Books: The Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley Volume 3

L >> Leonard Huxley >> The Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley Volume 3

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33

I got no good at the Maderaner Thal, so we migrated to our old quarters
at Arolla, and there I picked up in no time, and in a fortnight could
walk as well as ever. So if there are any adhesions they are pretty
well stretched by this time.

I have been at the Gentians again, and worked out the development of
the flower in G. purpurea and G. campestris. The results are very
pretty. They both start from a thalamifloral condition, then become
corollifloral, G. purpurea at first resembling G. lutea and G.
campestris, an Ophelia, and then specialise to the Ptychantha and
Stephanantha forms respectively.

In G. campestris there is another very curious thing. The anthers are
at first introrse, but just before the bud opens they assume this
position [sketch] and then turn right over and become extrorse. In G.
purpurea this does not happen, but the anthers are made to open
outwards by their union on the inner side of the slits of dehiscence.

There are several other curious bits of morphology have turned up, but
I reserve them for our meeting.

Beyond pottering away at my Gentians and doing a little with that
extraordinary Cynanchum I have been splendidly idle. After three weeks
of the ascetic life of Arolla, we came here to acclimatise ourselves to
lower levels and to fatten up. I go straight through the table d'hote
at each meal, and know not indigestion.

My wife has fared not so well, but she is all right again now. We go
home by easy stages, and expect to be in Marlborough Place on Tuesday.

With all our best wishes to Lady Hooker and yourself.

Ever yours,

T.H. Huxley.

[The second visit to Arolla did as much good as the first. Though
unable to stay more than a week or two in London itself, he was greatly
invigorated. His renewed strength enabled him to carry out vigorously
such work as he had put his hand to, and still more, to endure one of
the greatest sorrows of his whole life which was to befall him this
autumn in the death of his daughter Marian.

The controversy which fell to his share immediately upon his return,
has already been mentioned. This was all part of the war for science
which he took as his necessary portion in life; but he would not plunge
into any other forms of controversy, however interesting. So he writes
to his son, who had conveyed him a message from the editor of a
political review:--]

4 Marlborough Place, October 19, 1887.

No political article from me! I have had to blow off my indignation
incidentally now and then lest worse might befall me, but as to serious
political controversy, I have other fish to fry. Such influence as I
possess may be most usefully employed in promoting various educational
movements now afoot, and I do not want to bar myself from working with
men of all political parties.

So excuse me in the prettiest language at your command to Mr. A.

[Nevertheless politics very soon drew him into a new conflict, in
defence, be it said, of science against the possible contamination of
political influences. Professor (now Sir) G.G. Stokes, his successor in
the chair of the Royal Society, accepted an invitation from the
University of Cambridge to stand for election as their member of
Parliament, and was duly elected. This was a step to which many Fellows
of the Royal Society, and Huxley in especial, objected very strongly.
Properly to fulfil the duties of both offices at once was, in his
opinion, impossible. It might seem for the moment an advantage that the
accredited head of the scientific world should represent its interests
officially in Parliament; but the precedent was full of danger. Science
being essentially of no party, it was especially needful for such a
representative of science to keep free from all possible entanglements;
to avoid committing science, as it were, officially to the policy of a
party, or, as its inevitable consequence, introducing political
considerations into the choice of a future President.

During his own tenure of the Presidency Huxley had carefully abstained
from any official connection with societies are public movements on
which the feeling of the Royal Society was divided, lest as a body it
might seem committed by the person and name of its President. He
thought it a mistake that his successor should even be President of the
Victoria Institute.

Thus there is a good deal in his correspondence bearing on this matter.
He writes on November 6 to Sir J. Hooker:--]

I am extremely exercised in my mind about Stokes' going into Parliament
(as a strong party man, moreover) while still P.R.S. I do not know what
you may think about it, but to my mind it is utterly wrong--and
degrading to the Society--by introducing politics into its affairs.

[And on the same day to Sir M. Foster:--]

I think it is extremely improper for the President of the Royal Society
to accept a position as a party politician. As a Unionist I should vote
for him if I had a vote for Cambridge University, but for all that I
think it is most lamentable that the President of the Society should be
dragged into party mud.

When I was President I refused to take the Presidency of the Sunday
League, because of the division of opinion on the subject. Now we are
being connected with the Victoria Institute, and sucked into the slough
of politics.

[These considerations weighed heavily with several both of the older
and the younger members of the Society; but the majority were
indifferent to the dangers of the precedent. The Council could not
discuss the matter; they waited in vain for an official announcement of
his election from the President, while he, as it turned out, expected
them to broach the subject.

Various proposals were discussed; but it seemed best that, as a
preliminary to further action, an editorial article written by Huxley
should be inserted in "Nature," indicating what was felt by a section
of the Society, and suggesting that resignation of one of the two
offices was the right solution of the difficulty.

Finally, it seemed that perhaps, after all, a] "masterly inactivity"
[was the best line of action. Without risk of an authoritative decision
of the Society] "the wrong way," [out of personal regard for the
President, the question would be solved for him by actual experience of
work in the House of Commons, where he would doubtless discover that he
must] "renounce either science, or politics, or existence."

This campaign, however, against a principle, was carried on without any
personal feeling. The perfect simplicity of the President's attitude
would have disarmed the hottest opponent, and indeed Huxley took
occasion to write him the following letter, in reference to which he
writes to Dr. Foster:--] "I hate doing things in the dark and could not
stand it any longer."

December 1, 1887.

My dear Stokes,

When we met in the hall of the Athenaeum on Monday evening I was on the
point of speaking to you on a somewhat delicate topic; namely, my
responsibility for the leading article on the Presidency of the Royal
Society and politics which appeared a fortnight ago in "Nature." But I
was restrained by the reflection that I had no right to say anything
about the matter without the consent of the Editor of "Nature." I have
obtained that consent, and I take the earliest opportunity of availing
myself of my freedom.

I should have greatly preferred to sign the article, and its anonymity
is due to nothing but my strong desire to avoid the introduction of any
personal irrelevancies into the discussion of a very grave question of
principle.

I may add that as you are quite certain to vote in the way that I think
right on the only political questions which greatly interest me, my
action has not been, and cannot be, in any way affected by political
feeling.

And as there is no one of whom I have a higher opinion as a man of
science--no one whom I should be more glad to serve under, and to
support year after year in the Chair of the Society, and no one for
whom I entertain feelings of more sincere friendship---I trust you will
believe that, if there is a word in the article which appears
inconsistent with these feelings, it is there by oversight, and is
sincerely regretted.

During the thirty odd years we have known one another, we have often
had stout battles without loss of mutual kindness. My chief object in
troubling you with this letter is to express the hope that, whatever
happens, this state of things may continue.

I am, yours very faithfully,

T.H. Huxley.

P.S.--I am still of opinion that it is better that my authorship should
not be officially recognised, but you are, of course, free to use the
information I have given you in any way you may think fit.

[To this the President returned a very frank and friendly reply; saying
he had never dreamed of any incompatibility existing between the two
offices, and urging that the Presidency ought not to constrain a man to
give up his ordinary duties as a citizen. He concludes:--

And now I have stated my case as it appears to myself; let me assure
you that nothing that has passed tends at all to diminish my friendship
towards you. My wife heard last night that the article was yours, and
told me so. I rather thought it must have been written by some hot
Gladstonian. It seems, however, that her informant was right. She
wishes me to tell you that she replied to her informant that she felt
quite sure that if you wrote it, it was because you thought it.

To which Huxley replied:--]

I am much obliged for your letter, which is just such as I felt sure
you would write.

Pray thank Mrs. Stokes for her kind message. I am very grateful for her
confidence in my uprightness of intention.

We must agree to differ.

It may be needful for me and those who agree with me to place our
opinions on record; but you may depend upon it that nothing will be
done which can suggest any lack of friendship or respect for our
President.

[It will be seen from this correspondence and the letter to Sir J.
Donnelly of July 15, that Huxley was a staunch Unionist. Not that he
considered the actual course of English rule in Ireland ideal; his main
point was that under the circumstances the establishment of Home Rule
was a distinct betrayal of trust, considering that on the strength of
Government promises, an immense number of persons had entered into
contracts, had bought land, and staked their fortunes in Ireland, who
would be ruined by the establishment of Home Rule. Moreover, he held
that the right of self-preservation entitled a nation to refuse to
establish at its very gates a power which could, and perhaps would, be
a danger to its own existence. Of the capacity of the Irish peasant for
self-government he had no high opinion, and what he had seen of the
country, and especially the great central plain, in his frequent visits
to Ireland, convinced him that the balance between subsistence and
population would speedily create a new agrarian question, whatever
political schemes were introduced. This was one of] "the only political
questions which interested him."

[Towards the end of October he left London for Hastings, partly for his
own, but still more for his wife's sake, as she was far from well. He
was still busy with one or two Royal Society Committees, and came up to
town occasionally to attend their meetings, especially those dealing
with the borings in the Delta, and with Antarctic exploration. Thus he
writes:--]

11 Eversfield Place, Hastings, October 31, 1887.

My dear Foster,

We have been here for the last week, and are likely to be here for some
time, as my wife, though mending, is getting on but slowly, and she
will be as well out of London through beastly November. I shall be up
on Thursday and return on Friday, but I do not want to be away longer,
as it is lonesome for the wife.

I quite agree to what you propose on Committee, so I need not be there.
Very glad to hear that the Council "very much applauded what we had
done," and hope we shall get the 500 pounds.

I don't believe a word in increasing whale fishery, but scientifically,
the Antarctic expedition would, or might be very interesting, and if
the colonies will do their part, I think we ought to do ours.

You won't want me at that Committee either. Hope to see you on Thursday.

Ever yours,

T.H. Huxley.

Hideous pen!

[But he did not come up that Thursday. His wife was for a time too ill
to be left, and he winds up the letter of November 2 to Dr. Foster with
the reflection:--]

Man is born to trouble as the sparks, etc.--but when you have come to
my time of life you will say as I do--Lucky it is no worse.

November 6.

I am very glad to hear that the 500 pounds is granted, and I will see
to what is next to be done as soon as I can. Also I am very glad to
find you don't want my valuable service on Council Royal Society. I
repented me of my offer when I thought how little I might be able to
attend.

[One thing, however, afforded him great pleasure at this time. He
writes on November 6 to his old friend, Sir J. Hooker:--]

I write just to say what infinite satisfaction the award of the Copley
Medal to you has given me. If you were not my dear old friend, it would
rejoice me as a mere matter of justice--of which there is none too much
in this "-- rum world," as Whitworth's friend called it.

[To the reply that the award was not according to rule, inasmuch as it
was the turn for the medal to be awarded in another branch of science,
he rejoins:--]

I had forgotten all about the business--but he had done nothing to
deserve the Copley, and all I can say is that if the present award is
contrary to law, the "law's a hass" as Mr. Bumble said. But I don't
believe that it is.

[He replies also on November 5 to a clerical correspondent who had
written to him on the distinction between sheretz and rehmes, and
accused him of "wilful blindness" in his theological controversy of
1886:--]

Let me assure you that it is not my way to set my face against being
convinced by evidence.

I really cannot hold myself to be responsible for the translators of
the Revised Version of the Old Testament. If I had given a translation
of the passage to which you refer on my own authority, any mistake
would be mine, and I should be bound to acknowledge it. As I did not, I
have nothing to admit. I have every respect for your and Mr. --'s
authority as Hebraists, but I have noticed that Hebrew scholars are apt
to hold very divergent views, and before admitting either your or Mr.
--'s interpretation, I should like to see the question fully discussed.

If, when the discussion is concluded, the balance of authority is
against the revised version, I will carefully consider how far the
needful alterations may affect the substance of the one passage in my
reply to Mr. Gladstone which is affected by it.

At present I am by no means clear that it will make much difference,
and in no case will the main lines of my argument as to the antagonism
between modern science and the Pentateuch be affected. The statements I
have made are public property. If you think they are in any way
erroneous I must ask you to take upon yourself the same amount of
responsibility as I have done, and submit your objections to the same
ordeal.

There is nothing like this test for reducing things to their true
proportions, and if you try it, you will probably discover, not without
some discomfort, that you really had no reason to ascribe wilful
blindness to those who do not agree with you.

[He was now preparing to complete his campaign of the spring on
technical education by delivering an address to the Technical Education
Association at Manchester on November 29, and looked forward to
attending the anniversary meeting of the Royal Society on his way home
next day, and seeing the Copley medal conferred upon his old friend,
Sir J. Hooker. However, unexpected trouble befell him. First he was
much alarmed about his wife, who had been ill more or less ever since
leaving Arolla. Happily it turned out that there was nothing worse than
could be set right by a slight operation. But nothing had been done
when news came of the sudden death of his second daughter on November
19.] "I have no heart for anything just now," [he writes; nevertheless,
he forced himself to fulfil this important engagement at Manchester,
and in the end the necessity of bracing himself for the undertaking
acted on him as a tonic.

It is a trifle, perhaps, but a trifle significant of the disturbance of
mind that could override so firmly fixed a habit, that the two first
letters he wrote after receiving the news are undated; almost the only
omission of the sort I have found in all his letters of the last
twenty-five years of his life.

His daughter's long illness had left him without hope for months past,
but this, as he confessed, did not mend matters much. In his letters to
his two most intimate friends, he recalls her brilliant promise, her
happy marriage, her] "faculty for art, which some of the best artists
have told me amounted to genius." [But he was naturally reticent in
these matters, and would hardly write of his own griefs unbidden even
to old friends.]

85 Marina, St. Leonards, November 21, 1887.

My dear Spencer,

You will not have forgotten my bright girl Marian, who married so
happily and with such bright prospects half a dozen years ago?

Well, she died three days ago of a sudden attack of pneumonia, which
carried her off almost without warning. And I cannot convey to you a
sense of the terrible sufferings of the last three years better than by
saying that I, her father, who loved her well, am glad that the end has
come thus...

My poor wife is well nigh crushed by the blow. For though I had lost
hope, it was not in the nature of things that she should.

Don't answer this--I have half a mind to tear it up--for when one is in
a pool of trouble there is no sort of good in splashing other people.

Ever yours,

T.H. Huxley.

[As for his plans, he writes to Sir J. Hooker on November 21:--]

I had set my heart on seeing you get the Copley on the 30th. In fact, I
made the Manchester people, to whom I had made a promise to go down and
address the Technical Education Association, change their day to the
29th for that reason.

I cannot leave them in the lurch after stirring up the business in the
way I have done, and I must go and give my address. But I must get back
to my poor wife as fast as I can, and I cannot face any more publicity
than that which it would be cowardly to shirk just now. So I shall not
be at the Society except in the spirit.

Ever yours,

T.H. Huxley.

[And again to Sir M. Foster:--]

You cannot be more sorry than I am that I am going to Manchester, but I
am not proud of chalking up "no popery" and running away--for all
Evans' and your chaff--and, having done a good deal to stir up the
Technical Education business and the formation of the Association, I
cannot leave them in the lurch when they urgently ask for my services...

The Delta business must wait till after the 30th. I have no heart for
anything just now.

[The letters following were written in answer to letters of sympathy.]

85 Marina, St. Leonards, November 25, 1887.

My dear Mr. Clodd,

Let me thank you on my wife's behalf and my own for your very kind and
sympathetic letter.

My poor child's death is the end of more than three years of suffering
on her part, and deep anxiety on ours. I suppose we ought to rejoice
that the end has come, on the whole, so mercifully. But I find that
even I, who knew better, hoped against hope, and my poor wife, who was
unfortunately already very ill, is quite heart-broken. Otherwise, she
would have replied herself to your very kind letter.

She has never yet learned the art of sparing herself, and I find it
hard work to teach her.

Ever yours very faithfully,

T.H. Huxley.

[In the same strain he writes to Dr. Dyster:--]

Rationally we must admit that it is best so. But then, whatever
Linnaeus may say, man is not a rational animal--especially in his
parental capacity.

85, Marina, St. Leonards, November 25, 1887.

My dear Knowles,

I really must thank you very heartily for your letter. It went to our
hearts and did us good, and I know you will like to learn that you have
helped us in this grievous time.

My wife is better, but fit for very little; and I do not let her write
a letter even, if I can help it. But it is a great deal harder to keep
her from doing what she thinks her duty than to get most other people
to do what plainly is their duty.

With our kindest love and thanks to all of you.

Ever, my dear Knowles, yours very faithfully,

T.H. Huxley.

Yes, you are quite right about "loyal." I love my friends and hate my
enemies, which may not be in accordance with the Gospel, but I have
found it a good wearing creed for honest men.

[The "Address on behalf of the National Association for the Promotion
of Technical Education," first published in the ensuing number of
"Science and Art," and reprinted in "Collected Essays," 3 427-451, was
duly delivered in Manchester, and produced a considerable effect.

He writes to Sir M. Foster, December 1:--]

I am glad I resisted the strong temptation to shirk the business.
Manchester has gone solid for technical education, and if the idiotic
London papers, instead of giving half a dozen lines of my speech, had
mentioned the solid contributions to the work announced at the meeting,
they would have enabled you to understand its importance.

...I have the satisfaction of having got through a hard bit of work,
and am none the worse physically--rather the better for having to pull
myself together.

[And to Sir J. Hooker:--]

85 Marina, St. Leonards, December 4, 1887.

My dear Hooker,

x = 8, 6.30. I meant to have written to ask you all to put off the x
till next Thursday, when I could attend, but I have been so bedevilled
I forgot it. I shall ask for a bill of indemnity.

I was rather used up yesterday, but am picking up. In fact my
Manchester journey convinced me that there was more stuff left than I
thought for. I travelled 400 miles, and made a speech of fifty minutes
in a hot, crowded room, all in about twelve hours, and was none the
worse. Manchester, Liverpool, and Newcastle have now gone in for
technical education on a grand scale, and the work is practically done.
Nunc dimittis!

I hear great things of your speech at the dinner. I wish I could have
been there to hear it...

[Of the two following letters, one refers to the account of Sir J.D.
Hooker's work in connection with the award of the Copley medal; the
other, to Hooker himself, touches a botanical problem in which Huxley
was interested.]

St. Leonards, November 25, 1887.

My dear Foster,

...I forget whether in the notice of Hooker's work you showed me there
was any allusion made to that remarkable account of the Diatoms in
Antarctic ice, to which I once drew special attention, but Heaven knows
where?

Dyer perhaps may recollect all about the account in the "Flora
Antarctica," if I mistake not. I have always looked upon Hooker's
insight into the importance of these things and their skeletons as a
remarkable piece of inquiry--anticipative of subsequent deep sea work.

Best thanks for taking so much trouble about H--. Pray tell him if ever
you write that I have not answered his letter only because I awaited
your reply. He may think my silence uncivil...

Ever yours,

T.H. Huxley.

To Sir J.D. Hooker.

4 Marlborough Place, December 29, 1887.

Where is the fullest information about distribution of Coniferae? Of
course I have looked at "Genera Plantarum" and De Candolle.

I have been trying to make out whether structure or climate or
paleontology throw any light on their distribution--and am drawing
complete blank. Why the deuce are there no Conifers but Podocarpus and
Widringtonias in all Africa south of the Sahara? And why the double
deuce are about three-quarters of the genera huddled together in Japan
and northern China?

I am puzzling over this group because the paleontological record is
comparatively so good.

I am beginning to suspect that present distribution is an affair rather
of denudation than migration.

Sequoia! Taxodium! Widringtonia! Araucaria! all in Europe, in Mesozoic
and Tertiary.

[The following letters to Mr. Herbert Spencer were written as sets of
proofs of his Autobiography arrived. That to Sir J. Skelton was to
thank him for his book on "Maitland of Lethington," the Scotch
statesman of the time of Queen Mary.]

January 18, 1887.

[The first part of this letter is given above.]

My dear Spencer,

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...

I am immensely tickled with your review of your own book. That is
something most originally Spencerian. I have hardly any suggestions to
make, except in what you say about the "Rattlesnake" work and my
position on board.

Her proper business was the survey of the so-called "inner passage"
between the Barrier Reef and the east coast of Australia; the New
Guinea work was a hors d'oeuvre, and dealt with only a small part of
the southern coast.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33