may be aroused in the Greeks, and like Petrarch, they may learn to venerate even if they are unable to comprehend their literature. Or again, it is not everyone who is gifted with the artistic sense, and appreciation of the great masters in painting is not instinctive with the majority of Englishmen. I remember being in the Accademia at Venice when a distinguished English soldier was in the gallery. I saw him go into the little room where the masterpieces of Giovanni Bellini are preserved. A moment afterwards he reappeared. "There is nothing but Madonnas in that room," he said gloomily to his companion, and walked disconsolately away. Here, again, history might help such a one. If a person has studied the history of the Renaissance period, he could not fail-even if he was inartistic-to take an interest in the evolution of the art of the Renaissance, and in its various forms as developed in the different States; and he might have learned why the pictures of Bellini's period are chiefly religious. My point, perhaps, is obscure, but it is this: Through the study of history, a person may have interests in a people without understanding its literature, or may appreciate buildings and pictures though he may be without the feelings of an artist A study of history should again, above all, develop broadness of judgment and broadness of sympathy; and it ought to do something to break down the self-sufficiency-not only confiued to the English boy-which labels every subject that is not congenial as "rot." And a taste for history once acquired is a taste for life. It is at once one's delight and despair that one can never hope to exhaust all periods, and hardly hope even to acquire sufficient material to know intimately one epoch. Fuller knowledge, new evidence, cause one ever to revise one's judgments of men and of events, and to look upon subjects from ever fresh points of view. But, it may be urged, if the study of history is to provide all this information and to arouse all these interests, is not an ideal teacher required and an ideal boy? Parents are decidedly of opinion that in our public schools every teacher is not an ideal one, and schoolmasters decidedly of opinion that though each parent thinks his boy an ideal one, all boys are not ideal. How can any one teacher be expected to supply the encyclopædic knowledge, the enthusiasm, the imagination, the breadth of view, the variety of interests, the clearness of intellect and lucidity of expression required? And then some boys, by heredity or by home training, are, in Matthew Arnold's phraseology, such Philistines or such Barbarians that they will never have any intellectual interests at any period of their lives. Others are too stupid, or perhaps too superior, or too much devoted to other subjects to profit by history; and how can any one teacher be equally successful with both the stupid and the clever, the imaginative and the prosaic, the idle and the industrious boy; to stir, as Mr. Asquith said of Jowett, intellectual lethargy into action, and yet be able to reduce intellectual conceit to a condition of abashed silence? I do not profess to find an answer to these arguments, and most masters are too conscious of their own deficiencies-and of those of their divisions-to deny their force. But, after all, they apply to the teachers of all other subjects in a greater or less degree; and a teacher, if he is keen and a believer in the value of his own subject, though he may exaggerate the power of that subject when in the hands of what he regards as an ideal teacher, probably is himself doing more good than he thinks himself individually capable of achieving. Again, it may be urged that the parents who write about public schools and their failings often seem to expect their sons to leave school with the intellectual tastes and activities of a cultured man of forty. A distinguished educationist has said that there are some studies which must be left till, and some tastes which ought to be developed after, the school career is over. Is not history, it may be urged, one of these studies? Probably most people will agree that it is not. For one thing, history is not an easy subject for a man to take to casually in later life, even if he is a man of leisure. It is not easy for a man who begins by knowing little or no history to construct a framework into which he can fit new knowledge, nor will it be without considerable mental effort. Moreover the grammar, the elementary facts of history, ought to be learnt at an early age when some measure of coercion can be applied. The Prime Minister is of opinion that the only way to enjoy any work of literature is with one's foot on the hearth; and probably the majority of us, when we have any leisure, would never read in any other way. One can understand a man reading Homer in that position, though it is almost inconceivable that he would be prepared to study the verbs in -μι Similarly, though one might read Macaulay with pleasure with the foot on the hearth, one would hardly begin to learn the dates of the kings of England or of France, unless indeed one had the same passion for exercising one's memory as Macaulay himself. There may be a few, like Cato, who will begin learning Greek at the age of eighty, or a few, like Mary the Second, who will begin to learn constitutional history when over thirty; but it may safely be affirmed of the great majority that they will do nothing of the kind. useful information, and may give to some tastes and interests for their later life, will, I think, not be denied. But after all the chief object of education is to develop, to discipline, to draw forth the powers of the growing mind, and any subject which fails to do this must occupy only a subordinate place in any scheme of education. And it is often asserted that history cannot give the brain any intellectual exercise or discipline. That seems to have been the opinion of the Public Schools Commissioners in 1864, for in their report they say: "To gain an elementary knowledge of history little more is required than some sustained but not very laborious efforts of memory: it may therefore be acquired easily and without any mental exercise of much value." That is the opinion of so attractive an historian and so experienced a teacher as Mr. C. R. L. Fletcher of Oxford, who apparently— from the preface to his recent Introductory History of Englund-regards the study of history as merely the acquisition of information, and as no instrument of education. Of course, if a boy is regarded as a sort of pitcher to be filled up with a certain number of useful facts, history will remain merely an exercise for the memory; but it seems to me that the study of history can be made, and should be made, a most valuable instrument for teaching a boy to express himself on paper in his own language. This can be done through written answers to questions and through historical essays. It is sometimes forgotten what ૧ great variety of questions may be asked. Some, of course, may be set merely for the purpose of testing a boy's knowledge; each question may require only one word as an answer, or three or four lines. Questions which are set for this object ought only to require short answers, not so much because they may That history will provide for all boys take up too much of the boy's time if they are longer, but because otherwise they take up too much of the master's in looking over. But history questions should, as a rule, have as their object not merely to elicit a boy's information, but also to test and develop his abilities. The object of a history question should be to teach a boy in a limited time how to disentangle from a mass of material the particular facts which he requires; how to arrange these facts so as to bring them to bear upon the particular question in the most effective order; how to argue from facts, or how to use them as illustrations, so that he may state his opinions convincingly and keep to the point; and finally, how to express his meaning concisely, forcibly, and attractively. The boy who can write an answer with these characteristics will at any rate have learnt an accomplishment which will be of value to him in afterlife; but I do not for a moment pretend that all boys can be taught. The answers of some boys are always dull; other boys seem incapable of keeping to the point, or will, at the end of an answer, arrive at precisely the opposite conclusion to that which was intended when they began. Some are without any sense of style, others err from excess of it. Some boys, when they catch sight of any question which does not require a bald statement of facts, think that if they cover a sufficiently large area of paper with rhetorical and empty sentences they have done all that is required, and others will narrate facts instead of using them for argument or illustration. But I think that practice in these questions always leads to improvement, and that they do provide a valuable mental training, And the questions themselves should show variety. They may be on constitutional points and require great clearness and accuracy of statement; or a comparison or contrast of two reigns or two carcers which require a boy to arrange points of similarity or difference; or an estimate of the greatness of some statesman or general; or a character-sketch; or an exposition of the causes and results of a particular policy or a particular war. Of course the time limit of these questions differs; a question may require an answer of a quarter of an hour or an answer of an hour. The Oxford and Cambridge Higher Certificate Papers generally provide good examples of the former class. Take, for instance, such questions as these on the Tudors and Stuarts: Was Henry the Eighth a despot? Contrast the ecclesiastical changes under Henry the Eighth with those under Edward the Sixth. Which made the worse mistakes, the Protector, Somerset or Mary? How far was the Spanish War under Elizabeth due to religious differences and how far to commercial and other considerations? "The Great Rebellion was primarily a religious war." Discuss this statement. What made it seem likely at the outbreak of the Civil War that the Parliament would soon overpower the Royalists, and why did this not happen? Compare the foreign policy of Oliver Cromwell with that pursued by England under Charles the Second. Is it your opinion that Cromwell's rule as Protector was marked by (a) ability, (b) consistency? Give illustrations. Which contained more points of novelty, the Bill of Rights or the Act of Settlement? Some of these are of course hard questions, and would only be suitable to boys in the upper forms of schools; but even in the middle and lower forms questions should always be set which will exercise the reason as well as the memory. Again, for boys who are in the highest forms or who are making history one of their chief subjects, an answer of three-quarters of an hour is an ad mirable intellectual exercise. When the division is quite a small one-some eight or nine-it is a good plan for each boy to read aloud his own answer and for the others to criticise it at the end; boys are generally aware of one another's shortcomings, and some lively discussion is often the result. When the division is a large one, each boy can exchange his answer with that of his neighbor and write a criticism upon it. The weak boys improve from the example of others; and the slack boy is generally put on his mettle when he knows the fate in store for his production. Some of the papers set at the scholarship examinations are good examples of the type of question required. Take, for instance, such questions as these from the papers of an Oxford College on ancient history: Compare Pericles with the younger Pitt. Which did more injury to Athens, Cleon or Nicias? Illustrate from Greek history after 413 B. C. the strong and the weak points of the Spartan character. "Alexander the great was no mere vulgar conqueror." Discuss this view. At what date in Roman history do you suppose there was most order and prosperity in Italy? Can Cicero be justly called the hero of a nation? Why has the age of the Antonines been deemed one of the brightest periods in the world's history? Or on more modern history: "The Revolution of 1689 was one of the accidents of history." Discuss this view. "Louis the Fourteenth was the evil genius of his time." Discuss this. Why was the eighteenth century a period of great Continental wars? Compare and contrast Walpole and the elder Pitt. "The events are great, but the men are very small." Discuss this phrase used by Mirabeau of the French Revolution. To what extent is it true to say that England played the main part in the struggle against Napoleon? Illustrate from the campaigns of 1797 and 1815 the main principles of Napoleon's strategy. Again, if one has a keen division and one which is not large, it is a good plan to choose some book, get some fifty pages read each week, and set questions upon it. Such books-when the boys have to read a good deal-should not be burdened with a mass of facts, and should be stimulating and provocative books, books having decided opinions which a boy may either attack or support. It is the fashion now to decry Macaulay, but his Essays are excellent for this purpose; their very demerits make them all the more suitable; and if the teacher himself is a Tory, there is no danger of Macaulay's prejudices passing without comment. Boys like the certainty with which Macaulay-as was said by Leslie Stephen-hits a haystack; not till they are much older will some of them begin to agree with Matthew Arnold that -if the change of metaphor may be excused-Macaulay's chief characteristic is a perpetual semblance of hitting the right nail on the head without the reality; and even Matthew Arnold admitted that Macaulay is pre-eminently fitted to give pleasure to all who are beginning to feel enjoyment in the things of the mind. Or a book may be taken such as Mr. Oman's Seven Roman Statesmen, in which opinions are always forcibly expressed, though professed Roman historians do not always agree with them. Besides these questions there are historical essays which a boy does out of school. The looking over of these essays will be found a severe tax on the teacher's time. Personally, I am of opinion that to look over a boy's essay with the boy by your side is much more expeditious, effective, and interesting than to give the essay back with written corrections; one can talk quicker than one can write; one can find out how much a boy has read or they are longer, but because otherwise they take up too much of the master's in looking over. But history questions should, as a rule, have as their object not merely to elicit a boy's information, but also to test and develop his abilities. The object of a history question should be to teach a boy in a limited time how to disentangle from a mass of material the particular facts which he requires; how to arrange these facts so as to bring them to bear upon the particular question in the most effective order; how to argue from facts, or how to use them as illustrations, so that he may state his opinions convincingly and keep to the point; and finally, how to express his meaning concisely, forcibly, and attractively. The boy who can write an answer with these characteristics will at any rate have learnt an accomplishment which will be of value to him in afterlife; but I do not for a moment pretend that all boys can be taught. The answers of some boys are always dull; other boys seem incapable of keeping to the point, or will, at the end of an answer, arrive at precisely the opposite conclusion to that which was intended when they began. Some are without any sense of style, others err from excess of it. Some boys, when they catch sight of any question which does not require a bald statement of facts, think that if they cover a sufficiently large area of paper with rhetorical and empty sentences they have done all that is required, and others will narrate facts instead of using them for argument or illustration. But I think that practice in these questions always leads to improvement, and that they do provide a valuable mental training, And the questions themselves should show variety. They may be on constitutional points and require great clearness and accuracy of statement; or a comparison or contrast of two reigns or two careers which require a boy to arrange points of similarity or difference; or an estimate of the greatness of some statesman or general; or a character-sketch; or an exposition of the causes and results of a particular policy or a particular war. Of course the time limit of these questions differs; a question may require an answer of a quarter of an hour or an answer of an hour. The Oxford and Cambridge Higher Certificate Papers generally provide good examples of the former class. Take, for instance, such questions as these on the Tudors and Stuarts: Was Henry the Eighth a despot? Contrast the ecclesiastical changes under Henry the Eighth with those under Edward the Sixth. Which made the worse mistakes, the Protector, Somerset or Mary? How far was the Spanish War under Elizabeth due to religious differences and how far to commercial and other considerations? "The Great Rebellion was primarily a religious war." Discuss this statement. What made it seem likely at the outbreak of the Civil War that the Parliament would soon overpower the Royalists, and why did this not happen? Compare the foreign policy of Oliver Cromwell with that pursued by England under Charles the Second. Is it your opinion that Cromwell's rule as Protector was marked by (a) ability, (b) consistency? Give illustrations. Which contained more points of novelty, the Bill of Rights or the Act of Settlement? Some of these are of course hard questions, and would only be suitable to boys in the upper forms of schools; but even in the middle and lower forms questions should always be set which will exercise the reason as well as the memory. Again, for boys who are in the highest forms or who are making history one of their chief subjects, an answer of three-quarters of an hour is an ad |