[February, 
98 Analyses of Books. 
of Mr. C. A. Watts (of September 13th), in answer to which 
Prof. Huxley wrote his “communication.” Mr. Watts wrote — 
“ I have undertaken to see through the press a publication enti- 
tled the “ Agnostic Annual,” &c. As Prof. Huxley answered 
this letter, his assertion that he “ never so much as heard of” 
the Annual becomes difficult to understand. 
Secondly, as Prof. Huxley’s communication was solicited with 
special reference to a work in course of preparation, the inference 
lay near at hand that it was intended for publication. Yet he 
did not take the very obvious course of marking his letter 
“ private,” though in the second communication of Nov. 18th 
he speaks of it as such. 
Thirdly, it appears that though Prof. Huxley had received an 
advance copy of the Annual he allowed nearly three weeks to 
pass over without protesting against the publication of his 
“ private” letter, and the announcement of his name as a con- 
tributor. This also is not easy to understand. A man who 
conceives himself aggrieved generally complains at once. 
The correspondence proceeded until November 26th, when 
Prof. Huxley wrote to Mr. Watts as follows : — “ My private (sic) 
letter, which you have published as a ‘ contribution ’ in your 
‘ Annual,’ does not contain anything of importance which may 
not be found in my published writings, so that the question as to 
the withholding of the publication of my views does not arise. 
Nor has your a( 5 t caused me any further annoyance than that 
which every man feels when he is treated dishonourably.” 
Here the public will do well to note that Prof. Huxley does 
not in any way repudiate his answer to the three questions. On 
the contrary, he re-indorses it by proclaiming it substantially 
identical with what may “ be found in his published writings.” 
If so, why his anger ? But the fadt remains that what might be 
found scattered, and to some degree merely implied, in his works, 
is in his “ communication ” openly and clearly expressed and 
brought to a focus. As such it will fall into the hands of many 
who have never read his works, and of many more who may 
have dipped into them without getting a complete acquaintance 
with their teachings. As such it has not escaped the notice of 
the public press. As such, too, certain questions will be 
raised which might otherwise have been allowed to sleep. 
We only hope that we are not doomed, in consequence, to a 
second cataclysm, such as that brought on by the “ Belfast 
Address.” 
Whether Prof. Huxley comes out of this contest as unscathed 
as we might wish a President of the Royal Society to do is a 
question which we may safely leave to our readers The effedts 
of his last letter were not, however, what he perhaps expedted. 
The publishers of the Annual — who, in deference to his position 
and merits, had previously determined, at a considerable sacri- 
fice, not to issue the projected second edition — now resolved to 
