Outlines of Educational Doctrine

by Johann Friedrich Herbart

The second course will admit of more historical facts than the first, although still only very few pertaining to an older epoch. Only the more recent events can be conveniently connected with geography, except in the case of still extant historical monuments,—such, for instance, as the ruins in Italy, the composite language of England, the peculiar political organization of Switzerland with its many subdivisions, visible on the map, and its diversities of language.

If, as is sometimes recommended, the plan is adopted of preparing the way for the study of mediæval and modern history by a separate introductory course in short biographies, such a plan, though at best only fragmentary in its results, becomes at least more feasible where historical notes of the kind just mentioned are incorporated with the lessons in geography. But in this case it is all the more essential to have a chronological chart upon the wall, to some dates of which the teacher must take every opportunity to refer, in order that the pupils may obtain at least some fixed points. Otherwise scattered biographies are liable to occasion great confusion.

[246.] (2) The chief basis for the earlier stages of historical teaching will always be Greek and Roman history. It will not be inappropriate to commence with a few charming stories from Homeric mythology, since there is a close connection between the history of a people and their religion. Two wrong ways, however, are to be avoided: one, that of giving a detailed theogony or of including objectionable myths, for the sake of completeness, which would here be devoid of a rational purpose; the other, that of having the mythological elements memorized. Only true history should be memorized by children. Mythology is a study for youths or men.

Persian history must be told approximately in the sequence and setting given by Herodotus; to it the history of Assyria and of Egypt may be joined in the form of episodes, Greece being kept well in the foreground. The stories from the Old Testament, on the other hand, form a chain of lessons by themselves. The history of Rome must at first retain its mythical beginnings.

Whatever German opinion may be regarding the beginnings of historical instruction for their own children, American history possesses strong claims for precedence when we come to children of the United States. If we regard the chief intellectual purpose of history for the student to be the understanding of the present status through a knowledge of the historical progress that has led to it, then the primitive and pioneer history of this country is infinitely more valuable than any other to an American child, for in it lie enfolded the forces that have developed our people; whereas Greece and Rome are as distant in influence as they are in time. It is the mythology of Greece and Rome that most attracts children; but this belongs to literature rather than to history. Accounts of battles are about the same the world over, but it takes more maturity of mind to understand the Greek rage for individuality after the rise of philosophy, than it does to understand a corresponding feeling among the American pioneers, to say nothing of the desirability of teaching the latter as a phase of our own development. For reasons of simplicity, therefore, as well as for psychological nearness and national importance, American history must take precedence over that of Greece and Rome for American children.

[247.] Suppose, now, that detailed stories after the models furnished by the ancients have won the attention of the pupils; the mere pleasure of listening to stories can nevertheless not be allowed to determine continuously the impression to be produced. Condensed surveys must follow, and a few of the main facts be memorized in chronological order.

The following suggestions will be in place here. The chief events are to attach themselves in the memory to the memorized dates in such a way that no confusion can arise. Now, a single date may suffice for the group of connected incidents constituting one main event; if it seems necessary to add another, or a third, well and good, but to keep on multiplying dates defeats the very end aimed at. The more dates the weaker their effect, on account of the growing difficulty of remembering them all. In the history of one country dates should rather remain apart as far as possible, in order that the intervening numbers may be all the more available for purposes of synchronistic tabulation, by which the histories of different countries are to be brought together and connected. The same sparing use should be made of the facts of ancient geography, but those that are introduced must be learned accurately.

Granted that the primitive method of historical narration by the teacher is the most effective in its appeal to the beginner, it must be maintained that the combined knowledge and literary skill of modern historians infinitely surpass the powers of the ordinary teacher. The modern problem is, not how to compose history, but how to utilize that which has been composed. It is, in short, to guard against the confusion that comes from diffuseness. Wide historical reading may be as bad for the student as wide reading of novels. The mind may surrender itself to the passing panorama as completely in the one field as in the other, until the impressions made are like those of a ship upon a sea. The remedy is the thorough organization in the mind of the student of the knowledge gained in diverse fields. This is secured by teacher or author, or both. Some authors secure clearness of outline by topics, references, and research questions. Larned’s “History of England” concludes every chapter in this way. As an illustration we may quote from Chapter XVI, which narrates the quarrel between King Charles and his people:—

202. Charles I.

Topic.