As for the other “eye of history,” chronology, there is a respectable showing. The examination questions have not asked for lists of dates, though a knowledge of dates has been frequently demanded by the nature of the questions, and such demands have not found the pupils wanting. An occasional anachronism has occurred, and has served to enliven the reading, as the statements that the barons of the time of William the Conqueror spent most of their time smoking and drinking, and that Milton was effective by means of his efforts in the daily papers. Occasionally a candidate would show what he could do by prefacing or concluding his answer book with a chronological table for the whole subject.
Answers to what may be called sweeping questions such as “Trace the rise and fall of the naval power of Athens,” show a lack of practice in reviewing by topics; though meagre, they suggest more acquaintance with the subject than is written down, giving evidence of considerable drill on isolated points, if not on the continuous story. All the history papers since 1901 have had questions of this sort, and it would seem likely that teachers would take the hint and exercise their pupils in following a train of events from reign to reign, from administration to administration, from century to century. The general failure with this type of question and the general success in timing isolated events leads to the fear that the history is studied wholly by reigns or administrations without regard to the “ceaseless course” of Time.
The history examiners have also made a point of introducing questions characterized by their timeliness, about Alfred the Great in the year when the thousandth anniversary of his death was being celebrated, in 1904 on the Louisiana Purchase, in 1909 on Grover Cleveland, questions which it was expected would receive unusually full treatment. The expectation was disappointed, possibly because their “timeliness” did not exist for the candidate; because current events have had no share of his attention, though they might be taking the form of celebration of the past. As for current events pure and simple, those that belong to the present _per se_, any option on them is avoided. The only subject of current interest on which information has seemed to be widespread was the melodramatic experience of Miss Ellen Stone. Allied to this ignorance of current events, is the ignorance of the nineteenth century in Modern history and in English history. A candidate could write a passable account of Charlemagne and fail on Bismarck, could be accurate about Wolsey and yet state that Gladstone wrote standard law books. For this knowledge of the remote past and ignorance of the recent present, Dr. James Sullivan says that the text-books should be held responsible, as few teachers are any better than their text-books.