whole complex organization of political society is unimportant. There is a large measure of truth in Seeley's contention that the usual pre- occupation of the historian with political facts, i.e., facts relating to the state, is justified be- cause, while with the ever-increasing differentia- tion of branches of knowledge the study of other forms of human activity becomes the province of the specialist-the anthropologist, the lawyer, the economist, the critic of art and letters-the examination of political phenomena remains the specific sphere of the professed historian. It is not only in the history class that history is being taught-it is taught in the Art class, the English class, the Scripture class also. The history teacher, therefore, rightly concentrates on those important aspects of history which he knows are not being taught-and more amply taught-in some other department. The rival claims of World History and National History have been spoken of, but need they be so regarded ? Is it not the most obvious wisdom to combine them? Every advanced history scholar does, as a matter of fact, combine them-and of necessity. He knows himself to be imperfectly equipped if he lacks a working know- ledge of history in its broadest sense, and equally ill-equipped if he has not a more exact and detailed acquaintance with the history of his own country. His knowledge must be of two types-outline knowledge and specialized know- ledge. He must be content with a sketchy view of most of human history, for the simple reason that he is human, however brilliant, learned and long-lived he may be. But in so far as he is a genuine scholar, he will wish to make himself thorough master of some special period or theme, to make himself a recognized expert in some particular branch of his subject. That is to say, he will endeavour to unite a broad philosophic outlook, such as can only come from a general survey of history, with a scientific method, which can only be acquired by the close and intimate investigation of a limited period or theme studied in detail. If this is the normal and natural compromise which has to be made by the advanced scholar, should not the same compromise be made, com- paring small things with great, by the school pupil? If the former must be content that a large part of his knowledge must be relatively superficial, ought the knowledge of the boy or girl to be of a relatively detailed character? If there is a danger, with inferior teaching, of general history becoming confused and inchoate, there is, on the other hand, the equally serious danger-only too often experienced-of political history becoming dull, heavy, otiose. Be the curriculum what it may, the per- sonality of the teacher will count for more than the curriculum. Be the facts dealt with what they may, that which will influence the pupil will be less the facts than the teacher's ability to illuminate them, his power of vision, insight and interpretation. On the other hand, the wider, the more inspiring the curriculum, the greater the opportunity to the exceptionally gifted teacher, the greater the stimulus to bring forth all his capacity. The writer suggests that the objects of the school curriculum should be to give each pupil, first, a fairly solid knowledge of the history of his own country; second, some less detailed knowledge of the history of other countries besides his own; third, a conception of the unity of the human race and of the continuity of its development. It ought to be quite practicable to evolve a satisfactory course securing these three objects within the child's normal career of four years in the secondary school. Their combina- tion in itself makes for variety and interest. There are schools at the present time in which the history hour means the repetition year after year of the same period of British history. This may produce in a narrow fashion thorough knowledge, but it is apt to produce a distaste at least equally thorough. If history is allowed to degenerate into a soulless grind and drill, and its humanity, its beauty, its romance, and its drama are not revealed to the pupil, it is indeed a calamity. It is deplorable, when the subject is so infinitely large and varied, that the work of one year should ever be merely repeated in the next. It is not the writer's desire to elaborate a rigid scheme. The objects mentioned as the prime desiderata of a history course can be secured in a number of different ways, some more thorough- going than others. The simple addition to the history of England and Wales of a period of European history, provided that the connection between the two is made clear, and the relation of the selected period to the general history of the race is grasped, is in itself a great gain. It is a valuable thing to study side by side a period of British history with a corresponding period of European history, or at any rate some outstand- ing movement in the period. Another plan is to make the four years' work into a single chrono- logically continuous course on the outlines of World History; the objection to which is, how- ever, that this provides no intensive study at all and does not give the place to purely national history to which it is entitled. It is better that the child should learn the history of his own country, not only in its relation with that of other countries, but also separately; otherwise he will be left with a very incomplete and, it should be added, an incorrect impression of British his- tory. For better, for worse, that history has as a matter of fact been largely insular, and if only those aspects of it are taught in which it has in- fluenced, or been influenced by, the Continent, British history is little likely to be really under- stood.