The belief that graduate and undergraduate students should be taught alike, that the best method for all is the method by which the scholar should be formed, that there should be no distinction in the study of history between general and special preparation, is in my opinion one of the most pestilent heresies accompanying the changes of recent years. It is a belief no more likely to be true because the particular change which produced it is that by which the true university has been created. There are certain studies in which I am ready to admit its truth. They are, however, those studies only in which training in the method of advance peculiar to the given subject is so necessary to an understanding of its nature that no real knowledge is possible without it, and their number is, I believe, decidedly less than is commonly asserted. Assuredly history is not one of them. To acquire a knowledge of the human past, especially if that knowledge is enriched, as it should be, with an imaginative conception of the process of the ages, is a large and worthy intellectual task for teacher and taught, indeed for the lifetime of a man. To confuse it for the great mass of college students with the effort to impart to them the method of the scholar, which is the proper technical training of the graduate school, is, I firmly hold, morally little short of a breach of trust. This is only affirming in other terms my belief in the transcendent importance of that one of the special purposes which the teacher may set before himself which remains, the effort to make the study of history one that is directed to the broadening and liberalizing of the mind. The claim which I make for history is that of all college studies it most naturally and simply produces these results. Did instructors in physics and chemistry realize more clearly than they seem to me to do what they might accomplish of this sort, I should be disposed to admit their right to dispute this claim, but for the average of college students, as they come to us in masses, I am not now ready to allow any other exception. If history be taught with that degree of imagination without which no man should enter the teaching profession, it is not difficult to open the mind of the student to two impressions. One is of what may be called in simplest phrase the continuity of history, meaning thereby no mechanical continuity, but an organic and living unity--the continuous and cumulative progress of civilization which makes us to-day not in a poetic sense, but as a bald and literal fact, the heirs of all the ages. This needs especially to be imaginatively presented to induce an imaginative conception of it. The other is of the fact that somewhere in the past humanity has worked through crises which are essentially the same as those which now confront it. It is the especial privilege of the teacher of history to bring the mind of the student successively into contact with almost every species