December 2, 1887.] 



SCIENCE. 



267 



■duke himself states ; they were favorably regarded by the authori- 

 ties at the ' Challenger ' office ; they were expounded, one might 

 almost say advocated, on more than one occasion by Dr. A. Geikie. 

 His text-book in the year 1882 not only took the leading place, as 

 it still does, but also was then the only complete text-book on a 

 large scale for this country. On p. 468 is a full statement of Mr. 

 Murray's views. They have also been referred to at more or less 

 length in many treatises and journals, both English and foreign. 

 As Professor Judd remarks, " If this be a ' conspiracy of silence,' 

 where, alas ! can the geological speculator seek for fame ? " 



Thus the main charge is disproved. One special item in it, how- 

 ■ever, as peculiarly offensive, yet calls for a brief notice. The duke 

 states, " Mr. John Murray was strongly advised against the pub- 

 lication of his views in derogation of Darwin's long-accepted theory 

 •of the coral islands, and was actually induced to delay for two 

 years." Now, if these words do not amount to an imputation of 

 bad faith on the part of Mr. Murray's adviser, and are not by insin- 

 uation extended to others, I do not know what they mean, or why 

 they have been penned. But, as Professor Huxley observes, 

 " whether such advice were wise or foolish, just or immoral, de- 

 pends entirely on the motive of the person who gave it." The re- 

 mark is perfectly just. Who, I would ask, \\ho is old enough to 

 look back on a quarter of a century of work, has not occasionally 

 said, " Wait a bit," to some younger friend, who has come in the 

 first incandescence of a brilliant hypothesis ? I have so sinned. 

 Sometimes I have been wrong and my young friend right, but not 

 always. Still, I know myself fallible. As the late master of Trinity 

 said, " We are all fallible mortals, even the youngest amongst us." 

 Yet I am not ashamed. I will not put on sackcloth and ashes, and 

 I mean to sin agam. Perhaps it is because I am naturally unim- 

 aginative ; perhaps I am come to the season of autumn leaves ; but I 

 have always looked askance at a brilliant hypothesis, and now dis- 

 trust it more than ever. I have lived long enough to see many a 

 one go up whoosh ! like a sky-rocket, all stars and sparks, and 

 come down exploded, all stick and stink. * 



So the ' great lesson ' has been read, and the scientific world, I 

 fear, has not repented or rent its clothes. But it has heard, and 

 not without indignation. The Duke of Argyll has made grave 

 charges against the honor and good faith of men of science, and 

 they ought to be grateful to Professor Huxley for his prompt re- 

 pulse of the attack and his stern rebuke of the assailant. As it 

 seems to me, reply is only possible on one point ; namely, the 

 special charge mentioned above. Hence the Duke of Argyll is 

 bound to establish or to withdraw the accusation. 



Men of science are justly sensitive on this question. Doubtless 

 they are no more exempt from human frailty than any other class of 

 men : we all fail sometimes — nay, too often — to live up to our 

 ideal standard ; still, such shortcomings are not common, and any 

 thing like a ' conspiracy of silence ' or any kind of scientific ' boy- 

 cotting' is a thing so improbable as to be almost incredible. Each 

 man must testify according to his own experience : so in conclusion, 

 though it may be deemed impertinent, I will express my own. I 

 have lived now for not a few years among the rank and file of 

 scientific men on more intimate terms than can have been possible 

 for the Duke of Argyll, owing to his exalted station and his high 

 occupations of state, and I am bound to declare, that, in a fairly 

 wide experience, I have never found men as a class less self-seek- 

 ing or more earnest in their desire for truth, more steadfast as 

 friends, or more generous as antagonists. T. G. Bonney. 



[Communication from the Duke of Argyll.] 

 The article which I contributed to the September number of 

 the Nineteerith Century, on the coral islands of the Pacific, has 

 <lone what I intended it to do. It has called wide attention to the 

 influence of mere authority in establishing erroneous theories and 

 in retarding the progress of scientific truth. The vehement assault 

 made upon it in the current number of the same review by Profes- 

 sor Huxley, and the article by Professor Bonney in this journal, are 

 to me gratifying evidences of success. But both of these writers 

 are entirely wrong in the interpretation they put on a few expres- 

 sions in my paper. They interpret these expressions as conveying 

 imputations on the probity and honor of scientific men in the habit- 

 ual and wilful suppression or discouragement of what they know 



to be truth. But there is nothing to justify this interpretation. I 

 have made no such accusation, and, if any one else were to make 

 it, I should join the two indignant professors in repudiating it. 

 Scientific men are not only as good as other men in this way, but 

 generally a great deal better. Professor Huxley has been irritated 

 by some ' anonymous sermon,' which I have not seen, and for 

 which I am not responsible. He admits that it is in this anony- 

 mous production that the 'slanders' against scientific men have 

 taken the peculiarly offensive form ; but he maintains that this un- 

 known writer has been 'inspired' by my article on coral islands. 

 On the strength of this assumption, — which may be true, for aught 

 I know, — he goes on through some seven pages to dissect certain 

 parts of my paper, and to read into it a great deal that is due to 

 his own excitement, and to nothing else. 



I have no difficulty in expressing clearly, and without any cir- 

 cumlocution, exactly what I do mean, and what I have intended to 

 say. Professor Bonney interprets it very fairly, in abstract, when 

 he says that the moral of my paper is, ' Beware of idolatry.' Some 

 theory, hypothesis, or doctrine is propounded by a great man. It 

 becomes established, partly perhaps by certain inherent elements 

 of strength, or, at all events, of attractiveness. But soon it stands 

 unassailable and unassailed upon the vast foundations of general 

 acceptance and admitted authority. It becomes what Professor 

 Huxley on a celebrated occasion, and with at least a momentary 

 insight, called ' a creed.' The effect of such a position is tremen- 

 dous. Some men who see cause to doubt are daunted. They keep 

 silence. Others are prevented from even thinking on the subject. 

 A few who do think, and who do doubt, and who do venture to ex- 

 press their doubts, are discouraged and discountenanced. A great 

 many others take refuge in a suspended judgment, even after the 

 production of evidence, which, in the absence of a ' creed ' and of 

 authority, would have been deemed conclusive. In all this there 

 may be, and in general there is, nothing worse than timidity on the 

 part of those who are the laggards, or the opponents, in some great 

 advance. It is more difficult for some men than for others to face 

 a prevalent opinion or an accepted doctrine. It is all very well to 

 say, as Professor Bonney says, that " to the man of science truth is 

 a pearl of great price, to buy which he is ready to part with every 

 thing previously obtained." But scientific men are human. They 

 are, I admit, immensely superior to the politicians, especially just 

 now. But they have their failings ; and every one who knows the 

 history of science must be able to call to mind not one instance 

 only, but many instances, in which the progress of knowledge has 

 been delayed for long periods of time by the powerful and repres- 

 sive influences of authority, exerted in one or other of many ways. 



My contention is, that Darwin's theory on the origin of the coral 

 islands is a case in point. I believed in it, or accepted it, for many 

 years, as others did. Professor Bonney admits that I have de- 

 scribed it not only fairly, but as forcibly as if I were still its advo- 

 cate. This is exactly what I tried to do. I now hold that it has 

 been disproved, and has been replaced by another theory quite as 

 grand, and more in harmony with other natural laws which are of 

 universal operation, but have been only lately recognized. I affirm, 

 further, that this new theory or explanation has been received with 

 the timidity, the discouragement, the discountenance, and the ob- 

 struction which are characteristic in such cases. That Dr. Geikie 

 has supported it, is most creditable to him. But his voice is not 

 enough to disprove the truth of my contention. That Professor 

 Huxley and Professor Bonney should be unable to make up their 

 minds upon such evidence as has been before us now for several 

 years, is, in my opinion, a strong confirmation of the law which is 

 operating upon them. There are some discoveries in science — 

 some explanations of curious phenomena — which are self-lumi- 

 nous. They shine with their own light. The moment they are 

 suggested, with a few cardinal and certain facts to illustrate them, 

 they are their own proof. Every thing that turns up speaks in 

 support of them. My conviction is that such is the character of 

 Mr. Murray's theory of the coral-island formations in the Pacific. 



Professor Huxley challenges me to re-affirm with better proof the 

 fact I allege, — that Mr. Murray has met with discouragement. I 

 respond at once to that challenge. I have seen the letter from Sir 

 Wyville Thomson in which that naturaUst urged and almost in- 

 sisted that Mr. Murray should withdraw the reading of his papers 



