166 DOWN. [ch. vm. 



classification. Nevertheless I doubt whether the work was 

 worth the consumption of so much time." Yet I learn 

 from Sir J. D. Hooker that he certainly recognized at the 

 time its value to himself as systematic training. Sir Joseph 

 writes to me : " Your father recognized three stages in his 

 career as a biologist : the mere collector at Cambridge ; the 

 collector and observer in the Beagle, and for some years 

 afterwards ; and the trained naturalist after, and only after 

 the Cirripede work. That he was a thinker all along is true 

 enough, and there is a vast deal in his writings previous to 

 the Cirripedes that a trained naturalist could but emulate. 

 . . . He often alluded to it as a valued discipline, and added 

 that even the ' hateful ' work of digging out synonyms, and 

 of describing, not only improved his methods but opened 

 his eyes to the difficulties and merits of the works of the 

 dullest of cataloguers. One result was that he would never 

 allow a depreciatory remark to pass unchallenged on the 

 poorest class of scientific workers, provided that their work 

 was honest, and good of its kind. I have always regarded 

 it as one of the finest traits of his character, this generous 

 appreciation of the hod-men of science, and of their labours 

 . . . and it was monographing the Barnacles that brought 

 it about." 



Mr. Huxley allows me to quote his opinion as to the 

 value of the eight years given to the Cirripedes : 



u In my opinion your sagacious father never did a wiser 

 thing than when he devoted himself to the years of patient 

 toil which the Cirripede-book cost him. 



" Like the rest of us, he had no proper training in bio- 

 logical science, and it has always struck me as a remarkable 

 instance of his scientific insight, that he saw the necessity 

 of giving himself such training, and of his courage, that he 

 did not shirk the labour of obtaining it. 



" The great danger which besets all men of large specu- 

 lative faculty, is the temptation to deal with the accepted 

 statements of fact in natural science, as if they were not 

 only correct, but exhaustive ; as if they might be dealt with 

 deductively, in the same way as propositions in Euclid may 

 be dealt with. In reality, every such statement, however 

 true it may be, is true only relatively to the means of obser- 

 vation and the point of view of those who have enunciated 

 it. So fai it may be depended upon. But whether it will 

 bear every speculative conclusion that may be logically de- 

 duced from it, is quite another question. 



