Thomas Henry Huxley's Understanding of ‘Evolution’

Quite in keeping with the invocation of von Baer , so important to Huxley , who opened his lectures on anthropology with “Know thyself!” ( Stieda Ludwig von Baer Karl Ernst (2nd edn, Brunswick, 1886), 202). I am indebted to Professor Jane Oppenheimer for this reference.

It could be said that Darwin's thought with its emphasis on morphology and geographical distribution lies in the line of Alexander von Humboldt, while Huxley's emphasis on development and physiology takes its cue from Karl Ernst von Baer. Suffice it to say here however that Huxley's understanding was also inseparable from his lifelong interest in philosophical and theological issues, enabling him to realize the implications of not only Darwin but of the “new Nature” of science for cultural and civil order.

That contributors to Nature are referred to as “philosophers” should remind us that Whewell had coined the term ‘scientist’ as recently as 1840. Cf. Oxford English dictionary, “Scientist”.

Darwin Francis , ed., More letters of Charles Darwin (New York, 1903), i, 517 (hereafter cited as LL Darwin).

Huxley Leonard , ed., Life and letters of Thomas Henry Huxley (New York, 1900), i, 351 (hereafter cited as LL Huxley).

Foster Michael Lankester E. Ray , The scientific memoirs of Thomas Henry Huxley (New York, 1898), i, 311.

As in Stanley Oma , “T. H. Huxley's treatment of nature”, Journal of the history of ideas, xviii (1957), 120–7.

In agreement with Darwin that “progress” is to be understood in terms of human value. Cf. Darwin's letter to Lyell, 12 March, 1860 ( Darwin LL , ii, 88–89).

Nature, vol. li, no. 1305 (1894), 1. Huxley's lifelong regard for Spinoza is shown in Huxley LL , i, 480; ii, 382.

Huxley's case against Bacon cannot be taken up in detail here. He repeatedly contrasts Harvey with Bacon, to the detriment of the latter, most importantly in his Harvey Memorial Address, published in the Fortnightly review, xxiii (1878), 167–90, and in his Scientific memoirs (London, 1898), iv, 319–44. A shortened version, omitting the critical remarks about Bacon, appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Institution, viii (1879), 485–500. A condensed discussion of Huxley's animadversions on Baconian method is given in Huxley LL , i, 520–1. See also Huxley's reference to “the evil example of Bacon” in his “Pseudo-scientific realism” and to “that sneak Bacon” in his letter to Darwin of 14 November, 1880 ( Huxley LL , ii, 15).

“But Darwin poured life-blood into the ancient frame; the bonds burst, and the revivified thought of ancient Greece has proved itself to be a more adequate expression of the universal order of things than any of the schemes which have been accepted by the credulity and welcomed by the superstition of seventy later generations of men” ( Darwin LL , i, 534).

Thus the fondness of Huxley for the aphorisms of Heraclitus. Cf. his Collected essays (London, 1894; hereafted cited as C.E.), ix, 48–49, 69–70, 97, 109. On evolution as an ancient doctrine see C.E., i, 96–98; ix, 69ff.

Cf. C.E., iii, 149–50; viii, 226; ix, 126, 146.

Huxley LL , i, 235.

“… long occupation with the work has led the present writer to believe that the ‘Origin of Species’ is one of the hardest of books to master; and he is justified in this conviction by observing that although the ‘Origin’ has been close on thirty years before the world, the strangest misconceptions of the essential nature of the theory therein advocated are still put forth by serious writers” (C.E., ii, 286–7). Also see Huxley LL , ii, 202–5.

See the article on Saint-Hilaire Etienne Geoffroy in Dictionary of scientific biography, v (New York, 1972). 357.

C.E., ix, 200.

C.E., ix, 212.

C.E., ix, viii.

C.E., ix, 115.

C.E., ix, 202–3.

C.E., ix, 202–3.

C.E., ix, 33.

C.E., ix, 202–3.

I have discussed this lecture in an unpublished paper: “Thomas Henry Huxley ‘Upon animal individuality’”.

Although Huxley lauded the cooperation of science and industry in his review of science in the age of Victoria (C.E., i, 42–129), he made a special point of the interest of the true scientist in nature for itself and not simply for utilitarian benefits. See pp. 52–57.

C.E., vii, 79.

C.E., vii, 79–80.

C.E., i, 51–52.

C.E., ix, 85.

Consider too the figurative sense of sloughing off the old skin like the discarding of apparel, connoting at once helplessness and exposure of pristine nature.

C.E., vii, 155.