history as a science in the extreme interpretation of the German. The effort to discover laws for social evolution-exact laws as found in natural science-was abandoned early in the history of the science of history. It is not an underlying law or cause or agency that the scientific historian is seeking. It is the activities of human society in the past. The scientific historian in America defines history as does Professor Burr when he gives the central tasks of history: "Her method is research, her theme human experience and human effort, her aim to portray." The war emphasized this method. This must continue to be the method through which history is to be interpreted if the war or the experiences of the nations involved are to be understood.

With the demand of the war upon its historians to discover and present truth in a scientific way came the demand to make use of that truth. This suggested the old idea of history as a guide, a warning, a moral lesson, an incentive to patriotism. The scientific historian, when he has dealt with human experience and human effort, when he has found his truth and has portrayed and interpreted it, has considered his task done. Is this demand for such an interpretation the old philosophy of history? Not in the sense of history as a theological unity, a unity with God in it, which leads to divine right, to the discovery of some predetermined good, and in general to the laying of much blame upon God because of man's heinous misinterpretation of His purpose. Neither is it the old conception that history should cultivate the moral and spiritual nature. No course of study of such a nature would be accepted. Yet the truth which the science of history has revealed is to be considered for its moral worth and for its constructive value in the making of men and of citizens.

The war taught us to teach the nature and course of German and European history, to discover what was wrong with Europe and to avoid that wrong. The war taught us to teach the nature and course of our own history seriously, to discover the principles for which we stood. Our institutions are right, we hope, but they are not right because they are ours. In the sense of human betterment they are the nearest right that we have been able to evolve. The very war teaches itself not alone as a scientific fact with a scientific interpretation but as a lesson of criminal ambition, of ruthless waste of life and property with

resulting distress, poverty, social degradation and chaos. Because of it the United States must learn what is to be taught at home and how to teach it. For a long time, also, she is to be largely responsible for right ideas and decisions to the world.

In content, the effects of the war upon the teaching of history should be:

First, a clearer conception than before that the economic, industrial, social, and moral concerns of men are more vital to the happiness and safety of society and to the welfare of the state than are political organization and protective strength. The former are the forces that touch and make safe or unsafe the life of the individual. History has revealed that states have endured or crumbled according as the lives of their citizens were clean and capable and free to act.

Second, a new emphasis upon modern history for its ability to reveal the world of the present and because it is the last act in the drama of human experience. There are two approaches to the emphasis in the teaching of modern history. The first is by a short cut through ancient and medieval history to the modern. This is made in order that modern history may have the favor in point of time and at the same time there be preserved the order of development in history. The second approach is made by abandoning the chronological in history and following what some critics call the logical. The history, or rather the life, of the present is attacked, and since the present can be understood only through a knowledge of the past and how the present came to be, each point of interest is followed back to its source.

Third, the preservation of a study in ancient and medieval history to preserve the cultural value arising from a knowledge of these civilizations and to see the movement of human experience and human effort from the beginning. It is the preservation of the study of the past for the sake of the past.

Fourth, a study of statesmen and their policies as an interpretation of the study of the national life of a people. The war has made such a study something more than the former biographical approach to history. By it history is vitalized and becomes real. National policies are revealed and world movements are made known through the letters and state papers of national and international statesmen. The study of the personnel of the

British ministry from 1760 to 1783, of the reactionary policy of George III, of the economic purposes and political philosophy of the colonial leaders, tells the story of the American revolution in its truest light. English statesmen of the conservative and liberal faith of the past century are true reflections of the development of Britain's imperial expansion on the one side, and her constitutional democracy on the other side.

Fifth, the consideration of European history- a history not alone of the states of Europe but of these states taken together. Adjacent territory, parallel social conditions, common economic interests, furnish a basis for a common history. Under the present interpretation of the relation of these states it may be a history of future wars. Studied with the viewpoint of their mutual interests and understandings, it may be a history of peace for Europe.

Sixth, the study of American history and American institutions for Americans. The war has shown the necessity of this for the American born and much more and with different plans for the alien.

Seventh, the development of the already appreciated old and new pan-Americanism. There is a new interest in the study of Spanish American colonies and of the Latin American states. There is a keener appreciation of the relation of these states and of the part which the United States has played and is to play in pan-American history.

Eighth, the study of international relations. The world was far on in the development of the international mind before the great war. From every standpoint there has come to be a world history. Whatever may be the present attitude of the United States toward the league of nations, it is clear that circumstances of industry and trade, ideals in society and government, make it impossible again to follow our policy of isolation. We cannot-we do not wish to.

FRANKLIN, INDIANA

HERRIOTT CLARE PALMER

THE TRIALS OF A HISTORY TEACHER

When I was asked to read a paper before the history teachers' section of the Mississippi valley historical association my answer was something like this: "I have no subject in mind. What shall I select?" It was suggested to me that I present a brief paper on the trials of a history teacher. I mention this to dispel the thought, if such has arisen, that I have some particular vicissitudes to proclaim, hoping thereby to find consolation and rest for a weary soul in the bosom of my fellow workers. Not at all. I suppose, however, that none of the profession is altogether free from certain petty annoyances which in more pessimistic moods may assume the aspect of trials. Some of the things I mention may seem trivial. Perhaps they are. I am not sure that the word "trials" is the proper word to employ in connection with them but I shall hold to it nevertheless, acting upon the theory that if you have made a bad bargain you should stick to it all the more closely.

I shall first introduce you to an oral quiz. The history instructor announces a topic and calls upon a student to discuss it. The student stumbles about for half a minute and then stops. The instructor calls upon other students to contribute to the discussion, with similar results. What happens then? You know before I tell you. Minute questions are asked, and by slow degrees the desired information is extracted from the class. Why does the history teacher in college have to spend himself thus as he so often does? The answer is easy. The student does not know how to study. It may be that he has been taught to lean upon an outline or to rely upon guidance questions. When thrown upon his own resources he is helpless. At any rate he has not learned how to take assigned readings on some subject, extract essential points, and group matters of less importance around them. All the facts on the printed page look the same. I am not accusing anybody. I have been as guilty as anyone in failing to correct this shortcoming. But I am convinced that it would be a saving of energy in the long run for

even the history teacher in the college to take a little time to teach the students how to study when he discovers that they do not know how.

In an examination recently given to a college class just completing a course in the recent history of the United States the instructor learned that Joseph Cannon was a senator from Ohio, that Champ Clark is the present speaker of the house of representatives, that Robert Lansing is President Wilson's secretary of war, that he is the secretary of the interior, that John Hay is the present secretary of state and was a member of the peace commission, and that Robert H. Gillet is the inventor of a wellknown safety razor. Was this not enough to add several years to that instructor's age? What was the trouble? In two or three of the above instances the students were asked to identify names that had not been mentioned in class. These students had not been reading and keeping up with the times. It is my humble opinion that every student, even before entering college, should have acquired the habit of reading at least one good periodical in addition to the daily paper. At any rate this should be one of the earliest acquisitions of the college student. I presume all history teachers have at times been sorely tried by the most glaring evidences of ignorance of some of the most common facts of history. Is it safe to assume a knowledge of anything, even that "in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue"? Sometimes I have been led to doubt it. What do you think of the plan of giving a brief written test at the beginning of the term or semester in order to determine at the outset the students' familiarity with some of the common facts of the period or subject to be covered? It would, I believe, give the instructor some idea of the plane upon which to pitch the course. The writer had the experiment tried on him several years ago by an honored member of this association. It was at the beginning of a course in government and politics. A few simple facts that anybody ought to know were asked us. Not long ago I employed the same method in a class just taking up the study of the colonial period and the revolution. I discovered this much, that I would not be teaching the majority of that class something they already knew by requiring them to learn who William Bradford and John Winthrop were and what historical significance is attached to Watauga and the Wilderness road.