Year: 1876

lFrOm the New Ork hcraluI


Professor Huxley's audience at Chickering
hall was large and brilliant. The hall was
completely filled, and among the audience was
a large proportion of the most distinguished
and cultivat ed people ofthe city. The appear
ance of this eminent naturalist is little dis
appointing 10 those who know him only by
reputation and through his works. Instead of
the sturdy, scientific Boanerges which his writ
ines would prefgure, there comes forward on
the platform, greeted by general clapping of
hands in token of admiring welcome, an elderly
gentleman of medium height, with the stoop
of an habtual hard student, and step which
indicates want of muscular firmness-a man,
in short, whose mind has overtaXed his body.
His face is good, hair dark brown, unsprinkled
with signs of approaching white; beard gray,
consisting only OF side-whiskers of the English
cut; brow ample, but not immense; nose point
ed and projecting, and his general air and ad-
dress more like that of not very well fed evan
gelical clergyman than of a strenuous intellec-
tual athlete who is shaking the old beliefs of
two continents.


In mere manner he is not so pleasing as Pro-
fessor Tyndall, the English scientist, with
whom we most naturally compare him, after
having had the pleasure of listening to both
Tyndall has stronger and clearer voice and
an easy erectness of bearing which we miss in
Professor Huxley, who, bent forward restingly
upon a small reading desk, as if for support,
during the greater part of his lecture, whereas
Tyrdall had no such incumbrance, spoke en-
tirely without notes, ,and had the art of putting
himself in more complete sympathy with his
audience. Professor Huxley is so absorbed in
his subject that he does not carry along in his
consciousness a perpetual feeling of the atti-
tude of the listeners who hang upon his lips.
He had behind him, stretched on a frame,
geological chart, to which he frequently pointed
for illustration, apparently not observing that
a blackboard almost balf its size (of which he
made no use) had been placed almost directly
in front of the chart, coGcealing it from the
greater part of the audience. Professor Tyn-
dali, who gave a series of brilliant and sur
prising experiments, was so careful in all his
arrangements that everybody present had an
unobstructed view of all that was done.


1t is too early to speak in detail of Professor
Huxley's main thesis, as this lecture was
merely Introductory and touched on no science
but that of geology, whose doctrines are uni
versallY accepted by well-informed people.
There was stroke of courteous fnesse in his
describing the Mosaic account of the creation
as the "Miltonic hypothesis" and readirg
ITOIn IHe seNeHLH DODh VI L dIdQleS LV2t w
show what the hypothesis was which he set
himself to refute. This delicacy of refuting
Milton rather than Moses would have been
better relished for its dexterous fineness if he
had not afterward REQUIRED to the point and
explained at some length his reasons for
setting himself in opposition to the verse of
Milton rather than against the prose of the
first chapter of Genesis, which Milton followed
with almost literal closeness. The chief
reason was that the Biblical account has been
variously interpreted. There was a strong
tinge of sarcasm in his profession of humility
in not presuming to have an opinion as to its
meaning, winding up with a hit at the puz-
zling flexibility of language which is suscept-
ible of such widely different constructions.
The delicate fIesSe of refuting Milton would
have been more "cute" and pleasing if he had
made no reference to the Bible at all.


Each succeeding lecture will be more eX-
citing than the first, because he will tread
further and further on debatable ground,
especially when he comes TO treat of the Oar
wiDisn theory of the descent of man. Pro-
fessOr Huxley is furnishing stimulating in
tellectual repast which few intellectual people
will be willing to miss.