DEPARTMENT REPORTS. 69 



the divisions of the subject. It is assumed that modern history is of 

 more importance to the student than ancient history; hence English 

 history is given first, nineteenth century history in the freshman year, 

 European history in the sophomore, early European in the junior, while 

 an elective in United States history is offered in the senior year. 



Practical usefulness and pedagogical worth unite in selecting the 

 history of our own people as the crowning portion of a course in history. 

 Its superior utility to the would-be citizen is obvious, while to our own 

 students it is the only history in which the benefits from handling the 

 original sources of history are possible. Two general methods of work 

 compete with each other in all the fields of this study, one known as 

 the English, the other as the German method. ''The English method," 

 says Professor Hart of Harvard, "aims to ground students in well- 

 chosen secondary books, which they are to read, assimilate, and com- 

 pare, and the divergences between which they must note, though they 

 have not the means to reconcile them." 



"The opposing method," he says, "expects some knowledge of the 

 original material. The student's work is based upon some rather brief 

 text-book, or combination of books, but from all students collateral use 

 of sources is required. The English method may be compared to an 

 orderly ship canal going straight to the end, with an ascertained depth 

 of water, but always shallow and confined; the other method to a 

 natural river, abounding in deep pools, with many branches and un- 

 fordable places, but winding among human habitations and giving 

 glimpses of human life." 



The utility of this latter method in studying advanced United States 

 history is readily seen. To begin with, the student has already the 

 common places of our history in his mind when he takes up the study. 

 The records of congress and reports of state papers, records of the 

 constitutional and state conventions, presidental messages, contem- 

 porary newspapers, and private correspondence — all this, well arranged 

 for studying purposes, is easily found at the student's disposal in our 

 library. I sometimes imagine that a dexterity in doing this sort of 

 work is possessed by our students through the practice of handling 

 materials at first-hand in their scientific studies. Certain it is, at any 

 rate, that freshness and interest is given to historical study by this 

 method of work. 



At the risk, perhaps, of being thought insistent on trifles, I wish to 

 say a few words concerning the conduct of the work between teacher 

 and student. English history is taught here for a well-defined purpose 

 — briefly to trace the growth among the English-speaking peoples of our 

 characteristic institutions and forces. Free religion, free speech, free 

 press, parliamentary government, and world expansion are the things 

 emphasized. Elaborate note book work and map making are the 

 auxilaries to the text in this study. In European history the text is 

 aided mainly by extended reference reading. 



Every fashion of assigning references has, I think, been indulged in 

 bv the historv teachers at this college, to the final exclusion of all save 

 the one now in use. The generality with which reference work as a 

 class device is employed excuses, perhaps, some examination of the 

 practice. It was first thought suSicient in our emj^loyment of refer- 



