The Study of History in Schools Rcportof the Committee -of Five Class _J]jA Book- fi 'S\3 Copyright l^°_ COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. THE STUDY OF HISTORY IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS THE MACMILLAN COMPANY NEW YORK • BOSTON • CHICAGO SAN FRANCISCO MACMILLAN & CO., Limited LONDON • BOMBAY ■ CALCUTTA MELBOURNE THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltd. TORONTO THE STUDY OF HISTORY IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS REPORT TO THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION BY A COMMITTEE OF FIVE ANDREW c. Mclaughlin, chairman CHARLES H. HASKINS CHARLES W. MANN JAMES H. ROBINSON JAMES SULLIVAN THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 1911 All rights reserved /V^' Copyright, 191 i, By the MACMILLAN COMPANY. Set up and electrotyped. Published March, 191 1. Nnrfaooli ^ress J. 8. Gushing Co. — Berwick & Smith Co. Norwood, Mass., U.S.A. '■■1 ^y ©CI. A 28 34 30 '-^- ^ THE STUDY OF HISTORY IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS THE STUDY OF HISTORY IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS This Committee was appointed by the Council of the American Historical Association at the Madison meeting in 1907. As originally consti- tuted the Committee included, besides the four members signing this Report, Mr. Charles W. Mann, Professor of History in Lewis Institute, Chicago. Mr. Mann died in the spring of 1909. He had been much interested in the work of the Committee and as a practical school-man had paid careful attention to the problems to be solved. We take this opportunity to express our sorrow for the loss of a wise and successful teacher and our appre- ciation of the value of his counsel. I. Relation of this Committee to the Committee of Seven Although two of the members of this Committee were also members of the Committee of Seven, we make no pretence of representing the earlier Com- mittee or of attempting to give an authoritative 2 The Former Committee interpretation of its Report. We have made a new study of the conditions in the schools, and have entered once again into a careful consideration of the history curriculum. The Report of the Com- mittee of Seven, however, has necessarily been our starting-point; we were appointed to determine what modifications, if any, were needed in the recommendations of the earlier Committee. This task could not be performed without interpreting the Report; and in some instances interpretation or emphasis appeared more desirable than any very distinct modification. In the following pages, therefore, we present, not only our own recom- mendations for change, but also what appears to us to be the proper or the most helpful and useful construction of the work of the Committee of Seven. 11. The Report of the Committee of Seven In 1899, when the Committee of Seven published its Report, the schools were ready for decided change in the curriculum and for advance in meth- ods. The Report appears to have judged the gen- eral situation correctly, and, in the main, to have recommended steps that the schools were prepared to take. From one side of the continent to the other courses were fashioned with deference to Uniformity 3 its recommendations. The Report of the Com- mittee affected not merely the curriculum but also the method and even the aims of history teach- ing, and its natural result was also to bring about, or help to bring about, the estabhshment of sub- stantially similar curricula in a large portion of the schools the country over. In general this move- ment appears to us to have been wise and admirable. The approximate uniformity in the history curricula of the schools is in itself so desirable that the con- dition ought not to be disturbed except for strong reasons or where there is good ground for expecta- tion that a large percentage of the schools can easily and willingly accommodate themselves to the change. Not that absolute conformity to a fixed regime is in all cases wise ; local conditions or pe- culiar circumstances may justly have more influence on the shaping of a curriculum than any theory of adjustment or of correlation of studies. But there is such a thing as a logically developed series of history courses, and there are general principles that are largely appKcable to the great majority of schools; such principles may in special cases need modification; but they need not be en- tirely ignored. It is probably unnecessary to prove to the practical teacher the convenience of sub- stantially similar courses in the high schools, especially if college entrance requirements are, 4 Present Situation or can be brought to be, in accord with what the schools are prepared to furnish. In light of all these facts we have felt it pecul- iarly advisable to look into present conditions carefully and to recommend only such change as appeared indubitably advantageous and clearly in the line of progress. Fortunately no very rad- ical alteration in the curriculum appears necessary.^ III. The Present Situation The present Committee was appointed by the American Historical Association as the result of a petition from the Headmasters' Association pro- posing that certain changes be made in the Report of the Committee of Seven. The petition asked for a modification in the extent of the field of ancient history and for a reduction of what was thought to be an over-emphasis upon the desira- 1 The Committee of Seven recommended four fields of history, each normally a year's work, to be taken in the following order : — 1. Ancient History, with special reference to Greek and Roman history, but including also a short introductory study of the more ancient nations. This period should also embrace the early Middle Ages, and should close with the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire (800) or with the death of Charlemagne (814) or with the Treaty of Verdun (843). 2. Mediaeval and Modern European History, from the close of the first period to the present time. 3. EngUsh History. 4. American History and Civil Government. Present Course 5 bility of cultivating the reasoning faculty rather than ''mere memory " by historical study. Before taking action on these matters, it appeared to us necessary to study the whole subject anew, to gather information concerning the existing sit- uation in the schools, and to make recommendations that the general survey of the field appeared to justify. We sent circulars of inquiry to history teachers in all sections of the country and obtained helpful information from the answers to these inquiries. We gained further knowledge from discussions in teachers' meetings and associations. The general subject was discussed in the American Historical Association, in the New England History Teachers' Association, in the North Central History Teachers' Association, in the Association of History Teachers of the Middle States and Maryland, in a convention of the History Teachers of CaHfornia, and in other gatherings as well. Some of the asso- ciations have made special and detailed study of the problems we have had to consider, and the pubhshed reports of these associations have been serviceable in enabling us to appreciate the prevail- ing sentiment on critical questions and to estimate differences of opinion and judgment. The recom- mendations in the following pages, therefore, are based on information gained from a variety of sources. 6 Present Situation To give in detail or in synoptical form all the in- formation gathered from the replies to the ques- tions in the Committee's circular appears to be unnecessary; but it may be well to give here a brief survey of the general situation as disclosed by these replies and by the debates and reports to which we have just referred. (i) Ten years ago there were some sharp criti- cisms of the Committee of Seven's Report because it ventured to mark out a course in history extend- ing over four years. But even then an occasional school was offering a similar amount of work, and since that time the development of the school cur- riculum has shown that four years of work can be quite generally offered. For example, out of 93 schools which, in reply to our inquiry, describe or name their history courses, 7 offer five years of work, 38 offer four years, 2 offer three and a half years, 42 offer three years, and 4 offer two years. It is thus apparent that four years of work is a possible amount. Although a sound three-year course may be recommended to schools desiring to do only three years' work, it is equally desirable to prepare a four-year scheme for schools that can furnish the longer schedule. This Committee believes, as did the Committee of Seven, that four years are needed and should be offered where conditions permit Ancient History 7 (2) It is not so easy as it might at first appear to ascertain just how far the school curricula have been shaped in accordance with the Report of the Committee of Seven.^ But it is not necessary to know by exact measurement the influence of the Report ; it is sufficient to know that, whether the Report has been consciously followed or not, school programmes are now very commonly, though by no means universally, in accord with its recommen- dations. Moreover, even when there are varia- tions in other particulars, many schools, we judge the vast majority, have abandoned the attempt to cover general history in a single year and have adopted the plan of offering blocks or periods of history. This alone constitutes an important ap- proach to the scheme of the Committee of Seven. (3) It is not possible to determine from the repKes to our circular alone just what is the opinion of teachers concerning the field of ancient history. The conditions and difficulties are not the same in all sections of the country, probably. The 1 For example, in answer to the question, "How far has this course [of yours] been drawn up or shaped in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee of Seven?" one school says, "Not at all"; but the course given is, nevertheless: — First year — Ancient History to 800 a.d. Second year — 800 to the present time. Third year — English History. Fourth year — American History and Civics. 8 Present Situation teacher in the East, preparing pupils for college examinations in ancient history, works under con- ditions differing in some particulars from those in which the Western teacher is placed; to omit portions of a text, to emphasize, to enlarge or to abbreviate as inclination suggests or as need of time demands, is a more serious operation for the teacher of history fitting pupils for examinations than it is to one whose pupils enter college on cer- tificates stating that they have covered the field required. The difficulty in the Eastern schools is not so much in the extent of the field to be covered as in the need of covering it all with a layer of equal and even thickness lest the unwary pupil be caught by an unexpected question of the examiner. Incon- clusive as the replies to our circulars are, the infor- mation they give is not seriously at variance with that reached by other methods of inquiry; some of them contain the expected complaint, but the statistics appear to point to the conclusion that the majority of teachers are not discontented with the length of the field. Of 107 schools giving adequate answers to the inquiries concerning the length of the period, 77 appear to cover Oriental history and bring the study of ancient history down to 800 A.D., or try to do so; 9 stop at 476 a.d.; and 7 at some point in the fourth century. A number complain that Government and History 9 the field is too long, a few that the freshmen are too immature, and several that the text-books are unsatisfactory. (4) On the subject of mediaeval and modern history there are differences of opinion and practice. Amid all this diversity, however, one thing is quite apparent. Many schools — we are inchned to believe a distinct majority — are desirous of empha- sizing modern history. Certainly the tendency is too strong to be ignored. Here again one cannot form one's opinion solely from the replies to our circulars; but as usual they bear out the conclu- sions one gains from other sources. Of the schools whose replies have been compiled, 7 do not offer work in the field of mediaeval or modern history; 14 do not state the limits of the field as they actually teach it ; 67 aim to come down to the present day ; II do not attempt to do this; 64 schools are in favor of placing more emphasis on the later portion ; 7 do not think such emphasis practicable ; 26 give no opinion. Some 13 schools are in favor of a special course in modern history; and 28 wish to gain time for the study of modern history by short- ening the time given to mediaeval history. (5) Concerning the relation between United States history and civil government, and concern- ing the extent to which government can be taught in direct connection with history, there are also 10 Present Situation marked differences of opinion. There is evident difficulty to ascertain from the repHes in the cir- cular just what the teachers desire. There are many possible grades between teaching govern- ment and history in two totally detached courses, on the one hand, and teaching them in one com- bined course, on the other ; moreover, a combined course may appear the best if the time at disposal is short, and two interrelated and interdependent courses may appear desirable where more time is available. The questions in the circular were as follows : " To what extent does your study of Amer- ican history include civil government ? Does your experience indicate that civil government can best be taught as a part of the work in American his- tory ?" The following are typical answers : — *'Our study of American history does include civil government, and our teachers of American history are emphatic in the opinion that for a secondary school the only feasible way in which to teach civil government is in connection with the American history. They heartily indorse the views of the Committee of Seven upon that point." "About one-fifth civil government with a text- book. I have taught it in each way and prefer to make it a part of the work in American history. '^ ''Our study of American history includes the study of political science. About two-fifths of the Government and History ii time is given up to this. Experience has indicated that it can best be taught in connection with the work in American history. The principal objection that we find to this plan is that it reduces the time for history." "It should be taught in both ways — historically, as a part of history; systematically and logically, as a separate course." "Without doubt civics can of itself best be taught — I say from experience — separately. In five months devoted to civics my class would have more knowledge of government than they have now, — but not so much of United States history." "I am rather inclined to the view that an ade- quate course in civics may best be given after the student has had the history course." ^ The analysis appears to show that 41 schools favor teaching the two subjects together in a course that may be called American history and civil 1 An experienced teacher, when asked how civil government was taught, repHed : "In connection with American history." "Do you set aside so many hours a week or a definite number of weeks in the year for government?" "No." "How does the plan work?" "Splendidly." "Do you use a text-book in government?" "Certainly." "Do you believe this plan of teaching the two together to be the best?" "That depends on the teacher." Possibly we have here the real situation ; some teachers can without difficulty manage the system, others cannot. But schools should give opportunity to the teacher to teach in the way in which he finds he can produce best results. 12 Present Situation government; 32 prefer separate courses; 23 partly follow the plan of teaching the two together ; others are doubtful. Such replies and such information are, as we have said, inconclusive. But in light of all the facts we can gather we are justified, probably, in saying that there is an undoubted desire on the part oi\ many teachers to have the opportunity to give a separate course in government, especially for the purpose of dwelling on certain phases of actual politics and government that cannot be readily y and adequately discussed in connection with Ameri/ can history. The need is not so much for a radical revision of method as for sufficient time to do both subjects profitably. (6) On the subject of memorizing and the attempt to get generalized knowledge, the circular asked the following question : ''Does it seem to you that the Committee [of Seven] has laid undue stress upon comprehensive and generalized knowledge and led to the undue neglect of matters specific and detailed ? " The answers are clearly in favor of the Report; II think that the Committee does lay too much stress on comprehensive and generalized knowledge ; 66 do not think so ; 19 are non-committal.^ 1 In a series of recommendations addressed to the Committee of Five by the New England Teachers' Association appears the following paragraph: "In general the critics of the recommen- The Teacher 13 (7) The circular contained an inquiry upon school equipment for teaching history. Probably the schools receiving the circular were, on the whole, above the average in advantages and in general strength. However this may be, there is evidence that there is a wide use of illustrative material, an earnest desire to use as much as can profitably be used, and a sense of the value of sources as illus- trative material. IV. The Teacher and the Material for his Use The most important factor in the schoolroom is not the curriculum, the text, or even the method but the teacher. The schools are taking history more seriously than they did ten years ago, and superintendents and school trustees are beginning to see how difficult it is to get history taught as it should be taught. Of course it is a comparatively easy task to follow the winding way of a thoughtless pupil over the pages of a well-smoothed text-book. dation of the Committee of Seven complain of the length of the field covered, and to it attribute the apparent failure of the teacher of history to impress upon the student the value of facts, and do not feel that such a failure is due to the emphasis placed by the Report upon the value of generalized knowledge, but rather be- lieve it has been of especial value in leading our teachers of history to develop power in our pupils." 14 Teacher and Material It is not difficult for a teacher to watch his charges narrowly as they move along from one rigid para- graph to the next. If the pupils ask no questions, the teacher is in no imminent danger of telling un- truths. But if history is to be a study of actual educational value and culture, if the boy and girl are to be given insight into social life, some real sense of time and movement, and, above all, inter- est, vital interest, in books and facts, the teacher must have character, enthusiasm, and knowledge. Because we believe so profoundly in the helpfulness of historical study, the necessity of bringing the pupils to see the world about them as the product of past ages, the value of learning to handle books and to think and speak clearly, — not alone of quan- tities in algebra or of facts in physics, but of human doings, — we;wish here distinctly to state our belief that all mictions of curriculum are comparatively insignifi^jant. The schools have a right to demand teachers that are prepared to teach history and have the ability and the spirit to teach it right. Public schools, supported by taxation, that are content with the old idea that anybody can teach history, that anybody can trace the line of life through the past and give his pupils the spark of interest and the fire of useful knowledge, have, in our opinion, a distorted conception of their responsibility. The great demand of the day is for teachers that have School Equipment 15 themselves inhaled the breath of enthusiasm, and that have knowledge, skill, and force. ^ No one knows better than the members of the Committee how hard it is to have adequate knowl- edge and to combine with knowledge an unfailing supply of interest and courage. We know too that a great deal of good work is being done. But the fact remains that there is a need for more good teachers ; the schools need far better equipment ; and the teachers need more time to prepare their les- sons, to seek out illustrative material, and to direct the study of their pupils. Excellent as are the texts that have appeared in recent years, they cannot take the place of teachers well trained in history ; the poorly equipped teacher may nulHfy the re- sults to be derived from the best texts. ^Most schools are badly in need of equipment for doing their work right. Teachers of history, when contrasted with the teachers of science, have been modest in their requests. In most schools the pro- vision for sound and substantial work in history is quite inadequate. Good wall maps, large, framed photographs of historical remains and historical places, a good working general library, a small classroom hbrary with dupHcate copies of the most important works, lantern sHdes, which can if necessary be shown with an inexpensive and portable lantern, cheap pictures and reprints i6 Four Years' Course of interesting sources for illustration and for special study, — these are necessities in a school that ex- pects the best results. The history teacher is as much entitled to helpful apparatus as the science teacher is to the expensive appliances of his labora- tory. In history, as in science, pupils must learn facts, and learn also to do things and see things for themselves ; but if they are to get the best training, if they are to study history to the best advantage, they must have the tools with which to work and the opportunity to use the tools they have. A room devoted to history, a room well stocked with such materials as pupils can use and enjoy, will some day, and we hope soon, be considered as in- dispensable as the laboratory in the well-equipped school. V. The Four-year Course and the Three- year Course Ten or eleven years ago when the Committee of Seven was at work, circulars were widely distrib- uted and the returns carefully examined. At that time one-half of the schools answering the cir- culars reported a course in general history; i.e. they sought to cover the field of universal history in six months or a year. The Committee of Seven in its Report strongly combated the idea that General History 17 pupils could profitably be carried over the whole field in a single year. Earnestly advocating the advisability of studying the whole period where possible, the Report recommended that four years be devoted to the subject and the whole field be divided into blocks or periods, each to be recognized as a unit for college entrance. Each block appeared to be brief enough to give ample opportunity for real history work, for a study of men and of con- crete facts. As we have shown in considering the rephes to our circulars and in an attempt to state briefly what the general situation is, there has been a tendency to accept these recommendations. Blocks or periods of history not dissimilar to those marked out by the Committee of Seven are commonly used. We are at the present time, however, occasionally confronted with complaints and desires that are of exactly opposite character. Occasionally a teacher, more frequently, we believe, a superintendent not actually engaged in history teaching, advocates the retention or the reestablishment of the short course in general history; on the other hand, one sometimes hears the declaration that it is impos- sible to cover the period of the world's history in four years. The first complaint arises from a sense of the desirability of a comprehensive view of the whole field ; the other, from an appreciation 1 8 Four Years' Course of the difficulty of teaching well and wisely when the field is broad and long. It is not our intention to discuss anew the inad- visabiHty of adopting the short course in general history ; that matter is fully and, we beheve, con- vincingly treated in the Report of the Committee of Seven. It is conceivable that some teachers, under advantageous conditions, with some students, may after a fashion cover the whole course of the world's history in a single year ; but it appears to us as a general thing altogether unwise to make the attempt. Such a conclusion appears unavoidable for many reasons, but chiefly for the reason that there are many things to be gained from historical study besides a comprehensive view and equally proportioned knowledge ; and even if such a view and such knowledge could be secured by the study of general history in a single year, perspective and proportion would be acquired at the expense of what is much more valuable — training and insight and comprehension. That the fields marked out by the Committee of Seven are too extensive for four years' study is, it appears, the behef of some teachers. At least we find one experienced and learned college teacher saying that the Committee of Seven "unintention- ally perpetrated a pleasantry on the teaching world." This pleasantry is said to consist in the Omission and Emphasis 19 declaration that it is possible to cover the entire range of history from early Grecian times to the present day in four years. As a matter of fact the pleasantry might more justly be considered as an effort to persuade schools to give up the attempt to accomplish this task in a single year. Teachers were advised by the Report to accept the four- period system, and, if only three years were avail- able, either to omit one of the periods entirely or to combine two of them into one. Objections to the plan of covering general history in four years are probably indications of progress, or, at all events, of a desire to give thorough work, to require or induce extensive reading, and to allow the free use of illustrative material. But whether these objec- tions are signs of progress or not, they appear to be ill-founded. More than four years cannot be used in the great majority of schools, and when so much time is devoted to history it is quite within the range of sense and possibihty to cover general history and to teach the subject well. The trouble, if there be any, hes in the fact that teachers complaining of the inadequacy of a four years' course in general history, or asserting that the blocks or periods marked out by the Committee of Seven are too long and cumbersome, try, or think they are expected to try, to cover the whole range of history with a layer of information of uniform 20 Four Years' Course thickness. They do not understand that in going over a field they can, by wise omissions and clever condensations, here and there, gain the time and the chance to plough deeper in some portions than in others. No one can seriously propose that, in four years, pupils be taught everything that can be learned; and in our opinion stress to-day comes largely from text-books that are loaded with unnec- essary facts, from this feehng that omission and condensation are culpable, and perhaps, too, from such college entrance examinations as make it necessary to teach all that a text contains. When a school offers its pupils the opportunities of a four years' history course, it does not appear neces- sary to omit treatment of any great period in the world's history in order to get substantial results. But even with such a course the teacher must use discrimination, be ready to omit unnecessary and unedifying details, pass over unappetizing and unnourishing narrative, and emphasize and illus- trate the portions of the field that are specially worthy of study and thought. This process of omission and condensation, of emphasis and clari- fication, of dwelhng with interest and sympathy on what most deserves interest and sympathy, is the process which tries the teacher's soul, but it is the essential element of good teaching — if good teach- ing can justly be called a matter of method at all. Treatment 21 Unfortunately the schools do not by any means universally offer four years of history. There are many schools that offer but three years, and with this allotment of time many teachers must be con- tent. If only three years are available, how shall they be used? That is a question much more troublesome than the proper distribution of studies under the four-year scheme. There appears to be positively no agreement concerning what should be given or what omitted, although in general, probably, the problem is solved by the omission of a whole period or section of history, such as ancient or Enghsh, rather than by any system of condensation or combination. Of course the plan of merely omitting all consideration of some one block is the simplest, and in many instances it must be the wisest plan, for to attempt condensation or the rapid survey of a wide period cannot be profit- able if the teacher is inexperienced or if he has not the opportunity to make thorough and thoughtful preparation. This is especially true because texts are not commonly arranged for the three years' scheme. We are not ready, however, to assert that the course of the world's history can in no case be cov- ered intelligently and effectively in three years, and that the only thing to do is to drop bodily out of sight some great and important section. The ex- 22 Three Years' Course perienced teacher may find it quite possible to trace the main development and to gather the main lessons, and to accomphsh the task without studying mere mechanical outlines on the one hand or struggling with philosophic generalizations on the other. This task must be performed by the wisest and most discriminating selection of the im- portant and by the skilful subordination of the un- essential; and it must be performed, too, without losing sight of the fact that the pupil must be so taught that he touches particulars. The second- ary pupil must deal with real facts and with real men, with institutions as men worked in them and with them; he must have time to think and read as well as to learn. We must not forget that history merits a place in the curriculum because of its distinctly educational value ; by it the pupil learns how the toil and labor of the past gener- ations made the present; he learns to read and think of social problems. Such ends are not attained by any unreal and impersonal treatment of institutions and processes, or by the memoriz- ing of chronological outlines. It would be inappropriate to attempt here any ample illustration of the process of condensation and ehmination that might be suitable for a three years' course. That process can be accomplished only by the skilful text-writer or by the wise teacher Treatment 23 in the classroom. We do suggest, however, that if it seems wise to omit any detailed study of ancient history and to give the three years substantially to the other three blocks, the teacher, while omitting all detail, may still attempt to give his pupils some idea of the growth of the ancient nations, and some idea of their achievements and their qualities. Hurried and unsatisfactory as such treatment must be, it need not be profitless; the pupil need not enter upon the study of mediaeval history with no appreciation of antiquity. The essentials of Greek civilization can be pointed out with con- siderable distinctness; the pupil can learn with some clearness the main steps by which Rome encircled the Mediterranean and established her far-reaching dominion ; he can get some knowledge of the most salient facts in Roman organization and government. For such study time must be gained by elimination and condensation, chiefly in the treatment of the thousand years of English and Continental history that come before the age of discovery. In many cases, probably, the teacher will have to give this introductory survey by oral instruction. If, in a three years' course, ancient history be given as usual in the four-year curriculum, con- densation and elimination must of course be at- tempted in other fields. The mediaeval field must 24 Ancient Flistory then be treated as only introductory to the later time, and only those facts can be dwelt upon that conspicuously aid in a comprehension of the modern era. If the second year's work is general Euro- pean history, the teacher will seek to give a knowl- edge of the most striking facts in the development of England. If European history is omitted, English history should be so taught as to bring out the chief phases of the general European en- vironment. The omission of American history does not seem in any case to be advisable, and probably in no three-year schedule can the time allotted to it be materially shortened — its lessons are too immediate, its content is too valuable. And yet even here it may be quite possible to teach certain portions of colonial history in connection with English history, and thus to bring out the great fact of England's expansion, as well as some of the essentials of her growth. VI. Ancient History The Committee of Seven recommended that an- cient history should be taken as one field of study. The schools were advised, instead of giving sepa- rate and detached courses in Greek and Roman history, to give a single course covering the history of both peoples. The Committee believed that Oriental Background 25 the time had come when ancient history might " be studied independently as an interesting, in- structive, and valuable part of the history of the human race," and not merely as a sort of appendix to the languages of Greece and Rome. There ap- peared to be abundant reason for treating the field as one field and not dividing it into two, as if the nations of antiquity lived and walked in isolated grandeur, and as if Greek history ended before Rome began. There appeared then, and there appears now, every reason for studying the history of the ancient world as one subject in schools, and the whole tendency of scholarly investigation is in the same direction. On this point, fortunately, there appears to be no material difference of opinion among competent teachers of history. As a means of securing this broader study of ancient history and placing Greek and Roman history in its proper setting, the Committee of Seven advocated a brief introductory survey of Oriental history, in order that students should not be dropped into Greek history without appreciation of the fact that thousands of years of recorded history had already passed over the world and made important contributions to its civilization. This survey was urged "as an indispensable background for the study of the classical peoples," but it has not always been understood that it should be given 26 Ancient History- only as a background, and ought in no case to in- volve a memorizing of dynasties or even a continu- ous narration. What such a course should contain is excellently stated b}^ the Committee of Seven, and the present Committee sees no reason for modifying that recommendation : ''It should aim to give {a) an idea of the remoteness of these Oriental beginnings, of the length and reach of recorded history; {h) a definite knowledge of the names, location, and chronological succession of the early Oriental nations ; (<;) the distinguishing features of their civilizations, as concretely as possible ; {d) the recognizable lines of their influence on later times." The statement of the Committee of Seven that this survey should not exceed one- eighth of the entire time devoted to ancient history has sometimes been interpreted as meaning that one-eighth of a year is a minimum, whereas in our opinion it should occupy distinctly less than that amount of time. Fortunately the treatment of this field in the text-books has greatly improved since the Report of the Committee of Seven was written, and the better texts now offer a wise guidance in the selection and emphasis of facts concerning the Oriental period. As a further means of unifying ancient history and breaking down the traditional isolation of Greece and Rome, the Committee of Seven recom- Constitutional History 27 mended emphasis upon the Hellenistic period, as the age when Greek civilization spread over the East and when Greece and Rome were drawn together, and upon the Roman Empire as the culmination of ancient history and the starting- point of later development. These recommen- dations in themselves seem to have met with little criticism, but there has been a widespread complaint that they cannot be carried out in schools in the time available for the study of ancient history. The cup of Greek and Roman history was already full, and nothing could be added. In one sense the kernel of this objection is perfectly sound ; what is needed is not so much more time for this course, as a radical revision of its subject- matter in the light of the progress of historical investigation and the results of classroom experi- ence. The content of the course is still too largely shaped by the tradition which made it the hand- maid to the study of certain classical authors and filled it with military and constitutional detail without regard to larger historical perspective; and too little attention has been paid to selecting and dwelling only on such facts as can be clearly apprehended by pupils at the age when the subject is usually studied. Thus for those who have as yet scarcely any acquaintance with their own gov- ernment, the attempt is made to teach the early 28 Ancient History constitutional development of Athens and Rome, subjects which are obscure and diffcult even for maturer students and, at least in the case of Rome, are usually presented in accordance with outgrown views of historical study. We can see no useful purpose that is served at this stage by comparing the Solonian and Draconian legislation or learning the details of the Valerio-Horatian laws. Young pupils entering upon a new and compli- cated field of study should commonly be taught something of the statics of government before its dynamics receive much attention; the workings of a poKtical system at a given period should precede the tracing of constitutional development. In the study of Athenian history in the secondary school, the early development should be disregarded and effort concentrated upon the actual workings of Athenian democracy in the Periclean age. Like- wise in Roman history no attempt should be made to reconstruct the institutions of the regal period or the supposed history of the struggle between the orders. The teacher will do well if he leaves a clear understanding of the government of the republic in the period of the Punic wars, the char- acter of the provincial system, the constitutional issues of the later republic, the changes introduced by Augustus, and the nature of the later empire. Throughout the study of ancient history much The Limits 29 better results would be secured by fuller and more descriptive study of significant epochs, at the expense of much chronological narration once deemed important. Historically as well as ped- agogically, for example, it would be far better to begin the stud}^ of Roman history where our actual knowledge begins, at the close of the fourth century B.C., and give a brief account of the Romans, their life and government and how they conquered Italy, leaving for more advanced study the difficult prob- lems of the reconstruction of early Roman history from the legends and the guesses of the later Romans. By beginning at this point the natural connection with Greek history is made in the war with Pyrrhus, and the struggle with Carthage be- comes, what it should be, a piece of Mediterranean rather than of local ItaKan history. If it is thought desirable to give in the secondary school some of the legends of early Rome, they can be in- troduced here as illustrating the character and ideals of the Romans and their beliefs concerning Rome's past. The suggestion of the Committee of Seven which has attracted the most attention is the one advising the continuation of ancient history down to 800 A.D. The reasons for this recommendation are apparently these : (i) such an arrangement shortens the period that follows; the great field 30 Ancient History of mediaeval and modern history is made more manageable ; (2) to break off the history of Rome abruptly at 476 or at any previous time is to leave the old impression that Rome actually fell and disappeared, while one of the most important facts in history is the continuing influence of the eternal city; (3) ''to break off with the year 476 is to leave the pupil in a world of confusion — the invasions only begun, the church not fully organ- ized, the empire not fully, ' fallen,' " ; (4) in the light of the way in which Roman history was not in- frequently taught, — as if with the daggers of Cassius and Brutus, or at best with the burial of Augustus or the unsaintly Tiberius, the greatness of Rome were gone, — it is especially desirable that connection be made between the history of Rome and the beginning of the Middle Ages, and that the tale should not be stopped without pointing to the appearance on the western horizon of states and systems which, in some measure, relying on the traditions of Roman order and the inheritance of her law, were to form the foundation not only of mediaeval but of modern Europe. These reasonings appear to us on the whole sound, and the great majority of schools seem to have accommodated themselves to this plan of prolonging the study of ancient history into the earlier Middle Ages. While, however, we find ourselves in accord The Limits 31 with the Committee of Seven on this much-debated point, we believe that the matter requires further and more specific explanation. Many school- masters and examiners have interpreted this rec- ommendation as demanding as intensive a study of the period from Constantine to Charlemagne as is commonly given to the later republic and the early empire, and this misconception has naturally led to a protest against the possibility of crowding such an amount of additional matter into a year already full. The difficulty has been rendered acute in many schools through the practice of the College Entrance Examination Board of setting questions on the later period which could be an- swered only as the result of somewhat detailed study. Such an interpretation of the Committee's recommendation seems to us not only out of har- mony with the spirit of its Report, but contrary to sound historical teaching, and we desire to set forth more fully our views on this subject. No period of history can properly be taught without some reference to what precedes and what follows; and no course on ancient history, however elementary, ought to omit some reference to the Middle Ages which came after, as well as to the Oriental nations which went before. If the Roman empire is in any sense the "great central fact in the history of nations," the pupil must be led to under- 32 Ancient History stand its central position by seeing, not only its origin, but its influence on later times. He must be shown that Rome did not ''fall" in any one year, but that by a process of change the ancient world gradually disappeared and a new mediaeval world took its place. To stop the study of ancient history in i8o or 395 or 476 is inevitably to give the impression that ancient history ends at this point and in some way stands apart from the subsequent history of the world. There is, on the other hand, nothing peculiarly sacred in the year 800. It is simply a convenient stopping place from which the student can look back and see by contrasting the empire of Charlemagne with that of Augustus something of the process by which the ancient world was transformed into the mediaeval. Some teachers may perhaps succeed in accomplishing the same end by stopping with the death of Justinian; others, especially where no specific study of mediaeval history is to follow, may wish to carry their classes still farther in the effort to establish a connection between ancient and modern times. The main point is that these transitional centuries should be used to round out the view of ancient history and show its relations to modern. Similarly in the study of mediaeval history it will be necessary to treat this same period, but from a different point of view, that of the origins of mediae- Subjects 33 val civilization. To chop European history in two at the year 800 is not much better than to chop it in two at 476, for the result is to violate historical continuity and give a factitious importance to a date which should serve merely as an historical con- venience. The period between Constantine and Charle- magne, being neither wholly ancient nor wholly m-ediaeval, should accordingly be studied both in the course on ancient history and in that on mediaeval and modern history, but it should be ap- proached in each case from a different point of view. In the course on ancient history the emphasis should be put upon the Roman elements. In studying the later empire attention should be given to those elements which remained rather than to those which perished, — to the power and influence of the emperor as determining the persistence of the imperial ideal; to the Roman law; to the Latin language; and to the local life of the civitas and the villa. Christianity should be studied particularly in its relations to Rome as seen in its establishment as a state religion, its organization as modelled on the local organization of the empire, with the bishop as the centre of the reli- gious life of the civitas, and its absorption of the Roman culture which it was to transmit to the Middle Ages. The Germanic invasions should 34 Ancient History likewise be taken up primarily in relation to the overthrow of the Roman empire; no attempt should be made to follow the migrations in detail, but the history of a single people, such as the Visi- goths, should be traced, and the growth and extent of the Frankish empire should be made clear as a basis for a description of conditions of western Europe under Charlemagne. Attention should carefully be called to the continuation of the empire in the East and to the part of the Greek empire in perpetuating Roman law and in civilizing eastern Europe, but its narrative history should not be carried beyond the time of Justinian. Such a tapering-off of Roman history cannot fail to leave a clear impression of the character and the abiding importance of ancient civilization. All such topics should of course be treated as simply and concretely as possible, and should require but a small number of exercises at the close of the year; and suitable questions upon these should find a place in examination papers on ancient history. Candidates might, for example, be asked to describe city life in the Roman empire; to show how Christianity was made the state religion; to give a brief account of the history of the Visigoths; to show how the eastern and western empires be- came separated ; to explain what the Corpus Juris Civilis is and mention important states in which Treatment 35 its influence is still felt ; to name the countries which speak a language derived from the Latin; to trace the boundaries of Justinian's or Charle- magne's empire as compared with that of Augustus'. On the other hand, such subjects as the rise and spread of Mohammedanism, the specific institutions of the Germans (such as the comitatus or the ordeal), monasticism, and the history of the Papacy, while they fall chronologically in the period before 800, are so essentially a part of medieval history that no examiner or board of examiners should put ques- tions upon them in a paper on ancient history. Topics such as these, whose culminating interest is reached in mediseval times, are suitable material for questions in examinations in mediaeval and modern history. One other matter needs consideration here. Some teachers declare that pupils of the first year are too immature for ancient history. If, however, a four years' course is to be given, what shall be done ? Are they not in the same way unprepared for any field of history ? Should the chronological order advised by the Committee of Seven be aban- doned and some other field given the first year? Now the only other field that one would think of is probably American history, and, as the Report points out, if American history were substituted, this would mean a repetition of courses usually 36 Ancient History given in the later years of the elementary school; the work could not be conducted on a plane suffi- ciently advanced to be justified. If American history were given the first year, it would probably involve the omission of the more advanced work in American history, and, it may be, of civil govern- ment, which high school pupils should have the chance to study in the latter part of the course.^ If a three years' course is given, of course the work might not be begun until the second year. The only possible solution appears to be one that is not on the whole regrettable. Ancient history must be made simpler and less abstract; more attention must be paid to the great men, less to the history of institutions; more time must be given to simple studies of art and habits of life; wars that mean nothing must be omitted, and time must be gained for easy, famihar talks and lessons about things that pupils of fourteen can understand. Constitutional details must give place to pictures and to stories of the great deeds and achievements of antiquity. An attempt to show just how this can be done would be out of place here. There is an undoubted demand for text-books that will aid the teachers in this difficult task ; and there is need of ^ Attention may be here called to the Report of the Committee of Eight of the American Historical Association, dealing with history in the elementary schools. College Examination 37 abundant and cheap illustrative material. But the task must rest with the teacher. Difficult as it is, there is reason for thinking that it will be mastered. We feel confidence in saying that there is no other field of history so rich in materials of human interest and which can be made more vivid and comprehensible; but pupils will probably not be fired to enthusiasm by the reforms of CHsthenes, the duties of archons, the campaigns of the Sam- nite war, or the technicahties of the Roman con- stitution.^ Such treatment as we suggest may not meet the requirements of entrance examinations, where col- leges demand a year's work of such a character as may be done in the later years of the high school. But we cannot see our way to advising a distortion of the school course in general because of the exi- 1 Reference may be made again to the remark in the Report of the Committee of Seven as to the fact that Ceesar's Commen- taries, loaded down with all sorts of antiquarian information, is put into the hands of pupils in the second year of the high school. Boys of fifteen are often reading Xenophon. If a boy of fifteen can read Caesar in the original intelligently, can one of fourteen not understand a simple story of ancient life in the vernacular ? Beyond all question the complaint concerning the difficulty of the ancient field arises from a feeling that the teacher must have his pupils learn things that are ill adapted to this stage of growth. This feeling is based on tradition and possibly on a difficulty of selecting the significant, the picturesque, and the comprehensible. 38 " Mere Memory " gencies of examination. If colleges will make such demands, many schools must shape their courses accordingly. We believe, however, that it is unreasonable for colleges to demand work of such a character that it can be done only in the later part of the course or that necessitates taking the v/ork over again in the fourth year. College entrance examinations should be arranged with regard to the normal sequence in the school course. Schools should not be compelled to keep subjects fresh merely for examination purposes, nor, after subjects have been once given well, should it be necessary to review them in the later years of the high school merely to meet college requirements. Such a process tends to a hopeless congestion in the last year and makes for cramming rather than real study. Some schools may be forced to give an ancient history course in the later years, but the great body of boys and girls will get what they most need by just such untechnical famihar study as we here suggest, and there is no peculiar salvation for their souls in knowing technical constitutional organization and the meaningless detail of war. VII. ''Mere Memory" The Report of the Committee of Seven did not emphasize the necessity of learning historical facts Historical Thinking 39 and did not dwell at length on the need of accuracy and precision. As far as methods of teaching are concerned, the Report disapproved the practice of confining the pupil's work and interest to a text- book, and, on the other hand, objected to the ''topi- cal method" without the use of a text, because by such method "it is difhcult to hold the pupils to a definite line of work" and because ''there is danger of incoherence and confusion." The Report also included definite suggestions concerning method, and discussed at considerable length the value of historical study as well as the aims of historical instruction. The present Committee does not find that it can materially alter the recommendations of the Report in these particulars. If history teaching results only in the memorizing of a modicum of bare facts in the order in which they are given in a text, there is not much to be said in favor of the retention of the subject as an important part of the curriculum. This does not mean that pupils should not be accurate, painstak- ing, and thorough; it means that in addition to learning, and learning well, a reasonable amount of history from the text, the pupil should gain some- thing more: he should learn how to use books and how to read them; he should be led to think about historical facts and to see through the pages of the book the life with which history deals; he may 40 " Mere Memory " even be brought to see the relation between evi- dence and historical statement in simple cases where material is close at hand; he should in some meas- ure get the historical state of mind. This Committee cannot be persuaded that, when a pupil can be induced to think, and not merely learn by rote in other subjects, — in physics, in English, and in geometry, — he cannot think in his- tory without being in peril of losing hold on truth and of gaining a love for indistinctness and uncer- tainty. In fact, there appear to be two essential results that should be the product of historical study: first, a firm, hard grasp of a reasonable quantity of facts; second, a sense of the meaning of historical facts and historical relations, some aptitude in gleaning knowledge from historical books, some appreciation of what history is, some historical imagination, some skill, though it be not great, in putting together the facts that one has learned. The Committee does not need to be told that pupils entering college have a marked fondness for vague misinformation about the essentials of history. But surely this cannot be attributed to the endeavor on the part of the teacher to arouse interest, to stimulate his pupils to read, to incite them to think and not merely repeat — unless in his enthusiasm he forget the danger of discussion without knowledge; for keen debate and even hard Comparison 41 thinking, without a basis of fact for thought, un- questionably have their perils. The remedy and the control are, however, in the teacher's hands. It is all a matter of good judgment and good teach- ing. On either side there is difficulty and danger: on the one side, slavish adherence to a text and the loss of interest and training; on the other, dis- traction, incoherence, vague uncertainty, and pos- sibly ignorant enthusiasm. The teacher of history has an incomparably difficult task; but we believe that a reasonable effort should be made to get the best results by avoiding both of these extremes. In a great many ways teachers can add to the value of their work even when there is paucity of material outside the text, or when there is little time for collateral reading. Pupils can be taught by frequent exercises, both oral and written, to put together in their own way things they have learned at different times and in different parts of their text-books ; and, while this will develop their power in handling their knowledge, it will likewise strengthen their hold on what has been taught them. It is not too much to ask an intelKgent boy who has just finished the reign of Edward I to gather together and put into writing what he has learned about the growth of parliament from the time of the Conquest. It is not too much to ask one who has been studying the Napoleonic wars 42 "Mere Memory" or the American Revolution what other wars he has studied about in which England and France were opposed. It may not be too much even to ask for a comparison of the way in which the French overthrew absolutism in the Revolution, with the way in which England gained her free constitution, if the pupil has already learned the facts and been given the elements of comparison. A pupil who has been going over American history should be able to say something of the activities of John C. Calhoun or of Henry Clay or to compare the work of the two statesmen, if he has already learned in various parts of the text the main facts which he is asked to put together. In this way constant re- view can be insured and continual practice in using the knowledge he has gained. Much of this can be done without extensive collateral reading. It has sometimes been said that the Report of the Committee of Seven emphasized the importance of generalized knowledge and minimized the im- portance of memorized facts. If we may judge by the information from various sources, to which we have already referred, teachers at large do not believe that the Report erred in this respect. The expression ''mere memory," to which special excep- tion was taken, does not appear in the Report, but in certain statements emanating from the College Entrance Examination Board which have appar- Accuracy 43 ently been transferred, with slight verbal alteration, to some college catalogues. We do not feel called upon to discuss this subject at length ; our general conclusions are sufficiently presented in the preced- ing paragraphs; but lest there be a mistake, let us say expressly that the pupil should get more out of his study of history than the memory of a certain modicum of facts which, when the examina- tion comes, he can faithfully reproduce, but repro- duce only in the exact order and in the exact combination in which they appear in his text. But let us also say, with equal emphasis, that pupils must be taught to know clearly, strongly, and well the essential facts of history; they must be taught to know what they know and hold fast to what they have. Whatever else we may do, we are certainly not succeeding as teachers of his- tory if our pupils are slovenly and inaccurate, and if at the end of their study they know but little, and that vaguely. There may be some consolation in the thought that the uncertainty with which pupils often hold their inaccuracies is not at all confined to history. The condition is general, in fact, and its roots He too deep to be attributed to any special advice from any one committee or to any method of instruction. But it is clearly our duty to do our part in getting accuracy and certainty. 44 Government VIII. American History and Government Much discussion has recently arisen concerning the study of government and the relations of the subject to American history. A committee of the American Political Science Association has pre- pared and published a report on the matter. It enters very fully into a consideration of the relationship of the two studies and combats the recommen- dations, or what it believes to be the recom- mendations, of the Committee of Seven. Certain portions of that report appear to us to be based on a misconstruction of the Report of the Committee of Seven and to underestimate the perfectly just and proper combination of history and government. But it is not necessary for us to discuss the subject at length. The purposes of the two associations cannot be hopelessly at variance, and a discussion in conflicting reports would, at the best, do no good. Both associations are anxious that suitable atten- tion should be given the subjects in which they are especially interested, and each is ready, we are sure, to acknowledge its interest in the special field of the other; for government and poHtical order cannot be disassociated from history; and the historian that has no appreciation of the problems of modern government and of modern poKtics may lose his history in scholasticism or antiquarianism. Previous Recommendations 45 When the Committee of Seven reported, there was no national association of political scientists; the Historical Association included then, as indeed it does now, many teachers of government and politics ; at least four members of the Committee of Seven had for years taught both government and history. It was not therefore beyond the province of that Committee to make suggestions about teaching government, and especially to speak of the connection between government and history. The situation is now considerably changed; the present Committee can with no show of right lay down definite regulations or expHcit recommenda- tions about the teaching of government or its place in the curriculum.^ The most we can do is to present our views of the relations of government to history and make proposals for adjustment of time and proportional emphasis. The statements of the Report of the Committee of Seven, which are given in the note below,^ appear 1 It may be said, however, that of the Committee making the present Report, only one is not a member of the American Polit- ical Science Association. Mr. Mann was also a member of that Association. 2 " Much time will be saved and better results obtained if his- tory and civil government be studied in large measure together, as one subject rather than as two distinct subjects. We are sure that, in the light of what has been said in the earlier portions of this Report about the desirability of school pupils knowing 46 Government to us unexceptionable, if they are fairly construed and applied. The recommendations were far from advising that civil government should not be their political surroundings and duties, no one will suppose that in what we here recommend we underestimate the value of civil government or wish to lessen the effectiveness of the study. What we desire to emphasize is the fact that the two subjects are in some respects one, and that there is a distinct loss of energy in studying a small book on American history and afterward a small book on civil government, or vice versa, when by combining the two a substantial course may be given." " In any complete and thorough secondary course in these subjects, there must be, probably, a separate study of civil govern- ment, in which may be discussed such topics as municipal govern- ment, state institutions, the nature and origin of civil society, some fundamental notions of law and justice, and like matters ; and it may even be necessary, if the teacher desires to give a complete course and can command the time, to supplement work in American history with a formal study of the Constitution and the workings of the national government. But we repeat that a great deal of what is commonly called civil government can best be studied as a part of history. To know the present form of our institutions well, one should see whence they came and how they developed ; but to show origins, developments, changes, is the task of history, and in the proper study of history one sees just these movements and knows their results." " It would of course be foolish to say that the secondary pupil can trace the steps in the development of all our institutions, laws, political theories, and practices; but some of them he can trace, and he should be enabled to do so in his course in Ameri- can history. How it came about that we have a federal system of government rather than a centralized state; what were the colonial beginnings of our systems of local government; how the Union itself grew into being; why the Constitution provided against general warrants; why the first ten amendments were Relations 47 given adequate attention or that government be distinctly subordinated to history, but rather that, especially when the time at command was brief^ adopted ; why the American people objected to bills of attainder and declared against them in their fundamental law, — these, and a score of other questions, naturally arise in the study of history, and an answer to them gives meaning to our Constitu- tion. Aloreover, the most fundamental ideas in the political structure of the United States may best be seen in a study of the problems of history. The nature of the Constitution as an in- strument of government, the relation of the central authority to the states, the theory of state sovereignty or that of national unity, the rise of parties and the growth of party machinery, — these subjects are best understood when seen in their historical •settings." " But in addition to this, many, if not all, of the provisions of the Constitution may be seen in the study of history, not as mere descriptions written on a piece of parchment, but as they are embodied in working institutions. The best way to understand mstitutions is to see them in action ; the best way to understand forms is to see them used. By studying civil government in connection with history, the pupil studies the concrete and the actual. The process of impeachment, the appointing power of the president, the make-up of the cabinet, the power of the speaker, the organization of the territories, the adoption and purpose of the amendments, the methods of annexing territory, the distribution of the powers of government and their working re- lations, indeed all the important parts of the Constitution that have been translated into existing, acting institutions, may be studied as they have acted. If one does not pay attention to such subjects as these in the study of history, what is left but wars and rumors of wars, partisan contentions, and meaningless details ? " " We do not advise that text-books on civil government be dis- carded, even when there is no opportunity to give a separate 48 Government every available opportunity be used to take advan- tage of the interrelation and interdependence of the two subjects. But if the Report of the Com- mittee of Seven is in this respect at all ambiguous, we desire to say clearly that we do not think that the two subjects, despite their interdependence, should be so taught as to crowd out government or give insufhcient time for its proper study. More and more as the days go by it becomes plain that the schools have the clear duty of giving full instruc- tion on the essentials of American government and practical politics. We have no desire to under- estimate this need and this duty. We still think, however, that much that is com- monly called government as distinguished from history can be taught and should be taught as part of the history course. To separate the workings of poHtical institutions through the decades of the last century from the institutions we have to-day, course in the subject. On the contrary, such a book should always be ready for use, in order that the teacher may properly illus- trate the past by reference to the present. If the pupils can make use of good books on the Constitution and laws, so much the better. What we desire to recommend is simply this, that in any school where there is no time for sound, substantial courses in both civil government and history, the history be taught in such a way that the pupil will gain a knowledge of the essentials of the political system which is the product of that history ; and that, where there is time for separate courses, they be taught, not as isolated, but as interrelated and interdependent subjects." Separate Treatment 49 or to have no eye for the fact that the contests of the past produced what we have to-day, would be entirely without justification. Such separation and wilful blindness would be worse than profitless. A proper and wise correlation, a suitable and just treating of American history, must have the result of giving clear pictures of actual institutions of government and clear ideas of their workings. Much of our national constitutional system can thus be effectively presented. It is clear, however, that not by the study of American history alone can the pupil get such a knowledge of government as he ought to have. It is especially difficult to teach the state constitutional system or local government in connection with the course in American history, and it is almost impos- sible to bring out adequately the all-important facts of party organization and the workings of party machinery. Such subjects seem to require distinct and separate treatment, and their signifi- cance in the daily Hfe of the pupil is too great to justify a hurried or vague treatment. And yet it must be pointed out that the proper presentation of governmental facts in the history course, those facts of a general character that readily and natu- rally come into view, does not detract from the im- portance of government; such presentation only gives more time for the proper study of the poHtical 50 Government situation, the problems of the day, the intricacies of party methods, the make-up of local govern- ment, and such other things as demand particular and separate study. Moreover, the field is so large, so immediate, and so important that every avail- able advantage must be taken of fair and just oppor- tunity to treat government and history as related and mutually helpful subjects of study. Here, as in so many cases, the real need is for more time. Probably no one doubts that where there is ample time at disposal separate courses in history and government should be established. And no one can fairly doubt that, even then, they should be so taught as to take advantage of relationships and interdependence. But the problem becomes acute when time is brief, and condensation is imper- ative. How much time should be given to the separate study in government ? How much govern- ment must be taught, and taught once for all, in connection with history? How shall the time be justly distributed between the two ? Now perhaps we do quite wrong in suggesting palliatives, in pro- posing plans that may soothe school administra- tors and result in the inadequate or improper study of American history and government. The simple truth is that these subjects should be given the time they need in the school curriculum, and if shearing and clipping must be done somewhere, let the opera- Colonial History 51 tion be applied to subjects that are not the best and most immediate subjects for preparing boys and girls for citizenship. We are, however, confronted by a condition and not a theory — only the exceptional school will give more than a single year to American history and government late in the course. The question of distribution and arrangement must therefore receive some sort of an answer. Let us, however, before suggesting the answer, propose an alleviation of the pressure on the last year : some relief may be obtained by dealing with colonial history in connection with English and modern European history. If this is done, the course in American his- tory can be begun with a rapid survey of colonial history, with a consideration of the most important colonial achievements, and especially with a picture of conditions and institutions in the middle of the eighteenth century. This proposal is discussed briefly in later portions of the report. The English background of American history is of great value to the student of American history; moreover, if modern history be taught, as suggested in suc- ceeding pages of this report, the pupil will have as a background for his study of America some knowledge of European government and institu- tions, and will have at least some idea of the colonial expansion of Europe. 52 Government The distribution of time between government and history in the fourth year should, we beHeve, be in some such ratio as this — two-fifths of the time may be given to separate work in government and three-fifths to the course in history. This arrangement will not appear to all teachers as ideal ; some teachers will desire more time for history, others more time for government. But on the whole the distribution appears to be the best that can be proposed, and we should be the last to assert that no teacher should modify any adjustment or arrangement to suit his own needs and incKna- tions, if they are based on an intelligent regard for the subject and his pupils. Many teachers will prefer to give the civil government separately after the history work is concluded. But while this plan may have its advantages in some respects, the con- tinuous study of government throughout the year side by side with history has also advantages that merit consideration. Where the study of govern- ment extends through the whole year, there are many opportunities for concrete illustrations and even learning by observation, which are not allowed in a shorter time: elections are held; municipal problems arise and are discussed in the newspapers ; important appointments to office are announced; the usual presidential message appears. These advantages will induce many teachers to prefer the Present Conditions 53 system of carrying government through the year side by side with history. IX. More Time for Modern History In the decade and more that has passed since the Committee of Seven reported, there has been a growing interest in the study of modern history. Many teachers have come to feel strongly that a study of the past should distinctly help in under- standing the present. They believe that for a knowledge of present social and political conditions there is need of a reasonable famiharity with the great changes of the past century, and that history courses should be so arranged as to allow ample opportunity for the study of the development and progress of modern Europe. As the course is now arranged and as it is not uncommonly taught, quite as much attention is given to the Middle Ages as to modern times ; in fact, probably many teachers would confess that their pupils know more of the crusades than of the colonial expansion of Europe, and that Charlemagne and Peter the Hermit are more famihar figures than is Napoleon, or Cavour, or Bismarck. Such a condition can scarcely be justified. Interesting and important as are the great statesmen and soldiers of mediaeval times, they are not more important to us than the men of 54 Modern History more recent centuries. Why should we know of Frederic Barbarossa or Innocent III and be ignorant of their great successors ? Surely Pitt and Palmer- ston and Gladstone are more significant to us than are Athelstane or Thomas Becket. From the study of history, it is true, much more is to be gained than a modicum of information about the immediate background of European politics; the value of history is not to be measured merely by its con- tribution to knowledge of the present. But on the other hand there appears no vahd reason for avoiding a more intensive study of more recent centuries or for spending so much time on the earlier ages that the pupils get little or nothing of the social changes and political movements which have in modern times transformed the face of Eu- rope. The desire of teachers to emphasize modern history, therefore, strongly appeals to the members of this Committee. Although we appreciate fully the cultural value of all historical study and although we should deplore the abandonment of the older fields, we are quite in accord with those who wish to see sufficient time given for the dehb- erate study of the later period. If dissatisfaction with the curriculum marked out by the Committee of Seven were quite general or if some distinct plan for rearrangement were commonly advocated by experienced teachers, Alternatives 55 it would not be so difficult to determine what changes should be made. But even among those desiring this increased emphasis on modern times, there appears to be no general agreement. Many teachers are not advocating a breaking up of the old schedule and the establishment of a new, dis- tinct course; they are simply in sympathy with the movement for more modern history. It appears to us likely that many schools will soon rearrange their courses; and even where no fundamental change is made, there will not infrequently be a shifting of emphasis in order that modern history may receive fuller treatment. In light of all these conditions we do not advo- cate an immediate change in every school, the uni- versal abandonment of the plan of the Committee of Seven, and the immediate substitution of a new curriculum. We have tried to make it clear that an emphasis on modern times is, in our opinion, desirable, and we beheve a rearrangement of the curriculum is much to be desired. But something must be left to the determination of the teacher; something must be left to circumstances and condi- tions ; and it seems to us we should not be justified in condemning the curriculum proposed by the Committee of Seven as so totally wrong in principle that schools should in all cases immediately abandon it for a curriculum that appeals to us as better in 56 Modern History some particulars. Any radical rearrangement is a serious matter when the schools of the whole country are concerned, and it should be entered upon with a full understanding of what the change involves. We content ourselves, therefore, first, with advising a change in emphasis when the aban- donment of the plan marked out by the Committee of Seven does not seem feasible; and second, by the proposal of a course which we believe to be on the whole better than the old, and which we think will suit the needs of schools ready to take up seri- ously the study of modern history. For the schools adhering to the blocks or periods now commonly given there is only one way to get more time for modern history. That way is to abridge the mediaeval period in general European history and in EngKsh history ; it is the old remedy of condensation and omission. The early centuries must be treated as introductory or preparatory only; those things must be selected that are con- spicuous and of deep significance ; those things must be omitted that are not of fundamental impor- tance and that do not materially aid in the appre- ciation of later times. Of course this is easier in the saying than in the doing. But even where text- books do not make such elimination and cursory treatment easy, the task is by no means an impos- sible one. The fuller attention to the later centuries A New Course 57 of England and the Continent is quite within the range of possibihty for the well-prepared teacher, especially if the school is provided with illustrative material and suitable reference books. This mere shifting of emphasis will not satisfy those who are intent upon the careful and fairly elaborate study of modern times. They will point out the difficulty of carrying out the plan of abridg- ment and condensation in the earher period ; they will argue that the modern development of England and the Continent needs to be studied in a single course and that the second year, in which general European history is commonly given, should be devoted to the study of events leading up to modern history. To get substantial and satisfying results from the study of modern history requires, it will be said, at least a year for concentrated connected study. Such assertions are certainly not without force; they constitute a strong argument for the establishment of a separate course. X. A New Schedule of Courses The estabhshment of a separate course in modern history involves, in our judgment, placing English history in the second year. Perhaps it might more properly be said that the second year should be devoted to a study of English history together with 58 A New Schedule the general history of Europe. The main line of English growth should be followed, and events and conditions on the Continent of supreme importance for the understanding of general European develop- ment should be introduced in connection with the history of England. The course will naturally begin with the break-up of the Roman Empire and give a rapid survey of conditions in England and on the Continent in the later portion of the period covered by the course in ancient history. Throughout the study of the Middle Ages the most significant movements in Europe can be introduced and made to stand out with distinctness. The estabhshment and growth of the papal power, the great institutions of the church, the foundation of the religious orders, the contest between papal and temporal authority, can not only be properly studied as a part of' general European liistory but can be seen also as part of the history of England. The same can be said of feudalism, which cannot be understood as it existed in England without some examination of the feudal system on the Continent. The growth of the kingly authority and the estab- lishment of the national state can be seen both in England and in continental Europe. So also of the Crusades and the spread of the Northmen — the pupil will get totally wrong conceptions if he does not see these facts as part of European history. England and the Continent 59 Social conditions of mediaeval times and the ex- tent and character of mediaeval commerce can also be studied in connection with the history of Eng- land. The rise of the towns and the growth of parliament give opportunity for valuable com- parisons and the imparting of useful knowledge of conditions on both sides of the Channel. The truth is that such topics as these, often treated in the course of English history as of purely insular importance, can be understood properly only when seen in the setting of general European history. The Renaissance and the revival of learning must, under any circumstances, be seen first, not in back- ward England, but in the life of the more advanced nations of the Continent. The study of WycHf and the pre-Reformation conditions in England give opportunity for the study of John Huss and the growing discontent in continental Europe, while the Reformation itself necessitates, under any cir- cumstances, the introduction of Luther before one enters upon the separation of the EngHsh Church from Rome. The same is true of the age of discovery. It cannot be treated as if England first entered the race and was a leader in achievement. Henry the Navigator was a grandson of John of Gaunt, yet it was Portugal, not England, that pointed the way to the Indies. John Cabot himself was a 6o A New Schedule Venetian, and for long years after him the Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese seamen were the pioneers in maritime adventure. But even the great dis- coveries, the finding of the new heaven and the new earth, are of such supreme importance in EngHsh history that no excuse need be made for the introduction of Prince Henry, Columbus, and the bold Portuguese sailor who rounded the cape England now holds, on his voyage to the Indies, now ruled as an EngHsh possession. Some subjects of prime significance, it is true, cannot be studied merely when incidents or condi- tions in English history call for their presentation. Nor, indeed, is such a treatment in immediate connection with England always desirable. The course of English history offers a convenient and suitable line to be followed ; to follow it will probably help in giving coherence, strength, and simplicity to the work; and as English history is in some ways our history, and as our own institutions were making in the kingdoms of Alfred, William the Conqueror, and Edward I, we may well hesitate to cast aside the advantage of seeing the growth of the English state and the establishment of Eng- lish liberties. But, withal, many of the great movements, as we have already said, were not peculiarly English; and there is a real advantage in seeing the general European character of the England and the Continent 6i most significant social and political development. If occasionally the teacher or text- writer must leave the course of English history to describe events that, comparatively speaking, remotely influenced the growth of England, such digressions need not cause confusion or perplexity. The early rise and progress of the Mohammedan power, for instance, cannot be treated as in any sense of especial importance to England, though the participation of Richard Coeur de Lion in the third crusade gives opportunity for saying some- thing of Mohammedanism and for studying the crusading movement. The spread of the Ottoman Turk and the influence of his conquests cannot be introduced as merely incidental matter, where some event in the history of England seems to furnish the excuse. But if time can be taken for suitable treatment of such matters, and even if they are brought in with little or no pretence of finding their connection with English history, the loss in interest and continuity need not be serious, if there be loss at all. If only the most superficial treatment were to be given to the events on the Continent from the Council of Trent to the accession of Louis XIV, the result would not be disastrous. Probably something should be known of the wars of religion in France, and some impression should be gained 62 A New Schedule of the extent and character of the Thirty Years' War, but the average pupil surely need not be bur- dened with anything like detail. Of course Eng- Hsh history cannot omit suitable reference to the rise of the Dutch Republic, the expansion and de- cHne of Spain, and the growth of French power and influence in Europe. But the age of Eliza- beth and the course of the EngHsh struggle for constitutional liberty in the seventeenth century are too important to be obscured by undue atten- tion to Continental history. A certain amount of attention is inevitable and may illuminate rather than obscure; but particular effort must be made to avoid confusion. With the accession of Louis XIV, Continental history may be left to the study of the third year, with only such reference to France and other lands of Europe as the study of English history requires. The main outline of Enghsh progress can be followed as far as the middle of the eighteenth century or the accession of George III. The study of England's growth from the acces- sion of Elizabeth to George III necessitates some reference to Enghsh adventure and English col- onization. The estabhshment and growth of the American colonies must be noted and only the press- ure of time need prevent such a treatment of the colonies as to make an extended treatment in the Modern History 63 fourth year unnecessary. The course in American history must inevitably begin with a picture of colonial conditions, include a distinct statement of the nature of colonial development, point out those tendencies and qualities in colonial life that account for independence, and make clear the achievements of the colonies that are of real sig- nificance in our national history. But if the course in English history has included an examination of the EngHsh colonial system and a study, even though a hurried one, of colonial growth, it will be possible to pass over quickly or to omit altogether . many things now dwelt on in the first two or three months of work in American history. To outline the course in modern history which we recommend for the third year would be super- fluous. Teachers and text-writers will be sure to differ concerning details of arrangement and emphasis. We desire therefore only to say that in all likelihood it will be necessary to reach back into mediaeval history at least occasionally, in order, if for no other reason, to get hold again of institutions, customs, and practices which the modern world was altering or casting aside. The course will, we presume, begin with Louis XIV and be carried down to the present, devoting suitable attention to the rise of the modern states, European expansion, the development of free in- 64 A New Schedule stitutions, economic progress, and social change. At least from 1760 the course will naturally include not only the history of the Continent but of England as well. Some attention can be paid to American colonial history, and thus help to relieve the press- ure on the last year of study. The four blocks of study under this arrange- ment would then be as follows : — A. Ancient History to 800 a.d. or thereabouts, the events of the last five hundred years to be passed over rapidly in some such manner as we have sug- gested above (pp. 29-35). B. English History, beginning with a brief statement of England's connection with the ancient world. The work should trace the main line of English development to about 1760, include as far as is possible or convenient the chief facts of general European history, especially before the seventeenth century, and give something of the colonial history of America. C. Modern European History, including such introductory matter concerning later mediaeval institutions and the beginnings of the modern age as seems wise or desirable, and giving a suitable treat- ment of EngHsh history from 1760. D. American History and Government, arranged on such a basis that some time may be secured for the separate study of government. We propose, Required History 65 as explained in the earlier portions of this report, a possible division of the year which would allow two-fifths of the time for such separate and dis- tinct treatment. XL Shall Three Years be Required in the High Schools ? The Committee of Seven, although recommending a four years' course and pointing out the advantages of continuous study, did not propose that all students be directly required to take a long series of courses in history. The subject has been much discussed by the present Committee; and we are strongly of the opinion that the time has come when many schools can introduce the require- ment of three years of history from every pupil. We recognize the difficulty of giving three years to history in courses that are already filled to over- flowing with ancient and modern languages and with mathematics and science. And yet history i and government are so valuable, their effects, \ if^ properly taught, should aid so distinctly and ) directly in giving pupils an appreciation of the pres- / ent and a sense of social Hfe and social respon-/ sibility, that we cannot beheve they should b^ sacrificed to the pursuit of other subjects. If lan- guage and literature are cultural, in the narrow 66 Three Years sense and in the wider sense also, history too is a cultural; it helps to widen the horizon, to deepen the sympathies, and to develop the judgment. If mathematics and science require exactness and precision of statement and clear thinking, so also does history, at least in considerable measure, if it be taught with intelligence and care. It is true that conclusions in history do not always rest on demonstration, but often on conflicting evidence, and frequently it is not easy, or even possible, to speak with the assurance and precision one may use in science; but the training in judgment, in candor, and in scientific fairness is not to be ignored ; in daily life one must often rest his conclusions on the same kind of testimony that one is called upon to consider in history. To require that, of the six- teen or seventeen units offered in the ordinary course, three should be taken in history does not seem to be an exorbitant requirement. Such a suggestion as this, coming from this Com- mittee, may appear to be a desire for more history as a college entrance requirement, or as a result of a desire to get more history in the schools, that college teachers may have a broader foundation to build upon. But this is not the case. We have not in this report considered the needs of the colleges. In fact, college teachers of history are not supremely anxious, for any particular purpose Recommendation 67 of their own, about the amount of history studied in the schools. The study of history in the schools is more important for those that do not go to college than for those that do. The thing that we deplore is that young men and women should leave the schools and encounter the work and pleasure of mature years without a knowledge of history, for history will peculiarly help to fit them for entering upon their duties in society and give them the basis for satisfaction in the intellectual Hfe. XII. Trade Schools The recent movements in the line of commercial, technical, and industrial education have forced on the attention of the Committee the necessity of making some statement concerning historical courses in schools where such education is to be given. In the overwhelming enthusiasm of the moment, it is to be feared that over-ardent advo- cates may venture to exclude historical instruction altogether or recommend courses in which only the development of shipping, the progress of in- vention, and the processes of manufacture are studied to the exclusion of the poHtical and social background which is really necessary for the com- plete understanding of any commercial, scientific, or industrial movement. 68 Trade Schools In such schools the Committee is of the opinion that a course in modern history should be required, and that it should be followed by a course in United States history and government. The demand that our high schools should prepare for intelligent citi- zenship certainly makes necessary the requirement of these two courses in all of them. Pupils may or may not become artisans or captains of industry, but they will all be citizens and need the background of knowledge and of interest that comes, or should come, from the intelligent study of the social and political life of the past and the political organiza- tion of the present. If two years of history be given in the curriculimi, this could scarcely be looked on as an excess of liberalizing study; for it is not unlikely that history will be the only, or ahnost the only, non- technical, non-occupational study offered. There is a reasonable desire that such schools should offer courses in economics and in commercial geography. Both of these studies need to be corre- lated with history and can be given with best effect to pupils that are studying or have studied history. No plan or method of correlation, however, should, in our judgment, result in the essential diminution of the time we have named as an irreducible mini- mum to be devoted substantially and in fact to history and government. It will probably be The Necessary Minimum 69 feasible to introduce into the history course not a little industrial history. But, whatever may be done, this appears certain — the pupils from the trade or semi-professional schools should not be turned out upon the world ignorant of the main currents of modern history, ignorant of the history of their own country and the ideals it has tried to make its own, and ignorant of the government under which they live and on which they must have their share of influence. Andrew C. McLaughlin, Professor of History, University of Chicago, Chairman. Charles H. Haskins, Professor of History, Harvard University. James Harvey Robinson, Professor of History, Columbia University. James Sullivan, Principal of the Boys' High School, Brooklyn. INDEX Age of discovery, studied with English history, 59, 60. American Historical Association, 5 ; also teachers of government and politics, 45. American history, government, 9, 10, II, 44, 46; separate treat- ment, 49, 50 ; an English back- ground, 51 ; begin with colonial times, 63; for fourth year, 64. See also Civil Government. American Pohtical Science Asso- ciation, report, 44; Committee of Five members of, 45. Ancient History, 7 ; in three years' course, 23 ; single course, 24 ; emphasis on Hellenistic period, 27 ; limits, 29, ss ', transitional period of, 31 ; subjects treated, 2,5', examination questions, 34; immaturity of students, 35; treatment, 27, 36; in first year, 3S, 64. Association of History Teachers of Middle States and Maryland, 5. Circulars of inquiry, 5 ; replies, 6- 10; replies inconclusive, 12; con- sidered, 6-13. Civil Government, relation to United States history, 9; com- bined with, or separate, 10, 11; with history, 44-53 ; not crowded out, 48 ; separate treatment, 49- 52; mutually helpful, 50; dis- tribution of time, 50-52. College Entrance Examination Board, questions, 31; "mere memory," 42. College entrance examinations, 38. Colonial history, in connection with English, 51; brief treat- ment, 63. Committee of Eight, 36. Committee of Five, personnel of, I ; relation to Committee of Seven, i ; how appointed, 4. Committee of Seven, relation to Committee of Five, i ; rec- ommendations, 4; teachers of government, 45. Committee of Seven Report, in- terpretation of, 2 ; criticism of, 6 ; influence of, 7; short course in general history, 18; what to teach, 37 ; single course for Greek and Roman history, 24; Orien- tal history, 26; unifying ancient history, 26 ; recommendations not altered, 39; changes con- sidered, 55 ; abandonment not advised, 55 ; consideration of by, Committee of American Pohtical Science Association, 44. Comparison and judgment, 41, 42. Courses of study, similarity a con- venience, 3; radical alteration 71 72 Index unnecessary, 4, 55; four years' work possible, 6; influence of Report of Committee of Seven, 7 ; in government and history, 10, 1 1 ; four-year and three-year, 16-20; in general history, 18; Greek and Roman, 24; Oriental history, 26; unifying ancient history, 26 ; no immediate change in, 55 ; rearrangement desirable, 55; new schedule, 57-64; for trade schools, 67. English history, in second year, 57, 64; in connection with conti- nental, 59. Equipment for teaching history, 13, 15- European history, 24; what to teach with English history, 60, 61. Examinations, 31, 38. Four years' course, 6, 16, 18. General history, single year course abandoned, 7 ; four years' course, 16, 17. Historical thinking, 39. History teachers of California, 5. Mediaeval and modern history, 9, 53-59- Mediaeval history, rapid survey, 24, 56; studied with English history, 55-61. Memorizing history, 12. "Mere memory," 38, 40, 42. Methods, affected by report of Committee of Seven, 3, 4; pre- vailing, 15; recommended, 14- 15, 23, 41, 42. Modern history, emphasized, 9, 54 ; colonial history taught with, 51; more time for, 53-55; for third year, 63, 64. New England History Teachers' Association, 5 ; recommendations, 12. North Central History Teachers' Association, 5. Oral instruction, 23. Oriental history, brief survey ad- vised, 25; course should con- tain, 26. Purposes of historical study, 22, 39- Required history, 65-66. Schedule of Courses, 57-65. Teacher, material for, 13; quali- fications of, 14; avoiding ex- tremes, 41 ; must choose signifi- cant subjects, 18-22, 28, 60, 61. Text-books, 21, 26. Three years' course, 16, 20-23, 65. Time, divided between history and government, 50-52 ; proportion in fourth year, 52; more for modern history, 53, 56. Trade schools, 67. United States history, fee American history. ' I ^HE following pages contain ad- vertisements of a few of the Macmillan books on kindred subjects ** Source Books" in American History Select Charters and Other Documents Illustrative of American History — 160G-1775 Edited with Notes by William MacDonald, Professor of History in Brown University. Cloth. i2mo. ix + 401 pages. $2,00 net. Select Statutes and Other Documents Illustrative of the History of the United States — 1861-1898 Edited with Notes by William MacDonald. Qoth. i2mo. x + 442 pages. ^2.00 net Select Documents Illustrative of the History of the United States — 177&-1861 Edited with Notes by William MacDonald. Cloth. i2mo. xiii + 465 pages. ^2.25 net. Documentary Source Book of American History — 1606-1898 Edited with Notes by William MacDonald. Cloth. i2mo. xii + 616 pages. ^1.75 net. American History Told by Contemporaries By Albert Bushnell Hart, Professor of History in Harvard Uni- versity. In four volumes. Cloth. i2mo. Each, ^2.00 net. Volume I — Era of Colonization, 1492-1689. xviii + 606 pages. Volume II — Building of the Republic, 1689-1783. xxi + 653 pages. Volume III — National Expansion, 1783-1845. xx + 668 pages. Volume IV — Welding of the Nation, 1845-1900. xxi+ 732 pages. THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 64-66 Fifth Avenue, New York BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS SAN FRANCISCO High School Texts in History A History of the Orient, Greece, and Rome By George Willis Botsford, Ph.D., Professor of Ancient History in Columbia University. Cloth. i2mo. Illustrated. Ixv + 779 pages. ^1.80 net. A History of the Orient and Greece By George Willis Botsford. Cloth. i2mo. Illustrated. Ixv + 383 pages. ^1.20 net. A History of Greece By George Willis Botsford. Cloth. i2mo. Illustrated, xiii + 381 pages, ^i.io net. A History of Rome By George Willis Botsford. Cloth. i2mo. Illustrated. xiv + 396 pages, ^i.io net. The Story of Rome as the Greeks and Romans Tell It By George Willis Botsford. Cloth. i2mo. Illustrated. x + 328 pages. 90 cents net. A History of the Ancient World By George Willis Botsford. In preparation. THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 64-66 Fifth Avenue, New York BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS SAN FRANCISCO High School Texts in History Medieval and Modern History By George Burton Adams, Professor of History in Yale University. Cloth. l2mo. Illustrated, xxviii + 474 pages, ^i.io net. European History By George Burton Adams. Half leather. 12010. Illustrated, xxviii + 577 pages. $1.40 net. The Growth of the French Nation By George Burton Adams. Cloth. i2mo. Illustrated, ix + 350 pages. ^1.25 net. A History of England By Katharine Coman, Ph.B., Professor of Economics in Wellesley College, and Elizabeth Kimball Kendall, M.A., Professor of History in Wellesley College. Cloth. i2mo. Illustrated, xvi + 501 pages. ^1.25 net. Source-Book of English History Edited by Elizabeth Kimball Kendall, M.A., Professor of His- tory in Wellesley College. Cloth. i2mo. xxii + 483 pages. 80 cents net. THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 64-66 Fifth Avenue, New York BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS SAN FRANCISCO American History for High Schools A Students* History of the United States By Edward Channing, Professor of History in Harvard University. Cloth, l2mo. Illustrated, xliii + 606 pages. $1.^0 nei. American History By RoscoE Lewis Ashley, author of «'The American Federal State," "American Government," etc. Cloth. i2mo. Illus- trated. XXXV + 557 + xlvii pages. ^1.40 net. Side Lights on American History' By Henry W. Elson, A.M., Lecturer of the American Society for the Extension of University Teaching, author of " Historical Biographies for Children," " What to Read," etc. In two vol- umes. Cloth. i2mo. Each, 75 cents net. Volume I — Before the Civil War. xvi + 398 pages. Volume II — The Civil War and Our Times, x + 410 pages. Source Book of American History For Schools and Readers Edited by Albert Bushnell Hart, Professor of History in Har- vard University. Cloth. i2mo. xlvi + 408 pages. 60 cents «