... Mr. John Murray was strongly advised against the
publication of his views in derogation of Darwin's
long-accepted theory of the coral islands, and was actually
induced to delay it for two years. Yet the late Sir Wyville
Thomson, who was at the head of the naturalists of the
"Challenger" expedition, was himself convinced by Mr.
Murray's reasoning (p. 307).
Clearly, then, it could not be Mr. Murray's official chief who gave
him this advice. Who was it? And what was the exact nature of the
advice given? Until we have some precise information on this head, I
shall take leave to doubt whether this statement is more accurate than
those which I have previously cited.
Whether such advice was wise or foolish, just or immoral, depends
entirely on the motive of the person who gave it. If he meant to
suggest to Mr. Murray that it might be wise for a young and
comparatively unknown man to walk warily, when he proposed to attack a
generalisation based on many years' labour of one undoubtedly
competent person, and fortified by the independent results of the many
years' labour of another undoubtedly competent person; and even, if
necessary, to take two whole years in fortifying his position, I think
that such advice would have been sagacious and kind. I suppose that
there are few working men of science who have not kept their ideas to
themselves, while gathering and sifting evidence, for a much longer
period than two years.
If, on the other hand, Mr. Murray was advised to delay the publication
of his criticisms, simply to save Mr. Darwin's credit and to preserve
some reputation for infallibility, which no one ever heard of, then I
have no hesitation in declaring that his adviser was profoundly
dishonest, as well as extremely foolish; and that, if he is a man of
science, he has disgraced his calling.
But, after all, this supposed scientific Achitophel has not yet made
good the primary fact of his existence. Until the needful proof is
forthcoming, I think I am justified in suspending my judgment as to
whether he is much more than an anti-scientific myth. I leave it to
the Duke of Argyll to judge of the extent of the obligation under
which, for his own sake, he may lie to produce the evidence on which
his aspersions of the honour of scientific men are based. I cannot
pretend that we are seriously disturbed by charges which every one who
is acquainted with the truth of the matter knows to be ridiculous; but
mud has a habit of staining if it lies too long, and it is as well to
have it brushed off as soon as may be.
So much for the "Great Lesson." It is followed by a "Little Lesson,"
apparently directed against my infallibility--a doctrine about which I
should be inclined to paraphrase Wilkes's remark to George the Third,
when he declared that he, at any rate, was not a Wilkite. But I really
should be glad to think that there are people who need the warning,
because then it will be obvious that this raking up of an old story
cannot have been suggested by a mere fanatical desire to damage men
of science. I can but rejoice, then, that these misguided enthusiasts,
whose faith, in me has so far exceeded the bounds of reason, should be
set right. But that "want of finish" in the matter of accuracy which
so terribly mars the effect of the "Great Lesson," is no less
conspicuous in the case of the "Little Lesson," and, instead of
setting my too fervent disciples right, it will set them wrong.
The Duke of Argyll, in telling the story of _Bathybius_, says that my
mind was "caught by this new and grand generalisation of the physical
basis of life." I never have been guilty of a reclamation about
anything to my credit, and I do not mean to be; but if there is any
blame going, I do not choose to be relegated to a subordinate place
when I have a claim to the first. The responsibility for the first
description and the naming of _Bathybius_ is mine and mine only. The
paper on "Some Organisms living at great Depths in the Atlantic
Ocean," in which I drew attention to this substance, is to be found by
the curious in the eighth volume of the "Quarterly Journal of
Microscopical Science," and was published in the year 1868. Whatever
errors are contained in that paper are my own peculiar property; but
neither at the meeting of the British Association in 1868, nor
anywhere else, have I gone beyond what is there stated; except in so
far that, at a long-subsequent meeting of the Association, being
importuned about the subject, I ventured to express, somewhat
emphatically, the wish that the thing was at the bottom of the sea.
What is meant by my being caught by a generalisation about the
physical basis of life I do not know; still less can I understand the
assertion that _Bathybius_ was accepted because of its supposed
harmony with Darwin's speculations. That which interested me in the
matter was the apparent analogy of _Bathybius_ with other well-known
forms of lower life, such as the plasmodia of the Myxomycetes and the
Rhizopods. Speculative hopes or fears had nothing to do with the
matter; and if _Bathybius_ were brought up alive from the bottom of
the Atlantic to-morrow, the fact would not have the slightest bearing,
that I can discern, upon Mr. Darwin's speculations, or upon any of the
disputed problems of biology. It would merely be one elementary
organism the more added to the thousands already known.
Up to this moment I was not aware of the universal favour with which
_Bathybius_ was received.[32] Those simulators of an "ignorant mob"
who, according to the Duke of Argyll, welcomed Darwin's theory of
coral-reefs, made no demonstration in my favour, unless his Grace
includes Sir Wyville Thomson, Dr. Carpenter, Dr. Bessels, and
Professor Haeckel under that head. On the contrary, a sagacious friend
of mine, than whom there was no more competent judge, the late Mr.
George Busk, was not to be converted; while, long before the
"Challenger" work, Ehrenberg wrote to me very sceptically; and I fully
expected that that eminent man would favour me with pretty sharp
criticism. Unfortunately, he died shortly afterwards, and nothing from
him, that I know of, appeared. When Sir Wyville Thomson wrote to me a
brief account of the results obtained on board the "Challenger" I sent
this statement to "Nature," in which journal it appeared the following
week, without any further note or comment than was needful to explain
the circumstances. In thus allowing judgment to go by default, I am
afraid I showed a reckless and ungracious disregard for the feelings
of the believers in my infallibility. No doubt I ought to have hedged
and fenced and attenuated the effect of Sir Wyville Thomson's brief
note in every possible way. Or perhaps I ought to have suppressed the
note altogether, on the ground that it was a mere _ex parte_
statement. My excuse is that, notwithstanding a large and abiding
faith in human folly, I did not know then, any more than I know now,
that there was anybody foolish enough to be unaware that the only
people scientific or other, who never make mistakes are those who do
nothing; or that anybody, for whose opinion I cared, would not rather
see me commit ten blunders than try to hide one.
Pending the production of further evidence, I hold that the existence
of people who believe in the infallibility of men of science is as
purely mythical as that of the evil counsellor who advised the
withholding of the truth lest it should conflict with that belief.
I venture to think, then, that the Duke of Argyll might have spared
his "Little Lesson" as well as his "Great Lesson" with advantage. The
paternal authority who whips the child for sins he has not committed
does not strengthen his moral influence--rather excites contempt and
repugnance. And if, as would seem from this and former monitory
allocutions which have been addressed to us, the Duke aspires to the
position of censor, or spiritual director, in relation to the men who
are doing the work of physical science, he really must get up his
facts better. There will be an end to all chance of our kissing the
rod if his Grace goes wrong a third time. He must not say again that
"no serious reply has been attempted" to a view which was discussed
and repudiated, two years before, by one of the highest extant
authorities on the subject; he must not say that Darwin accepted that
which it can be proved he did not accept; he must not say that a
doctrine has dropped into the abyss when it is quite obviously alive
and kicking at the surface; he must not assimilate a man like
Professor Dana to the components of an "ignorant mob"; he must not say
that things are beginning to be known which are not known at all; he
must not say that "slow and sulky acquiescence" has been given to that
which cannot yet boast of general acquiescence of any kind; he must
not suggest that a view which has been publicly advocated by the
Director of the Geological Survey and no less publicly discussed by
many other authoritative writers has been intentionally and
systematically ignored; he must not ascribe ill motives for a course
of action which is the only proper one; and finally, if any one but
myself were interested, I should say that he had better not waste his
time in raking up the errors of those whose lives have been occupied,
not in talking about science, but in toiling, sometimes with success
and sometimes with failure, to get some real work done.
The most considerable difference I note among men is not in their
readiness to fall into error, but in their readiness to acknowledge
these inevitable lapses. The Duke of Argyll has now a splendid
opportunity for proving to the world in which of these categories it
is hereafter to rank him.
* * * * *
DEAR PROFESSOR HUXLEY,--A short time before Mr. Darwin's death, I had
a conversation with, him concerning the observations which had been
made by Mr. Murray upon coral-reefs, and the speculations which had
been founded upon those observations. I found that Mr. Darwin had very
carefully considered the whole subject, and that while, on the one
hand, he did not regard the actual facts recorded by Mr. Murray as
absolutely inconsistent with his own theory of subsidence, on the
other hand, he did not believe that they necessitated or supported the
hypothesis advanced by Mr. Murray. Mr. Darwin's attitude, as I
understood it, towards Mr. Murray's objections to the theory of
subsidence was exactly similar to that maintained by him with respect
to Professor Semper's criticism, which was of a very similar
character; and his position with regard to the whole question was
almost identical with that subsequently so clearly defined by
Professor Dana in his well-known articles published in the "American
Journal of Science" for 1885.
It is difficult to imagine how any one, acquainted with the scientific
literature of the last seven years, could possibly suggest that Mr.
Murray's memoir published in 1880 had failed to secure a due amount of
attention. Mr. Murray, by his position in the "Challenger" office,
occupied an exceptionally favourable position for making his views
widely known; and he had, moreover, the singular good fortune to
secure from the first the advocacy of so able and brilliant a writer
as Professor Archibald Geikie, who in a special discourse and in
several treatises on geology and physical geology very strongly
supported the new theory. It would be an endless task to attempt to
give references to the various scientific journals which have
discussed the subject, but I may add that every treatise on geology
which has been published, since Mr. Murray's views were made known,
has dealt with his observations at considerable length. This is true
of Professor A.H. Green's "Physical Geology," published in 1882; of
Professor Prestwich's "Geology, Chemical and Physical"; and of
Professor James Geikie's "Outlines of Geology," published in 1886.
Similar prominence is given to the subject in De Lapparent's "Traité
de Géologie," published in 1885, and in Credner's "Elemente der
Geologie," which has appeared during the present year. If this be a
"conspiracy of silence," where, alas! can the geological speculator
seek for fame?--Yours very truly, JOHN W. JUDD.
_October_ 10, 1887.