Thomas Henry Huxley, vol 3 | Page 6

pursuits, in which Huxley found the only difference
between scientific men and any other class of the community.

But it was not merely this misrepresentation of science on its
speculative side which Huxley deplored; he was roused to indignation
by an attack on its morality. The preacher reiterated the charge brought
forward in the "Great Lesson," that Dr. Murray's theory of coral reefs
had been actually suppressed for two years, and that by the advice of
those who accepted it, for fear of upsetting the infallibility of the great
master.
Hereupon he turned in downright earnest upon the originator of the
assertion, who, he considered, had no more than the amateur's
knowledge of the subject. A plain statement of the facts was refutation
enough. The new theories, he pointed out, had been widely discussed;
they had been adopted by some geologists, although Darwin himself
had not been converted, and after careful and prolonged re-examination
of the question, Professor Dana, the greatest living authority on coral
reefs, had rejected them. As Professor Judd said, "If this be a
'conspiracy of silence,' where, alas! can the geological speculator seek
for fame?" Any warning not to publish in haste was but advice to a still
unknown man not to attack a seemingly well-established theory
without making sure of his ground. (Letter in "Nature.")
As for the Bathybius myth, Huxley pointed out that his announcement
of the discovery had been simply a statement of the actual facts, and
that so far from seeing in it a confirmation of Darwinian hypotheses, he
was careful to warn his readers] "to keep the questions of fact and the
questions of interpretation well apart." "That which interested me in the
matter," he says, "was the apparent analogy of Bathybius with other
well-known forms of lower life,"..."if Bathybius were brought up alive
from the bottom of the Atlantic to-morrow, the fact would not have the
slightest bearing, that I can discern, upon Mr. Darwin's speculations, or
upon any of the disputed problems of biology." [And as for his] "eating
the leek" [afterwards, his ironical account of it is an instance of how the
adoption of a plain, straightforward course can be described without
egotism.]
The most considerable difference I note among men [he concludes] is
not in their readiness to fall into error, but in their readiness to
acknowledge these inevitable lapses.
[As the Duke in a subsequent article did not unequivocally withdraw
his statements, Huxley declined to continue public controversy with

him.
Three years later, writing (October 10, 1890) to Sir J. Donnelly apropos
of an article by Mr. Mallock in the "Nineteenth Century," which made
use of the "Bathybius myth," he says:--]
Bathybius is far too convenient a stick to beat this dog with to be ever
given up, however many lies may be needful to make the weapon
effectual.
I told the whole story in my reply to the Duke of Argyll, but of course
the pack give tongue just as loudly as ever. Clerically-minded people
cannot be accurate, even the liberals.
[I give here the letter sent to the "unknown correspondent" in question,
who had called his attention to the fourth of these sermons.]
4 Marlborough Place, September 30, 1887.
I have but just returned to England after two months' absence, and in
the course of clearing off a vast accumulation of letters, I have come
upon yours.
The Duke of Argyll has been making capital out of the same
circumstances as those referred to by the Bishop. I believe that the
interpretation put upon the facts by both is wholly misleading and
erroneous.
It is quite preposterous to suppose that the men of science of this or any
other country have the slightest disposition to support any view which
may have been enunciated by one of their colleagues, however
distinguished, if good grounds are shown for believing it to be
erroneous.
When Mr. Murray arrived at his conclusions I have no doubt he was
advised to make his ground sure before he attacked a generalisation
which appeared so well founded as that of Mr. Darwin respecting coral
reefs.
If he had consulted me I should have given him that advice myself, for
his own sake. And whoever advised him, in that sense, in my opinion
did wisely.
But the theologians cannot get it out of their heads, that as they have
creeds, to which they must stick at all hazards, so have the men of
science. There is no more ridiculous delusion. We, at any rate, hold
ourselves morally bound to "try all things and hold fast to that which is
good"; and among public benefactors, we reckon him who explodes old

error, as next in rank to him who discovers new truth.
You are at liberty to make any use you please of this letter.
[Two