THE 
SCIENCE. 
JOURNAL OF 
DECEMBER, 1882. 
I. LITERATURE versus SCIENCE. 
S HE external or foreign relations of Science are not at 
present free from tension. The religious world still 
looks upon her position and her claims with distrust. 
Politicians begrudge her the share of attention which she 
receives from the public, as calculated to lessen the interest 
in agitations and “ movements.” Zoo-folly and Bestiarian- 
ism seek to arrest her further development in one of the 
most important directions. Last, but not least, Literature 
views her with a dislike and a jealousy which cannot be 
concealed. We have frequently met with expressions of 
this dislike on the part of historians, poets, and the like, 
and we have occasionally quoted such outbreaks in the 
“Journal of Science.” Some of our readers will, perhaps, 
remember that a Mr. E. R. Russell, in a paper read before 
the Literary and Philosophical Society of Liverpool, took 
occasion to characterise Science as “ blind and groping 
physicism.” Sayings equally uncomplimentary might be 
cited from Carlyle, Ruskin, and other eminent modem 
writers. But the feelings of the professed literary world 
towards Science have been latterly expounded with much 
clearness and force in the “ Rede LeCture ” delivered before 
the University of Cambridge. The lecturer, Mr. Matthew 
Arnold, is well known as a powerful, brilliant, and admired 
writer. We can cheerfully admit that he has put before the 
English public certain lessons which, be they accepted or 
not, are of no small value. But as regards the question at 
issue we are bound to submit that he has utterly misappre- 
hended, and consequently misrepresented, the position, the 
scope, and the aims of Science. 
VOL. iv. (third series). 
2Z 
