What follows is taken from Mr. Huxley's article. The 'Quarterly' reviewer, though being to some extent an evolutionist, believes that Man "differs more from an elephant or a gorilla, than do these from the dust of the earth on which they tread." The reviewer also declares that my father has "with needless opposition, set at naught the first principles of both philosophy and religion." Mr. Huxley passes from the 'Quarterly' reviewer's further statement, that there is no necessary opposition between evolution and religion, to the more definite position taken by Mr. Mivart, that the orthodox authorities of the Roman Catholic Church agree in distinctly asserting derivative creation, so that "their teachings harmonise with all that modern science can possibly require." Here Mr. Huxley felt the want of that "study of Christian philosophy" (at any rate, in its Jesuitic garb), which Mr. Mivart speaks of, and it was a want he at once set to work to fill up. He was then staying at St. Andrews, whence he wrote to my father:--"By great good luck there is an excellent library here, with a good copy of Suarez (The learned Jesuit on whom Mr. Mivart mainly relies.), in a dozen big folios. Among these I dived, to the great astonishment of the librarian, and looking into them 'as the careful robin eyes the delver's toil' (vide 'Idylls'), I carried off the two venerable clasped volumes which were most promising." Even those who know Mr. Huxley's unrivalled power of tearing the heart out of a book must marvel at the skill with which he has made Suarez speak on his side. "So I have come out," he wrote, "in the new character of a defender of Catholic orthodoxy, and upset Mivart out of the mouth of his own prophet."The remainder of Mr. Huxley's critique is largely occupied with a dissection of the 'Quarterly' reviewer's psychology, and his ethical views.
He deals, too, with Mr. Wallace's objections to the doctrine of Evolution by natural causes when applied to the mental faculties of Man. Finally, he devotes a couple of pages to justifying his description of the 'Quarterly' reviewer's "treatment of Mr. Darwin as alike unjust and unbecoming."It will be seen that the two following letters were written before the publication of Mr. Huxley's article.]
CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY.
Down, September 21 [1871].
My dear Huxley, Your letter has pleased me in many ways, to a wonderful degree...What a wonderful man you are to grapple with those old metaphysico-divinity books.
It quite delights me that you are going to some extent to answer and attack Mivart. His book, as you say, has produced a great effect; yesterday Iperceived the reverberations from it, even from Italy. It was this that made me ask Chauncey Wright to publish at my expense his article, which seems to me very clever, though ill-written. He has not knowledge enough to grapple with Mivart in detail. I think there can be no shadow of doubt that he is the author of the article in the 'Quarterly Review'...I am preparing a new edition of the 'Origin,' and shall introduce a new chapter in answer to miscellaneous objections, and shall give up the greater part to answer Mivart's cases of difficulty of incipient structures being of no use: and I find it can be done easily. He never states his case fairly, and makes wonderful blunders...The pendulum is now swinging against our side, but I feel positive it will soon swing the other way; and no mortal man will do half as much as you in giving it a start in the right direction, as you did at the first commencement. God forgive me for writing so long and egotistical a letter; but it is your fault, for you have so delighted me; I never dreamed that you would have time to say a word in defence of the cause which you have so often defended. It will be a long battle, after we are dead and gone...Great is the power of misrepresentation...
CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY.
Down, September 30 [1871].
My dear Huxley, It was very good of you to send the proof-sheets, for I was VERY anxious to read your article. I have been delighted with it. How you do smash Mivart's theology: it is almost equal to your article versus Comte ('Fortnightly Review,' 1869. With regard to the relations of Positivism to Science my father wrote to Mr. Spencer in 1875: "How curious and amusing it is to see to what an extent the Positivists hate all men of science; Ifancy they are dimly conscious what laughable and gigantic blunders their prophet made in predicting the course of science."),--that never can be transcended...But I have been preeminently glad to read your discussion on [the 'Quarterly' reviewer's] metaphysics, especially about reason and his definition of it. I felt sure he was wrong, but having only common observation and sense to trust to, I did not know what to say in my second edition of my 'Descent.' Now a footnote and reference to you will do the work...For me, this is one of the most IMPORTANT parts of the review. But for PLEASURE, I have been particularly glad that my few words ('Descent of Man,' volume i. page 87. A discussion on the question whether an act done impulsively or instinctively can be called moral.) on the distinction, if it can be so called, between Mivart's two forms of morality, caught your attention. I am so pleased that you take the same view, and give authorities for it; but I searched Mill in vain on this head. How well you argue the whole case. I am mounting climax on climax; for after all there is nothing, I think, better in your whole review than your arguments v.
Wallace on the intellect of savages. I must tell you what Hooker said to me a few years ago. "When I read Huxley, I feel quite infantile in intellect." By Jove I have felt the truth of this throughout your review.
What a man you are. There are scores of splendid passages, and vivid flashes of wit. I have been a good deal more than merely pleased by the concluding part of your review; and all the more, as I own I felt mortified by the accusation of bigotry, arrogance, etc., in the 'Quarterly Review.'
