NATORE 
333 
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1882 
PROFESSOR HUXLEY’S ESSAYS 
Science and Culture, and other Essays. By Thomas Henry 
Huxley, LL.D., F.R.S. (London: Macmillan and Co., 
1881.) 
HIS collection of Prof. Huxley’s more recent lectures 
and essays appears as a companion volume to the 
previous well-known collections of the same kind. The 
first thing, therefore, that naturally occurs to us is to 
compare this series with its predecessors, for when an 
author has been so long and so prominently before the 
public as Prof. Huxley, and when the authorship has been 
of a kind so varied and original, we cannot but entertain 
fears, even for the strongest man, that signs of exhaustion 
may become apparent in the works of his middle life. 
But if any one should entertain such charitable appre- 
hensions on behalf of Prof. Huxley they may immediately 
be quieted by the book before us ; the eye is as clear for 
seeing and the arm as strong for hitting as they have 
always been, and on every page we meet with new 
instances of that same versatility of learning, force of 
thought, and brilliancy of style which, while producing so 
wide an influence on the science and philosophy of our 
time, have justly placed this distinguished leader of both 
in a class sud generis as an expositor. 
The first essay, as the title of the collection signifies, 
is that on Science and Culture. 
“ From the time that the first suggestion to introduce 
physical science into ordinary education was timidly whis- 
pered, until now, the advocates of scientific education 
have met with opposition of twokinds. On the one hand 
they have been pooh-poohed by the men of business who 
pride themselves on being the representatives of practica- 
bility, while on the other hand they have been excom- 
municated by the classical scholars, in their capacity of 
Levites in charge of the ark of culture and monopolists of 
liberal education.” 
The first of these two classes of opponents is easily 
disposed of, notwithstanding that ‘‘ your typical practical 
man has an unexpected resemblance to one of Milton’s 
angels; his spiritual wounds, such as are inflicted by 
logical weapons, may be as deep as a well and as wide as 
a church door, but beyond shedding a few drops of ichor, 
celestial or otherwise, he is no whit the worse.” But the 
other class of opponents is more formidable, and as the 
essay is “an Address delivered at the opening of Sir 
Josiah Mason’s Science College at Birmingham,’ Prof. 
Huxley observes— 
“Tt is not impossible that we shall hear the express 
exclusion of ‘literary instruction and education’ from a 
College which, nevertheless, professes to give a high and 
efficient education, sharply criticised. Certainly the time 
was that the Levites of culture would have sounded their 
trumpets against its walls as against an educational 
Jericho.” 
The address therefore proceeds to justify the action of 
the founder in having imposed this exclusion. 
“For,” says {Prof. Huxley, “I hold very stroagly by 
two convictions. The first is, that neither the discipline 
nor the subject-matter of classical education is of such 
direct value to the student of physical science as to justify 
the expenditure of valuable time on either; and the 
VoL. Xxv.—No. 641 
second is, that for the purpose of attaining real culture, 
an exclusively scientific education is at least as effectual 
as an exclusively literary education.”’ 
The remainder of the essay proceeds to make good 
these two propositions, and in the course of doing so 
gives an interesting historical sketch of the circumstances 
which have hitherto led to an undue depreciation of the 
study of science as an instrument of mental culture. In 
the Middle Ages, and so long as theological dicta held 
exclusive sway, men “were told how the world began 
and how it would end; they learned that all material 
existence was but a base and insignificant blot upon the 
fair face of the spiritual world, and that nature was, to all 
intents and purposes, the playground of the devil.” Al- 
though this statement of the case is, as it is no doubt 
intended to be, hyperbolical rather than historical, there 
can be no question that it “was far from the thoughts of 
men trained’? in the system of medizval theology to 
suppose “that the study of nature—further than was 
requisite for the satisfaction of everyday wants—should 
have any bearing on human life.” But— 
“The distinctive character of our own times lies in the 
vast and constantly increasing part which is played by 
natural knowledge. Not only is our daily life shaped by 
it, not only does the prosperity of millions of men depend 
upon it, but our whole theory of life has long been in- 
fluenced, consciously or unconsciously, by the general 
conceptions of the universe which have been forced upon 
us by physical science.” 
Therefore it is obvious that we must now hold a different 
estimate of the importance of physical science in relation 
to culture, if with Mr. Matthew Arnold we mean by 
culture “the knowledge of the best that has been thought 
and said in the world.” 
“The period of the Renascence is commonly called 
that of the ‘Revival of Letters, as if the influence 
then brought to bear upon the mind of Western 
Europe had been wholly exhausted in the field of 
literature. I think it is very commonly forgotten that 
the revival of science, affected by the same agency, 
although less conspicuous, was not less momentous. 
: We falsely pretend to be inheritors of their 
culture [z.c. that of the Greeks], unless we are penetrated, 
as the best minds among them were, with an unhesitating 
faith that the free employment of reason, in accordance 
with scientific method, is the sole method of reaching 
truth.” 
The address continues :— 
“But I should be very sorry that anything I said 
should be taken to imply a desire on my part to depre- 
ciate the value of classical education, as it might be and 
as it sometimes is. The native capacities of mankind 
vary no less than their opportunities, and while culture is 
one, the road by which one man may best reach it is 
widely different from that which is most advantageous to 
another. . . . But for those who mean to make science 
their serious occupation, or who intend to follow the pro- 
fession of medicine, or who have to enter early upon the 
business of life, for all these, classical education is in my 
opinion a mistake ; and it is for this reason that I am 
glad to see ‘mere literary education and instruction” 
shut out from the curriculum of Sir Josiah Mason’s Col- 
lege, seeing that its inclusion would probably lead to the 
introduction of the ordinary smattering of Latin and 
Greek.” 
The second essay, which is “the Inaugural Address 
of the Lord Rector of the University of Aberdeen,” is 
Q 
