lOO 



SCIENTIFIC NEW^S. 



[Feb. 3, iS 



Sometimes hundreds of them may be seen hovering in 

 the air in the vicinity of Hanoi. This toy, as we should 

 regard it, is the object of certain superstitious notions, 

 and it is supposed to exorcise evil spirits. 



To this end, when there is sufficient wind, it is often 

 attached to the roofs of houses where throughout the 

 night it emits its plaintive notes after the fashion of the 

 Eolian harp. 



Figure 3 gives us the view of the " Bird Kite," the 

 frame-work of which is shown at the right of the figure. 

 It is often used in this state, but the Chinese frequently 

 complete it by fixing a bird's head in front, and light 

 papers attached to the wings. These papers are moved 

 by the action of the wind, and simulate the beating of 

 wings. The bird-kite, in its complete form, is shown at 

 the left of the figure. It is sometimes a yard in height. 

 ( To be continued. ) 



♦^?»^<^i<^ 



LITERATURE VERSUS SCIENCE. 



THE "foreign relations" of Science, as a diplomatist 

 might term them, are still in a " state of tension." 

 The " Conflict between Religion and Science," described 

 by Dr. Draper, due as it mainly was to misappre- 

 hensions, is now seen to be only a conflict between 

 a more and a less imperfect knowledge, and has to a 

 great extent ceased. Certain " advanced thinkers " of 

 the present day even accuse us of being willing to sign 

 a " concordat " with the theologians. But we are not, it 

 seems, to be allowed to go on observing and experi- 

 menting in peace. Jealousies are springing up in a new 

 and a very unexpected quarter — in literature ! It may 

 at first sight seem surprising that " men of letters," 

 classical scholars, historians, moralists, and the like 

 should regard the progress of Science with jealousy. 

 We may wonder that they should use language like the 

 following — " The time is near at hand, if we may judge 

 our age by its tendencies, when the pursuit of Science 

 will have to justify itself anew to the reason (?) of 

 mankind." Another litterateur in commenting upon 

 Trevelyan's Life of Macaulay, goes much further, saying : 

 " He never thought it worth while to quit more attractive 

 studies for the blind and groping physicism which now 

 almost monopolises the name of Science. Whatever 

 good it may have done in other directions, physical 

 science has of late discouraged and debilitated moral and 

 historical inquiry, which is of so much more value to 

 the world" (! !). The same speaker, characteristically 

 enough, comes forward as a champion of competitive 

 examinations, and pronounces the gathering outcry 

 against cram " not very respectable." 



Some years ago there was founded at Leeds the 

 " Yorkshire College of Science." .Strong umbrage was 

 taken both at the title of this institution and at its 

 proposed constitution. A " college of science," we were 

 told, was a " one-legged affair." Strange that the 

 utterers of this censure saw nothing " one-legged " in 

 colleges where science was totally excluded. Louder 

 still was the outcry when the " Mason College," at 

 Birmingham, was founded, and Professor's Huxley's able 

 speech at its inauguration led to a singular counter- 

 demonstration on the part of Mr. Matthew Arnold. The 

 latter naively says that ten years ago, he " could not help 

 being moved with a desire to plead with the friends of 

 physical science on behalf of letters." This is very much 



as if he should plead with a recently emancipated slave 

 on behalf of bondage ! 



We have not scope to dissect these outbreaks, and to' 

 show the errors and fallacies involved. But we must 

 take good heed of the strong ill-feeling which they 

 betray, and we must try to find out its cause. In one 

 sense, like corresponding utterances to be found in the 

 works of Carlyle and Ruskin, they may be pronounced 

 quite gratuitous. The world is wide enough for botb 

 science and literature, and the minds naturally adapted 

 to shine in the one are generally ill-qualified to do- 

 good service in the other. But the case stands thus : 

 Until quite lately higher education in England has beea 

 almost exclusively literary, classical. The so-called 

 "grammar-schools" — their very name is significant — 

 imparted no knowledge save Greek and Latin, withi 

 sometimes a sprinkling of mathematics and of ancient 

 geography and history. It is no exaggeration to say 

 that many youths of the upper classes educated at these 

 institutions were unable to write a note in decent 

 English. Such was Dr. Butler's school, at whicli 

 Charles Darwin was placed in boyhood, and where he 

 naturally earned the reputation of being below the- 

 common standard in intellect. The sciences were totally 

 excluded, being considered as devoid of any educational' 

 value, and even as " ungentlemanly." Darwin was- 

 once severely rebuked by the head-master for " wasting. 

 his time" on such useless subjects as chemistry. 



Such being the grammar-schools, the universities 

 followed suit. Cambridge, indeed, was always eminent- 

 in mathematics, and thus, as it has been aptly said, kept 

 at least a narrow track open for science. But Oxford; 

 was, practically speaking, purely classical. 



Since those days there has been much improvement. 

 Scientific instruction has, to a greater or less extent, beeni 

 introduced into many of our endowed schools. In the 

 universities, laboratories for chemical, physical, and! 

 biological research have been established. But alii 

 these concessions to science, as it is needful to bear 

 in mind, have been obstinately resisted by those whom 

 Professor Huxley happily calls " the Levites of culture." 

 Nor is scientific study, we believe, anywhere in Britain) 

 looked upon as equal in dignity and importance to- 

 literature. We doubt if there is any institution where ai 

 man may devote himself to science and may graduate 

 accordingly, without being compelled either previously 

 or simultaneously, to devote a very considerable part of 

 his time to classical studies. 



With the present condition of things, neither party is- 

 satisfied. Literature feels aggrieved at the concessions- 

 she has been forced to make, and seeks in various ways- 

 to render them practically null and void. 



Science, on the other hand, claims for herself complete 

 equality and independence. But she does not seek in 

 the least to interfere with or to restrict literary studies. 

 She does not aim at forcing a knowledge of physics,, 

 chemistry, or biology upon those whose peculiar tastes- 

 and abilities lead them to deal with words rather than with 

 things. In short, as it has been tersely put : " Science 

 is fighting for liberty, but literature for dominion." 



This, then, is the true cause of the ill-will often 

 shown by poets, novellists, historians, and orators against" 

 the study of Nature ! 



If we are asked why do we object to the arrangements, 

 now prevailing, we reply, because the field of modern 

 intellectual activity is now too vast to admit of the 

 student devoting his attention to more than a limited. 



