The fourth contribution of science, both in itself and for its reaction on other interests, is perhaps the most important of all. This contribution is, put briefly, the light thrown by science on man’s place in the universe. Every branch of science conspires directly to this end. With some the emphasis is on the universe as distinct from man; others are concerned chiefly with man himself. To the general mind the result has been to make the universe bigger and man smaller, and this is, perhaps, no unfair summary. It is probably difficult, after hearing a duet sung by an astronomer and a psycho-analyst, not to feel depressed. But, such as it is, there can be no doubt that any conception of man’s destiny that is to command attention must conceive that destiny as played against the background of the scientific cosmos. Whether the vision be that of a prophet, philosopher or poet, it must accept those postulates. The cosmos revealed by science, both in its direct influence upon the mind and in its almost equally direct influence upon religion, philosophy and the arts, is the most important part of the scientific contribution to our spiritual life. So far as philosophers and artists are concerned, this influence is recognised. It is probably desirable that the influence upon philosophy should increase, but in the case of the artist we are faced with a special problem. Its discussion would be interesting, the more so in view of the fact that artists themselves have contributed very little that is helpful to its elucidation. We think it essential to its solution to remember that the artist, like the scientist, starts with facts. But the system within which the facts are related is entirely different in the two cases. The scientific scheme must, of course, be accepted by the artist _en bloc_ if his work is to be more than a pure fantasy. But this is very different from identifying his own scheme with the scientific scheme. That is to fail signally to perceive the limitations of the scientific contribution. An interesting particular case of this problem is to be found in the question of the right relations of the psychological novelist to the science of psycho-analysis. A scientific investigation is often, as we have said, a work of art, but not necessarily a work of literary art. The scientific contribution is very considerable, but offerings from the older benefactors are still gratefully received. THEORIES AND PERSONALITIES