702 
Literature v* Science . 
[December, 
Another great and admirable master of natural knowledge, 
Faraday, was a Sandemannian. That is to say, he related his 
knowledge to his instinct for conduct and to his instinct for 
beauty by the aid of that respectable Scottish sectary Robert 
Sandemann Now the assertion conveyed in the sentence 
we have italicised must be distinctly denied. Faraday was 
a Sandemannian, and he was an illustrious man of Science. 
But between his Sandemannianism and his marvellous dis- 
coveries in electricity there was no relation beyond co- 
existence. Indeed, unless our memory has greatly deceived 
us, Faraday declared, almost totidem verbis , that he had 
never sought to bring his scientific attainments into correla- 
tion with his religious faith. Either might have existed 
without the other. 
It would almost seem as if Mr. Arnold fears a decline, 
ethical and sesthetical, if literature — and especially Greek 
literature — is deposed from its usurped position in our edu- 
cational establishments. This may seem strange if we 
remember that the morals of that part of the nation which 
is void of every tinCture of classical learning are at least as 
pure as those of the “poor humanist.” If the teachings of 
the Greek philosophers are worn-out garments which have 
fallen off from the expanding form of truth, the lays of their 
contemporary poets are equally unfit for the youth of the 
present day. 
Nor is it otherwise with our sense for beauty. Has it 
never struck Mr. Arnold that in England, the very country 
where classical studies have been most predominant, the 
love of the beautiful is feeblest ? Symmetry ? We may 
find it brighter and purer in crystals and shells, in flowers 
and inseCts, than in Greek grammars. Those who have 
never studied the Greek language, and those who have 
gladly thrown it aside as an encumbrance, can see the 
meanness of our modern street architecture without looking 
through the dim lens of classical antiquity. Neither for the 
right guidance of our actions nor that we may have a love 
for the beautiful do we need the aids of Greece and Rome. 
They and their humane letters cannot — simply cannot — 
“ establish a relation between the new conceptions and our 
instinCt for beauty, our instinCt for conduct.” In as far as 
such relations are conceivable they will be evolved to suit 
the changed conditions. 
Mr. Arnold even endeavours to defend mediaeval education 
against the just scorn of Prof. Huxley. As his defence 
ends with the usual refrain it may be left to the imagination 
of the reader. 
