Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley Volume II Part 40

Ever yours very faithfully,

T.H. Huxley.

[The ecclesiastical sound of his new t.i.tle of Dean of the College of Science afforded him a good deal of amus.e.m.e.nt. He writes from Grasmere, where he had joined his family for the summer vacation:--]

August 18, 1881.

My dear Donnelly,

I am astonished that you don't known that a letter to a Dean ought to be addressed "The Very Reverend." I don't generally stand much upon etiquette, but when my sacred character is touched I draw the line.

We had athletics here yesterday, and as it was a lovely day, all c.u.mberland and Westmoreland sent contingents to see the fun...

This would be a grand place if it were drier, but the rain it raineth every day--yesterday being the only really fine day since our arrival.

However, we all thrive, so I suppose we are adapting ourselves to the medium, and shall be scaly and finny before long.

Haven't you done with Babylon yet? It is high time you were out of it.

Ever yours very faithfully,

T.H. Huxley.

CHAPTER 2.13.

1882.

[The year 1882 was a dark year for English science. It was marked by the death of both Charles Darwin and of Francis Balfour, the young investigator, of whom Huxley once said,] "He is the only man who can carry out my work." [The one was the inevitable end of a great career, in the fulness of time; the other was one of those losses which are the more deplorable as they seem unnecessary, the result of a chance slip, in all the vigour of youth. I remember his coming to our house just before setting out on his fatal visit to Switzerland, and my mother begging him to be careful about risking so valuable a life as his in dangerous ascents. He laughingly replied that he only wanted to conquer one little peak on Montblanc. A few days later came the news of his fatal fall upon the precipices of the Aiguille Blanche. Since the death of Edward Forbes, no loss outside the circle of his family had affected my father so deeply. For three days he was utterly prostrated, and was scarcely able either to eat or sleep.

There was indeed a subtle affinity between the two men. My mother, who was greatly attached to Francis Balfour, said once to Sir M. Foster, "He has not got the dash and verve, but otherwise he reminds me curiously of what my husband was in his 'Rattlesnake' days." "How strange," replied Sir Michael, "when he first came to the front, Lankester wrote asking me, 'Who is this man Balfour you are always talking about?' and I answered, 'Well, I can only describe him by saying he is a younger Huxley.'"

Writing to Dr. Dohrn on September 24, Huxley says:--]

Heavy blows have fallen upon me this year in losing Darwin and Balfour, the best of the old and the best of the young. I am beginning to feel older than my age myself, and if Balfour had lived I should have cleared out of the way as soon as possible, feeling that the future of Zoological Science in this country was very safe in his hands. As it is, I am afraid I may still be of use for some years, and shall be unable to sing my "Nunc dimittis" with a good conscience.]

Darwin was in correspondence with him till quite near the end; having received the volume "Science and Culture," he wrote on January 12, 1882:--

With respect to automatism (The allusion is to the 1874 address on "Animals as Automata," which was reprinted in "Science and Culture."), I wish that you could review yourself in the old, and, of course, forgotten, trenchant style, and then you would have to answer yourself with equal incisiveness; and thus, by Jove, you might go on ad infinitum to the joy and instruction of the world.

And again on March 27:--

Your most kind letter has been a real cordial to me...once again accept my cordial thanks, my dear old friend. I wish to G.o.d there were more automata in the world like you.

Darwin died on April 19, and a brief notice being required for the forthcoming number of "Nature" on the 27th, Huxley made shift to write a brief article, which is printed in the "Collected Essays" 2 page 244. But as neither he nor Sir Joseph Hooker could at the moment undertake a regular obituary notice, this was entrusted to Professor Romanes, to whom the following letters were written.]

4 Marlborough Place, April 26, 1882.

My dear Romanes,

Thank you for your hearty letter. I spent many hours over the few paragraphs I sent to "Nature," in trying to express what all who thoroughly knew and therefore loved Darwin, must feel in language which should be absolutely free from rhetoric or exaggeration.

I have done my best, and the sad thing is that I cannot look for those cheery notes he used to send me in old times, when I had written anything that pleased him.

In case we should miss one another to-day, let me say that it is impossible for me to undertake the obituary in "Nature." I have a conglomeration of business of various kinds upon my hands just now. I am sure it will be very safe in your hands.

Ever yours very faithfully,

T.H. Huxley.

Pray do what you will with what I have written in "Nature."

4 Marlborough Place, May 9, 1882.

My dear Romanes,

I feel it very difficult to offer any useful criticism on what you have written about Darwin, because, although it does not quite please me, I cannot exactly say how I think it might be improved. My own way is to write and rewrite things, until by some sort of instinctive process they acquire the condensation and symmetry which satisfies me.

And I really could not say how my original drafts are improved until they somehow improve themselves.

Two things however strike me. I think there is too much of the letter about Henslow. I should be disposed to quote only the most characteristic pa.s.sages.

The other point is that I think strength would be given to your panegyric by a little pruning here and there.

I am not likely to take a low view of Darwin's position in the history of science, but I am disposed to think that Buffon and Lamarck would run him hard in both genius and fertility. In breadth of view and in extent of knowledge these two men were giants, though we are apt to forget their services. Von Baer was another man of the same stamp; Cuvier, in a somewhat lower rank, another; and J. Muller another.

"Colossal" does not seem to me to be the right epithet for Darwin's intellect. He had a clear rapid intelligence, a great memory, a vivid imagination, and what made his greatness was the strict subordination of all these to his love of truth.

But you will be tired of my carping, and you had much better write what seems right and just to yourself.

Ever yours very faithfully,

T.H. Huxley.

[Two scientific papers published this year were on subjects connected with his work on the fisheries, one "A Contribution to the Pathology of the Epidemic known as the 'Salmon Disease'" read before the Royal Society on the occasion of the Prince of Wales being admitted a Fellow (February 21; "Proceedings of the Royal Society" 33 pages 381-389); the other on "Saprolegnia in relation to the Salmon Disease"

("Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science" 22 pages 311-333). A third, at the Zoological Society, was on the "Respiratory Organs of Apteryx" ("Proceedings of the Zoological Society" 1882 pages 560-569).

He delivered an address before the Liverpool Inst.i.tution on "Science and Art in Relation to Education" ("Collected Essays" 3 page 160), and was busy with the Medical Acts Commission, which reported this year.

The aim of this Commission was to level up the varying qualifications bestowed by nearly a score of different licensing bodies in the United Kingdom, and to establish some central control by the State over the licensing of medical pract.i.tioners. (For a fuller account of this Commission and the part played in it by Huxley, see his "State and Medical Education" ("Collected Essays" 3 323) published 1884.)

The report recommended the establishment of Boards in each division of the United Kingdom containing representatives of all the medical bodies in the division. These boards would register students, and admit to a final examination those who had pa.s.sed the preliminary and minor examinations at the various universities and other bodies already granting degrees and qualifications. Candidates who pa.s.sed this final examination would be licensed by the General Medical Council, a body to be elected no longer by the separate bodies interested in medical education, but by the Divisional Boards.

The report rejected a scheme for joint examination by the existing bodies, a.s.sisted by outside examiners appointed by a central authority, on the ground of difficulty and expense, as well as one for a separate State examination. It also provided for compensation from the fees to be paid by the candidates to existing bodies whose revenues might suffer from the new scheme.

To this majority report, six of the eleven Commissioners appended separate reports, suggesting other methods for carrying out the desired end. Among the latter was Huxley, who gave his reasons for dissenting from the principle a.s.sumed by his colleagues, though he had signed the main report as embodying the best means of carrying out a reform, that principle being granted.]

"The State examination" [he thought,] "was ideally best, but for many reasons impossible." [But the] "conjoint scheme" [recommended in the report appeared to punish the efficient medical authorities for the abuses of the inefficient. Moreover, if the examiners of the Divisional Board did not affiliate themselves to any medical authority, the compensation to be provided would be very heavy; if they did,] "either they will affiliate without further examination, which will give them the pretence of a further qualification, without any corresponding reality, or they will affiliate in examination, in which case the new examination deprecated by the general voice of the profession will be added, and any real difference between the plan proposed and the 'State examination' scheme will vanish."

[The compensation proposed too, would chiefly fall to the discredited bodies, who had neglected their duties.]