To this focus of close friendships Charles Darwin would assuredly have
been invited to belong had he been other than an invalid living
away from London; for he was the warm and revered friend not only of
Huxley, but still more of Hooker, who in age stood midway between the
two--eight years younger than the one and eight years older than the
other--and who, for some fifteen years before the publication of the
_Origin of Species_, had been Darwin's most intimate friend and aid in
his work.
Huxley had made Darwin's acquaintance early in the fifties, and soon
fell under the spell of his deep thought, his utter sincerity and
generous warmth of heart. Darwin, for his part, was strongly attracted
by his new friend's penetrating knowledge, incisive criticism, and
brilliant conversation. When, in 1858, he began to write out the
_Origin_, Huxley was one of the three men he fixed upon by whose
judgment of the book he meant to abide. Lyell, who had read the book
before it came out, was the first; Hooker, his long-time aid and
critic and finally convert, the second. On the eve of publication,
secure of these, he adds: "If I can convert Huxley I shall be
content."
On all three the effect of the completed book, with its array of
detailed argument and evidence, was far greater than that of
previous discussions. With one or two reservations as to the logical
completeness of the theory, Huxley accepted it as a well-founded
working hypothesis, calculated to explain problems otherwise
inexplicable. There were evolutionists before Darwin, from Lamarck and
the author of the _Vestiges of Creation_ to Herbert Spencer; but as
there was no evidence to bear out the orthodox creational view of the
Book of _Genesis_, enlarged upon in detail by Milton, so before Darwin
the evidence in favour of the transmutation of species was wholly
insufficient, and no suggestion which had been made to the causes
of the assumed transmutation was in any way adequate to explain
the phenomena. Under such conditions only an agnostic attitude was
possible. "So," writes Huxley--
I took refuge in that "_thätige Skepsis_," which Goethe has so
well defined, and, reversing the apostolic precept to be all
things to all men, I usually defended the tenability of
the received doctrines when I had to do with the
transmutationists, and stood up for the possibility of
transmutation among the orthodox, thereby, no doubt,
increasing an already current, but quite undeserved,
reputation for needless combativeness.
Then came the publication of the Darwin-Wallace paper in 1858, and of
the _Origin_ in 1859, the effect of which he compares to--
the flash of light which, to a man who has lost himself on a
dark night, suddenly reveals a road which, whether it takes
him straight home or not, certainly goes his way. That which
we were looking for, and could not find, was an hypothesis
respecting the origin of known organic forms which assumed
the operation of no causes but such as could be proved to be
actually at work. We wanted, not to pin our faith to that or
any other speculation, but to get hold of clear and definite
conceptions which could be brought face to face with facts and
have their validity tested. The _Origin_ provided us with the
working hypothesis we sought. Moreover, it did the immense
service of freeing us for ever from the dilemma--refuse to
accept the creation hypothesis and what have you to propose
that can be accepted by any cautious reasoner? In 1857 I had
no answer ready, and I do not think that any one else had.
A year later we reproached ourselves with dullness for being
perplexed with such an inquiry. My reflection, when I first
made myself master of the central idea of the _Origin_, was:
"How extremely stupid not to have thought of that." I suppose
that Columbus's companions said much the same when he made the
egg stand on end. The facts of variability, of the struggle
for existence, of adaptation to conditions, were notorious
enough; but none of us had suspected that the road to the
heart of the species problem lay through them until Darwin
and Wallace dispelled the darkness, and the beacon-fire of the
_Origin_ guided the benighted.
Whether the particular shape which the doctrine of Evolution,
as applied to the organic world, took in Darwin's hands would
prove to be final or not, was to me a matter of indifference.
In my earliest criticisms of the _Origin_ I ventured to
point out that its logical foundation was insecure so long as
experiments in selective breeding had not produced varieties
which were more or less infertile; and that insecurity remains
up to the present time. But, with any and every critical doubt
which my sceptical ingenuity could suggest, the Darwinian
hypothesis remained incomparably more probable than the
creation hypothesis. And if we had none of us been able to
discern the paramount significance of some of the most patent
and notorious of natural facts, until they were, so to
speak, thrust under our noses, what force remained in the
dilemma--creation or nothing? It was obvious that hereafter
the probability would be immensely greater, that the links
of natural causation were hidden from our purblind eyes, than
that natural causation should be incompetent to produce all
the phenomena of nature. The only rational course for those
who had no other object than the attainment of truth was to
accept "Darwinism" as a working hypothesis and see what could
be made of it. Either it would prove its capacity to elucidate
the facts of organic life or it would break down under the
strain. This was surely the dictate of common sense, and for
once common sense carried the day.
Mention has been made of the instant support he was able to lend the
_Origin_ in the _Times_ review of the book, and the extension of its
doctrines in regard to man. Even before the book appeared, however, he
began to act as what Darwin laughingly called his "general agent."
His address on "Persistent Types" (June, 1859) aimed at clearing up in
advance one of the obvious objections raised against acceptance of the
doctrine of Evolution--namely, how is it that, if evolution is ever
progressive, progress is not universal? How is it that all forms do
not necessarily advance, and that simple organisms still exist? As
it happened, Darwin did not discuss this point when he first put
the _Origin_ together, and speedily came to regard this as the most
serious omission in the book.
Great, then, was the debt of all science to Darwin. And not of science
only. The fight for freedom of thought and speech in science, into
which Huxley especially threw himself, was the more successful because
the immediate cause he upheld was so overwhelmingly strong in reason
and demonstration; and, the supreme curb upon thought being once
broken, a wider freedom was gained.
For Darwin, therefore, Huxley had the reverence due to one who had
forged a new and mighty weapon in the war for plain truth. But,
while he could not but uphold a theory so much in accord with his own
knowledge and so fruitful in its promise of new knowledge, whether the
author of it were his friend or not, admiration and affection for a
man of such utter sincerity, such selfless respect for truth, and warm
personality, led him, when those views were stupidly or maliciously
attacked, to take more trouble in his defence and support, and to
strike out much harder at his adversary than he would otherwise have
done. Darwin's friends were well assured that the scanty time which
his health allowed for work was far too precious to be wasted in
controversy; for his own sake and for the sake of the calm atmosphere
in which a great theory should be worked out, they thought that the
battling on a lower plane should be left to them. "You ought to be
like one of the blessed gods of Elysium, and let the inferior deities
do battle with the infernal powers." "If I say a savage thing," Huxley
told him, "it is only 'pretty Fanny's way'; but if you do, it is not
likely to be forgotten." Hence a dash of personal pleasure was infused
into the duty of upholding and defending the bringer of new light.
The acquaintance had begun about 1851; there was a common bond in
their sea experiences and explorations, as well as in their search
after a wider philosophy, to include the teachings of natural science;
the older man found in the younger a source of much biological and
other information, a suggestive critic and a stimulating companion.
Their relations took a long step towards intimacy after 1861, when,
after the loss of her eldest child, Mrs. Huxley and her other children
made a long stay at Down, and entered upon a life-long friendship with
Mrs. Darwin and the family. Thereafter followed many visits to Down,
and, whenever Darwin was in London, the certainty of half-an-hour's
keen talk--all that the doctor allowed--with his friend and
fellow-worker on some critical question of the moment.
Darwin's admiration of his friend's powers was outspoken. To quote one
or two expressions of it: Huxley had delivered, in 1862, six lectures
to working men, which were printed off each week as delivered in
"little green pamphlets," under the general title of "On Our Knowledge
of the Causes of the Phenomena of Organic Nature," winding up with
an account of the bearing of the _Origin_ upon the complete theory of
these causes. Acknowledging Nos. IV and V, Darwin writes:--
They are simply perfect. They ought to be largely advertised;
but it is very good in me to say so, for I threw down No.
IV with this reflection: "What is the good of me writing a
thundering big book when everything is in this green little
book, so despicable for its size?" In the name of all that is
good and bad, I may as well shut up shop altogether.
After reading the article "Mr. Darwin's Critics" in 1871, he wrote yet
more enthusiastically. Mr. Mivart, in an apologia for the attitude of
Roman Catholicism towards Evolution, twitted the generality of men of
science with their ignorance of the real doctrines of his Church, and
cited the Jesuit theologian, Suarez, the latest great representative
of scholasticism, as following St. Augustine in asserting derivative
creation--that is, evolution from primordial matter endowed with
certain powers. Huxley thereupon examined the works of the learned
Jesuit, and found not only that the particular reference was not
to the point, but that, in his tract on the "Six Days of Creation,"
Suarez expressly rejects the doctrine and reprehends Augustine
for holding it. "So," write Huxley gleefully at the irony of the
situation, "I have come out in the new character of a defender of
Catholic orthodoxy, and upset Mivart out of the mouth of his own
prophet."