Sidor som bilder

crafty and cunning men, both at home and abroad, and large views and nicely-drawn generalizations, are here quite indispensable. The events of his reign: his tragical domestic history; his rivalry with Francis I.; his quarrels and truces with Charles V.; Woolsey's grand projects; the sinuous policy and duplicity of the papal court; the severance of the English church from Rome; the great achievements of the reforming parliament; the suppression of the monasteries; and, finally, the idiosyncrasies of that able, jovial, vain, cruel monarch, are all to pass under review and be scrutinized, both separately and in their connection with each other. How is all this to be accomplished with a class? Difficult as the task may be, it must be undertaken, because an understanding of the character of this monarch's reign, peculiar on very many accounts, and opening for the nation a new career of independence, is a key to the comprehension of the history of the whole Tudor dynasty. In addition to the professor's instruction, there will be demanded imperatively no inconsiderable amount of reading. In order to bring this great mass of complicated materials, in some form, before the whole class, it will be necessary to distribute the work among all its members. One might prepare an essay on the legal and moral rights of Catharine of Arragon, together with an examination of the grounds on which the partisans of Henry justified his course. The character and history of each of his queens might form the subject of so many essays. The lives and characters of Woolsey, Cranmer, Gardner, and More would throw no less light upon reign. One member of the class might present so much of the character and reign of Francis I. as is connected with the history of England; another might do the same in respect to Charles V.; a third, the same in respect to Luther and his English adherents. Other essays, less biographical in their character, might be assigned on some specific point in the several topics named at the beginning of this paragraph. Both the professor and the students must enter upon the work with an energy that stops at no difficulties,

or the whole subject will not be grasped. The substance of Froude's apologetic view might well be presented by the former, partly on account of its new and important facts, and partly for the purpose of correcting its false judgments; as also the results of Ranke's masterly exposition of the foreign policy of England.

Mere examinations of a class from a text-book, on such a subject as this, would be stupid and almost absurd. Such a feeble, humdrum course would be an unpardonable surrender of a capital opportunity to kindle young and ardent minds into a perfect blaze of enthusiasm. One such effort, though it should be limited to the reign of a single monarch, will do more for a student, by way of making him a lover of history, and, in the end, an adept in it, than a whole textbook committed to memory, and duly recited to the profes sor. The mention, from time to time, of such writers as Turner, Froude, Knight, and Vaughn, with a spirited criticism of their views, will make the class eager to read such parts of their writings as relate to the subjects which they are investigating. The student loves to feel the influence of his own century, as it appears in recent or living writers. He is thereby made to breathe a fresh, instead of a dusty, pent-up atmosphere, and to hear the ripple of a living, rushing stream, instead of contemplating a stagnant pool.

It is unnecessary to extend these illustrations. The spirit in which we would have history taught the only thing in this whole discussion to which we attach special importance may be easily understood from what has already been said. The particular manner of instruction to be adopted must be invented by each teacher for himself. Indeed the manner of the same teacher must vary from time to time, according to the nature of the period he is considering. With the two next reigns, those of Edward and Mary, both of which are periods of transition, the plan and mode of instruction must be different from that marked out for the reign of Henry. Elizabeth did not establish her policy, which led to the political greatness of England, in


[ocr errors]

any degree after the model of her immediate predecessor; nor did she return exactly to that of Edward. In her estimation, while, in the matter of religion, Mary went to a ruinous extreme in the direction of Romanism, Edward, or the protector in his name, went to the other, less perilous, extreme of Genevan Protestantism. The last catholic reign in England was like the last pagan reign, that of Julian, in the Roman Empire. In both instances the old and decayed religion proved to be inadequate to the exigencies of the times. The religious reformation which took root in England under Edward-that introduced by Henry was purely political, and that restored by Elizabeth was more in the spirit of her father than in that of her brother-perpetuated itself only in the Puritan party. Elizabeth's power was built up, therefore, mainly on the foundations laid by Henry; the influence of Edward upon the superstructure being rather modifying than controlling. The strictly progressive movement in the policy of the state was from Henry to Elizabeth, leaping over the two intervening reigns. In a moral point of view, the reign of Edward was very impor tant. Tragical as the end of the two protectors was, whose careers filled the period of this reign, and dark and gloomy as were the events which characterized Mary's government, they rather require of the historian a graphic representation and glowing dramatic description than a development of great political ideas and principles. At least, it must be said that the great political undertakings of both reigns proved entire failures. The interest, therefore, of the historian, arising from unfolding the growing power of the state, will receive considerable abatement during this period of disasters and public calamities, but will rise to a still higher pitch in the reign of Elizabeth. These facts cannot but have their effect in giving a new shape to a skilful teacher's plan of instruction. Perhaps in one respect they will be favorable in their influence, to wit, in breaking up the monotony of a uniform method, and to give to the course the charm of variety. But we must break off here,

VOL. XXII. No. 86.


as we fear the teacher of history will be obliged to break off long before finishing the period of the Tudors.

Before closing, we must say one word in respect to the method of teaching introduced by Guizot. He is undoubtedly one of the best French historiaus. His writings are highly valuable, and deserve to be studied by every student of history. But they do not so much teach us history as furnish us aids in the study of it. If any one is ambitious to resemble him as a historian, he will find it necessary not only to read his writings, but, what is vastly more impor tant, to study what he studied. We do not call in question the truth of his principles, or the soundness of his method of stating them. He is not chargeable with the fault into which so many speculative writers are betrayed, of theorizing without facts; nor even with that, which is still more common, of building up a system which rests upon too slender an historical basis. He investigates his subjects. thoroughly, and draws his conclusions by a method strictly inductive. He then analyzes his conclusions, resolves them into general principles, and, descending again from them, reconstructs the framework of history with the same facility that a Hegelian constructs or creates it.

But the great objection to teaching a class of students history in this way is, that it presents nothing but the results of investigation, leaving the student entirely igno rant of the processes by which they were reached. These results may in themselves be very valuable. They may be useful for the truth which they contain, for storing the mind with ideas, and for arousing reflection. But whatever worth they may have in themselves, or whatever general influence they may exert upon the mind, they do not educate one to the science of history. The method is too much like that of teaching arithmetic by rules. The rules may be convenient. The principles on which they rest may be very familiar to him who formed them; but not so to the learner; he takes them upon trust. It is as true in the study of history as it is in that of mathematics, that the conclusions of others are

valuable to us only as we make them our own. The general views given by Guizot are conclusions to which his own mind has arrived, of the accuracy of which the student has no means of forming a judgment. The several propositions which he lays down are to the student, who is ignorant of the processes by which they were established, a series of conclusions without premises. Now we maintain that the processes are infinitely more important to the student than the conclusions. Without them he has learned nothing of the historic art; nor does he even know, by any perception of his own, whether what he maintains is true or not. He is like the mathematician who has committed to memory answers to problems which he has never worked out. We do not deny that he may learn much that is valuable from ́ the study of such books; but we maintain that he does not learn history. He can be nothing more than a retailer of another man's opinions. Connected with the study of history proper, these opinions may be of great service to him.

Neither conclusions alone, nor the facts alone which lead to them, constitute history. History includes both, and presents the latter as growing out of the former. It is just as preposterous to pretend to understand history without a knowledge of its facts, as it is to profess a knowledge of ancient literature through translations, without an acquaintance with the ancient languages. Guizot himself stood between the old chronicles which he studied and the books which he produced, and could lay his hands on both. In him they were both united, and through him they stand in correlation to each other. It may not be necessary for every one to be a Guizot, or to study the sources of history as he studied them; but without a knowledge of the facts of history from which to draw conclusions, one is no more a historian, than one is of royal blood because he has seen a king. History itself lies between facts and principles; these are its two poles. The want of either destroys the system. It is useless to say that there is not time to study the facts of history. The student of mechanics might just

« FöregåendeFortsätt »