$54 JOURNAL OF SCIENCE. 
the latter subject unless he gives a considerable time to the study 
of the former for his paleontological work, and consequently he 
has to take two subjects to pass in one. It will perhaps not be 
amiss to quote upon this subject the opinions of an eminent 
English author, who has given his individual attention to educa- 
tion. I shall not take my quotations from the writings of Pro- 
fessor Huxley, the president of the Royal Society, and one of 
the greatest scientific men of the age, because, though he always 
fully recognises the humanising influence of classicism and only 
insists upon science being placed on the same platform with the 
former, he might nevertheless be considered biassed in favour of 
his own branch of study. I have instead selected another 
writer, Matthew Arnold, a humanist of great ability, well versed 
in all the methods of teaching employed in the Mother Country. 
In the excellent work to which I have previously alluded he 
proves himself an observer of remarkable acuteness and fairness 
in comparing the Continental institutions with those of his own 
country. It would be impossible to review this work as fully as 
it deserves here, or to apply the whole of the conclusions he has 
reached to our own educational system, but a few of the most 
striking observations and postulates might at least be alluded 
to. 
In defence of Humanism, Matthew Arnold, on page 174, 
dwells upon the fact “that the men who had had humanistic 
training have played, and yet play, so prominent a part in human 
affairs, in spite of their prodigious ignorance of the universe ; 
because their training has powerfully fomented the human force 
in them.” But the answer is that the only education at their 
disposal has been the humanistic, that amongst many thousands 
of great intellects coming under this one-sided system only a 
small portion have risen above the average, and that if they had 
received a fair share of realistic teaching they would doubtless 
have become still more eminent. A great number of men whose 
faculties were not developed by the humanistic discipline would - 
have risen far above the average had they been taught to 
think for themselves. © Nevertheless, when Matthew Ar- 
nold alludes to the present curriculum of the English public 
schools and universities, he quotes (on page 176) that 
well-known authority, Abbé Fleury, speaking of the media- 
val universities, the parents of the English public secondary 
schools, ‘“ Les -universités ont eu le malheur' de com- 
mencer dans un temps ou le godt des bonnes études était perdu. 
De la nous est venu ce cours réglé d’ études qui subsiste en- 
core.” This was written in 1708, but the English author adds 
that it is, in the main, still true in 1867, and that all the great 
movements of the human spirit have either failed to get hold of 
the public schools, or have failed to keep their hold. He also 
(on page 175) considers that it is to be regretted that scientific 
teaching is inferior to humanistic, but that the principal cause 
of this is, that the leading humanists were schoolmasters, while 
the leaders of the natural sciences were not. No wonder science 
