I wish you wouldn’t be apologetic about criticism from people who have a right to criticize.  I always look upon any criticism as a compliment, not but what the old Adam in T.H.H. will arise and fight vigorously against all impugnment and irrespective of all odds in the way of authority, but that is the way of the beast.  Why I value your and Tyndall’s and Darwin’s friendship so much is, among other things, that you all pitch into me when necessary.  You may depend upon it, however blue I may look when in the wrong, it’s wrath with myself and nobody else.

The common note in these friendships was not only community of aims, but an essential generosity and sincerity.  This it was that had drawn him so strongly to Edward Forbes among the leaders of biology when he returned, an unknown but promising pioneer of science, from the voyage of the Rattlesnake.  For Forbes inspired his admiration and affection as a man of letters and an artist who had not merged the man in the man of science; free from pedantry or jealousy—­the two besetting faults of literary and scientific men; earnest, disinterested, ready to give his time and influence to help any man who was working for the cause; one of the few to whom a proud man could feel obliged without losing a particle of independence or self-respect.

My notions [he writes] are diametrically opposed to his in some matters, and he helps me to oppose him....  I had a long paper read at the Royal Society which opposed some of his views, and he got up and spoke in the highest terms of it afterwards.  This is all as it should be.  I can reverence such a man and yet respect myself.

Without his aid and sympathy the young man would never have persevered in the course he ventured to choose, and in following which it was one of his greatest hopes that they should work in harmony for long years at the aims so dear to both.

“One could trust him so thoroughly!” There lay the root of friendship.  And the trust was thoroughly reciprocated.  The entire frankness between friends is brightly illustrated by the history of the award of the Royal Medal in 1854.  As a member of the Royal Society Council, Huxley had to vote on the names proposed for the various medals.  For the Royal Medal first Hooker was named, and received his hearty support; then Forbes was put up, in his eyes equally deserving, and almost more closely bound to him by ties of active friendship, so that, whichever way he ultimately voted, his action might possibly be ascribed to personal, not scientific, motives.  Thereupon he explained to the Council that he considered their claims equal; that, whichever chanced to have been put forward first, he would never have proposed the other in opposition to him.  As he had spoken of Hooker’s merits, so also he spoke of Forbes’s, positively, and not by way of comparison; and this done, voted for both!

Hooker was actually elected.  Huxley then wrote to both his friends, explaining fully what he had done.  Had he felt that one of the two had strongly superior claims, and thought it right to vote for him only, the other, he was sure, would have fully appreciated his motives, and it would have done no injury to their friendship.