A somewhat lengthy experience of teaching history to pupils of all ages has brought me, personally, to the conclusion that there is no one "best" method, and that to try to keep to one for any length of time is almost bound to result in dulness and lack of enthusiasm on the part of the pupil.

I do not only mean that the method should vary according to the age and capacity of the pupils-that is, of course, a commonplace of teaching; but that it is equally necessary to vary the lessons in the same form so that the pupil may never be absolutely certain what is in store for him. Monotony of treatment, that bugbear of education, will spoil the most exciting episode of history. And since we have not one aim, but many, to set before us in teaching this particular subject, it is unlikely that one method would touch them all.

First and foremost then, we want to rouse our children to a vivid sense of the glory and splendour of past days, to awaken their interest in men of like flesh and blood with themselves, who lived in troublous times maybe, and climbed by rough ways to the stars. This is, of course, the easiest to attain of all our historical aims. The normal child of any age loves a story, delights to hear what other people are doing or have done, and likes it all the better, in these matter-of-fact days, if it is true. Let us see to it, then, that the picturesque and story element is never wanting in the lesson. And since, either from instincts inherited from bookless ancestors, or because the finest book, being but an artificial product, will never rival the natural living voice, the story will be always more interesting if it comes first from the lips of the teacher instead of from the printed page. So let the stirring episode be told with all wealth of detail and picturesque language that the teacher has at command, and let him, above all, show personal enthusiasm in his subject. The most enthralling description falls very flat and lifeless on the ears of the class if it is told in perfect language, but with a cold and distant manner, as if the interest of the speaker was merely impersonal, and the subject itself. very far removed.

Here, too, the lesson may be varied in many ways. Instead of telling the story, the teacher may set up a picture or a series of pictures on the board, and with a few explanatory words let them tell their own story. Or some historical tale, read at home or in the literature class, may be discussed and its basis of history enlarged upon. Or a clever and imaginative teacher may invent his own tale, in order to make the class realise the actual events he is discussing, and when he has dismissed his fictitious characters for those of real history, he will not often find that interest in the latter has diminished. This may be objected to on the score that history and fable will become mixed in the child's mind. But I think any practical teacher may be trusted to see that this is not the case. In one form or another, then, let our aim be to arouse interest in the human story element first of all. And our next aim touches this very closely ; it should be to inculcate the faculties of reverence and respect, those old-fashioned qualities so fast disappearing

from the younger generation. There is no better subject than history for this purpose. "Let us now praise noble men and our fathers that begat us." But first let us see that the text-books we give our children are on the right lines in this respect. There has crept of late into some of our popular history and literature books a hateful spirit of jocose flippancy, probably arising from the worthy motive of avoiding dulness, but which runs to the other extreme when it leads children to pass the same kind of shallow, mocking criticism on the great institutions and noble characters of the past. For the ready laugh of schoolboy superiority is dearly bought at the price of the spirit of admiration and reverence that says to a right-minded lad, “ Go thou and do likewise."

Perhaps one of the best ways of impressing this spirit on our pupils is to make some of our history lessons almost entirely biographical, and to group all the events of a short period round the most prominent person in it. For example, the first seventeen years of Henry VIII.'s reign would naturally have Wolsey as their centre; the pupils should be made to realise the man, and then they will readily connect with him the different incidents of the time as they affect or are affected by that colossal figure. This will give the opportunity for another change of method. Let the teacher once get his class thoroughly to grasp the character of the central figure, and he will not need to tell the children the details of events; it will be an interesting independent bit of "research" work for them to find these for themselves from any books at their command, and to consider what line concerning them the central figure will take or how they will affect him.

Thus, if the character of Walpole and his social environment be clearly understood, the intricate home and foreign policy of his day becomes distinct and interesting, and can be generally deduced by the pupil himself.

This brings us to our next aim-to encourage the pupil to work for himself, not merely to reproduce the words of his teacher or his book. The examiners of the Local Examinations frequently report that it is the commonest thing in the world to find exactly the same phrases occurring in the answers of one candidate after another, who come from the same school or who use the same text-book. This surely ought not to be.

Independent work and expression are absolutely necessary both as a test of assimilation and as a preliminary training for the actual research which advanced work in history always requires. The great question, indeed, is how to get something of this kind done by pupils of school age. The American plan is to give a subject, and to get each member of the class to read up and bring to the lesson one particular aspect of it.

Personally, I have found this method unworkable save with a very small class of very able pupils. The average child would never know more than his own side of the subject, for the delivery of the other sides of the question would seldom be emphatic enough to arrest attention, and the whole point of the method fails if the teacher gives the entire lesson over again. A more

practical way is to give out the subject beforehand, indicating briefly the chief points of view to be considered, and naming the several books which treat each part of the subject most successfully. The pupils then bring their acquired knowledge to class, and with the help of a few leading questions can be made to give, between them, a fairly full treatment of the subject. This method is, of course, for older pupils with some command of a library, but for the too-numerous “ one-book" children the same plan can be carried out, though on narrower lines. The chief advantages of this method are that the child learns to use a book-a lesson by no means always learnt in school-days; and that he really does the hard work himself instead of lending a more or less polite ear to the result of his teacher's investigations.

This brings us once more to the question of text-books. It is a very common complaint brought against schoolbooks that they are not expressed in sufficiently easy language. But while Johnsonian English, hand in hand with ponderous dulness, is most emphatically to be avoided, it seems a mistake to give even young children books written in such very simple language that they scarcely ever have to grapple with a new word or meet with a novel form of sentence. My own experience is that children love new words if they are not choked with them; and that the history book, if properly related to the history lesson, is one valuable means of enlarging their limited vocabulary.

Besides the want of variety of method, another common cause of lack of interest is that too much time is given to the detailed study of "periods " before a proper perspective of history is obtained. And this brings us face to face at once with the subject of the syllabus, often in itself the whole head and cause of the offence. Too much detail for the Lower, too much exclusively English history for the Middle, too many "lectures" for the Upper Schoolthese are the chief reasons for boredom and dislike. Happily the days are really past when a High School girl could truly say, "I hate history, for history is to me the reign of Henry II. Form after form as I moved up the school I hoped to get on to some one else. But it was always Henry II." Such absolute want of collaboration between the various class-teachers would be impossible nowadays. Yet still we have not quite decided that bold, rapid, brief outlines of events, with rather fuller biographical detail, giving a bird's-eye view of the whole of English history in a year at the rate of two lessons a week, is the best groundwork for the lower classes, even after the "chronological story" stage of the first and second forms has been passed. This "rapid review" would be taken in Lower III. Upper III. and Lower IV. would have a fuller sketch, occupying the two years at the same rate. This would be the time to fill in broad outlines, encourage individual opinions and preferences, and to begin to realise the convenience of "dates." Here, too, is the opportunity for beginning the study of European history. We all scoff at English insularity and prejudice, but teachers are only now realising the inevitable result of teaching children

exclusively the history of their own land, which is about as logical as never mentioning any other geography save that of the British Isles. Directly the child is old enough to realise what a very small part of the world England is, he ought to learn something of her relations with other countries and the outlines of their noble histories. But it is important that the two. subjects should be taught side by side, since one is. always throwing some light on the other. So one lesson a week in each is better than nothing, though two are. better still, and, considering the magnitude of the subject, not an extravagant demand. Then the Middle Forms might begin to study long periods, taking three years over the entire course, and always keeping the history of Europe as an important part of it, and after that, if sufficient time has been given to make this important groundwork thorough, some really good, individua and advanced study of detailed periods might be. expected in the Sixth Form. The last aim we will mention though the list is by no means exhausted-is the cultivation of the child's imagination. Many thoughtful teachers are beginning to realise with dismay that the faculty of imagination is fast disappearing from our midst, and that at an age when it should be naturally most free and vivid it is in many children almost extinct.

We have only ourselves to blame, of course. The lack of good literature, imagination's proper food, snippets" of teaching in all subjects, too much time. given to "exact "work in elementary science and mathe matics, are all tending to make our pupils matter-offact, prosaic, "sensible " perhaps, but neither original nor imaginative. Hence the value is doubled of any subject that can counteract this tendency. Here, of course, I join issue with those who say that history is only valuable when it is taught as a science. This view seems to me to be only very partially true. If it were meant that history should be taught logically, I would be the last to object to that as one among many other methods. If we cannot have logic in our schools, history is perhaps its best equivalent, for it trains the pupil in deduction, in tracing out cause and effect, in finding the universal in the particular, and in all logical methods of thought. But it is much more than a mere science of sociology. It is the living story of humanity, and anything that reduces it to a dead collection of facts, the data of observation and inquiry, does its students a great injustice. If properly taught, the most matter-of-fact child will have to exercise his flagging faculty of imagination in order to see with his mental eye that which the teacher puts before him; and no good teacher will rest till he gets not only words but mind-pictures" from him. For let us be quite clear that history does not consist of words or text-books. It is the life-story of nations, the embodiment of great thoughts in action, and this is why we must insist on its being taught as one of the most living and human of the subjects of the school curriculum.

Correction.-On page 81 of last month's SCHOOL, the name of Mr. Race was wrongly given as Mr. Rose.

SCHOOL

A Monthly Record of

ness of pines and heather, and there in the midst of upwards of a square mile of ground the buildings were erected. On the day the first term opened the heather stretched right up to Great gate; and the first hour's work the boys ever did, is

EDITED BY R. B. LATTIMER
PUBLISHED BY JOHN MURRAY

Single Number 6d. nett

Annual Subscription, 6s., or, post free, 8s.

THE EDITOR invites Contributions or Correspondence on topics of an educational interest. MSS. will be read, and returned, if found not suitable, but no responsibility is taken for accidental loss.

Editorial and Publishing Offices:

50A ALBEMARLE STREET, W.

Advertising Department:

GEO. W. MAY, 29 JOHN ST., BEDFORD ROW, W.C.

Our Schools

XV. Wellington College

"Semper domus floreat Wellingtoniensis." So runs the burthen of the school Carmen, which, issuing from the throats of the boys at concerts and on other convivial occasions, finds a ready echo in the hearts of many who, in past days, themselves formed part of these gatherings.

But for all that, the Carmen is not old; for, unlike many a public school, Wellington does not date back to bygone ages, and number among its great men names that to the general public are scarcely, if anything, more than names, and require a period of centuries to tell its history. And yet in spite of that, or rather for that very reason, its history is all the more interesting. Founded in 1856, as the result of a public subscription to raise a suitable memorial to Arthur, Duke of Wellington, all its history lies in the last fifty years, and the names of its great men are still familiar to all.

Its early days are worth a few words. After deciding that the money should be spent in erecting a college-a previous idea, which was soon abandoned, was the placing of a bronze statue of the Duke in every market-place in England—a site was offered in Berkshire, where there was nothing but a wilder

heather, with the aid of sickles, in order to be able to play a game of hockey.

The first Master was Dr. Benson, Mr. Benson as he then was, and to him belongs the credit of bringing order from chaos, and practically making the school. Before coming to Wellington, he was an assistant master at Rugby, and directly he came he saw the potentialities of the place, recognised the value of its site, and ever pictured in his mind's eye, not the Wellington of which he was the newly appointed first Master, but the great public school of later years. He it was that gave the school its traditions, its dormitory rivalry, its patriotism; and coming as he did from Rugby it is not wonderful, but is nevertheless interesting, that a great deal of the Wellington nomenclature resembles theirs :-we have "Big side "-the top football game and match ground-“first and second belows "-dormitory cricket teams chosen from boys "below" the first game, and many another Rugby survival. In short, when he came, Wellington was nothing but a block of buildings when he left it was a great public school; not so firmly rooted in all its details as, doubtless, he could have wished-only the softening influence of time could effect that-but still, somewhat in the position in which it now stands.

And so in 1873 he started on a new phase of his career and though the college itself is perhaps his best monument, it was thought fitting, at his death, to add the Benson aisle to the chapel, as a particular memorial of his life and work.

It was during this period that the school benefited largely by the advice and help of the Reverend Charles Kingsley, and to him are due the steeplechases that still bear his name.

Naturally, the half-century has made a great difference to the look of the College. Entering the grounds by the main drive, on your right stretches a splendid piece of turf; while that on the left, behind which one catches sight of the swimming bath, and fitful glimpses of the lakes, is mostly used for football. In the distance on the right are the Racquet and Fives courts, and that small building with the boys crowded round it is "Grubby's," where the boys may taste the sweets of life, and the "Games " reap the benefit. Nearer still to