so the humanities reveal to us man. There is no science of man; anatomy and biology, while they have much to say about his body, throw little light upon his behaviour, nor explain why he makes a French Revolution or a European war, why he is a miser or a spendthrift, a Machiavelli or a Frederick the Great. Physical science does not deal with this kind of thing. Yet the "science" which everyone needs, and statesmen above all, is such a knowledge of man. Now there is, if not a science, yet a record and *account of man; we call it, according to its various aspects, by the various names of literature, history, philosophy. And this is the justification of the literary-philosophic-historical education which prevails in our secondary schools and universities. Generally speaking, the subject of that education is man ; man viewed in himself and his proper nature, viewed as literature views him, as a being with feelings and prejudices, virtues and vices, ruled by intellect, or perverted by passion, inspired by ideals, torn by desires, acting on plan and calculation, or carried away by unreflecting emotion, sacrificing his life, now for gold, now for an ideal-an adulterer, a patriot, a glutton, a dreamer, Aegisthus, Oedipus, Hamlet, Macbeth, Faust-; or man, viewed as a being governed by the laws of a universe outside him, viewed as philosophy views him, subject to limitations of time and space, of his own origin, nature and destiny, related to beings and forces outside him, adapting himself to those relations and modifying his action according to his conception of them, a creature with moral capacities or the descendant of an ape, determining his future according to his wishes, or merely one wheel among many blindly revolving in a great machine: or thirdly, man, viewed as a political and social/ being, as history views him, creating states and overthrowing them, making laws and refusing to be bound by them, opposing religion to politics, and freedom to law, binding art and politics, empire and freedom, public and private life into a harmonious whole, or crowning one to the exclusion of the rest, fighting, colonising, making money and spending it, treating his neighbour as a fellowbeing, or using him as a tool for the production of wealth, monarchist, parliamentarian, socialist, anarchist, Pericles or Augustus, Cromwell or Robespierre. Before the student of literature," philosophy and history are displayed all the forces and ideas that have governed man, personal, religious or political; to see why he has rejected this and espoused that, why this failed and that was successful, what are liberty and religion, family affection and personal greed, and in a word, to study Man. As he reviews them, and compares them with the present, he can see, as far as a man can see, what ideas have come down to his own day, and what new elements are combining with them, can forecast in some degree the future, and by virtue of his knowledge guide the streaming forces, and shape the molten mass, serve his country and use to the best advantage his own powers.1 If anyone thinks this pedantic, and believes that the knowledge of man is only got from life, let him read Anna Karenina or The Ordeal of Richard Feverel, and say if he learns nothing from them about marriage, education and human nature in general; and let him remember the opinion of a man who knew the world and was not a pedant. Lord Chesterfield wrote to his son: the knowledge of the world and that of books "assist one another reciprocally; and no man will have either perfectly, who has not both. The knowledge of the world is only to be acquired in the world, and not in a` 1 I have quoted this passage from an article of my own in the first number of the Oxford and Cambridge Review. " this that the community must contain a sufficient number of trained men of science to meet its needs. But it is not a just conclusion that every citizen must be a trained scientist. The community would equally collapse if it had no farmers, no shipwrights, no teachers-the list may be extended indefinitely; but it is not a just conclusion from this that we must all study agriculture, naval architecture and pedagogics. Because specialists are necessary in all branches of life, it does not follow that we must all specialise in every form of specialisation. Why is physical science to be given an exceptionally favoured position? The reply made is, because physical science covers the greater part of life. But does it? Take this present war and ask how much of it physical science explains. What does it tell about the causes of the war? Nothing; you must look for them in the past history of Germany since Frederick the Great, in German thinkers, Nietzsche, Treitschke, and a host of others, in political and moral philosophies, in theories of empire, and nationality, in Russia, Austria, the Balkan States, in the wealth of the Turkish empire and the nature of its government and inhabitants, in the character of the various peoples fighting-an enquiry which takes us infinitely far before we find The great gap in science is that it tells us hardly anything about man. This sounds paradoxical; yet consider. Suppose that we have studied /physics, chemistry, physiology, zoology and the rest, how much do we thereby know of man? Perhaps we have mastered the history of his tissues, his nervous system, his bones and sinews; perhaps we understand his structure and constitution, the laws which regulate his production, `growth and decay. Still, we know nothing of him as he moves in actual life. The man who is our friend, enemy, kinsman, partner, colleague, with |