1860 'MAN'S PLACE IN NATURE' 257 



the Saturday article was not written by Owen. On 

 internal grounds, because no word in it exceeds an inch 

 in length ; on external, from what Cook said to me. 

 The article is weak enough and one-sided enough, but 

 looking at the various forces in action, I think Cook has 

 fully redeemed his promise to me. 



I went down to Sir P. Egerton on Tuesday was ill 

 when I started, got worse and had to come back on 

 Thursday. I am all adrift now, but I couldn't stand 

 being in the house any longer. I wish I had been born 

 an an-hepatous foetus. 



All sorts of good wishes to you, and may you and I 

 and Tyndalides, and one or two more bricks, be in as 

 good fighting order in 1861 as in 1860. Ever yours, 



T. H. HUXLEY. 



Speaking of this period and the half-dozen pre- 

 ceding years, in his 1894 preface to Man's Place in 

 Nature he says : 



Among the many problems which came under my 

 consideration, the position of the human species in 

 zoological classification was one of the most serious. 

 Indeed, at that time it was a burning question in the 

 sense that those who touched it were almost certain to 

 burn their fingers severely. It was not so very long 

 since my kind friend, Sir William Lawrence, one of the 

 ablest men whom I have known, had been well-nigh 

 ostracised for his book On Man, which now might be 

 read in a Sunday school without surprising anybody ; it 

 was only a few years since the electors to the chair of 

 Natural History in a famous northern university had 

 refused to invite a very distinguished man to occupy it 

 because he advocated the doctrine of the diversity of 

 species of mankind, or what was called "polygeny." 

 Even among those who considered man from the point 

 of view, not of vulgar prejudice, but of science, opinions 



VOL. I S 



