1887.
[The first half of 1887, like that of the preceding year, was chequered
by constant returns of ill-health.] "As one gets older," [he writes in
a New Year's letter to Sir J. Donnelly, "hopes for oneself get more
moderate, and I shall be content if next year is no worse than the
last. Blessed are the poor in spirit!" [The good effects of the visit
to Arolla had not outlasted the winter, and from the end of February he
was obliged to alternate between London and the Isle of Wight.
Nevertheless, he managed to attend to a good deal of business in the
intervals between his periodic flights to the country, for he continued
to serve on the Royal Society Council, to do some of the examining work
at South Kensington, and to fight for the establishment of adequate
Technical Education in England. He attended the Senate and various
committees of the London University and of the Marine Biological
Association.
Several letters refer to the proposal--it was the Jubilee year--to
commemorate the occasion by the establishment of the Imperial
Institute. To this he gladly gave his support; not indeed to the merely
social side; but in the opportunity of organising the practical
applications of science to industry he saw the key to success in the
industrial war of the future. Seconding the resolution proposed by Lord
Rothschild at the Mansion House meeting on January 12, he spoke of the
relation of industry to science--the two great developments of this
century. Formerly practical men looked askance at science, "but within
the last thirty years, more particularly," continues the report in
"Nature" (volume 33 page 265) "that state of things had entirely
changed. There began in the first place a slight flirtation between
science and industry, and that flirtation had grown into an intimacy,
he must almost say courtship, until those who watched the signs of the
times saw that it was high time that the young people married and set
up an establishment for themselves. This great scheme, from his point
of view, was the public and ceremonial marriage of science and
industry."
Proceeding to speak of the contrast between militarism and
industrialism, he asked whether, after all, modern industry was not war
under the forms of peace. The difference was the difference between
modern and ancient war, consisting in the use of scientific weapons, of
organisation and information. The country, he concluded, had dropped
astern in the race for want of special education which was obtained
elsewhere by the artisan. The only possible chance for keeping the
industry of England at the head of the world was through organisation.
Writing on January 18, to Mr. Herbert Spencer, who had sent him some
proofs of his Autobiography to look through, he says:--]
I see that your proofs have been in my hands longer than I thought for.
But you may have seen that I have been "starring" at the Mansion House.
This was not exactly one of those bits of over-easiness to pressure
with which you reproach me--but the resultant of a composition of
pressures, one of which was the conviction that the "Institute" might
be made into something very useful and greatly wanted--if only the
projectors could be made to believe that they had always intended to do
that which your humble servant wants done--that is the establishment of
a sort of Royal Society for the improvement of industrial knowledge and
an industrial university--by voluntary association.
I hope my virtue may be its own reward. For except being knocked up for
a day or two by the unwonted effort, I doubt whether there will be any
other. The thing has fallen flat as a pancake, and I greatly doubt
whether any good will come of it. Except a fine in the shape of a
subscription, I hope to escape further punishment for my efforts to be
of use.
[However, this was only the beginning of his campaign.
On January 27, a letter from him appeared in the "Times," guarding
against a wrong interpretation of his speech, in the general
uncertainty as to the intentions of the proposers of the scheme.]
I had no intention [he writes] of expressing any enthusiasm on behalf
of the establishment of a vast permanent bazaar. I am not competent to
estimate the real utility of these great shows. What I do see very
clearly is that they involve difficulties of site, huge working
expenses, the potentiality of endless squabbles, and apparently the
cheapening of knighthood.
[As for the site proposed at South Kensington,] "the arguments used in
its favour in the report would be conclusive if the dry light of reason
were the sole guide of human action." [But it would alienate other
powerful and wealthy bodies, which were interested in the Central
Institute of the City and Guilds Technical Institute,] "which looks so
portly outside and is so very much starved inside."
[He wrote again to the "Times" on March 21:--]
The Central Institute is undoubtedly a splendid monument of the
munificence of the city. But munificence without method may arrive at
results indistinguishably similar to those of stinginess. I have been
blamed for saying that the Central Institute is "starved." Yet a man
who has only half as much food as he needs is indubitably starved, even
though his short rations consist of ortolans and are served upon gold
plate.
[Only half the plan of operations as drawn up by the Committee was, or
could be, carried out on existing funds.
The later part of his letter was printed by the Committee as defining
the functions of the new Institute:--]
That with which I did intend to express my strong sympathy was the
intention which I thought I discerned to establish something which
should play the same part in regard to the advancement of industrial
knowledge which has been played in regard to science and learning in
general, in these realms, by the Royal Society and the Universities...I
pictured the Imperial Institute to myself as a house of call for all
those who are concerned in the advancement of industry; as a place in
which the home-keeping industrial could find out all he wants to know
about colonial industry and the colonist about home industry; as a sort
of neutral ground on which the capitalist and the artisan would be
equally welcome; as a centre of intercommunication in which they might
enter into friendly discussion of the problems at issue between them,
and, perchance, arrive at a friendly solution of them. I imagined it a
place in which the fullest stores of industrial knowledge would be made
accessible to the public; in which the higher questions of commerce and
industry would be systematically studied and elucidated; and where, as
in an industrial university, the whole technical education of the
country might find its centre and crown. If I earnestly desire to see
such an institution created, it is not because I think that or anything
else will put an end to pauperism and want--as somebody has absurdly
suggested,--but because I believe it will supply a foundation for that
scientific organisation of our industries which the changed conditions
of the times render indispensable to their prosperity. I do not think I
am far wrong in assuming that we are entering, indeed, have already
entered, upon the most serious struggle for existence to which this
country has ever been committed. The latter years of the century
promise to see us embarked in an industrial war of far more serious
import than the military wars of its opening years. On the east, the
most systematically instructed and best-informed people in Europe are
our competitors; on the west, an energetic offshoot of our own stock,
grown bigger than its parent, enters upon the struggle possessed of
natural resources to which we can make no pretension, and with every
prospect of soon possessing that cheap labour by which they may be
effectually utilised. Many circumstances tend to justify the hope that
we may hold our own if we are careful to "organise victory." But to
those who reflect seriously on the prospects of the population of
Lancashire and Yorkshire--should the time ever arrive when the goods
which are produced by their labour and their skill are to be had
cheaper elsewhere--to those who remember the cotton famine and reflect
how much worse a customer famine would be, the situation appears very
grave.
[On February 19 and 22, he wrote again to the "Times" declaring against
the South Kensington site. It was too far from the heart of commercial
organisation in the city, and the city people were preparing to found a
similar institution of their own. He therefore wished to prevent the
Imperial Institute from becoming a weak and unworthy memorial of the
reign.
A final letter to the "Times" on March 21, was evoked by the fact that
Lord Hartington, in giving away the prizes at the Polytechnic Y.M.C.A.,
had adopted Huxley's position as defined in his speech, and declared
that science ought to be aided on precisely the same grounds on which
we aid the army and navy.
In this letter he asks, how do we stand prepared for the task thus
imperatively set us? We have the machinery for providing instruction
and information, and for catching capable men, but both in a disjointed
condition]--"all mere torsos--fine, but fragmentary." "The ladder from
the School Board to the Universities, about which I dreamed dreams many
years ago, has not yet acquired much more substantiality than the
ladder of Jacob's vision," [but the Science and Art Department, the
Normal School of Science, and the Central Institute only want the means
to carry out the recommendations already made by impartial and
independent authority.] "Economy does not lie in sparing money, but in
spending it wisely."
[He concluded with an appeal to Lord Hartington to take up this task of
organising industrial education and bring it to a happy issue.
A proposal was also made to the Royal Society to co-operate, and Sir M.
Foster writes on February 19: "We have appointed a Committee to
consider and draw up a draft reply with a view of the Royal Society
following up your letter."
To this Huxley replied on the 22nd:--]
...My opinion is that the Royal Society has no right to spend its money
or pledge its credit for any but scientific objects, and that we have
nothing to do with sending round the hat for other purposes.
The project of the Institute Committee as it stands connected with the
South Kensington site--is condemned by all the city people and will
receive none but the most grudging support from them. They are going to
set up what will be practically an Institute of their own in the city.
The thing is already a failure. I daresay it will go on and be
varnished into a simulacrum of success--to become eventually a ghost
like the Albert Hall or revive as a tea garden.
[The following letter also touches upon the function of the Institute
from the commercial side:--]
4 Marlborough Place, February 20, 1887.
My dear Donnelly,
Mr. Law's suggestion gives admirable definition to the notions that
were floating in my mind when I wrote in my letter to the "Times", that
I imagined the Institute would be a "place in which the fullest stores
of industrial knowledge would be made accessible to the public." A man
of business who wants to know anything about the prospects of trade
with, say, Boorioboola-Gha (vide Bleak House) ought to be able to look
into the Institute and find there somebody who will at once fish out
for him among the documents in the place all that is known about
Boorioboola.
But a Commercial Intelligence Department is not all that is wanted,
vide valuable letter aforesaid.
I hope your appetite for the breakfast was none the worse for last
night's doings--mine was rather improved, but I am dog-tired.
Ever yours very faithfully,
T.H. Huxley.
I return Miss --'s note. she evidently thinks my cage is labelled
"These animals bite."
[Later in the year, the following letters show him continuing the
campaign. But an attack of pleurisy, which began the very day of the
Jubilee, prevented him from coming to speak at a meeting upon Technical
Education. In the autumn, however, he spoke on the subject at
Manchester, and had the satisfaction of seeing the city "go solid," as
he expressed it, for technical education. The circumstances of this
visit are given later.]
4 Marlborough Place, May 1, 1887.
My dear Roscoe,
I met Lord Hartington at the Academy Dinner last night and took the
opportunity of urging upon him the importance of following up his
technical education speech. He told me he had been in communication
with you about the matter, and he seemed to me to be very well disposed
to your plans.
I may go on crying in the wilderness until I am hoarse, with no result,
but if he and you and Mundella will take it up, something may be done.
Ever yours very faithfully,
T.H. Huxley.
4 Marlborough Place, June 28, 1887.
My dear Roscoe,
Donnelly was here on Sunday and was quite right up to date. I felt I
ought to be better, and could not make out why the deuce I was not.
Yesterday the mischief came out. There is a touch of pleurisy--which
has been covered by the muscular rheumatism.
So I am relegated to bed and told to stop there--with the company of
cataplasms to keep me lively.
I do not think the attack in any way serious--but M. Pl. is a gentleman
not to be trifled with, when you are over sixty, and there is nothing
for it but to obey my doctor's orders.
Pray do not suppose I would be stopped by a trifle, if my coming to the
meeting [Of July 1, on Technical Education.] would really have been of
use. I hope you will say how grieved I am to be absent.
Ever yours very faithfully,
T.H. Huxley.
4 Marlborough Place, June 29, 1887.
My dear Roscoe,
I have scrawled a variety of comments on the paper you sent me. Deal
with them as you think fit.
Ever since I was on the London School Board I have seen that the key of
the position is in the Sectarian Training Colleges and that wretched
imposture, the pupil teacher system. As to the former Delendae sunt no
truce or pact to be made with them, either Church or Dissenting. Half
the time of their students is occupied with grinding into their minds
their tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee theological idiocies, and the other
half in cramming them with boluses of other things to be duly spat out
on examination day. Whatever is done do not let us be deluded by any
promises of theirs to hook on science or technical teaching to their
present work.
I am greatly disgusted that I cannot come to Tyndall's dinner
to-night--but my brother-in-law's death would have stopped me (the
funeral to-day)--even if my doctor had not forbidden me to leave my
bed. He says I have some pleuritic effusion on one side and must mind
my P's and Q's.
Ever yours very faithfully,
T.H. Huxley.
[A good deal of correspondence at this time with Sir M. Foster relates
to the examinations of the Science and Art Department. He was still
Dean, it will be remembered, of the Royal College of Science, and
further kept up his connection with the Department by acting in an
honorary capacity as Examiner, setting questions, but less and less
looking over papers, acting as the channel for official communications,
as when he writes (April 24),] "I send you some Department
documents--nothing alarming, only more worry for the Assistant
Examiners, and that WE do not mind"; and finally signing the Report.
But to do this after taking so small a share in the actual work of
examining, grew more and more repugnant to him, till on October 12 he
writes:--]
I will read the Report and sign it if need be--though there really must
be some fresh arrangement.
Of course I have entire confidence in your judgment about the
examination, but I have a mortal horror of putting my name to things I
do not know of my own knowledge.
[In addition to these occupations, he wrote a short paper upon a
fossil, Ceratochelys, which was read at the Royal Society on March 31;
while on April 7 he read at the Linnean ("Botany" volume 24 pages
101-124), his paper, "The Gentians: Notes and Queries," which had
sprung from his holiday amusement at Arolla.
Philosophy, however, claimed most of his energies. The campaign begun
in answer to the incursion of Mr. Lilly was continued in the article
"Science and Pseudo-Scientific Realism" ("Collected Essays" 5 59-89)
which appeared in the "Nineteenth Century" for February 1887. The text
for this discourse was the report of a sermon by Canon Liddon, in which
that eminent preacher spoke of catastrophes as the antithesis of
physical law, yet possible inasmuch as a "lower law" may be "suspended"
by the "intervention of a higher," a mode of reasoning which he applied
to the possibility of miracles such as that of Cana.
The man of science was up in arms against this incarnation of abstract
terms, and offered a solemn protest against that modern recrudescence
of ancient realism which speaks of "laws of nature" as though they were
independent entities, agents, and efficient causes of that which
happens, instead of simply our name for observed successions of facts.
Carefully as all personalities had been avoided in this article, it
called forth a lively reply from the Duke of Argyll, rebuking him for
venturing to criticise the preacher, whose name was now brought forward
for the first time, and raising a number of other questions,
philosophical, geological, and biological, to which Huxley rejoined
with some selections from the authentic history of these points in
"Science and Pseudo-Science" ("Nineteenth Century" April 1887,
"Collected Essays" 5 90-125).
Moreover, judging from the vivacity of the duke's reply that some of
the shafts of the first article must have struck nearer home than the
pulpit of St. Paul's, he was induced to read "The Reign of Law," the
second chapter of which, dealing with the nature of "Law," he now
criticised sharply as] "a sort of 'summa' of pseudo-scientific
philosophy," [with its confusions of law and necessity, law and force,]
"law in the sense, not merely of a rule, but of a cause." [(Cf. his
treatment of the subject 24 years before, volume 1.)
He wound up with some banter upon the Duke's picture of a scientific
Reign of Terror, whereby, it seemed, all men of science were compelled
to accept the Darwinian faith, and against which Huxley himself was
preparing to rebel, as if:--]
Forsooth, I am supposed to be waiting for the signal of "revolt," which
some fiery spirits among these young men are to raise before I dare
express my real opinions concerning questions about which we older men
had to fight in the teeth of fierce public opposition and obloquy--of
something which might almost justify even the grandiloquent epithet of
a Reign of Terror--before our excellent successors had left school.
[Here for a while the debate ceased. But in the September number of the
"Nineteenth Century" the Duke of Argyll returned to the fray with an
article called "A Great Lesson," in which he attempted to offer
evidence in support of his assertions concerning the scientific reign
of terror. The two chief pieces of evidence adduced were Bathybius and
Dr. (now Sir J.) Murray's theory of coral reefs. The former was
instanced as a blunder due to the desire of finding support for the
Darwinian theory in the existence of this widespread primordial life;
the latter as a case in which a new theory had been systematically
burked, for fear of damaging the infallibility of Darwin, who had
propounded a different theory of coral reefs!
Huxley's reply to this was contained in the latter half of an article
which appeared in the "Nineteenth Century" for November 1887, under the
title of "Science and the Bishops" (reprinted both in "Controverted
Questions" and in the "Collected Essays" 5 126, as "An Episcopal
Trilogy"). Preaching at Manchester this autumn, during the meeting of
the British Association, the Bishops of Carlisle, Bedford, and
Manchester had spoken of science not only with knowledge, but in the
spirit of equity and generosity.] "These sermons," [he exclaims,] "are
what the Germans call Epochemachend!"
How often was it my fate [he continues], a quarter of a century ago, to
see the whole artillery of the pulpit brought to bear upon the doctrine
of evolution and its supporters! Any one unaccustomed to the amenities
of ecclesiastical controversy would have thought we were too wicked to
be permitted to live.
[After thus welcoming these episcopal advances, he once more repudiated
the a priori argument against the efficacy of prayer, the theme of one
of the three sermons, and then proceeded to discuss another sermon of a
dignitary of the Church, which had been sent to him by an unknown
correspondent, for] "there seems to be an impression abroad--I do not
desire to give any countenance to it--that I am fond of reading
sermons."
[Now this preacher was of a very different mind from the three bishops.
Instead of dwelling upon the "supreme importance of the purely
spiritual in our faith," he warned his hearers against dropping off any
of the miraculous integument of their religion. "Christianity is
essentially miraculous, and falls to the ground if miracles be
impossible." He was uncompromisingly opposed to any accommodation with
advancing knowledge, or with the high standard of veracity, enforced by
the nature of their pursuits, in which Huxley found the only difference
between scientific men and any other class of the community.
But it was not merely this misrepresentation of science on its
speculative side which Huxley deplored; he was roused to indignation by
an attack on its morality. The preacher reiterated the charge brought
forward in the "Great Lesson," that Dr. Murray's theory of coral reefs
had been actually suppressed for two years, and that by the advice of
those who accepted it, for fear of upsetting the infallibility of the
great master.
Hereupon he turned in downright earnest upon the originator of the
assertion, who, he considered, had no more than the amateur's knowledge
of the subject. A plain statement of the facts was refutation enough.
The new theories, he pointed out, had been widely discussed; they had
been adopted by some geologists, although Darwin himself had not been
converted, and after careful and prolonged re-examination of the
question, Professor Dana, the greatest living authority on coral reefs,
had rejected them. As Professor Judd said, "If this be a 'conspiracy of
silence,' where, alas! can the geological speculator seek for fame?"
Any warning not to publish in haste was but advice to a still unknown
man not to attack a seemingly well-established theory without making
sure of his ground. (Letter in "Nature.")
As for the Bathybius myth, Huxley pointed out that his announcement of
the discovery had been simply a statement of the actual facts, and that
so far from seeing in it a confirmation of Darwinian hypotheses, he was
careful to warn his readers] "to keep the questions of fact and the
questions of interpretation well apart." "That which interested me in
the matter," he says, "was the apparent analogy of Bathybius with other
well-known forms of lower life,"..."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." [And as for his]
"eating the leek" [afterwards, his ironical account of it is an
instance of how the adoption of a plain, straightforward course can be
described without egotism.]
The most considerable difference I note among men [he concludes] is not
in their readiness to fall into error, but in their readiness to
acknowledge these inevitable lapses.
[As the Duke in a subsequent article did not unequivocally withdraw his
statements, Huxley declined to continue public controversy with him.
Three years later, writing (October 10, 1890) to Sir J. Donnelly
apropos of an article by Mr. Mallock in the "Nineteenth Century," which
made use of the "Bathybius myth," he says:--]
Bathybius is far too convenient a stick to beat this dog with to be
ever given up, however many lies may be needful to make the weapon
effectual.
I told the whole story in my reply to the Duke of Argyll, but of course
the pack give tongue just as loudly as ever. Clerically-minded people
cannot be accurate, even the liberals.
[I give here the letter sent to the "unknown correspondent" in
question, who had called his attention to the fourth of these sermons.]
4 Marlborough Place, September 30, 1887.
I have but just returned to England after two months' absence, and in
the course of clearing off a vast accumulation of letters, I have come
upon yours.
The Duke of Argyll has been making capital out of the same
circumstances as those referred to by the Bishop. I believe that the
interpretation put upon the facts by both is wholly misleading and
erroneous.
It is quite preposterous to suppose that the men of science of this or
any other country have the slightest disposition to support any view
which may have been enunciated by one of their colleagues, however
distinguished, if good grounds are shown for believing it to be
erroneous.
When Mr. Murray arrived at his conclusions I have no doubt he was
advised to make his ground sure before he attacked a generalisation
which appeared so well founded as that of Mr. Darwin respecting coral
reefs.
If he had consulted me I should have given him that advice myself, for
his own sake. And whoever advised him, in that sense, in my opinion did
wisely.
But the theologians cannot get it out of their heads, that as they have
creeds, to which they must stick at all hazards, so have the men of
science. There is no more ridiculous delusion. We, at any rate, hold
ourselves morally bound to "try all things and hold fast to that which
is good"; and among public benefactors, we reckon him who explodes old
error, as next in rank to him who discovers new truth.
You are at liberty to make any use you please of this letter.
[Two letters on kindred subjects may appropriately follow in this
place. Thanking M. Henri Gadeau de Kerville for his "Causeries sur le
Transformisme," he writes (February 1):--]
Dear Sir,
Accept my best thanks for your interesting "causeries," which seem to
me to give a very clear view of the present state of the evolution
doctrine as applied to biology.
There is a statement on page 87 "Apres sa mort Lamarck fut completement
oublie," which may be true for France but certainly is not so for
England. From 1830 onwards for more than forty years Lyell's
"Principles of Geology" was one of the most widely read scientific
books in this country, and it contains an elaborate criticism of
Lamarck's views. Moreover, they were largely debated during the
controversies which arose out of the publication of the "Vestiges of
Creation" in 1844 or thereabouts. We are certainly not guilty of any
neglect of Lamarck on this side of the Channel.
If I may make another criticism it is that, to my mind, atheism is, on
purely philosophical grounds, untenable. That there is no evidence of
the existence of such a being as the God of the theologians is true
enough; but strictly scientific reasoning can take us no further. Where
we know nothing we can neither affirm nor deny with propriety.
[The other is in answer to the Bishop of Ripon, enclosing a few lines
on the principal representatives of modern science, which he had asked
for.]
4 Marlborough Place, June 16, 1887.
My dear Bishop of Ripon,
I shall be very glad if I can be of any use to you now and always. But
it is not an easy task to put into half-a-dozen sentences, up to the
level of your vigorous English, a statement that shall be unassailable
from the point of view of a scientific fault-finder--which shall be
intelligible to the general public and yet accurate.
I have made several attempts and enclose the final result. I think the
substance is all right, and though the form might certainly be
improved, I leave that to you. When I get to a certain point of
tinkering my phrases I have to put them aside for a day or two.
Will you allow me to suggest that it might be better not to name any
living man? The temple of modern science has been the work of many
labourers not only in our own but in other countries. Some have been
more busy in shaping and laying the stones, some in keeping off the
Sanballats, some prophetwise in indicating the course of the science of
the future. It would be hard to say who has done best service. As
regards Dr. Joule, for example, no doubt he did more than any one to
give the doctrine of the conservation of energy precise expression, but
Mayer and others run him hard.
Of deceased Englishmen who belong to the first half of the Victorian
epoch, I should say that Faraday, Lyell, and Darwin had exerted the
greatest influence, and all three were models of the highest and best
class of physical philosophers.
As for me, in part from force of circumstance and in part from a
conviction I could be of most use in that way, I have played the part
of something between maid-of-all-work and gladiator-general for
Science, and deserve no such prominence as your kindness has assigned
to me.
With our united kind regards to Mrs. Carpenter and yourself, ever yours
very faithfully,
T.H. Huxley.
[A brief note, also, to Lady Welby, dated July 25, is characteristic of
his attitude towards unverified speculation.]
I have looked through the paper you have sent me, but I cannot
undertake to give any judgment upon it. Speculations such as you deal
with are quite out of my way. I get lost the moment I lose touch of
valid fact and incontrovertible demonstration and find myself wandering
among large propositions, which may be quite true but which would
involve me in months of work if I were to set myself seriously to find
out whether, and in what sense, they are true. Moreover, at present,
what little energy I possess is mortgaged to quite other occupations.
[The following letter was in answer to a request which I was
commissioned to forward him, that he would consent to serve on an
honorary committee of the Societe des Professeurs de Francais en
Angleterre.]
January 17, 1887.
I quite forgot to say anything about the Comite d'honneur, and as you
justly remark in the present strained state of foreign politics the
consequences may be serious. Please tell your colleague that I shall be
"proud an' 'appy." You need not tell him that my pride and happiness
are contingent on having nothing to do for the honour.
[In the meantime, the ups and downs of his health are reflected in
various letters of these six months. Much set up by his stay in the
Isle of Wight, he writes from Shanklin on April 11 to Sir E. Frankland,
describing the last meeting of the x Club, which the latter had not
been able to attend, as he was staying in the Riviera:--]
Hooker, Tyndall, and I alone turned up last Thursday. Lubbock had gone
to High Elms about used up by the House of Commons, and there was no
sign of Hirst.
Tyndall seemed quite himself again. In fact, we three old fogies voted
unanimously that we were ready to pit ourselves against any three
youngsters of the present generation in walking, climbing, or
head-work, and give them odds.
I hope you are in the same comfortable frame of mind.
I had no notion that Mentone had suffered so seriously in the
earthquake of 1887. Moral for architects: read your Bible and build
your house upon the rock.
The sky and sea here may be fairly matched against Mentone or any other
of your Mediterranean places. Also the east wind, which has been
blowing steadily for ten days, and is nearly as keen as the Tramontana.
Only in consequence of the long cold and drought not a leaf is out.
[Shanklin, indeed, suited him so well that he had half a mind to settle
there.] "There are plenty of sites for building," [he writes home in
February,] "but I have not thought of commencing a house yet."
[However, he gave up the idea; Shanklin was too far from town.
But though he was well enough as long as he kept out of London, a
return to his life there was not possible for any considerable time. On
May 19, just before a visit to Mr. F. Darwin at Cambridge, I find that
he went down to St. Albans for a couple of days, to walk; and on the
27th he betook himself, terribly ill and broken down, to the Savernake
Forest Hotel, in hopes of getting] "screwed up." [This] "turned out a
capital speculation, a charming spick-and-span little country hostelry
with great trees in front." [But the weather was persistently bad,]
"the screws got looser rather than tighter," [and again he was
compelled to stay away from the x.
A week later, however, he writes:--]
The weather has been detestable, and I got no good till yesterday,
which was happily fine. Ditto to-day, so I am picking up, and shall
return to-morrow, as, like an idiot as I am, I promised to take the
chair at a public meeting about a Free Library for Marylebone on
Tuesday evening.
I wonder if you know this country. I find it charming.
[On the same day as that which was fixed for the meeting in favour of
the Free Library, he had a very interesting interview with the Premier,
of which he left the following notes, written at the Athenaeum
immediately after:--]
June 7, 1887.
Called on Lord Salisbury by appointment at 3 p.m., and had twenty
minutes' talk with him about the "matter of some public interest"
mentioned in his letter of the [29th].
This turned out to be a proposal for the formal recognition of
distinguished services in Science, Letters, and Art by the institution
of some sort of order analogous to the Pour le Merite. Lord Salisbury
spoke of the anomalous present mode of distributing honours, intimated
that the Queen desired to establish a better system, and asked my
opinion.
I said that I should like to separate my personal opinion from that
which I believed to obtain among the majority of scientific men; that I
thought many of the latter were much discontented with the present
state of affairs, and would highly approve of such a proposal as Lord
Salisbury shadowed forth.
That, so far as my own personal feeling was concerned, it was opposed
to anything of the kind for Science. I said that in Science we had two
advantages--first, that a man's work is demonstrably either good or
bad; and secondly, that the "contemporary posterity" of foreigners
judges us, and rewards good work by membership of Academies and so
forth.
In Art, if a man chooses to call Raphael a dauber, you can't prove he
is wrong; and literary work is just as hard to judge.
I then spoke of the dangers to which science is exposed by the undue
prominence and weight of men who successfully apply scientific
knowledge to practical purposes--engineers, chemical inventors, etc.,
etc.; said it appeared to me that a Minister having such order at his
disposal would find it very difficult to resist the pressure brought by
such people as against the man of high science who had not happened to
have done anything to strike the popular mind.
Discussed the possibility of submission of names by somebody for the
approval and choice of the Crown. For Science, I thought the Royal
Society Council might discharge that duty very fairly. I thought that
the Academy of Berlin presented people for the Pour le Merite, but Lord
Salisbury thought not.
In the course of conversation I spoke of Hooker's case as a glaring
example of the wrong way of treating distinguished men. Observed that
though I did not personally care for or desire the institution of such
honorary order, yet I thought it was a mistake in policy for the Crown
as the fountain of honour to fail in recognition of that which deserves
honour in the world of Science, Letters, and Art.
Lord Salisbury smilingly summed up. "Well, it seems that you don't
desire the establishment of such an order, but that if you were in my
place you would establish it," to which I assented.
Said he had spoken to Leighton, who thought well of the project.
[It was not long, however, before he received imperative notice to quit
town with all celerity. He fell ill with what turned out to be
pleurisy; and after recruiting at Ilkley, went again to Switzerland.]
4 Marlborough Place, June 27, 1887.
My dear Foster,
...I am very sorry that it will be impossible for me to attend [the
meeting of committee down for the following Wednesday]. If I am well
enough to leave the house I must go into the country that day to attend
the funeral of my wife's brother-in-law and my very old friend Fanning,
of whom I may have spoken to you. He has been slowly sinking for some
time, and this morning we had news of his death.
Things have been very crooked for me lately. I had a conglomerate of
engagements of various degrees of importance in the latter half of last
week, and had to forgo them all, by reason of a devil in the shape of
muscular rheumatism of one side, which entered me last Wednesday, and
refuses to be wholly exorcised (I believe it is my Jubilee Honour).
[(On the same day he describes this to Sir J. Evans:--] "I have hardly
been out of the house as far as my garden, and not much off my bed or
sofa since I saw you last. I have had an affection of the muscles of
one side of my body, the proper name of which I do not know, but the
similitude thereof is a bird of prey periodically digging in his claws
and stopping your breath in a playful way.") Along with it, and I
suppose the cause of it, a regular liver upset. I am very seedy yet,
and even if Fanning's death had not occurred I doubt if I should have
been ready to face the Tyndall dinner.
[The reference to this "Tyndall dinner" is explained in the following
letters, which also refer to a meeting of the London University, in
which the projects of reform which he himself supported met with a
smart rebuff.]
4 Marlborough Place, May 13, 1887.
My dear Tyndall,
I am very sorry to hear of your gout, but they say when it comes out at
the toes it flies from the better parts, and that is to the good.
There is no sort of reason why unsatisfied curiosity should continue to
disturb your domestic hearth; your wife will have the gout too if it
goes on. "They" can't bear the strain.
The history of the whole business is this. A day or two before I spoke
to you, Lockyer told me that various people had been talking about the
propriety of recognising your life-long work in some way or other;
that, as you would not have anything else, a dinner had been suggested,
and finally asked me to inquire whether you would accept that
expression of goodwill. Of course I said I would, and I asked
accordingly.
After you had assented I spoke to several of our friends who were at
the Athenaeum, and wrote to Lockyer. I believe a strong committee is
forming, and that we shall have a scientific jubilation on a large
scale; but I have purposely kept in the background, and confined
myself, like Bismarck, to the business of "honest broker."
But of course nothing (beyond preliminaries) can be done till you name
the day, and at this time of year it is needful to look well ahead if a
big room is to be secured. So if you can possibly settle that point,
pray do.
There seems to have been some oversight on my wife's part about the
invitation, but she is stating her own case. We go on a visit to Mrs.
Darwin to Cambridge on Saturday week, and the Saturday after that I am
bound to be at Eton.
Moreover, I have sacrificed to the public Moloch so far as to promise
to take the chair at a public meeting in favour of a Free Library for
Marylebone on the 7th. As Wednesday's work at the Geological Society
and the soiree knocked me up all yesterday, I shall be about finished I
expect on the 8th. If you are going to be at Hindhead after that, and
would have us for a day, it would be jolly; but I cannot be away long,
as I have some work to finish before I go abroad.
I never was so uncomfortable in my life, I think, as on Wednesday when
L-- was speaking, just in front of me, at the University. Of course I
was in entire sympathy with the tenor of his speech, but I was no less
certain of the impolicy of giving a chance to such a master of polished
putting-down as the Chancellor. You know Mrs. Carlyle said that Owen's
sweetness reminded her of sugar of lead. Granville's was that plus
butter of antimony!
Ever yours very faithfully,
T.H. Huxley.
N.B.--Don't swear, but get Mrs. Tyndall, who is patient and
good-tempered, to read this long screed.
May 18, 1887.
My dear Tyndall,
I was very glad to get your letter yesterday morning, and I conveyed
your alteration at once to Rucker, who is acting as secretary. I asked
him to communicate with you directly to save time.
I hear that the proposal has been received very warmly by all sorts and
conditions of men, and that is quite apart from any action of your
closer personal friends. Personally I am rather of your mind about the
"dozen or score" of the faithful. But as that was by no means to the
mind of those who started the project, and, moreover, might have given
rise to some heartburning, I have not thought it desirable to meddle
with the process of spontaneous combustion. So look out for a big
bonfire somewhere in the middle of June! I have a hideous cold, and can
only hope that the bracing air of Cambridge, where we go on Saturday,
may set me right.
Ever yours very faithfully,
T.H. Huxley.
[To recover from his pleuritic "Jubilee Honour" he went for a fortnight
(July 11-25) to Ilkley, which had done him so much good before,
intending to proceed to Switzerland as soon as he conveniently could.]
Ilkley, July 15, 1887.
My dear Foster,
I was very much fatigued by the journey here, but the move was good,
and I am certainly mending, though not so fast as I could wish. I
expect some adhesions are interfering with my bellows. As soon as I am
fit to travel I am thinking of going to Lugano, and thence to Monte
Generoso. The travelling is easy to Lugano, and I know the latter place.
My notion is I had better for the present avoid the chances of a wet,
cold week in the high places.
M.B.A. [Marine Biological Association]...As to the employment of the
Grant, I think it ought to be on something definite and limited. The
Pilchard question would be an excellent one to take up.
-- seems to have a notion of employing it on some geological survey of
Plymouth Sound, work that would take years and years to do properly,
and nothing in the way of clear result to show.
I hope to be in London on my way abroad in less than ten days' time,
and will let you know.
Ever yours very faithfully,
T.H. Huxley.
[And on the same day to Sir J. Donnelly:--]
I expect...that I shall have a slow convalescence. Lucky it is no worse!
Much fighting I am likely to do for the Unionist cause or any other!
But don't take me for one of the enrages. If anybody will show me a way
by which the Irish may attain all they want without playing the devil
with us, I am ready to give them their own talking-shop or anything
else.
But that is as much writing as I can sit up and do all at once.