SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXV. No. 



ter adapted for the perpetuation and mul- 

 tiplication of their sturdier race. 



In the same way, the Eoman empire fell 

 as a result of the wilful ignorance of the 

 true principles of equity; her poorer 

 classes, or vanquished foes, were denied 

 their natural rights by their aristocratic 

 masters. This heterogeneity of the people 

 led to all the excesses which brought about 

 the fall of what once had been a mighty 

 empire. 



After the advent of Christianity, the 

 despotic Church of Rome retarded the 

 progress of all Christendom as soon as she 

 tried to specialize all human knowledge, so 

 as to make it agree with her own bible. 

 The result was that long and sad period of 

 the dark middle ages. In the meantime, 

 Saracen and Jew, on the north coast of 

 Africa, or on the Iberian Peninsula, were 

 able to cultivate science less trammeled by 

 a restrictive religion. To their broader 

 activity do we owe it that scientific investi- 

 gation was kept alive until the day when 

 the dawn of Reformation enabled backward 

 Christendom to resume again the search 

 for truth. 



But, even now, our educational system is 

 still much under the chilling effect of that 

 cloud which during the middle ages hid 

 the light of true knowledge. Respectable 

 pedagogues have taken care to hand us 

 down from generation to generation a cur- 

 riculum which includes most of what for- 

 merly was erroneously called a complete 

 education. In the latter, ancient literature, 

 holy or profane, has always played a para- 

 mount importance. In its program, scant 

 consideration is given to more real modern 

 knowledge which refers broadly to the 

 world we live in, or to the burning ques- 

 tions of the day. I know of many in- 

 stances where, under the name of liberal 

 education, such an antiquated tuition is 

 still dealt out to the younger generation of 

 both sexes. In fact, many well-meaning 



persons think that this is the kind of re- 

 spectable training most desirable for a rich 

 young man of good family and good man- 

 ners. In reality, such an education is 

 merely an overspecialization of the kind 

 of culture which was meted out to studious 

 sons of patricians some two thousand years 

 ago. For our modern requirements, it is 

 an anachronism, if not a positive danger: 

 a danger— because it is liable to select as 

 standards the undeveloped or erroneous 

 thoughts of antiquity. In many instances, 

 the tendencies of the ancients clash with 

 our more advanced ideas of truth and 

 justice— even if the latter are not always 

 consistently practised by modern society. 



The French Revolution encouraged some 

 reforms in this antiquated system of educa- 

 tion. But even to-day modem science and 

 modem thought are grudgingly allowed a 

 very small place in the classic curriculum 

 so faithfully defended by some pedagogues. 

 Small wonder, then, if we hear so many 

 respectable people use flowery rhetoric on 

 such inconsistent themes as 'science versus 

 religion,' or, 'science versus art'; as if 

 there were any versus possible whenever we 

 speak of science as true science, religion as 

 true religion and art as true art— as if 

 truth were different, whether expressed 

 scientifically, religiously or artistically! 



Luckily for the progress of humanity, 

 now and then some young men, less blessed 

 with worldly goods or wealthy parents, 

 and more eager to make a living by their 

 own work and education, have been com- 

 pelled to give a vigorous kick to the classic 

 curriculum fetish. Some of them decided 

 to take their education 'a la carte' — as 

 President Eliot expressed it so pictur- 

 esquely. They were compelled to select 

 substantial and up-to-date meals, more 

 suitable to their eager modern appetites; 

 they had to shun the stale and indigestible 

 dishes of education made up in antiquity, 

 to please the palates of bygone times. 



