4. Council of Areopagus.

(a) Qualification-had to be Archon first.

(b) Duties-with quotation-Protection of the laws and saw that they were obeyed. The Council of Areopagus had as its constitutionally assigned duty the protection of the laws; but in point of fact it administered the greater and most important part of the government of the state, and inflicted personal punishment and fines summarily upon all who misbehaved themselves.

This problem brings out clearly the form of the Athenian government. Next comes the reforms which mark the rise of democracy. This problem was taken from the text and not from the source book.

PROBLEM II.

Show the growth of democracy in Athens from the time of Draco to the time of Clisthenes.

Draco was a noble, and he was appointed to make a code of laws for the Athenians so the common people would not revolt. He was appointed by the nobles, and did nothing but put the harsh laws in writing. The lower classes were given no right, and the laws were said to have been written in blood.

Solon, after the war, turned his attention to giving the common people freedom. He cancelled all debts, and made it illegal to take even a plebian as slave. He gave the lower class a right to vote, but not to hold office.

Clisthenes led the common people against the nobles for their rights. The commons won. Clisthenes then made a more democratic constitution. He conferred citizenship on all the free inhabitants of Athens.

In the time of Solon the people had no rights. Solon gave them the right to vote, and kept them from becoming slaves, and Clisthenes gave them all the rights of any Athenian.

PROBLEM III.

The next problem deals with Herodotus's account of the reforms of Clisthenes, and is concerned with the motive of the reformer. The pupils are apt to think that Clisthenes was a philanthropic individual who was aroused by the spirit of human sympathy to strike for the freedom of the oppressed. Herodotus's account shows that his motive was purely selfish.

HOW ATHENS WAS GIVEN A DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION BY CLISTHENES AND TRIUMPHED OVER

HER NEIGHBORS.

Herodotus, Book V, Chapters 66-77. Rawlinson's Translation.

The power of Athens had been great before, but now that the tyrants were gone it became greater than ever. The chief authority was lodged with two persons, Clisthenes, of the family of the Alemaeonids, and Isagoras, the son of Tisander, who belonged to a noble house. Howbeit his kinsmen offer sacrifice to the Carian Zeus. These two men strove together for the mastery, and Clisthenes, finding himself the weaker, called to his aid the common people. Hereupon, instead of the four tribes among which the Athenians had been divided hitherto, Clisthenes made ten tribes, and parceled out the Athenians among them. He likewise changed the names of the tribes; for whereas they had till now been called after Geleon, Aegicores, Argades and Hoples, the four sons of Ion, Clisthenes set these names aside, and called his tribes after certain other heroes, all of whom were native, except Ajax. Ajax was associated because, although a foreigner, he was a neighbor and an ally of Athens.

Having brought entirely over to his own side the common people of Athens whom he had before disdained, he gave all the tribes new names, and made the number greater than formerly. Instead of the four phylarchs he established ten; he likewise placed ten demes in each of the tribes, and he was, now that the common people took his part, very much more powerful than his adversaries.

THE REFORMS OF CLISTHENES.

Aristotle, "Constitution of Athens," Chapters 21-22. The people, therefore, had good reason to place confidence in Clisthenes. Accordingly, when at this time he found himself at the head of the masses three years after the expulsion of the tyrants, in the archonship of Isagoras, his first step was to distribute the whole population into ten tribes in place of the existing four, with the object of intermingling the members of the different tribes, Eo that more persons might have a share in the franchise. From this arose the saying, "Do not look at the tribes," addressed to those who wished to scrutinize the lists of the old families. Next he made the Council to consist of five hundred members instead of four hundred, each tribe now contributing fifty, whereas formerly each had sent a hundred.

PROBLEM IV.

1. (a) Why did Clisthenes make his reforms in favor of the common people?

(b) Give quotation as proof of your statement. 2. (a) Name the classes in the Athenian state, according to the document.

3. Account for the fact that Clisthenes changed the number of tribes from four to ten, and gave new names to all.

ANSWER.

1. (a) Clisthenes had to make his reforms for the common people in order to get them to help him in his struggle with Isagoras. He did it to get help against his enemy.

2508 B. C. He introduced a large number of new citizens by the enfranchisement of emancipated slaves and resident aliens. It would have been difficult to introduce them into the old tribes, which were organized into clans and families on the old aristocratic basis; the new tribes had no such associations.

(b) Quotation-"These two men (Clisthenes and Isagoras) strove together for the mastery, and Clisthenes, finding himself the weaker, called to his aid the common people. Now that the common people took his part he was very much more powerful than his adversaries."

2. The Classes in the Athenian state: 1. (a) Nobles.

(b) "Isagoras who belonged to a noble house." 2. (a) Common people.

(b)

"Clisthenes called to his aid the common people."

3. (a) Slaves.

(b) "He introduced a large number of new citizens by the enfranchisement of slaves."

3. By making all the common people and slaves citizens. It would have been difficult to introduce them into the four old tribes, which were organized into clans and families on the old aristocratic basis. The new tribes had no such associations, and he wanted to intermingle the members of the old tribes with the new so that all would be citizens alike.

PROBLEM V.

THE BATTLE OF MARATHON.

The problem here was taken from Herodotus's account of the battle of Marathon, and is said to be the only account that is in any way reliable. The students were asked to read the manuscript, and then make a diagram of two positions of the opposing armies, showing who composed the different wings, the commanders, etc., in the first plan, and to indicate the final results of the issue in the second plan. Herodotus's account covers about two pages and is easily understood. The students were allowed to use short explanatory notes in connection with the diagram. I first explained to the class that an army was usually formed into left and right wings and center. Here are some of the results.

I. 1. The center made weak so as to make Athenian line equal to Persian.

II. 1. Left and right wing of Persian in rout, pursued by
Athenians.

2. Athenian center driven back by Persian center.
3. Athenian wings close in on Persian center.
4. Persians driven to ships.

Some members of the class drew three positions.

The following is an example of an oral problem. The class had studied the life and the social institutions of the Spartans, and were presented with Plutarch's account of the life of Lycurgus. The problem was to construct Spartan society from this document. The results were surprising. All the class were allowed to take part and the results written out on the board.

THE SPARTAN DISCIPLINE FOR YOUTHS. Plutarch's "Life of Lycurgus," Chapters 16-19.

Nor was it in the power of the father to dispose of the child as he thought fit. He was obliged to carry it before certain tryers at a place called Lesche; there were some of the elders of a tribe to which the child belonged. Their business it was carefully to view the infant, and if they found it stout and well-made they gave order for its rearing, and allowed to it one of the nine thousand shares of land above mentioned for its maintenance, but if they

found it puny and ill-shaped, ordered it to be taken to what was called the Apothetae, a sort of chasm under Taygetus, as thinking it neither for the good of the child itself, nor for the public interest, that it should be brought up, if it did not from the very outset appear made to be healthy and vigorous.

1. The Spartans' land was divided into 9,000 shares. Quotation-" They allowed the child one of the 9,000

2. Only strong boys were given land, for weaklings were put to death.

3. There were 9,000 citizens in Sparta.

Proof-Each healthy boy was given one share of land. There were 9,000 shares of land. Therefore, there were 9,000 citizens.

(Some of the students remembered with delight that the text gave 10,000.)

4. Children did not belong to parents, they belonged to the State.

"Nor was it in the power of the father to dispose of the child as he saw fit."

5. The 9,000 shares of land belonged to the State. Proof-" They allowed it one of the 9,000 shares of land." Conclusion-Therefore, the State was a Socialistic State, for it owned both land and children.

Besides the above facts, of which there was direct proof, there are many other facts about which the class may speculate, and reason.

Queries for speculation: In this exercise they are allowed to draw from their knowledge of the text. (1) How big was a share of land?

It was large enough to maintain a male citizen.

(2) If the 9,000 shares included all the tillable land, how much did each man have?

This was answered by measuring the Eurotas River basin, and by scale calculating the amount each man would have. It was found from this that the shares were larger than might be expected, and so the hypothesis was rejected, and another line of attack made. Someone remembered that there were other classes in the State besides the Spartan, namely, the Perioeci and Helots. The former owned their land and paid tribute. There were 30,000 Perioeci, and it was concluded that they had possession of perhaps one-third of the land, including the poorer hill

(3) The third problem for speculation was with regard to the Spartan women and girls. The document is not specific as to sex in the matter of putting the infants to death; it uses the neuter pronoun throughout.

(a) Query-Were the weak girls put to death?

The unanimous answer was "no," because it was stated that each child that was healthy was given one of the shares of land, and all doubted if the women received land. (b) But if the weak girls were not put to death, what was the probable result?

There would be more women than men in Sparta.

(c) How were these women, who had no family, supported?

The answer was that they either worked or were supported by the State, the latter was considered the more probable.

The value of such an exercise is self-evident. The students come to think constructively rather than in terms of reproduction. The mind becomes dynamic and active rather than static and passive. The interest that may be aroused was indicated in my class. The class was developing the Spartan problem given

above. We had just brought up the question of the Spartan women when the bell rang and ended the period. When the class met the next day one of the - brightest girls in the class said: "Well, Mr. Webb, I want to know what became of those poor Spartan women. I have been worrying about them ever since yesterday." It is a sign of some degree of success when the students can be brought to the point of worrying over their problems outside of class.

AMERICAN HISTORY.

The documents used in American history were taken from Hart's "Contemporaries." The first one here was written in 1747 by Doctor Wm. Douglas, physician and savant in Boston.

VARIOUS KINDS OF COLONIAL GOVERNMENT (1747).

BY DOCTOR WILLIAM DOUGLAS.

Concerning the General Nature and Constitution of British North American Colonies.

All our American settlements are properly colonies, not provinces, as they are generally called: Province respects a conquered people (the Spaniards in Mexico and Peru may perhaps in Propricty bear this Appellation) under a Jurisdiction inposed upon them by the Conqueror. Colonies are formed of National People, e.g., British in British Colonies, transported to form a Settlement in a foreign or remote country.

The first Settlers of our Colonies were formed from various Sorts of People. Some were peopled by Rebel Tories, some by Rebel Whigs (that Principle which at one Time is called Royalty, at another Time is called Rebellion) some by Church of England Men, some by Congregationalists or Independents, some by Papists (Maryland and Monserrat), the most unfit People to incorporate with our Constitution.

Colonies have an incidental good Effect. They drain from the Mother-Country the Disaffected and the Vicious, (in this same Manner, subsequent Colonies purge the more ancient Colonies); Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, drained from Massachusetts Bay, the Antinomians, Quakers, and other wild Sectaries. Perhaps in after Times (as it is at Times with the Lord Lieutenants and other high Officers in Ireland) some Malcontents of Figure, capable of being troublesome to the Administration at Home, may be sent in some great Offices to the Plantations.

We have some Settlements with a Governor only; others 3 with a Governor and a Council, such are Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Hudson's Bay and Georgia without any house or Negative deputed by the Planters, according to the Essence of a British Constitution: These may be said not to be colonized.

There are various sorts of Royal Grants of Colonies. 1. To one or more personal Proprietors, their Heirs and Assigns. Such are Maryland and Pennsylvania; both Property and Government. 2. The Property to personal Proprietors; the Government and Jurisdiction

in the

Crown. This is the State of Carolinas and Jersies. 3. Property and Government in the Crown, viz. Virginia, New York, and New-Hampshire commonly called Piscataqua. 4. Property in the People and their Representatives; the Government in the Crown; as is Massachusetts Bay. 5. Property and Government in the Governor and Company, called the Freemen of the Colony, such are Connecticut and Rhode Island.

This last seems to be the most effectual Method of the First settling and peopling of a Colony. Mankind are nat

urally desirous of Parity and Leveling, without any fixed Superiority, but when a Society is Come to Maturity a more distinct fixed Subordination is found to be requisite.

The first part of the problem is concerned with the external evidence, that is, the knowledge that could be gained about the author. The class was asked to read the document and determine the following points:

1. (a) Was the author English or Colonial in sympathy?

(b) Give quotation to prove your statement. 2. (a) Determine the religion of the author.

(b) Give quotation in support of your opinion.

Answers:

A.

1. (a) Dr. William Douglas was English in his sympathies.

(b) "They (the Colonies) do not send their laws home for approbation. They assume command of the militia, which by the British Constitution is a prerogative of the Crown."

2. (a) The author is evidently of a protestant denomination.

(b) He says: The most unfit people to incorporate in our constitution are church of Englishmen Independents, Papists, and Quakers. (The student here misinterpreted the author's meaning.)

B.

1, (a) The author is English in his sentiments. (b) This is shown by his saying, "They (the Colonists) assume the command of the militia, which is a prerogative of the Crown."

2. (a) He was not a Catholic-" Some by Papists, the most unfit people to incorporate with our constitution." He was not a Quaker: "Rhode Island drained Massachusetts Bay of the Antinomians, Quakers, and other wild Sectaries." Therefore he must have been a protestant.

...

Some were Papists (Maryland) the most unfit people to incorporate in our constitution."

From this exercise it will appear that it is difficult for seniors even, to get the same meaning from the printed page. Some students made the author sympathize with the Americans, others with the English, and the same passage was quoted as a proof of both statements. "Our American colonies was taken in one instance to mean that Dr. Douglas spoke of them as an American speaking of our country, our home; and in another as an Englishman speaking of his possessions, our Land," our colonists,"

etc.

2. To give the classification of the colonies from the least democratic to the most democratic.

3. To give the bases of classification.

4. To determine why one colony was omitted. 5. To classify the colony that was omitted.

1. The answer to the first question is fairly simple, and was not asked as a problem, but in order to impress the idea conveyed. The answer was as follows: "Dr. Douglas states that a democracy should develop in America, because in the beginning of a society "Mankind are naturally desirous of Parity and Leveling, but when a Society is come to maturity, a more distinct and fixed Subordination is found to be requisite."

2. I. Least Democratic.

1. Colonies without democracy.

(a) Virginia, New York, and New Hampshire, having property and government in the Crown.

(b) Carolinas and Jersies, having property in personal proprietors, government and jurisdiction in the Crown.

(c) Maryland and Pennsylvania, having both property and government in personal proprietors.

II. More Democratic.

(a) Massachusetts Bay, having property in the people and their representatives, and the government in the Crown.

III. Connecticut and Rhode Island, having property and government in the governor and com

pany.

3. The classification is double, based on governmental control and on property ownership. The colonies become more democratic as they pass out of the hands of the Crown and into the hands of the people.

4. Georgia is omitted because the author considers it not colonized. "It has a governor and council without any house or Negative deputed by the planters, According to the essence of the British Constitution. These may be Isaid not to be colonized."

5. Georgia comes into the same group with Pennsylvania and Maryland. The land and government rested with the proprietors.

From this study the distinction between Royal, Proprietary and Democratic Colonies becomes clear

at once.

The next problem to be presented was given to the class to be prepared outside the classroom in the form of a written paper. The paper was to be in the form of a contrast between two original documents of the American Revolutionary period. The first document is entitled "The Declaration of Rights and Grievances of the Colonists," and was prepared by the Stamp Act Congress in 1765. The second was prepared ten years later, and is entitled "The Necessity of Self Defense." The students were required to read and analyze both, and to show in the paper the change which the spirit of the Americans had undergone in the ten years intervening between the writing of the first and second document. The results were highly satisfactory. The following is one of the better papers:

A CONTRAST BETWEEN THE ATTITUDE OF THE COLONIES TOWARD ENGLAND IN 1765 AND 1775.

By reading the "Declaration of Rights and Grievances of

the Colonists" by the Stamp Act Congress and the Declaration on the "Necessity of Self-Defense by the Second Continental Congress, we can easily see the attitude of the colonists in 1775 to have been more hostile toward English rule than in 1765. The Declaration of 1765 was more a petition than a declaration. It merely cited the rights of the colonists which were being violated and asked for the repeal of the violating acts. On the other hand, the declaration in 1775 charged the English government with attempting to curtail all the liberties of the colonies, and declared that rather than submit they would take up arms. The Congress of 1765 addressed themselves as cherishing "the warmest sentiments of affection and duty to his majesty's person and government," fully admitting the right of England to rule them in most matters; but nowhere in the Declaration of 1775 do we find a concession to England's governmental authority. Again, the colonists in 1765 related what might happen and warned England of the consequences of continuing her despotic course, while in 1775 they charged England with having already committed these impositions on their liberties and declared themselves resolved to fight until their inherent liberties were again secured. We may notice, however, that the colonies declared themselves not to be fighting to establish independent states, but merely to regain their rights. They still acknowledged, in a way at least, the sovereignty of England.

The possibilities of this sort of work in American history are determined only by the ability and industry of the teacher, and by the time he has at his disposal. The problems may be made more intricate and complex as the ability of the class to deal with them increases.

PART III-ADVANTAGES OF THE PROBLEM METHOD. The following are some of the advantages of the problem method:

(1) The problem method of presentation brings out clearly the distinction between the original source and the secondary work. This distinction, unless emphasized markedly, remains vague in the minds of the pupils. I inquired of an eleventh grade class the meaning of a secondary work, and found that not one out of twenty-five could give it.

(2) Another advantage of the problem method is that it teaches the student to get the-thought from the printed page. The student must learn to read carefully, and to consider each word and phrase. I have had students read documents over three or four times in search of facts, complaining that they could not find what was required, and upon reading again, gasp with delight at discovering it, somewhat astonished at not having done so earlier.

(3) The problem method of presentation does much to destroy the credulous belief in the printed page. When the boy comes to handle the original sources, and to build up his history from them, and to see how his text follows the source, he realizes that the text is but the efforts of man to approach the truth and sometimes lame efforts.

(4) It provides a task for the student, and a task worthy of his mettle. It challenges his intellect rather than his memory. I have had students complain: "You make every problem harder."

(5) It arouses the self-activity of the student to the

extent that no other method in history does. By the wise choice of problems this self-activity is forced to. express itself in an intelligent manner.

(6) It arouses great interest in the class, for it gets attention, and attention is the first pre-requisite of interest. Professor Johnson tells of a teacher who gave her class the problem of learning whether gunpowder was used at the Battle of Crecy, and he said the students became so interested in their problem that they remained several minutes after school to solve it. I have related a similar case of my own experience where the little girl worried over the Spartan women.

(7) But the chief claim that the problem method of presentation makes is that it leads the students to form judgments and to look behind the act for the human motive of the act. The class found the motive of Clisthenes to be selfish. They could also find that Queen Elizabeth had a motive in not becoming a strong religious advocate. If history can teach children to look for the motives that prompt the acts around them, it will have done much to make them observers of human nature, and thus enable them to

care for their own interests better. We have to form more judgments in the social world than in the scientific world. If the problem method in history will enable us to form correct social judgments, it will have increased wonderfully the functional value of history, and will fully justify history in the school curriculum. It is to be hoped that teachers will make a close study of this method, for it is believed that such a study will reveal to them its many advantages and will lead them eventually to more scientific history teaching.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Keatinge, "Studies in the Teaching of History." (Macmillan Co.)

Johnson, "Teaching of History." (Macmillan Co.)
Source Books:

Ancient History: West, "Readings in Ancient History." (Allyn & Bacon.)

European History." (Ginn & Co.)
Medieval and Modern History: Robinson, "Readings in

English History: Cheyney, "Readings in English History." (Ginn & Co.)

American History: Hart, "American History Told by Contemporaries." (Macmillan Co.)

I.

In view of present tendencies one is uncertain whether to speak of the European background of American history or the American foreground of modern European history. Just now we are in a period of transition when the colonial period of American history is being wrenched from its timehonored setting and attached to a foreshortened and somewhat misshapen course in European history, in which English history is also included. Possibly the process had better be likened to skin grafting, where fresh tissue is used to cover up the seared and festering scars of a decrepit past. But whatever the figure there are many loose shreds to show former attachments or still imperfect incorporation.

Whether we call the subject matter under consideration, American colonial history, or term it a phase of European history, it is substantially identical, as the text books readily show. Possibly it has a somewhat richer content, under its new guise, but the problems of selection and emphasis are decidedly more complicated. One may, for some events, gain the advantage that comes from looking forward rather than backward. For instance the teacher may impart a new significance to the Crusades by dwelling more fully upon their ultimate connection with the discovery of America. One might even hint that the coming of the Angles and Saxons in some way af#fected the Puritan Hegira. But the teacher would

naturally emphasize less remote topics such as the ex

pansion of commerce in the Mediterranean following the Crusades; the Rennaissance, with its material as well as intellectual awakening; the Reformation, with its social, dynastic, and political changes, as well as religious modifications; and the chartered company, rooted in medieval guilds and trade associations and destined to expand into the modern corporation with vast capital and unlimited field of action.

II.

In treating these topics the present day high school teacher will, like his conscientious predecessor, point out their bearing upon later American history. He will now have a double incentive to dwell upon these topics for his pupils will not be likely to encounter them in the history course bearing the national label. At the same time under skilful direction the pupil will be led to view the specific events from a much broader angle and thus escape the particularistic attitude that has been the besetting sin of so much teaching in American history.

Even with available text books the student may gain the proper background for appreciating the great intellectual and material expansion of the sixteenth century. He may be led to perceive that the mariner's compass not only aided in shifting the commercial center from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic, but made possible voyages to America and the East Indies; that gunpowder not only hastened the overthrow of feudalism, but assisted in establishing