What is the method employed by the historian in restoring the past from a study of the sources? In simple language what he does is this: he selects a subject for investigation, searches for all the sources that can throw any light upon it, criticises these sources to determine their value and relationship, compares the affirmations contained in them to learn what the fact was, and, finally, groups these facts in a complex whole. It is only through an acquaintance with this process, through the practical application of it, that the pupil really learns what the grounds for historical belief are and is able to distinguish between fact and fiction. No amount of reading, even of the sources, can ever take the place of this critical training in the historical method, just as no amount of text-book work in natural science can ever take the place of the knowledge of method obtained by actual work at the laboratory table. I am aware that there are well-known teachers and even very distinguished writers of history in this country who treat this idea of training in historical method, even for undergraduates in colleges, as a matter not worthy of serious consideration. Notwithstanding this opposition in high places, I am of the opinion that the method can be taught and that it should be taught and that in teaching it results have been obtained that are quite as encouraging, it seems to me, as those obtained in the laboratories of the natural sciences. Most of the arguments made against the teaching of method in the secondary schools are quite aside from the question. It is not to the point to emphasize the difficulties of historical work, the impossibility of obtaining from young people results that can be obtained only by trained investigators, or the unwisdom of investigating subjects that have never been investigated before, although, for my part, I can see no serious objection to this last course. All that the sensible teacher, who knows what he is about, expects to accomplish by the critical study of the sources is to open the eyes of his students to the meaning of proof in history, to create an attitude of healthy scepticism and to put into their hands an instrument for getting at the truth that they will have occasion to use every hour in the day. If it is worth while to acquaint the student with the methods of the natural sciences—and I believe that it is—it is certainly imperatively important to give him some training in the use of proof touching the truth of things that he is constantly concerned with, namely, the facts of social life. This position seems so self-evident to me that I can hardly conceive it possible that a teacher, who accepts the new theory of education and realizes the meaning of historical method, would take any exceptions to it. It might, however, be objected that, while the method ought to be taught, it is not practicable to teach it. It is to this objection that the rest of the paper will be addressed.
Equipment for Source Work.
It is well to concede at the outset that historical method cannot be taught successfully by a teacher who does not know what it means or who has never applied the method, i. e., done some research work. But perhaps nothing would contribute more to the development of a poorly-trained history teacher than to oblige him to teach the method; he would be forced to learn something about it! It is because we have not emphasized the method, because we have not required our candidates for positions as teachers of history to know how to investigate—what would we think of a teacher of chemistry who could not direct the work in the laboratory!—that we have so much absolutely impossible history teaching. The question is, then, can a teacher who knows what historical proof means successfully conduct exercises in historical method in a high school? I think there can be no doubt of it. It is being done.
To conduct the work successfully a source book, differing in some respects from the majority of source books, is needed. There are two kinds of historical facts: one class can be established by a single source, the other—and this is the more difficult, but at the same time the more valuable as training—can be proved to be true only by the agreement of independent sources or witnesses. For this last kind of work more than two sources treating of the same event are necessary. As the most of the source books are only intended to supply collateral reading, they contain little material that could be used for critical exercises. My source book on Greek history contains some such exercises, and it would be a matter of no great difficulty to supplement the sources in any of the books by two or three extracts dealing with the same topic.
Sources in the Class Room.
Two exercises a week would be enough for intensive critical work. The sources should, of course, be in the hands of the pupils and the attention of the class should never be allowed to stray from the evidence in the text. It is not necessary that the work should be systematic at the outset or that it should be forced. It might be introduced in a very simple and natural way by an attempt to settle the truth of some point upon which two school texts disagree. It is a common practice, in schools where several narratives are used, to assign different texts to different pupils and in the recitation hour, to compare the statements of the writers. Suppose they disagree? I once asked a teacher who employs this method what she did in such a case. She answered that they discussed the matter, and, if they could reach no agreement as to which statement was correct, they dropped it. A more pernicious practice could hardly be imagined. The class was run into a blind alley and left there! The escape was easy enough, if the teacher had been master of the situation. It offered an excellent point of departure for the introduction of the study of historical method.
The problem should have been selected by the teacher, as one easy of solution, the trap laid and the class led into it. The texts disagree; which states the truth? Who wrote the texts? Suppose the event treated is from the French Revolution. How did the writers know anything about it? What were their sources? How could we find out what actually happened a century ago? Evidently through the records made by witnesses of the events. Have we any such on this topic and who are they? This question may be answered by the teacher, who might put the sources into the hands of the pupils, or a simple problem in bibliography might be set the class and the exercise postponed until the next meeting. Let the pupils bring into the class the statement of at least one man who, they assume, knew something about this event. Take up these sources in turn. How do the pupils know that this account was really written by this man? (Genuineness.) How do they know that the man really knew anything about the event? (Localization.) How do they know that he made a correct record of what he saw? (Value of the source, based on perception and memory.) Even if the man is a good witness, does his unsupported statement (affirmation) prove the fact? Dwell on the possibilities of error; show that even if he wishes to tell the truth, no man can be certain that his uncontrolled memory is not playing him false or that he saw the thing correctly in the first place. Will the agreement of two witnesses be sufficient to give us certainty? Show that this is true only when the witnesses are independent of each other. In the problem taken up by the class, are there two or more independent witnesses? Is the fact upon which the school texts disagree settled by the agreement of two independent witnesses? If so, why do the texts disagree? It may be due to the fact that each writer used but one source, and that the statement in that source was incorrect, or the witnesses may disagree and one writer may have accepted one statement, the other another. If the conclusions are not equally probable, try to show on which side the weight of probability lies. Point out, further, in conclusion, that where we are not certain as to what happened—where the witnesses disagree—we have only probability, not certainty, and the secondary text ought to make this clear.
Pupils Handling Sources.
The work may be continued in this way, the secondary text supplying the weekly problem, or the teacher may cut loose from the text and supply graded problems that increase in difficulty. In the latter case, the class should be supplied with the problem, the sources (two or three) and such biographical data as will enable the pupils to criticise the sources. Take each source up in turn and require written answers, with citation of proof, to the following questionnaire: 1. Is this source genuine? 2. Who wrote it and when and where was it written? 3. How much of it is first-hand evidence and how much second-hand, i. e., how much did the witness see and hear himself and how much did he get from some other person? 4. What is the value of the source as a whole, judged by the character of the source (speech, letter, newspaper, pamphlet, song, poem, etc.), the personality of the witness (intellectually and morally) and the time and place of making the records. 5. Make a note of what the witness affirms concerning the event (interpretation.) Let the independent criticism of the sources be followed by a comparison of them to learn whether or not they are independent. Finally, request the pupils to bring together under one head the affirmations of the different witnesses on the point under investigation and endeavor to determine by a comparison of their statements what the truth is. The result should be formulated in writing in the shape of a definite assertion, if the agreement of the independent witnesses justify us in regarding the fact as certain; otherwise it should be represented simply as probable.