FOOTNOTE:

[1] See _Belfast Magazine_ for August 1813.

HUTCHINSON, ANNE (c. 1600-1643), American religious enthusiast, leader

of the "Antinomians" in New England, was born in Lincolnshire, England,

about 1600. She was the daughter of a clergyman named Francis Marbury,

and, according to tradition, was a cousin of John Dryden. She married

William Hutchinson, and in 1634 emigrated to Boston, Massachusetts, as a

follower and admirer of the Rev. John Cotton. Her orthodoxy was

suspected and for a time she was not admitted to the church, but soon

she organized meetings among the Boston women, among whom her

exceptional ability and her services as a nurse had given her great

influence; and at these meetings she discussed and commented upon recent

sermons and gave expression to her own theological views. The meetings

became increasingly popular, and were soon attended not only by the

women but even by some of the ministers and magistrates, including

Governor Henry Vane. At these meetings she asserted that she, Cotton and

her brother-in-law, the Rev. John Wheelwright--whom she was trying to

make second "teacher" in the Boston church--were under a "covenant of

grace," that they had a special inspiration, a "peculiar indwelling of

the Holy Ghost," whereas the Rev. John Wilson, the pastor of the Boston

church, and the other ministers of the colony were under a "covenant of

works." Anne Hutchinson was, in fact, voicing a protest against the

legalism of the Massachusetts Puritans, and was also striking at the

authority of the clergy in an intensely theocratic community. In such a

community a theological controversy inevitably was carried into secular

politics, and the entire colony was divided into factions. Mrs

Hutchinson was supported by Governor Vane, Cotton, Wheelwright and the

great majority of the Boston church; opposed to her were Deputy-Governor

John Winthrop, Wilson and all of the country magistrates and churches.

At a general fast, held late in January 1637, Wheelwright preached a

sermon which was taken as a criticism of Wilson and his friends. The

strength of the parties was tested at the General Court of Election of

May 1637, when Winthrop defeated Vane for the governorship. Cotton

recanted, Vane returned to England in disgust, Wheelwright was tried and

banished and the rank and file either followed Cotton in making

submission or suffered various minor punishments. Mrs Hutchinson was

tried (November 1637) by the General Court chiefly for "traducing the

ministers," and was sentenced to banishment; later, in March 1638, she

was tried before the Boston church and was formally excommunicated. With

William Coddington (d. 1678), John Clarke and others, she established a

settlement on the island of Aquidneck (now Rhode Island) in 1638. Four

years later, after the death of her husband, she settled on Long Island

Sound near what is now New Rochelle, Westchester county, New York, and

was killed in an Indian rising in August 1643, an event regarded in

Massachusetts as a manifestation of Divine Providence. Anne Hutchinson

and her followers were called "Antinomians," probably more as a term of

reproach than with any special reference to her doctrinal theories; and

the controversy in which she was involved is known as the "Antinomian

Controversy."

See C. F. Adams, _Antinomianism in the Colony of Massachusetts Bay_,

vol. xiv. of the Prince Society Publications (Boston, 1894); and

_Three Episodes of Massachusetts History_ (Boston and New York, 1896).

HUTCHINSON, JOHN (1615-1664), Puritan soldier, son of Sir Thomas

Hutchinson of Owthorpe, Nottinghamshire, and of Margaret, daughter of

Sir John Byron of Newstead, was baptized on the 18th of September 1615.

He was educated at Nottingham and Lincoln schools and at Peterhouse,

Cambridge, and in 1637 he entered Lincoln's Inn. On the outbreak of the

great Rebellion he took the side of the Parliament, and was made in 1643

governor of Nottingham Castle, which he defended against external

attacks and internal divisions, till the triumph of the parliamentary

cause. He was chosen member for Nottinghamshire in March 1646, took the

side of the Independents, opposed the offers of the king at Newport, and

signed the death-warrant. Though a member at first of the council of

state, he disapproved of the subsequent political conduct of Cromwell

and took no further part in politics during the lifetime of the

protector. He resumed his seat in the recalled Long Parliament in May

1659, and followed Monk in opposing Lambert, believing that the former

intended to maintain the commonwealth. He was returned to the Convention

Parliament for Nottingham but expelled on the 9th of June 1660, and

while not excepted from the Act of Indemnity was declared incapable of

holding public office. In October 1663, however, he was arrested upon

suspicion of being concerned in the Yorkshire plot, and after a rigorous

confinement in the Tower of London, of which he published an account

(reprinted in the Harleian _Miscellany_, vol. iii.), and in Sandown

Castle, Kent, he died on the 11th of September 1664. His career draws

its chief interest from the _Life_ by his wife, Lucy, daughter of Sir

Allen Apsley, written after the death of her husband but not

published till 1806 (since often reprinted), a work not only valuable

for the picture which it gives of the man and of the time in which he

lived, but for the simple beauty of its style, and the naïveté with

which the writer records her sentiments and opinions, and details the

incidents of her private life.

See the edition of Lucy Hutchinson's _Memoirs of the Life of Colonel

Hutchinson_ by C. H. Firth (1885); _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._ 25,901 (a

fragment of the Life), also _Add. MSS._ 19, 333, 36,247 f. 51; _Notes

and Queries_, 7, ser. iii. 25, viii. 422; _Monk's Contemporaries_, by

Guizot.

HUTCHINSON, JOHN (1674-1737), English theological writer, was born at

Spennithorne, Yorkshire, in 1674. He served as steward in several

families of position, latterly in that of the duke of Somerset, who

ultimately obtained for him the post of riding purveyor to the master of

the horse, a sinecure worth about £200 a year. In 1700 he became

acquainted with Dr John Woodward (1665-1728) physician to the duke and

author of a work entitled _The Natural History of the Earth_, to whom he

entrusted a large number of fossils of his own collecting, along with a

mass of manuscript notes, for arrangement and publication. A

misunderstanding as to the manner in which these should be dealt with

was the immediate occasion of the publication by Hutchinson in 1724 of

_Moses's Principia_, part i., in which Woodward's _Natural History_ was

bitterly ridiculed, his conduct with regard to the mineralogical

specimens not obscurely characterized, and a refutation of the Newtonian

doctrine of gravitation seriously attempted. It was followed by part ii.

in 1727, and by various other works, including _Moses's Sine Principio_,

1730; _The Confusion of Tongues and Trinity of the Gentiles_, 1731;

_Power Essential and Mechanical, or what power belongs to God and what

to his creatures, in which the design of Sir I. Newton and Dr Samuel

Clarke is laid open_, 1732; _Glory or Gravity_, 1733; _The Religion of

Satan, or Antichrist Delineated_, 1736. He taught that the Bible

contained the elements not only of true religion but also of all

rational philosophy. He held that the Hebrew must be read without

points, and his interpretation rested largely on fanciful symbolism.

Bishop George Home of Norwich was during some of his earlier years an

avowed Hutchinsonian; and William Jones of Nayland continued to be so to

the end of his life.

A complete edition of his publications, edited by Robert Spearman and

Julius Bate, appeared in 1748 (12 vols.); an _Abstract_ of these

followed in 1753; and a _Supplement_, with _Life_ by Spearman

prefixed, in 1765.

HUTCHINSON, SIR JONATHAN (1828- ), English surgeon and pathologist, was

born on the 23rd of July 1828 at Selby, Yorkshire, his parents belonging

to the Society of Friends. He entered St Bartholomew's Hospital, became

a member of the Royal College of Surgeons in 1850 (F.R.C.S. 1862), and

rapidly gained reputation as a skilful operator and a scientific

inquirer. He was president of the Hunterian Society in 1869 and 1870,

professor of surgery and pathology at the College of Surgeons from 1877

to 1882, president of the Pathological Society, 1879-1880, of the

Ophthalmological Society, 1883, of the Neurological Society, 1887, of

the Medical Society, 1890, and of the Royal Medical and Chirurgical in

1894-1896. In 1889 he was president of the Royal College of Surgeons. He

was a member of two Royal Commissions, that of 1881 to inquire into the

provision for smallpox and fever cases in the London hospitals, and that

of 1889-1896 on vaccination and leprosy. He also acted as honorary

secretary to the Sydenham Society. His activity in the cause of

scientific surgery and in advancing the study of the natural sciences

was unwearying. His lectures on neuro-pathogenesis, gout, leprosy,

diseases of the tongue, &c., were full of original observation; but his

principal work was connected with the study of syphilis, on which he

became the first living authority. He was the founder of the London

Polyclinic or Postgraduate School of Medicine; and both in his native

town of Selby and at Haslemere, Surrey, he started (about 1890)

educational museums for popular instruction in natural history. He

published several volumes on his own subjects, was editor of the

quarterly _Archives of Surgery_, and was given the Hon. LL.D. degree by

both Glasgow and Cambridge. After his retirement from active

consultative work he continued to take great interest in the question of

leprosy, asserting the existence of a definite connexion between this

disease and the eating of salted fish. He received a knighthood in 1908.

HUTCHINSON, THOMAS (1711-1780), the last royal governor of the province

of Massachusetts, son of a wealthy merchant of Boston, Mass., was born

there on the 9th of September 1711. He graduated at Harvard in 1727,

then became an apprentice in his father's counting-room, and for several

years devoted himself to business. In 1737 he began his public career as

a member of the Boston Board of Selectmen, and a few weeks later he was

elected to the General Court of Massachusetts Bay, of which he was a

member until 1740 and again from 1742 to 1749, serving as speaker in

1747, 1748 and 1749. He consistently contended for a sound financial

system, and vigorously opposed the operations of the "Land Bank" and the

issue of pernicious bills of credit. In 1748 he carried through the

General Court a bill providing for the cancellation and redemption of

the outstanding paper currency. Hutchinson went to England in 1740 as

the representative of Massachusetts in a boundary dispute with New

Hampshire. He was a member of the Massachusetts Council from 1749 to

1756, was appointed judge of probate in 1752 and was chief justice of

the superior court of the province from 1761 to 1769, was

lieutenant-governor from 1758 to 1771, acting as governor in the latter

two years, and from 1771 to 1774 was governor. In 1754 he was a delegate

from Massachusetts to the Albany Convention, and, with Franklin, was a

member of the committee appointed to draw up a plan of union. Though he

recognized the legality of the Stamp Act of 1765, he considered the

measure inexpedient and impolitic and urged its repeal, but his attitude

was misunderstood; he was considered by many to have instigated the

passage of the Act, and in August 1765 a mob sacked his Boston residence

and destroyed many valuable manuscripts and documents. He was acting

governor at the time of the "Boston Massacre" in 1770, and was virtually

forced by the citizens of Boston, under the leadership of Samuel Adams,

to order the removal of the British troops from the town. Throughout the

pre-Revolutionary disturbances in Massachusetts he was the

representative of the British ministry, and though he disapproved of

some of the ministerial measures he felt impelled to enforce them and

necessarily incurred the hostility of the Whig or Patriot element. In

1774, upon the appointment of General Thomas Gage as military governor

he went to England, and acted as an adviser to George III. and the

British ministry on American affairs, uniformly counselling moderation.

He died at Brompton, now part of London, on the 3rd of June 1780.

He wrote _A Brief Statement of the Claim of the Colonies_ (1764); a

_Collection of Original Papers relative to the History of

Massachusetts Bay_ (1769), reprinted as _The Hutchinson Papers_ by the

Prince Society in 1865; and a judicious, accurate and very valuable

_History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay_ (vol. i., 1764, vol.

ii., 1767, and vol. iii., 1828). His _Diary and Letters, with an

Account of his Administration_, was published at Boston in 1884-1886.

See James K. Hosmer's _Life of Thomas Hutchinson_ (Boston, 1896), and

a biographical chapter in John Fiske's _Essays Historical and

Literary_ (New York, 1902). For an estimate of Hutchinson as an

historian, see M. C. Tyler's _Literary History of the American

Revolution_ (New York, 1897).

HUTCHINSON, a city and the county-seat of Reno county, Kansas, U.S.A.,

in the broad bottom-land on the N. side of the Arkansas river. Pop.

(1900) 9379, of whom 414 were foreign-born and 442 negroes; (1910

census) 16,364. It is served by the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé, the

Missouri Pacific and the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific railways. The

principal public buildings are the Federal building and the county court

house. The city has a public library, and an industrial reformatory is

maintained here by the state. Hutchinson is situated in a stock-raising,

fruit-growing and farming region (the principal products of which are

wheat, Indian corn and fodder), with which it has a considerable

wholesale trade. An enormous deposit of rock salt underlies the city and

its vicinity, and Hutchinson's principal industry is the

manufacture (by the open-pan and grainer processes) and the shipping of

salt; the city has one of the largest salt plants in the world. Among

the other manufactures are flour, creamery products, soda-ash,

straw-board, planing-mill products and packed meats. Natural gas is

largely used as a factory fuel. The city's factory product was valued at

$2,031,048 in 1905, an increase of 31.8% since 1900. Hutchinson was

chartered as a city In 1871.

HUTTEN, PHILIPP VON (c. 1511-1546), German knight, was a relative of

Ulrich von Hutten and passed some of his early years at the court of the

emperor Charles V. Later he joined the band of adventurers which under

Georg Hohermuth, or George of Spires, sailed to Venezuela, or Venosala

as Hutten calls it, with the object of conquering and exploiting this

land in the interests of the Augsburg family of Welser. The party landed

at Coro in February 1535 and Hutten accompanied Hohermuth on his long

and toilsome expedition into the interior in search of treasure. After

the death of Hohermuth in December 1540 he became captain-general of

Venezuela. Soon after this event he vanished into the interior,

returning after five years of wandering to find that a Spaniard, Juan de

Caravazil, or Caravajil, had been appointed governor in his absence.

With his travelling companion, Bartholomew Welser the younger, he was

seized by Caravazil in April 1546 and the two were afterwards put to

death.

Hutten left some letters, and also a narrative of the earlier part of

his adventures, this _Zeitung aus India Junkher Philipps von Hutten_

being published in 1785.

HUTTEN, ULRICH VON (1488-1523), was born on the 21st of April 1488, at

the castle of Steckelberg, near Fulda, in Hesse. Like Erasmus or

Pirckheimer, he was one of those men who form the bridge between

Humanists and Reformers. He lived with both, sympathized with both,

though he died before the Reformation had time fully to develop. His

life may be divided into four parts:--his youth and cloister-life

(1488-1504); his wanderings in pursuit of knowledge (1504-1515); his

strife with Ulrich of Württemberg (1515-1519); and his connexion with

the Reformation (1519-1523). Each of these periods had its own special

antagonism, which coloured Hutten's career: in the first, his horror of

dull monastic routine; in the second, the ill-treatment he met with at

Greifswald; in the third, the crime of Duke Ulrich; in the fourth, his

disgust with Rome and with Erasmus. He was the eldest son of a poor and

not undistinguished knightly family. As he was mean of stature and

sickly his father destined him for the cloister, and he was sent to the

Benedictine house at Fulda; the thirst for learning there seized on him,

and in 1505 he fled from the monastic life, and won his freedom with the

sacrifice of his worldly prospects, and at the cost of incurring his

father's undying anger. From the Fulda cloister he went first to

Cologne, next to Erfurt, and then to Frankfort-on-Oder on the opening in

1506 of the new university of that town. For a time he was in Leipzig,

and in 1508 we find him a shipwrecked beggar on the Pomeranian coast. In

1509 the university of Greifswald welcomed him, but here too those who

at first received him kindly became his foes; the sensitive

ill-regulated youth, who took the liberties of genius, wearied his

burgher patrons; they could not brook the poet's airs and vanity, and

ill-timed assertions of his higher rank. Wherefore he left Greifswald,

and as he went was robbed of clothes and books, his only baggage, by the

servants of his late friends; in the dead of winter, half starved,

frozen, penniless, he reached Rostock. Here again the Humanists received

him gladly, and under their protection he wrote against his Greifswald

patrons, thus beginning the long list of his satires and fierce attacks

on personal or public foes. Rostock could not hold him long; he wandered

on to Wittenberg and Leipzig, and thence to Vienna, where he hoped to

win the emperor Maximilian's favour by an elaborate national poem on the

war with Venice. But neither Maximilian nor the university of Vienna

would lift a hand for him, and he passed into Italy, where, at Pavia, he

sojourned throughout 1511 and part of 1512. In the latter year his

studies were interrupted by war; in the siege of Pavia by papal troops

and Swiss, he was plundered by both sides, and escaped, sick and

penniless, to Bologna; on his recovery he even took service as a private

soldier in the emperor's army.

This dark period lasted no long time; in 1514 he was again in Germany,

where, thanks to his poetic gifts and the friendship of Eitelwolf von

Stein (d. 1515), he won the favour of the elector of Mainz, Archbishop

Albert of Brandenburg. Here high dreams of a learned career rose on him;

Mainz should be made the metropolis of a grand Humanist movement, the

centre of good style and literary form. But the murder in 1515 of his

relative Hans von Hutten by Ulrich, duke of Württemberg, changed the

whole course of his life; satire, chief refuge of the weak, became

Hutten's weapon; with one hand he took his part in the famous _Epistolae

obscurorum virorum_, and with the other launched scathing letters,

eloquent Ciceronian orations, or biting satires against the duke. Though

the emperor was too lazy and indifferent to smite a great prince, he

took Hutten under his protection and bestowed on him the honour of a

laureate crown in 1517. Hutten, who had meanwhile revisited Italy, again

attached himself to the electoral court at Mainz; and he was there when

in 1518 his friend Pirckheimer wrote, urging him to abandon the court

and dedicate himself to letters. We have the poet's long reply, in an

epistle on his "way of life," an amusing mixture of earnestness and

vanity, self-satisfaction and satire; he tells his friend that his

career is just begun, that he has had twelve years of wandering, and

will now enjoy himself a while in patriotic literary work; that he has

by no means deserted the humaner studies, but carries with him a little

library of standard books. Pirckheimer in his burgher life may have ease

and even luxury; he, a knight of the empire, how can he condescend to

obscurity? He must abide where he can shine.

In 1519 he issued in one volume his attacks on Duke Ulrich, and then,

drawing sword, took part in the private war which overthrew that prince;

in this affair he became intimate with Franz von Sickingen, the champion

of the knightly order (Ritterstand). Hutten now warmly and openly

espoused the Lutheran cause, but he was at the same time mixed up in the

attempt of the "Ritterstand" to assert itself as the militia of the

empire against the independence of the German princes. Soon after this

time he discovered at Fulda a copy of the manifesto of the emperor Henry

IV. against Hildebrand, and published it with comments as an attack on

the papal claims over Germany. He hoped thereby to interest the new

emperor Charles V., and the higher orders in the empire, in behalf of

German liberties; but the appeal failed. What Luther had achieved by

speaking to cities and common folk in homely phrase, because he touched

heart and conscience, that the far finer weapons of Hutten failed to

effect, because he tried to touch the more cultivated sympathies and

dormant patriotism of princes and bishops, nobles and knights. And so he

at once gained an undying name in the republic of letters and ruined his

own career. He showed that the artificial verse-making of the Humanists

could be connected with the new outburst of genuine German poetry. The

Minnesinger was gone; the new national singer, a Luther or a Hans Sachs,

was heralded by the stirring lines of Hutten's pen. These have in them a

splendid natural swing and ring, strong and patriotic, though

unfortunately addressed to knight and landsknecht rather than to the

German people.

The poet's high dream of a knightly national regeneration had a rude

awakening. The attack on the papacy, and Luther's vast and sudden

popularity, frightened Elector Albert, who dismissed Hutten from his

court. Hoping for imperial favour, he betook himself to Charles V.; but

that young prince would have none of him. So he returned to his friends,

and they rejoiced greatly to see him still alive; for Pope Leo X. had

ordered him to be arrested and sent to Rome, and assassins dogged his

steps. He now attached himself more closely to Franz von Sickingen and

the knightly movement. This also came to a disastrous end in the capture

of the Ebernberg, and Sickingen's death; the higher nobles had

triumphed; the archbishops avenged themselves on Lutheranism as

interpreted by the knightly order. With Sickingen Hutten also finally

fell. He fled to Basel, where Erasmus refused to see him, both for fear

of his loathsome diseases, and also because the beggared knight was sure

to borrow money from him. A paper war consequently broke out between the

two Humanists, which embittered Hutten's last days, and stained the

memory of Erasmus. From Basel Ulrich dragged himself to Mülhausen; and

when the vengeance of Erasmus drove him thence, he went to Zurich. There

the large heart of Zwingli welcomed him; he helped him with money, and

found him a quiet refuge with the pastor of the little isle of Ufnau on

the Zurich lake. There the frail and worn-out poet, writing swift satire

to the end, died at the end of August or beginning of September 1523 at

the age of thirty-five. He left behind him some debts due to

compassionate friends; he did not even own a single book, and all his

goods amounted to the clothes on his back, a bundle of letters, and that

valiant pen which had fought so many a sharp battle, and had won for the

poor knight-errant a sure place in the annals of literature.

Ulrich von Hutten is one of those men of genius at whom propriety is

shocked, and whom the mean-spirited avoid. Yet through his short and

buffeted life he was befriended, with wonderful charity and patience, by

the chief leaders of the Humanist movement. For, in spite of his

irritable vanity, his immoral life and habits, his odious diseases, his

painful restlessness, Hutten had much in him that strong men could love.

He passionately loved the truth, and was ever open to all good

influences. He was a patriot, whose soul soared to ideal schemes and a

grand utopian restoration of his country. In spite of all, his was a

frank and noble nature; his faults chiefly the faults of genius

ill-controlled, and of a life cast in the eventful changes of an age of

novelty. A swarm of writings issued from his pen; at first the smooth

elegance of his Latin prose and verse seemed strangely to miss his real

character; he was the Cicero and Ovid of Germany before he became its

Lucian.

His chief works were his _Ars versificandi_ (1511); the _Nemo_ (1518);

a work on the _Morbus Gallicus_ (1519); the volume of Steckelberg

complaints against Duke Ulrich (including his four _Ciceronian

Orations_, his Letters and the _Phalarismus_) also in 1519; the

_Vadismus_ (1520); and the controversy with Erasmus at the end of his

life. Besides these were many admirable poems in Latin and German. It

is not known with certainty how far Hutten was the parent of the

celebrated _Epistolae obscurorum virorum_, that famous satire on

monastic ignorance as represented by the theologians of Cologne with

which the friends of Reuchlin defended him. At first the

cloister-world, not discerning its irony, welcomed the work as a

defence of their position; though their eyes were soon opened by the

favour with which the learned world received it. The _Epistolae_ were

eagerly bought up; the first part (41 letters) appeared at the end of

1515; early in 1516 there was a second edition; later in 1516 a third,

with an appendix of seven letters; in 1517 appeared the second part

(62 letters), to which a fresh appendix of eight letters was subjoined

soon after. In 1909 the Latin text of the _Epistolae_ with an English

translation was published by F. G. Stokes. Hutten, in a letter

addressed to Robert Crocus, denied that he was the author of the book,

but there is no doubt as to his connexion with it. Erasmus was of

opinion that there were three authors, of whom Crotus Rubianus was the

originator of the idea, and Hutten a chief contributor. D. F. Strauss,

who dedicates to the subject a chapter of his admirable work on

Hutten, concludes that he had no share in the first part, but that his

hand is clearly visible in the second part, which he attributes in the

main to him. To him is due the more serious and severe tone of that

bitter portion of the satire. See W. Brecht, _Die Verfasser der

Epistolae obscurorum virorum_ (1904).

For a complete catalogue of the writings of Hutten, see E. Böcking's

_Index Bibliographicus Huttenianus_ (1858). Böcking is also the editor

of the complete edition of Hutten's works (7 vols., 1859-1862). A

selection of Hutten's German writings, edited by G. Balke, appeared in

1891. Cp. S. Szamatolski, _Huttens deutsche Schriften_ (1891). The

best biography (though it is also somewhat of a political pamphlet) is

that of D. F. Strauss (_Ulrich von Hutten_, 1857; 4th ed., 1878;

English translation by G. Sturge, 1874), with which may be compared

the older monographs by A. Wagenseil (1823), A. Bürck (1846) and J.

Zeller (Paris, 1849). See also J. Deckert, _Ulrich von Huttens Leben

und Wirken. Eine historische Skizze_ (1901). (G. W. K.)

HUTTER, LEONHARD (1563-1616), German Lutheran theologian, was born at

Nellingen near Ulm in January 1563. From 1581 he studied at the

universities of Strassburg, Leipzig, Heidelberg and Jena. In 1594 he

began to give theological lectures at Jena, and in 1596 accepted a call

as professor of theology at Wittenberg, where he died on the 23rd of

October 1616. Hutter was a stern champion of Lutheran orthodoxy, as set

down in the confessions and embodied in his own _Compendium locorum

theologicorum_ (1610; reprinted 1863), being so faithful to his master

as to win the title of "Luther redonatus."

In reply to Rudolf Hospinian's _Concordia discors_ (1607), he wrote a

work, rich in historical material but one-sided in its apologetics,

_Concordia concors_ (1614), defending the formula of Concord, which he

regarded as inspired. His _Irenicum vere christianum_ is directed

against David Pareus (1548-1622), professor primarius at Heidelberg,

who in _Irenicum sive de unione et synodo Evangelicorum_ (1614) had

pleaded for a reconciliation of Lutheranism and Calvinism; his

_Calvinista aulopoliticus_ (1610) was written against the "damnable

Calvinism" which was becoming prevalent in Holstein and Brandenburg.

Another work, based on the formula of Concord, was entitled _Loci

communes theologici_.

HUTTON, CHARLES (1737-1823), English mathematician, was born at

Newcastle-on-Tyne on the 14th of August 1737. He was educated in a

school at Jesmond, kept by Mr Ivison, a clergyman of the church of

England. There is reason to believe, on the evidence of two pay-bills,

that for a short time in 1755 and 1756 Hutton worked in Old Long Benton

colliery; at any rate, on Ivison's promotion to a living, Hutton

succeeded to the Jesmond school, whence, in consequence of increasing

pupils, he removed to Stote's Hall. While he taught during the day at

Stote's Hall, he studied mathematics in the evening at a school in

Newcastle. In 1760 he married, and began tuition on a larger scale in

Newcastle, where he had among his pupils John Scott, afterwards Lord

Eldon, chancellor of England. In 1764 he published his first work, _The

Schoolmaster's Guide, or a Complete System of Practical Arithmetic_,

which in 1770 was followed by his _Treatise on Mensuration both in

Theory and Practice_. In 1772 appeared a tract on _The Principles of

Bridges_, suggested by the destruction of Newcastle bridge by a high

flood on the 17th of November 1771. In 1773 he was appointed professor

of mathematics at the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, and in the

following year he was elected F.R.S. and reported on Nevil Maskelyne's

determination of the mean density and mass of the earth from

measurements taken in 1774-1776 at Mount Schiehallion in Perthshire.

This account appeared in the _Philosophical Transactions_ for 1778, was

afterwards reprinted in the second volume of his _Tracts on Mathematical

and Philosophical Subjects_, and procured for Hutton the degree of LL.D.

from the university of Edinburgh. He was elected foreign secretary to

the Royal Society in 1779, but his resignation in 1783 was brought about

by the president Sir Joseph Banks, whose behaviour to the mathematical

section of the society was somewhat high-handed (see Kippis's

_Observations on the late Contests in the Royal Society_, London, 1784).

After his _Tables of the Products and Powers of Numbers_, 1781, and his

_Mathematical Tables_, 1785, he issued, for the use of the Royal

Military Academy, in 1787 _Elements of Conic Sections_, and in 1798 his

_Course of Mathematics_. His _Mathematical and Philosophical

Dictionary_, a valuable contribution to scientific biography, was

published in 1795 (2nd ed., 1815), and the four volumes of _Recreations

in Mathematics and Natural Philosophy_, mostly a translation from the

French, in 1803. One of the most laborious of his works was the

abridgment, in conjunction with G. Shaw and R. Pearson, of the

_Philosophical Transactions_. This undertaking, the mathematical and

scientific parts of which fell to Hutton's share, was completed in 1809,

and filled eighteen volumes quarto. His name first appears in the

_Ladies' Diary_ (a poetical and mathematical almanac which was begun in

1704, and lasted till 1871) in 1764; ten years later he was appointed

editor of the almanac, a post which he retained till 1817. Previously he

had begun a small periodical, _Miscellanea Mathematica_, which extended

only to thirteen numbers; subsequently he published in five volumes _The

Diarian Miscellany_, which contained large extracts from the _Diary_. He

resigned his professorship in 1807, and died on the 27th of January

1823.

See John Bruce, _Charles Hutton_ (Newcastle, 1823).

HUTTON, JAMES (1726-1797), Scottish geologist, was born in Edinburgh on

the 3rd of June 1726. Educated at the high school and university of his

native city, he acquired while a student a passionate love of scientific

inquiry. He was apprenticed to a lawyer, but his employer advised that a

more congenial profession should be chosen for him. The young apprentice

chose medicine as being nearest akin to his favourite pursuit of

chemistry. He studied for three years at Edinburgh, and completed his

medical education in Paris, returning by the Low Countries, and taking

his degree of doctor of medicine at Leiden in 1749. Finding, however,

that there seemed hardly any opening for him, he abandoned the medical

profession, and, having inherited a small property in Berwickshire from

his father, resolved to devote himself to agriculture. He then went to

Norfolk to learn the practical work of farming, and subsequently

travelled in Holland, Belgium and the north of France. During these

years he began to study the surface of the earth, gradually shaping in

his mind the problem to which he afterwards devoted his energies. In the

summer of 1754 he established himself on his own farm in Berwickshire,

where he resided for fourteen years, and where he introduced the most

improved forms of husbandry. As the farm was brought into excellent

order, and as its management, becoming more easy, grew less interesting,

he was induced to let it, and establish himself for the rest of his life

in Edinburgh. This took place about the year 1768. He was unmarried, and

from this period until his death in 1797 he lived with his three

sisters. Surrounded by congenial literary and scientific friends he

devoted himself to research.

At that time geology in any proper sense of the term did not exist.

Mineralogy, however, had made considerable progress. But Hutton had

conceived larger ideas than were entertained by the mineralogists of his

day. He desired to trace back the origin of the various minerals and

rocks, and thus to arrive at some clear understanding of the history of

the earth. For many years he continued to study the subject. At last, in

the spring of the year 1785, he communicated his views to the recently

established Royal Society of Edinburgh in a paper entitled _Theory of

the Earth, or an Investigation of the Laws Observable in the

Composition, Dissolution and Restoration of Land upon the Globe_. In

this remarkable work the doctrine is expounded that geology is not

cosmogony, but must confine itself to the study of the materials of the

earth; that everywhere evidence may be seen that the present rocks of

the earth's surface have been in great part formed out of the waste of

older rocks; that these materials having been laid down under the sea

were there consolidated under great pressure, and were subsequently

disrupted and upheaved by the expansive power of subterranean heat; that

during these convulsions veins and masses of molten rock were injected

into the rents of the dislocated strata; that every portion of the

upraised land, as soon as exposed to the atmosphere, is subject to

decay; and that this decay must tend to advance until the whole of the

land has been worn away and laid down on the sea-floor, whence future

upheavals will once more raise the consolidated sediments into new land.

In some of these broad and bold generalizations Hutton was anticipated

by the Italian geologists; but to him belongs the credit of having first

perceived their mutual relations, and combined them in a luminous

coherent theory based upon observation.

It was not merely the earth to which Hutton directed his attention. He

had long studied the changes of the atmosphere. The same volume in which

his _Theory of the Earth_ appeared contained also a _Theory of Rain_,

which was read to the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1784. He contended

that the amount of moisture which the air can retain in solution

increases with augmentation of temperature, and, therefore, that on the

mixture of two masses of air of different temperatures a portion of the

moisture must be condensed and appear in visible form. He investigated

the available data regarding rainfall and climate in different regions

of the globe, and came to the conclusion that the rainfall is everywhere

regulated by the humidity of the air on the one hand, and the causes

which promote mixtures of different aerial currents in the higher

atmosphere on the other.

The vigour and versatility of his genius may be understood from the

variety of works which, during his thirty years' residence in Edinburgh,

he gave to the world. In 1792 he published a quarto volume entitled

_Dissertations on different Subjects in Natural Philosophy_, in which he

discussed the nature of matter, fluidity, cohesion, light, heat and

electricity. Some of these subjects were further illustrated by him in

papers read before the Royal Society of Edinburgh. He did not restrain

himself within the domain of physics, but boldly marched into that of

metaphysics, publishing three quarto volumes with the title _An

Investigation of the Principles of Knowledge, and of the Progress of

Reason--from Sense to Science and Philosophy_. In this work he developed

the idea that the external world, as conceived by us, is the creation of

our own minds influenced by impressions from without, that there is no

resemblance between our picture of the outer world and the reality, yet

that the impressions produced upon our minds, being constant and

consistent, become as much realities to us as if they precisely

resembled things actually existing, and, therefore, that our moral

conduct must remain the same as if our ideas perfectly corresponded to

the causes producing them. His closing years were devoted to the

extension and republication of his _Theory of the Earth_, of which two

volumes appeared in 1795. A third volume, necessary to complete the

work, was left by him in manuscript, and is referred to by his

biographer John Playfair. A portion of the MS. of this volume, which had

been given to the Geological Society of London by Leonard Horner, was

published by the Society in 1899, under the editorship of Sir A. Geikie.

The rest of the manuscript appears to be lost. Soon afterwards Hutton

set to work to collect and systematize his numerous writings on

husbandry, which he proposed to publish under the title of _Elements of

Agriculture_. He had nearly completed this labour when an incurable

disease brought his active career to a close on the 26th of March 1797.

It is by his _Theory of the Earth_ that Hutton will be remembered with

reverence while geology continues to be cultivated. The author's

style, however, being somewhat heavy and obscure, the book did not

attract during his lifetime so much attention as it deserved. Happily

for science Hutton numbered among his friends John Playfair (q.v.),

professor of mathematics in the university of Edinburgh, whose

enthusiasm for the spread of Hutton's doctrine was combined with a

rare gift of graceful and luminous exposition. Five years after

Hutton's death he published a volume, _Illustrations of the Huttonian

Theory of the Earth_, in which he gave an admirable summary of that

theory, with numerous additional illustrations and arguments. This

work is justly regarded as one of the classical contributions to

geological literature. To its influence much of the sound progress of

British geology must be ascribed. In the year 1805 a biographical

account of Hutton, written by Playfair, was published in vol. v. of

the _Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh_. (A. Ge.)

HUTTON, RICHARD HOLT (1826-1897), English writer and theologian, son of

Joseph Hutton, Unitarian minister at Leeds, was born at Leeds on the 2nd

of June 1826. His family removed to London in 1835, and he was educated

at University College School and University College, where he began a

lifelong friendship with Walter Bagehot, of whose works he afterwards was

the editor; he took the degree in 1845, being awarded the gold medal for

philosophy. Meanwhile he had also studied for short periods at Heidelberg

and Berlin, and in 1847 he entered Manchester New College with the idea

of becoming a minister like his father, and studied there under James

Martineau. He did not, however, succeed in obtaining a call to any

church, and for some little time his future was unsettled. He married in

1851 his cousin, Anne Roscoe, and became joint-editor with J. L. Sanford

of the _Inquirer_, the principal Unitarian organ. But his innovations and

his unconventional views about stereotyped Unitarian doctrines caused

alarm, and in 1853 he resigned. His health had broken down, and he

visited the West Indies, where his wife died of yellow fever. In 1855

Hutton and Bagehot became joint-editors of the _National Review_, a new

monthly, and conducted it for ten years. During this time Hutton's

theological views, influenced largely by Coleridge, and more directly by

F. W. Robertson and F. D. Maurice, gradually approached more and more to

those of the Church of England, which he ultimately joined. His interest

in theology was profound, and he brought to it a spirituality of outlook

and an aptitude for metaphysical inquiry and exposition which added a

singular attraction to his writings. In 1861 he joined Meredith Townsend

as joint-editor and part proprietor of the _Spectator_, then a well-known

liberal weekly, which, however, was not remunerative from the business

point of view. Hutton took charge of the literary side of the paper, and

by degrees his own articles became and remained up to the last one of the

best-known features of serious and thoughtful English journalism. The

_Spectator_, which gradually became a prosperous property, was his

pulpit, in which unwearyingly he gave expression to his views,

particularly on literary, religious and philosophical subjects, in

opposition to the agnostic and rationalistic opinions then current in

intellectual circles, as popularized by Huxley. A man of fearless

honesty, quick and catholic sympathies, broad culture, and many friends

in intellectual and religious circles, he became one of the most

influential journalists of the day, his fine character and conscience

earning universal respect and confidence. He was an original member of

the Metaphysical Society (1869). He was an anti-vivisectionist, and a

member of the royal commission (1875) on that subject. In 1858 he had

married Eliza Roscoe, a cousin of his first wife; she died early in 1897,

and Hutton's own death followed on the 9th of September of the same year.

Among his other publications may be mentioned _Essays, Theological and

Literary_ (1871; revised 1888), and _Criticisms on Contemporary

Thought and Thinkers_ (1894); and his opinions may be studied

compendiously in the selections from his _Spectator_ articles

published in 1899 under the title of _Aspects of Religious and

Scientific Thought_.

HUXLEY, THOMAS HENRY (1825-1895), English biologist, was born on the 4th

of May 1825 at Ealing, where his father, George Huxley, was senior

assistant-master in the school of Dr Nicholas. This was an establishment

of repute, and is at any rate remarkable for having produced two men

with so little in common in after life as Huxley and Cardinal Newman.

The cardinal's brother, Francis William, had been "captain" of the

school in 1821. Huxley was a seventh child (as his father had also

been), and the youngest who survived infancy. Of Huxley's ancestry no

more is ascertainable than in the case of most middle-class families. He

himself thought it sprang from the Cheshire Huxleys of Huxley Hall.

Different branches migrated south, one, now extinct, reaching London,

where its members were apparently engaged in commerce. They established

themselves for four generations at Wyre Hall, near Edmonton, and one was

knighted by Charles II. Huxley describes his paternal race as "mainly

Iberian mongrels, with a good dash of Norman and a little Saxon."[1]

From his father he thought he derived little except a quick temper and

the artistic faculty which proved of great service to him and reappeared

in an even more striking degree in his daughter, the Hon. Mrs Collier.

"Mentally and physically," he wrote, "I am a piece of my mother." Her

maiden name was Rachel Withers. "She came of Wiltshire people," he adds,

and describes her as "a typical example of the Iberian variety." He

tells us that "her most distinguishing characteristic was rapidity of

thought.... That peculiarity has been passed on to me in full strength"

(_Essays_, i. 4). One of the not least striking facts in Huxley's life

is that of education in the formal sense he received none. "I had two

years of a pandemonium of a school (between eight and ten), and after

that neither help nor sympathy in any intellectual direction till I

reached manhood" (_Life_, ii. 145). After the death of Dr Nicholas the

Ealing school broke up, and Huxley's father returned about 1835 to his

native town, Coventry, where he had obtained a small appointment. Huxley

was left to his own devices; few histories of boyhood could offer any

parallel. At twelve he was sitting up in bed to read Hutton's _Geology_.

His great desire was to be a mechanical engineer; it ended in his

devotion to "the mechanical engineering of living machines." His

curiosity in this direction was nearly fatal; a _post-mortem_ he was

taken to between thirteen and fourteen was followed by an illness which

seems to have been the starting-point of the ill-health which pursued

him all through life. At fifteen he devoured Sir William Hamilton's

_Logic_, and thus acquired the taste for metaphysics, which he

cultivated to the end. At seventeen he came under the influence of

Thomas Carlyle's writings. Fifty years later he wrote: "To make things

clear and get rid of cant and shows of all sorts. This was the lesson I

learnt from Carlyle's books when I was a boy, and it has stuck by me all

my life" (_Life_, ii. 268). Incidentally they led him to begin to learn

German; he had already acquired French. At seventeen Huxley, with his

elder brother James, commenced regular medical studies at Charing Cross

Hospital, where they had both obtained scholarships. He studied under

Wharton Jones, a physiologist who never seems to have attained the

reputation he deserved. Huxley said of him: "I do not know that I ever

felt so much respect for a teacher before or since" (_Life_, i. 20). At

twenty he passed his first M.B. examination at the University of London,

winning the gold medal for anatomy and physiology; W. H. Ransom, the

well-known Nottingham physician, obtaining the exhibition. In 1845 he

published, at the suggestion of Wharton Jones, his first scientific

paper, demonstrating the existence of a hitherto unrecognized layer in

the inner sheath of hairs, a layer that has been known since as

"Huxley's layer."

Something had to be done for a livelihood, and at the suggestion of a

fellow-student, Mr (afterwards Sir Joseph) Fayrer, he applied for an

appointment in the navy. He passed the necessary examination, and at the

same time obtained the qualification of the Royal College of Surgeons.

He was "entered on the books of Nelson's old ship, the 'Victory,' for

duty at Haslar Hospital." Its chief, Sir John Richardson, who was a

well-known Arctic explorer and naturalist, recognized Huxley's ability,

and procured for him the post of surgeon to H.M.S. "Rattlesnake," about

to start for surveying work in Torres Strait. The commander, Captain

Owen Stanley, was a son of the bishop of Norwich and brother of Dean

Stanley, and wished for an officer with some scientific knowledge.

Besides Huxley the "Rattlesnake" also carried a naturalist by

profession, John Macgillivray, who, however, beyond a dull narrative of

the expedition, accomplished nothing. The "Rattlesnake" left England on

the 3rd of December 1846, and was ordered home after the lamented death

of Captain Stanley at Sydney, to be paid off at Chatham on the 9th of

November 1850. The tropical seas teem with delicate surface-life, and to

the study of this Huxley devoted himself with unremitting devotion. At

that time no known methods existed by which it could be preserved for

study in museums at home. He gathered a magnificent harvest in the

almost unreaped field, and the conclusions he drew from it were the

beginning of the revolution in zoological science which he lived to see

accomplished.

Baron Cuvier (1769-1832), whose classification still held its ground,

had divided the animal kingdom into four great _embranchements_. Each of

these corresponded to an independent archetype, of which the "idea" had

existed in the mind of the Creator. There was no other connexion between

these classes, and the "ideas" which animated them were, as far as one

can see, arbitrary. Cuvier's groups, without their theoretical basis,

were accepted by K. E. von Baer (1792-1876). The "idea" of the group, or

archetype, admitted of endless variation within it; but this was

subordinate to essential conformity with the archetype, and hence Cuvier

deduced the important principle of the "correlation of parts," of which

he made such conspicuous use in palaeontological reconstruction.

Meanwhile the "Naturphilosophen," with J. W. Goethe (1749-1832) and L.

Oken (1779-1851), had in effect grasped the underlying principle of

correlation, and so far anticipated evolution by asserting the

possibility of deriving specialized from simpler structures. Though they

were still hampered by idealistic conceptions, they established

morphology. Cuvier's four great groups were Vertebrata, Mollusca,

Articulata and Radiata. It was amongst the members of the last

class that Huxley found most material ready to his hand in the seas of

the tropics. It included organisms of the most varied kind, with nothing

more in common than that their parts were more or less distributed round

a centre. Huxley sent home "communication after communication to the

Linnean Society," then a somewhat somnolent body, "with the same result

as that obtained by Noah when he sent the raven out of the ark"

(_Essays_, i. 13). His important paper, _On the Anatomy and the

Affinities of the Family of Medusae_, met with a better fate. It was

communicated by the bishop of Norwich to the Royal Society, and printed

by it in the _Philosophical Transactions_ in 1849. Huxley united, with

the Medusae, the Hydroid and Sertularian polyps, to form a class to

which he subsequently gave the name of Hydrozoa. This alone was no

inconsiderable feat for a young surgeon who had only had the training of

the medical school. But the ground on which it was done has led to

far-reaching theoretical developments. Huxley realized that something

more than superficial characters were necessary in determining the

affinities of animal organisms. He found that all the members of the

class consisted of two membranes enclosing a central cavity or stomach.

This is characteristic of what are now called the Coelenterata. All

animals higher than these have been termed Coelomata; they possess a

distinct body-cavity in addition to the stomach. Huxley went further

than this, and the most profound suggestion in his paper is the

comparison of the two layers with those which appear in the germ of the

higher animals. The consequences which have flowed from this prophetic

generalization of the _ectoderm_ and _endoderm_ are familiar to every

student of evolution. The conclusion was the more remarkable as at the

time he was not merely free from any evolutionary belief, but actually

rejected it. The value of Huxley's work was immediately recognized. On

returning to England in 1850 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal

Society. In the following year, at the age of twenty-six, he not merely

received the Royal medal, but was elected on the council. With

absolutely no aid from any one he had placed himself in the front rank

of English scientific men. He secured the friendship of Sir J. D. Hooker

and John Tyndall, who remained his lifelong friends. The Admiralty

retained him as a nominal assistant-surgeon, in order that he might work

up the observations he had made during the voyage of the "Rattlesnake."

He was thus enabled to produce various important memoirs, especially

those on certain Ascidians, in which he solved the problem of

_Appendicularia_--an organism whose place in the animal kingdom Johannes

Müller had found himself wholly unable to assign--and on the morphology

of the Cephalous Mollusca.

Richard Owen, then the leading comparative anatomist in Great Britain,

was a disciple of Cuvier, and adopted largely from him the deductive

explanation of anatomical fact from idealistic conceptions. He

superadded the evolutionary theories of Oken, which were equally

idealistic, but were altogether repugnant to Cuvier. Huxley would have

none of either. Imbued with the methods of von Baer and Johannes Müller,

his methods were purely inductive. He would not hazard any statement

beyond what the facts revealed. He retained, however, as has been done

by his successors, the use of archetypes, though they no longer

represented fundamental "ideas" but generalizations of the essential

points of structure common to the individuals of each class. He had not

wholly freed himself, however, from archetypal trammels. "The doctrine,"

he says, "that every natural group is organized after a definite

archetype ... seems to me as important for zoology as the doctrine of

definite proportions for chemistry." This was in 1853. He further

stated: "There is no progression from a lower to a higher type, but

merely a more or less complete evolution of one type" (_Phil. Trans._,

1853, p. 63). As Chalmers Mitchell points out, this statement is of

great historical interest. Huxley definitely uses the word "evolution,"

and admits its existence _within_ the great groups. He had not, however,

rid himself of the notion that the archetype was a property inherent in

the group. Herbert Spencer, whose acquaintance he made in 1852, was

unable to convert him to evolution in its widest sense (_Life_, i.

168). He could not bring himself to acceptance of the theory--owing, no

doubt, to his rooted aversion from à priori reasoning--without a

mechanical conception of its mode of operation. In his first interview

with Darwin, which seems to have been about the same time, he expressed

his belief "in the sharpness of the lines of demarcation between natural

groups," and was received with a humorous smile (_Life_, i. 169).

The naval medical service exists for practical purposes. It is not

surprising, therefore, that after his three years' nominal employment

Huxley was ordered on active service. Though without private means of

any kind, he resigned. The navy, however, retains the credit of having

started his scientific career as well as that of Hooker and Darwin.

Huxley was now thrown on his own resources, the immediate prospects of

which were slender enough. As a matter of fact, he had not to wait many

months. His friend, Edward Forbes, was appointed to the chair of natural

history in Edinburgh, and in July 1854 he succeeded him as lecturer at

the School of Mines and as naturalist to the Geological Survey in the

following year. The latter post he hesitated at first to accept, as he

"did not care for fossils" (_Essays_, i. 15). In 1855 he married Miss H.

A. Heathorn, whose acquaintance he had made in Sydney. They were engaged

when Huxley could offer nothing but the future promise of his ability.

The confidence of his devoted helpmate was not misplaced, and her

affection sustained him to the end, after she had seen him the recipient

of every honour which English science could bestow. His most important

research belonging to this period was the Croonian Lecture delivered

before the Royal Society in 1858 on "The Theory of the Vertebrate

Skull." In this he completely and finally demolished, by applying as

before the inductive method, the idealistic, if in some degree

evolutionary, views of its origin which Owen had derived from Goethe and

Oken. This finally disposed of the "archetype," and may be said once for

all to have liberated the English anatomical school from the deductive

method.

In 1859 _The Origin of Species_ was published. This was a momentous

event in the history of science, and not least for Huxley. Hitherto he

had turned a deaf ear to evolution. "I took my stand," he says, "upon

two grounds: firstly, that ... the evidence in favour of transmutation

was wholly insufficient; and secondly, that no suggestion respecting the

causes of the transmutation assumed, which had been made, was in any way

adequate to explain the phenomena" (_Life_, i. 168). Huxley had studied

Lamarck "attentively," but to no purpose. Sir Charles Lyell "was the

chief agent in smoothing the road for Darwin. For consistent

uniformitarianism postulates evolution as much in the organic as in the

inorganic world" (l.c.); and Huxley found in Darwin what he had failed

to find in Lamarck, an intelligible hypothesis good enough as a working

basis. Yet with the transparent candour which was characteristic of him,

he never to the end of his life concealed the fact that he thought it

wanting in rigorous proof. Darwin, however, was a naturalist; Huxley was

not. He says: "I am afraid there is very little of the genuine

naturalist in me. I never collected anything, and species-work was

always a burden to me; what I cared for was the architectural and

engineering part of the business" (_Essays_, i. 7). But the solution of

the problem of organic evolution must work upwards from the initial

stages, and it is precisely for the study of these that "species-work"

is necessary. Darwin, by observing the peculiarities in the distribution

of the plants which he had collected in the Galapagos, was started on

the path that led to his theory. Anatomical research had only so far led

to transcendental hypothesis, though in Huxley's hands it had cleared

the decks of that lumber. He quotes with approval Darwin's remark that

"no one has a right to examine the question of species who has not

minutely described many" (_Essays_, ii. 283). The rigorous proof which

Huxley demanded was the production of species sterile to one another by

selective breeding (_Life_, i. 193). But this was a misconception of the

question. Sterility is a physiological character, and the specific

differences which the theory undertook to account for are

morphological; there is no necessary nexus between the two. Huxley,

however, felt that he had at last a secure grip of evolution. He warned

Darwin: "I will stop at no point as long as clear reasoning will carry

me further" (_Life_, i. 172). Owen, who had some evolutionary

tendencies, was at first favourably disposed to Darwin's theory, and

even claimed that he had to some extent anticipated it in his own

writings. But Darwin, though he did not thrust it into the foreground,

never flinched from recognizing that man could not be excluded from his

theory. "Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history"

(_Origin_, ed. i. 488). Owen could not face the wrath of fashionable

orthodoxy. In his Rede Lecture he endeavoured to save the position by

asserting that man was clearly marked off from all other animals by the

anatomical structure of his brain. This was actually inconsistent with

known facts, and was effectually refuted by Huxley in various papers and

lectures, summed up in 1863 in _Man's Place in Nature_. This "monkey

damnification" of mankind was too much even for the "veracity" of

Carlyle, who is said to have never forgiven it. Huxley had not the

smallest respect for authority as a basis for belief, scientific or

otherwise. He held that scientific men were morally bound "to try all

things and hold fast to that which is good" (_Life_, ii. 161). Called

upon in 1862, in the absence of the president, to deliver the

presidential address to the Geological Society, he disposed once for all

of one of the principles accepted by geologists, that similar fossils in

distinct regions indicated that the strata containing them were

contemporary. All that could be concluded, he pointed out, was that the

general order of succession was the same. In 1854 Huxley had refused the

post of palaeontologist to the Geological Survey; but the fossils for

which he then said that he "did not care" soon acquired importance in

his eyes, as supplying evidence for the support of the evolutionary

theory. The thirty-one years during which he occupied the chair of

natural history at the School of Mines were largely occupied with

palaeontological research. Numerous memoirs on fossil fishes established

many far-reaching morphological facts. The study of fossil reptiles led

to his demonstrating, in the course of lectures on birds, delivered at

the College of Surgeons in 1867, the fundamental affinity of the two

groups which he united under the title of Sauropsida. An incidental

result of the same course was his proposed rearrangement of the

zoological regions into which P. L. Sclater had divided the world in

1857. Huxley anticipated, to a large extent, the results at which

botanists have since arrived: he proposed as primary divisions,

Arctogaea--to include the land areas of the northern hemisphere--and

Notogaea for the remainder. Successive waves of life originated in and

spread from the northern area, the survivors of the more ancient types

finding successively a refuge in the south. Though Huxley had accepted

the Darwinian theory as a working hypothesis, he never succeeded in

firmly grasping it in detail. He thought "evolution might conceivably

have taken place without the development of groups possessing the

characters of species" (_Essays_, v. 41). His palaeontological

researches ultimately led him to dispense with Darwin. In 1892 he wrote:

"The doctrine of evolution is no speculation, but a generalization of

certain facts ... classed by biologists under the heads of Embryology

and of Palaeontology" (_Essays_, v. 42). Earlier in 1881 he had asserted

even more emphatically that if the hypothesis of evolution "had not

existed, the palaeontologist would have had to invent it" (_Essays_, iv.

44).

From 1870 onwards he was more and more drawn away from scientific

research by the claims of public duty. Some men yield the more readily

to such demands, as their fulfilment is not unaccompanied by public

esteem. But he felt, as he himself said of Joseph Priestley, "that he

was a man and a citizen before he was a philosopher, and that the duties

of the two former positions are at least as imperative as those of the

latter" (_Essays_, iii. 13). From 1862 to 1884 he served on no less than

ten Royal Commissions, dealing in every case with subjects of great

importance, and in many with matters of the gravest moment to the

community. He held and filled with invariable dignity and distinction

more public positions than have perhaps ever fallen to the lot of a

scientific man in England. From 1871 to 1880 he was a secretary of the

Royal Society. From 1881 to 1885 he was president. For honours he cared

little, though they were within his reach; it is said that he might have

received a peerage. He accepted, however, in 1892, a Privy

Councillorship, at once the most democratic and the most aristocratic

honour accessible to an English citizen. In 1870 he was president of the

British Association at Liverpool, and in the same year was elected a

member of the newly constituted London School Board. He resigned the

latter position in 1872, but in the brief period during which he acted,

probably more than any man, he left his mark on the foundations of

national elementary education. He made war on the scholastic methods

which wearied the mind in merely taxing the memory; the children were to

be prepared to take their place worthily in the community. Physical

training was the basis; domestic economy, at any rate for girls, was

insisted upon, and for all some development of the aesthetic sense by

means of drawing and singing. Reading, writing and arithmetic were the

indispensable tools for acquiring knowledge, and intellectual discipline

was to be gained through the rudiments of physical science. He insisted

on the teaching of the Bible partly as a great literary heritage, partly

because he was "seriously perplexed to know by what practical measures

the religious feeling, which is the essential basis of conduct, was to

be kept up, in the present utterly chaotic state of opinion in these

matters, without its use" (_Essays_, iii. 397). In 1872 the School of

Mines was moved to South Kensington, and Huxley had, for the first time

after eighteen years, those appliances for teaching beyond the lecture

room, which to the lasting injury of the interests of biological science

in Great Britain had been withheld from him by the short-sightedness of

government. Huxley had only been able to bring his influence to bear

upon his pupils by oral teaching, and had had no opportunity by personal

intercourse in the laboratory of forming a school. He was now able to

organize a system of instruction for classes of elementary teachers in

the general principles of biology, which indirectly affected the

teaching of the subject throughout the country.

The first symptoms of physical failure to meet the strain of the

scientific and public duties demanded of him made some rest imperative,

and he took a long holiday in Egypt. He still continued for some years

to occupy himself mainly with vertebrate morphology. But he seemed to

find more interest and the necessary mental stimulus to exertion in

lectures, public addresses and more or less controversial writings. His

health, which had for a time been fairly restored, completely broke down

again in 1885. In 1890 he removed from London to Eastbourne, where after

a painful illness he died on the 29th of June 1895.

The latter years of Huxley's life were mainly occupied with

contributions to periodical literature on subjects connected with

philosophy and theology. The effect produced by these on popular

opinion was profound. This was partly due to his position as a man of

science, partly to his obvious earnestness and sincerity, but in the

main to his strenuous and attractive method of exposition. Such

studies were not wholly new to him, as they had more or less engaged

his thoughts from his earliest days. That his views exhibit some

process of development and are not wholly consistent was, therefore,

to be expected, and for this reason it is not easy to summarize them

as a connected body of teaching. They may be found perhaps in their

most systematic form in the volume on _Hume_ published in 1879.

Huxley's general attitude to the problems of theology and philosophy

was technically that of scepticism. "I am," he wrote, "too much of a

sceptic to deny the possibility of anything" (_Life_, ii. 127). "Doubt

is a beneficent demon" (_Essays_, ix. 56). He was anxious,

nevertheless, to avoid the accusation of Pyrrhonism (_Life_, ii. 280),

but the Agnosticism which he defined to express his position in 1869

suggests the Pyrrhonist _Aphasia_. The only approach to certainty

which he admitted lay in the order of nature. "The conception of the

constancy of the order of nature has become the dominant idea of

modern thought.... Whatever may be man's speculative doctrines, it is

quite certain that every intelligent person guides his life and risks

his fortune upon the belief that the order of nature is constant, and

that the chain of natural causation is never broken." He adds,

however, that "it by no means necessarily follows that we are

justified in expanding this generalization into the infinite past"

(_Essays_, iv. 47, 48). This was little more than a pious

reservation, as evolution implies the principle of continuity (l.c. p.

55). Later he stated his belief even more absolutely: "If there is

anything in the world which I do firmly believe in, it is the

universal validity of the law of causation, but that universality

cannot be proved by any amount of experience" (_Essays_, ix. 121). The

assertion that "There is only one method by which intellectual truth

can be reached, whether the subject-matter of investigation belongs to

the world of physics or to the world of consciousness" (_Essays_, ix.

126) laid him open to the charge of materialism, which he vigorously

repelled. His defence, when he rested it on the imperfection of the

physical analysis of matter and force (l.c. p. 131), was irrelevant;

he was on sounder ground when he contended with Berkeley "that our

certain knowledge does not extend beyond our states of consciousness"

(l.c. p. 130). "Legitimate materialism, that is, the extension of the

conceptions and of the methods of physical science to the highest as

well as to the lowest phenomena of vitality, is neither more nor less

than a sort of shorthand idealism" (_Essays_, i. 194). While "the

substance of matter is a metaphysical unknown quality of the existence

of which there is no proof ... the non-existence of a substance of

mind is equally arguable; ... the result ... is the reduction of the

All to co-existences and sequences of phenomena beneath and beyond

which there is nothing cognoscible" (_Essays_, ix. 66). Hume had

defined a miracle as a "violation of the laws of nature." Huxley

refused to accept this. While, on the one hand, he insists that "the

whole fabric of practical life is built upon our faith in its

continuity" (_Hume_, p. 129), on the other "nobody can presume to say

what the order of nature must be"; this "knocks the bottom out of all

a priori objections either to ordinary 'miracles' or to the efficacy

of prayer" (_Essays_, v. 133). "If by the term miracles we mean only

extremely wonderful events, there can be no just ground for denying

the possibility of their occurrence" (_Hume_, p. 134). Assuming the

chemical elements to be aggregates of uniform primitive matter, he saw

no more theoretical difficulty in water being turned into alcohol in

the miracle at Cana, than in sugar undergoing a similar conversion

(_Essays_, v. 81). The credibility of miracles with Huxley is a

question of evidence. It may be remarked that a scientific explanation

is destructive of the supernatural character of a miracle, and that

the demand for evidence may be so framed as to preclude the

credibility of any historical event. Throughout his life theology had

a strong attraction, not without elements of repulsion, for Huxley.

The circumstances of his early training, when Paley was the "most

interesting Sunday reading allowed him when a boy" (_Life_, ii. 57),

probably had something to do with both. In 1860 his beliefs were

apparently theistic: "Science seems to me to teach in the highest and

strongest manner the great truth which is embodied in the Christian

conception of entire surrender to the will of God" (_Life_, i. 219).

In 1885 he formulates "the perfect ideal of religion" in a passage

which has become almost famous: "In the 8th century B.C. in the heart

of a world of idolatrous polytheists, the Hebrew prophets put forth a

conception of religion which appears to be as wonderful an inspiration

of genius as the art of Pheidias or the science of Aristotle. 'And

what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love

mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God'" (_Essays_, iv. 161). Two

years later he was writing: "That there is no evidence of the

existence of such a being as the God of the theologians is true

enough" (_Life_, ii. 162). He insisted, however, that "atheism is on

purely philosophical grounds untenable" (l.c.). His theism never

really advanced beyond the recognition of "the passionless

impersonality of the unknown and unknowable, which science shows

everywhere underlying the thin veil of phenomena" (_Life_, i. 239). In

other respects his personal creed was a kind of scientific Calvinism.

There is an interesting passage in an essay written in 1892, "An

Apologetic Eirenicon," which has not been republished, which

illustrates this: "It is the secret of the superiority of the best

theological teachers to the majority of their opponents that they

substantially recognize these realities of things, however strange the

forms in which they clothe their conceptions. The doctrines of

predestination, of original sin, of the innate depravity of man and

the evil fate of the greater part of the race, of the primacy of Satan

in this world, of the essential vileness of matter, of a malevolent

Demiurgus subordinate to a benevolent Almighty, who has only lately

revealed himself, faulty as they are, appear to me to be vastly nearer

the truth than the 'liberal' popular illusions that babies are all

born good, and that the example of a corrupt society is responsible

for their failure to remain so; that it is given to everybody to reach

the ethical ideal if he will only try; that all partial evil is

universal good, and other optimistic figments, such as that which

represents 'Providence' under the guise of a paternal philanthropist,

and bids us believe that everything will come right (according to our

notions) at last." But his "slender definite creed," R. H. Hutton, who

was associated with him in the Metaphysical Society, thought--and no

doubt rightly--in no respect "represented the cravings of his larger

nature."

From 1880 onwards till the very end of his life, Huxley was

continuously occupied in a controversial campaign against orthodox

beliefs. As Professor W. F. R. Weldon justly said of his earlier

polemics: "They were certainly among the principal agents in winning a

larger measure of toleration for the critical examination of

fundamental beliefs, and for the free expression of honest reverent

doubt." He threw Christianity overboard bodily and with little

appreciation of its historic effect as a civilizing agency. He

thought that "the exact nature of the teachings and the convictions of

Jesus is extremely uncertain" (_Essays_, v. 348). "What we are usually

pleased to call religion nowadays is, for the most part, Hellenized

Judaism" (_Essays_, iv. 162). His final analysis of what "since the

second century, has assumed to itself the title of Orthodox

Christianity" is a "varying compound of some of the best and some of

the worst elements of Paganism and Judaism, moulded in practice by the

innate character of certain people of the Western world" (_Essays_, v.

142). He concludes "That this Christianity is doomed to fall is, to my

mind, beyond a doubt; but its fall will neither be sudden nor speedy"

(l.c.). He did not omit, however, to do justice to "the bright side of

Christianity," and was deeply impressed with the life of Catherine of

Siena. Failing Christianity, he thought that some other "hypostasis of

men's hopes" will arise (_Essays_, v. 254). His latest speculations on

ethical problems are perhaps the least satisfactory of his writings.

In 1892 he wrote: "The moral sense is a very complex affair--dependent

in part upon associations of pleasure and pain, approbation and

disapprobation, formed by education in early youth, but in part also

on an innate sense of moral beauty and ugliness (how originated need

not be discussed), which is possessed by some people in great

strength, while some are totally devoid of it" (_Life_, ii. 305). This

is an intuitional theory, and he compares the moral with the aesthetic

sense, which he repeatedly declares to be intuitive; thus: "All the

understanding in the world will neither increase nor diminish the

force of the intuition that this is beautiful and this is ugly"

(_Essays_, ix. 80). In the Romanes Lecture delivered in 1894, in which

this passage occurs, he defines "law and morals" to be "restraints

upon the struggle for existence between men in society." It follows

that "the ethical process is in opposition to the cosmic process," to

which the struggle for existence belongs (_Essays_, ix. 31).

Apparently he thought that the moral sense in its origin was

intuitional and in its development utilitarian. "Morality commenced

with society" (_Essays_, v. 52). The "ethical process" is the "gradual

strengthening of the social bond" (_Essays_, ix. 35). "The cosmic

process has no sort of relation to moral ends" (l.c. p. 83); "of moral

purpose I see no trace in nature. That is an article of exclusive

human manufacture" (_Life_, ii. 268). The cosmic process Huxley

identified with evil, and the ethical process with good; the two are

in necessary conflict. "The reality at the bottom of the doctrine of

original sin" is the "innate tendency to self-assertion" inherited by

man from the cosmic order (_Essays_, ix. 27). "The actions we call

sinful are part and parcel of the struggle for existence" (_Life_, ii.

282). "The prospect of attaining untroubled happiness" is "an

illusion" (_Essays_, ix. 44), and the cosmic process in the long run

will get the best of the contest, and "resume its sway" when evolution

enters on its downward course (l.c. p. 45). This approaches pure

pessimism, and though in Huxley's view the "pessimism of Schopenhauer

is a nightmare" (_Essays_, ix. 200), his own philosophy of life is not

distinguishable, and is often expressed in the same language. The

cosmic order is obviously non-moral (_Essays_, ix. 197). That it is,

as has been said, immoral is really meaningless. Pain and suffering

are affections which imply a complex nervous organization, and we are

not justified in projecting them into nature external to ourselves.

Darwin and A. R. Wallace disagreed with Huxley in seeing rather the

joyous than the suffering side of nature. Nor can it be assumed that

the descending scale of evolution will reproduce the ascent, or that

man will ever be conscious of his doom.

As has been said, Huxley never thoroughly grasped the Darwinian

principle. He thought "transmutation may take place without

transition" (_Life_, i. 173). In other words, that evolution is

accomplished by leaps and not by the accumulation of small variations.

He recognized the "struggle for existence" but not the gradual

adjustment of the organism to its environment which is implied in

"natural selection." In highly civilized societies he thought that the

former was at an end (_Essays_, ix. 36) and had been replaced by the

"struggle for enjoyment" (l.c. p. 40). But a consideration of the

stationary population of France might have shown him that the effect

in the one case may be as restrictive as in the other. So far from

natural selection being in abeyance under modern social conditions,

"it is," as Professor Karl Pearson points out, "something we run up

against at once, almost as soon as we examine a mortality table"

(_Biometrika_, i. 76). The inevitable conclusion, whether we like it

or not, is that the future evolution of humanity is as much a part of

the cosmic process as its past history, and Huxley's attempt to shut

the door on it cannot be maintained scientifically.

AUTHORITIES.--_Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley_, by his son

Leonard Huxley (2 vols., 1900); _Scientific Memoirs of T. H. Huxley_

(4 vols., 1898-1901); _Collected Essays_ by T. H. Huxley (9 vols.,

1898); _Thomas Henry Huxley, a Sketch of his Life and Work_, by P.

Chalmers Mitchell, M.A. (Oxon., 1900); a critical study founded on

careful research and of great value. (W. T. T.-D.)