A vast subsidiary controversy sprang up in the “Times” on Biblical exegetics; where these touched him at all, as, for instance, when it was put to him whether the difference between the “Rehmes” of Genesis and “Sheh-retz” of Leviticus, both translated “creeping things,” did not invalidate his argument as to the identity of such “creeping things,” he had examined the point already, and surprised his interrogator, who appeared to have raised a very pretty dilemma, by promptly referring him to a well-known Hebrew commentator.

Several letters refer to this passage of arms.  On December 4, he writes to Mr. Herbert Spencer:—­]

Do read my polishing off of the G.O.M.  I am proud of it as a work of art, and as evidence that the volcano is not yet exhausted.

To Lord Farrer.

4 Marlborough Place, December 6, 1885.

My dear Farrer,

From a scientific point of view Gladstone’s article was undoubtedly not worth powder and shot.  But, on personal grounds, the perusal of it sent me blaspheming about the house with the first healthy expression of wrath known for a couple of years—­to my wife’s great alarm—­and I should have “busted up” if I had not given vent to my indignation; and secondly, all orthodoxy was gloating over the slap in the face which the G.O.M. had administered to science in the person of Reville.

The ignorance of the so-called educated classes in this country is stupendous, and in the hands of people like Gladstone it is a political force.  Since I became an official of the Royal Society, good taste seemed to me to dictate silence about matters on which there is “great division among us.”  But now I have recovered my freedom, and I am greatly minded to begin stirring the fire afresh.

Within the last month I have picked up wonderfully.  If dear old Darwin were alive he would say it is because I have had a fight, but in truth the fight is consequence and not cause.  I am infinitely relieved by getting rid of the eternal strain of the past thirty years, and hope to get some good work done yet before I die, so make ready for the part of the judicious bottle-holder which I have always found you.

Ever yours very faithfully,

T.H.  Huxley.

4 Marlborough Place, N.W., January 13, 1886.

My dear Farrer,

My contribution to the next round was finished and sent to Knowles a week ago.  I confess it to have been a work of supererogation; but the extreme shiftiness of my antagonist provoked me, and I was tempted to pin him and dissect him as an anatomico-psychological exercise.  May it be accounted unto me for righteousness, though I laughed so much over the operation that I deserve no credit.

I think your notion is a very good one, and I am not sure that I shall not try to carry it out some day.  In the meanwhile, however, I am bent upon an enterprise which I think still more important.

After I have done with the reconcilers, I will see whether theology cannot be told her place rather more plainly than she has yet been dealt with.