Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley — Volume 1

by Thomas Henry Huxley

CHAPTER 1.10.

1855-1858.

Up to his appointment at the School of Mines, Huxley's work had been almost entirely morphological, dealing with the Invertebrates. His first investigations, moreover, had been directed not to species-hunting, but to working out the real affinities of little known orders, and thereby evolving a philosophical classification from the limbo of "Vermes" and "Radiata."

He had continued the same work by tracing homologies of development in other classes of animals, such as the Cephalous Mollusca, the Articulata, and the Brachiopods. On these subjects, also, he had a good deal of correspondence with other investigators of the same cast of mind, and even when he did not carry conviction, the impression made by his arguments may be judged from the words of Dr. Allman, no mean authority, in a letter of May 2, 1852:—]

I have thought over your arguments again and again, and while I am the more convinced of their ingenuity, originality, and STRENGTH, I yet feel ashamed to confess that I too must exclaim "tenax propositi." When was it otherwise in controversy?

[Other speculations arising out of these researches had been given to the public in the form of lectures, notably that on Animal Individuality at the Royal Institution in 1852.

But after 1854, Paleontology and administrative work began to claim much of the time he would willingly have bestowed upon distinctly zoological research. His lectures on Natural History of course demanded a good deal of first-hand investigation, and not only occasional notes in his fragmentary journals, but a vast mass of drawings now preserved at South Kensington attest the amount of work he still managed to give to these subjects. But with the exception of the Hunterian Lectures of 1868, he only published one paper on Invertebrates as late as 1860; and only half a dozen, not counting the belated "Oceanic Hydrozoa," bear 1856 and 1859. The essay on the Crayfish did not appear until after he had left Jermyn Street and Paleontology for South Kensington.

The "Method of Paleontology," published in 1856, was the first of a long series of papers dealing with fossil creatures, the description of which fell to him as Naturalist to the Geological Survey. By 1860 he had published twelve such papers, and by 1871 twenty-six more, or thirty-eight in sixteen years.

It was a curious irony of fate that led him into this position. He writes in his Autobiography that, when Sir Henry de la Beche, the Director-General of the Geological Survey, offered him the post Forbes vacated of Paleontologist and Lecturer on Natural History,]

I refused the former point blank, and accepted the latter only provisionally, telling Sir Henry that I did not care for fossils, and that I should give up Natural History as soon as I could get a physiological post. But I held the office for thirty-one years, and a large part of my work has been paleontological.

[Yet the diversion was not without great use. A wide knowledge of paleontology offered a key to many problems that were hotly debated in the years of battle following the publication of the "Origin of Species" in 1859, as well as providing fresh subject-matter for the lectures in which he continued to give the lay world the results of his thought.

On the administrative and official side he laid before himself the organisation of the resources of the Museum of Practical Geology as an educational instrument. This involved several years' work in the arrangement of the specimens, so as to illustrate the paleontological lectures, and the writing of "introductions" to each section of the catalogue, which should be a guide to the students. The "Method of Paleontology" mentioned above served as the prefatory essay to the whole catalogue, and was reprinted in 1869 by the Smithsonian Institute of Washington under the title of "Principles and Methods of Paleontology."

This work led to his taking a lively interest in the organisation of museums in general, whether private, such as Sir Philip Egerton's, which he visited in 1856; local, such as Warwick or Chester; or central, such as the British Museum or that at Manchester.

With regard to the British Museum, the question had arisen of removing the Natural History collections from the confined space and dusty surroundings of Great Russell Street. A first memorial on the subject had been signed, not only by many non-scientific persons, but also by a number of botanists, who wished to see the British Museum Herbarium, etc., combined with the more accessible and more complete collections at Kew. Owing apparently to official opposition, the Natural History sub-committee of the British Museum Trustees advised a treatment of the Botanical Department which commended itself to none of the leading botanists. Consequently a number of botanists and zoologists took counsel together and drew up a fresh memorial from the strictly scientific point of view. Huxley and Hooker took an active part in the agitation.] "It is no use," [writes the former to his friend,] "putting any faith in the old buffers, hardened as they are in trespasses and sin." [And again:—]

I see nothing for it but for you and I to constitute ourselves into a permanent "Committee of Public Safety," to watch over what is being done and take measures with the advice of others when necessary…As for — and id genus omne, I have never expected anything but opposition from them. But I don't think it is necessary to trouble one's head about such opposition. It may be annoying and troublesome, but if we are beaten by it we deserve to be. With shall have to wade through oceans of trouble and abuse, but so long as we gain our end, I care not a whistle whether the sweet voices of the scientific mob are with me or against me.

[According to Huxley's views a complete system demanded a triple museum for each subject, Zoology and Botany, since Geology was sufficiently provided for in Jermyn Street—one typical or popular, "in which all prominent forms or types of animals or plants, recent or fossil, should be so displayed as to give the public an idea of the vast extent and variety of natural objects, to diffuse a general knowledge of the results obtained by science in their investigation and classification, and to serve as a general introduction to the student in Natural Science"; the second scientific, "in which collections of all available animals and plants and their parts, whether recent or fossil, and in a sufficient number of specimens, should be disposed conveniently for study, and to which should be exclusively attached an appropriate library, or collection of books and illustrations relating to science, quite independent of any general library"; the third economic, "in which economic products, whether zoological or botanical, with illustrations of the processes by which they are obtained and applied to use, should be so disposed as best to assist the progress of Commerce and the Arts." It demanded further a Zoological and a Botanical Garden, where the living specimens could be studied.

Some of these institutions existed, but were not under state control. Others were already begun—e.g. that of Economic Zoology at South Kensington; but the value of the botanical collections was minimised by want of concentration, while as to zoology "the British Museum contains a magnificent collection of recent and fossil animals, the property of the state, but there is no room for its proper display and no accommodation for its proper study. Its official head reports directly neither to the Government nor to the governing body of the institution…It is true that the people stroll through the enormous collections of the British Museum, but the sole result is that they are dazzled and confused by the multiplicity of unexplained objects, and the man of science is deprived thrice a week of the means of advancing knowledge."

The agitation of 1859-60 bore fruit in due season, and within twenty years the ideal here sketched was to a great extent realised, as any visitor to the Natural History Museum at South Kensington can see for himself.

The same principles are reiterated in his letter of January 25, 1868, to the Commissioners of the Manchester Natural History Society, who had asked his advice as to the erection of a museum. But to the principles he adds a number of most practical suggestions as to the actual structure of the building, which are briefly appended in abstract. The complement to this is a letter of 1872, giving advice as to a local museum at Chester, and one of 1859 describing the ideal catalogue for a geological museum.]

January 25, 1868.

The Commissioners of the Manchester Natural History Society.

SCHEME FOR A MUSEUM.

OBJECTS.

1. The public exhibition of a collection of specimens large enough to illustrate all the most important truths of Natural History, but not so extensive as to weary and confuse ordinary visitors.

2. The accessibility of this collection to the public.

3. The conservation of all specimens not necessary for the purpose defined in Paragraph 1 in a place apart.

4. The accessibility of all objects contained in the museum to the curator and to scientific students, without interference with the public or by the public.

5. Thorough exclusion of dust and dirt from the specimens.

6. A provision of space for workrooms, and, if need be, lecture-rooms.

PRINCIPLE.

A big hall (350 x 40 x 30) with narrower halls on either side, lighted from the top. The central hall for the public, the others for the curators, etc. The walls, of arches upon piers about 15 feet high, bearing on girders a gallery 5 feet wide in the public room, and 3 feet 6 inches in the curators'.

The cases should be larger below, 5 feet deep, and smaller above, 2 feet deep, with glass fronts to the public, and doors on the curators' side.

For very large specimens—e.g. a whale—the case could expand into the curators' part without encroaching on the public part, so as to keep the line of windows regular.

Specimens of the Vertebrata, illustrations of Physical Geography and
Stratigraphical Geology, should be placed below.

The Invertebrata, Botanical and Mineralogical specimens in the galleries.

The partition to be continued above the galleries to the roof, thus excluding all the dust raised by the public.

Space for students should be provided in the curators' rooms.

Storage should be AMPLE.

A museum of this size gives twice as much area for exhibition purposes as that offered by ALL the cases in the present museum.

Athenaeum Club, December 8, 1872.

Dear Sir,

I regret that your letter has but just come into my hands, so that my reply cannot be in time for your meeting, which, I understand you to say, was to be held yesterday.

I have no hesitation whatever in expressing the opinion that, except in the case of large and wealthy towns (and even in their case primarily), a Local Museum should be exactly what its name implies, namely "Local"—illustrating local Geology, local Botany, local Zoology, and local Archaeology.

Such a museum, if residents who are interested in these sciences take proper pains, may be brought to a great degree of perfection and be unique of its kind. It will tell both natives and strangers exactly what they want to know, and possess great scientific interest and importance. Whereas the ordinary lumber-room of clubs from New Zealand, Hindoo idols, sharks' teeth, mangy monkeys, scorpions, and conch shells—who shall describe the weary inutility of it? It is really worse than nothing, because it leads the unwary to look for the objects of science elsewhere than under their noses. What they want to know is that their "America is here," as Wilhelm Meister has it.

Yours faithfully,

T.H. Huxley.

Alfred Walker, Esq., Nant-y-Glyn, Colwyn Bay.

TO THE REVEREND P. BRODIE OF WARWICK.

Jermyn Street, October 14, 1859.

My dear Mr. Brodie,

I am sorry to say that I can as yet send you no catalogue of ours. The remodelling of our museum is only just completed, and only the introductory part of my catalogue is written. When it is printed you shall have an early copy.

If I may make a suggestion I should say that a catalogue of your museum for popular use should commence with a sketch of the topography and stratigraphy of the county, put into the most intelligible language, and illustrated by reference to mineral specimens in the cases, and to the localities where sections showing the superposition of such and such beds is to be seen. After that I think should come a list of the most remarkable and interesting fossils, with reference to the cases where they are to be seen; and under the head of each a brief popular account of the kind of animal or plant which the thing was when alive, its probable habits, and its meaning and importance as a member of the great series of successive forms of life.

Yours very faithfully,

T.H. Huxley.

[The reorganisation of the course of studies at Jermyn Street, fully sketched out in the 1857 notebook, involved two very serious additions to his work over and above what was required of him by his appointment as Professor. He found his students to a great extent lacking in the knowledge of general principles necessary to the comprehension of the special work before them. To enable them to make the best use of his regular lectures, he offered them in addition a preliminary evening course of nine lectures each January, which he entitled "An Introduction to the Study of the Collection of Fossils in the Museum of Practical Geology." These lectures summed up what he afterwards named Physiography, together with a general sketch of fossils and their nature, the classification of animals and plants, their distribution at various epochs, and the principles on which they are constructed, illustrated by the examination of some animal, such as a lobster.

The regular lectures, fifty-seven in number, ran from February to April and from April to June, with fortnightly examinations during the latter period, six in number. I take the scheme from his notebook:—] "After prolegomena, the physiology and morphology of lobster and dove; then through Invertebrates, Anodon, Actinia, and Vorticella Protozoa, to Molluscan types. Insects, then Vertebrates. Supplemented Paleontologically by the demonstrations of the selected types in the cases; twelve Paleozoic, twelve Mesozoic and Cainozoic," [by his assistants.] "To make the course complete there should be added

1. A series of lectures on Species, practical discrimination and description, modification by conditions and distribution;

2. Lectures on the elements of Botany and Fossil Plants."

[This reorganisation of his course went hand in hand with his utilisation of the Jermyn Street Museum for paleontological teaching, and all through 1857 he was busily working at the Explanatory Catalogue.

Moreover, in 1855 he had begun at Jermyn Street his regular courses of lectures to working men—lectures which impressed those qualified to judge as surpassing even his class lectures. Year after year he gave the artisans of his best, on the principle enunciated thus early in a letter of February 27, 1855, to Dyster:—]

I enclose a prospectus of some People's Lectures (POPULAR Lectures I hold to be an abomination unto the Lord) I am about to give here. I want the working classes to understand that Science and her ways are great facts for them—that physical virtue is the base of all other, and that they are to be clean and temperate and all the rest—not because fellows in black with white ties tell them so, but because these are plain and patent laws of nature which they must obey "under penalties."

I am sick of the dilettante middle class, and mean to try what I can do with these hard-handed fellows who live among facts. You will be with me, I know.

[And again on May 6, 1855:—]

I am glad your lectures went off so well. They were better attended than mine [the Preliminary Course], although in point of earnestness and attention my audience was all I could wish. I am now giving a course of the same kind to working men exclusively—one of what we call our series of "working men's lectures," consisting of six given in turn by each Professor. The theatre holds 600, and is crammed full.

I believe in the fustian, and can talk better to it than to any amount of gauze and Saxony; and to a fustian audience (but to that only) I would willingly give some when I come to Tenby.

[The corresponding movement set going by F.D. Maurice also claimed his
interest, and in 1857 he gave his first address at the Working Men's
College to an audience, as he notes, of some fifty persons, including
Maurice himself.

Other work of importance was connected with the Royal Institution. He had been elected to deliver the triennial course as Fullerian Professor, and for his subject in 1856-57 chose Physiology and Comparative Anatomy; in 1858, the Principles of Biology.

He was extremely glad of the additional "grist to the mill" brought in by these lectures. As he wrote in 1890:—]

I have good reason to know what difference a hundred a year makes when your income is not more than four or five times that. I remember when I was candidate for the Fullerian professorship some twenty-three years ago, a friend of mine asked a wealthy manager to support me. He promised, but asked the value of the appointment, and when told, said, "Well, but what's the use of a hundred a year to him?" I suppose he paid his butler that.

[A further attempt to organise scientific work throughout the country and make its results generally known, dates from this time. Huxley, Hooker, and Tyndall had discussed, early in 1858, the possibility of starting a "Scientific Review," which should do for science what the "Quarterly" or the "Westminster" did for literature. The scheme was found not to be feasible at the time, though it was revived in another form in 1860; so in the meanwhile it was arranged that science should be laid before the public every fortnight, through the medium of a scientific column in the "Saturday Review." The following letter bears on this proposal:—]

April 20, 1858.

My dear Hooker,

Before the dawn of the proposal for the ever-memorable though not-to-be "Scientific Review," there had been some talk of one or two of us working the public up for science through the "Saturday Review." Maskelyne (you know him, I suppose) was the suggester of the scheme, and undertook to talk to the "Saturday" people about it.

I think the whole affair had dropped through, but yesterday Maskelyne came to me and to Ramsay with definite propositions from the "Saturday" editor.

He undertakes to put in a scientific article in the intermediate part between Leaders and Reviews once a fortnight if we will supply him. He is not to mutilate or to alter, but to take what he gets and be thankful.

The writers to select their own subjects. Now the question is, Will seven or eight of us, representing different sciences, join together and undertake to supply at least one article in three months? Once a fortnight would want a minimum of six articles in three months, so that if there were six, each man must supply one.

Sylvester is talked of for Mathematics. I am going to write to Tyndall about doing Physics. Maskelyne and perhaps Frankland will take Chemistry and Mineralogy. You and I might do Biology; Ramsay, Geology; Smyth, Technology.

This looks to me like a very feasible plan, not asking too much of anyone, and yet giving all an opportunity of saying what he has to say.

Besides this the "Saturday" would be glad to get Reviews from us.

If all those mentioned agree to join, we will meet somewhere and discuss plans.

Let me have a line to say what you think, and believe me, ever yours faithfully,

T.H. Huxley.

[In 1858 he read three papers at the Geological and two at the Linnean; he lectured (February 15) on Fish and Fisheries at South Kensington, and on May 21 gave a Friday evening discourse at the Royal Institution on "The Phenomena of Gemmation." He wrote an article for "Todd's Cyclopaedia," on the "Tegumentary Organs," an elaborate paper, as Sir M. Foster says, on a histological theme, to which, as to others of the same class on the Teeth and the Corpuscular Tactus ("Q. J. Micr. Science" 1853-4), he had been "led probably by the desire, which only gradually and through lack of fulfilment left him, to become a physiologist rather than a naturalist."

No less important was his more general work for science. Physiological study in England at this time was dominated by transcendental notions. To put first principles on a sound experimental basis was the aim of the new leaders of scientific thought. To this end Huxley made two contributions in 1858—one on the general subject of the cell theory, the other on the particular question of the development of the skull. "In a striking 'Review of the Cell Theory,'" says Sir M. Foster, "which appeared in the "British and Foreign Medical Review" in 1858, a paper which more than one young physiologist at the time read with delight, and which even to-day may be studied with no little profit, he, in this subject as in others, drove the sword of rational inquiry through the heart of conceptions, metaphysical and transcendental, but dominant."

Of this article Professor E. Ray Lankester also writes:—

…Indeed it is a fundamental study in morphology. The extreme interest and importance of the views put forward in that article may be judged of by the fact that although it is forty years since it was published, and although our knowledge of cell structure has made immense progress during those forty years, yet the main contention of that article, namely that cells are not the cause but the result of organisation—in fact, are, as he says, to the tide of life what the line of shells and weeds on the seashore is to the tide of the living sea—is even now being re-asserted, and in a slightly modified form is by very many cytologists admitted as having more truth in it than the opposed view and its later outcomes, to the effect that the cell is the unit of life in which and through which alone living matter manifests its activities.

The second was his Croonian Lecture of 1858, "On the Theory of the Vertebrate Skull," in which he demonstrated from the embryological researches of Rathke and others, that after the first step the whole course of development in the segments of the skull proceeded on different lines from that of the vertebral column; and that Oken's imaginative theory of the skull as modified vertebrae, logically complete down to a strict parallel between the subsidiary head-bones and the limbs attached to the spine, outran the facts of a definite structure common to all vertebrates which he had observed. ("Following up Rathke, he strove to substitute for the then dominant fantastic doctrines of the homologies of the cranial elements advocated by Owen, sounder views based on embryological evidence. He exposed the futility of attempting to regard the skull as a series of segments, in each of which might be recognised all the several parts of a vertebra, and pointed out the errors of trusting to superficial resemblances of shape and position. He showed, by the history of the development of each, that, though both skull and vertebral column are segmented, the one and the other, after an early stage, are fashioned on lines so different as to exclude all possibility of regarding the detailed features of each as mere modifications of a type repeated along the axis of the body. 'The spinal column and the skull start from the same primitive condition, whence they immediately begin to diverge.' 'It may be true to say that there is a primitive identity of structure between the spinal or vertebral column and the skull; but it is no more true that the adult skull is a modified vertebral column than it would be to affirm that the vertebral column is modified skull.' This lecture marked an epoch in England in vertebrate morphology, and the views enunciated in it carried forward, if somewhat modified, as they have been, not only by Huxley's subsequent researches and by those of his disciples, but especially by the splendid work of Gegenbauer, are still, in the main, the views of the anatomists of to-day."—Sir M. Foster, Royal Society Obituary Notice of T.H. Huxley.)

With the demolition of Oken's theory fell the superstructure raised by its chief supporter, Owen, "archetype" and all.

It was undoubtedly a bold step to challenge thus openly the man who was acknowledged as the autocrat of science in Britain. Moreover, though he had long felt that on his own subjects he was Owen's master, to begin a controversy was contrary to his deliberate practice. But now he had the choice of submitting to arbitrary dictation or securing himself from further aggressions by dealing a blow which would weaken the authority of the aggressor. For the growing antagonism between him and Owen had come to a head early in the preceding year, when the latter, taking advantage of the permission to use the lecture-theatre at Jermyn Street for the delivery of a paleontological course, unwarrantably assumed the title of Professor of Paleontology at the School of Mines, to the obvious detriment of Huxley's position there. His explanations not satisfying the council of the School of Mines, Huxley broke off all personal intercourse with him.