material and the other on secondary material. Before the report has been written out, each student is required to have a conference with his quiz section instructor relative to his method of collecting his material and the plan or outline of his report. To make such a conference plan practicable it is arranged that some one of the instructional force shall be at the history office at the library a part of each week-day evening except Saturday. Of course daytime conferences are arranged for respecting both this and other features of the work, as noted above; nor is this conference feature left entirely to the initiative or the volition of each student, or to the contingency of a low grade, but is periodically required of all.

The students in English history do a part of their collateral reading in connection with reports on topics but their first report requirement takes the following form: "Write a short report of a total of not more than 1,000 words on four of the following books. Observe the following directions carefully:

1. Give in due order the name of the author, title of the book, place and date of publication (if shown).

2. Write briefly on the general subject of each book, describing its general character, using the table of contents and index (if given), and reading a few pages here and there to get a general notion as to what sort of book it is.

3. State whether in your opinion the book is an original or a secondary source; if a secondary source, whether the author gives authorities for his statements either in footnotes or by lists of books for each chapter.

4. If you can find out anything about the author by use of the Dictionary of National Biography (in the case of living writers by "Who's Who "), or by any other means, state the chief facts."

A lecture on "The Study of English History," explaining the materials of history, preceded this topic requirement. The second topic is reported upon practically in the same

fashion as in the medieval history course. The other part of the collateral reading requirement in English history is done in this way: About twice a month as a part of the assigned work of the week every student is required to choose one from a dozen or more references, each covering sixty to eighty pages, and to be prepared to write for twenty minutes at that week's quiz, reporting what he recalls of what he read.

In ancient history the quiz occurs every other week, being preceded by three lectures. In this course all the collateral reading is directed to the preparation of reports on topics and three of these are required in each semester. These are broad in their scope so that the reading required may cover a considerable part of the field. For the current semester the topics are as follows:

1. The power of the Roman Senate and its decay, from the time of the Hortensian Law (287 B.C.) to Julius Caesar.

2. Imperial organization as established by Augustus Caesar.

3. An optional topic drawn from either of these fields: (a) Græco-Roman Life. (b) Christianity.

It is not desired that these reports shall be presented in written form, but when the student has completed his reading and taken his notes he is called into conference with the professor giving the course or with one of his assistants and his material is carefully scrutinized and made the basis of questioning and comment. It is understood that one or more of the topics will appear in the semester examination to be written upon from memory.

As to the content of these courses, experience seems to show the advisability of keeping the field of study in this introductory work relatively narrow, and thus the tendency with us is to draw in the limits of the subjects and to teach the smaller field more intensively.

History, as an academic study, is a child of yesterday. While the sacred Tripos, Greek, Latin, Mathematics, held sway, history had no place in the curriculum save as an appendage to Natural Philosophy or the Classics. Not until 1839 was a separate chair of history established in any American college. In that year Jared Sparks was appointed Professor of History at Harvard. At Columbia Francis Lieber was Professor of History from 1857 to 1865; but in the latter year the work in history was turned over to the professor of English and Philosophy. Not until the seventies did historical study secure an established footing in the colleges. In the lower schools the only history usually studied was American history in the grades. Occasionally general history was given in the secondary schools, and sometimes Greek and Roman history was taught to those who were going on to college. In 1876, a committee of the National Educational Association reported a "Course of Study from Primary School to University." which made no advance, except to urge that "universal" history be required. of all students in the secondary schools.* The real advance in secondary history dates from the report of the Committee of Ten (1893), which advocated a broadening of the

*Bourne, "Teaching of History and Civics," p. 56 et seq.

instruction in history, and a reform of the methods of teaching. It is not necessary to sketch the wonderful progress of the last three decades. To-day, history has an established place in all our schools, and its value is recognized as second to none. Chairs of history are multiplying all over the land, the presses are pouring forth floods of books, and the best thought of many minds is devoted to history and historical study. The fact remains, however, that, as compared with the older subjects, history is still in its infancy. This is particularly true of history in the secondary schools. The curriculum is still the subject of vigorous dispute, despite the Committee of Seven. History methods are still in the making. History teachers are even yet acquiring too much of their training by costly experimentation in the class-room. But this discussion, this experimentation, this fumbling in the dark, all spell progress. The educational world has at last awakened to a realization that history teaching is an especial art, requiring a particular preparation. There is no agreement, indeed little discussion, as to what that preparation should be. Is it safe to predict that the next forward step in the pedagogy of history will be the solution of this problem?

The preparation of the High School teacher is the func

tion of the University, and is likely to remain so. In the past, and even now, the colleges have erred in supposing that one and the same kind of training would fit a person equally well for a college professorship, a High School instructorship, or for the work of original research and historical composition. They have assumed that any one who could. investigate could therefore teach. The possession of the Ph.D. degree, they have said, or the completion of certain research courses leading thereto, is sufficient evidence of ability to teach history, not only to college students, but to adolescents as well. The experience of our schools is against this contention. A High School instructor is not merely a half-baked college professor. Historical investigation is a science, and history teaching is an art. Moreover, there is a difference between the art of teaching college students and the art of teaching High School pupils. Though they are allied and have much in common, there is a distinct training required for each. The concern of this paper is to consider the preparation necessary to fit a person to teach history to children between the ages of thirteen and eighteen.

In the first place, it must be remembered that the successful teacher of anything must first be able to teach. Success in history teaching, as in any line of teaching whatsoever, will always depend on certain native qualities that no amount of training can supply. Character, aptitude, Character, aptitude, sympathy, vivacity, and, above all, plain, common-sense, are essentials that can be developed, but not created. This indefinite power that we call teaching ability is to-day more needed in our history work than in any other field. Our history teaching is suffering from the fact that so many who "profess" the subject are unable to teach it. How often is history slaughtered in the house of its friends! Of how many teachers may it be said, as was once asserted of an eminent professor, "Think of the hundreds for whom he has ruined history"! On the other hand, every one of us loves to remember the real teachers, college professors and High School instructors, in whose enthusiastic and skilful hands history became a living word, interpreting the past, illuminating the present, and kindling an eager desire to learn more.

The distinction between these two sorts of teachers is due, not to different degrees of historical training, but to difference in teaching ability. Otherwise, why among our many great scientists, for example, have we so few Agassiz's? But, unfortunately, there is no rule of thumb or chemical test by which, from the mass of youthful collegians, the future Agassiz or Arnold may be selected. The most promising one sometimes proves a disappointment, and the roughest and dullest ones often turn out to be the diamonds. Nothing short of actual experience in teaching can ever show which are the natural born teachers. Therefore the colleges must accept all who apply, and give each what he seems most to need. The competent will thrive under the training and will succeed as teachers; the others will succumb to the competition and meet the fate of the unfit.

If it be true that the successful teacher must be able to teach, it is also true that the successful history teacher must be able to teach history. Some writers have maintained that a well-trained teacher is competent to teach any subject in the High School with the aid of a little study !* Even if this were ever true, it certainly is not true to-day. Least of all is it true of the teaching of history according to our new standards. As the subjects in the curriculum have become highly specialized, the teaching of them has become

*See Report of Committee of Seven, pp. 113, 147.

specialized also. This means that the teacher of physics must possess, not only a knowledge of the facts of physics, but also a familiarity with a highly-developed method of imparting this particular variety of knowledge to others. But the method of physics or botany or mathematics will not do for history. History calls for a different kind of observation. Science can experiment; history cannot. History must observe, not the fact itself, but a description of it. Hence in history we must reason back to a number of causes and accept the most probable. In history, the human element is predominant. The student of history must compare motives, analyze causes, draw inferences, just as the man among men must do. Consequently there is developing a special method for studying history, and a particular method for teaching it. These methods require a certain equipment. The history teacher must know history. This means that he must be master of considerable knowledge, classified, correlated, interpreted. He must have the power to seek out and find new facts, and to handle them properly when they are found.. He must have a wide vision, and a judgment that can distinguish deep currents from surface ripples, and perceive ultimate tendencies. He should have the power of constructive imagination, that will enable him. to live again the life of the people he studies. As a teacher of history to young folks, he needs to realize that history is not an end, but merely a means, and that the child is more important than the subject.

How may our colleges and universities best prepare the student for this great work? Our California universities prescribe that all candidates for the regular High School teacher's certificate shall satisfy four requirements: 1. The Bachelor's degree.

2. One year of post-graduate study, devoted principally to High School subjects.

3. Professional study in the department of education amounting approximately to four three-hour courses, or twelve unit hours.

4. Recommendation by the department whose subject the applicant desires to teach.

The work in education is prescribed by, and under the entire charge of that department, consisting usually of educational theory, educational psychology, and practice teaching. It is general in its nature, having no particular application to any one High School subject. The task of special preparation devolves upon the separate departments. The history departments are addressing themselves to this task with an earnestness that promises well for the future of history teaching on the Pacific coast.

What line of study will afford the best preparation for teaching history in the High School? My answer is made from the standpoint of the teacher actually engaged in secondary instruction. I have made up a tentative course of study for history teachers. This course provides for a minimum of eighty hours of prescribed work, distributed among seven departments. These eighty hours are not rigidly prescribed, since much choice within the department is allowed. As practically all students elect languages, English and economics, the imposition is even less of a restriction than would appear. Furthermore, since the education and history requirements are practically in effect now, the only real innovation involved in this program is the requirement of work in science and government.

† See Keatinge, "Studies in the Teaching of History," ch. 2. Printed at the end of this paper.

That is, eighty semester-hours, or forty year-hours out of a total of seventy-five year-hours four years of undergraduate and one year of graduate work.)-EDITOR.

The value of English literature and composition needs no demonstration. We cannot in this respect do better than to emulate the French, who insist that the first essential of an educated person is absolute mastery of the mother tongue and a comprehension of the national literature. French teachers are closely examined regarding their ability to conduct recitations in absolutely perfect French. For breadth of culture, and because English literature forms so large an element in our civilization, a generous training in English should enter into the preparation of every American who aspires to teach history.

It is hardly necessary to argue that a history teacher should know another tongue than his own. I advocate this knowledge, not to enable the teacher to read French and German histories, nor even Latin sources, but because the mastery of a people's language is the best key to an understanding of their character. No one, no matter how much he may study, can get quite the sympathetic appreciation of Athens of the man who reads his Thucydides and his Aristophanes in their own tongue. Cicero is not a Roman when clothed in English dress. The same principle holds of the modern languages. It is not possible for most of us to possess all these keys, but all teachers of history should hold at least one.

A certain amount of science is advocated for two principal reasons: First, mental training, and, second, information. Although, as pointed out above, the method of natural science cannot be the method of history, yet it was the application of scientific methods in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that revolutionized the study of history. Every history student needs at least an elementary knowledge of the methods of natural science. This can be gained only by actual work in the laboratory. Here as nowhere else may the student acquire skill in close observation, caution in generalization, and respect for exact information. The facts of science are of constant use to the historian. Think of the many scientific terms which the historian uses so constantly that they have ceased to be metaphors: "reaction," "sphere," "evolution," " dynamic," "heredity," "zeitgeist,' to mention no others. Their historical significance is doubled if their scientific import is understood. The teacher will again and again find his scientific knowledge explaining and interpreting his history, as well as furnishing countless helpful illustrations for class use. It may be rash to attempt to indicate what division of science should be preferred by one whose work in that line must be limited. Doubtless it depends on the individual. In the opinion of the present writer, however, that branch of science most auxiliary to history is biology, because biology deals with the laws of life. I strongly urge, for everyone who desires to understand history, a course in biology leading up to the facts of evolution. "Evolution, heredity, environment, have become household words, and their application to history has influenced everyone who has had to trace the development of people, the growth of an institution, or the establishment of a cause. Other scientific theories and methods have affected physical science as potently, but none has entered so vitally into the study of man."+

No person is fitted to teach history who is not familiar with the elementary principles of economics. No study that serves to explain present-day conditions is unworthy of a place in the preparation of the history teacher. For this reason, sociology is as essential as economics. The problem

* See Rhodes, "Historical Essays," p. 49.

+ Quoted from Rhodes, "Historical Essays," p. 4.

of the world to-day is to remedy the evils incidental to man's life in society. The movement for socializing education is rapidly gaining headway. The time is coming when our schools will make full provision for social education. At the present time, however, upon the history teacher, more than upon any other teacher in our High Schools, rests the burden of preparing boys and girls for life as members of society, ready to bear their social obligations. The history teacher who lacks social interest and insight misses one of his greatest opportunities for usefulness. Fortunately, much of this knowledge is acquired from historical training, though the latter cannot completely meet the need.

No

The arguments for economics and sociology apply with equal force to government. The state is calling on the schools to train good citizens, and the school turns the work of citizenship instruction over to the history teacher. teacher is doing his full duty if he neglects this aspect of his work. It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss citizen training, but it is insisted that some knowledge of economics, sociology, and the principles and practice of government should form an indispensable part of the equipment of every history teacher. In this regard, the sixteen hours proposed in the outline represent a minimum that will on no account bear reduction.

We come now to a consideration of the history course of our would-be teacher. It will be noticed that in the proposed requirements less than one-half lies in the history. department. This is because the writer believes that many history teachers, trained under the elective system, are the victims of premature and excessive specialization. There comes to mind the case of a young man whose one hundred and twenty-four units of college credit included no less than sixty-four units of history, a proportion of more than onehalf. Although this may be an extreme case, it nevertheless indicates a tendency. It is the more serious because those very students who enjoy history, and therefore possess one of the first qualifications for teaching it, are the ones who are in greatest danger of over-specialization. The tendency is a dangerous one, because it is inimical to breadth of culture. If history is to be a culture subject, the teachers of history must be cultured. Specialization is not culture. The undergraduate course should be shaped so as to enable the student to appreciate the various elements that have entered into the marvellously complex life of mankind, of which history is the record. Here is where literature, science, economics, politics, languages, are essential. These studies must be taken in college. Experience shows that the teacher at work will continue to study, but that his study will be devoted almost exclusively to his specialty. Hence his knowledge of history will continue to grow, but the other subjects will be neglected. This is true of even the best teachers, for in proportion as they love their subject will they devote their spare hours to it alone.

The thirty units of history proposed as a requirement have been chosen with four objects in view:

1. To give the student a general view of the history of our civilization.

2. To give him an intensive study of at least one limited period.

3. To familiarize him with the methods of historical study.

4. To introduce him to the problems and methods of history teaching in secondary schools.

The first aim, a broad view of the field of history, raises the vexed question of general history. Although from the point of view of the specialist, general history courses are unscientific, it is here maintained that such a course, properly conducted, would be of enormous value to the prospective his. tory teacher.* At present, in many of our colleges the only way to get a general view of history is to take a number of more or less unrelated courses, so distributed as to violate both the unity and the continuity of history. The student's history course often runs something like this: English history, modern Europe, a half of United States history, one or more seminar courses. Ancient history and the Middle Ages are either omitted or sandwiched in as convenience dictates. The French and the Germans do not prepare their history teachers with such disregard of continuity and completeness. But with us, unless the student has elected Greek and Roman history, he may go forth to teach that difficult subject with no more preparation than his general historical training and his own reading. If another one in his sequence of courses has omitted the Renaissance or the nineteenth century, how much meaning is lost from his Greece and Rome, and how often in his teaching must he fail to make his contact with the present! It is true that thorough training diminishes these disadvantages, and that as the teacher gains experience he may make up these losses himself. But it is here maintained that a course in general history would start the novice out with an equipment that otherwise he must gain by slow experience at the expense of his unfortunate pupils. I am aware of the great difficulties attending general history courses, and of the fact that in many institutions they have been tried and abandoned. Without attempting to discuss these difficulties I would merely submit these suggestions:

1. That if such a course be given for all students, those

who desire to credit it towards the teacher's recommendation be formed into a separate section and required to do a high grade of work, including individual exercises.

2. That if such a course for all students is impracticable, there be one provided for teachers of history.

3. That this general view of history should not be devoted merely to annals, but should endeavor to give an insight into the characters of the various peoples and periods, and an understanding of their place in the evolution of our modern world (Kulturgeschichte). The emphasis should be placed on development, and the contacts of the past and the present should be constantly made plain. Although such a course is usually placed in the freshman year, there are good reasons for putting it at the other end and correlating it with the Teacher's Course in history.

In the absence of any such course, the preparation of the history teacher should include some ten or more units of European history, including the nineteenth century.

The second and third aims are closely related. The definition of a scholar as one who knows something about everything and everything about something, represents an ideal worth pursuing in historical study. The teacher must know that the stream of history is as deep as it is broad. He must be trained in the investigator's method of discovering, weighing, and marshalling evidence. Unless he is himself

*See Prof. Shotwell's article upon "Undergraduate Course in History in Columbia University." THE HISTORY TEACHER'S MAGAZINE, I, 220 (May, 1910).-EDITOR.

For a sketch of this, see Frederic Harrison, "The Meaning of History," ch. 2.

a master of books, he cannot expect to impart such mastery to others. This necessary training in historical method is now so well provided by the advanced courses and seminars in our colleges that little further discussion is necessary. If it be objected that to gain this training would require the excessive specialization that I have deprecated, I would reply by asserting that, if in every course in history some attention be paid to method, at the end of five years' work the student would be the possessor of this power. Instead of confining research or thesis work to certain advanced courses, it should form part of every history course. Many college courses are open to the same criticism that the colleges have so long made of High School history, namely, that it is merely a process of memorizing bare facts and cramming for examinations, with little or no effort to stimulate thinking. Every history course, from primary school to university, should give training no less than information.

The institution of college courses in the teaching of history is one of the most encouraging signs of the times. It augurs well for the future of our subject to find this recognition of the fact that teaching history in a High School calls for preparation of a special kind. It is also encouraging to observe that this particular preparation is dignified by being made a special course in charge of a chosen teacher, instead of being left to a number of more or less perfunctory lectures, given by various members of the department. If it is true that there is a special pedagogy of history, then it follows that the work of teacher training should be in the hands of a professor especially fitted for it. This professor' should be one whose interest is primarily in history; hence a member of the history faculty. He should be a ripe scholar, and a wise and experienced teacher. He should have an acquaintance with the problems of secondary instruction, and an unfeigned and sympathetic interest in High School children. He should work in coöperation with the Department of Education. The place for the course is in the last year of the student's preparation. Its content would vary according to circumstances. The pedagogical work in education, and likewise the historical training would training would be determined by the nature of the prescribed be conditioned on the methods used in the other courses in history. If possible, the seminar or round-table method should be used, with much investigating and reporting by the students. Reports of visits to high schools, reviews of chapters in such treatises as Keatinge's, or Bourne's, or the New England Syllabus, original essays, would lend interest and serve to develop independence. The student's organizing power should be trained, in order that as a teacher his work may be definite, coherent, logical. For this purpose frequent syllabus making, subject to criticism, is of very great value. Little time need be devoted to the mechanics of history teaching, notebooks, reviews, examinations, etc., not because they are unimportant, but because the enterprising teacher can best work out his own ideas in these matters. From this course, or elsewhere, the student should understand that among the cardinal points of history teaching are interest, concreteness and vividness, correlation, enthusiasm. It should be his desire, no less than his duty, to maintain a keen interest in present-day affairs, that he may be an historian, not an antiquary. He ought to know, in Professor Bury's words, "that the practical value of history consists not, as used to be thought, in lessons and examples, but in the fact that it explains the present, and that, without it, the present, in which we have to live, would be incomprehensible." He should come out of the course feeling that