chiefly for its bearing on education. For this reason the subject is studied largely in its historical aspects. I want teachers to know something of the development of society both for its bearing as well on the aims as on the general method of education, and for the light it throws on the process of development in the life of the individual child. The chief difficulty I find is in the literature, which is so little organized, contains such a vast mass of what is chaff from the point of view of education, and in many instances has to be translated from jargon into English. I am thoroughly convinced that if even what has been published (to say nothing of what further investigation may disclose) could be put into usable shape, the study might be made of vastly greater practical use to prospective school teachers than has been undertaken within my knowledge; indeed, it might come to be considered one of the prime essentials of a pedagogical course."

CLARA BYRNES, Associate Professor of History, Normal College of the City of New York: "It seems to me that the work in sociology will develop most value along the line of practical work, and studies of actual conditions; that for the undergraduates a simple theory and much supervised observation to some definite end is the desirable thing. Random observation of social facts is stimulating, but dangerous, to these younger students. In the Normal College, we hope to double the numbers in our optional class in sociology in September, 1909, and in September, 1910, to open new courses in this field. The time of the associate professor will probably then be devoted entirely to sociology and economics."

E. T. MATHER, Principal of State Normal School, Bellingham, Wash.: "It is difficult to teach because it is not a well-defined science. It is rather a group of ideas and theories, each of which pretends to be or tends toward a science in itself."

W. H. CHEEVER, State Normal School, Milwaukee: "I think every person who intends to teach or who teaches should have training in sociology. I am endeavoring to arouse an interest in rural teachers along the lines indicated in the enclosed report, also along the lines indicated by the Committee for the Betterment of Rural Life. I do this in my work as state institute conductor. I think the course in sociology in this school is regarded as one of the good courses."

T. R. CLOW, State Normal School, Oshkosh, Wis.: Hopeful. In spite of being unfortunately placed in our curriculum, so that very few students could take it, we have always had classes in it ranging from five to twelve. I have come to believe that it should be a required study for the training of teachers. Our course of study is now being revised and I hope sociology will have a place where a large number can take it. We still lack suitable textbooks, however, i. e., they do not exist yet."

There is still a great deal of misunderstanding about sociology. Professor Hill, of Luther College, Wahoo, Neb., said they could not yet introduce sociology because the people thought it was socialism. The same trouble exists in other places. There is also a blind opposition to sociology on the part of other departments and of older men of a rather doctrinaire training. The most opposition in the academic world comes from teachers of economics, perhaps mainly because sociology has invaded their territory. Unfortunately there is more interest in territory at the present time in some places than there is in human betterment and the means of attaining it. On the whole, the above extracts make instructive as well as interesting reading, and largely because of the light they throw upon the present-day attitude toward sociology.

Nearly all the colleges, universities, etc., are developing their work in sociology. Bates College and Haverford are instances to the contrary. The University of Missouri furnishes an interesting and puzzling case. The department there has grown till it enrols nearly three times as many graduate students as any other department among the social sciences and more undergraduate students than either economics or political science, yet the instructing force has been disproportionately cut for some reason difficult to guess. The officials of this university have also voluntarily given up its connection with the St. Louis School of Philanthropy, which now becomes the St. Louis School of Social Economy, in affiliation with Washington University. Such shortsightedness, however, to whatever cause due, reacts more harmfully upon a college than upon the teaching of sociology itself.

Although sociology has had strong opposition in some institutions, it has had noteworthy encouragement in others. In the case of Susquehanna University it would appear to have been developed far beyond the average. This, however, is a Lutheran institution and sociology is better received on the average by Lutheran institutions than by those of any other denomination.

The reasons why sociology remains so predominantly a graduate subject in most large institutions are mainly two. In

the first place there is a widespread prejudice against permitting immature minds to think about all kinds of social questions. This came out strongly in the replies to the questionnaire. A further cause is the lack of suitable textbooks and technique for bringing facts concretely and comprehensively to the young students. As yet we have not enough teachers suitably trained to present the facts that are socially valuable with due insight and discrimination. Many of the replies evidenced the demand for more suitable textbooks. Some of the teachers, especially those of normal schools, believe that the time is ripe for the introduction of the subject into the high schools, provided suitable textbooks can be obtained.

Work on Table IV brought out the fact that the textbooks now most used in the colleges and normal schools and universities are, in the order of frequency, Small and Vincent's Introduction to the Study of Society, Wright's Practical Sociology, Gidding's Elements of Sociology, Fairbank's Introduction to Sociology, and Henderson's Social Elements.

The tendency is to develop the instruction along practical lines, to make a knowledge of society and its workings of use to that society itself.

A few of the larger universities hold back from the establishment of separate chairs of sociology. This is in part due to the fact that the departments now giving the instruction along these lines do not wish to lose any prestige, as would result from such a separation. In a few cases, also, we have some purists or verbalists who object to the name! With the coming of a younger generation who value results and methods more than terminology we may expect to see a difference in this respect.

A number of colleges also give work in other departments than that of sociology which might be counted as sociology. But no attempt has been made to include such in this report.

Nearly all the institutions show a tendency to make their work in related departments take on a more sociological bearing and significance. This is one of the best possible results of the teaching of sociology. Iowa College, at Grinnell, is a good illustration of this tendency. The professor of economics writes of

the department of philosophy and psychology: "The professor is almost a sociologist-gives much consideration in his course to social influences in development of the mind and of ethical standards." He says of education: "The instructor teaches 'social' education-might almost be considered a sociologist." Of economics: "The beginning course is sociological." Of political science: "Sociological basis. Social needs made prominent in consideration of political development." The department of history, however, sticks to political development. The University of Utah requires work in sociology for graduation from its normal department. The same is true for the University of Washington. And the State University of Kentucky requires civil engineering students to take sociology!

Where the work in sociology is done in connection with another department, the former work is often slighted. Such was reported to be the case to some extent in a number of colleges and universities.

In this report there are necessarily some errors. But the work is entirely without prejudice or exaggeration. The conclusions bear toward the conservative. It is hoped that the report as a whole, though much less complete than the writer would have desired had he been able to get more complete and detailed information, may prove of value in indicating the present condition and tendencies of the teaching of sociology in the United States.

BIBLICAL SOCIOLOGY. IV

LOUIS WALLIS

Ohio State University

We have now sketched the early institutions of Israel. Our approaching problem is the rise of the distinctive system of Judaism. There still remains for attention, however, one outstanding topic before we turn to the social process that followed the settlement in Canaan. Consideration of this topic is not a matter of choice; it comes naturally between the subjects previously taken up and those that follow.

I. THE COVENANT WITH YAHWEH

Most religions of antiquity contemplate their gods as the physical fathers of their worshipers, connected with them by ties of actual kinship. The relation between a people and its god is thus not a matter of choice, like that of husband and wife, but of necessity, as in the case of all relatives by blood. But many of the biblical documents declare that Yahweh and Israel became connected by a definite covenant, at a given time, and at a particular place. In the words of Hosea, "I am Yahweh thy god from the land of Egypt" (Hos. 12:9). In accordance with this declaration, we are told that Yahweh chose Israel for his people at the time they were encamped in Goshen, on the borders of Egypt; and that the people and the god entered into a solemn covenant at Mount Horeb-Sinai. It is, indeed, upon a covenant, or testament, that the Bible turns. The familiar word "testament," in one of its earlier usages, indicates a covenant; and in this way it finds application to Scripture. "I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a god" (Exod. 6:7). "And thou, Yahweh, became their god" (II Sam. 7:24). Now the question here is, How came the religion of Israel to have a covenant character? What are the objective facts underlying the tradition that Yahweh and Israel were not at first related, but that they came into connection at a particular time and place?