text-Book,” by Miss Annie Graves, Arundell School, and Miss Florence Hoyt, Bryn Mawr School.

During the winter of 1907-08 a study section for the study of civics was successfully carried on by Mr. Robert H. Wright. The most ambitious work undertaken has been the compilation of an Annotated Bibliography for the Use of History Teachers. The task was intrusted to Prof. C. M. Andrews, Mr. J. Montgomery Gambrill and Miss Lida Lee Tall. The Bibliography was published in instalments in the “Atlantic Educational Journal,” through the courtesy of the editors, and it will shortly appear in permanent form.

When the Association of History Teachers of the Middle States and Maryland met in Baltimore, in March, 1908, the local association acted, in a sense, as hosts. On this occasion a Guide to Points of Historical Interest in Baltimore was compiled for the local association by Dr. Annie H. Abel and Dr. Eleanor L. Lord, and copies were distributed to the members of the visiting association.

Ideals of the Founders.

In planning the work of the Association, the Executive Board has always had in view the fact that not only the general meetings of the main association, but even those of the local conference, are beyond the reach of many who may feel the need of information about matters that closely concern persons engaged in the teaching of history; the stimulus of contact with others teaching the same subject; the enrichment of their own minds through a fresh study of the subject in the light of recent scholarship. Repeated efforts have been made by means of circular letters to elicit suggestions of means of making the Association useful to its more remote members; and all members have been urged to join, individually, the Association of the Middle States and Maryland, in order that they may receive its publications and those of the New England and North Central Associations. Thirteen new members were added to the main association during the year 1908-09. An effort is now being made to improve the library facilities of teachers in the rural districts; and the co-operation of the State Library Commission of Maryland has been promised in an effort to circulate through the county high schools traveling book-boxes, selected according to the classification of the Bibliography mentioned above.

The officers for 1908-09 were as follows:

President—Eleanor L. Lord.

Vice-President—Charles M. Andrews.

Secretary-Treasurer—Robert H. Wright.

Additional Members of the Board of Governors—Lida Lee Tall, J. Montgomery Gambrill.

An Ancient History Character Social

BY MARY NORTH, MONTCLAIR, N. J.

One hundred and fifty boys and girls in the first-year class of a suburban high school planned and carried through a most successful review in Ancient History last May. The course provides for five periods a week (one of which is unprepared), and it covers Oriental History as well as Greek and Roman. The pupils had exhibited much interest during the year, but were beginning to show signs of listlessness and fatigue, and something had to be done to arouse their enthusiasm. A character social was suggested by the teacher, and more was accomplished by it than could have been gained by weeks of urging and toil.

Each division appointed a committee to assist in the preparations, and by the time that the affair was over more than half of the pupils had taken an active part in the arrangements. Besides committees on program, printing, refreshments and decorating, there were special groups at work. Several boys busied themselves making siege machinery such as the Romans used, while some of the girls dressed small dolls to represent Roman soldiers. All of these models were exact and required much study and skill on the part of the makers. The much-talked-of theory of co-ordination was put into practice, for the Latin department provided accounts and pictures of sieges, while the manual-training teachers allowed the boys the use of the shop. Another set of pupils planned an exhibition of statuary, preparing garments and studying poses of famous classic statues.

The first number on the program was the exhibition of the siege machinery. On the platform were a city wall and tower built of wooden blocks, and before them, arranged for the attack, were many pieces of machinery. The boys who made the machines had charge of the siege, and each exhibited his instrument, giving its name and explaining its mechanism. There were catapults, ballistæ, battering-rams, vineæ, plutei, tre-buckets, wall-hooks and besieging towers. The chairman of the committee explained the grouping of the machines on the field and the relative importance of the various instruments, and then the siege began. Each machine actually worked, and the city wall collapsed. On a table near by the legates, slingers and centurions witnessed the siege, but took no active part. They were very properly clad, but their flaxen locks and gentle eyes belied their warlike apparel.

Another part of the platform had been arranged for the exhibition of statuary and was fronted by a large picture-frame illuminated by electricity. When the curtain was first drawn there stood in the frame the famous “Mourning Athena,” recently found in the ruins of the Parthenon. The Gracchi next appeared and were followed by a vestal virgin, who gave place to two lictors. The last statue was Minerva Giustiniani, perhaps the most successful of all. It had taken the combined efforts of many pupils to produce helmet, serpent and spear, so that all were vitally interested in this statue. Her pose and expression were perfect, and the silence which greeted her was intense until broken by deafening applause.

The early numbers on the program were most interesting, but did not compare with the character social itself. Each person on arriving had been tagged with a number and had communicated to a trusty official the name of the character that he had chosen. These characters could be taken from the Oriental monarchies as well as from Greece and Rome. They must, however, have been mentioned in the text-books (Myers and Morey). Each player was provided with a pencil and printed program containing a list of numbers corresponding to those of the characters present. At a given signal the game began, and each assumed his character. No one told his name, but each talked or acted as if he were Cæsar, or Alexander, or Rameses. As soon as a boy discovered that he was talking to Cæsar, he would scribble down “Cæsar” opposite the proper number and rush off to talk to same one else. One boy wore a double-faced mask and carried little gates; another had a tiny pair of boots pinned to his coat and carried in his hand a beautiful toy horse. A girl carried a lantern and anxiously searched the faces of all her comrades; her quest seemed fruitless, and she would sadly shake her head and move on. Every mind was hard at work, and at the end of the hour it was with difficulty that the room was brought to order to compare characters with the original list.

The correct list of characters was read, and all who had guessed over seventy were invited to the platform. No one responded to the descending numbers called until sixty was reached, when one girl came up. Then others followed in increasing numbers until the faculty began to respond in the thirties. The quiet and suspense during this calling off of numbers was most intense. Of course, no one had conversed with each character present, but many players guessed correctly all the characters they had met.

For days after the social this character-study continued, because the boys and girls kept going over in their minds the characters they had met and not guessed, and kept comparing notes until the list of characters they knew was greatly increased. When the real review came in class, the pupils discovered that scarcely a period could be found that had not been touched upon, while the teacher had again secured an enthusiastic group of students instead of numberless indifferent boys and girls.

The History Teacher’s Magazine

Published monthly, except July and August,
at 5805 Germantown Avenue,
Philadelphia, Pa., by

McKINLEY PUBLISHING CO.
A. E. McKINLEY, Proprietor.

SUBSCRIPTION PRICE. One dollar a year; single copies, 15 cents each.

POSTAGE PREPAID in United States and Mexico; for Canada, 20 cents additional should be added to the subscription price, and to other foreign countries in the Postal Union, 30 cents additional.

CHANGE OF ADDRESS. Both the old and the new address must be given when a change of address is ordered.

ADVERTISING RATES furnished upon application.

EDITORS

Managing Editor, Albert E. McKinley, Ph.D.

History in the College and the School, Arthur C. Howland, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of European History, University of Pennsylvania.

The Training of the History Teacher, Norman M. Trenholme, Professor of the Teaching of History, School of Education, University of Missouri.

Some Methods of Teaching History, Fred Morrow Fling, Professor of European History, University of Nebraska.

Reports from the History Field, Walter H. Cushing, Secretary, New England History Teachers’ Association.

American History in Secondary Schools, Arthur M. Wolfson, Ph.D., DeWitt Clinton High School, New York.

The Teaching of Civics in the Secondary School, Albert H. Sanford, State Normal School, La Crosse, Wis.

European History in Secondary Schools, Daniel C. Knowlton, Ph.D., Barringer High School, Newark, N. J.

English History in Secondary Schools, C. B. Newton, Lawrenceville School, Lawrenceville, N. J.

Ancient History in Secondary Schools, William Fairley, Ph.D., Commercial High School, Brooklyn, N. Y.

History in the Grades, Armand J. Gerson, Supervising Principal, Robert Morris Public School, Philadelphia, Pa.

CORRESPONDENTS.

Mabel Hill, Lowell, Mass.

George H. Gaston, Chicago, Ill.

James F. Willard, Boulder, Col.

H. W. Edwards, Berkeley, Cal.

Walter F. Fleming, Baton Rouge, La.

METHOD THE NEED.

Printed on another page of this number is a paper by Miss Briggs upon her experiences as an examiner and reader in history for the College Entrance Examination Board, in which figures are given to show that history papers are rated lower than any other of the major subjects, and that the average grade in history, instead of rising, is actually getting lower year by year. Miss Briggs expresses the hope that the low grades are due to the number of applicants who prepare by rapid tutoring or wholly by themselves for the history examinations; a practice, of course, almost impossible in the other major subjects. But while such cramming is partly responsible for the failure of history applicants, it cannot relieve the history teacher of blame. All who have had experience in the marking of history papers in entrance examinations know that much of the teaching of history is careless, indefinite, and without evident purpose or understanding. If our subject is not to lose caste altogether we must find a method which will give the student that which can be measured objectively, as well as furnish subjective satisfaction or culture.

Such a method will not add to the intricacy of history for the student, but it will require more efficient teachers of the subject, and it will prevent that serious evil of the high school teaching of history,—the assignment of history to any unattached instructor, whether he or she knows anything about history or no. History teaching in the college or the graduate school has, to a certain extent, found itself, and won the respect of its fellows; history teaching in the high school and preparatory school has not yet reached that point of self-development.

There has been much talk, and rightfully, about the content of secondary school history courses. The market has been filled with excellent text-books and admirable source books—indeed they are almost too good in that they have made text-book recitations easier and somewhat more interesting. There have been pages and volumes of reading references and map references and source references. Yet with all these aids to the better teaching of history there has not gone a proportionate ability to use them. Let us ask for a while, not what period of history shall we teach? but, how shall we teach any period of history?

In the Latin or Greek class there are objective standards which must be reached; in the mathematics or the English class there is a certain amount and quality of productive work to be accomplished; in the physics or chemistry or botany class there is laboratory experience to be gained and recorded in note-books. Has history a method which can be compared with any of these? Can we measure objectively the student’s acquisition? Can we get him to use in some way his experiences in the field of history, or have him record them in a valuable form?

It may be objected that the establishment of a more intricate historical method will add to the duties and labor of the history teacher. This may be true; and indeed ought to be true. The day ought to have passed when a college graduate who took in college but one course in history, and that in Oriental history, should be thought qualified to teach history in a secondary school. Such cases are not rare to-day; they would be rarer if the historical method were more definite and required better training.

Professor Fling’s article in the September Magazine and Professor Trenholme’s articles in this and subsequent numbers will furnish some details of historical method which should be valuable to every history teacher. In carrying out these suggestions the teacher may temporarily add to his or her own labors; but this will not be for long. Added efficiency will mean greater respect for the teacher and the subject; and increased respect will bring more assistants in history, more time devoted to the subject, and incidentally a stronger demand for good history teachers. Economically as well as intellectually the history teacher will profit by raising the standards of his profession.

“AS HIRELING AND NOT AS CONSECRATE.”

A noted journalist, who is also a writer on educational topics, and a trustee of a large eastern university, in writing to the editor respecting the establishment of The History Teacher’s Magazine, said: “Your idea is an admirable one. It ought to do good.... With this teaching, as with all others, I fear the difficulty is the spirit in which it is done, as hireling and not as consecrate.”

Is this charge true of the history teachers of the country? We know that history teachers were among the last to organize for common purposes; that to-day their associations are not as strong as those of teachers of the classics and of other subjects, that their class work is not as well organized as the work of that far more indefinite subject, secondary school English. Are these facts the result of a hireling spirit? We think not. Rather they are due to the unfortunate place which until very recent years, history has occupied in the elementary and secondary school roster. And yet, while we believe there existed and still exist valid impediments to the greatest success of the history teacher, it may be well for each of us to ask himself or herself the question. Am I doing the work as hireling and not as consecrate? At times we need such searching questions. And until the time when we have a great body of history teachers who are teaching the subject because they love it and love to teach it to others our history teaching will be heartless and sterile.

European History in the Secondary School

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

THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE MEDIEVAL EMPIRE.

The Importance of the Church.

The problem of simplifying and of unifying the material for study so as to give the student a clear conception of the course of European development is one that confronts the teacher at every turn and calls constantly for solution. In this connection Professor Emerton, in his address on the “Teaching of Medieval History in the Schools,” points out the importance of the study of the Church as the great unifying element in European progress, especially throughout the Middle Ages. “All the peoples of Europe, divided as they are by nationalities and by social classes, are all united in this one common possession of religion and a culture derived from Rome and holding them still after generations of separation in an ideal attachment to something they feel to be higher and better than anything in their present world.” The aims of the papacy in particular, says Professor Emerton, make this task of the teacher easier of solution, because the successors of St. Peter, even harking back to the times of Gregory I, strove one and all for the same end—“to enforce anew this ideal of a vast Christian State, governed in the last resort by an appeal to its own divinely-constituted tribunal.” The greatest efforts put forth to this end fall within the period under consideration, namely from the times of Hildebrand to the death of Frederick II, or, more exactly, from about 1050, when Hildebrand was fast becoming the power behind the papal throne, to 1268, when Conradin’s untimely death in the market place of Naples terminated the rule of the Hohenstaufen.

The presentation of the relations between the popes and the emperors of this period involves a fourfold task, namely an appreciation (1) of the time covered and the areas concerned, (2) the personalities involved, (3) the issues at stake, and (4) the effects of the struggle on Europe.

The Elements of Time and Place.

It may be an elementary consideration, but it is withal fundamental, that the pupil grasp the length of time involved, the order in which the events occurred, and the theater on which they transpired. It is not a continuous struggle, for it is opened, then closed, then reopened again; now by pope, now by emperor. On the other hand these successive meetings of popes and emperors in conflict are but phases of one and the same great struggle for supremacy, whose issue Professor Emerton has so clearly stated. These phases must be clearly defined as to their time limits if the student is to follow the contest intelligently. As to the countries or localities involved he must understand what was meant by the Holy Roman Empire of the German people and what its limits were, both actual and theoretical; to which he must add a more detailed knowledge of Italy, particularly of Lombardy and the new Norman kingdom in the South, which proved to be such an important factor in the situation.

The Personalities in the Struggle.

In no period of the Middle Ages can we find personalities more striking than those zealous upholders of the papal prerogative, Gregory VII and Innocent III—a statement which applies equally well to the great champions of the empire, Frederick I and Frederick II. Frederick Barbarossa attained his exalted position when scarcely thirty; his illustrious namesake at an even earlier age. Both therefore entered the contest with all the vigor and enthusiasm of their young manhood. Although Gregory VII and Innocent III were somewhat farther advanced in life, they too had lost none of their youthful ardor and enthusiasm as they had risen rapidly to high position, the one becoming papal counsellor before he was thirty, the other elected pope at thirty-eight. These men represent some of the best products of their times, in character, physique, scholarly attainments and native ability. Frederick II even foreshadows in character rulers like Henry VIII and Louis XI, who lived more than two centuries later.

Alike in some respects, what contrasts they present in others. So faithfully have the chroniclers performed their tasks that it is comparatively easy to call them up and make them pass in review before us. Hildebrand, unimposing in appearance, but passionate and indomitable; Henry IV, intelligent, but violent; the tall, fair-haired, princely Barbarossa; the thin, but well-proportioned, Frederick II, of studious mien; and finally the majestic Innocent III, now giving way to bursts of anger, and now plunged into fits of deep melancholy. The principles which these men represented could not have had better advocates.

The Issues.

An examination of the three main struggles shows that each of these champions of Church and State hoped to realize a definite aim which he usually sought to attain in his own way. It is most interesting to follow the ebb and flow of the tide of battle. The pope was the first to throw down the gage of battle by attempting to remove the Church from politics through the suppression of simony and the marriage of the clergy. The very boldness of Gregory in daring to alter conditions which had not been disturbed for generations, and that, too, in the face of the strongest opposition, calls forth not only surprise, but admiration, which increases as we examine the forces upon which he relied to accomplish his results, namely, the canon law, the church organization and the ban of excommunication. According to some authorities, the very year which witnessed the settlement of the first great struggle (1122), marked the birth of Frederick I, the second great champion of the rights of the empire, rightly named the imperialist Hildebrand. Selecting Charlemagne as his model, he strove not only to unify his German possessions, but to re-establish the power and authority of the empire in Europe by reasserting its right to rule Rome and the Lombard cities, and by endeavoring to unite with it the Norman possessions in the south of Italy. These attempts naturally brought him into conflict with the papacy, which feared so dangerous a neighbor on its very borders. His main reliance was in the recently-revived study of the Roman law, and in a his labors he governed himself by the maxim that “all that pleases a prince has the force of law.” Innocent III, with perhaps the highest conception of his position of any individual who had thus far occupied the chair of St. Peter, dared to assert that the Lord gave that apostle the rule not only of the Universal Church, but also the rule of the whole world. That these were not mere phrases on his lips was shown by his efforts to extend his authority to the furthest bounds of Christendom. Favored somewhat by circumstances, he became for a time the arbiter of the destinies of the empire, but at no time did he have a foeman worthy of his steel within its confines. These were rather to be found in the limits of Christendom in the rising kingdoms of France and England, whose sovereigns nevertheless trembled before his threats and repented of their misdeeds. Like Gregory VII, he asked for no stronger weapons than the terrors inspired by the wrath of Mother Church. Finally there appeared in the arena the brilliant ward of this the greatest of popes, Frederick II, aptly characterized as the first of modern kings, striving for absolute mastery in Sicily and in Germany, placing his trust, as did his illustrious ancestor in the Roman law, but utilizing at the same time his knowledge of men and the rising power of the bourgeoisie. His plans, like those of Barbarossa, met with vigorous opposition at the hands of the popes and for much the same reasons.

Effects of the Struggle.

When we pass to our final consideration, namely, the effects of these struggles on their participants and upon Europe, we find ourselves face to face with incidents of a most dramatic character. The scene at Canossa is the most familiar of these, but there was also the no less humiliating spectacle later at the portals of St. Mark’s in Venice, when Frederick Barbarossa sought a reconciliation with Alexander III, followed almost a hundred years later by the tragic end of the last of the Hohenstaufen. These events, dramatic as they appear, serve rather to mark the progress of the long struggle than as epitomes of its results. These must be sought in the relative position and influence of the Church and empire in Europe at the end of the period. Although both reached the apogee of their power and influence during this period, the middle of the thirteenth century marks the period of their decline. This decay was more marked at first in the case of the empire, which practically ceased to exist in name. The time, however, was not far distant when the papacy, too, was to enter the valley of humiliation and drink to the dregs the bitter cup which it had put to the lips of its great adversary. “One generation more and the same nation which had sent an army to defend its cause in Italy was to strike it in the face with the iron glove of one of its own subjects, and was then to capture it and hold it, an ignominious tool for political ends during a century more.”[6] These facts, with a more detailed statement of the various symptoms of decay, should be impressed upon the student as the teacher brings the period to a close.

Literature.

The account of the three phases of the struggle as given by Grant in his “Outlines of European History,” is especially to be recommended for its brevity, clearness, simplicity and comprehensiveness; also Chapter X in Adams’s “Civilization During the Middle Ages,” which summarizes the struggle from a slightly different standpoint. Portraits of the main actors are to be found in Bemont and Monod’s “Medieval Europe from 395 to 1270”; Tout, “Empire and Papacy,” and Emerton, “Medieval Europe” (814-1300). These books are also valuable for their details of the struggle. There is abundant source material in Robinson, Ogg, and Thatcher and McNeal to make clear the attitude of the popes, notably of Gregory VII and the various treaties and compromises which mark the different stages of the struggle. In some cases contemporary accounts are given of the struggle itself, e. g., of the scene at Canossa. In this connection mention might be made of the description of this scene by Dr. Jaeger as an illustration of the narrative method of presentation as employed by the German schoolmaster.[7]

English History in the Secondary School

C. B. NEWTON, Editor.

II. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENGLISH NATION; TO EDWARD I.

Feudalism: One Way to Get at It.

It seems to me better not to grapple with feudalism until the rage of the Conquest is fairly passed, and we come to the actual reign of William I, partly because we have our hands full before this in trying to instil a reasonably clear idea of the Saxon forms of government, and partly because it is not very clear just how early feudal forms and customs began to be disseminated throughout England. So we may as well merely mention their existence before the Norman régime, and not explain them fully till we are called on to show what modification in the continental system was made by the Conqueror.

The feudal system is so difficult to define briefly that most text-books evade the attempt to do so. I believe, however, in introducing even so large a subject as this with a terse definition, such, for example, as: “Feudalism was a method of land ownership and government common throughout Europe during the middle ages.” It does a boy or girl no harm to learn a short statement like this, even though it means little to him or her at first. It serves as a rallying point for explanation; its terms are pegs on which to hang further details in orderly fashion. To explain more concretely just what I mean, suppose we take the above definition (any other would do), and see how we may proceed with it in the class room so as to light it up with real meaning.

A, let us say, has recited the definition glibly, having taken it down in his note-book the day before, with instructions to learn it by heart. “Now, A,” says the astute teacher, “do you understand what that means?” “Not exactly,” hesitates A, if he is ingenuous (if he isn’t, he may easily be confounded). “Good!” you reply, in one stroke commending his honesty and showing that you do not expect bricks without straw. “Let’s see if we can’t get at its meaning. Does your father own any land?” (A surprised look and pricking up of ears in the class). “No? Well, he rents your home, then? Yes? But somebody owns it, of course, and how did he get it? Bought it? Probably. Do you know of any way of getting land except by buying or renting it?” Voice from an excited hand across the room, “How about wills?” “Yes, land may be inherited, but it had to be bought once, didn’t it?” “Well,” you continue, to A and the class, “this buying or renting for money is our ‘method of land ownership,’ do you see? Now, did you ever hear of a man’s being in Congress, or the legislature, or being a judge simply because he owned or rented a certain amount of land? Certainly not. Men are elected or appointed to places in our government. Land ownership and government are separate matters. Just think how different it was in old England (and throughout Europe, for that matter) in feudal times. Men held high position in the nation largely because of their great estates together with their prowess in war. Now, instead of buying or renting land, how would your landlord or your father have got it, say in the reign of William I, A?” “From the king or from some big noble.” “Right you are—but how, for nothing?” “No, in return for fighting for him.” “Yes, and on a few other conditions; they are given in your book. What were they, X? What! asleep? Forgotten? C, tell us.” So you proceed to draw out the details of homage, fealty, and service, the theory of royal ownership, the terms suzerain, vassal, fief, etc., drilling in the unfamiliar words by frequent use, comparing them as far as possible with present terms and usages, and bringing out, by contrast and comparison, the essentials of the whole system. Finally you show that the system was universal throughout Christendom, explain what the middle ages were (if A, C or X can’t), and point out the adaptability of feudalism to the time. When you have finished this, your period will have flown (lucky if the bell does not ring too soon!), and your mere definition will mean something to all but your dullest pupils. On pp. 131-136 of Cheyney’s “Readings,” are some excellent practical details of feudal procedure which will be found useful for examples.

A Logical Approach to the Origins of the Jury.

Did you ever stop to think how little your intelligent pupil understands about some present-day institutions the origins of which interest us because we appreciate their modern practice and significance? Take, for example, the jury. A little questioning will bring out whether or not your class knows the difference between a trial jury and a grand jury, either in make-up or in functions. Unless you are more fortunate than I have been, you will find they know very little. Now, does it not seem an illogical absurdity to wade right into the beginnings of the jury system in the days of Henry II when our class has little or no notion of what the system is now, or what it stands for? When we come to this point, therefore, in the epoch-making reign of King Henry II, it is pertinent and profitable to digress into a clear discussion of the jury of to-day, bringing out what knowledge we can find in the class, and adding to it by some such Socratic method of question and answer as we may have used in connection with feudalism, rather than by giving a “talk” on the subject. After paving the way in this fashion, we may start in with the Assize of Clarendon. (Cheyney’s “Readings” pp. 141-142) and the distinction between recognitors and presentment, so we shall emphasize the essential facts, and also bring out both the similarity and the difference between the germ and the present fruit of this ancient method of arriving at justice.

Some Great Personalities.

I think it is helpful to the memory, and useful, because of the great influence of the crown throughout English History, to bring out the personality of every sovereign, so that the names of each dynasty will not be a list of names and nothing more. But in every century we shall find certain great personalities, either on the throne or off it, which should be made as vivid as may be. To this rule the eleventh and twelfth are no exception. There are five men in these centuries which seem to me particularly worth dwelling on: William I and Henry II,—surely two of the really great kings of England; Becket and Langton, types of great churchmen and exemplars of the enormous power of the Church; and Simon de Montfort, highest type among the early nobility. Vivid word pictures of the Conqueror may be found in Freeman’s “Norman Conquest,” Vol. II, pp. 106-113, and (shorter) in Green’s “Short History,” pp. 74-76. Henry II is portrayed by a contemporary, Cheyney’s “Readings,” pp. 137-139, and in Green, pp. 104-105. Becket is described by Green, p. 106, and a good story of his relation to Henry II is told in Cheyney, p. 144. For Langton see Green, pp. 126-127; for Simon de Montfort see Green, 152-153, or Cheyney, pp. 221-224.

Further Notes and References.

There is a good brief account of general conditions—Church and State, development of learning, town and country life, architecture, etc., pp. 165-171 of Gardiner’s “Student’s History.” If one can get the time, a reading, or re-reading, as the case may be, of Green’s “Short History” on the towns, pp. 92-94; literature, pp. 117-121, and the universities, pp. 132-141, is exceedingly refreshing. Cheyney’s “Readings” also contain interesting quotations on the universities, pp. 188-195.

In bringing out the causes of the controversy over the Constitutions of Clarendon, it is appropriate to quote William the Conqueror’s Edict (Cheyney, pp. 109-110) in support of Becket’s contention, as well as to read from the Constitutions themselves (Cheyney, pp. 146-150). If one has time for a little touch of humor and human nature in the class-room, not strictly important in itself, the account of the bishop’s speeches before the pope, in connection with the quarrel with Becket, is most amusing (Cheyney, pp. 151-154).

For a very full and interesting account of feudalism, see Beard’s “Introduction to English Historians,” pp. 73-96. Shorter quotations giving some interesting detail have already been referred to (Cheyney, pp. 131-136.)

A clear account of the Government of England as established under the Normans is contained in Chapter XVII of “The Normans in Europe,” in the Epochs of History series, pp. 234-248. “The Early Plantagenets” in the same series, is concise and useful for “side-lights” on John’s and Henry III’s reigns.

On the Magna Charta, and on the Origin of Parliament, Beard’s “Introduction,” pp. 110-123 and 124-138, respectively, contains a mine of valuable comment. In connection with the famous parliament of 1265 the fact that parliament was not really a legislative body at this time should be strongly emphasized.

For realism, I know nothing better than the graphic account in the “Anglo-Saxon Chronicle” of the evils of Stephen’s reign (Cheyney, pp. 128-130, or, more briefly, Green, p. 103). The only good novel which I know of in this period (I should be glad to hear of others) is Maurice Hewlett’s “Richard Yea and Nay,” a wonderfully vivid book, but hardly suitable to put in the hands of young folk in general.

Robinson and Beard’s Development of “Modern Europe”

REVIEWED BY PROFESSOR SIDNEY B. FAY, OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE.

If a teacher finds that the remoteness of Pericles and Clovis makes it difficult to arouse in the history class the most active interest of the student, who nevertheless would be keen to know something of Bismarck and Li Hung Chang; or if a teacher finds it unsatisfactory, in the second year course in medieval and modern European history to try to teach the spread of constitutional government and democratic ideas from the French to the Turkish Revolution before the student knows anything of the English parliamentary system and of the Industrial Revolution; or if the teacher is assailed by the school-board or by the tax-paying parents of the pupils, on the ground that ancient and medieval history is relatively useless and ought to be replaced by something more practical,—such a teacher will find in these two volumes a very present help in time of trouble.

The authors have thrown to the winds the recommendations of the Committee of Seven, and do not try to make their book fit into any four years’ course as now outlined for high schools. The first volume begins with the reign of Louis XIV; and from that moment the reader’s eye is constantly directed forward to the present moment, so that he can read intelligently the dispatches from Europe in his morning newspaper. Much of the traditional matter is omitted in order to give fuller treatment to those subjects which are most important for an understanding of the present. This leads to an arrangement and a placing of emphasis which often seems arbitrary and unhistorical,—as, for instance, the scant half dozen pages given to the whole reign of Napoleon III, or the insertion in each volume of a score of pages on natural science. It is, of course, desirable to have the pupil have some knowledge of the development and influence of such fundamental subjects as evolution, bacteriology and the atomic theory; but it is unwise to put these things in a text-book of history. Few teachers at present could teach these pages properly; and efficiency of instruction is likely to be weakened in any institution where instructors trespass on each others’ fields. This criticism, however, does not apply to the remarkable chapter on the Industrial Revolution and to the excellent pages on socialism, colonial expansion, Russo-Japanese relations and other timely topics of present-day interest; all of these may properly be taught by the teacher of history.

The authors have made a text-book which is accurate, lucid, packed with information, and, at the same time, extremely readable. It has already been used in some college courses, and evokes real enthusiasm from the students. They feel they are learning things which are of practical value and are up to date.

Probably this text-book, at present at any rate, is better adapted for college than for high school use. But schools of business or commerce could very profitably use it. Ordinary high schools should have it in the school library for collateral reading, but could not adopt it as a text-book until they are ready to readjust their history curriculum so as to give much more time than at present to Modern European History. Perhaps that time is not far distant.

[“The Development of Modern Europe.” By James Harvey Robinson and Charles A. Beard. Two volumes; pp. xi, 362; vii, 448. Boston, 1908: Ginn & Co.]

American History in the Secondary School

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

THE INFLUENCE OF OLIVER CROMWELL AND WILLIAM III ON AMERICAN HISTORY.

In teaching the history of Europe from the Treaty of Westphalia to the beginning of the French Revolution, no mistake is commoner than the one of regarding the almost continuous series of wars between the European States as a purposeless struggle for territorial aggrandizement. Equally in American history, the teacher is prone to allow his interest in the growth of social and political institutions to obscure the fact that the North American continent was, for nearly a century, merely a distant battleground on which Holland, England and France were struggling for commercial supremacy. “Unity is given to the history of England in the eighteenth century,” says Seeley (“Expansion of England,” p. 77), “if you remark the single fact that Greater Britain during that period was establishing itself in opposition to Greater France.... You will, I think, find it very helpful in studying the history of those two countries always to bear in mind that throughout most of that period the five States of Western Europe all alike are not properly European States but world States, and that they debate continually among themselves a mighty question, which is not European at all and which the student with his eye fixed on Europe is too apt to disregard, namely, the question of the possession of the New World.” In the same way, the student of American history must be continually reminded that he is studying not the history of half a dozen or more isolated communities, but a phase of a great European struggle for world power.

Struggle with the Dutch.

From 1689 to 1763, this struggle is marked by an almost continuous war between France and England. An earlier generation, however, witnessed a similar struggle between Holland and England. This earlier struggle is also vitally important in the history of North America. Few students of American history are aware of the unprecedented growth of the Dutch maritime power during the first half of the seventeenth century. To most of them the founding of New Netherlands is an isolated fact, comparatively unimportant because the Dutch colony ultimately fell into the hands of the English. The fact nevertheless remains that throughout the greater part of the seventeenth century the carrying trade of the world was in the hands of the Dutch and Amsterdam was the exchange of the world. What Venice had been in the fifteenth century, Amsterdam became in the seventeenth.

“To break this monopoly was England’s object; and to raise his country to a position of leadership in the commercial world was one of the greatest ambitions of Cromwell.” (Andrew’s “Colonial Self Government,” p. 11; see also p. 15). In 1651, at the instance of Cromwell, Parliament passed the first Navigation Act, “for the increase of the shipping and the encouragement of the navigation of this [the English] nation.” In the light of later events, we in America are too apt to regard this act and its successors as designed to limit the trade of the colonies. As a matter of fact, a sufficient study of these acts, especially those of 1651 and 1660, will show that they were aimed directly at the Dutch who were at the time the maritime carriers both for England and for the other nations of Europe.

The Navigation Acts.

As a result of the first Navigation Act, England entered almost at once on the series of three wars, 1652-1654, 1665-1667, 1672-1674, which lasted just long enough to break the commercial supremacy of Holland. Every school boy knows that as a result of these wars England acquired the colony of New Netherlands, but few, even of his elders, realize that, “The Navigation Act, which remained substantially in force for nearly two hundred years is the great legislative monument of the Commonwealth, it was the first manifestation of the newly awakened consciousness of the community, the act which laid the foundation of the English commercial empire.” (Seeley’s “Growth of British Policy,” II, p. 25.)

Throughout this period of rivalry between Holland and England, especially after 1660, often against the will of the people, the English government maintained a close alliance with the king of France, the bitterest enemy of the Dutch people. In the last years of the reign of James II, however, the tide of English feeling turned irresistibly against the French alliance. Though James still looked to his cousin, Louis XIV, for aid and comfort, the people of England would have no more of him, and for this reason, as well as for purely domestic reasons, James was in the end forced to flee from the country. Thenceforward, there was a complete change in the English foreign policy.

The Dutch and English Against France.

When William of Orange, Stadtholder of Holland, the most uncompromising enemy of Louis XIV, accepted the crown of England there came not only a complete revolution in the English constitutional system, but also, and far more important for the history of the American colonies, a complete revolution in England’s foreign policy. War between England and France, in spite of the traditional rivalry handed down from Plantagenet times, had been extremely rare; Englishmen and Frenchmen had lived peacefully side by side for half a century or more in the northeastern part of North America, while Englishmen and Dutchmen were struggling for the possession of the territory between Long Island Sound and Delaware Bay. Henceforth, the English and the Dutch were to fight side by side in the effort to break the power of Louis the Magnificent both in Europe and in America. Just as between 1651 and 1689 it was the first interest of the English that the maritime power of the Dutch should be broken, so now, “it was a first interest of England that the encroachments of France should be arrested, and that the Dutch should be saved from destruction. The rivalry between the English and Dutch must cease; the two sea powers must combine in opposition to France” (Seeley, “Growth of British Policy,” II, p. 207).

How efficiently William III set this policy in motion is attested by the history of Europe and America in the eighteenth century. Though he personally never realized the magnitude of the issue, though from first to last he was primarily interested in the preservation of Holland, though had he realized that his work was to result in the aggrandizement of England at the expense both of Holland and France, he would probably never have accepted the English throne, the far-reaching effects of this policy are to be seen not only in America but in Asia and in Africa as well. The accession of William III is thus the turning point in American colonial history. Almost at once, he set in motion that series of wars which ended in America only when the last vestige of French colonial empire had disappeared from the continent. What he began, Marlborough and Pitt, in later generations, completed.

Influence Upon America.

If we keep these facts in mind: first, that the Navigation Act of 1651 inaugurated a trade policy that was to build up the English carrying trade at the expense of the Dutch; and second, that the accession of William of Orange as William III of England marked the end of the rivalry between the English and the Dutch and inaugurated the struggle between the English and the French, Oliver Cromwell and William of Orange become two of the most important figures in American history and therefore deserve far more attention than is usually accorded them in teaching American history.

For the further study of this phase of American history, the student is recommended to the works of Fiske and Parkman, and to the shorter treatises contained in the volumes of Hart’s “American Nation.” Especially important, however, are the two works of Professor J. R. Seeley which have several times been quoted in this paper: “The Growth of British Policy” and the “Expansion of England.”

A New Text-Book on American History By James and Sanford

REVIEWED BY JOHN SHARPLESS FOX, PH.D., OF THE UNIVERSITY HIGH SCHOOL, CHICAGO.

The new text-book by James and Sanford is an advanced and compendious manual for use in high schools. In it the authors have escaped in large measure the fault common to some of our older texts of writing an essay on American history; on the other hand they have avoided the more grievous error of dumping a mass of undigested facts into their book. They have borne in mind the important principle that generalizations, to be useful, must be accompanied by the facts. The how and the why are explained in this text, and the authors do not assume an undue intimacy with providence.

It has been their aim, they tell us, “to give the main features in the development of our nation, to explain the America of to-day, its civilization and its traditions.” They have sought to emphasize “the achievements of men and women” in the more important fields of human activity,—the “political, industrial, educational and religious.” “Military phases of our history ... have been subordinated to the accounts of the victories of peace.” They have given unusual attention to “the advance of the frontier” and to “the growth and influence of the West”; and “particular care has been taken to state the essential facts in European history necessary to the explanation of events in America.” Unlike some of our older books,—and the parson who announces his text and bids it adieu—the authors have given no separate chapter or section to physical geography, but have called attention to the influence of geographical conditions in connection with events and conditions as they arise. In the opinion of the reviewer, this method has received a large measure of justification in the event, (e. g., pp. 92-95.)

In the matter of proportion, the authors have assigned much more space than is usual to the period following the Civil War, and considerably less to the period from 1789 to 1860; yet the latter does not suffer thereby. The book is divided into chapters (XXXI), with appropriate titles, and marginal notes indicate the contents of paragraphs. Information of a more advanced and supplementary character has been placed in smaller type, which may be omitted by teachers lacking time, or at discretion. It is not clear, however, why the Ordinance of 1787 should be relegated to this minor position (p. 189).

Colonial History.

The account of the thirteen colonies is of sufficient fulness to show clearly the origins of the people and their institutions. It is, however, a matter of regret that the authors have not made it clearer that the thirteen mainland colonies who won their independence were not the only English colonial establishments in America. The discovery of America is made reasonable (pp. 1-10); the varying motives of English and European colonization, and the principal difficulties in the way of permanent settlement by Europeans in America are clearly set forth (pp. 30-40, 91); the fact that the Puritans were political as well as religious refugees, of a practical character, and not merely religious idealists, is made clear (pp. 53-55). The land systems prevailing in the different colonies are explained (pp. 43, 47, 52, et passim), and the more general statement is made (p. 91): “The great underlying economic fact of this [eighteenth century] colonization was the existence in America of boundless areas of cultivable land that might be had on easy terms.” The Indians are treated in their contact with the whites, and their degeneracy is made the occasion of general remarks on the inevitable consequences attending the contact between a superior and an inferior race (pp. 98-100). Here, too, “the land question” is shown to be fundamental. The influence of the fur-trade in this and later times is dwelt upon (pp. 97-98, 108, 111). A notable statement of seventeenth century colonial conditions and of eighteenth century problems occurs on pages 101-102.

Social and economic life receives unusual attention throughout the book, and wherever possible is shown in its relation to physical conditions and environment. The West receives the best treatment we have noted in any text-book. Excellent accounts of why the settlers went to the West, how they travelled, how they obtained their land, and of how Western democracy arose and reacted on the East, are here given. (See “Westward Migration and Internal Improvements,” pp. 273-281).

The authors make no attempt to “write down” to their readers, and we suspect that some of their economic discussions of international trade, financial crises, and monetary problems will overshoot the mark. Be it said, however, that things are everywhere reduced to their simplest terms. Something must be left to the teacher,—and to providence! Some of the other more important topics treated are: Progress in invention and labor-saving devices, and their attendant effects on production; the growth of commerce due to increased facilities for transportation; the growth of capitalistic combinations, corporations, and trusts, with their attendant problems of legislative regulation; the rise of labor unions and their raison d’etre (Chapters XXVII, XXIX). Educational, literary, philanthropic, and religious history are given due attention.

Topics and Biographical Notes.

An excellent feature of the political and constitutional history is the presence of brief biographical sketches of important statesmen. For teachers who prefer to teach American government in connection with the history, special provision is made by means of marginal references and supplementary questions, and an elaborate outline of topics arising in the text is added (Appendix I, pp. 527-534), with appropriate references to the Constitution and to the authors’ “Government in State and Nation.” This is further supplemented by a list of topics, relating to other features of our government not naturally arising in a history course.

The book is provided with abundant and well-selected illustrations, from authentic sources; the maps are numerous and helpful, but not distinctive. At the end of each chapter are suggestive and stimulating topics and questions, with references within the compass of high school pupils. These references are almost unique in that they are specific and brief.

A few inaccuracies and misleading statements have been noticed: The statement, “There was no gold in this region” (p. 23), referring to Spanish territory in the United States, should be modified. None was found. For “Eyler” read Tyler (p. 67); for “Cheney” (p. 91), read Cheyney. The remark respecting the slave trade, that “during colonial times no protest seems to have arisen against the wickedness and inhumanity of this traffic” (p. 131) loses sight of the Mennonite protest of 1688, as well as the work and writings of John Woolman, Anthony Benezet, and others. Finally, Connecticut is correctly stated Democratic in the text, but erroneously Republican in the Election Map of 1876 (p. 447).

Taken as a whole, the book is well adapted to its purpose. The style is usually simple and direct; facts are well selected and are clearly and impartially stated; the scholarship is of a high order. The index might be made fuller with profit.

[“American History.” By James Alton James, Professor of History in Northwestern University, and Albert Hart Sanford, Professor of History in the Stevens Point, Wisconsin State Normal School. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1909. Pp. xvii, 563.]