[These lectures to working men were published in the "Natural History Review," as was a Friday evening discourse at the Royal Inst.i.tution (February 8) on "The Nature of the Earliest Stages of Development of Animals."
Meanwhile the publication of these researches led to another pitched battle, in which public interest was profoundly engaged. The controversy which raged had some resemblance to a duel over a point of honour and credit. Scientific technicalities became the catchwords of society, and the echoes of the great Hippocampus question linger in the delightful pages of the "Water-Babies." Of this fight Huxley writes to Sir J.
Hooker on April 18, 1861:--]
A controversy between Owen and myself, which I can only call absurd (as there is no doubt whatever about the facts), has been going on in the "Athenaeum," and I wound it up in disgust last week.
[And again on April 27:--]
Owen occupied an entirely untenable position--but I am nevertheless surprised he did not try "abusing plaintiff"s attorney." The fact is he made a prodigious blunder in commencing the attack, and now his only chance is to be silent and let people forget the exposure. I do not believe that in the whole history of science there is a case of any man of reputation getting himself into such a contemptible position. He will be the laughing-stock of all the continental anatomists.
Rolleston has a great deal of Oxford slough to shed, but on that very ground his testimony has been of most especial service. Fancy that man -- telling Maskelyne that Rolleston"s observations were entirely confirmatory of Owen.
[About the same time he writes to his wife:--]
April 16.
People are talking a good deal about the "Man and the Apes" question, and I hear that somebody, I suspect Monckton-Milnes, has set afloat a poetical squib on the subject...
[The squib in question, dated "the Zoological Gardens," and signed "Gorilla," appeared in "Punch" for May 15, 1861, under a picture of that animal, bearing the sign, "Am I a Man and a Brother?"
The concluding verses run as follows:
Next HUXLEY replies That OWEN he lies And garbles his Latin quotation; That his facts are not new, His mistakes not a few, Detrimental to his reputation.
"To twice slay the slain"
By dint of the Brain (Thus Huxley concludes his review), Is but labour in vain, Unproductive of gain, And so I shall bid you "Adieu!"]
Some think my winding-up too strong, but I trust the day will never come when I shall abstain from expressing my contempt for those who prost.i.tute Science to the Service of Error. At any rate I am not old enough for that yet. Darwin came in just now. I get no scoldings for pitching into the common enemy now!!
I would give you fifty guesses [he writes to Hooker on April 30], and you should not find out the author of the "Punch" poem. I saw it in MS.
three weeks ago, and was told the author was a friend of mine. But I remained hopelessly in the dark till yesterday. What do you say to Sir Philip Egerton coming out in that line? I am told he is the author, and the fact speaks volumes for Owen"s perfect success in d.a.m.ning himself.
[In the midst of the fight came a surprising invitation. On April 10 he writes to his wife:--]
They have written to me from the Philosophical Inst.i.tute of Edinburgh to ask me to give two lectures on the "Relation of Man to the Lower Animals" next session. I have replied that if they can give me January 3 and 7 for lecture days I will do it--if not, not. Fancy unco guid Edinburgh requiring illumination on the subject! They know my views, so if they did not like what I have to tell them, it is their own fault.
[These lectures were eventually delivered on January 4 and 7, 1862, and were well reported in the Edinburgh papers. The substance of them appears as Part 2 in "Man"s Place in Nature," the first lecture describing the general nature of the process of development among vertebrate animals, and the modifications of the skeleton in the mammalia; the second dealing with the crucial points of comparison between the higher apes and man, namely the hand, foot, and brain. He showed that the differences between man and the higher apes were no greater than those between the higher and lower apes. If the Darwinian hypothesis explained the common ancestry of the latter, the anatomist would have no difficulty with the origin of man, so far as regards the gap between him and the higher apes.
Yet, though convinced that] "that hypothesis is as near an approximation to the truth as, for example, the Copernican hypothesis was to the true theory of the planetary motions," [he steadfastly refused to be an advocate of the theory,] "if by an advocate is meant one whose business it is to smooth over real difficulties, and to persuade when he cannot convince."
[In common fairness he warned his audience of the one missing link in the chain of evidence--the fact that selective breeding has not yet produced species sterile to one another. But it is to be adopted as a working hypothesis like other scientific generalisations,] "subject to the production of proof that physiological species may be produced by selective breeding; just as a physical philosopher may accept the undulatory theory of light, subject to the proof of the existence of the hypothetical ether; or as the chemist adopts the atomic theory, subject to the proof of the existence of atoms; and for exactly the same reasons, namely, that it has an immense amount of prima facie probability; that it is the only means at present within reach of reducing the chaos of observed facts to order; and lastly, that it is the most powerful instrument of investigation which has been presented to naturalists since the invention of the natural system of cla.s.sification, and the commencement of the systematic study of embryology."
[As for the repugnance of most men to admitting kinship with the apes,]
"thoughtful men," [he says,] once escaped from the blinding influences of traditional prejudices, will find in the lowly stock whence man has sprung the best evidence of the splendour of his capacities; and will discern, in his long progress through the past, a reasonable ground of faith in his attainment of a n.o.bler future."
[A simile, with which he enforced this elevating point of view, which has since eased the pa.s.sage of many minds to the acceptance of evolution, seems to have been much appreciated by his audience. It was a comparison of man to the Alps, which turn out to be] "of one substance with the dullest clay, but raised by inward forces to that place of proud and seemingly inaccessible glory."
[The lectures were met at first with astonishing quiet, but it was not long before the stones began to fly. The "Witness" of January 11 lashed itself into a fury over the fact that the audience applauded this "anti-scriptural and most debasing theory...standing in blasphemous contradiction to biblical narrative and doctrine," instead of expressing their resentment at this "foul outrage committed upon them individually, and upon the whole species as "made in the likeness of G.o.d,"" by deserting the hall in a body, or using some more emphatic form of protest against the corruption of youth by "the vilest and beastliest paradox ever vented in ancient or modern times amongst Pagans or Christians." In his finest vein of sarcasm, the writer expresses his surprise that the meeting did not instantly resolve itself into a "Gorilla Emanc.i.p.ation Society," or propose to hear a lecture from an apostle of Mormonism; "even this would be a less offensive, mischievous, and inexcusable exhibition than was made in the recent two lectures by Professor Huxley," etc.]
Jermyn Street, January 13, 1862.
My dear Darwin,
In the first place a new year"s greeting to you and yours. In the next, I enclose this slip (please return it when you have read it) to show you what I have been doing in the north.
Everybody prophesied I should be stoned and cast out of the city gate, but, on the contrary, I met with unmitigated applause!! Three cheers for the progress of liberal opinion!!
The report is as good as any, but they have not put quite rightly what I said about your views, respecting which I took my old line about the infertility difficulty.
Furthermore, they have not reported my statement that whether you were right or wrong, some form of the progressive development theory is certainly true. Nor have they reported here my distinct statement that I believe man and the apes to have come from one stock.
Having got thus far, I find the lecture better reported in the "Courant," so I send you that instead.
I mean to publish the lecture in full by and by (about the time the orchids come out).
Ever yours faithfully,
T.H. Huxley.
I deserved the greatest credit for not having made an onslaught on Brewster for his foolish impertinence about your views in "Good Words,"
but declined to stir nationality, which you know (in him) is rather more than his Bible.
Jermyn Street, January 16, 1862.
My dear Hooker,
I wonder if we are ever to meet again in this world! At any rate I send to the remote province of Kew, Greeting, and my best wishes for the new year to you and yours. I also inclose a slip from an Edinburgh paper containing a report of my lecture on the "Relation of Man," etc. As you will see, I went in for the entire animal more strongly, in fact, than they have reported me. I told them in so many words that I entertained no doubt of the origin of man from the same stock as the apes.
And to my great delight, in saintly Edinburgh itself the announcement met with nothing but applause. For myself I can"t say that the praise or blame of my audience was much matter, but it is a grand indication of the general disintegration of old prejudices which is going on.
I shall see if I cannot make something more of the lectures by delivering them again in London, and then I shall publish them.
The report does not put nearly strongly enough what I said in favour of Darwin"s views. I affirmed it to be the only scientific hypothesis of the origin of species in existence, and expressed my belief that one gap in the evidence would be filled up, as I always do.
Ever yours faithfully,
T.H. Huxley.
Jermyn Street, January 20, 1862.
My dear Darwin,
The inclosed article, which has been followed up by another more violent, more scurrilously personal, and more foolish, will prove to you that my labour has not been in vain, and that your views and mine are likely to be better ventilated in Scotland than they have been.
I was quite uneasy at getting no attack from the "Witness," thinking I must have overestimated the impression that I had made, and the favourableness of the reception of what I said. But the raving of the "Witness" is clear testimony that my notion was correct.
I shall send a short reply to the "Scotsman" for the purpose of further advertising the question.