vn SCIENCE AND ART AND EDUCATION 181 



not a literary education at all. It was not liter- 

 ature at all that was taught, but science in a 

 very bad form. It is quite obvious that grammar 

 is science and not literature. The analysis of a 

 text by the help of the rules of grammar is just as 

 much a scientific operation as the analysis of a 

 chemical compound by the help of the rules of 

 chemical analysis. There is nothing that appeals 

 to the aesthetic faculty in that operation; and I 

 ask multitudes of men of my own age, who went 

 through this process, whether they ever had a 

 conception of art or literature until they obtained 

 it for themselves after leaving school? Then you 

 may say, " If that is so, if the education was 

 scientific, why cannot you be satisfied with it ? ^' 

 I say, because although it is a scientific training, it 

 is of the most inadequate and inappropriate kind. 

 If there is anv ffood at all in scientific education 

 it is that men should be trained, as I said before, 

 to know thin2:s for themselves at first hand, and 

 that they should understand every step of the 

 reason of that which they do. 



I desire to speak with the utmost respect of 

 that science — philology — of which grammar is a 

 part and parcel; yet everybody knows that gram- 

 mar, as it is usually learned^ at school, affords no 

 scientific training. It is taught just as you would 

 teach the rules of chess or draughts. On the 

 other hand, if I am to understand by a literary 

 education the study of the literatures of either 



