CHAPTER I. HISTORICAL METHODS. The pedagogy of the last half of the nineteenth century differs both in matter and in method from that of the first half. Our age is scientific above all things, and this spirit has permeated, one by one, all branches of instruction. The change in matter has consisted in a revolt against the claims of the classics to a monopoly of all knowledge and all discipline. The revolt was successful and the classics were relegated to their proper place in the new curriculum. Henceforth they are to form a part and not the whole of education. Through the breach thus made new studies entered demanding their share of attention. In truth, some of them demanded more than their share, and for a time, under the influence of the reactionary spirit, the movement threatened to go too far in the opposite direction and to abandon the classics entirely. But the new matter was not more important than the new method. With the sciences came the scientific spirit and the laboratory method. The old method, or lack of method, presided at the birth of the new studies, but the text-book recitation was at first supplemented by experiments performed before the class, and at last by experiments performed by the class, and the change was complete. That the laboratory method was the only method to be employed in teaching the sciences was quite clear; that it had a universal application and might be as readily employed in teaching other subjects, not generally recognized as sciences, was not so clear. The result of this apparent inability to understand the great possibilities in the new method has been a marked absence of progress in the teaching of certain subjects. History, unfortunately, is one of these. I say "unfortunately," for I know of no subject whose right teaching is of more importance, especially for the people of a democracy. And yet it was but natural that history should be one of the last subjects to feel the touch of the scientific influence. Its subject was commonplace-humanity; its material -the every day objects found under the hands and eyes of every human being. Neither subject nor material lent itself readily to scientific treatment. The impulse to change generally comes from the top and it was only in the last generation that the historical method was sufficiently developed to make it possible for the great teachers of history to give that impulse. But at last the impulse has been given and is making pits way throuh our whole system. Up to the present time, however, it has made the greatest progress in the universities and better colleges and has not produced a very deep impression upon the secondary schools. Yet the signs are not lacking to prove that the time has come for energetic and systematic work in the grades below the college, and these signs are nowhere more numerous than in Nebraska. The enthusiasm shown in the last meeting of the State Teachers' Association, in the district associations, in the summer institutes and summer schools, and the readiness displayed by city and county superintendents to forward the movement, demonstrate to my mind the readiness of the teachers of Nebraska to hear the gospel preached and to do their part in improving the teaching of history in the state. An attempt has been made to organize the movement, and an association has been formed called "The Association of Nebraska Teachers of History." Every teacher of history in Nebraska should be a member of this association. Membership costs nothing and is simply an evidence of interest in the work and proof of willingness to co-operate in making it a success. There is a secretary for each district and under-secretaries will be appointed for the counties. The work of these secretaries will be to solicit membership, distribute matter on methods, and to gather information that may be helpful in teaching history. The NORTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF EDUCATION will be the official journal of the association and through its columns Professor Caldwell will advise the Reading Circle in its work in American history, and a series of articles. on the teaching of general history will run through the year. It is the intention to give a short sketch of the "History of the Teaching of History," to deal in a general way with "Historical Methods," and then to indicate, month by month, in the treatment of American and European history how these methods may be applied in studying and in teaching history. What is History? A good definition of history is not easy to find, but perhaps one of the best is that given by Bernheim: "History is the science of the evolution of man in his activity as a social being. Let us examine the definition carefully and endeavor to get at its meaning. In the first place, it is claimed that history is a science, that is, a body of systematized knowledge. If, as has been recently affirmed, there is no science but exact science and natural science, and man is excluded from the realm of nature, this claim cannot be allowed. But I am inclined to think that all sciences are not equally exact, and that if the term "natural" be used to exclude man, then there are sciences that are not natural sciences. I am also inclined to think that man is as natural as any other animal. The refusal to concede to history a place among the sciences may have had some weight a hundred years ago, but it has none to-day. "Knowledge is science in the degree in which it can be subjected to method and law and so rendered comprehensible and certain. Under this test history must surely be assigned the rank of a science, though confessedly inexact and as yet but partially wrought out." But what science is absolutely exact or completely wrought out? All are in a state of flux, and are more or less inexact and incomplete. History is one of the late comers. Its greater incompleteness and inexactness as a science is due to its complexity and to the fact that its development depends so largely upon the development of a considerable number of auxiliary sciences. We note in the second place that history is the "science of the evolution of man." History is no longer a simple teller of stories; the muse has set herself a sterner task. We are conscious that the society. of to-day differs from the society of one thousand years ago. An evolution has taken place and it is the work of the historian to trace this evolution through all its phases. It should be noted, further, that it is not simply the evolution of the American, or of the Englishman, but the evolution of all men. This idea is too new to be fully realized, but in the period of African, Chinese, and Japanese wars, it should be evident to the most superficial observer that history, universal history, has for its theater the whole globe and for its actors all mankind. The last point in the definition to be considered is the fact that history has to do with all the activities of man as a social being. History is not simply "past politics." It is that and something more, for in order to understand the meaning of the social evolution of man, all the expressions of man's life in society must. be considered, whether these expressions be political, economic, literary, artistic, or religious. It is with man's social life in its completeness that the historian has to do. The Sources of History. The historian then attempts to describe the evolution of the society of which he himself forms a part. But how can this evolution be traced? The old Greeks, Romans, and Germans, are long since dead and cannot be called back to life that we may study their civilization. That civilization must be reconstructed, but how and from what material? Shall we allow full play to our imaginations and call the result an historical reconstruction? Such a history would have as much value as the work of a botanist who had never studied plant life. There is but one way to reconstruct the life of the past and that is from the remains of the past. Everything that has come down from the past must be used in reconstructing the past. These remains are called historical sources. As the word "history" is applied indiscriminately to both the fact and the record of the fact, it is of the utmost importance that, at the very outset, we draw the line sharply between the two. historical fact is what actually did happen in all its fullness and truthfulness; the record of the fact is the belief of certain persons as to what happened. It is self-evident that the fact and the record of the fact may be quite different things. In truth, they generally are quite different and never can be exactly the same. If this last assertion be correct, then we can never know exactly what happened at a certain time and in a certain place and it is evident that absolute historical truth is beyond our reach. The An examination of the way in which the record is made will make more clear the truth of the above statement. An event takes place and is gone. One or more persons make a record of it. Our knowledge of the event is obtained from the record. If it be inexact or incomplete we are helpless, for the event will not take place again. It cannot be conjured up a second time and induced to move slowly that we may catch its slightest peculiarity. The botanist, the chemist, and |