Chapter II: Part 2

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

The Teacher’s Duty.

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

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

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

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

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

Western Tendencies.

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

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

Western Democracy.

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

The Newest State Association and an Older One

THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF HISTORY TEACHERS.

BY H. W. EDWARDS, OF BERKELEY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prof. Merriman made four principal points:

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

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

3. Relate the past to modern events and conditions.

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

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

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

The officers of the Association are:

President--Superintendent E. M. COX, of San Rafael.

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

THE HISTORY TEACHERS’ ASSOCIATION OF MARYLAND.

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

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

The Origin.

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

Progress of the Association.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ideals of the Founders.

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

The officers for 1908-09 were as follows:

President--Eleanor L. Lord.

Vice-President--Charles M. Andrews.

Secretary-Treasurer--Robert H. Wright.

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

An Ancient History Character Social

BY MARY NORTH, MONTCLAIR, N. J.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

The History Teacher’s Magazine

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

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

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

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

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

=ADVERTISING RATES= furnished upon application.

EDITORS

=Managing Editor=, ALBERT E. MCKINLEY, PH.D.

=History in the College and the School=, ARTHUR C. HOWLAND, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of European History, University of Pennsylvania.

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

=Some Methods of Teaching History=, FRED MORROW FLING, Professor of European History, University of Nebraska.

=Reports from the History Field=, WALTER H. CUSHING, Secretary, New England History Teachers’ Association.

=American History in Secondary Schools=, ARTHUR M. WOLFSON, Ph.D., DeWitt Clinton High School, New York.

=The Teaching of Civics in the Secondary School=, ALBERT H. SANFORD, State Normal School, La Crosse, Wis.

=European History in Secondary Schools=, DANIEL C. KNOWLTON, Ph.D., Barringer High School, Newark, N. J.

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

=Ancient History in Secondary Schools=, WILLIAM FAIRLEY, Ph.D., Commercial High School, Brooklyn, N. Y.

=History in the Grades=, ARMAND J. GERSON, Supervising Principal, Robert Morris Public School, Philadelphia, Pa.

CORRESPONDENTS.

MABEL HILL, Lowell, Mass.

GEORGE H. GASTON, Chicago, Ill.

JAMES F. WILLARD, Boulder, Col.

H. W. EDWARDS, Berkeley, Cal.

WALTER F. FLEMING, Baton Rouge, La.

* * * * *

METHOD THE NEED.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“AS HIRELING AND NOT AS CONSECRATE.”

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

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

European History in the Secondary School

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

THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE MEDIEVAL EMPIRE.

The Importance of the Church.

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

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

The Elements of Time and Place.

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

The Personalities in the Struggle.

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

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

The Issues.

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

Effects of the Struggle.

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

Literature.

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

FOOTNOTES:

[6] Emerton, Medieval Europe, p. 355.

[7] Jaeger, The Teaching of History, Appendix, pp. 200-208.

English History in the Secondary School

C. B. NEWTON, Editor.

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

Feudalism: One Way to Get at It.

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

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

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

A Logical Approach to the Origins of the Jury.

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

Some Great Personalities.

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

Further Notes and References.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robinson and Beard’s Development of “Modern Europe”

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

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

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

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

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

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

American History in the Secondary School

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