700 Literature v. Science • [December, 
literature. But there is another great distinction between 
Science and Literature which Mr. Arnold has overlooked : 
Science, if learned at all, is learned not so much from books 
as from things. By it, and by it alone, we learn the art of 
observing things and of understanding their mutual rela- 
tions. Hence the distinction between Science and Literature 
is world-wide : they are in some respeCts incommensurable, 
and any attempt on the part of the latter to dominate or to 
include the former must lead not merely to hostility, but to 
results disastrous for the individual and the race. Nay, if 
a claim for supremacy and inclusion is allowable at all, it 
might be more rationally inverted. If we wish to know 
nations and their languages, even the idolised Greek tongue, 
we shall do well to reflect that such knowledge is but a very 
subordinate portion of ethnology, which is a portion of an- 
thropology, which is a mere fragment of biology ! It is 
interesting for the biologist to look down and see such a 
presumptuous mutiny in a corner of his domain, — a parish 
aspiring to comprehend and exercise supremacy over the 
affairs of an empire ! 
The literary opponents of Science speak much of human 
nature and its wants. But man can be rightly studied only 
in connection with the organic world of which he is a mem- 
ber, and with the earth upon which he lives. This Science 
does at least approximately ; “ letters ” cannot even make 
the attempt. 
Mr. Arnold puts forward with some iteration, but hardly, 
we venture to say, with sufficient clearness, a consideration 
which he thinks explains “ the strength of the hold which 
letters have upon us.” He says — “ We acquire pieces of 
knowledge, and presently, in the generality of men, there 
arises the desire to relate these pieces of knowledge to our 
sense for conduct, to our sense for beauty, and there are 
weariness and dissatisfaction if the desire is baulked.” 
Or again : — “ We feel, as we go on learning and knowing, 
the vast majority of mankind feel the need of relating what 
we have learned and known to the sense which we have 
in us for conduct, to the sense which we have in us for 
beauty.” 
These phrases, “ sense for conduct ” and “ sense for 
beauty,” are the burden of Mr. Arnold’s song. They recur 
again and again, as do the words “ sweetness and light ” in 
some of his former writings, Now a clever catch-word may 
possibly overturn a throne, but it cannot decide a philosophic 
question. 
Here Mr. Arnold falls into a sin of omission. Any new 
