and to place them with precision at the proper distances from one another, and in their proper relations to one another. A knowledge of chronology does not necessarily require or imply a knowledge of dates. A few of the great leading dates of history had better be fixed with precision in the memory, as landmarks; but even these can hardly be called indispensable. If one has nothing but such round numbers as these-starting with the Christian era, to fix upon 300 as the date of the establishment of Christianity, 500 as the overthrow of the Empire, 800 for Charlemagne and 1500 for the Refor mation, he has a really accurate outline of Chronology, sufficient, so far as it goes, for the purposes of reading. Still, there is no memory so defective but may easily store up a dozen exact dates, which will serve as landmarks for the entire course of history. Such landmarks may be: B. C. 753. Assumed date of foundation of Rome. 490. Battle of Marathon. A. D. 325. Council of Nicæa. 800. Charles the Great crowned 1066. Norman Conquest of England. 1648. Peace of Westphalia. I think if a person knows these twelve dates, and the events associated with them, he has a tolerable outline of Chronology. But I should combine with these exact dates another series of round dates, by epochs of 500 and 250 years. For example: B. C. 1500. Egyptian Empire. 1250. Assyrian Empire. 1000. Hebrew Monarchy. 750. Empire of Nineveh. 500. Persian Empire. Flourishing period of Greece. 250. Roman Republic. A. D. 0. Roman Empire. 250. Organization of Christian 500. Barbarian kingdoms. Development of Feudalism. 1000. German Empire. The Crusades. 1250. Culmination of papal power. 1500. The Reformation. 1750. Period of Revolutions. By inserting in some of the intermedi. ate spaces, the most important characteristic of the intervening period, we have here a representation of the great dynastic changes of history, sufficiently complete and exact for practical purposes. In considering how to supply the first requirement—an outline of chronologywe have reached a partial solution of the second problem, how to bring out and emphasize the important facts of history. This chronological scheme contains twenty items; add the twelve leading dates before given, and we have thirty-two important facts of history impressed upon the memory. Let us now add twelve names, with which we may associate most of the important events which are not associated with any of these thirty-two. These may be: Solon, Alexander, Hannibal, Cicero, Mahomet, Alfred, Charles the Bold, Columbus, William of Orange, Cromwell, Peter the Great and Frederick II. of Prussia. It is not likely that any two persons would select precisely the same set, either of names or of dates; these are given by way of illustration and suggestion. It will be observed that many of the greatest names of historyGregory VII., Luther, Gustavus AdolCæsar, Constantine, Charles the Great, for in connection with the dates previousphus, and Napoleon, are already provided ly given. American events are excluded, and will be considered separately. In presenting his pupils some such out line as that here sketched, the teacher should be careful to impress upon them that this is nothing but a foundation, and that it will be of very little service unless accompanied and followed up by abundant reading. It would be well to require them to read Freeman's "Outlines of History," or some such work, in connection with these lessons; and upon every event and every name, to encourage what-sons in the book to the outline thus ever collateral reading is in their power. sketched. If I knew any text-book of Universal History which contained just what I think a class needs, I would gladly re. commend it; as it is, the teacher can make good use of any that he finds, for the lessons to be learned and recited, and can supplement them by the course here described. we The precise method of doing this must vary with circumstances. To carry out this scheme perfectly would require more time and access to more books than can be assumed with all teachers. What can the hard-working teacher do, who has no special familiarity with the subject which he is required to teach, and whose time is too fully occupied with other du ties to allow him to make minute preOf course paration in history? recognize the fact that such persons cannot do much more than teach the book which is put into their hands; that we all admit. If he can accomplish some collateral reading in connection with itif it is only to read another text-book of the same grade—by all means let him do it. If his text-book is Anderson, let him read Freeman, or for Ancient History, Thalheimer, or, for modern times, Collier's "Great Events of History;" so much as this must be within the power of almost all. Next, as to the class work. In object ing to a large proportion of the detail that we find in our text-books of history, I do not mean to advise the teacher to drop their use. It is better to do unprofitable work than no work at all, or than to do the work in a slip-shod, superficial style. Let the pupils be required to learn the book they have, until a better one is provided. And then, when the lesson is learned and recited; when a certain period has been passed over; let the teacher, by some process of elimination, determine the names and dates that shall be made prominent in their memory,whether these given above, or some others that may suit him better,-write them upon the blackboard, and refer the les Thus we will suppose the class to have reached the year B. C. 500 in the book. At this stage, let the teacher put upon the board, in a tabular form, the facts which he wishes to impress upon them strongly for this period. For example, combining the three classes of facts specified above: 1500. Egyptian Empire. Moses. [with account of Exodus.] 1250. Assyrian Empire. 1000. Hebrew Monarchy. [refer to David and Solomon.] 753. Foundation of Rome. 750. Empire of Nineveh. [read in Book of Kings about Sennacherib and other kings; and give account of Layard's discoveries.] Solon [with early Grecian history] 500. Persian Empire. [The history of Cyrus connects this with Baby lon, and so with the capture of Jerusalem.] The same method can then be applied to successive periods, as the several great epochs of history are reached. We cannot assume a teacher to have the and maps as he ought to have; he must use of such apparatus in the way of charts make the most of what he has, and show the ancient empires. To assist him in upon his modern maps the boundaries of this, for the use of a teacher of general history, I know no historical atlas so good as Labberton's, which is inadequate for the needs of reading history,but admirable for class use. Let the teacher have this if possible. For modern times he will find Halsey's chart very serviceable. At another time I will take up more especially the subject of Instruction in American History. COMPULSORY UNIFORMITY OF TEXT-BOOKS. Compulsory uniformity throughout the State does not seem desirable, even If practicable. In the first place, the tendency to routine, to unbroken sameness, is already very great in our public schools. This is, in fact, though to a greater degree inevitable, one of the greatest evils incident to any general system of public education. We are obliged to deal with pupils in masses; to prescribe rules and regulations, courses of study, text-books, | or from good ones to better ones, but for discipline, checks and spurs, restraints, the mere sake of the change itself. There incentives, etc., for groups, classes, averages, aggregates of scholars, rather than for individuals. We cannot consult or regard the special aptitudes, idiosyncrasies, needs, talents, tastes and temperaments of particular pupils, to any very great extent, in the instruction and management of common schools. The governing unit in public education, as has already been said, is the mass, the aggregate, the school; it cannot be the individual, to but a limited extent. Hence, as already remarked, the tendency is to sameness of development that is not so favorable to the evolution of the most and the best of which each individual pupil is capable. And this is inevitable in any general system of common schools, or even in any school. Now, the effect of a compulsory uniformity of text-books throughout the State would be to enhance this evil, whereas it is desirable to lessen it as much as possible. Under the present independence of the local districts in respect to the choice of books, while there is or should be strict uniformity in the schools | of each separate district, there is the greatest diversity in different districts, towns and counties; so that pupils, passing from one district, town or county to another, may escape from the ruts of routine in books and methods of which they had become weary, to fresh books and methods, which, even though perhaps intrinsically no better, serve to inspire the pupils with fresh life and spirit. Under the plan of State uniformity, on the other hand, there would be no escape from the routine and stagnation of old books and book-methods, without leaving the public schools altogether; the same unvarying monotony would be found, in this respect, in every school of the State, till it should please the State authorities to make a change. An occasional and judicious change of text-books in a public school is not, in itself, to be deprecated. On the contrary, it is often beneficial, not only when the change is from poor books to good ones, often comes a time in the history of a school when it is quite evident that the substitution of a fresh new book, for a long used old one, would greatly promote the interest of the scholars and the good of the school. In such cases, no higher power should stand in the way; the directors should be free to do what the welfare of their particular school requires. The only important question to be considered in such instances is that of expense. If the parents are generally able and willing to procure the new book, there should be no official obstacle to their doing so. There are, of course, proper limitations to this view of the subject. Changes of text-books should not be frequent. Books should be adopted cautiously and wisely, and always upon their merits alone, and when selected, they should be retained, against all the arts, eloquence and entreaties of outside parties, till they have been fully tested-till they have subserved their best purposes, and done the most service and good of which they are capable, or till the consideration already alluded to, the manifest welfare of the school, reqires a change. This, as a general rule, will take a term of years. I do not think the instances are many where a good book, once introduced into a public school and procured by all the pupils fitted to study it, should be changed after a less trial than from three to five years. In a great majority of cases, such a book should be retained for a much longer period than that; while now and then we find a book of such rare excellence and perennial attractiveness and adaptation, that there seems no limit to the period of its usefuluess, and of course no perceived reason why it should ever be set aside. But the point is, that when the time does arrive when it is manifest, to those qualified to judge, that a particular book should be displaced by another, the power to make the substitution should not be contingent upon the will of the State Superintendent or of any other officer or person, or of any board outside of the community or school whose interests are immediately concerned. And, in like manner, it should not be within the power of any outside official or board to require a book to be changed, which those most interested and best qualified to judge, desire still to retain. The welfare of the individual schools, as estimated by their appointed guardians, in the exercise of their best judgment, aided by the wisest available counsels-this, and this only, should be permitted to govern the question of changing or retaining a particular text-book. The action of the local school boards in the matter should be free alike from State functionaries, from the clashing interests of publishers, and from the importunities of their agents. New text-books, when changes are found to be desirable, should be introduced gradually; not a simultaneous change of the whole list, but one at a time-now of an arithmetic, then of a grammar, and the next year of a geography, and so on, as new classes are formed, so that the expense may fall as lightly and as evenly as possible upon the parents, and the general course of instruction in the school may not be suddenly changed. If these rules are observed, every school will be kept substantially abreast of all real improvements in textbooks, while the great evil of frequent and violent changes, and consequent irritation and burdensome expense to the people, will be avoided. It is only when unnecessary and arbitrary changes are made, changes not required for the welfare and efficiency of the school, but made under the pressure of outside and it may be mercenary influences, that, as a general rule, the people are dissatisfied and complain of the expense to which they are needlessly subjected. Against all such changes of text-books it is impossible to remonstrate too vehemently. Again: The law of 1855 in relation to State uniformity of text-books, maps, charts, etc., was objected to for the reason that if enforced and carried out, it would seriously impair the aggregate efficiency and power of teachers, and thus be an injury rather than a benefit to the schools of the State, as a whole. This would be less obvious if the great body of our teachers were so thoroughly the masters of the subjects taught as to be on their own account, independent of text-books, able to teach equally well with them or without them. Though even then the objection to State uniformity would not be without force, as will presently be shown. But when it is considered how dependent most teachers are upon the text-books they use upon the very words of their authors-the correctness of the position assumed will be very different. In all kinds of labor, the ways and means, the instrumentalities and methods employed, are manifold and various, almost as much so as the characteristics of the laborers' themselves. Hardly any two farmers, mechanics, merchants, manufacturers, artists, or workers in any other pursuit, do the same thing in precisely the same way. Numberless familiar illustrations of this will readily occur to every one; I need not give them. Each may do the thing quite as rapidly and as well as the other, though each does it after his own manner; and to require either to adopt the method of the other would be absurd in itself, and ensure loss both in the quality of the work done and in the time required for its performance. As well oblige every lady to use the same kind of a sewing machine, or every farmer the same kind of a plow or reaper. The end being the same, let each attain it in the way that is best for himself—this is the common sense of it, and the practice which obtains in all the industrial pursuits of life. The same principles apply in the use of text-books, and in the means and methods of teaching, explaining and illustrating different sciences and branches of study in common schools. Reading, spelling, arithmetic, geography, history, penmanship, grammar, algebra, the classics, the natural sciences, and whatever else is taught in the public schools-how differently they are presented, taught, and illustrated by different teachers. What diversity in the chosen sequence of subjects, and topics, and rules; in the order and methods of development; in the aids and anywhere; and in Massachusetts there is, instrumentalities employed; in the rela- in reality, no State system. The State has tive prominence of this or that principle; no power to enforce any regulation on in the manner of study, -investigation, the towns or parishes; it can but recɔminstruction and recitation. As teachers mend. Its grants of money are altogether are generally consulted, and should al-trivial, and, trivial as they are, they are ways be, in selecting text-books for the not made to depend on any conditions schools of which they are to have charge, essential to the efficiency of the school when such selections have not already instruction. The Massachusetts Board of been made, they can suggest authors Education admit that they have no power whose methods are most in harmony with whatever over the schools of the State, their own habits of thinking and teach- and that all they can do is to regard their ing, and which they can use most effect-progress with watchful interest. "In New York State there appears to be nothing whatever really in the nature of a State system, no organic or regulative unity whatever among the schools, or in the total school administration of the State, as such. In the city, of course, there is administrative unity." ively. And when changes are made, the same end can be kept in view. In this way, by a rational eclecticism, by allowing teachers to use, so far as practicable, those books which they know by experience to be the best adapted to their own methods of investigation and instruction, and with which they can do the best work, it comes to pass that, as a general rule, each teacher is in a condition to achieve the utmost of which he is capable-he is equipped with implements which he knows best how to use.-Hon. N. BATE-trate the enlightenment and liberality of MAN, State Supt., Ill. HOW AN ENGLISHMAN SEES US. In a recent volume on "National Education and Public Elementary Schools," the author, Dr. Rigg, makes the following, among other observations, upon American schools: "When De Tocqueville visited the United States, the religious character of the schools was marked. Since that time it has, in many instances, been gradually fading away. It may well be doubted whether the moral tone of the common schools in the States to-day, or of the national education generally, higher as well as lower, is nearly so good as at the time of the illustrious French philosopher's visit. One thing, moreover, is absolutely certain, that there neither has been, nor is likely to be, any secular system of schools in the States; if for no other reason than this, that there is, and is likely to be, no national system of schools whatever. Except in Massachusetts and New York there appears to be hardly a shadow of even a State system, properly so called, "It has been customary for persons to take the model schools of Boston, or of New York, as examples of the United States national system; whereas they are quite exceptional, and only serve to illus public educationists in these two cities. "Even in New York and Boston," no "more than a small fraction of the children pass onward through the grammar and high schools, or even through the grammar school. One of the New York assistant superintendents,' says Bishop Fraser, 'computes that not more than one half of the children who attend the primary schools ever enter the grammar schools; and another states that a considerable number do not even complete the primary course."' Quoting from a Vermont report, Dr. Rigg continues:-"Many of the better teachers are driven out of the schools by those of immature age and insufficient accomplishment, who underbid them. A large proportion of the town superintendents are totally incompetent to conduct an examination; others are men of sufficient capacity, but for years they have been unfamiliar with scholastic matters. But, however competent they may be, it requires a good deal of nerve for a man to deny the daughter of his friend a certificate, especially if the parent of the |