The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1882-04-23

Huxley on Science and O,situr~.
During the last seven years Prof. HUXLEY
has given to the world II number Of addresses.
essays. and lectures. thirteen of which are now
published In book form by tho hppletons.
Some OF these deserve close attention, dealing.
as they do. with subjects which the author 10
peculiarly competent TO disouss Especially
noteworthy is the lecture on scionce and cul-
ture which gives title to the volume-the
definition Of universities as they are and as
they ought to be in the address delivered OH the
authors Inauguration rs Lord Rector OF Aber-
deem UniveBty-an Investigation Of the bor-
der territory between the animal and the vcge-
table kingdoms-a lecture entitled The Com
ing OF Age Of the Origin OF Species and the
article written for the Encyclopaedia Britannica
on Evolution in Biology.
1t was in q remarkable address, delivered at
the opening Of a Science College at Birmine-
ham. from which what was described as mere
literary instruction was expressly excluded.
that Prof. Huxley undertook to formulate and
defend his views touching tho comparative
value Of u classical and a scientific education.
We noed scarcely say that his opinions ON this
point are Numerically opposed 70 those OF the
great ma ority OF cultivated Englishmen. ac-
cording to whose belief culture is obtainable
only by q liberal education. and In whose ewes
q liberal education is synonymous with in
struction not in literature ct large. but In one
particular form Of literature, namely. that Of
Greek and Roman antiquity. They hold that
the man who has learned Latin and Greek 10
educated while he who IL merely versed In other
branches OF knowledge. however deeply. Is q
more or less respectable specialist not admis-
sible into the cultured caste. The stamp OF the
educated man. the university degree. is not on
him. Prof. Huxley thinks that even in the
writings OF Mr.. Arnold. generous and catholic
as the spirit which pervades them is. you may
here and there Gull sentences which lend sup-
port to the current preiudiees above mentioned.
Mr.. Arnold has told ma. for example that tho
object Of culture is {" to know the best that has
boon thought and said in the world" Culture
Is the criticism Of life contained In litera-
ture." That criticism regards EArope a. DO
ing for intellectual and spiritual purposes. one
great confederation bould to q joint action
and working to a common result, and
whose members have for theit common
outfit knowledge OF Greek. Roman. and
Eastern antiquity and OF ono another" OBJ
viously We have here two distinct propositions:
First. that criticism OF life is the essence OF
culture secondly. that literature contains tho
materials which suffice for the construction VI
such q criticism. To the first proposition Prof.
Huxley cheeriuly assents for culture. in his
opinion. PROFESSIONALLY implies the possession
Of an ideal and the habit OF critically estimat-
ing the Value Of things by comparison with a
tbeoretic standard. Perfect culture should
supply a complete theory Of life. But while
Prof. Huxley agrees to this. he strongly dis
sents from the assumption that literature alone
is competent to supply such knowledge. He
deems il by no means sell-evidcnt that after
having learnt all that Greek, Roman and East
that modern literature have to toll u.s. we have
laid sufficiently broad and deep founda-
! ton for that criticism Of life which
constitutes culture. Indeed. to any one ae-
quainted with the scope Of physical science the
converse appears true. Even while considering
| progress only in the intellectual and spiritual
| sphere Prof. Huxley finds himself unable to ad-
| nit that either nations or individuals win really
| advance il thoir common outfit draws nothing
| from the stores Of physical science. His con-
tention IS that tho present intellectual relations
Of the modern to the ancient world are ~ -
| foundry different from those which obtained
| three centuries ago. when the Humansts took
! their stand upon classical education. Leaving
! aside tho existence Of u great and character
istically modern literature. of modern paint
| ing. and especially Of modern music, Prof.
| Huxley distinguishes one feature Of the present
! widely from the Renaissance than tho Renais-
| sance in turn was separated from tho middle
| ages. This distinctive character Of our own
times lies in the vast and constantly increasing
part which is played by natural knowledge.
Not only is our daily life shaped by It. not only
does the prosperity OF millions OF men depend
| upon II. but our whole theory OF human and
| cosmical existence has long bean influenced,
| consciously or uncCnsciously. by tho general
| conceptions Of the universe which have been
forced upon W. by physical science. Moreover.
the scientific " criticism of life presents itself
to US with difforont credentials from any other
| II appeals not to authority or TO what anybody
| may have thought or said. but to nature. II
| admits that all our interpretations Of natural
fact arc more or less imperfect and symbolic
| and bids the learner sock for truth. not among
words. but among things. II warns US that the
assertion which outstrips evidence Ia not only
| O blunder. but crime. or all this no inkling
is given by purely classical education.
Tho outcome OF Prof. Huxley's argument IL
that the pretensions Of our modern Humanists
to the possession of a monopoly Of culture. OIL
even 10 an exclusive inheritance Of the spiBit Of
antiquity must 10 abated. II not abandoned
| He thinks the advocates OF sciontihc education
| might fairly enough retort upon the modern HUI
manists that II Is the latter who are really onl,
learned specialists. seeing that they possess NJ
such sound foundation for n criticism Of life
as deserves the name OF culture. And accord
ing 10 our author, they have brought this 70
proarh upon themselves. not because thoy mr.,
too fun OF tho spirit Of the ancient Greek. but
hGcaus" they lack II, We cannot" says lux
10y In defending this paradoXical assertion
know all tho best thoughts AID sayings OF thu
Greeks unless we know what they though
about natural phenomena. We cannot fully
approhend their criticism Of life unless we un
derstund the extent u which thu criticism wa
affected by econtInc conceptions. We falsely
pretend to be tho inhcritors OF their cultnr,
unless wo nrn penetrated rs tho best mind
among them w"ro. with an unhesltatlng faiti
that tho FREQ employment Of reason In accord
ance with scientific method IL the solo mean,
OF reaching Truth"
1t WAS certainly Gurious that The advocate o
such doctrines shonld 20 far lind favor IN thi
eyes OF Epmanists ~ 10 bo nominated rur ~,
rsctorshc Of 40 nn1ieut university, "a moh