376 
gentleman I have never seen in my life. I think the Professor has been 
admirably reported, though in brief ; and I cannot see Mr. Bow s ddficnlty 
in the passage referred to (p. 308), even as I quoted it, especiaUy after the 
pains I took to show that Professor Huxley had not cited ta ^‘horrery 
accurately, and to give all the passages that I could myself find nnthe 
Greek historian bearing on the point. I am rather amused that Mr. Row 
should seem a little put out because I did not set up distinctly a bibhca 
chronology of “ only 6,000 years,” and so give him an opportunity to bea 
me upon that issue ” ! I must say I prefer not to be beaten and beg to refe 
him to p. 303 as to what I undertook to do ; but I may add that only 6,000 
years” may be perfectly true for anything that Professor Huxley proved to 
In conclusion, I have to thank the Chairman, Dr. Irons, and Capt. Fish- 
boume, who did hear Professor Huxley, for their kind defence of my paper 
and arguments. But I must say that I do not think Professor Huxley was 
guilty of reviling, nor that I (as Mr. Bow expressed himself) did revile 
again.” (p. 363.) I spoke plainly in answer to very plain speaking , u 
throughout the whole discussion, it appears to me that no one has used such 
stronv language as Mr. How himself. I had almost omitted to notice that 
in alluding to Socrates, and to the Sophists as “ the professors of hu day I 
did not mean “to connect them with all modem professors ! Besides the 
Sophists,” I do not know what other “professors” there were in the days o 
Socrates, “ who went about teaching for profit their deleterious sophisms, as 
Plato tells us they did ; and I don’t know how “ they could have existed 
unless they had taken money for their teaching.” Nor, in fact, did they 
know themselves ; and that is why they were so angry with Socrates, who 
denounced their teaching as both false and mercenary. . 
I must add, with reference to one part of our respected Chairman s remarks, 
that as I believe in neither the current planetary nor lunar theories, I am 
glad to hear that reasonable beings are about to leave “ the computation of 
the constants” to Mr. Babbage’s machine of the future, which he is mventmg 
for the purpose of doing what no human mind can accomplish (p. 3/0.) 
It may be my misfortune, but I confess I am quite unable to believe in this 
machine ! Consequently, I am delighted to think that the planetaiy and 
lunar theories will most probably themselves be given up— I hope before 
Mr. Babbage’s will is proved,— since it seems now to be acknowledged by 
some of our mathematicians that the theory of gravitation itself will have 
to be abandoned.” (p. 369.) 
The following is the abstract of Professor Huxley’s address, as it was 
published in the Record of 7th February, 1868, from the notes sent to me as 
stated on p. 304. Those who will carefully read it over, and then look back 
at my citations from it, will now be able to judge how very fully and fairly 
I quoted and represented the learned Professor’s words and arguments :— 
