long ago as January 27, 1903, I made a proposal embracing this very message from the Royal Society, and much more, when in a letter to you on 'The Anarchy of Education', I asked this question:

'How far ought the highest education to be a study of external nature, how far of human nature, and why not of 'both at once? Is not the exaggeration of either study a 'fundamental error?'

In that letter I asked for a careful and comprehensive inquiry into the nature of the highest education and its future'. The inquiry has not been made, though a vote has been taken. I now ask for that inquiry again, instead of going on voting again in the dark. So far from thinking that such an inquiry would end in any antagonism between Greek and science', I believe it would turn out that each is an essential part of general education'. In the very same letter I asked this question:

"Could not a system of highest education be devised by ' which the same boys would learn Greek and Latin classics, 'modern languages, mathematics, and mechanics, the mother of natural sciences?'

While I fully agree that no man is thoroughly educated, as an Oxford man or a Cambridge man should be, unless he knows the laws of nature by which bodies make one another move and rest in his environment, I submit that, essential as it is to study external nature, it is still more essential to study human nature, and that with this end in view Greek is the surest and shortest way for all thorough students, including students of science'. In the course of our debate at Oxford this point of view has been reinforced in a very striking way by the receipt of three letters from three Presidents of the Royal Society-Lord Kelvin, Lord Lister, and Sir William Huggins-affirming the principles that an elementary knowledge of Greek should be required of all, not meaning all students of science', but all

who are aspiring to that thorough education which is the aim of Oxford and Cambridge.

Why, Sir, should there be any animosity between Greek and science'? If nature, including external and human nature, is one, and if science' is the key to the one part and Greek to the other part, why should not Oxford and Cambridge join hands together with the Royal Society and agree that both Greek and science' are essential parts of that general education which a youth, so far as the weakness of boyhood allows, should endeavour to bring with him to those two ancient Universities, which from of old have loved both classical literature and the advancement of learning?

Oxford, Feb. 16, 1904.

GREEK AT THE UNIVERSITIES

Sir George Young, Bart., was born in 1837, and has held important posts, including that of Charity Commissioner. Sir William Pearce, Bart., who died on November 2, 1907, bequeathed to Trinity College, Cambridge, as residuary legatee, moneys which were computed at £400,000. Mr. A. Gray was Senior Tutor of Jesus "College, Cambridge, until 1912, in which year he became Master of the College.

Professor Murray, referred to in the letter of December 2, 1910, is Dr. Gilbert Murray, Regius Professor of Greek.

FROM The Times, JANUARY 14, 1908.

Sir George Young, who, in a letter published in The Times on the 3rd inst., said that Sir W. Pearce left money to Trinity College instead of to the whole University of Cambridge, because the former was for, the latter against, the abolition of the necessity of Greek, has been asked on the 7th by Mr. Gray, of Jesus College, Cambridge, some pertinent questions about his evidence so far as that University is concerned. I should like to add some questions about the University of Oxford.

Sir George Young says that Mr. C. Rhodes

apparently tried so to give his money to Oxford as to transform Oxford into what he wanted it to be '. What evidence has he that Rhodes wanted to transform Oxford at all? Does he mean that Rhodes wanted to abolish the necessity of Greek? If so, he will not find in Rhodes's will any evidence of such a wish. What Rhodes wanted was to send scholars to Oxford.

Meanwhile, the adherence of Oxford to the necessity of Greek, though unfavourably regarded by Sir George Young in the spirit of the age, has had the effect of requiring Greek from the Rhodes scholars, with no harm but with much good. On the one hand, as the Rhodes scholars have turned out a success, the necessity of Greek can hardly be the barrier and the hardship which it is represented to be by its opponents. On the other hand, it has encouraged the study of Greek in various parts of the globe, which now supply Rhodes scholars, but previously had little Latin and less Greek. Which of the many schemes of education in our time, I should like to know, has diffused so much real good by such simple means as this fidelity of Oxford and Cambridge to the mission of Greek?

Oxford, Jan. 9, 1908.

Added by Case on his MSS. some time after 1919] PS.-Nevertheless, the necessity of Greek was afterwards abolished. Such things are.

GREEK AT OXFORD

FROM The Times, DECEMBER 2, 1910.

This subject has been thoroughly threshed out in the first decade of the century by the University of Oxford. First, it was proposed that candidates shall not be required to offer both Greek and Latin in Responsions: this proposition was rejected by 180 to 166 on November 11, 1902. Secondly, it was

proposed that candidates for Honours in mathematics and natural science should be permitted to substitute French or German for Greek in Responsions: this proposition was rejected by 200 to 164 on November 29, 1904. Thirdly, it was proposed that Greek shall no longer be a compulsory subject in Responsions: this proposition was rejected by 188 to 152 on November 22, 1910.

Time was when the University, mindful of its studies, shrank from immediately reviving agitation on the same subject. But this time, before their votes of Tuesday have cooled in their mouths, some members of the University have immediately revived the attack on Greek. On the very day when he voted against the proposal that Greek shall no longer be a compulsory subject in Responsions, Professor Murray wrote to you in favour of the proposal that Greek shall no longer be a compulsory subject for students of mathematics and natural science in Responsions. He is fomenting an agitation for this proposal.

It is extraordinary how some men think that they can draw the line where they please. The proposal of Professor Murray could not be a resting place. Only a week before he wrote to you, 51 opponents of Greek in Responsions issued a circular containing the following paragraph:

'In 1904 the University rejected the preamble of a Statute. exempting from compulsory Greek candidates for the Final Honour Schools of Mathematics and Natural Science. This ' concession, even if now made, would not meet the new 'claims which have sprung up since that date. The new 'Honour Schools established by the University are attractive to students from our own and other countries whom we 'should be glad to have, but who find themselves hampered and discouraged by the obligation to show some knowledge of 'the Greek language. The free selection of Rhodes scholars, particularly in America, is believed to be hindered by the same requirement. And there are isolated students in muni'cipal and county schools who would be welcome at Oxford, 'but are often deterred by the requirement of Responsions.'

How can it be otherwise? The real enemy of Greek is not science but modernism. Hence it was that in his letter to the University of Oxford, which started the proposal just recently defeated, Lord Curzon, the Chancellor of the University, regarded the requirement of Greek as an obstacle to the entrance of the poor to the University, and proposed not only to abolish Greek in Responsions, but also to diminish the number of scholarships for classics, in order to encourage modern subjects and poor men. Anon also the Hebdomadal Council, imitating the thoroughness of the Chancellor, resolved that Greek should no longer be required as a necessary subject for a degree in Arts, and followed out its resolution to its logical consequence in the proposed statute that Greek should no longer be a compulsory subject in Responsions, but was defeated by the wisdom of the University.

Professor Murray is hardly a safe guide. He sees the claims of mathematics and natural science for exemption from Greek, and desires to satisfy them. He sees also the claims of other subjects and desires to consider them. He does not see that the students of these subjects desire that their claims should be not only considered but also satisfied; that, as soon as students of mathematics and natural science have been exempted, the students of the other subjects will demand to be similarly exempted; and that, as their subjects are modern and popular, they will obtain what they demand. He does not see that when mathematics, natural science, the new Honour schools, the Rhodes scholars, the municipal and county schools, have all obtained exemption, he will have caused the very consequence which he deprecates, namely, that Greek will no longer be a compulsory subject in Responsions, nor a necessary subject for a degree in Arts. He does not see that, as more and more are exempted, endowments will be