Many teachers must have found that it is far easier to awake interest in Greek history than in the history of Rome. Greek history affords much greater variety; it is full of the doings of men who stand out as clear-cut individualities, while those who fashioned the Republic of Rome are all surprisingly similar each to the other: they remind one of the portraits of the early Scottish kings of Holyrood. But perhaps an even greater difficulty lies in the fact that our text-books of Roman history are, naturally enough, planned chronologically, and thus the writers are forced to relate the whole contemporaneous development in many spheres of the nation's life. Constitutional, economic, military, and social history must all advance together as parts of a single narrative. The student's interest is distracted, and he is prevented from following up a single line of thought. Divide et impera is a good Roman maxim, and I feel that we should do well to follow Roman practice in our teaching of Roman history. Mr. Maurice Baring within the covers of a single book has recently four times recounted the history of Mary Queen of Scots: the four Maries attendant on the queen tell, each in her own way, of the same series of events. It would be an interesting experiment to narrate the history of Rome in one and the same book in several different ways, regarding that history in each case from a single standpoint. Thus would be secured that unity of view which it is impossible for the ordinary text-book to maintain. What, we may ask ourselves, would be our varied angles from which successively to approach the history of the Roman Republic? Here there is wide scope for the expression of a teacher's personality; my own chapters would be written round some such headings as:1. The Roman and the land.2. The Roman army.