1886 LETTER TO MR. GOSSE 467 



present day will be none the worse for being reminded 

 that they may yet hang in chains. . . . 



It occurs to me that it might be well to add a para- 

 graph or two about the two chief objections made 

 formerly and now to Darwin, the one, that it is intro- 

 ducing "chance" as a factor in nature, and the other 

 that it is atheistic. 



Both assertions are utter bosh. None but parsons 

 believe in " chance " ; and the philosophical difficulties 

 of Theism now are neither greater nor less than they 

 have been ever since Theism was invented. Ever yours, 



T. H.H. 



The following letter to Mr. Edmund Gosse, who, 

 just before, had been roughly handled in the 

 Quarterly Review, doubtless owed some of its vigour 

 to these newly revived memories of the Quarterly 

 attack on Darwin. But while the interest of the 

 letter lies in a general question of literary ethics, the 

 proper methods and limits of anonymous criticism, it 

 must be noted that in this particular case its edge 

 was turned by the fact that immediately afterwards, 

 the critic proceeded to support his criticisms elsewhere 

 under his own name : 



Oct. 22, 1886. 



DEAR SIR 1 beg leave to offer you my best thanks 

 for your letter to the Athenaeum, which I have just read, 

 and to congratulate you on the force and completeness of 

 your answer to your assailant. 



It is rarely worth while to notice criticism, but when 

 a good chance of exposing one of these anonymous 

 libellers who disgrace literature occurs, it is a public duty 

 to avail oneself of it. 



Oddly enough, I have recently been performing a 



