1882.
[The year 1882 was a dark year for English science. It was marked by
the death of both Charles Darwin and of Francis Balfour, the young
investigator, of whom Huxley once said,] "He is the only man who can
carry out my work." [The one was the inevitable end of a great career,
in the fulness of time; the other was one of those losses which are
the more deplorable as they seem unnecessary, the result of a chance
slip, in all the vigour of youth. I remember his coming to our house
just before setting out on his fatal visit to Switzerland, and my
mother begging him to be careful about risking so valuable a life as
his in dangerous ascents. He laughingly replied that he only wanted to
conquer one little peak on Montblanc. A few days later came the news
of his fatal fall upon the precipices of the Aiguille Blanche. Since
the death of Edward Forbes, no loss outside the circle of his family
had affected my father so deeply. For three days he was utterly
prostrated, and was scarcely able either to eat or sleep.
There was indeed a subtle affinity between the two men. My mother, who
was greatly attached to Francis Balfour, said once to Sir M. Foster,
"He has not got the dash and verve, but otherwise he reminds me
curiously of what my husband was in his 'Rattlesnake' days." "How
strange," replied Sir Michael, "when he first came to the front,
Lankester wrote asking me, 'Who is this man Balfour you are always
talking about?' and I answered, 'Well, I can only describe him by
saying he is a younger Huxley.'"
Writing to Dr. Dohrn on September 24, Huxley says:--]
Heavy blows have fallen upon me this year in losing Darwin and
Balfour, the best of the old and the best of the young. I am beginning
to feel older than my age myself, and if Balfour had lived I should
have cleared out of the way as soon as possible, feeling that the
future of Zoological Science in this country was very safe in his
hands. As it is, I am afraid I may still be of use for some years, and
shall be unable to sing my "Nunc dimittis" with a good conscience.]
Darwin was in correspondence with him till quite near the end; having
received the volume "Science and Culture," he wrote on January 12,
1882:--
With respect to automatism (The allusion is to the 1874 address on
"Animals as Automata," which was reprinted in "Science and Culture."),
I wish that you could review yourself in the old, and, of course,
forgotten, trenchant style, and then you would have to answer yourself
with equal incisiveness; and thus, by Jove, you might go on ad
infinitum to the joy and instruction of the world.
And again on March 27:--
Your most kind letter has been a real cordial to me...once again
accept my cordial thanks, my dear old friend. I wish to God there were
more automata in the world like you.
Darwin died on April 19, and a brief notice being required for the
forthcoming number of "Nature" on the 27th, Huxley made shift to write
a brief article, which is printed in the "Collected Essays" 2 page
244. But as neither he nor Sir Joseph Hooker could at the moment
undertake a regular obituary notice, this was entrusted to Professor
Romanes, to whom the following letters were written.]
4 Marlborough Place, April 26, 1882.
My dear Romanes,
Thank you for your hearty letter. I spent many hours over the few
paragraphs I sent to "Nature," in trying to express what all who
thoroughly knew and therefore loved Darwin, must feel in language
which should be absolutely free from rhetoric or exaggeration.
I have done my best, and the sad thing is that I cannot look for those
cheery notes he used to send me in old times, when I had written
anything that pleased him.
In case we should miss one another to-day, let me say that it is
impossible for me to undertake the obituary in "Nature." I have a
conglomeration of business of various kinds upon my hands just now. I
am sure it will be very safe in your hands.
Ever yours very faithfully,
T.H. Huxley.
Pray do what you will with what I have written in "Nature."
4 Marlborough Place, May 9, 1882.
My dear Romanes,
I feel it very difficult to offer any useful criticism on what you
have written about Darwin, because, although it does not quite please
me, I cannot exactly say how I think it might be improved. My own way
is to write and rewrite things, until by some sort of instinctive
process they acquire the condensation and symmetry which satisfies me.
And I really could not say how my original drafts are improved until
they somehow improve themselves.
Two things however strike me. I think there is too much of the letter
about Henslow. I should be disposed to quote only the most
characteristic passages.
The other point is that I think strength would be given to your
panegyric by a little pruning here and there.
I am not likely to take a low view of Darwin's position in the history
of science, but I am disposed to think that Buffon and Lamarck would
run him hard in both genius and fertility. In breadth of view and in
extent of knowledge these two men were giants, though we are apt to
forget their services. Von Baer was another man of the same stamp;
Cuvier, in a somewhat lower rank, another; and J. Muller another.
"Colossal" does not seem to me to be the right epithet for Darwin's
intellect. He had a clear rapid intelligence, a great memory, a vivid
imagination, and what made his greatness was the strict subordination
of all these to his love of truth.
But you will be tired of my carping, and you had much better write
what seems right and just to yourself.
Ever yours very faithfully,
T.H. Huxley.
[Two scientific papers published this year were on subjects connected
with his work on the fisheries, one "A Contribution to the Pathology
of the Epidemic known as the 'Salmon Disease'" read before the Royal
Society on the occasion of the Prince of Wales being admitted a Fellow
(February 21; "Proceedings of the Royal Society" 33 pages 381-389);
the other on "Saprolegnia in relation to the Salmon Disease"
("Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science" 22 pages 311-333). A
third, at the Zoological Society, was on the "Respiratory Organs of
Apteryx" ("Proceedings of the Zoological Society" 1882 pages 560-569).
He delivered an address before the Liverpool Institution on "Science
and Art in Relation to Education" ("Collected Essays" 3 page 160), and
was busy with the Medical Acts Commission, which reported this year.
The aim of this Commission was to level up the varying qualifications
bestowed by nearly a score of different licensing bodies in the United
Kingdom, and to establish some central control by the State over the
licensing of medical practitioners. (For a fuller account of this
Commission and the part played in it by Huxley, see his "State and
Medical Education" ("Collected Essays" 3 323) published 1884.)
The report recommended the establishment of Boards in each division of
the United Kingdom containing representatives of all the medical
bodies in the division. These boards would register students, and
admit to a final examination those who had passed the preliminary and
minor examinations at the various universities and other bodies
already granting degrees and qualifications. Candidates who passed
this final examination would be licensed by the General Medical
Council, a body to be elected no longer by the separate bodies
interested in medical education, but by the Divisional Boards.
The report rejected a scheme for joint examination by the existing
bodies, assisted by outside examiners appointed by a central
authority, on the ground of difficulty and expense, as well as one for
a separate State examination. It also provided for compensation from
the fees to be paid by the candidates to existing bodies whose
revenues might suffer from the new scheme.
To this majority report, six of the eleven Commissioners appended
separate reports, suggesting other methods for carrying out the
desired end. Among the latter was Huxley, who gave his reasons for
dissenting from the principle assumed by his colleagues, though he had
signed the main report as embodying the best means of carrying out a
reform, that principle being granted.]
"The State examination" [he thought,] "was ideally best, but for many
reasons impossible." [But the] "conjoint scheme" [recommended in the
report appeared to punish the efficient medical authorities for the
abuses of the inefficient. Moreover, if the examiners of the
Divisional Board did not affiliate themselves to any medical
authority, the compensation to be provided would be very heavy; if
they did,] "either they will affiliate without further examination,
which will give them the pretence of a further qualification, without
any corresponding reality, or they will affiliate in examination, in
which case the new examination deprecated by the general voice of the
profession will be added, and any real difference between the plan
proposed and the 'State examination' scheme will vanish."
[The compensation proposed too, would chiefly fall to the discredited
bodies, who had neglected their duties.]
The scheme [he writes in his report], which I ventured to suggest is
of extreme simplicity; and while I cannot but think that it would
prove thoroughly efficient, it interferes with no fair vested interest
in such a manner as to give a claim for compensation, and it inflicts
no burden either in the way of taxation or extra examination on the
medical profession.
This proposal is, that if any examining body satisfies the Medical
Council (or other State authority), that it requires full and
efficient instruction and examination in the three branches of
medicine, surgery, and midwifery; and if it admits a certain number of
coadjutor examiners appointed by the State authority, the certificate
of that authority shall give admission to the Medical Register.
I submit that while the adopting this proposal would secure a
practically uniform minimum standard of examination, it would leave
free play to the individuality of the various existing or future
universities and medical corporations; that the revenues of such
bodies derived from medical examinations would thenceforth increase or
diminish in the ratio of their deserts; that a really efficient
inspection of the examinations would be secured, and that no one could
come upon the register without a complete qualification.
[That there was no difficulty in this scheme was shown by the
experience of the Scotch Universities; and the expense would be less
than the proposed compensation tax.
The chief part of the summer vacation Huxley spent at Lynton, on the
north coast of Devonshire.] "The Happy Family," [he writes to Dr.
Dohrn,] "has been spending its vacation in this pretty place, eighteen
miles of up hill and down dale from any railway." [It was a country
made for the long rambles he delighted in after the morning's due
allowance of writing. And although he generally preferred complete
quiet on his holidays, with perfect freedom from all social
exigencies, these weeks of rest were rendered all the pleasanter by
the unstudied and unexacting friendliness of the family party which
centred around Mr. and Mrs. F. Bailey of Lee Abbey hard by--Lady
Tenterden, the Julius and the Henry Pollocks, the latter old friends
of ours.
Though his holiday was curtailed at either end, he was greatly set up
by it, and writes to chaff his son-in-law for taking too little
rest:--]
I was glad to hear that F. had stood his fortnight's holiday so well;
three weeks might have knocked him up!
[On the same day, September 26, he wrote the letter to Dr. Dohrn,
mentioned above, answering two inquiries--one as to arrangements for
exhibiting at the Fisheries Exhibition to be held in London the
following year, the other as to whether England would follow the
example of Germany and Italy in sending naval officers to the
Zoological Station at Naples to be instructed in catching and
preserving marine animals for the purposes of scientific research.
[With respect to question Number 2, I am afraid my answer must be less
hopeful. So far as the British Admiralty is represented by the
ordinary British admiral, the only reply to such a proposition as you
make that I should expect would be that he (the British admiral, to
wit) would see you d--d first. However, I will speak of the matter to
the Hydrographer, who really is interested in science, at the first
opportunity.
[For many years before this, and until the end of his life, there was
another side to his correspondence which deserves mention.
I wish that more of the queer letters, which arrived in never-failing
streams, had been preserved. A favourite type was the anonymous
letter. It prayed fervently, over four pages, that the Almighty would
send him down quick into the pit, and was usually signed simply "A
Lady." Others came from cranks of every species: the man who
demonstrated that the world was flat, or that the atmosphere had no
weight--an easy proof, for you weigh a bottle full of air; then break
it to pieces, so that it holds nothing; weigh the pieces, and they are
the same weight as the whole bottle full of air! Or, again, that the
optical law of quality between the angle of incidence and the angle of
reflection is a delusion, whence it follows that all our established
latitudes are incorrect, and the difference of temperature between
Labrador and Ireland, nominally on the same parallel, is easily
accounted for. Then came the suggestions of little pieces of work that
might so easily be undertaken by a man of Huxley's capacity, learning,
and energy. Enormous manuscripts were sent him with a request that he
would write a careful criticism of them, and arrange for their
publication in the proceedings of some learned society or first-rate
magazine. One of the most delightful came this year. A doctor in
India, having just read "John Inglesant," begged Professor Huxley to
do for Science what Mr. Shorthouse had done for the Church of England.
As for the material difficulties in the way of getting such a book
written in the midst of other work, the ingenious doctor suggested the
use of a phonograph driven by a gas-engine. The great thoughts
dictated into it from the comfort of an armchair, could easily be
worked up into novel shape by a collaborator.
India, again, provided the following application of 1885, made in all
seriousness by a youthful Punjaubee with scientific aspirations, who
feared to be forced into the law. After an intimate account of his
life, he modestly appeals for a post in some scientific institution,
where he may get his food, do experiments three or four hours a day,
and learn English. Latterly his mental activity had been very
great:--"I have been contemplating," he says, "to give a new system of
Political Economy to the world. I have questioned, perhaps with
success, the validity of some of the fundamental doctrines of Herbert
Spencer's synthetic philosophy," and so on.
Another remarkable communication is a reply-paid telegram from the
States, in 1892, which ran as follows:--
Unless all reason and all nature have deceived me, I have found the
truth. It is my intention to cross the ocean to consult with those who
have helped me most to find it. Shall I be welcome? Please answer at
my expense, and God grant we all meet in life on earth.
Another, of British origin this time, was from a man who had to read a
paper before a local Literary Society on the momentous question,
"Where are we?" so he sent round a circular to various authorities to
reinforce his own opinions on the six heads into which he proposed to
divide his discourse, namely:
Where are we in Space?
Where are we in Science?
Where are we in Politics?
Where are we in Commerce?
Where are we in Sociology?
Where are we in Theology?
The writer received an answer, and a mild one:--]
Any adequate reply to your inquiry would be of the nature of a
treatise, and that, I regret, I cannot undertake to write.
[Two letters of this year touch on Irish affairs, in which he was
always interested, having withal a certain first-hand knowledge of the
people and the country they lived in, from his visits there, both as a
Fishery Commissioner and on other occasions. He writes warmly to the
historian who treated of Ireland without prejudice or rancour.]
4 Marlborough Place, April 16, 1882.
My dear Lecky,
Accept my best thanks for your two volumes, which I found on my return
from Scotland yesterday.
I can give no better evidence of my appreciation of their contents
than by the confession that they have caused me to neglect my proper
business all yesterday evening and all to-day.
The section devoted to Irish affairs is a model of lucidity, and bears
on its face the stamp of justice and fair dealing. It is a most worthy
continuation of the chapter on the same subject in the first volume,
and that is giving high praise.
You see I write as if I knew something about the subject, but you are
responsible for creating the delusion.
With kindest remembrances to Mrs. Lecky,
Ever yours very faithfully,
T.H. Huxley.
[A few weeks later, the murder of Lord Frederick Cavendish sent a
thrill of horror throughout England. Huxley was as deeply moved as
any, but wrote calmly of the situation.
To his eldest son:--]
4 Marlborough Place, May 9, 1882.
My dear Leonard,
Best thanks for your good wishes [For his birthday, May 4.].
Notwithstanding the disease of A.D., which always proves mortal sooner
or later, I am in excellent case...
I knew both Lord F. Cavendish and his wife and Mr. Burke. I have never
been able to get poor Lady Frederick out of my head since the news
arrived.
The public mind has been more stirred than by anything since the
Indian Mutiny. But if the Government keep their heads cool, great good
may come out of the evil, horrible as it is. The Fenians have reckoned
on creating an irreparable breach between England and Ireland. It
should be our business to disappoint them first and extirpate them
afterwards. But the newspaper writers make me sick, especially the
"Times".
Ever your affectionate father,
T.H. Huxley.
[It is interesting, also, to see how he appeared about this time to
one of a younger generation, acute, indeed, and discriminating, but
predisposed by circumstances and upbringing to regard him at first
with curiosity rather than sympathy. For this account I am indebted to
one who has the habit, so laudable in good hands, of keeping a journal
of events and conversations. I have every confidence in the
substantial accuracy of so well trained a reporter.
EXTRACT FROM JOURNAL.
November 25, 1882.
In the evening we dined at the --'s, chiefly a family party with the
addition of Professor Huxley and his wife and ourselves. Much lively
conversation, after dinner, begun among the ladies, but continued
after the gentlemen appeared, on the subjects of Truth, Education, and
Women's Rights, or, more strictly speaking, women's capabilities. Our
hostess (Lady --) was, if possible, more vehement and paradoxical than
her wont, and vigorously maintained that TRUTH was no virtue in
itself, but must be inculcated for expediency's sake. The opposite
view found a champion in Professor Huxley, who described himself as]
"almost a fanatic for the sanctity of truth." [Lady -- urged that
truth was often a very selfish virtue, and that a man of noble and
unselfish character might lie for the sake of a friend, to which some
one replied that after a course of this unselfish lying the noble
character was pretty sure to deteriorate, while the Professor
laughingly suggested that the owner had a good chance of finding
himself landed ultimately in Botany Bay.
The celebrated instance of John Inglesant's perjury for the sake of
Charles I. was then brought forward, and it was this which led
Professor Huxley to say that in his judgment no one had the right
passively to submit to a false accusation, and that] "moral suicide"
[was as blameworthy as physical suicide.] "He may refuse to commit
another, but he ought not to allow himself to be believed worse than
he actually is. It is a loss to the world of MORAL FORCE, which cannot
be afforded."
[...Then as regards women's powers. The Professor said he did not
believe in their ever succeeding in a competition with men. Then he
went on:--] "I can't help looking at women with something of the eye
of a physiologist. Twenty years ago I thought the womanhood of England
was going to the dogs," [but now, he said, he observed a wonderful
change for the better. We asked to what he attributed it. Was it to
lawn tennis and the greater variety of bodily exercises?] "Partly,"
[he answered,] "but much more to their having more PURSUITS--more to
interest them and to occupy their thoughts and time."
[The following letter bears upon the question of employing retired
engineer officers in administrative posts in the Science and Art
Department:--]
The Rookery, Lynton, September 19, 1882.
My dear Donnelly,
Your letter seems to have arrived here the very day I left for Whitby,
whither I had to betake myself to inspect a weir, so I did not get it
until my return last night.
I am extremely sorry to hear of the possibility of Martin's giving up
his post. He took so much interest in the work and was so very
pleasant to deal with, that I do not think we shall easily find any
one to replace him.
If you will find another R.E. at all like him, in Heaven's name catch
him and put him in, job or no job.
The objection to a small clerk is that we want somebody who knows how
to deal with men, and especially young men on the one hand, and
especially cantankerous (more or less) old scientific buffers on the
other.
The objection to a man of science is that (1) we want a man of
business and not a m.s., and (2) that no man scientifically worth
having that I know of is likely to take such an office.
"As at present advised" I am all for an R.E., so I cannot have the
pleasure even of trying to convert you.
With our united kindest regards,
Ever yours very faithfully,
T.H. Huxley.
I return next Monday.
[Two letters of thanks follow, one at the beginning of the year to Mr.
Herbert Spencer for the gift of a very fine photograph of himself; the
other, at the end of the year, to Mr. (afterwards Sir John) Skelton,
for his book on Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters.
As to the former, it must be premised that Mr. Spencer abhorred
exaggeration and inexact talk, and would ruthlessly prick the airy
bubbles which endued the conversation of the daughters of the house
with more buoyancy than strict logic, a gift which, he averred, was
denied to woman.]
4 Marlborough Place, January 25, 1882.
My dear Spencer,
Best thanks for the photograph. It is very good, though there is just
a touch of severity in the eye. We shall hang it up in the
dining-room, and if anybody is guilty of exaggerated expressions or
bad logic (five womenkind habitually sit round that table), I trust
they will feel that that eye is upon them.
Ever yours very faithfully,
T.H. Huxley.
4 Marlborough Place, January 31, 1882.
My dear Skelton,
If I may not thank you for the book you have been kind enough to send
me, I may at any rate wish you and Mrs. Skelton a happy New Year and
many on 'em.
I am going to read your vindication of Mary Stuart as soon as I can.
Hitherto I am sorry to say I have classed her with Eve, Helen,
Cleopatra, Delilah, and sundry other glorious --s who have lured men
to their destruction.
But I am open to conviction, and ready to believe that she blew up her
husband only a little more thoroughly than other women do, by reason
of her keener perception of logic.
Ever yours very faithfully,
T.H. Huxley.