rious, that it actually requires a greater breadth of culture than any other? Is it not, then, true that the teacher is the prime factor, that intelligence, earnestness, enthusiasm from a genuine love of the work, and a definite comprehension of the ends to be gained, are essential-that the teacher should be always a student? One superintendent once said in an earnest talk that a teacher generally gets what she expects. I want to add that he gets what he gives. Will the ideal teacher and his pupils be content to read and compare the results of the investigations of even the ablest historians, when the materials from which their deductions were drawn are within the reach of all? No more than the student of any other science will be satisfied with the descriptions of apparatus and accounts of results achieved by experts. A live teacher will acquaint himself with the sources of history, with the people who are the subject of his thought, their environments and their products (their monuments, their art, and their literature). According to their ability he may lead his pupils into the same work. Such a contact with the genuine sources stimulates them to seek secondary authorities. It gives them a live interest in real things, leads them to think, to reason, to discriminate as to what is true and vital, disciplines the mind 'and develops character. For this reason alone it should receive favorable consideration in the high school.

Does it meet the other demand, the acquisition of knowledge? It is true that pupils have not so much to forget as by other methods, but what they do acquire is their own, and they are able to use it in the accumulation of more.

In the study of a people, they will have acquired a knowledge of their customs, the details and development of their institutions, much of how they thought and strove through all the periods of their history, and the results of all.

In a four years' course many high schools are giving a year to the history of Greece and Rome, a half a year each to English, French, and Mediæval history, and a year to American history and civics. Small collections of sources are made for each of these subjects and may be obtained at moderate cost whenever those of the text are insufficient.

High school pupils are not mature enough to select their own sources; therefore this work must be done by the teacher with a care to give them only such as they can use, but with

the knowledge that they are but bits of an inexhaustible store. Mrs. Barnes covers sufficient ground; but I find that additional evidence from the sources enlivens and gives zest to the every-day work. As yet we have the method approved for Greece and Rome; but it seems to me that all the reasons for using the sources in the study of Greece and Rome will apply fourfold to modern history. The nearer we approach our own time, the more abundant and accessible is the material.

If only one subject can be taught by this method in the high school, it should be American history; if two, then English history, and so on; but why not all?

The objections urged are lack of material, the labor to the teacher, and the immaturity of the pupil. None of these objections are made by people who have entered upon the work. The best teachers of history by other methods have met these same difficulties with less means of overcoming them. All we ask of a conscientious teacher of history is that he investigate the subject, make himself acquainted with what others are doing, and apply the principles of education to the last subject to be reached by them.

To such a teacher we want to recommend Barnes' Historical Studies, just published by Heath & Co., for its excellent presentation of this method, as well as for the references to source material.

Soule photographs of the ruins and monuments of history, which may be procured in blue print at one cent each.

Outline maps for use in recitation. The illustration of the note-book, with maps and pictures, either original drawings or selected pictures, and the collection of pictures from papers and magazines.

I have been asked to report on the success of the work in high schools. From letters received from enthusiastic teachers in the state, I judge that they think it the only true method. My actual observation is confined to my own work, of which I may not be the best judge, but I will say that I could not conscientiously employ any other method.

I think I have been met with every objection that can be urged to it, and my faith in it is stronger than ever as the only scientific method.

It is taking history out of the insignificant place that it has had, and is making it a subject of highest importance on account of its educational value.

CHAPTER VIII.

INTERPRETATION OF THE

REVOLUTIONARY ERA. OUT

LINES-TALKS WITH TEACHERS.

End of First Period.

In a general way it may be said that the first period of American history ended with the close of the French and Indian war in 1763. The continent at that time was divided between the English, who held all of North America east of the Mississippi river, and the Spanish, who claimed the rest of the continent. During this period, from 1600 to 1763, the colonies had been founded and their character determined. Some of their social and political characteristics have been illustrated by extracts from the laws and other documents of the three typical colonies of Virginia, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. It is not claimed that the extracts given are sufficient in themselves to give an adequate conception of the entire life of the people, but it is believed that these extracts will help to make our knowledge more concrete, and at the same time will give many a pupil an idea of the meaning of а source" in a more understandable way than any mere description could possibly do.

Tendencies.

A few of the more important characteristics have been discussed in brief. These main ideas may be said to include the tendency towards democracy, and the dual movement towards union and particularism at the same time, if we may conceive of such a paradox. At least it is true that these two forces were found side by side, and certain factors were intensifying one, while other factors were strengthening the other force.

These three tendencies, (1) towards democracy, (2) towards union, and (3) towards localism, are among the most powerful forces with which we shall have to deal in our study of the next period-the Revolutionary Period.

Uses of Word Revolution.-The First Real American. The American Revolution, to be fully understood, must be looked at from various points of view. In the first place and in the most comprehensive conception, it includes the years from 1763 to 1815, for it was during these years that the "provincial" spirit was being transformed into the "American" spirit. To be sure, at the beginning of this period the colonists had already under the new environal forces varied somewhat from the European types. They were, as we have already seen, more democratic, less controlled by tradition, perhaps more self reliant, aggressive, and individualistic; however, when all has been said, they were yet only modified Europeans. Their ideas and standards were set on the other side the sea. There was not a new people yet formed. The characteristics of the colonists were only variations of those of their European contemporaries. The Virginia gentleman was only a modified English landlord. The Puritan of New England was not essentially different in his way of looking at things from his brother Puritan in Scotland or England. By 1815 this was all changed; at least, changed to such an extent that the whole tone of life had taken on a new coloring. The American was born. Relationships to Europe were incidental, not fundamental. The standards of judgments were not borrowed; they were created. The American had a selfconfidence, and a self-consciousness which amounted almost to egotism. To be sure, this new born national life was immature, and on the whole resented criticism; yet the forces which were guiding development came from within, and were not dependent on foreign rela

tionships. In general, then, we may say that in this broad sense the American Revolution meant the formation of a new type of man, a new race, a new civilization, based, of course, on the past, but differing from any then in existence. This new American life first became conscious of itself in the struggles of the War of 1812, and the events which led up to it; the European first knew that a new "great power" was to be counted with in this same struggle. We see, then, that in this fundamental conception the War of 1812 was in truth the second war of independence. It emancipated the American from European tutelage; it gave him self-respect and respect abroad. The colonists in 1763 had parted so far from their European traditions that they could not remain in touch with the mother country; yet it was not till a new generation, born and bred on independent soil, came to the helm of state and society, that the separation was complete, and the conditions would allow this new nation to work out its own destiny. America then did not become free in 1776, or in 1783; the real American did not exist in 1776, or in 1787; he is a conscious being only in 1815. It is to be noted that the true American is first conscious of himself in the West. He is "typed" in Clay, Jackson, Porter, Lowndes, and Calhoun, rather than in Hamilton, Madison, or even Washington, Jefferson, or Adams.

The Revolutionary War.

In a narrower sense the American Revolution may mean the years of physical contest, the years 17751783. The one essential element here contended for was political rights. First, as part of the British state, and when these rights could not be obtained thus, then as a separate state. There was no conscious revolt against the form of government. George III. and monarchy were not objected to; the House of Lords and aristocracy were not an issue at stake. Their rights as Eng