I hope that I do not make the mistake of supposing that, given such historical laboratories as have here been briefly described, the universities would forthwith produce historians. I make no plea for the application of the specific methods of any science to the study of history. But the student of history, like the scientist, has to collect and classify his material, examine and criticise his sources, compare and weigh his authorities, and study his _locale_. What a proper equipment can give him is, not the intellectual power and insight of the great historical writer, but the opportunity to do a student’s indispensable work under the best conditions and with effective guidance, instead of doing it, as is too often the case to-day, under conditions of great disadvantage. That provision of such equipment would also stir the teacher to a more telling presentation of a subject to his class, and enable him to vitalize and dignify a department which, in this country especially, is too often thought of as but little related to current human interests, is not the least of its advantages. FOOTNOTE: [1] This interesting article appeared in _The Nation_ (N. Y.) of October 7, 1909, and is here reprinted with the permission of Prof. MacDonald and of _The Nation_. The Organization of the Recitation BY NORMAN MACLAREN TRENHOLME, PROFESSOR OF THE TEACHING OF HISTORY, SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI. The Importance of the Recitation. The most vital thing in history teaching is the recitation, for no matter how well the teacher has been prepared in the subject matter or how admirably the field of study has been mapped out, poor work in the class room will mean general failure. The reason for this is not hard to discover; the recitation is that part of the work of the teacher in which closest relations are established with the minds of the pupils, and it is above all things important that teachers should realize this and make the most of their opportunities to guide and direct the pupils’ thought and study. Too often the recitation is made a mere repetition of facts in the text-book, poorly organized and presented in an uninteresting and unconvincing way. History that is taught without understanding and enthusiasm and without proper organization of the subject matter had better not have been taught at all, as it results in dislike and contempt for the subject as being nought but a catalogue of meaningless names, dates and events. Yet how few history teachers seem to realize their opportunity to make history mean more than this. How frequently one sees even well-meaning teachers plodding along in the same old rut, painfully extracting unrelated facts from boys and girls, emphasizing the external events and neglecting what lies beneath, asking direct questions and getting “yes” and “no” answers, and being generally satisfied that they are good history teachers and fulfilling their mission in life. The recitation conducted by