14 PREFACE. 



and reference to sources on my part has been frank from the first. 

 Nevertheless, this " substantially " does not wholly deny to me 

 all grounds for complacency in my own work, and in regard to 

 facts that were then for the first time communicated to English- 

 men. But more, though I referred to these three names only 

 as my supporting authorities for the history in question, that 

 "history" itself, beginning with Hunter, passes through the 

 names of Schleiden, Miiller, Brown, Valentin, Schwann, Virchow, 

 Leydig, Bergmann, Haeckel, Dujardin, Remak, and, alluding to 

 Meyen, Siebold, Reichert, Ecker, Henle, Kolliker, Beale, Huxley, 

 and John Goodsir, ends with to my mind, the three greatest and 

 latest names in this connection Briicke, Kiihne, and Max Schultze. 

 Now, though and like Mr Huxley, I am professionally educated 

 I cannot profess to have read all the works this* list indicates 

 (who can *?), yet surely, if in view of nothing but said education, 

 I must have read some of them,* and surely these are the " ori- 

 ginal authorities ! " On that head I appeal to my own referees, 

 and as to the meagre half-dozen names mentioned by Mr 

 Huxley in his rival history, I would not think it desirable to admit 

 into my own history a single one of them, unless, perhaps, that 

 of Cohn. Mr Huxley opines that " Dr Stirling's method of deal- 

 ing with the subject is peculiar." I rather think, however, that 

 my reader will now transfer the stricture, and wonder at the 

 power of countenance that could lead any man to say "travesty " 

 in such a case. 



I have now to thank Mr Huxley for having read my essay 

 " with much interest." Interest on his part in any writing of 

 mine I must hold to be a distinguished compliment. All the 

 more, then, is my regret that " much of it " should remain as 

 " dark " to him as " does the ' Secret of Hegel.' " Perhaps it 

 may be natural in me, with my own progeny before me, to 

 wonder how this should 'be in either case, but I cannot omit 

 acknowledging the singular good nature and loyalty of the refer- 

 ence in the latter of them. Still, somehow, I have that confid- 

 ence in the excellent faculty of Mr Huxley, that I must think he 

 does himself injustice here. I cannot believe my essay not to 

 have proved sun-clear to him everywhere, unless in the wee, 



* Surely I may have consulted all of them I ought to add, perhaps. At least it 

 is not usual for one medical brother to deny another the freedom of the guild. Else- 

 where, of course, Mr Huxley has so good a right to be proud of his own possession of 

 "a nettle and a microscope," that I cannot resent his denial of "those not rare 

 articles " to me. 



