Providence has, I believe, specially devolved on Gladstone, Gore, and Co. the function of keeping "'ome 'appy" for me.

I really can't give up tormenting ces droles.

However, I have been toiling at a tremendously scientific article about the "Aryan question" absolutely devoid of blasphemy.

[This article appeared in the November number of the "Nineteenth Century" ("Collected Essays" 7 271) and treats the question from a biological point of view, with the warning to readers that it is essentially a speculation based upon facts, but not a.s.suredly proved.

It starts from the racial characteristics of skull and stature, not from simply philological considerations, and arrives at a form of the "Sarmatian" theory of Aryan origins. And for fear lest he should be supposed to take sides in the question of race and language, or race and civilisation, he remarks:--]

The combination of swarthiness with stature above the average and a long skull, confer upon me the serene impartiality of a mongrel.

The Grand Hotel, Eastbourne, August 12, 1890.

My dear Evans,

I have read your address returned herewith with a great deal of interest, as I happen to have been amusing myself lately with reviewing the "Aryan" question according to the new lights (or darknesses).

I have only two or three remarks to offer on the places I have marked A and B.

As to A, I would not state the case so strongly against the probabilities of finding pliocene man. A pliocene h.o.m.o skeleton might a.n.a.logically be expected to differ no more from that of modern men than the Oeningen Canis from modern Canes, or pliocene horses from modern horses. If so, he would most undoubtedly be a man--genus h.o.m.o--even if you made him a distinct species. For my part I should by no means be astonished to find the genus h.o.m.o represented in the Miocene, say the Neanderthal man with rather smaller brain capacity, longer arms and more movable great toe, but at most specifically different.

As to B, I rather think there were people who fought the fallacy of language being a test of race before Broca--among them thy servant--who got into considerable hot water on that subject for a lecture on the forefathers and forerunners of the English people, delivered in 1870.

Taylor says that Cuno was the first to insist upon the proposition that race is not co-extensive with language in 1871. That is all stuff. The same thesis had been maintained before I took it up, but I cannot remember by whom. [Cp. letter to Max Muller of June 15, 1865 volume 1.]

Won't you refer to the Blackmore Museum? I was very much struck with it when at Salisbury the other day.

Hope they gave you a better lunch at Gloucester than we did here. We'll treat you better next time in our own den. With the wife's kindest regards.

Ever yours very faithfully,

T.H. Huxley.

[The remark in a preceding letter about "Gladstone, Gore, and Co."

turned out to be prophetic as well as retrospective. Mr. Gladstone published this autumn in "Good Words" his "Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture," containing an attack upon Huxley's position as taken up in their previous controversy of 1889.

The debate now turned upon the story of the Gadarene swine. The question at issue was not, at first sight, one of vital importance, and one critic at least remarked that at their age Mr. Gladstone and Professor Huxley might be better occupied than in fighting over the Gadarene pigs:--]

If these too famous swine were the only parties to the suit, I for my part (writes Huxley, "Collected Essays" 5 414) should fully admit the justice of the rebuke. But the real issue (he contends) is whether the men of the nineteenth century are to adopt the demonology of the men of the first century, as divinely revealed truth, or to reject it as degrading falsity.

[A lively encounter followed:--]

The G.O.M. is not murdered [he writes on November 20], only "fillipped with a three-man beetle," as the fat knight has it.

[This refers to the forthcoming article in the December "Nineteenth Century", "The Keepers of the Herd of Swine," which was followed in March 1891 by "Mr. Gladstone's Controversial Methods" (see "Collected Essays" 5 366 sqq.), the rejoinder to Mr. Gladstone's reply in February.

The scope of this controversy was enlarged by the intervention in the January "Nineteenth Century" of the Duke of Argyll, to whom he devoted the concluding paragraphs of his March article. But it was scarcely well under way when another, accompanied by much greater effusion of ink and pa.s.sion, sprang up in the columns of the "Times". His share in it, published in 1891 as a pamphlet under the t.i.tle of "Social Diseases and Worse Remedies," is to be found in "Collected Essays" 9 237.]

I have a new row on hand in re Salvation Army! [he writes on December 2]. It's all Mrs. --'s fault; she offered the money.

[In fact, a lady who was preparing to subscribe 1000 pounds to "General" Booth's "Darkest England" scheme, begged Huxley first to give her his opinion of the scheme and the likelihood of its being properly carried out. A careful examination of "Darkest England" and other authorities on the subject, convinced him that it was most unwise to create an organisation whose absolute obedience to an irresponsible leader might some day become a serious danger to the State; that the reforms proposed were already being undertaken by other bodies, which would be crippled if this scheme were floated; and that the financial arrangements of the Army were not such as provide guarantees for the proper administration of the funds subscribed:--]

And if the thing goes on much longer, if Booth establishes his Bank, you will have a crash some of these fine days, comparable only to Law's Mississippi business, but unfortunately ruining only the poor.

[On the same day he writes to his eldest son:--]

Hodeslea, Eastbourne, December 8, 1890.

Attacking the Salvation Army may look like the advance of a forlorn hope, but this old dog has never yet let go after fixing his teeth into anything or anybody, and he is not going to begin now. And it is only a question of holding on. Look at Plumptre's letter exposing the Bank swindle.

The "Times", too, is behaving like a brick. This world is not a very lovely place, but down at the bottom, as old Carlyle preached, veracity does really lie, and will show itself if people won't be impatient.

[No sooner had he begun to express these opinions in the columns of the "Times" than additional information of all kinds poured in upon him, especially from within the Army, much of it private for fear of injury to the writers if it were discovered that they had written to expose abuses; indeed in one case the writer had thought better of even appending his signature to his letter, and had cut off his name from the foot of it, alleging that correspondence was not inviolable. So far were these persons from feeling hostility to the organisation to which they belonged, that one at least hailed the Professor as the divinely-appointed redeemer of the Army, whose criticism was to bring it back to its pristine purity.

To his elder son:--]

Hodeslea, Eastbourne, January 8, 1891.

Dear Lens,

It is very jolly to think of J. and you paying us a visit. It is proper, also, the eldest son should hansel the house.

Is the Mr. Sidgwick who took up the cudgels for me so gallantly in the "St. James'" one of your Sidgwicks? If so, I wish you would thank him on my account. (The letter was capital.) [Mr. William C. Sidgwick had written (January 4) an indignant letter to protest against the heading of an article in the "Speaker", Professor Huxley as t.i.tus Oates." "To this monster of iniquity the "Speaker" compares an honourable English gentleman, because he has ventured to dissuade his countrymen from giving money to Mr. William Booth...Mr. Huxley's views on theology may be wrong, but n.o.body doubts that he honestly holds them; they do not bring Mr. Huxley wealth and honours, nor do they cause the murder of the innocent. To insinuate a resemblance which you dare not state openly is an outrage on common decency...] Generally people like me to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for them, but don't care to take any share in the burning of the fingers.

But the Boothites are hard hit, and may be allowed to cry out.

I begin to think that they must be right in saying that the Devil is at work to destroy them. No other theory sufficiently accounts for the way they play into my hands. Poor Clibborn-Booth has a long--columns long--letter in the "Times" to-day, in which, all unbeknownst to himself, he proves my case.

I do believe it is a veritable case of the herd of swine, and I shall have to admit the probability of that miracle.

Love to J. and Co. from us all.

Ever your affectionate Pater.

Hodeslea, Eastbourne, January 11, 1891.

My dear Mr. Clodd,

I am very much obliged to you for the number of the "St. James's Gazette", which I had not seen. The leading article expresses exactly the same conclusions as those at which I had myself arrived from the study of the deed of 1878. But of course I was not going to entangle myself in a legal discussion. However, I have reason to know that the question will be dealt with by a highly qualified legal expert before long. The more I see of the operations of headquarters the worse they look. I get some of my most valuable information and heartiest encouragement from officers of the Salvation Army; and I knew, in this way, of Smith's resignation a couple of days before it was announced!

But the poor fellows are so afraid of spies and consequent persecution, that some implore me not to notice their letters, and all pledge me to secrecy. So that I am Vice-Fontanelle with my hand full of truth, while I can only open my little finger.

It is a case of one down and t'other come on, just now. "--" will get his deserts in due time. But, oh dear, what a waste of time for a man who has not much to look to. No; "waste" is the wrong word; it's useful, but I wish that somebody else would do it and leave me to my books.

My wife desires her kind regards. I am happy to say she is now remarkably well. If you are this way, pray look in at our Hermitage.

Yours very faithfully,

T.H. Huxley.

Hodeslea, Eastbourne, January 30, 1891.