4. The Fall of Israel.

5. The Rise and Progress of Judaism. Theocracy.

6. The Final Dispersion.

7. Prophetism.

8. Nazarenism.

9. Christianity.

10. Muhammedanism.

11 and 12. The Mythologies.

Although this scheme was never carried out, yet it was constantly before Huxley's mind during the two years left to him. If Death, who had come so near eight years before, would go on seeming to forget him, he meant to use these last days of his life in an effort to illuminate one more portion of the field of knowledge for the world at large.

As the physical strain of the Romanes Lecture and his liability to loss of voice warned him against any future attempt to deliver a course of lectures, he altered his design and prepared to put the substance of these Lectures to Working-Men into a Bible History for young people.

And indeed, he had got so far with his preparation, that the latter heading was down in his list of work for the last year of his life, 1895. But nothing of it was ever written. Until the work was actually begun, even the framework upon which it was to be shaped remained in his mind, and the copious marks in his books of reference were the mere guide-posts to a strong memory, which retained not words and phrases, but salient facts and the knowledge of where to find them again.

I find only two occasions on which he wrote to the "Times" this year; one, when the crusade was begun to capture the Board Schools of London for sectarianism, and it was suggested that, when on the first School Board, he had approved of some such definite dogmatic teaching. This he set right at once in the following letter of April 28, with which may be compared the letter to Lord Farrer of November 6, 1894:--]

In a leading article of your issue to-day you state, with perfect accuracy, that I supported the arrangement respecting religious instruction agreed to by the London School Board in 1871, and hitherto undisturbed. But you go on to say that "the persons who framed the rule" intended it to include definite teaching of such theological dogmas as the Incarnation.

I cannot say what may have been in the minds of the framers of the rule; but, a.s.suredly, if I had dreamed that any such interpretation could fairly be put upon it, I should have opposed the arrangement to the best of my ability.

In fact, a year before the rule was framed I wrote an article in the "Contemporary Review", ent.i.tled "The Board Schools--what they can do, and what they may do," in which I argued that the terms of the Education Act excluded such teaching as it is now proposed to include.

And I supported my contention by the following citation from a speech delivered by Mr. Forster at the Birkbeck Inst.i.tution in 1870:--

"I have the fullest confidence that in the reading and explaining of the Bible, what the children will be taught will be the great truths of Christian life and conduct, which all of us desire they should know, and that no effort will be made to cram into their poor little minds, theological dogmas which their tender age prevents them from understanding."

[The other was on a lighter, but equally perennial point of interest, being nothing less than the Sea Serpent. In the "Times" of January 11, he writes, that while there is no reason against a fifty-foot serpent existing as in Cretaceous seas, still the evidence for its existence is entirely inconclusive. He goes on to tell how a scientific friend's statement once almost convinced him until he read the quartermaster's deposition, which was supposed to corroborate it. The details made the circ.u.mstances alleged by the former impossible, and on pointing this out, he heard no more of the story, which was a good example of the mixing up of observations with conclusions drawn from them.

And on the following day he replies to another such detailed story:--]

Admiral Mellersh says, "I saw a huge snake, at least 18 feet long," and I have no doubt he believes he is simply stating a matter of fact. Yet his a.s.sertion involves a hypothesis of the truth of which I venture to be exceedingly doubtful. How does he know that what he saw was a snake?

The neighbourhood of a creature of this kind, within axe-stroke, is hardly conducive to calm scientific investigation, and I can answer for it that the discrimination of genuine sea-snakes in their native element from long-bodied fish is not always easy. Further, that "back fin" troubles me; looks, if I may say so, very fishy.

If the caution about mixing up observations with conclusions, which I ventured to give yesterday, were better attended to, I think we should hear very little either about antiquated sea-serpents or new "mesmerism."

[It is perhaps not superfluous to point out that in this, as in other cases of the marvellous, he did not merely pooh-pooh a story on the ground of its antecedent improbability, but rested his acceptance or rejection of it upon the strength of the evidence adduced. On the other hand, the weakness of such evidence as was brought forward time after time, was a justification for refusing to spend his time in listening to similar stories based on similar testimony.

Among the many journalistic absurdities which fall in the way of celebrities, two which happened this year are worth recording; the one on account of its intrinsic extravagance, which succeeded nevertheless in taking in quite a number of sober folk; the other on account of the letter it drew from Huxley about his cat. The former appeared in the shape of a highly-spiced advertis.e.m.e.nt about certain Manx Mannikins, which could walk, draw, play, in fact do everything but speak--were living pets which might be kept by any one, and indeed Professor Huxley was the possessor of a remarkably fine pair of them. Apply, enclosing stamps etc. Of course, the wonderful mannikins were nothing more than the pair of hands which anybody could dress up according to the instructions of the advertiser; but it was astonishing how many estimable persons took them for some lusus naturae. A similar advertis.e.m.e.nt in 1880 had been equally successful, and one exalted personage wrote by the hand of a secretary to say what pleasure and interest had been excited by the description of these strange creatures, and begging Professor Huxley to state if the account was true. Accordingly on January 27 he writes to his wife, who was on a visit to her daughter:--]

Yesterday two ladies called to know if they could see the Manx Mannikins. I think of having a board put up to say that in the absence of the Proprietress the show is closed.

[The other incident was a request for any remarks which might be of use in an article upon the Home Pets of Celebrities. I give the letter written in answer to this, as well as descriptions of the same cat's goings-on in the absence of its mistress.]

To Mr. J.G. Kitton.

Hodeslea, April 12, 1893.

A long series of cats has reigned over my household for the last forty years, or thereabouts, but I am sorry to say that I have no pictorial or other record of their physical and moral excellences.

The present occupant of the throne is a large, young, grey Tabby--Oliver by name. Not that he is in any sense a protector, for I doubt whether he has the heart to kill a mouse. However, I saw him catch and eat the first b.u.t.terfly of the season, and trust that this germ of courage, thus manifested, may develop with age into efficient mousing.

As to sagacity, I should say that his judgment respecting the warmest place and the softest cushion in a room is infallible--his punctuality at meal times is admirable; and his pertinacity in jumping on people's shoulders, till they give him some of the best of what is going, indicates great firmness.

[To his youngest daughter:--]

Hodeslea Eastbourne, January 8, 1893.

I wish you would write seriously to M--. She is not behaving well to Oliver. I have seen handsomer kittens, but few more lively, and energetically destructive. Just now he scratched away at something that M-- says cost 13 shillings 6 pence a yard--and reduced more or less of it to combings.

M-- therefore excludes him from the dining-room, and all those opportunities of higher education which he would naturally have in MY house.

I have argued that it is as immoral to place 13 shillings 6 pence a yard-nesses within reach of kittens as to hang bracelets and diamond rings in the front garden. But in vain. Oliver is banished--and the protector (not Oliver) is sat upon.

In truth and justice aid your Pa.

[This letter is embellished with fancy portraits of:--]

Oliver when most quiescent (tail up; ready for action).

O. as polisher (tearing at the table leg).

O. as plate basket investigator.

O. as gardener (destroying plants in a pot).

O. as stocking knitter (a wild tangle of cat and wool).

O. as political economist making good for trade at 13 shillings 6 pence a yard (pulling at a ha.s.sock).

[The following to Sir John Evans refers to a piece of temporary forgetfulness.]

Hodeslea, Eastbourne, March 19, 1893.

My dear Evans,

It is curious what a difference there is between intentions and acts, especially in the matter of sending cheques. The moment I saw the project of the Lawes and Gilbert testimonial in the "Times", I sent my contribution in imagination--and it is only the arrival of this circular which has waked me up to the necessity of supplementing my ideal cheque by the real one inclosed.

Ever yours very faithfully,

T.H. Huxley.

[Reference has been made to the writing of the Romanes Lecture in 1892.

Mr. Gladstone had already consented to deliver the first lecture in that year; and early in the summer Professor Romanes sounded Huxley to find out whether he would undertake the second lecture for 1893. Huxley suggested a possible bar in his precarious health; but subject to this possibility, if the Vice-Chancellor did not regard it as a complete disability, was willing to accept a formal invitation.

Professor Romanes rea.s.sured him upon this point, and further begged him, if possible, to be ready to step into the breach if Mr. Gladstone should be prevented from lecturing in the following autumn. The situation became irresistible, and the second of the following letters to Mr. Romanes displays no more hesitation.]

To Professor Romanes.

Hodeslea, June 3, 1892.