autobiography and selected essays-第23章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



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　premisses　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；〃＇80＇　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　kindthe　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　bepure　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　nowthe　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　morphologythat　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　artistI　mean　among　the　nativesif　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

philologyof　which　grammar　is　a　part　and　parcel；　ye