54 



DISCOVERY 



English, " even literature, can and should be given a 

 vocational bias, can be made to bear directly upon the life 

 and work of all those who study it, can, in short, be 

 handled " (as, in fact, it is very rarely handled in British 

 technical education) " as an actuality of vital interest and 

 with an intelligible purpose to everyone concerned." The 

 Report, as an example of what is intended, gives an 

 account of the experiment carried out with engineering 

 students by Professor Frank Aydelotte, of the Massa- 

 chusetts Institute of Technology (vide pp. 161-4). But 

 similar methods are possible and desirable with students 

 of agriculture, of commerce, or of domestic subjects, and 

 their introduction is of primary importance to education. 

 Anyone who has come in contact with these students 

 either socially or in the class-room will recognise the need 

 for such training in the mother-tongue as will be " a 

 training in thought, the influence of which is to clarify 

 and humanise the student's character and his aims in life." 



This humane education cannot be the result of linguistic 

 training alone. The Committee's Report carefully 

 discriminates between the teaching of English language 

 and that of English literature, for, closely interrelated as 

 they necessarily are, there is also a very definite cleavage 

 between them. At its lowest, the use of English is neces- 

 sary for utilitarian purposes ; at its highest, accomplish- 

 ment in the use of the English language is a fine art, the 

 mastery of which, while all may learn to appreciate it, 

 can be acquired only by the few. English literature also, 

 as the Report is at pains to emphasise, has direct bearing 

 upon life and is of universal importance, but as an art, " as 

 a means of contact with great minds, a channel by which 

 to draw upon their experience with profit and delight, and 

 a bond of sympathy between the members of a human 

 society." 



For English-speaking people, English literature may 

 provide a full measure of culture and humane training ; 

 it must, in their case, and whatever studies may be added 

 to it, form the essential basis of a liberal education. This 

 is not to belittle any other literature, classical or modern, 

 (and on this point once more we refer the reader to the 

 Report and what is there said on the subject of the classics, 

 p. 18 and elsewhere), or training in any other subject (see 

 p. 14). It is the statement of a fact. 



The Report insists on the necessity of treating " litera- 

 ture, not as language merely, not as an ingenious set of 

 sjonbols, a superficial and superfluous kind of decoration, 

 or a graceful set of traditional gestures, but as the self- 

 expression of great natures, the record and rekindling of 

 spiritual experiences, and in daily life for every one of us 

 the means by which we may, if we will, realise our own 

 impressions and communicate them to our fellows." 

 ■' The literature of England belongs to all England. . . 

 and all may enjoy it who will." 



The Committee do not ignore the fact that " there is 

 another delight besides this open and universal one. In 

 this matter, as in others,- the scholar has his own t.isk and 

 his own reward." They discuss in as much detail the 

 curriculum and aims of University " EngHsh" as those of 

 every other type of teaching. Here, as elsewhere, they 

 raise many controversial questions, and individual readers 



will have their own opinions about the solutions offered or 

 the suggestions made. Already the discussion about Eng- 

 lish grammar has produced criticism from various quarters ; 

 much will no doubt be heard on the subject of University 

 Schools of English, and so with regard to almost every im- 

 portant question as it affects the curriculum or methods 

 at the various stages of instruction. But such discussion 

 is in itself stimulating, and the Report would have served 

 a useful purpose had its publication caused merely an 

 awakening or renewal of interest in themes, a tithe of which 

 we have perforce left untouched. 



In this short note ii has been possible to call attention 

 only to the broader aspects of the Report and to the spirit 

 by which it is animated. The writer is convinced that if 

 it be widely read and its teachings taken to heart, it con- 

 tains enough matter to produce a revolution not merely 

 in the " teaching of English," but also in the national 

 conception of what is implied by a liberal education. 



Edith J. Morley. 



Reviews of Books 



SOME BOOKS ON CHEMISTRY 



(a) Early Science in Oxford. Part I — Chemistry. By R. 



T. GuNTHF.R, M.A. (H. Milford, los. (>d.) 



(b) An Introduction to Organic Chemistrv. By D. Ll. 



Hammick, M.A., Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. 

 (G. Bell & Sons, 65.) 



(c) Fuels and Refractory Materials. By Prof. A. Hum- 



boldt Sexton, F.I.C, and W. B. Davidson, D.Sc, 

 Ph.D. (Blackie & Son, 12s. Qd.) 



[a) The purpose of this volume is to interest the present 

 generation in the earlj' days of science in Oxford, and 

 to this end Mr. Gunther, of Magdalen College, has collected 

 together a great deal of interesting information concerning 

 chemistry that hitherto has been largely scattered. 



Roger Bacon, the earliest exponent of experimental 

 science, and a great teacher, worked at Oxford in the 

 thirteenth century. The Hon. Robert Boyle was at 

 Clirist Church, and had a laboratory in the High. He 

 brought over from Holland one Peter Sthael, who has the 

 distinction of being the first teacher of practical chemis- 

 try. Among Sthael's pupils were Wren, the church 

 builder, " a prodigious young scholar," and John Locke, 

 the philosopher. In the laboratory the latter apparently 

 eschewed his philosophic calm, being " of turbulent spirit, 

 clamorous and never contented," and refused to take 

 any notes of the lectures ; he was considered " prating 

 and troublesome." Later, however, he wrote to Boyle 

 concerning experimental chemistry, " I find my fingers 

 still itch to be at it." 



It is interesting to know that Oxford had a hand also 

 in early industrial chemistry. John Dwight, of Christ 

 Church, discovered the method of making salt-glazed 

 stoneware in 1661, and some years earlier. Dr. John Wall, 

 of Worcester and Merton Colleges, invented the process 

 of manufacturing Worcester China. 



