mand and until some are published there will be a general wail over the hard work which the course is entailing. The well-trained history teacher will know how to handle the situation, but the teacher whose knowledge of teaching history lies within the covers of a text-book will have a hard time for a few years, and many will be the complaints that the teaching of modern history is a failure.

Turning from these complaints which are inevitably connected with any change made for educational progress, we may ask what is to be accomplished by the syllabus in history recently published in New York State along lines agreed upon by the Committee of Five of the American Historical Association. Beginning with the last course, that of United States History and Civics, we note that the Colonial period has been thrown into European history, where it belongs, and that the teacher of fourt'ı year history has one whole year at five periods a week in which to cover the history of the United States since the Revolution and to teach Civics. No longer will it be necessary to leave students with a notion that the interesting details of our history stopped with reconstruction, and that civics is one grand cram of the dry minutiæ of our constitutional frame work. At last it will be possible to spend a very considerable amount of time on the study of our government in its actual workings.

The second grand achievement of the syllabus is that it actually permits of our spending one whole year of three hours a week on the history of the centuries of most importance to a boy and girl of the present day; the eighteenth. nineteenth and early part of the twentieth century. Some one has spoken of the syllabus as a reversion to the old general history course. We fail to see it when such an amount of time may be given to so few centuries.

The committees on the work of revision were much puzzled in the naming of the courses and it may be said that none of the names proposed were felt to be satisfactory and that such names as were given were regarded as only tentative. This was particularly true of the course preceding the course mentioned above, which may truly be called modern. The first course, opening with a series of topics drawn from Ancient History, and covering that portion of history usually denominated medieval, and also the first portion of modern history presented a serious problem. The committees knew that they had many conservative people to deal with. They knew that it would fairly make bleed the hearts of those who had been teaching the pupils the names of all the AngloSaxon kings with their dates, the minute details of the children's crusade, the names of all the French and German kings, to be suddenly called upon to use some common sense in the elimination of the unimportant and to cut out ruthlessly much of the material which has encumbered our text-books

for years.

For Ancient history the question which the committees put before them was that which Mahaffy set for himself when delivering his lectures in the Lowell Institute: "What Have the Greeks Done for Modern Civilization?" It was not to burden the student with narrative details, but to give him such a picture of Greek and Roman life as would make him feel that the Greeks and Romans had red blood and were not mere automata pulled back and forth across the historic stage. It was to take the boy and girl of fourteen or fifteen, seat them before you and in twelve lessons give them a pic

ture of life in Athens and Rome, such as would make them see wherein we moderns owed the ancients a debt. What a haven of refuge from Sphacteria, Brasidas, Gelon and the like!

In the middle ages the committees had no idea that the teacher would teach about all the kings of England, all the kings of France, Germany, Spain, princes of Italy and the like. As in the case of ancient history they would like to see the pupil get a good appreciation of medieval civilization;

the breaking up of the Roman Empire, the growth of the church, the rise of the papacy, the beginnings of feudalism, life of the people, the growth of the royal power. In treating of a topic like the latter on a country like France, it was not expected that all the Pippins, the Charleses, Louises, and Philip's would be treated. The committees hoped that the teachers would have enough courage to say somewhat as follows: "Now, my children, we are going to see how the royal power grew in France-how the kings who were at first nothing more than feudal barons along with others, gradually got most of the power into their hands and reduced the lords to mere officers of the realm. In the many centuries from Charlemagne to Louis XIV, which we cover, there were very many kings of France, but we do not care to know anything about a very large number of them. There are in fact only a few that you ought to know about at all, but about them you ought to know a great deal so that you will remember them for all time. The first of these is Charlemagne (then would follow a great deal about this man), then there is Louis VI (the Fat), (here would be shown how Louis started the war of the feudal lords and encouraged towns), then there is Philip II (Augustus), Louis IX, Philip IV (the Fair), Louis XI." If the trouble is taken to make these few kings stand out as individualities accomplishing definite things, the student will leave French history with something more than a kaleidioscopic jumble of names and dates. The very names of Philip VI and Charles VI could be omitted. Merely to speak of them as the king of France at the time of the Hundred Years' War, and when dealing with Joan of Arc, is all sufficient. Along with John and Charles V they were nonentities in French history, and no more deserve mention than many of the prime ministers in English history of the nineteenth century.

I have taken the above example because in a measure it will serve to make clear the position of the committees and I hope will forestall many futile and really silly criticisms. When the Committee of Seven recommended the teaching of Greek and Roman history down to 800 in one year a cry went up: "Now you are asking us to teach a text in Greek, a text in Roman, and a text in Medieval history all in one year." There seem to be so many history teachers who do not know what the "elimination of the unimportant" means. As a constant reminder for their helpless: "What shall I do? What shall I do? So many, many million facts to teach and so little time to teach them," we would suggest a large printed sign in the popular phrase of the day: "Cut it out," as an excellent thing to have on their desks.

To turn from this somewhat lighter vein to one of seriousness the committees would probably be the first to acknowledge the many imperfections in the details of their work. Help from the experience of others is what they ask. Help does not mean growling about this and that to fellow teachers and never taking the trouble to write the authorities about the flaws. Teachers are too prone to talk a great deal about things they do not like, but they fail to overcome a certain inertia which prevents them from sitting down and doing some really constructive criticism.

The committee asks particularly for help along the line of suggested readings. It was well realized that some teachers by their pupils, but investigation showed that the vast marequired and got a certain amount of outside reading done jority of history teachers, in New York State, at least, were doing virtually none of this very important adjunct to history work, probably because it did not "count" on the examination. It was with the hope of getting at least a few good selections read that the committee adopted the plan put forth in the syllabus. It was either that plan or a perfectly frank declaration that history teaching for the average teacher was nothing more than cramming pupils on a specified text.

Not often may the teacher of history illustrate the relation between past and present so happily as in connection with the present political crisis in England. A movement of mighty import is unmistakably in process now, and it is linked inseparably with other big events of the far past. Almost any day for weeks to come may the teacher in college or high school follow down the line of march in English history from the Norman Conquest to the news item in the morning paper.

The purpose of this writing is to suggest a few of the phases in which the present situation may be thus presented. Some of the more important steps are indicated briefly, with references to accessible authorities for further reading and to source materials for illustrative use before the class.

I. General Statement. The relation of the present crisis to the past of English history may be stated in a general way. Thus the movement of the Liberal Party to-day becomes a perfectly logical part of the long struggle by which the masses of the English people have won self government from kings and lords who ruled only by hereditary right.

(a) The Norman Conquest introduced a strong, centralized monarchy. Practically the king had all the power; theoretically he shared it to some extent with his tenants-inchief and other great men who made up the Great Council.

(b) The first great step away from absolutism came in the reign of John, and was embodied in the Great Charter. Under Henry II, Richard I, and John began "the breakdown of the feudal system as a source of government supply." At the same time new methods of arbitrary taxation were invented and the new royal courts began to encroach fast upon the old system of feudal justice. The drift was all toward an absolute despotism. The movement culminating in the Great Charter first checked this drift. It seized upon the contract idea inherent in feudalism and made of it a constitutional check. It declared that even the king is under the law, and it provided for organized resistance to the illegal acts of royalty. This is the real significance of the Great Charter. It provides the first great constitutional check upon absolutism, with provision and precedent for its enforcement. It" introduces an age, the age of constitutional growth, new in the history of England, and in the form and importance of its results new in the history of the world." [G. B. Adams, "Political History of England," 1066-1216, 446-147. G. B. Adams, "Critical Period of English Const. Hist.," in American Historical Review, V,(1900): 643-658.] For illustration in class read from any document book portions of the Great Charter, especially the enforcing clause.

(c) The next great step to be mentioned may be the entrance of the representative element into the Great Council. This was accomplished within a century of the Great Char

ter.

In 1254 the representative knights of the shire were summoned. (Read Adams and Stephens, "Select Documents of Eng. Hist.," doc. 33). In 1264 representatives of certain cities and boroughs were summoned for attendance at Simon de Montfort's Parliament of the following year. (Stubbs, "Select Charters," 415). These new elements in the Great Council were established beyond recall when the Model Parliament had met in 1295. By the middle of the next century they had formed themselves logically into another House of Parliament separate from the older element which held by hereditary right. The new representative element, the modern House of Parliament, gradually became the great check upon both the hereditary monarch and the hereditary House of Lords.

(d) Passing over the ebb and flow of constitutional precedent in the Lancastrian and Tudor periods, emphasis may

be laid upon the triumph of representative, constitutional government over the despotic Stuarts. The Revolution of 1688 is of course the great landmark at this point, but the Petition of Right, the Grand Remonstrance of 1641, the acts abolishing the office of King and the House of Lords in 1649, the Bill of Rights, and the Act of Settlement of 1701, well illustrate the trend of the age. (A. and S., "Select Documents"). Thus both of the hereditary elements were completely abolished for a time following 1649 by the all powerful representative House of Parliament. Later, by the Revolution of 1688, the dominance of Parliament over kingship was guaranteed. It is not strange that the last veto of a law of Parliament by the Crown came at this period, in the reign of Anne.

(e) The logical outgrowth of the Revolution of 1688 and the formation at that time of two well-defined political parties was the Cabinet system. This gave to the representative house its control over the executive branch of the government.

(f) The great step toward democratic government in the nineteenth century was the extension of the franchise so that the representative House should represent the masses of the English people instead of merely a limited section of the middle class. (See A. and S., "Sel. Docs.," for acts of 1832, 1867, and 1884.)

(g) The final step is the present crisis. Early in the twentieth century the representative House is beginning a battle against the remnants of hereditary power. The attempt to reform the House of Lords and limit its veto power is a perfectly logical and inevitable result of past events.

II. The Taxing Power of the House of Commons. The relation of the House of Commons to taxation offers a fine situation. The struggle of the Commons for supremacy study in historical sequence in connection with the present in matters of taxation brought on this critis. The historical significance of this fact is understood when one remembers that the representative House came into existence and got its growth as a result of the problem of taxation.

(a) The Frankish Inquest was brought to England by the Normans. By the reign of Henry II it was fast developing into our modern jury system. But it was also used in matters of taxation, as in the Domesday Book. Beginning in the latter part of the reign of Henry II the jury idea was rapidly developed in matters of taxation. From this use of the jury in taxation grew the House of Commons. (Stubbs, "Const. Hist.," 6th ed., I: 548-549, 651-667. A. and S., "Sel. Docs.," docs. 17, 19.)

66

(b) The first time we are sure that representative knights met in the central assembly they were summoned to arrange what they are willing to pay us in our need.”(A. and S., Sel. Docs., doc. 33). The purpose of the Model Parliament of 1295 was the same, and it voted generous supplies to Edward I.

(c) Not only was the representative House born for the taxing purpose, but it secured its general legislative power by virtue of its resources in granting supplies. Its first step toward general legislative power was taken when it granted supplies to the king on condition that he should grant in return redress of grievances or some other concession. (A. and S., "Sel. Docs.," docs. 66, 68, 114-118, grants on conditions. White, "Making of English Const.," 368-378).

(d) Therefore the House of Commons has always been especially jealous of its powers in matters of finance. Already in the fourteenth century the principle had grown into practice that money grants should be initiated by the Com

cause, showed himself a worthy representative of the days of her power and great

ness.

The Internal Problems before Philip. At least three tasks devolved upon Philip of Macedon: (1) The consolidation of his Macedonian possessions; (2) the creation of an effective military organization; and (3) the acquisition of a satisfactory seaboard, as it were, 'cutting windows" to look out upon Greece. Philip's tasks were very similar to those which confronted that creator of modern Russia-Peter the Great. The outlook was almost as discouraging, but with this difference, that Philip profited to a greater extent than did Peter from the weakness and discord of his enemies. He pursued his ambitions. however, with the same steadfastness of purpose and with the same assurance of ultimate success, but advanced much more surely and rapidly toward the goal which he has set himself.

The following topical analysis of the subject suggests the main points to be emphasized:

Philip of Macedon and the conquest of Greece

1. Weakness of Greece.

2. Attempts of Athens to regain power. 3. Attempts of Philip to obtain a seaboard.

4. Opposition of Athens, Aeschines and
Demosthenes.

5. Interference in Central Greece.
(a) Occasions.

(b) Chaeroneia and the supremacy of

Macedon.

6. Plans for conquest of Persia.

It will be noted that this analysis lays special emphasis upon the attempt to secure a seaboard on those steps which culminated eventually in the loss of Greek freedom on the battlefield of Chaeroneia. These two undertakings, the expansion of Macedon eastward along the Aegean, and that southward into Northern and Central Greece, were closely bound together in that they involved Philip in hostile relations with the same cities. Demosthenes foresaw what actually came to pass, that the

fate of an Amphipolis or an Olynthus was closely linked with that of the rest of Greece. The success of these enterprises, however, was assured in no small measure by the thoroughness with which Philip had set his own house in order, and his complete mastery of the statecraft of his age. Not for naught had he spent three years as a hostage at Thebes. It was there that he made himself familiar with all the idiosyncracies of the Greek character, and acquired that knowledge of men and affairs which enabled him to secure the mastery. “In short,” says Curteis, “Philip left Macedon a boy and he returned a man, full of energy and new ideas" (page 23).

One of the most interesting of his preliminary labors was his effort to secure the control of that series of great cities which dotted the shores of the northern Aegean. The creation of this seaboard had much to do with dragging Macedon from her obscurity and elevating her to the rank of a world power.

The magnitude of the task before Philip and the marvelous ability of the man will become more apparent if the teacher keeps these internal problems more or less separate from the story of the conquest of Greece proper. They undoubtedly paved the way for his later successes, and should not be entirely divorced from them. The instructor would probably find it much easier to present the various episodes in the life of Philip in strictly chronological order. If this is done the student will be likely to pass over rather lightly the special problems which awaited solution at his handsany one of which was a test of his force of character. "No prophet in his happiest hour," says Bury, "could have predicted that within thirty years . . . Macedon would bear the arts and wisdom of Hellas to the ends of the earth (page 681). When the student pauses to consider that this result was attributable not only to the military genius of the great Alexander, but to the energy and ability of his illustrious father, the life of this barbarian prince makes a strong appeal to the imagination. If this method be pursued of following each successful undertaking to the end before

taking up a new phase of his career, there is more likelihood of leaving with a class a distinct impression of the many-sidedness of the man and his constructive statesmanship. Nothing will be lost, and much, we believe, will be gained by deferring the consideration of his various efforts to secure a foothold in Greece proper until the class has followed to the end his intrigues in the north.

The Conquest of Greece.

The most satisfactory method of presenting the story of the conquest of Greece is to look upon Philip's attempts as a series of steps, each bringing him a little nearer the desired goal. The occasion for each and the advantages gained or lost should be discussed in sufficient detail to make the tortuous course of Philip's policy as clear as possible. This is not an easy matter, and lack of time often impels the teacher to sacrifice some of the details of the story in order to secure more time for Alexander. The class should be constantly reminded that Philip, too, was imbued with the same ambition which dominated his successor of uniting the Greeks in a great conquest of the Orient. Death, however, cut short his plans. He is entitled to no small meed of the credit for having made the undertaking possible.

Literature.

The teacher will find the following references especially helpful: Curteis, "Rise of the Macedonian Empire" (chapter III on Macedon and Hellas at Philip's Accession presents in a few pages a bird's-eye view of Greek history from Philip's accession to the death of Alexander). Wheeler, "Alexander the Great" (the preliminary chapters cover the rise of Macedon. Although they have special reference to Alexander, they will be found to contain much useful material on the topic under consideration). Bury, "History of Greece." chapter XVI. Seignobos, "Ancient Civilization," pages 176-180. (Note especially the author's analysis of the work before Philip.)

The growth of Macedonia may be brought more vividly before the student by the use of such a map as is to be found in West, "Ancient History," page 211.

Trade the Primary Motive in English Colonization.

The teacher of English history who has a proper prospective will devote some of his lessons on the Tudor period to an introduction to the history of English colonial enterprise. No mistake in history teaching is more common than the undue emphasis which is laid by most teachers of American history on the religious motive in English colonization in America. Yet fifty years before the beginning of the Reformation in England, the nation was already reaching out, along with the other nations

of western Europe, for trade in far-distant lands, and the efforts of the Elizabethan and Jacobean seamen were largely directed toward the same goal. It was trade primarily which led the Englishman across the seas. The religious motive entered into his enterprises only after the other had long been established.

Medieval Trade and Trade Routes. As a preliminary to this study the teacher should devote at least one or two lessons to an exposition of the subject of medieval trade and trade routes. If his text-book is not sufficiently explicit on this

subject he can find excellent material with illuminating maps and other illustrative material in such books as Cheyney's "European Background of American History," in Fiske's 'Discovery of America," and in Seebohm's "Era of the Protestant Revolution." Special studies may here well be assigned to the various members of the class. Boys and girls alike are invariably fascinated by the chapters in these books which deal with the lines of medieval trade and the commodities which the medieval merchants offered for sale. Furthermore, a study of Marco Polo's description of his

voyages to the far eastern countries will readily be undertaken by students.

From the far eastern countries, by wellestablished lines of communication, spices and drugs, precious stones and fine fabrics, gums, perfumes, dyes, rare woods and other commodities were regularly brought to the Italian trading communities in the Mediterranean. Thence by routes across the Alps, through Germany, France and Flanders, they were transported to the countries bordering on the northern seas. On the coast of the English channel, the Baltic and the North Sea were depots for an export trade which extended far into the northern part of Europe. Thus, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries there were five groups of trading cities with which the class should become more or less familiar: (1) those in northern Italy, like Venice and Genoa; (2) Those in southern France, like Marseilles; (3) those in southern Germany, like Augsburg and Nuremberg; (4) those in northern France and Flanders, like Calais, Bruges and Antwerp; (5) those in northern Germany, like Lübeck and Hamburg.

Beginnings of the English Export Trade. In this medieval trade the merchants of England took no part. The Hanseatic League, composed of the merchants of the cities of northern Germany, had its factory, "The Steelyard," in London; the merchants of Flanders bought the wool of England and exchanged for it the cloths of Flanders; and year by year a fleet from Venice visited the coast towns of southern England and exchanged the commodities of southern Europe and the Levant for the raw materials of the British Isles. Gradually, during the fifteenth century, the men of England, too, entered upon this international trade. By the middle of the century, the wool of England began to be manufactured into cloth at home; a Drapers' Company was organized, and a pany of exporters. The Merchant Adventurers, obtained a charter from the king for the purpose of carrying on trade with foreign countries. A special study of this company of Merchant Adventurers, the prototype of all the later English trading companies, will repay the class. The basis of this study may be found in Cheyney's "Industrial and Social History of England," page 164ff, in the University of Pennsylvania Reprints, second series, II, and in Cheyney's "European Background," chapters VII and VIII.

com

shall buy or sell any manner of wines of the growth of the Duchy of Gascony, but such as shall be ventured and brought in an English. Irish or Welshman's ship . . mariners of the same [being] English, Irish or Welshmen for the most part." (Adams and Stevens, "Select Documents," No. 135.)

In Henry VIII we are face to face with a son of the New Age." He encouraged ship building and ship owning. He corresponded with students of geography and with adventurers. He encouraged and profited by the Newfoundland fisheries, and he did his best to open to Englishmen the new avenues of trade which were being developed in the early part of the sixteenth century. Trade routes and trade conditions, by this time, had altogether changed. The old routes to the East were closed, and new routes were constantly being opened. The story of Prince Henry the Navigator and the story of Columbus and the other Spanish explorers may, it is true, lie somewhat outside the field of English history, still the teacher can profitably direct the attention of his classes to these voyages, because they shed so much light upon the history of English commerce.

The English Trading Companies. By the middle of the sixteenth century, numerous English trading companies had been organized and numerous voyages in search of new trade routes had been undertaken. Most dramatic of all these voyages, and an excellent type lesson in illustration of the general topic, is the voyage to Russia, undertaken and carried through by Chancellor and Willoughby in 1553. Here is an opportunity for the teacher to introduce his classes to the fascinating stories of Hakluyt. If the original stories are not accessible, the teacher ought certainly to be able to obtain Edwin M. Bacon's "English Voyages Retold from Hakluyt," an excellent substitute for the original.

66

'At the time of Elizabeth's accession we see that the way for expansion was but prepared; but certain facts are already significant. The spirit of adventure is born, and with it some experience in distant navigation; merchants and gentry have begun to combine their capital in enterprise with encouragement from the crown." (Woodward, Expansion of the British Empire, p. 16.) Then comes the period of the great English seamen-Frobisher and Drake, Gilbert and Raleigh-the period in which the English gradually overcame and outdistanced the Spaniards and prepared the way for their first settlements in America.

The English Colonizing Companies.

The earlier English companies-the Merchant Adventurers, the Muscovy Company, the Levant Company, and the East India Company-were all purely trading companies. Their charters were granted to merchants who sent out ships to trade and who

occupied only so much land as was necessary for the purpose of their commerce. Gradually, the scope of these companies was widened, and colonization and settlement, as yet only for commercial advantage, were undertaken. Then a new kind of company was chartered, the colonization company, among the greatest of which were the London and the Plymouth Companies; but there were others. The new charters now contain clauses which grant to the members political as well as commercial privileges. The members of these companies either themselves intend to move out to the colonies or propose to send out settlers to occupy the country. It is with this stage of English commercial development that the American student is most intimately concerned, yet he cannot understand its true significance unless he has studied the history of English commerce in its earlier stages.

One thing more the teacher should attempt to indicate to his classes, and that is the difference between the character of the English colonization and that of England's keenest rivals-Spain and France. In England, colonial enterprises were regularly undertaken by individuals, either singly or banded together in trading companies. In Spain and France, these enterprises were undertaken by the government. The difference in the results is obvious: in the English colonies there developed a spirit of independence which was never possible in the colonies of the continental countries. The English colonies prospered or died because of the initiative or lack of it on the part of individual citizens. continental colonies were fostered and protected by the home government and were never able to develop along independent lines as did those of England.

Bibliography.

The

The two or three best books which are suitable both for teachers and for students who are studying this period are: (1) Cheyney, "Industrial and Social History of England," chapters VI and VII; Cheyney, European Background of American History." chapters II, III, IV, VII and VIII, and (3) Fiske, "Discovery of America," chapters III, IV and V. Besides these, interesting and profitable material can be gathered from: (4) Traill, "Social England." volume III, pp. 209-228, 477-494; (5) Busch, "England Under the Tudors," (6) Seeley, "Expansion of England,” and (7) Woodward. "Expansion of the British Empire."