In the first place, nobody is attempting "to teach history wholly from the sources" and as a consequence, the advocates of the "source method" are not ignorant of "the fact that the actual knowledge of the facts of history in the minds of the most highly trained teachers of history comes largely"-more largely probably than is necessary "from secondary books." In an article published in the Academy (September, 1890), one member of the committee described and advocated the "source method." "A third general aim," said the writer, should be to train the student to do independent work. This can be done by putting into the hands of the students, even of high-school boys and girls, a certain amount of original material. The amount as well as the kind must vary with the nature of the school and the time given to the subject, but to pupils of even the lowest grade the Constitution of the United States must be something more than "what is in the back of the book;" the Declaration of Independence must teach him why the colonies revolted, and his Iliad must show him the condition of society in the Homeric age. The best working outfit for every grade is a text-book containing a brief outline of fact, supplemented by original documents, selected with reference to to the needs of special classes.” What better description could be given of the SheldonBarnes "Studies?" The relation between the The relation between the facts and the sources is a matter of proportion, a practical question and not a question of theory. The advocates of the "source-method" believe in basing the work, as far as practical, on the sources. Whether, in the treatment of a certain period, there should be more source extracts, or more condensed statement of fact is a thing to be settled not by theory but by practice. True, the source extracts must be selected: so must the illustrations in a narrative text and the first process is just as legitimate as the second. The arguments made against the use of source extracts (p. 101 of Report) would apply equally well to a narrative text. The teacher that allows a pupil to generalize upon the informa

tion found in two or three narratives is expecting "valuable generalizations from insufficient bases." The Committee understands fully that there is such a thing as a type. That while, for example, it is absolutely necessary for the investigator to work over the whole collection of the cahiers of the French Revolution, it is perfectly legitimate for him when he has found a typical cahier, to place extracts from it before his students, and to ask questions that will lead to generalizations. He says to them, "Here is a typical cahier. I have found hundreds of others like it." And they take him at his word. Why should they not? Is that not exactly the way in which the botanist, the zoologist and the chemist treat their students in the laboratory? All history cannot be studied this way, but much of it can. As far as I can find out, the chief difference between the advocates of the source-method and the opponents is this: the advocates believe in teaching the pupils early and often that every narrative rests, or should rest, upon sources and to do this work the teacher should start as often as possible with the sources; the opponents would begin with a text-book, follow it with readings from larger narratives and, last of all, take a "peep" at the source by way of "illustration."

The Committee seems to believe also, that the chief end of the advocates of the sourcemethod is to teach the pupils to investigate and to establish facts and not in addition "to understand the historical significance of those facts" (p. 102). If I understand the aim of this method it is to train the students in the knowledge of the entire historical process, synthetic as well as analytic. And I venture to say that pupils trained in this way know fully as much about the synthetic work as do the pupils whose analytical training has been neglected.

Another error seems to lie in the belief that source material cannot be used without the use of a "good text-book, in which the sequence and relation of events can be made clear" (p. 102). A book made up of source extracts and facts is not without organization and it can

be used without a good narrative. The connections are lacking and the generalizations are not there and with good reason. It is the business of the teacher to teach the pupil how to generalize on this material and how to bind it together. It can be done because it has been done, again and again. It is nothing more than the inductive method, and can be applied more successfully to a book made up of sources and facts that leaves some work to be done, than to a narrative text where all the work has been done. This process is not as easy as the reading of an attractive narrative, but it will hardly do to test the method by such a standard. I am desirous myself of seeing the history work made somewhat more rigorous than it is in

many of the schools today; I believe that this can be done the most successfully by the inductive method and by training the pupils in the knowledge of the historical process; I believe in the use of narrative texts to supplement this work and not of the sources to supplement the texts. My creed does not seem to me to be a very radical one, but it is probable that no radical ever believed himself radical.

The Report of the Committee is a conservative document and doubtless was intended to be conservative. Possibly for that very reason it will go farther and do more good. It represents, however, only the beginning of the work; it makes clear how much remains to be done. FRED MORROW FLING.

1. Absolutism in the Church.-The Consti

tution.1

Marais, Mathieu: Journal et Mémores, 4 Vols. Paris, 1864.

Barbier, E. J. F.: Journal historique et ance dotique du Regne de Louis XV. 4 Vols. Paris, 1847. Receuil général des anciennes lois françaises, par M. M. Jourdan, Decrusy, Isambert, 30 Vols. Paris,

1821-33.

THE

HE extracts for this study are drawn from the journals of two French lawyers of the eighteenth century and from the French laws of the period, consisting, for the most part, of royal edicts registered by Parliament.

Mathieu Marais, the oldest of our witnesses, was born in 1665, and died in 1737. In 1688 he was admitted to practice before the Parliament of Paris, the high court of justice. He

Reprinted each month in leaflet form. See advertisement. 1 The bull called sometimes the "Constitution," often "Unigenitus"-the first word in the Latin-was issued in 1713 by Pope Clement XI., at the request of Louis XIV. condemning one hundred and one propositions extracted from the book of Father Quesnel entitled "Moral Reflexions upon the New Testament." The book had for a long time been received with favor by prominent churchmen and the attack upon it was apparently instigated by Father Tellier the confessor of Louis XIV. Quesnel was a Jansenist and Tellier a Jesuit. The Jesuits stood for absolutism in the church and favored the papal power. The Jansenists stood for th independence of the church of France-the Gallican church-against papal encroachments.

2 The Parliaments of France were not legislative bodies, but the highest courts of justice. There were twelve in the provinces and one at Paris. All royal edicts were registered by the Parlia ments before they became law.

was distinguished in his profession, and, being of a literary turn of mind, was on intimate terms with many of the brightest thinkers and writers of his day. His Journal, kept from day to day, covers the period from September, 1715, to October, 1727. His correspondence with President Bouhier, published with the Journal, goes to October 1733. Both the Journal and the correspondence are filled with remarks on current literature and mixed with them are the references to current events. Marais follows the affair of the Constitution with much interest, more or less space being devoted to it as it absorbed more or less of the attention of the public. Although Marais was associated with Parliament and Parliament was opposed to the Constitution, he is not at all a partisan in his attitude toward the struggle.

Barbier, born in 1689 and dying in 1771, was also an advocate of the Paris bar. He was admitted to the bar in 1708 but did not engage in pleading. He was, what we would call today, an office or consulting lawyer. The family was well to do and Barbier was for some

time associated with his father who was also advocate. Although a member of the well-todo middle class, he was acquainted with the President Nicolai, the Marshall de Saxe, the Comte d'Argenson and other distinguished men. His Journal covers the period from 1718 to 1763. He lacked Marais' literary turn of mind and filled his journal with an account of the events taking place in Paris, in Parliament and at the Court.

The collection of the Ancient Laws of France, covering the whole history to 1789, contains the texts of the principal laws and the titles of many others. It is a work of compilation.

THE COUNCIL OF CONSCIENCE.

This council shall be called the Council of Conscience, and shall be composed of the Lord Cardinal de Noailles, Peer of France, as President; of the Lord Archbishop of Bordeaux, of the Lord d'Aguesseau, Procureur Général, and of the Lord Abbé Pucelle, Councillor to Parliament, for councillors; and the Lord Abbé Dorsanne as Secretary.

The matters that shall be treated in the Council of Conscience are in general, all matters of religion, of which the King naturally takes cognizance as protector of the church, and in particular;

The disputes upon matters of religion that are stirred up in the universities and particularly in the faculties of theology that would trouble the peace of the church, if his Majesty did not, by his own authority, cause them to cease. (Anciennes Lois, XXI., No. 29, 22 Dec. 1715).

QUESTIONS.

1. What was the relation of the state to the church in France at this time, judging from this document? 2. Why was the council probably given such a name? 3. What element dominated in the council? 4. What evidence do you find in the list of names, that a place in the church did not debar from secular affairs? 5. What part would the King have in the affairs of the council? 6. What light does this document throw on freedom of thought and discussion? 7. Why was the council probably created? 8. Might such an interference become dangerous to the royal power?

RESISTANCE OF CURES TO THE CONSTITUTION. Testimony of the Curés of Paris.-A great collection in quarto of all the letters written by the Curés of the city and diocese of Paris to M. the Cardinal do Noailles on the subject of the Constitution, entitled: The Testimony of MM. the Curés, etc., and members of the secular and regular clergy, has been printed. There are many letters of individual pastors. All declare that they cannot accept the Constitution, and that it may not be regarded either as a dogma or as a rule of faith. (Marais I. 221, July 1717).

QUESTIONS.

1. What kind of spirit does this extract indicate? 2. What authorities would be concerned with this affair and why? 3. Might it, in time, have a political significance? Explain.

VIOLENCE OF SUPPORTERS OF CONSTITUTION. Lille, 14th of April (1720). The disciples of Noailles, since the concessions made by the Cardinal de Noailles, commit more disorders and testify more fury than ever against those that are unwilling to receive the Constitution. They went so far as to break the doors, cast the furniture out of the window and pillage the house of a devotee named Hélène de Courcelles, because a girl died in her house without having declared that she would receive the Constitution as rule of faith. (Marais I, 245).

QUESTIONS.

1. What parties caused the trouble in this extract? 2. Would there seem to be more reasons for the formation of a Council of Conscience than those given by the King? 3. Would the King be justified in interfering here? 4. What danger to the state is this affair?

RESISTANCE OF THE UNIVERSITY.

Paris, April 15th (1720). Upon the report that a great number of doctors, curés, etc., had signed a renewal of their appeal and a protestation against the acceptance (of the Constitution), a minister of the court summoned several of the doctors of the Sorbonne to turn them from their design; he talked to them very kindly and fairly, except upon the points where he believed they were resisting the orders of the King. However, the doctors persisted in their repugnance to receive, in any manner whatever, the Constitution, insinuating even that they would rather expose themselves to the last extremity; that it was not a spirit of cabal that led them to renew the appeal, but purely a matter of conscience. (Marais I, 251).

QUESTIONS.

1. What light does this extract throw on the effectiveness of the Council of Conscience? 2. Was the resistance to the Constitution confined to the clergy? 3. Why should the King interfere in this affair? 4. What danger to the government in this interference? 5. Are there any indications here that the religious disturbances may become political?

THE REGENT AND PARLIAMENT.

In these days, letters-patent, requiring the acceptance of the Constitution, have been sent to the Parliament for registration. (Barbier, I, 46. Aug, 1720.)

The Constituion is one of the great occupations of Parliament. The letters-patent declared null and of no effect the appeals made by the four bishops and by the University. (Barbier, I, 50. Sept. 1720.]

The regent, seeing there was nothing to be done with Parliament, sent the declaration, early in the morning, to the Grand Council for registration. (Barbier, I, 55 Sept. 1720.)

It is to be seen whether the Pope will be content with such a registration, the Grand Council having neither the authority nor right to do it. (Barbier, I, 56:"*Oct. 1720.)

Wednesday, the 4th (Dec. 1720). The Parliament registered the declaration in favor of the Constitution, but in the form of 1714, so that it amounts to nothing. That sort of thing is foolery and the supporters of the Constitution ought not to be content. (Barbier, I, 64.)

QUESTIONS.

1. How long has this discussion upon the Constitution now lasted? 2. Why does not the King put an end to it? 3. Why were the letters-patent issued? 4. Why were they sent to Parliament? 5. What three bodies are here opposed to to the King? 6. With what success do they struggle against him? 7. What is the fundamental question at issue? 8. What support do the opponents of the King receive? 9. Why does the King naturally support the Constitution?

THE KING DECLARES IN FAVOR OF THE CONSTITUTION. I have seen for the first time the declaration of the King upon the Constitution. The Gazette of Holland of the 7th reports it fully. It bears the date of August 4th. It contains four principal articles: The first that the Constitution Unigenitus shall be observed throughout the kingdom, the universities and faculties of theology being forbidden to write, distribute or produce anything against it or against the pastoral instructions or the explanations given by the archbishops and bishops. The second, that all appeals from the said Constitution to a future council (of the church) are forbidden and all past appeals reputed of no effect. The fourth, that persons are forbidden to attack one another with the terms schismatic, Jansenist, innovator, heretic, etc. (Marais I, 443, 444, Sept. 1720.)

QUESTIONS.

1. What means had public opinion of expressing itself at this time? (See extracts below.) 2. What does this declartion indicate as to the King's past success in enforcing obedience? 3. What means had he of enforcing his orders? 4. What kind of a spirit manifested by the opponents to the Constitution? 5. What danger to the King might result from his attempt to force the Constitution on the people? 6. What danger to the papal power might result from this dispute? 7. Was the dispute bitter? (See previous extracts.)

BISHOPS AND PRIESTS WILL NOT KEEP SILENT.

The bishops that appealed are not silent, although silence has been commanded in the matter of the Constitution. (Marais II, 91, Feb. 1721).

The affair of the Constitution appeared to have been disposed of after the registration by Parliament and the orders of the Regent to write and talk no more about it. It is, however, wider awake than ever. There has appeared a little printed list of two hundred persons that have newly appealed from the Constitution. M. Baudry, lieutenant of police, summoned ten of them, of whom the Abbé d'Asfeld was the first. He asked them if they acknowledged this little book, adding that they certainly knew the intention of the King and the Regent touching the matter. They replied, "Yes;" that the King was master of their goods and their persons, but he could not force them to sin, and the silence they had been observing would be sin. Barbier, I, 79, March 1721).

QUESTIONS.

1. How successful was the King's last declaration? 2. What was a powerful aid to the party struggling against the Constitution? 3. How did the King and his ministers look upon the action of the signers of the list? 4. Were they really hostile to the King and to the monarchy? 5. Had the contents of the constitution been different, would the action of the King have been different? 6. Were the King and the supporters of the Constitution natural allies? 7. Was Louis XV absolute?

INCENDIARY PUBLICATIONS.

I have just been brought a Mémoire in quarto of forty-eight printed pages, where the duty of speaking the truth is demonstrated with reference to those who do not accept the Constitution nor the reconciliation. The mémoire is very strong, well written and il' trated by many passages and examples, and writte.. encourage the signing of a new appeal and the printing of the names of the signers, of whom a list has already appeared.

It says (p. 29): "We readily believe witnesses that allow themselves to be tortured." "Multiply the suffering and the light will be multiplied." (p. 27.) (Marais, HI, 99, March, 1721.)

Dialogue of the dead. The Jansenists, who see themexiled on all sides, have written a Dialogue where the speakers are the defunct Father Le Tellier and M. Ravechet, syndic of the Sorbonne, who died at Rennes. They defy the Regency to exile those people. (Marais, II, 158, June, 1721.)

QUESTIONS.

1. Could this opposition to the Constitution have been carried on without the printing press? Explain, 2. Is the King succeeding in his efforts to suppress the controversy? 3. How is the struggle affecting his authority? 4. What would he be likely to think of the teachings mentioned in this extract? Why? 5. What indication of the helplessness of the government do you find here? 6. Why is it helpless?

Ordinance which prohibits the display of books, under penalty of confiscation, fine and prison.

PREAMBLE.

His Majesty being informed that the abuse touching the printing and sale of books has reached such a degree, that all kinds of writings upon religion, upon

the

government of the State, and against the purity of morals, printed in foreign countries, or by stealth in some cities of his kingdom, are introduced into his beautiful city of Paris by unfair and indirect ways, and are distributed there by worthless people and vagrants, who retail them in private houses, hostelries, inns and coffee-houses and even upon the streets, or who sell them from the book-stalls upon the bridges, quays, parapets, squares and public places; and who to better cover up their evil practice pretend to stock these stalls with other books old or new, the greater part sold and stolen by children in the family, or by domestics, and harboured by these dealers and being informed that those abuses equally prohibited by ordinances and rules interposed upon the matter of the book-trade and printing, have made such a progress that those appointed

to watch them have not been able to arrest their course, nor even to exercise the power of police which is given them, without exposing their life through the rebellion and violence of this sort of people, who are defended by the labourers working at the wharves and others of the populace. In order to provide for which, his Majesty, etc. (Anciennes Lois XXI, No. 255, Paris, Oct. 20, 1721.)

QUESTIONS.

1. How were the laws controlling the printing and sale of books evaded? 2. Do you believe that they were largely evaded? (Take evidence from this and other extracts.) 3. Was the public in favor of the laws? 4. Explain its attitude. 5. What questions were discussed? 6. Did the people of Paris read much at this time?

A CHARACTERISTIC FRENCH TRAIT.

By allusion to Unigenitus the new Queen has been named Unigenita, because she is a friend of the Jesuits and because the name of the women in Poland end in a, Leckinski, Leczinska. (Marais III, 205, July, 1725).

THE REBELLIOUS CURÉS.

The remonstrances of the curés of Paris have been suppressed by a decree of council, of the 11th of Oct. (1727)

The curés are charged with showing a spirit of revolt and independence . . they deny to the King the right to make a law of the state what was already a law of the church; they disturb public order by talking in the name of the curés, as if they could form a body within the kingdom that could present remonstrances to the King and act independently of their archbishop. . . Their remonstrances are suppressed as injurious to the authority of the church and contrary to the laws of the state. (Marais III, 255.)

QUESTIONS.

1. Why was the Queen called Unigenita because she was a friend of the Jesuits? 2. What influence would her friendship have on the struggle in France? 3. What indication in this extract that the theological struggle is taking on a political character? 4. Did it make any difference to the King what the theological question was? 5. Why did he naturally take sides against the curés?

THE PEOPLE AGAINST THE JESUITS.

It is only the bishops and abbés of the court that aspire to favors that take sides with the Jesuits; all the second order in the church, the greater part of the bourgeois of Paris, of the robe and of the third estate, and even, what is more amusing, the women and common people all are let loose against the Jesuits and cry out against everything that is done. That is why so many satirical and critical writings circulate in Paris. They pass secretly from hand to hand and in spite of all investigation neither the authors of these works nor those that print them can be discovered. (Barbier I., 264, Oct. 1727.)

SECRET NEWSPAPERS.

This bit of news I found in a very curious paper, sold here (secretly) with the title, Ecclesiastical News; there are already two numbers; it is a sheet in quarto, printed in a very small type. I would send you one, if it were

not dangerous, and you would be pleased to see so many facts gathered up by a man both brainy and malicious. (Marais III, 522, Marsh 7, 1728.)

QUESTIONS.

1. Point out the characteristics of the two parties that were face to face, the questions, real and apparent, at issue, and the means employed by each. 2. Which seems the more powerful and more likely to win? Give

reasons.

DECREE AGAINST PRINTING.

Wishing that all printers who will be convicted of printing, under any title whatsoever, memoirs, letters, narratives, ecclesiastic news, or other matter, works or writings not invested with privileges, nor permission, upon disputes arisen or about to arise in matters of religion, and notably those which would be contrary to the bulls received in our kingdom, to the respect due our Holy Father, the Pope, to the bishops and to our authority, may be condemned for the first offense to the pillory, even to the greatest penalty, if there is occasion for it, without that the said penalty of the pillory may be moderated under any pretext whatsoever, and in case of repetition of the offense, be it ordered that the said printers be condemned besides to the galleys for five years, which penalty likewise will not be remitted or moderated. (Anciennes Lois XXI, No. 372. Versailles. May 10, 1728.)

"After a good night's rest, we walked this morning towards the seaside. . . we saw the poor galley-slaves go to church-about 200 of them, chained, some of them, two and two together and guarded by soldiers. They did not look miserable; some of them sang as they went along. They were nearly in the same condition as the English convicts at Woolwich." (Dr. Rigby's Letters, p. 149. Nice, France, Aug. 1789.)

QUESTIONS.

1. Why did the government oppose freedom of the press? 2. Was this opposition reasonable? 3 Did it oppose all printing? 4. What proof do you find that church and state were closely related? 5. Which seemed to be the dominant power? 6. Why were the punishments so severe? 7. Did the punishment stop the violations of the King's orders? 8. Do these regulations indicate anything of the relations of the governors toward the governed?

EDITORS ARRESTED.

Yesterday the Abbé Gallard or Gaillard, author of the Ecclesiastical News, was arrested. They were curious, especially touching Rome and on account of the documents published. There is a loss for the public. (Marais, III., 577, Oct., 1728.)

Your courier that brought the Ecclesiastical News was very bold. Two ecclesiastics of the parish Saint Gervais, who sold them, have been arrested; they were taken in the act; they are called the Abbé Ferlant and the Abbé Failly; the last is a nephew of one of the advocates that signed the Consultation; they are in the Bastile. The next day a copy of the News appeared with an account of their imprisonment. The devil is in that thing. (Marais IV., 8, Jan.. 1729.)