truth in it, if we define our terms. What do we mean by "of use"? Is there anything more "useful" to a boy in the proper sense of the word than to be trained from the first to take an intelligent interest in things, to use his judgment, to be reasonable, to think? Well, all these good things the study of history (amongst other things) gives a boy; and that is why Preparatory schoolmasters want more time. It has been suggested that this could be gained by deferring Greek Construing and Greek Prose to the later stage of the Public School and by devoting some of the time thus saved to history; and this is entirely in line with the view now widely and increasingly held that Greek is begun too early in life and would be learnt as well or better at the Public School. At any rate, amid the multiplicity of subjects clamouring for admission to the school curriculum, it seems probable that the additional time asked for can only be gained in the way suggested.

Let us suppose this time gained, so that at least two hours a week should be available for History-how could it best be utilised? Three ways suggest themselves as possible. One hour might be devoted to a broad view of a short period of (say) fifteen or twenty years, and the second to a more detailed study of some of its chief events. Or, the first hour might be given up to a set lesson, whether oral or based on a text-book, and the second to a review of the lesson by means of viva voce questions or (better still) of a short paper. Or, one hour might be allotted to English history and the other to Greek or Roman alternately or in alternate terms. Personally, I have such a strong conviction that the object at which a teacher of little boys should aim is before all things to arouse their interest in history as a subject of study-to the exclusion, if necessary (only it is not necessary), of even accuracy or exact knowledge-that I should have no hesitation in recommending the third alternative, as most likely to forward that imperative end. Interest, once aroused, need never flag; and the Persian or Peloponnesian Wars, the Punic Wars, or the career of Cæsar, lend themselves easily to a picturesque and graphic treatment which rouses a boy's imagination and kindles his enthusiasm-and intelligent enthusiasm means interest.

Again, considering the unmethodical fashion in which our boys of all ages are taught their history, it is no wonder that complaints are rife of the ignorance and inefficiency of assistant masters in teaching the subject. How can they teach what they do not know, or use methods of which they have never heard? In such a case they are driven to adopt that most wooden of methods, keeping one lesson ahead of their pupils in the textbook, and to learn by "experiments on vile bodies" how to teach. But that is not "teaching." Happily it is not all assistants who are in such evil case, and I myself know some splendid exceptions; but I fear it is the rule and must continue to be the rule, until some more systematic methods of historical study are adopted in Secondary Schools.

Lastly, there is one point which is somewhat of a difficulty to all who are interested in teaching history to boys, viz., the defects of the text-books on which they have to rely. "The things that most writers consider interesting" (says one schoolmaster) " do not interest boys." Another desires that "a text-book should not be too long should be clear without being childish-and should not attempt to include too much," which is asking a great deal, though he does not seem to think so. In fact, brevity is inconsistent with interest and almost destructive of clearness, while not one man in twenty knows what to leave out. Even some great historians cannot make text-books interesting reading, however correct they may be. For when a man who has the facts of the period he may be writing about at his fingers' ends essays to boil them down for digestion by young and uninstructed minds, the narrowness of the space at his command hampers him at every turn. Brevity becomes obscurity, or (what is worse) mere allusiveness, which puzzles the unlearned; or the writer hesitates to omit something that he knows to be important, yet words have to be counted. The canvas becomes crowded; you cannot see the wood for the trees. Things lose their due proportion; and then the book, which perhaps embodies the results of a learned man's thought and study, becomes to the unhappy boy-student, who cannot read between the lines, a mere primer of dry facts. He cannot illuminate the dull page by rays of light from other sources; they are not at his command. History, so presented, has and can have no charm for the young fresh mind, but rather repels it. Interest" is the first condition of successful teaching, and to little boys it is the first step that is so important: it is the first presentment of history to their minds that matters-otherwise "interest" rapidly flags, withers, dies; and, when dead, who may revive it?

Hence it is that I venture to protest against putting a textbook into little boys' hands for the purpose of preparing a lesson. If a text-book is used, let it be as a résumé, a digest, a convenient summary of what has already been taught; let it be used after, not before, a lesson. Then perhaps, by the light of what a master has said on broader lines and with manifold illustrations, a boy may learn to read into his primer what has necessarily been left out by the writer, may see more than there is actually there. It may help him to store up in memory dry facts that must somehow be mastered. It will presumably be correct, and may therefore save him from mistakes. To any, however, who are discontented with text-books as they are, and yet do not know what to do, I would in all humility recommend the trial of a method of teaching history which has gradually evolved itself cut of many experiments on my part, and which I have used with success for some years. I have a weekly " lecture" of one hour, to which my class comes armed with pencils and small note-books. For perhaps ten minutes I question them on the preceding lesson, keeping things lively by allowing snapshots," and a correct answer taking a boy to the

top of the class-perhaps even from the bottom. Then I talk on the subject of the new lecture (map and blackboard in frequent use), not fearing to diverge at all possible tangents or to follow side clues, fearing still less to use plain language, or even slang, anything to drive a point home or to keep up interest, recalling wandering thoughts by sudden, sharp questions often recapitulating. Meanwhile, the boys are writing down what is said in their own way. Before the next lecture these rough notes are condensed by the boys, put into shipshape, and copied out "fair" in a large note-booklooked over by me, marked, and returned to the boys. The majority, after a little practice, make a very good précis of what has been said; some learn to draw from the blackboard capital maps or plans The method has this advantage, that I leave out what I please and dilate as I please; and not only is the unfruitful text-book not needed, but a boy all the time is drilled in attention, drilled in writing with his hands while he listens with his ears, drilled in putting ideas into English, the copying notes out fair into a second note-book helping to fix the facts in his memory by the necessity of condensation, and securing that he shall not murder the Queen's English nor spell at his own sweet will. Undoubtedly the usage of the majority is against me, but experience proves to my mind that the method can be made a success, and I am more and more convinced that, as the chief point with little boys is to arouse and enchain their interest, a text-book, if used, should be only for purpose of reference out of school, and not used in form, much less closely followed

Briefly to sum up, I have tried to state shortly (but I hope sufficiently) what a typical section of the Preparatory Schools are doing, and, to my mind, doing well in the way of teaching history. I have pointed out what seems to me some of the chief difficulties with which Preparatory Schools have to contend, and have endeavoured to sketch in outline a "better way," which would dispose of those difficulties, and would make our present "go-as-you-please" method systematic, continuous, and therefore more successful. Lastly, I have described the method which, with occasional modifications, I have myself employed for many years.

A. M. CURTEIS.

THE TEACHING OF GEOGRAPHY IN PREPARATORY SCHOOLS.

I.

In dealing with the question of how far Geography should be taught in Preparatory schools, one is, of course, at first confronted by the difficulty of finding room in the already overcrowded time-table. As long as the standard of the Public Schools is what it is in classics and in mathematics, and as long as boys are anxiously prepared either to get scholarships or to take a good place on entrance, so long will the time-table show a large proportion of hours given up to Latin and Greek and a lesser number devoted to mathematics, while modern languages, history, and geography contend for the remaining spaces of time. Experience tells us that when we have reached the end of one of those terms-which sometimes seem so long-we are not a little disappointed and surprised at the small amount there is to show in every subject. To make good, then, the claims of Geography to a more prominent place in the work done by boys at Preparatory Schools, we must show to the satisfaction of the Public Schoolmaster and of the Universities its value as a factor in education, as well as impress upon those who are teaching boys under fifteen, the importance of making it a natural starting point for all future training. The first thought that needs our attention is that in school life there is a want of connection between the different subjects. Term to a boy is a time-table varied by impositions. There is no common ground on which his classical and mathematical studies touch each other. They are totally and entirely distinct, as are the masters from whom he learns them. Now it cannot be denied that if Geography were taught with the object of connecting the work in schools a great deal might be done to make the amount of knowledge which we now convey done up in separate parcels, in the future more panoramic, that is, a picture showing a view completely around the spectator. For instance, if the Mediterranean Sea be taken as a starting point and two maps side by side displayed to show, one the manner in which the land surrounding it was divided in the palmiest days of the Roman Empire, and another exhibiting the modern empires and kingdoms, there would then not be that sense of separation which seems to exist between what are called Ancient and Modern History. Let it be clearly shown

that while land and sea, river and mountain still remain as they were from the beginning, yet man and his struggles with his fellow-men have changed the surface, have moved the boundaries, and shifted the points of interest round that sea which plays so vast a part in the story of the world. Perhaps the Nile and its yearly message of food would be as good an example of any that we could give of the eternal and abiding work of the Maker of the World, contrasted with the passing away one after another of the races which have lived upon its banks. In fact Greece, Italy, Asia Minor, Palestine, and Egypt illustrate classical literature and the Holy Scriptures, and the boy who understands their position will find his Homer and his Virgil, his Xenophon and his Livy all come easier to him, and the journeys of St. Paul will present no difficulty.

When we have thus established our principle of cohesion by means of Geography we can proceed to our second point, that of expansion. It can be brought before the young mind so that it may grasp the widening of the interest of the world. The boy will learn from his history of the period of discovery of Vasco di Gama, of Cabot, and of Columbus, and then his knowledge of Geography will bring home to him the gradual illumination of the dark places of the earth. The rounding of the Cape, the landing in the West Indies, will lead him on to Africa and to the United States. Also he will see how it was that the one supplied the other with slaves, and what came of that. And intelligent study of the very names on the North American continent will give him the history, first, of the original people who have left Ohio, Mississippi, Alabama, and Massachusetts as witnesses of their occupation of the land, while Virginia will tell him of Sir Walter Raleigh, Maryland and Carolina of the Stuarts, Pennsylvania of the Quaker who founded it, Philadelphia of the brotherly love of the Quaker sect, and Louisiana of the French attempt to found colonies. Familiar English names will tell him how the settlers tried to commemorate the places from which they came. Then, on another continent, the voyages of Cook will remind him of the foundation of Australia, and the struggles of Warren Hastings and of Clive and the victories of Wellesley will, if he has his map beside him, recall the advance in India towards that empire which we govern to-day. It is not the least part of an Englishman's education that he should grasp his citizenship in that Greater Britain which lies beyond the sea. if through his Geography he has gained some power of cohesion in the history of ancient times and has arrived at some conclusions with regard to the expansion of empire which has come about in modern days, he may also learn from it how it has come to pass that languages have arisen. It is not impossible to teach him something about that common stock of many tongues which is called Aryan, and if he knows his map he can easily see how it is that there are so many likenesses between the tongues of Italy, of France, and Spain. Then he will understand how the Teutonic is not only found upon the northern

Then