Page:Literary studies by Joseph Jacobs.djvu/117

were perhaps needless. We may remark, however, that the lecture on literature and science has lost somewhat in its passage across the Atlantic. There was a peculiar aptitude in its delivery in the Senate House at Cambridge, where everything seems to be telling for science rather than literature. And there was a specially interesting passage in the original, now omitted, which dealt with the difference of the two universities—Oxford the home of great movements, Cambridge of great men. On the general merits of the great question—literature or science as training for life—Mr. Arnold is clearly on the right side, and even Professor Huxley scarcely attempts to deny this. But it is curious that Mr. Arnold omits to notice that there is a side of literary work which tends to give all, or nearly all, the educational advantages claimed for science. A work like Munro's Lucretius is in reality as scientific as Roscoe and Schorlemmer's Chemistry. In Germany both would be included under the comprehensive 'Wissenschaft.' Observation, induction, hypothesis, verification, quantitative analysis, and even to some extent experiment, are all applicable to Homer or the 'Nibelungenlied' as to the triassic strata. Indeed, a good case might be made out for showing that Mr. Arnold, in his discourse on Numbers, is simply applying the