V. APHORISMS ON TEACHING HISTORY.

[Translated from Raumer's "History of Pedagogy," for this American Journal, of Education.]

1. VIEWS on the proper mode of teaching history are exceedingly different, and even contradictory. Such oppositions in other departments of study are usually based upon the discrepancy between the old and new pedagogy; but in the case of history it is not so.

2. First, to define intelligibly the object of our discussion. Shall we teach history, in the widest acceptation of the term-what is called universal history, which treats of all periods and all nations?

Although history, under this name, is taught in most gymnasia, yet neither the instruction in it, nor any one manual of it, corresponds to this idea of it. For what text-book "includes all nations?" Are not the Americans, for instance, usually omitted? as well as most of the African nations, except the Egyptians, Carthaginians, and other nations of northern Africa, who were connected with the Romans? And how large a portion of Asia is altogether neglected!

3. This neglect is for two reasons. One is, that we know either very little or nothing at all of the history of many nations. This is the case respecting those of America. The other is, that we prefer not to know any thing of the history of other nations; or, at least, do not wish the pupils in our schools to be occupied with it. Thus, for example, the Indians and Chinese are scarcely mentioned, though there is no lack of historical authorities on these subjects.

4. But there is also a great distinction between the modes of treating such histories of nations as are included in our histories of the world; inasmuch as in some of them we go into much greater detail than in others. We give less fully the history of the Persians than that of the Greeks; of the Russians than of the English.

5. Universal history, in like manner, as we teach it, does not include all people of all times and countries, and it does not give the same degree of attention to those nations of whom it does treat. By what standard does it proceed in this? Is it according to dignity, so that the more enlightened nations are made more prominent, and those less so left in the background? This is by no means the only rule; for, if it were, the Hindoos, for instance, would fill an im

portant place in it. For how high a position do they occupy in eloquence, poetry, mathematics, &c.

Why do we give so much attention to the Egyptians, for example, when the Hindoos were certainly not their inferiors?

6. The answer is this. In like manner as individual men take particular interest in the biography of their own ancestors, and of such persons as have exercised much influence upon their own training, employment, or labors, so does each nation take most interest in its own history first, and next in that of those nations which are related to it in language, manners, &c., or which have directly or indirectly exercised a great influence upon it.

7. In the history of what nations should we, as Germans, feel most interest?

First in that of ourselves. History of our own country, ancient and modern.

Second in that of the Jews, since salvation is of them, down to the time of Christ, and including the destruction of Jerusalem.

Third in that of the Romans; to whose Orbis our nation formerly belonged, and whose influence is perceptible among us even now. Related studies are Latin, the Corpus Juris, history of the Catholic church, &c.

Fourth in that of the Greeks; whom we recognize as directly or indirectly our instructors.

Fifth in that of such ancient nations as were in more or less close relations with the Jews, Romans, and Greeks; as the Assyrians, Chaldeans, Persians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Arabs, &c. These are, however, not so nearly connected with us as are the Jews, Romans, and Greeks, and they are more distantly related to our character and history.

The history of most of these nations is previous to the time of Christ, and belongs to the ancient period.

The Hindoos and the Chinese have not, within the historical period, been either directly related to the Germans, nor in such close connections with any nation in proximity to us as would enable their influence to reach us through them; and thus, with us, they stand in the background.

Since the time of Christ, Europe forms one Christian whole. Still, the Slavic races are further from us than the Romance ones, or the German ones; not to mention still slighter shades of difference, as, for instance, the fact that, among the Romance nations, the Italians are sensibly more nearly related to us than the Spaniards, and they than the Portuguese.

8. These remarks may furnish a standard by which to adjust the

extent of the attention devoted to each nation in text-books and school lessons; which is the point to which I am to speak. The case is entirely different, when a historical investigator devotes his attention to some obscure national history, without any reference to its relations with his own country, and which is very properly omitted from school studies. For such a student the human race is one; and even those races, whose relationship to and connection with our own is hidden in the darkness of times long forgotten, come gradually astonishingly near to us. How unmistakably, for instance, does a comparison of Sanscrit with German point to a primeval unity of the German and Hindoo races.

9. After the object of historical instruction is determined—that is, what is to be taught the question arises, How are we to set about instructing; what is to be our method? In this respect, also, is there the greatest variety of opinions among instructors.

In the first place, there is an opposition similar to that in the case of geography. The beginning may be made, that is, either with general or with particular subjects. In geography, for example, one begins with discussing and describing the whole surface of the earth; while another commences, as old Merian did, with describing single towns.

10. Thus, in history, a beginning may be made either with a sketch, of the most generalized kind, of the history of the world—we have seen what is to be understood by the history of the world—or with biographies of individual men.

Of these two extremes the first naturally induces the second. "What can boys do," ask some, with general history? They will learn names and dates of years, and nothing more. Where the scope of the subject is so great, the matters which are of most importance to youth, such as vivid portraits of individuals, great men, instructive occurrences, &c., can not be properly considered. We would, therefore, begin with the biographies of Alexander, Caesar, Mohammed, &c.; and this method must certainly be more agreeable to the young than the general historical method.

To this the opponents of this method would reply:-"Did these heroes, whom you would describe, live as isolated appearances, in an age otherwise empty? Did not each of them belong to his nation? Can I comprehend Cæsar without knowing the Romans; or the Romans, without knowing the Greeks and Carthaginians? Shall I not therefore be obliged, in order to delineate my hero, to describe his nation; and indeed all the nations which were in close connection with it? And does not this, of course, bring us to the method of general history?"

I do not subscribe to either of these conflicting views: each of

the parties seems to me, however, to be right in its objections to the other.

11. In late years there have been those who have maintained that we ought to begin the instruction in history with that of the native country; since that is nearer to us than Greece, Rome, &c. This view seems at first so simple and natural that it attracts us; but, upon closer consideration, one who is moderately acquainted with the history of Germany would be slow to adopt it. Are not the most important periods of German history-such, for instance, as the mediaval contest between the popes and the emperors-of a character far too difficult for the intellects of boys? Do they not require, for even a moderate understanding of them, a comprehension of the science of church and state, and of their mutual relations? And other equally significant questions might be asked; as, for example, whether a boy of from ten to twelve years old is capable of understanding the movements of the Reformation?

12. I now turn from methods which I do not approve to the consideration of those which I consider correct.

The first beginning of historical instruction is, in part, coincident with religious instruction. Christ stands upon the bounds which separate ancient and modern history. Ancient history is related to him, lives in him; and he is the creator of the modern period, and will remain with us until the end of the world.

In this department we first become acquainted with the evangelists-the history of Christ-and thus acquire the capacity to learn aright, both in ancient history and modern, whither the former tended and whither the latter is tending.

Historical instruction proper I would commence with the Old Testament. My reasons are these:

1. Because the Old Testament history does not begin arbitrarily at any particular period, but at the beginning-the Creation.

2. Because this history is at once so simple and so vividly graphic. The persons and scenes of the Old Testament impress themselves involuntarily upon the mind. Its descriptions and narratives excite the children's imaginations to the forming of mental pictures, which remain in their minds, instead of merely passing through their memories, like mere names which have no actual existence. The Bible does eminently well what is required by the adherents of the biographical method of studying history.

3. Because the history of the Jews is a remarkably individualized It is the history of the people of God, chosen out and set apart

one.

It should be understood that, for the purpose of historical instruction, many parts of the Old Testament should be omitted, and left to be read at a maturer age.

from the heathen; and for this very reason it is more intelligible when separate from others-not incessantly referring to foreign nations, whose existence connects itself with its own, and thus requires some full knowledge of their history. This makes the mastery of it much more simple, and enables the attention to be directed, without divergence or confusion, to this one nation exclusively. This limitation of the subject is excellently adapted to the dimensions of the minds of school-children.

4. Because the history of the Jews is a theocratical one, in which the finger of God is visibly seen. God, to whom all his works are known from the beginning, the educator of the human race, often withdraws himself from sight in the history of other nations, as if he had given men over to themselves; and it is a characteristic of profound historical research and knowledge to look beyond the accidents of the time, and to recognize the justice of God ruling over the nations and over individuals. In the history of the Jews, on the contrary, the divine punishment follows sin, as the thunder does the lightning; while the blessings of the just-as in the case of Davidfall visibly upon him and his posterity.

5. Because the Old Testament history not only reveals the true God in his justice, but also in his infinite mercy. While it relates the origin of sin, and with sacred impartiality reveals the sins even of men of God, yet it is a book of encouragement and of hope; because it every where points toward the coming Saviour.

Such a history furnishes the first point of view from which correctly to understand and estimate the history of other nations. It is the foundation—and even more, it is the living heart-of the history of the world. As Palestine was a land most isolated in situation, yet admirably adapted to become related to the Roman world, so the ancient Jewish history is a most individualized and isolated one, and yet contains within itself a living energy which enables it, at the epoch of Christ, to open out into a most comprehensive history of the world.

With the Old Testament are connected the histories of the Assyrians, Chaldeans, Medes, Persians, and Egyptians; for which, indeed, the Bible itself is one of the authorities. Daniel refers to Alexander the Great. The Apocrypha, with Josephus, fills up the gap between the return from exile and the time of Christ. And at this last point the history of the Greeks and Romans joins on to that of the Jews.

13. We now come to a point of divergence. Hitherto, history, entirely biblical, has been the same for all Christian children; but here there arise distinctions, depending on condition and sex.

Boys will either study for a learned profession, or not. The former