i 882.] 
Literature v. Science. 
699 
of his career, and that in examinations for scientific degrees 
and honours it shall not be introduced even as an optional 
subject. But we do not demand the abolition or restriction 
of literary pursuits. The “ poor humanist,” as Mr. Arnold 
calls himself and his fellow-believers collectively, may, as 
far as our wishes and aims are concerned, go on for ever 
pondering on “ longs and shorts,” writing ‘‘nonsense-verses” 
at school, and commenting on Homer and Sophocles in after 
life. Nor would we force our pursuits upon him. The 
world is wide enough for us both ; let him go his way, and 
we will go ours. But let him remember that we cannot, 
dare not, tolerate his assumptions of superiority. 
What is the nature of Mr. Arnold’s plea on behalf of that 
predominance for which he is contending ? He tries to show 
that Literature includes Science. “ Literature,” he says, 
“ is a large word ; it may mean everything written with 
letters or printed in a book. Euclid’s ‘ Elements ’ and 
Newton’s ‘ Principia ’ are thus literature. All knowledge 
that reaches us through books is literature.” But this is 
not the sense in which “ literature ” is understood either by 
the friends or the opponents of its past educational suprem- 
acy. It is not the sense in which it is used by Mr. Arnold 
himself in the very leCture before us. For he says — “ My 
own studies have been almost wholly in letters [a synonym 
for literature] , and my visits to the field of the natural 
sciences have been very slight and inadequate.” Here, in 
faCt, he admits the distinction which he has just been calling 
in question. That distinction is, indeed, felt by all educated 
men, however little they may be able to point out the basis 
upon which it rests. No one would rank the “ Elements ” 
of Euclid, or the “ Physics ” of Aristoteles, among Greek 
literature in the same sense as he would the writings of 
Homer, of Thucidydes, or of Plato. No one in a disserta- 
tion on the characteristics of English literature would take 
into consideration either the “ Principia ” (which, by the 
way, was written in Latin) or the “ Origin of Species.” The 
value of these two works lies not in themselves, but in the 
faCts which they communicate, and in the conclusions they 
draw from these faCts. Were every copy of the “ Principia ” 
or of the “ Origin of Species ” destroyed, Science would be 
no loser, since their teachings have been incorporated into 
an ever-growing body of truth. But with what are com- 
monly and properly called literary works the case is totally 
different. The value of the “ Paradise Lost ” or of “Hamlet” 
is not absorbed and incorporated, but remains in themselves, 
and hence their destruction would be a permanent loss to 
2 z 2 
