ranean Europe at its highest point of culture. Scholasticism, as was natural from its deductive methods, had no place in its curriculum for history; classicism, although it did not teach history as a specific subject, yet offered its students historical material of the most precious kind. Thus while it is true that in 1700 history was to all appearances no more recognised as a part of the curriculum at Oxford or at Winchester than it had been in 1500, yet we must remember that at this later date our ablest scholars read, as a matter of course, the great masterpieces of Ancient History as well as the great Poets whose works illustrated—as nothing else could illustrate-the history of the age in which they wrote. Thus we may speak of the classical curriculum as Implicit History, because it contained in itself, not consciously disengaged from literature, a mass of historical material.

At the close of the eighteenth century, however, classicism had in effect fallen too completely into the hands of the commentator and the versifier, and the subject-matter of the great classic writers had ceased to be studied with the enthusiasm of the sixteenth-century scholars. The intellectual life of our Schools and Universities was torpid and unproductive to the last degree; the great stimulus of the Revival of Learning had spent its force. It may even be doubted whether Oxford at the very close of the scholastic period was quite so profoundly asleep as she was towards the close of the classical period. "For a moment," says Mr Rashdall in his great book on the Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, "for a moment the "human world was brought into real and living contact with a "new world of thought and action by the 'New Learning': "but ere long classical education in turn became arid and "scholastic-as remote from fruitful contact with realities-as "the education of the Middle Ages. The history of Education "is, indeed, a somewhat melancholy record of misdirected "energy, stupid routine, and narrow one-sidedness. It seems "to be only at rare moments in the history of the human mind

"that an enthusiasm for knowledge and a many-sided interest "in the things of the intellect stirs the dull waters of educa"tional commonplace. What was a revelation to one genera"tion becomes an unintelligent routine to the next. Considered "as mere intellectual training, it may be doubted whether the "superiority of a classical education, as it was understood at "the beginning of this century, to that of the medieval "Schools was quite so great as is commonly supposed. If in "the scholastic age the human mind did not advance, even "Macaulay admits that it did at least mark time. The study "of Aristotle and the schoolmen must have been a better train"ing in subtlety and precision of thought than the exclusive "study of a few poets and orators."

If you carry your mind from 1800 to 1900 and survey the period between you will see that the significance of this century in the history of the higher education is that the single uniform curriculum of the classics which, with certain modifications (as for instance the great attention given in Cambridge to mathematical studies) had been handed down just as it was from the age of the Renaissance, has been broken up, that alternative schemes of study have been admitted side by side with the classics, and that even where the classics remain the chief staple of the intellectual training given, other subjects, in particular mathematics, history and modern languages and a little natural science have been superadded. The unity of the curriculum in the places of higher learning has been, for the time at any rate, lost and the era of specialisation has begun. The full effect of this immense revolution in our education is but little grasped by any of us as yet. However we are not here concerned with the general theory and history of our higher curriculum but with the fortunes of a single portion of it.

The great impulse which the Romantic Movement in Literature led by Sir Walter Scott gave to the study of History. took effect in general literature, in private reading and in private schools, more particularly in, schools for Girls, some

S. M. L.

8

time before it touched the general body of the public schools. In the second third of the century, Thomas Carlyle and Macaulay began to exercise their prodigious influence over the English middle classes, an influence which has perhaps done more than any other single cause to familiarise the national mind with historical images and historical ideas. Neither can be called a professed teacher of history. Macaulay declined the Professorship of Modern History at Cambridge when the Prince Consort offered it to him, and Carlyle lectured, not at a University, but by way of private venture, in the Portman Rooms in London. He gave four series of historical lectures -in 1837, 38, 39, and 40. In this last year his subject was Heroes and Hero-worship, and this was the only series of the four that he ever wrote out and printed. It is with Thomas Arnold that the systematic teaching of History in our public schools begins. His headmastership at Rugby lasted from 1829 to 1842. His peculiar glory in the records of our education is that whereas, when he came to Rugby, he found on one side a society of Boys with a strange corporate life of their own with games, institutions, and laws of a spontaneous and irregular growth, and on the other side a system of instruction and religious training entirely without relation to or influence upon that corporate life, he contrived to fuse every part of the school energies into a unity with a central purpose. The self-governing commonwealth of the Boys themselves he retained and confirmed, with certain modifications, but this commonwealth was to be so truly ordered as to train its members to take afterwards an active part in the life of the larger commonwealth of Church and State; the instruction whether religious or secular was to interpenetrate and to illumine the life of this commonwealth by introducing the boys to the history of other such communities and to the great literatures ancient and modern by which the ideas of those communities, at their best, have been interpreted and expressed. In Arnold's conception, the English gentleman must not only learn to rule and to be ruled,

and to play football and to speak the truth, but he must also understand the history of his country and the history of Christendom, and the literature of Greece and Rome, which along with the sacred books of the Hebrews lies at the foundation of Christendom. The unity of education, the unity of history are his moving ideas; and we shall fall short indeed of the true estimation of Arnold's work for the study of history if we confine it to such matters as his co-ordination of geography with history, his constant use of the Blackboard in historical instruction, his comparative method of treating ancient and modern history, or even to the admirably devised cycle of historical lessons which he embodied in his school curriculum. Infinitely more important than all these important things was the clearness with which he himself apprehended and taught others to apprehend, the bearing of literature and of history upon life, and of life, in its turn, upon literature and history. He thus put upon an entirely new basis the claim of the old classical curriculum to furnish the best training for the modern Englishman. Our innermost intellectual and spiritual life, ourlaws, politics, religion are charged with forces which we cannot understand nor wisely deal with unless we study them in the light of the single continuous historical process by which they have come to be what they are. Arnold therefore, like Herbart, concentrates and unifies his curriculum; but he does far more, he concentrates and unifies the whole of human life; the core of his circle of studies is active Christian citizenship, and their proportionate value depends upon the degree in which they help to make that citizenship intelligent and earnest.

Arnold's influence as a teacher of History was, of course, not confined to his work at Rugby. In the last two years of his life, 1841 and 42, he held the office of Professor of Modern History at Oxford and, short as his tenure of the chair was, he roused the greatest interest and enthusiasm by his lectures, and placed the study of History in a position of importance which it had never held before. He also profoundly affected

the views of his successors and likewise of those who held the corresponding Professorship at Cambridge. Edward Freeman at Oxford and Charles Kingsley at Cambridge in very different ways continued to expound the views of Arnold. The famous saying that "History is past Politics, and Politics are present History" was one of the sides of his teaching upon which they laid most stress, and which in the last quarter of this century Seeley made the central idea of his work as Professor at Cambridge, in this slightly altered form, "Without History, Politics has no root; without Politics, History has no fruit." This was a view which, to some minds, appeared to have its dangers, and there arose in opposition to it a School which demanded that History should be regarded as a purely abstract antiquarian subject, and that the bearing of the past upon the present should-as a possible cause of prejudice and partisanship-be strictly kept out of its judicial investigations. Of this School Bishop Stubbs, who was appointed Professor at Oxford in 1867, I has been the most distinguished representative in England. Under the influence of men of this way of thinking the efforts of historical students were bent specially to discover the exact and minute truth before any inferences should be made from it. Time forbids us to do more than mention the immense services performed by this school of historians and by the Public Offices which under their inspiration have, both in England and abroad, issued copies of ancient documents, charters, and records such as have revolutionised our ideas more particularly of the Middle Ages.

This split of the historians into the political school and the antiquarian school was followed by further subdivisions. Social life and customs, details of dress, household furniture and the like and all that we vaguely include under Archaeology or Anthropology, had a greater attraction for some scholars than the history of political or municipal institutions, and we have seen arise in this last third of the century a School of Archaeologists which by its excavations and researches have recon