RECENT HISTORICAL WORK IN THE COLLEGES AND UNIVER

SITIES OF EUROPE AND AMERICA.

Inaugural address of President CHARLES KENDALL ADAMS, LL. D. *

During the last few years we have heard much of the tendency to give to all great and profound studies the historical form. The contributions of Darwin to natural history are, in a certain large sense, the result of a study of the history of naturo carried on in a scientific spirit. Studies in machinery, in philosophy, in politics, in electricity even, are every where inclining to take on the same historical methods. In all branches of study it is apparently coming more and more to be seen that one's chances of discovering important new truth are quite exactly in proportion to one's knowledge of the truth that has already been discovered. So far as I remember, it was the French historian Thiers that first pointed out the significance of the historical spirit of the nineteenth century as distinguished from the speculative spirit of the eighteenth. This difference, indicated nearly half a century ago, is now very generally recognized and understood.

There is another fact, however, that is not less worthy of attention. I refer to the extraordinary development of studies in history in the colleges and universities of the world during the last few years. This development has amounted to a veritable revolution. Every American at all familiar with college life in this country knows that great advances have here been made; but a very brief presentation will be enough to show, I think, that even greater progress has been made in many of the countries of the Od World.

* In the preparation of this address I have been placed under obligations by many persons for valuable information. I desire especially to express my thanks to Prof. H. B. Adams, of Johns Hopkins University, Prof. Paul Frédérieq of the University of Liège, Prof. E. Levasseur, of Paris, Prof. Willard Fiske, and Professor Villari, of Florence.-C. K. A.

On this subject, as on many others, we are perhaps in some danger of confining our attention too closely to what is immedi ately about us. Our eyes are apt to rest with contentment on our material growth and our general financial prosperity; and while indulging in this contemplative satisfaction, it is quite possible that we shall fail to see the greater advances which, in certain directions, are being made in the Old World. It would probably be easy to show that notwithstanding all that spirit of enterprise of which we are justly proud as a national characteristic, there are many directions in which we have been far outstripped by what we have been accustomed to regard as the more sluggish peoples on the other side of the Atlantic. We are proud of the recent growth of some of our cities, as well as of some of our universities; but who can compare the municipal government of Berlin or Buda- Pest with that of New York or Chicago, or the educational enterprise of Paris or Strasburg or Zurich with that of the most vigorous of our own universities without a modest admission that, after all, we have vastly more to learn from them than they have to learn from us? And so perhaps it will be in regard to that branch of academic discipline which is of special interest to the American Historical Association. Be that as it may, I have thought that on this occasion it would not be inappropriate to call your attention to the great advances that have recently been made in the teaching of history in the colleges and universities of America and Europe.

In this presentation I shall purposely avoid limiting my inquiries to any specific number of years. The scope of the subject and the brevity of the hour compel me to deal sparingly with details and critical observations. My purpose will be satisfied if I succeed in pointing out the most important characteristics of this general advance. It will be convenient to look first at the teaching of history in the United States, and then at the teaching of history in Europe.

It was nearly two centuries after the founding of Harvard College before the study of history in that institution had any standing whatever. So far as we can judge from the meager information afforded, it was customary during the whole of that period to give an hour at 8 o'clock on Saturday morn ing to the hearing of compositions and declamations and to the reciting of history, ancient and modern. This bare statement is enough to show how impossible it was that the subject

should make any very considerable impression. It was not until 1839 that the study of history in any American college was first encouraged with the endowment of a special chair. To that chair, the McLean professorship of ancient and modern history at Harvard, Jared Sparks was called. At Baltimore, Professor Sparks had made the acquaintance of Marshall, Story, John Quincy Adams, and others, and was already known as a successful student and writer of American history. Mr. Sparks's work at Harvard, though not epoch making or even very progressive in its character, was an improvement on what had been done before. In 1840 he published his edition of Smith's lectures, and in the following year introduced the constitutional history of England. Though in that same year (1841) history and natural history were offered as elective studies, yet when Sparks became president of the college, in 1849, he attacked the elective system with so much vigor. that no further advances could be made. This distinguished historian unquestionably gave an impulse to studies in American history, but he left the foundations and methods substantially as he had found them. Very few lectures on general history seem to have been given to relieve the aridity of Tytler, Keitley, and Schmidt, though some gain was experienced by the introduction of Sismondi and Smith. The small importance attached to this general work is shown in the fact that from 1853 to 1857 the entire field of history was intrusted to the instruction of a single tutor. Nor was there any very important change in method till after the accession of President Eliot in 1869. to 1870 Professor Torrey had for thirteen years done the entire work; but now it was a gain of great importance that ancient history was tranferred to Professor Gurney and modiæval and modern history to Prof. Henry Adams. This enlargement of the force not only enabled the professors to give fuller and better instruction, but, more important still, it made possible the introduction of new and improved methods. The work of Professor Adams was not distinguished by any innovating name; but the volume of essays on Anglo-Saxon law abundantly shows that the spirit of original investigation, not altogether unworthy of a German university, had at length taken root in American soil. And it is gratifying to note that the work so well begun in 1870 by Professor Adams has since that date been carried forward in a similar spirit. The historical staff now consists of seven professors and teachers. The number of

Up

courses offered the past year was eighteen. There appears to be no very clearly defined seminary work, though connected with six of the courses opportunities are offered for something analogous to the methods of investigation that prevail in the seminaries of Germany and the cours pratique of France. It must be regarded as unfortunate that at Harvard, where so much excellent work appears to be done, no provision as yet has been made for the systematic publication of the results that are achieved. But it is no small triumph in behalf of historical studies, that within a single administration instruction in history has been brought at Harvard from its condition in 1869 to its condition at the present day.

Until within a very recent period the teaching of history at Yale was not very different from that which prevailed in the early days at Harvard. President Stiles taught a very little ecclesiastical history at the end of the last century, and Professor Kingsley imitated his modest example at the beginning of this. We find that in 1822, when the first course of studies was published, ancient history was taught in a way by means of the ancient historians, and by means of Adam's “Roman Antiquities" as a text-book. Tytler's "General History" was taught during one term of the junior year, and the first volume of Kent's "Commentaries" was this year introduced for two terms to the senior class. This course appears to have had little modification till the accession of President Woolsey in 1817.

Nor was the change during Woolsey's administration a very radical one. The introduction of political philosophy, of political science, and of international law was undoubtedly a very considerable advance. But these were not wholly within the domain of history. Graduates of Yale, not yet quite venerable, remember with little satisfaction the course of history which consisted chiefly of lessons learned verbatim et literatim from the dry pages of Pütz and Arnold. It was, as Prof. Herbert B. Adams has said, in revolt against this juiceless and utterly disheartening method of instruction, that Prof. Andrew D. White determined to make such a fresh and original departure in 1857 at the University of Michigan.

To the theological students at Yale, Prof. George P. Fisher began in 1861 to give scholarly instruction in Church history, and for many years Dr. Leonard Bacon lectured to theological students on the history of the churches in Amer ica. But it was not until Prof. A. M. Wheeler entered upon the duties of his chair in 1868 that the entire energies of

one professor were required for the teaching of history, and it was not until nine years later that Professor Wheeler was relieved of the American history. Even after Professor Dexter began his work the courses appear to have been very largely confined to such text-books as Eliot's "United States," Lodge's "American Colonies," Johnston's "American Polities," and Von Holst's "Constitutional History." Since 1887 Professor Dexter's work of instruction has been taken by Prof. George B. Adams. Besides a class in Roman history, taught by a tutor in Latin, eight courses of instruction of one, two, or three hours a week during the year are given by Professors Wheeler and Adams, and a two-year course on the constitutional and financial history of the United States is given by Professor Sumner. By Mr. Raynolds, an instructor, a course in comparative constitutional history is also now given. Two of these are for graduate students, and are conducted, more or less rigorously, in a manner to teach methods of original research.

At Columbia College nothing of importance was done till the advent of Professor Lieber, in 1857, as professor of history and political science. And I know of nothing that more vividly shows the conception of what in those days a professor was expected to do, than the formal requirements of the trustees in regard to this professorship. By special vote of the board, the following subjects were assigned to the newly elected professor: modern history, political science, international law, civil law, and common law. It ought not, perhaps, to be regarded as very singular that after Dr. Lieber had staggered under this load from 1857 to 1865, President Barnard should report to the trustees as he did when he said: "It is quite doubtful whether modern history, in the proper sense of the word, ought to occupy any considerable space in the teaching of our colleges. The subject," continued he, "is so vast, and practically so exhaustless, that the little which can be taught in the few hours of class instruction amounts to but a small remove from absolute ignorance." As the result of this suggestion, a committee was appointed "to consider the propriety of abolishing the professorship of history," and, in accordance with their report, the duties of the professorship were added to those of the professor of philosophy and Eng. lish literature. Professor Lieber was transferred to the School of Law. It was not until after ten years that this singularly