A course of study and teachers' handbook in the common literature of life

Front matter

f

Class_ "pTi 5~>

Book ’Ll5 V4 2 ,

CHAP. I: LIFE AND THE COMMON SCHOOL_ _ _ 7-10 The Work of the Elementary School_ _ 7

The Demand for Greater Efficiency__ ___ 7-8

The Curriculum in Need of an Overhauling - _ 8

Constructive Effort, the Order of the Day___ 9

School Literature Especially in Need of Reform. __ 9-10

CHAP. II: COMMON SCHOOL WORK IN LITERATURE: TRUE VALUES vs. TRADITIONS- __ 1 11-27

Our Heritage of Literature and Its Value_ _ _ 11-12

Its Uncertain Place in the Curriculum__ 13

The Traditional Content of the Literature Course_ 13-17

The Traditional Method of Teaching Literature_ _ 17-20

Origin of the Traditional Methods in Literature_ 21-23

Results Real and Alleged_ _ 23-26

Wanted: A Love of Good Books_ _ _ 26

Promises Unfulfilled_ 26-27

CHAP. Ill: A PLAN FOR THE WORK_ _ _28-38

Aims and Purposes of the Course_ 28-30

The Contents of the Course_ 30-32

Sound Methods__ 32-38

CHAP. IV: PLEASURE READING AND GOOD READING HABITS_39-45 The Value of Good Reading Habits_ . _ 39-40

Readimg Habits as a Definite Aim._ _ _ 40-42

How to Stimulate Pleasure Reading_ __ 42-45

Books for Pleasure Reading and Teacher’s Preparation__46-48

Part II. In The Beginning_ __ _ 49

HERCULES, FRIEND AND HELPER OF MEN_ _ 54

THE ADVENTURES OF THESEUS_ _ _ _ 61

HOW PERSEUS KILLED THE MEDUSA_ _ ___ 64

THE ARGONAUTS AND THE GOLDEN FLEECE_ _ 66

COLUMBUS_ 69

OTHER SHORT POEMS

Page.

HOW CADMUS BUILT A CITY AND GAVE MEN THE ALPHABET_ 73

BAUCIS AND PHILEMON: HOSPITALITY AND ITS REWARD_ 75

HOW MIDAS FOUND SOMETHING WORTH MORE THAN GOLD--- 77

THE TROJAN WAR______ 80

THE WANDERINGS OF ULYSSES...__ 88

THE PERSIAN WAR: MARATHON AND THERMOPYLAE_ 91

DAMON AND PYTHIAS __ .1.____ 99

THE SWORD OF DAMOCLES__ 101

ALEXANDER THE GREAT___ 104

THE ADVENTURES OF .ENEAS___ 108

IIORATIUS AT THE BRIDGE AND OTHER EARLY ROMAN LEGENDS_ 112

HANNIBAL, ROME’S GREATEST ENEMY__ 119

THE STORY OF BRUTUS AND C.ESAR_ 124

STORIES OF ARTHUR AND HIS KNIGHTS___ 131

OLD IRONSIDES _____J_ 143

ALFRED, THE GOOD KING__ 145

HAROLD, LAST OF THE SAXONS AND WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR_ 148

RICHARD THE LION HEARTED AND THE CRUSADES_1_ 153

SHERIDAN’S RIDE _ 159

KING JOHN AND THE MAGNA CHARTA__ ... :_ 171

WILLIAM TELL_ 173

ARNOLD OF WINKELR1ED_ 175

A LEGEND OF BERGENZ_ 177

JOAN OF ARC_ 178

HOW THEY BROUGHT THE GOOD NEWS FROM GHENT TO AIX. _ 182

SCOTCH HERO STORIES_ 184

THE STORY OF THE ARMADA, AND THE “REVENGE”_ 197

THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE AND THE STORY OF THE RED

CROSS SOCIETY_ 201

THE BATTLE OF BLENHEIM _ 205

PART I

Chapter I. Lipe And The Common School

THE WORK OF THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

The common schools exist for a definite purpose. Their business is to give to every boy and girl of the land that preparation for life which common experience has shown to be of essential value to all. This means that the common schools must distribute to all the knowledge that life experience shows to be useful to all; that they must yield a certain wealth of culture which the world has found place for; and that they must give to every mem¬ ber of each new generation those mental and emotional attitudes which have molded and characterized our civilization.

All this is no paltry work. Indeed, there is no work equal to it in dignity or importance in the whole field of education. It is the basis for intelligent contact with the world through speech, writing or action. Our common business relations, our standards of appreciation of literature, of the play, of the nation’s past, of morals and manners depend largely upon it. It is the very foundation of nationalism. It is the cement binding the heterogeneous elements of society into a true social structure.

Neither is it a work which can be done in haphazard or uncertainty. Every course in the curriculum must bear its part in the general plan. Each must be based upon a certain knowledge as to just what portion of the total result it can contribute. Its aim must be clearly marked out; its content must be selected with the attainment of that end always in view; its meth¬ ods must be devised so as to insure the attainment of its purpose; and the results must be able to show upon inspection that the whole process has accomplished what it undertook. Without a sound conception of the great purpose for which common schools exist, and without careful organization of the curriculum for the attainment of that purpose, we can not hope to accom¬ plish anything like satisfactory results in this greatest of all educational undertakings.

THE DEMAND FOR GREATER EFFICIENCY.

At the present time the problem of improving the efficiency of our common schools as trainers for life is mote keenly before the minds of teachers than it has been for generations. Many proposed reforms,—some of demonstrated value and others speculative in their worth,—are on foot in the effort toward improvement. Better systems of supervision are being urged. The demand for expert teachers under fair conditions of tenure and salary is increasing. Compulsory education laws are being enacted. Manual, mechanical and agricultural branches are being wedged into the course of study. And finally, the whole traditional content of the common school curriculum is being examined to determine its worth, to the end that its futilities may be diminished and its values increased. Along all lines of special interest, in every direction of educational enterprise, the situation is tense with criticism, discussion, and proposed reform.

It is well for us as public servants that this is so. Society is beginning to learn what it should get from its institutions. It is beginning to examine the worth of their results. From the transcontinental railroad, the labor union, the city government, the common school system,—from all its institu¬ tions, great and small,—it is demanding a return proportionate to the abili¬ ties of each. Indeed, it would seem that the people at large are beginning to assume in fact that which our American theories have all along fancied to be theirs: a sense of individual responsibility for the well being and worth of the institutions which they maintain. And already there is abundant evidence that this sense of responsibility is turning the white light of public attention upon the schools. Their promises and results are being com¬ pared. Their theories and practices are being placed side by side. As never before in their history, they are being subjected to critical examination; and as never before they are receiving the wholesome judgment of an awakened public intelligence.

Therefore, while there is yet time, let us put our schools in order. Let us put them in order because they need it; and if this be not sufficient reason to stir us, then let us put them in order because the world at large is rapidly coming to know that they need it,—and to form its own conclusions of us and our work in the light of that knowledge.

THE CURRICULUM NEEDS AN OVERHAULING.

First in urgency and importance of all the things which we might do to increase the efficiency of our common schools is a thorough overhauling of the curriculum. It is high time that each subject found in it should stand and make answer in plain terms as to just what part it plays in preparing boys and girls for life. Then, as a result of such examination, false goals must be abandoned; unfulfilled promises must be redeemed or promptly given up; worthless content must be discarded; fruitless methods must be thrown out. And this is the least of what must be done. Line by line, there must be built out of all that remains of tested worth in the old and with such new values as sound judgment shall dictate a new curriculum. It must be a curriculum whose purpose, content, method and result shall conform to such standards of efficiency as an earnest body of skilled workers may, in self-respect, set for their labors: a standard of efficiency which shall not be found wanting when tested by society, in whose name and for whose preservation all schools exist.

Progressive superintendents, principals, and teachers everywhere are look¬ ing for such constructive efforts as shall vitalize the curriculum and insure its* results in life values. They know that much of the traditional content is dead wood; that much of it has no place in the life needs of the masses; that it is of interest and value only to the specialist. They know that many of the traditional methods are not adapted to win values of common worth from such content as does exist; that emphasis is often wrongly placed; that false leads have been exploited; that subjects are all too frequently taught instead of children. And they know, also, that tested by the best test of all,—namely, actual results,—much of the work is without avail. Many of its boasted results remain unattained. Some are proved to be clearly unat¬ tainable. And results actually achieved are often empty victories, without profit to the children and hence withodt credit to the schools.

School workers, striving for a better curriculum, have lost interest in the hair-splittings and chaff-beatings of the pedagogical scholastics. They have submitted peacefully for the last time to that intellectual anaesthetic,—the vacuous “ Begs-leave-to-report — 99 of the special subcommittee. They have winnowed and sifted the wisdom which theorists have passed down to them from on high. And now they demand action. Evasions are no longer in order with them. Excuses are no longer acceptable. Oracular utterances from the wise; nebulous theories based upon the suspicions of psychology; scholastic pedantries girt with their hoary superstitions: all these have lost their pow r er to conjure or to charm.

For the leaders in good works among the school workers of the day have their faces set toward a splendid goal. They know that the common schools should prepare boys and girls for the common uses of life; they know that the curriculum needs reorganization for the attainment of this end; and their demand is now for constructive reform. Those who are so far and lone in the desert of tradition and hold their heads so stoutly thrust therein as to fail to hear this rising demand of the age must be left behind. The caravan has waited for them through a weary night. Now it has orders to march. It has business ahead at the great oasis,—the oasis of life where the wellsprings of things useful are found,—the oasis where common sense shall yet find all things needful for the schools of the children of men.

SCHOOL WORK IN LITERATURE, ESPECIALLY IN NEED OF

REFORM.

The work of reorganizing the curriculum of the elementary school so that it will yield life values and nothing else is well under way. In arithmetic, reading, history, geography, language work and other subjects considerable has already been done in the way of aligning the course to right standards. These subjects are, therefore, becoming more and more worth while in the general work of preparing young people for life. But the subject whose need of an overhauling is greater than all the rest has remained almost with¬ out constructive criticism and wholly without constructive efforts at reor¬ ganization.

Our school work in literature still remains a confusion of tangled doctrine and worse tangled practice.

Every fundamental question which one might ask concerning the litera¬ ture work of our grammar schools is either unanswered by the varying practices of the day, or is answered in such vague, unconvincing and often contradictory terms that no one can feel any confidence in the answer. Consider the following inquiries for a moment: In what grades should literature be taught ? What is the best selection of content for the course ? By what methods should it be taught? What results should be gained? What are the actual results of our work? What is the proper relation of school literature to formal reading, oral expression, composition, moral training, biography, to the study of language forms, to a knowledge of the meaning of allusions found in great masterpieces, to the common uses of life? Until these questions and their like are answered and answered right, our school course in literature must continue to toss hither and yon,— like a dismantled hull without sail, chart or compass,—the sport of every passing pedagogical whim.

Chapter II

COMMON SCHOOL WORK IN LITERATURE: TRUE VALUES VS. TRADITIONS.

This handbook aims to present a course of study in literature which will answer the questions just propounded. It aims to place the subject upon a dividend paying basis. Its content is based upon one simple proposition, namely, that the common schools should give to the children of each new generation the knowledge, culture, and appreciation of that literature which has become a part of our common heritage. Let us see just what this means.

OUR HERITAGE OF LITERATURE.

There are certain stories, legends, and poems which belong to us all. Some of these, such as the old Greek myths, come down to us from our earliest literary beginnings,—tales of gods and men in which are found those simple ideals whereby mankind first struggled into the stature of manhood. To these have been added, one by one through the passing centuries, certain splendid stories which appeal to and strengthen the best traits in our human nature. Still others we have accepted from the pens of story-tellers and poets of these later days. But whether recent or remote in origin, whether poetry or prose, whether inspired by the mind of a genius or born of the genius of the folk, they are all one in spirit,—for they all have the power to grip and hold the human heart.

It is this literature, world-worn yet ever fresh, which this course proposes to present to children. It offers to them the old, old stories, which every one knows: stories of Hercules, and the Trojan War, and Alexander the Great; of King Arthur and Chivalry, and Richard the Lion; of William Tell and Joan of Arc and the Scotch Heroes; of Magna Charta and the Crusades and the Romance of the Sea. Here are the great myths of our parent civilizations: tales of wonder and marvel, exploits of heroes, epics of dawning nationalism. Here are the records which the race has preserved of its great dramas: stories wherein the Marathons of the past live forever. And here, too, may be found the golden deeds of the world’s great leaders: tales of those whose lives stand as pillars of light,—whose sacrifice or good faith or splendid courage still live, undimmed by time, in the memories of men.

VALUE OF LITERATURE IN LIFE AND IN THE SCHOOL.

What values may we expect such a body of literature to yield? We need not guess at an answer. We need not trust to hopes or theories or vainglorious promises in order to say. For life has proved its values. 1 he world has tried and tested its worth through the centuries. We need only to mark what this literature of the people has done all through the past generations to know what values it holds for the generations of to-day and of to-morrow.

These things above all others it has done: It has furnished a large share of the world’s culture. It has solidified for nations their national lore and given races their traditions. It has developed and sustained those attitudes of mind and heart which stand at the foundation of our civilization. It has subjected each member of society to a series of emotional experiences which have helped to lift him to the level of the world of men. Thus, it has kept the individual with his nation, loyal to his race, in touch with the best standards and ideals of life by giving him the viewpoint of his fellows,—by bringing him within the scope of that which has molded and humanized his race. And at all times it has been a source of pleasure. Ever since men have been men the bard and story-teller have been chief among entertainers.

Let us imagine a man cut off from all the literature that passes current in the world around him. Suppose that he has never by literary proxy fought at Thermopylae, or held the Tiber Bridge or stood for knightly honor with the heroes of Arthur, or forced a charter from King John or suffered and triumphed with William Tell and Joan of Arc, or felt the call to splendid action ringing in the rhythm of the heroic ballads of his mother tongue; suppose in short that he has never enjoyed and felt the meaning of the myths and legends, poems, stories, and inspired interpretations which live in the hearts of those about him: what sort of a creature would such a one be? Suppose, further, that he is endowed with all else that education can supply: still he is far from being a man in fellowship with his kind. He has varied from the kindly race of men. He is a thing apart, an outcast and a lonely thing, unsocial, unhuman, a product of his own feeble clash with environment, emotionally the result of his own paltry experiences.

To prevent such a condition is the function of literature in life and in the schoolroom. Our purpose, therefore, should be to give to each individual the knowledge, the culture, the mental and emotional attitudes which come from an appreciation of the world’s best loved literature. Each child must be brought into touch with the characters, situations, problems, and issues that literature has presented to his kind. The wealth of story and story apprecia¬ tion that has become a part of the common heritage of his race must be poured out for him.

Surely, such a work should have no mean place in the common schools whose business is to give each child of the land his share of the things which life experience shows to be needful to all.

Before asking any one to believe in the worth of the course indicated above and planned out in the following pages, or even to accept the general¬ ization upon which it has been worked out, it is no more than fair that we should examine somewhat in detail the condition of literature teaching as it reveals itself in the practices of our schools. Such an examination will reveal to us the manner in which the work is actually being carried on. Then we shall be able to draw such conclusions as to the worth or futility of the work done, and concerning the character of the work that should be done, as the facts may warrant.

THE PLACE HELD BY LITERATURE IN THE CURRICULUM.

The first fact that strikes one who examines a number of our varying courses of study in literature is this: Literature stands alone among other standard subjects of the curriculum in having no definite, traditional place set aside for it. To be sure, all schools claim to teach it, and in nearly all courses of study it claims in its own name a share of the time in certain grades. But there is no general agreement as to the amount of time it should have. In some schools it appears in all the grades from fifth to eighth inclusive. In others, the last three grammar years contain it. Still others give it place during the last two years. And there are many schools where the eighth grade alone finds room for it. In only a few courses of study it does not appear at all as an independent subject. In such cases, however, it is understood that it will receive some sort of indirect attention in connection with the work in oral reading or composition.

This condition of discordant usage in the matter of the time to be devoted to literature is a self-evident absurdity. If literature is worth a place in the curriculum at all it is because it has certain values of fundamental worth to all comers. These fundamental values are as vital to the preparation for life of the children in our cities as in the country, in one county as in another. It would seem to be self-evident that if they are essentially worth while in the education of all, then they should be distributed to all; and if literature has no such values, then it should not claim a place in the pre¬ scribed work of the common schools.

But, in another light, the confusion though not justifiable is explainable. Course of study makers and users seem to be pretty much in the dark as to the worth and nature of the subject which they label literature. It is a name that covers a multitude of educational perplexities and confusions. Hence, it is no wonder that school folk hardly know what place to give it in the curriculum. Confusion in the matter of time allotment is merely a natural consequence of the general confusion which surrounds it.

THE TRADITIONAL CONTENT.

The content of our elementary course in literature has come to have a traditional character. Although different schools adopt different selections as a basis for the work, there are certain ones which stand clearly marked as favorites. From them we may fairly judge of the content as a whole, for they are typical of the rest of it. The following have been noted as selections most commonly found in the schools of California: Evangeline, Hiawatha, Miles Standish, Snow-Bound, Rip Van Winkle, The Lady of the Lake, The Merchant of Venice, Enoch Arden, The Great Stone Face, The Alhambra, Sir Roger de Coverley Papers, The Christmas Carol, Translations of

Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. One of the longer of these selections, sometimes garnished with two or three short poems, is the usual apportionment for a half-year’s work. Most of our courses are, therefore, based upon two or four of such longer selections, with a few short poems thrown in.

A course of study thus built up of a mere handful of the masterpieces of our literature is fundamentally defective. In the first place, such material is not the sort adapted to arouse and strengthen the first literary apprecia¬ tions of children. In point of form and content, and because of the evil methods which invariably attend its exploitation, it shoots far over their heads. In the second place it does not include the right selections nor enough of them to give children that lore which has become a part of our common race heritage in literature.

Roger De Coverley Papers, a Typically Bad Case.

Let us consider a typical illustration of this traditional content. It will show us the reasons why such selections have come into the common school curriculum, and will indicate the futility of their presence there when .judged by the true purposes of the work.

Of late years the Sir Roger de Coverley Papers have crept into a number of courses of study in literature. These essays on the social life of an English country gentleman of the early eighteenth century had a limited vogue in their day in the coffee clubs and among literary epicures and their following of satellites. Since then the specialist in English literature has been busy upon them. He has discovered that they have a 11 place’ ? in the development of English prose. He has noted, presumably with joy, that they are written in a curious style, somewhat pompous, not to say clumsy, according to modern standards. He has found them to be full of quaint words and odd constructions and to yield innumerable allusions to events and conditions that have been generally forgotten for over a hundred years. All this offers a wide range for study, a chance for fine smackings of appre¬ ciations, and gives the specialist great joy. Naturally he has found the papers interesting, just as a paleontologist finds an odd bone or a perplexing fossil a source of interest. It is of the things nearest his heart.

All this is well enough. Surely no one has any fault to find with the literature specialist because he has a peculiar taste for quaint and curious volumes of forgotten lore. But consider the result. The scholars in their en¬ thusiasm have sent Sir Roger, in all his musty habiliments, stalking through the high school and then on down into the grammar school. Nothing is too good for the children, they say. And so the children are presented to a masterpiece in which they can not have the slightest natural interest, by which their appreciations for books must be chilled rather than warmed, and from which no amount of grubbing can exhume a single scrap of knowledge or culture which life has found use for.

And all this is bad. It is bad because it has resulted in teaching that has been fruitless; because in its very nature it has foisted upon the schools a content for the work in literature that is not adapted to yield life values to the American of average education. Moreover, these essays are only a type case of many other improper selections, and an illustration of the special interests which have determined not only the traditional content but also the traditional method in our school work in literature.

The World’s Appreciation, a Sound Basis for Selection.

Some one will say, “Whose word is to be taken as to the suitability of this or that selection for school work in literature if the scholar is not to lead? Who else has the wisdom to decide? If the specialist is at fault no one is able to stand before the county board and out of the depths of his own judgment make safe answer.” Fortunately, there is no need to appeal to any one. The great mass of cultured, well-read Americans have decided. They have clung to the story of William Tell. They are intimate with Hercules and his exploits. They are still on friendly terms with Robin Hood and King Arthur and Horatius. On the other hand, they have placed The Great Stone Face on a top shelf; they have forgotten that there ever was such a poem as Comus; and they have never of their free will known or cared about Sir Roger de Coverley. These latter works may make ever so strong an appeal to the specialist in literature, but they show no hold on the general interest of our fellows; and this in spite of their bolstering and nursing in courses of study in literature.

Therefore, by the operation of a well known natural law, the law of the survival of the fittest, certain selections have been marked as unfit and certain others have been stamped as fit for a common school course of study in literature. In the affections of the generations the fittest has not meant the selection that offers the best occasion for allusion hunting, or style analysis, or discussion of place in literary history, or special tang for favored palates. But the race has chosen as fittest to live in its affections those stories, poems, and interpretations that have proved themselves to appeal to the funda¬ mental human feelings and that have aroused through their situations the loves and the hates and the admirations that stand typical of the heart of the people. It is of this literature, proved fittest to move our hearts by the token that it has moved the hearts of our fellows, that we should build up our grammar school course of study. Through it the boy can be brought to his own in the literary birthright of his generation. It is the only means whereby he may experience the emotional experiences, the appreciations of specific situations, characters, and motives that literature has yielded to those who form his social unit.

The Traditional Course Contains too Few Selections.

The traditional course in literature is not only defective in that it contains selections of a character unfitted for such a use. It is also deficient in that it contains altogether too scanty a content. One swallow does not make a spring; nor will one poem in the literature class develop an appreciation for poetry. Reading tastes and habits are not formed over night or through one literary experience. They are the product of long and varied contact with books. The absence of the breadth of literary contact must ever be a funda¬ mental weakness in any course of study having but a scanty content.

There is another vital consideration that should urge us to increase the number of selections given for study in the school. The purpose of the work is to give the child acquaintance with the literary lore that is found current in the broader life about him. Plainly this can not be done by introducing him to merely a small fragment of this lore. He will not have a familiar acquaintance with Horatius because he has met Leonidas. The Arthur stories will not give him the emotional attitudes that are common among his fellows from their appreciation of William Tell. The child must be brought into direct, intimate touch with as many specific characters and situations in literature as are necessary in order to give him what the world about him possesses. In this way he will be brought to have his share in the staple culture of his race.

Dangers of the “Type Method.’’

It has been urged in this connection that a few literary types, thoroughly presented, will serve to give general appreciation. Without commenting here on the dangers lurking in the common ideas about 1 ‘ thorough presenta¬ tion, ’ ’ it may be pointed out that this is just what our schools are doing and that the results show no signs of a general literary appreciation among our graduates. The literary type idea is dangerous because it seeks to maintain a fundamental error in our schools and to ground that error upon a peda¬ gogical theory. It does not note the palpable facts that habits of reading, like other habits, are the result of many experiences; that the child must grow to a mature literary taste through many contacts with literature; that the type selected may not be individually a selection that has any part in the world culture in literature and hence may offer the pupil no help in securing his share of that culture; and that the scheme has long been tried and found wanting.