I know quite well that launching myself into this discussion is a very dangerous operation; that it is a very large subject, and one which is difficult to deal with, however much I may trespass upon your patience in the time allotted to me.  But the discussion is so fundamental, it is so completely impossible to make up one’s mind on these matters until one has settled the question, that I will even venture to make the experiment.  A great lawyer-statesman and philosopher of a former age-I mean Francis Bacon -said that truth came out of error much more rapidly than it came out of confusion.  There is a wonderful truth in that saying.  Next to being right in this world, the best of all things is to be clearly and definitely wrong, because you will come out somewhere.  If you go buzzing about between right and wrong, vibrating and fluctuating, you come out nowhere; but if you are absolutely and thoroughly and persistently wrong, you must, some of these days, have the extreme good fortune of knocking your head against a fact, and that sets you all straight again.  So I will not trouble myself as to whether I may be right or wrong in what I am about to say, but at any rate I hope to be clear and definite; and then you will be able to judge for yourselves whether, in following out the train of thought I have to introduce, you knock your heads against facts or not.

I take it that the whole object of education is, in the first place, to train the faculties of the young in such a manner as to give their possessors the best chance of being happy and useful in their generation; and, in the second place, to furnish them with the most important portions of that immense capitalised experience of the human race which we call knowledge of various kinds.  I am using the term knowledge in its widest possible sense; and the question is, what subjects to select by training and discipline, in which the object I have just defined may be best attained.

I must call your attention further to this fact, that all the subjects of our thoughts-all feelings and propositions (leaving aside our sensations as the mere materials and occasions of thinking and feeling), all our mental furniture-may be classified under one of two heads-as either within the province of the intellect, something that can be put into propositions and affirmed or denied; or as within the province of feeling, or that which, before the name was defiled, was called the aesthetic side of our nature, and which can neither be proved nor disproved, but only felt and known.

According to the classification which I have put before you, then, the subjects of all knowledge are divisible into the two groups, matters of science and matters of art; for all things with which the reasoning faculty alone is occupied, come under the province of science; and in the broadest sense, and not in the narrow and technical sense in which we are now accustomed to use the word art, all things feelable, all things which stir our emotions, come under the term of art, in the sense of the subject-matter of the aesthetic faculty.  So that we are shut up to this-that the business of education is, in the first place, to provide the young with the means and the habit of observation; and, secondly, to supply the subject-matter of knowledge either in the shape of science or of art, or of both combined.

Now, it is a very remarkable fact-but it is true of most things in this world-that there is hardly anything one-sided, or of one nature; and it is not immediately obvious what of the things that interest us may be regarded as pure science, and what may be regarded as pure art.  It may be that there are some peculiarly constituted persons who, before they have advanced far into the depths of geometry, find artistic beauty about it; but, taking the generality of mankind, I think it may be said that, when they begin to learn mathematics, their whole souls are absorbed in tracing the connection between the prémisses and the conclusion, and that to them geometry is pure science.  So I think it may be said that mechanics and osteology are pure science.  On the other hand, melody in music is pure art.  You cannot reason about it; there is no proposition involved in it.  So, again, in the pictorial art, an arabesque, or a “harmony in grey," touches none but the aesthetic faculty.  But a great mathematician, and even many persons who are not great mathematicians, will tell you that they derive immense pleasure from geometrical reasonings.  Everybody knows mathematicians speak of solutions and problems as “elegant,” and they tell you that a certain mass of mystic symbols is “beautiful, quite lovely.”  Well, you do not see it.  They do see it, because the intellectual process, the process of comprehending the reasons symbolised by these figures and these signs, confers upon them a sort of pleasure, such as an artist has in visual symmetry.  Take a science of which I may speak with more confidence, and which is the most attractive of those I am concerned with.  It is what we call morphology, which consists in tracing out the unity in variety of the infinitely diversified structures of animals and plants.  I cannot give you any example of a thorough aesthetic pleasure more intensely real than a pleasure of this kind-the pleasure which arises in one’s mind when a whole mass of different structures run into one harmony as the expression of a central law.  That is where the province of art overlays and embraces the province of intellect.  And, if I may venture to express an opinion on such a subject, the great majority of forms of art are not in the sense what I just now defined them to be-pure art; but they derive much of their quality from simultaneous and even unconscious excitement of the intellect.

When I was a boy, I was very fond of music, and I am so now; and it so happened that I had the opportunity of hearing much good music.  Among other things, I had abundant opportunities of hearing that great old master, Sebastian Bach.  I remember perfectly well-though I knew nothing about music then, and, I may add, know nothing whatever about it now-the intense satisfaction and delight which I had in listening, by the hour together, to Bach’s fugues.  It is a pleasure which remains with me, I am glad to think; but, of late years, I have tried to find out the why and wherefore, and it has often occurred to me that the pleasure derived from musical compositions of this kind is essentially of the same nature as that which is derived from pursuits which are commonly regarded as purely intellectual.  I mean, that the source of pleasure is exactly the same as in most of my problems in morphology-that you have the theme in one of the old master’s works followed out in all its endless variations, always appearing and always reminding you of unity in variety.  So in painting; what is called “truth to nature” is the intellectual element coming in, and truth to nature depends entirely upon the intellectual culture of the person to whom art is addressed.  If you are in Australia, you may get credit for being a good artist-I mean among the natives-if you can draw a kangaroo after a fashion.  But, among men of higher civilisation, the intellectual knowledge we possess brings its criticism into our appreciation of works of art, and we are obliged to satisfy it, as well as the mere sense of beauty in colour and in outline.  And so, the higher the culture and information of those whom art addresses, the more exact and precise must be what we call its “truth to nature.”

If we turn to literature, the same thing is true, and you find works of literature which may be said to be pure art.  A little song of Shakespeare or of Goethe is pure art; it is exquisitely beautiful, although its intellectual content may be nothing.  A series of pictures is made to pass before your mind by the meaning of words, and the effect is a melody of ideas.  Nevertheless, the great mass of the literature we esteem is valued, not merely because of having artistic form, but because of its intellectual content; and the value is the higher the more precise, distinct, and true is that intellectual content.  And, if you will let me for a moment speak of the very highest forms of literature, do we not regard them as highest simply because the more we know the truer they seem, and the more competent we are to appreciate beauty the more beautiful they are?  No man ever understands Shakespeare until he is old, though the youngest may admire him, the reason being that he satisfies the artistic instinct of the youngest and harmonises with the ripest and richest experience of the oldest.

I have said this much to draw your attention to what, in my mind, lies at the root of all this matter, and at the understanding of one another by the men of science on the one hand, and the men of literature, and history, and art, on the other.  It is not a question whether one order of study or another should predominate.  It is a question of what topics of education you shall select which will combine all the needful elements in such due proportion as to give the greatest amount of food, support, and encouragement to those faculties which enable us to appreciate truth, and to profit by those sources of innocent happiness which are open to us, and, at the same time, to avoid that which is bad, and coarse, and ugly, and keep clear of the multitude of pitfalls and dangers which beset those who break through the natural or moral laws.

I address myself, in this spirit, to the consideration of the question of the value of purely literary education.  Is it good and sufficient, or is it insufficient and bad?  Well, here I venture to say that there are literary educations and literary educations.  If I am to understand by that term the education that was current in the great majority of middle-class schools, and upper schools too, in this country when I was a boy, and which consisted absolutely and almost entirely in keeping boys for eight or ten years at learning the rules of Latin and Greek grammar, construing certain Latin and Greek authors, and possibly making verses which, had they been English verses, would have been condemned as abominable doggerel,-if that is what you mean by liberal education, then I say it is scandalously insufficient and almost worthless.  My reason for saying so is not from the point of view of science at all, but from the point of view of literature.  I say the thing professes to be literary education that is not a literary education at all.  It was not literature at all that was taught, but science in a very bad form.  It is quite obvious that grammar is science and not literature.  The analysis of a text by the help of the rules of grammar is just as much a scientific operation as the analysis of a chemical compound by the help of the rules of chemical analysis.  There is nothing that appeals to the aesthetic faculty in that operation; and I ask multitudes of men of my own age, who went through this process, whether they ever had a conception of art or literature until they obtained it for themselves after leaving school?  Then you may say, “If that is so, if the education was scientific, why cannot you be satisfied with it?” I say, because although it is a scientific training, it is of the most inadequate and inappropriate kind.  If there is any good at all in scientific education it is that men should be trained, as I said before, to know things for themselves at first hand, and that they should understand every step of the reason of that which they do.

I desire to speak with the utmost respect of that science-philology-of which grammar is a part and parcel; yet everybody knows that grammar, as it is usually learned at school, affords no scientific training.  It is taught just as you would teach the rules of chess or draughts.  On the other hand, if I am to understand by a literary education the study of the literatures of either ancient or modern nations-but especially those of antiquity, and especially that of ancient Greece; if this literature is studied, not merely from the point of view of philological science, and its practical application to the interpretation of texts, but as an exemplification of and commentary upon the principles of art; if you look upon the literature of a people as a chapter in the development of the human mind, if you work out this in a broad spirit, and with such collateral references to morals and politics, and physical geography, and the like as are needful to make you comprehend what the meaning of ancient literature and civilisation is,-then, assuredly, it affords a splendid and noble education.  But I still think it is susceptible of improvement, and that no man will ever comprehend the real secret of the difference between the ancient world and our present time, unless he has learned to see the difference which the late development of physical science has made between the thought of this day and the thought of that, and he will never see that difference, unless he has some practical insight into some branches of physical science; and you must remember that a literary education such as that which I have just referred to, is out of the reach of those whose school life is cut short at sixteen or seventeen.

But, you will say, all this is fault-finding; let us hear what you have in the way of positive suggestion.  Then I am bound to tell you that, if I could make a clean sweep of everything-I am very glad I cannot because I might, and probably should, make mistakes,-but if I could make a clean sweep of everything and start afresh, I should, in the first place, secure that training of the young in reading and writing, and in the habit of attention and observation, both to that which is told them, and that which they see, which everybody agrees to.  But in addition to that, I should make it absolutely necessary for everybody, for a longer or shorter period, to learn to draw.  Now, you may say, there are some people who cannot draw, however much they may be taught.  I deny that in toto, because I never yet met with anybody who could not learn to write.  Writing is a form of drawing; therefore if you give the same attention and trouble to drawing as you do to writing, depend upon it, there is nobody who cannot be made to draw, more or less well.  Do not misapprehend me.  I do not say for one moment you would make an artistic draughtsman.  Artists are not made; they grow.  You may improve the natural faculty in that direction, but you cannot make it; but you can teach simple drawing, and you will find it an implement of learning of extreme value.  I do not think its value can be exaggerated, because it gives you the means of training the young in attention and accuracy, which are the two things in which all mankind are more deficient than in any other mental quality whatever.  The whole of my life has been spent in trying to give my proper attention to things and to be accurate, and I have not succeeded as well as I could wish; and other people, I am afraid, are not much more fortunate.  You cannot begin this habit too early, and I consider there is nothing of so great a value as the habit of drawing, to secure those two desirable ends.

Then we come to the subject-matter, whether scientific or aesthetic, of education, and I should naturally have no question at all about teaching the elements of physical science of the kind I have sketched, in a practical manner; but among scientific topics, using the word scientific in the broadest sense, I would also include the elements of the theory of morals and of that of political and social life, which, strangely enough, it never seems to occur to anybody to teach a child.  I would have the history of our own country, and of all the influences which have been brought to bear upon it, with incidental geography, not as a mere chronicle of reigns and battles, but as a chapter in the development of the race, and the history of civilisation.

Then with respect to aesthetic knowledge and discipline, we have happily in the English language one of the most magnificent storehouses of artistic beauty and of models of literary excellence which exists in the world at the present time.  I have said before, and I repeat it here, that if a man cannot get literary culture of the highest kind out of his Bible, and Chaucer, and Shakespeare, and Milton, and Hobbes, and Bishop Berkeley, to mention only a few of our illustrious writers-I say, if he cannot get it out of those writers he cannot get it out of anything; and I would assuredly devote a very large portion of the time of every English child to the careful study of the models of English writing of such varied and wonderful kind as we possess, and, what is still more important and still more neglected, the habit of using that language with precision, with force, and with art.  I fancy we are almost the only nation in the world who seem to think that composition comes by nature.  The French attend to their own language, the Germans study theirs; but Englishmen do not seem to think it is worth their while.  Nor would I fail to include, in the course of study I am sketching, translations of all the best works of antiquity, or of the modern world.  It is a very desirable thing to read Homer in Greek; but if you don’t happen to know Greek, the next best thing we can do is to read as good a translation of it as we have recently been furnished with in prose. You won’t get all you would get from the original, but you may get a great deal; and to refuse to know this great deal because you cannot get all, seems to be as sensible as for a hungry man to refuse bread because he cannot get partridge.  Finally, I would add instruction in either music or painting, or, if the child should be so unhappy, as sometimes happens, as to have no faculty for either of those, and no possibility of doing anything in any artistic sense with them, then I would see what could be done with literature alone; but I would provide, in the fullest sense, for the development of the aesthetic side of the mind.  In my judgment, those are all the essentials of education for an English child.  With that outfit, such as it might be made in the time given to education which is within the reach of nine-tenths of the population-with that outfit, an Englishman, within the limits of English life, is fitted to go anywhere, to occupy the highest positions, to fill the highest offices of the State, and to become distinguished in practical pursuits, in science, or in art.  For, if he have the opportunity to learn all those things, and have his mind disciplined in the various directions the teaching of those topics would have necessitated, then, assuredly, he will be able to pick up, on his road through life, all the rest of the intellectual baggage he wants.

If the educational time at our disposition were sufficient, there are one or two things I would add to those I have just now called the essentials; and perhaps you will be surprised to hear, though I hope you will not, that I should add, not more science, but one, or, if possible, two languages.  The knowledge of some other language than one’s own is, in fact, of singular intellectual value.  Many of the faults and mistakes of the ancient philosophers are traceable to the fact that they knew no language but their own, and were often led into confusing the symbol with the thought which it embodied.  I think it is Locke who says that one-half of the mistakes of philosophers have arisen from questions about words; and one of the safest ways of delivering yourself from the bondage of words is, to know how ideas look in words to which you are not accustomed.  That is one reason for the study of language; another reason is, that it opens new fields in art and in science.  Another is the practical value of such knowledge; and yet another is this, that if your languages are properly chosen, from the time of learning the additional languages you will know your own language better than ever you did.  So, I say, if the time given to education permits, add Latin and German.  Latin, because it is the key to nearly one-half of English and to all the Romance languages; and German, because it is the key to almost all the remainder of English, and helps you to understand a race from whom most of us have sprung, and who have a character and a literature of a fateful force in the history of the world, such as probably has been allotted to those of no other people, except the Jews, the Greeks, and ourselves.  Beyond these, the essential and the eminently desirable elements of all education, let each man take up his special line-the historian devote himself to his history, the man of science to his science, the man of letters to his culture of that kind, and the artist to his special pursuit.

Bacon has prefaced some of his works with no more than this:  Franciscus Bacon sic cogitavit; let “sic cogitavi” be the epilogue to what I have ventured to address to you to-night.