reached, the college must of necessity correct the defects of school studies in such ways as it is able; and such correction must often go to the extent of teaching a subject over again. Duplication cannot be regarded as superfluous, if it stands for distinct increase in knowledge, wisdom and power.

On the one hand, then, the college has to be guided in its selection of subject by its relations with the schools. On the other, it should pay some heed to the diverse plans and interests of its freshman students. Whether history majors should enter separate classes from the other members of the freshman group, or receive special attention in the general courses, or have special courses of their own in addition to the general course-these are matters of policy as to which opinion and usage differ greatly. In general the tendency is, not to begin any differentiation of work until a later point in the curriculum; but much is to be said for the contrary view. In one particular all good opinion is agreed, that the small group of history majors in any elementary course should not be permitted to dominate the policy of the class; there must be the endeavor to get the greatest good of the greatest number.

With all these provisos in mind, one may say that the tendency to give first place to European History seems sound and wholesome. Judgments will vary widely at this point. But on the whole the movement in that direction has behind it the weight of experience as well as the strength of good theory. The less a subject is taught in the schools, the more claim it has, other things being equal, to be taught in the elementary college course. European History, European History, broadly conceived, is the necessary foundation of all good work in any other field. These are the guideposts in the whole situation.

IV.

Next, in respect to the methods of instruction, there is a growing consensus of opinion among college teachers. Certain cardinal truths appear very clear. Methods of instruction are not to be carried up from the high school or brought down from the university; they are to grow out of the distinctive character of college work itself. The tasks of freshmen are to be laid out precisely, with clearly fixed metes and bounds and with all necessary aid to understanding. Emphasis is to fall on straight thinking rather than on the acquisition facts; the student is to become in a real way his own historian. The development of power in the student is to come through the maximum degree of personal participation in the activities of the class. Finally the intimate contact of student and teacher is the vital thing.

14

With such generalities to guide, the first outstanding feature of present methods in freshman history is the conspicuous decline of the lecture system.1 The lecture persists, but practically never alone, as 14 Compare R. W. Kelsey, "Recent Changes in the Teaching of History in the Colleges and Universities of the Middle States and Maryland (HISTORY TEACHER'S MAGAZINE, VI, 207-210), where a contrary result is reached.

the instrument of elementary class teaching. In many institutions it has almost wholly given way to other methods. Being the product of long experience, this change is truly significant. College men quite commonly regard the lecture as a necessary evil, to be gotten rid of when possible, not as the ideal way to teach. A few advocate the lecture very stoutly; a majority seem to hold the other way. For the lecture it is to be said, first, that it covers ground better than any other method; second, that it most effectively brings into play the personality and special gifts of the instructor. But these merits do not counterbalance the demerits of the lecture method as a whole.

Step by step the lecture has given place to the combined lecture and quiz in all possible proportions. Of the twenty-one institutions contributing to the materials for the paper, thirteen employ the lecture and quiz combined; three use the lecture occasionally; two not at all; and one uses the lecture alone. Here we meet the most significant change in recent prac The new-fashioned quiz is only the old-fashioned recitation rechristened and amended to suit the times. Practically everywhere history teachers break up their large freshman classes into quiz sections, averaging twenty to twenty-five members each. The sections meet from once to four or five times a week, and are taught by professors, regular instructors, or graduate assistants. Class-work is based sometimes on the lectures, sometimes on the collateral reading, sometimes on a definite test; in any event there results a familiar discussion or recitation quite of the old-time type. Many other teaching devices find place in greater or less degree-frequent short written quizzes, map-drawing, oral reports, written reports, and divers others. All such efforts aim to render the work direct, intimate, practical-to make the student a doer of the word and not a hearer only; and the crowded freshman class no longer has terrors for the method justifies itself in solid returns. The overinstructor who can organize it into quiz section squads. It is proving practicable, also, to follow some definite principle in such groupings. Some instructors teach men and women in separate sections; others segregate the history majors and give them special treatment; others maintain one or more sections for students preparing to teach and lay stress on the pedagogical aspects. All these devices help toward the best results. The quiz-section plan involves some additional expense; but this need not be a serious hindrance. A class of three hundred students can be handled in ten quiz sections meeting once a week with the services of two assistants teaching an hour a day each, or twice a week with two assistants teaching two hours a day each, and so on. The quiz section appears to have come to stay, and it should be given the freedom of the house in no uncertain way.

As corollaries to the quiz-section regime, sundry other aids to good teaching are well established, first

of all the collateral reading.15 All our better institutions have, of course, adequate libraries and usually a satisfactory equipment of necessary appliances for history teaching-reading rooms, maps, lanterns, and the like. The evidence impresses one with the faithful, intelligent use of these resources on the part of history teachers. Quite uniformly Quite uniformly reference reading is required as an essential part of the work, although naturally the amount required, the forms of test, and much else vary widely from college to college or man to man. Duplicate copies of standard works are supplied to meet the demand. Chicago University goes a step farther and rents to the student at a nominal fee a set of the essential books for a given course. Very generally the instructors keep check on the collateral reading by such expedients as reading notes, written quizzes, oral quizzes, set papers, and so on. At every point the student is made to feel that he reads in order to know, not merely to be done with a formal task. In the matter selected for collateral reading, source documents receive an increasing emphasis. Instructors no longer have any illusions about teaching history from the sources in elementary classes; but all the more they strive to utilize this wealth of materials in a supplementary way. The habitual use of the source-book, the study of limited problems from source extracts, and similar methods, are employed to bring the student into direct touch with the fundamental facts of his subject. The future is likely to see more of this type of work rather than less.

In one form or another written work everywhere has its place-lecture notes, reading notes, mapmaking, special reports, outlines, tables, themes, bibliographies, and modest thesis investigations, all enter into the task. And all reveal the purpose not to impart information but to develop skill and power. These routine products are so many evidences of the student's progress along the great highway of learning or it may be his far-away approach to it. Most commonly in use among these types of written work is the set paper; then map-work, reading notes, and so on down the line. Written examinations are more or less frequent, with a noticeable tendency to make them less prominent, a natural result where the recitation comes to the front.

With the return of the recitation there has also come back in a measure its running mate, the textbook. But not in the unquestioned supremacy of the olden times. The text is rarely used alone, but commonly in connection with an outline or syllabus or something of that sort. The syllabus figures very largely and renders valuable service as a definite and concrete measure of the work to be done. The syllabi put out by various college instructors

over the

15 H. D. Foster, "How to Use a Syllabus in College," etc. (Association of History Teachers of Middle States and Maryland, "Minutes Seventh Annual Convention," 35-45.) H. L. Koopman, "How Students Actually Read.” (“Educational Review," XXXIII, 563-569.)

country give luminous testimony to the scope and solidity of the new history teaching.

On the more personal side two agencies call for mention as having great possibilities in them; the first being the preceptorial system at Princeton.10 Princeton has no history classes for freshmen; but the idea is easily applicable to freshman teaching. Under the plan of preceptorships, the students meet regularly with the instructor in groups of four or five to confer, read together, and discuss together the problems of their study. It lays heavy burdens on the teacher, but it pays large dividends in return. As a variation on the idea, at Harvard the elementary history students organize voluntary clubs of eight or ten members each to meet for the reading of papers, discussion, and the like. Even better than the preceptorial system, perhaps, is the personal conference. To a surprising degree history teachers, even in the largest universities, try to meet the individual student now and then, to listen to his problems, guide him in his studies, and establish a direct relation with him as a man. Often such conference work falls to lower instructors and assistants, but in a gratifying measure it is assumed by the senior members of the teaching staff. And nothing in the whole range of history teaching seems more fruitful of good results than this personal fellowship of teacher and taught in their mutual interests.

in

From these diversified experiences of history teachers there is also beginning to emerge an ideal of elementary instruction which has been, for one teacher at least, a vision and a dream during many years. Some time ago Professor MacDonald contributed to the HISTORY TEACHER'S MAGAZINE17 an article entitled An Historical Laboratory" in which he pleaded for more adequate equipment for the teaching of college history. And now the historical laboratory which he foresaw has begun to appear"a laboratory with ample equipment for individual work under supervision, comparable to that given a science laboratory." At the University of Nebraska, Professor Fling maintains such a laboratory for Modern History; at Columbia, Professor Hayes uses it in Contemporary History; and doubtless there are others. These are the feeble beginnings of what is likely to prove a new era in historical instruction. To some of us the historical laboratory—a workshop in every sense of the word— seems inevitably the next big step in college methods. A practical workshop, equipped with all needed refor students, with an instructor always in charge sources and appliances, with regular working hours to guide and supervise, with specific tasks to perform and definite results to gain-that is the dream which promises to come true. It will come true just so rapidly as college authorities make provision for

16 W. D. Hyde, "The New Standard of College Teaching." (HISTORY TEACHER'S Magazine, II, 125-127.) Quotes from the report of Professor Allen Johnson on the working of the 66 I conference scheme.”

17 HISTORY TEACHER'S MAGAZINE, I, 73-74.

ment as to the present-day conception. I shall not attempt to summarize these, but merely to indicate some points of interest in our search for knowledge. Jameson in his address upon the "American Acta Sanctorum "laid stress upon the necessity of studying the history of the church and the influence of religious ideas and ideals upon the development of the United States. Adams emphasized the need, of separation of fact from hypothesis, as in science. Hart called attention to the right and wrong kind of imagination, especially in judging motives. Turner, in his "Social Forces in American History," showed the need to rework the history of the United States from the point of view afforded by the present and to use the contributions of all the other sciences. Sloane in the "Vision and Substance in History," while arguing that we should discard threadbare words and terms,' 'reject the material which explains nothing," sets forth his own point of view. We know with the reason that past religion, past social organization, past economics, past ambitions and thirst for power, past dogmas of secular belief, that all these enter into history, over and beyond politics in its narrow sense of government and administration; or, to invert the statement, we now recognize that politics, past or present, is the resultant of these forces and many others, too; in certain proportions at one time, in very different ones at others.' Roosevelt in his address on History as Literature," emphasizes the need of scientific study, but also of imagination and art on the part of the historian. Dunning in setting forth “Truth in History" made a plea for the historical study of history and argument against the "sundryological" interpretations and the tendency to overemphasize recent history. McLaughlin last year took as his theme 'American History and American Democracy," largely a plea for greater attention to the spiritual elements in history.

"

Evidently, history is a word of ever changing content. Each age studies its history anew, and with interest determined by the spirit of the time." There never can be any finality, and therefore, there is always a zest in the study of history.

66

If we are to profit by the labors of our predecessors, it is essential that we should understand the conceptions of history which have been held in the past. This has been recognized by some scholars, but little has been done; a few who have written on the philosophy of history have contributed something. In addition, Langlois in his Manuel de Bibliographie Historique" gave an excellent sketch of the history and organization of historical studies. Jullian in the introduction to Extraits des historians Français du XIXe siècle" has given some very useEful suggestions. Fueter in the "Geschichte der neueren Historiographie" has described the course of historical writing since the Renaissance, and Gooch in History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century" has essayed, to summarize and assess the manifold achievements of historical research and production during the last hundred years, to portray

The

the masters of the craft, to trace the development of scientific method, to measure the political, religious and racial influences that have contributed to the making of celebrated books, and to analyze their effect on the life and thought of their time." last is probably the most useful, although not as accurate and scholarly as Feuter. In all of these books authors have been treated rather than the conceptions which were dominant in an epoch. Where they attempt the latter, their plan forces them to bring together strange bed-fellows, e. g. Jullian in one section takes up "Renan, Taine, Fustel de Coulanges; sous quelles influences ils se sont formes;" in discussing cussing "The Life of Jesus," "The History of English Literature," and The Ancient City," it is evident that he is not comparing commensurates. This criticism is not as true for Fueter and Gooch, who do discuss schools of historians; but, naturally, members of the schools do not often write about the same movements, so comparison is difficult.

I wish to suggest, instead the study of the manner in which great events have been regarded by historians. By doing this we can also ascertain the points of view held at different periods and these points of view will illustrate the characteristics of each period. A comparative study of the changing conceptions of three or four great events may prove a most valuable guide to the ideas which were dominant, to those which were coming in and those which were going out, in various epochs. The Reformation, the French Revolution, our Civil War, or any one of a dozen other subjects might be chosen for this purpose. To-night I wish to take up the changing conceptions of the Crusades, partly because it is the subject with which I am most familiar, partly because for the Crusades we can trace the changing conceptions throughout the course of eight centuries.

The prevailing contemporary point of view was that they were God's work. Robert the Monk wrote in the preface to his history of the first Crusades: If we except the salutary mystery of the crucifixion, what has happened since the creation of the world that is more marvelous than this which has been done in modern times, on this expedition of our men to Jerusalem? The more studiously anyone directs his attention to this subject, the more fully will the convolutions of his brain expand and the greater will be his stupefaction. For this was not the work of man but the work of God." Fulcher of Chartres who took part in the movement summed up his feelings by quoting the text: 'This is the Lord's doing and it is marvelous in our eyes." St. Bernard, at the time of the second Crusade, urged: "Come, let the children of the Faith draw the two swords against the enemy," and again, "Christ's knight kills conscientiously and dies tranquilly; in dying, he secures salvation; in killing, he works for Christ." Lanfranc Cigala, a thirteenth century troubador, sang: 'I do not hold him to be a knight who does not go with a willing heart and all his might to the aid of the Lord who has so great need of him."

This point of view has persisted among many.

66

In 1870, Riezler stated that the masses were sent on the Crusades by an idea, The historical idea of Christianity, the firm faith that God had wandered as a man among men." Could the land which had been followed by Him be left in the hands of unbelievers? "Like a flash of lightning this train of thought coursed through all Christendom; clergy and laity, prince and peasant, Germans and foreigners, and all nations, were alike receptive to it; for centuries it drove band after band, in ever-renewed onset, to battle and death." In 1914 Taylor wrote: He errs who thinks to find the source and power of the first Crusade elsewhere than in the flaming zeal of feudal Christianity. There was, doubtless, much divergence of motive, secular and religious; but overmastering and unifying all was the passion to wrest the sepulchre of Christ from paynim defilement, and thus win salvation for the Crusader. Greed went with the host; but it did not inspire the enterprise."

To part with a great treasure priests are ill content."

In Regensburg an ordinance was passed, by the Emperor's adherents, decreeing the death penalty against anyone who should wear a Crusader's badge. In 1291 the Pope found it necessary to offer an indulgence of forty days to anyone who would listen to a crusading sermon. The increase in the privileges offered to those who took the cross for the later expeditions is a clear indication of the luke-warmness of the general mass of the people, and of their loss of belief in the Crusades as especially God's work.

This point of view, too, has persisted in one form or another. Fuller in his "Holy Warre," in the seventeenth century, set forth very fully what he considered the causes of the Crusades; among these were the Private Ends and Profits of the Pope," about which he says: 'First to reduce the Grecians into subjection to him-self, with their three patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch and Constantinople; and to make the eastern church a chapel of ease to the mother church of Rome. Lastly he got a bag of money by it. He had the office to bear the bag, and what was put into it, as contributed to this action from pious people, and expended but some few drops of the showers he received." In the eighteenth century, Voltaire poured forth his scorn: Then for the first time appeared this epidemic fury, in order that there might be no possible scourge which had not afflicted the human race.' Thus, the only fruit of the Christians in their barbarous Crusades was the extermination of other Christians." Gibbon held practically the same opinion: "From Jerusalem

....

"But

the pilgrim returned an accomplished fanatic; but, as he excelled in the popular madness of the times, Pope Urban II received him as a prophet." Those who remained at home, with sense and money, were enriched by the epidemical disease." the obstinate perseverance of Europe may indeed excite our pity and admiration; that no instruction should have been drawn from constant and adverse experiences; that the same confidence should have repeatedly grown from the same failures; that six succeeding generations should have rushed headlong down the precipice that was open before them; and that men of every condition should have staked their public and private fortunes on the desperate adventure of possessing or recovering a tomb-stone two thousand miles from their country." Early in the nineteenth century, Heller exclaimed: "UrbanUrban and Peter, the corpses of two million men weigh upon you in your graves and will rouse you in terror at the day of judgment!" At the beginning of the present century, Köhler attributed the inception of the Crusades to the policy of Urban II:

"It is incontestable that the Crusade was the work of the Pope who organized it and did not cease to direct its conduct." His argument can be summarized as follows: After the consummation of the Greek schism in 1054 it was necessary to get control of the patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem and to separate them from the influence of the schismatic church. Leo IX and Gregory VII felt this necessity, and it explains the acts of Urban II in the preparation and conduct of the Crusade up to the time when the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem was established under the direction of his legates. A second idea was closely associated, namely, that in order to free the universal apostolic church from the peril with which it was threatened, it was necessary to take Constantinople from the Greeks. If these deductions are correct, from the very beginning the holy war against Islam held only a second place in the Pope's thoughts.

So far the matter has been very simple; the Crusades were either God's work or the work of the church. But Fuller had also brought into prominence another point of view, that they were a defensive war; for he was writing when Europe was threatened by the advance of the Turks. His idea of a war of defence by carrying the attack into the enemy's country has had great popularity. Sybel adopted it:

We cannot understand the importance of the Crusades if we look upon them as a mere sequel and extension of the pilgrimages to Jerusalem. Such a complete change in the history of the world does not arise out of such insignificant causes. The Crusades must be regarded as one great portion of the struggle between the two great religions of the world, Christianity and Mohammedanism."

Count Riant lent the weight of his authority to it, although he viewed it from a different angle: In 1095 the recovery of Jerusalem had suddenly acquired in the West an importance of the first or