NOTES AND DOCUMENTS

Matthew Arnold and Thomas Henry Huxley: Two Speeches at the

Royal Academy, 1881 and 18831
David A. Roos

Two uncollectedspeechesby MatthewArnold and Thomas HenryHuxley help to

fillsome of the gaps in our understandingof the centralperiod of theircontro-
versial, yet amicable, relationship. Both speeches were made at the annual
banquets of the Royal Academy of Arts in responseto the toast to "Science and
Literature": Arnold's in 1881, Huxley's in 1883.2 Since part of the significance
of thesetwo speeches depends upon the contextof theargumentbetweenArnold
and Huxley concerningthe type of education necessaryto fostertrueculture,it
will be usefulto rehearsebrieflythe sequence of eventsin thatargument.3
Arnold's firsteffortsto elaborate the properfunctionof literarycriticismin
modern society were informedby a cognizance of the declining influenceof
classical studies in English schools. The strategyof his response to this decline
was to emphasize the necessityof poets, critics,and "scholars" being able to
transcendthe narrowhistoricalviewpointof theirown age in orderto make the
traditionsof the past available to the populace as a whole.4 From the earliest
days of his careeras Inspectorof Schools, Arnold made his view clear thatwhile
not everystudentneeded a classical education which included Greek and Latin,
every studentdid need a balanced education which included both humanistic
studiesand scientificinstruction.'As late as 1878, Arnold had joined Huxley in

1/Iwouldlike to thankProfessorsR. H. Superand David J. DeLaura forthe suggestionsthey

made upon an earlierdraftof thisarticle.
2/Arnoldmadea similarspeechat thebanquetin 1875(see R. H. Super,ed., The CompleteProse
Works of Matthew Arnold [Ann Arbor, Mich., 1972], 8: 373-75). Further references to this
editionwillbe citedby thevolumeand page numbers.Huxleyspoke at two otherbanquetsin
1871 and 1887 (see Charles S. Blinderman,
"T. H. Huxley'sTheoryof Aesthetics:Unityin
Diversity," Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 21 [1962]: 52, 54). Blinderman repeats the
mistakeof datingthe 1871 speechas 1876; CyrilBibbyinitiallymade this mistakein T. H.
Huxley: Scientist,Humanist, and Educator (New York, 1959), p. 42, and repeats it in his Scientist
Extraordinary: T. H. Huxley (New York, 1972), p. 96 (but see The Times [May 1, 1871], p. 6).
AlthoughneitherArnoldnorHuxleywas presenton thenightwhentheotherspoke,bothwere
frequentlypresentin otheryears,as weremanyof theirclose friends.Each surelywould have
beenawareof thespeechestheothermade.The evolutionof a publicforumforthediscussion
of thetopic"Science and Literature"at theseannualbanquetsfrom1851to 1895is thesubject
of anotherpaper I am preparing.
3/Reestablishingthecorrectchronologyof eventsmayalso remedya partialobfuscationof the
Arnold-Huxley whichhas resultedfromearlierinaccuraciesindating.For example,
relationship
evenWilliamIrvinegivesthewrongyearforHuxley's"Science and Culture,"ignoresthefact
thatArnold's"Literatureand Science" was presentedas the Rede Lecturein 1882 beforehis
Americantourin 1883,and thusoverlooksthepossibilitythatHuxley's"On Scienceand Art
in Relation to Education"should be consideredas an extensionof thecontroversy (Irvine's
Apes, Angels, and Victorian.s[New York, 1955], pp. 283-86).
4/See"Preface" to Meropeand "On TranslatingHomer,"in Super,1: 39, 97, 99, 117.
5/See,forexample,ThePopularEducationof Franceand "A FrenchEton" (Super,2:68, 269).
Supersuccinctly summarizesthebroadchronologicaloutlinesof Arnold'sdevelopingthoughts
about the necessarybalance betweenscienceand the humanitiesin his explanatorynotesto
"Literatureand Science" (10:462-63). The change in Arnold'sperceptionwhichhe makes
explicitin "Literatureand Science" mustbe emphasized,and it is usefulto comparethefine
316

This content downloaded from 141.225.112.053 on November 06, 2016 19:16:10 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 Notes and Documents 317

signinga petitioncalling forthe abolition of compulsoryexaminationsin Greek

at Cambridge.6Nonetheless,the visibleevidence of the tremendoussuccess that
sciencewas havingin establishingitsnew place in themoderncurriculumcould not
butconvinceArnoldbytheend ofthe 1870sthathe mustshifthis positionin order
to help avoid a new imbalance in educational practices.7Therefore,on April 5,
1879, Arnold took advantage of the forum offeredhim by the Eton Literary
Society to defendthe traditionsof classical humanismagainst the chargeswhich
the advocates of scientificinstructionhad levied. In "A Speech at Eton" Arnold
attemptedto reemphasizethe moral dimensionsof education which he thought
modernscience ignored.8
Beyond the fact that Huxley would have been interestedin whateverhis
close friendArnold had to say about science and education, Huxley had special
reason to wish to defendthe place of science in thecurriculumat Eton. Beforehe
was dismissed from Eton in 1875, Oscar Browning(one of Arnold's previous
antagonists) had invited Huxley to presenta lectureto the students,and since
that time Huxley had frequently offeredhis advice concerningscientificstudiesat
Eton. Early in 1879, Huxley was electedto a seat on the governingbody of Eton,
a position which he held until 1888.9 Moreover, as Huxley well understood,
Arnold had tremendousinfluencewith the political leaders who were molding
Britain's educational policies. Among this group were W. E. Forster,Arnold's
brother-in-law,who was the author of the Education Act of 1870, and A. J.
Mundella, the vice-presidentof the Privy Council, whose educational reform
act was being debated in Parliament in late 1879 and 1880.10 Beyond these
practical considerationswas the larger philosophic issue about the grounds of
knowledgeand therelationshipof knowledgeto religionand ethics,whichHuxley,
like Arnold,neverlost sightof in any of his public controversies.The stakes were
too highforHuxley to pass up an opportunityto respondto Arnold. That oppor-
tunitycame at the openingof Sir Josiah Mason's Science College in Birmingham
on October 1, 1880, when Huxley deliveredhis speech "Science and Culture."
Although,as The Timesof the nextday put it, Huxley "shrinksfromgivingdirect
challengeto Mr. MatthewArnold,at once themostformidableand themosttem-
peratechampion of the Humanities,"11he musthave known that some response

balancewhichhe attempts to createin hisearlythoughtson educationwithhisclearpreference

forthetraditionsof ChristianHumanismin "Literatureand Science"(see,in particular,
Super,
4:290; also seethecommentson thistopicin David J.DeLaura, HebrewandHellenein Victorian
England[Austin,Tex., 19691,pp. 142-47).
6/Bibby, T. H. Huxley, p. 187.
7/SeeFred A. Dudley,"MatthewArnoldand Science,"PMLA 57 (1942): 291.
8/See W. F. Connell, The Educational Thoughtand Influenceof Matthew Arnold (London, 1950),
pp. 170-202,forbackgroundof the growthof scientific
educationin late VictorianEngland
as it pertains to Arnold. Also see Fred G. Walcott, The Origins of "Culture and Anarchy"
(Toronto,1970),p. 106,foran alternative
viewto the one givenhere; Walcottdescribesthe
Arnold-Huxley as "nothingmorethanan amicableclarification,
controversy theshoringup of
a basic agreement."
9/Bibby, T. H. Huxley, pp. 172-75.
10/SeeW. H. G. Armytage,
"MatthewArnoldand T. H. Huxley: Some New Letters,1870-80,"
Review of English Studies, N.S. 4 (1953): 352.
11/TheTimes(October2, 1880),p. 9. As Superpointsout, the humanisticresponseto "Science
and Culture" was made by othersprior to Arnold's "Literatureand Science" (10:464).

This content downloaded from 141.225.112.053 on November 06, 2016 19:16:10 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
318 Modern Philology(February 1977)

fromArnold was inevitable.Despite Huxley's manyqualificationsabout thevalue

of a liberaleducation,thechallengeto classical humanismwas too strongto ignore.
AfterHuxley had said that "the freeemploymentof reason, in accordance with
scientificmethod,is the sole method of reachingtruth,"and that such an "un-
hesitatingacceptance of reason" was "the supremearbiterof conduct,"12 Arnold
had to respond.
On October 17, 1880, Arnold wrote to Huxley to thank him for a copy of
"Science and Culture" and to clarifytwo points in theirevolvingargument:
Whatyousayof meis abundantly kind,and God forbidthatI shouldmakesucha bad
returnas to enterintocontroversy withyou: but I willremarkthatthedictumabout
knowing"the bestthathas been knownand said in theworld"was meantto include
knowingwhathas beensaid in scienceand artas wellas letters.I rememberedchanging
thewordsaidto theworduttered, becauseI was dissatisfied
withtheformulaforseeming
notto includeart,and a pictureor a statuemaybe calledan utterancethoughit cannot
be calleda saying:howeverI wentbackto said forthebase reasonthattheformularuns
so mucheasieroffthetonguewiththeshorter word.ButI neverdoubtedthattheformula
includedscience.'3
Besides making clear his hesitancyto argue publicly with Huxley, this letter
expresses Arnold's firmconviction that arts and lettersare culturallybound
togetherand thata liberaleducation mustbe cognizantof scienceand its achieve-
ments.
Arnold was not "to enterinto controversy"with Huxley, by name, untilhe
gave the Rede Lecture at Cambridge on June 14, 1882. But at least part of the
reason he feltable to postpone his directresponseso long may have been because
of the speech he made at the annual banquet of the Royal Academy of Arts on
Saturday,April 30, 1881.14Sir FrederickLeighton, the presidentof the Royal
Academy, whose duty it was to offer"the toast in which we do homage to
Science and Literature,"introducedSir William Grove to speak forscience,and

In fact,Arnold'sclose friendFriedrichMax Miller spoke at a luncheonat Mason College

immediately followingHuxley'sspeechand gave the essentialargumentwhichArnoldwas to
makein his Rede Lecture:"Literaryculturecan farbetterdispensewithphysicalsciencethan
physicalsciencecan dispensewithliterary culture"(see TheTimes[October5, 1880],p. 8).
12/ThomasH. Huxley,CollectedEssays of ThomasH. Huxley(New York, 1899), 3:148, 152.
I have used thistextforgeneralconvenience,but it is interesting
and importantto notethat
Huxleyboth refinedand emphasizedhis originalargumentin thislatereditionby changing
"sole guide to truth"to "sole methodof reachingtruth"and changed"arbiterof conduct"
to "supremearbiterof conduct"(see Nature22 [1880]: 547). It was mostlikelya copy of this
textfromNaturethat Huxley sent Arnold a week later,since the versionthat The Times
printedwas incomplete(see The Times[October2, 1880],p. 4).
13/SeeArmytage, p. 352. Arnoldmakesbothof thesepointsexplicitin "Literatureand Science,"
evenchangingthe offensive word"said" to "uttered"(Super 10:68-69).
14/Itmaybe usefulto quote thewordsof Lord Chenery,who spoke thissame eveningupon the
unique characterof thisannual event."Now, the feelingof all yourguestseveryyearwhen
assembledat thisbrilliantfestivaloftheRoyalAcademyis thatthereis something uniquein its
characterand in its attractions.It bringstogethersuch an assemblyas cannotelsewherebe
met,certainlynot in this country,possiblynot in the civilizedworld. [Cheers.]We have
princesof our Royal House-none of them,I believe,everwillingly absent;we havetherepre-
sentativesof the greatforeigncountrieswithwhichEnglandrejoicesto be in friendship and
unity;we have ourjudges,our prelates,our painters,our sculptors,our poets,our historians,
thechiefrepresentatives ofeverybranchofliterature.
No onecan feelanythingelsethanpleasure
and somedegreeofpridealso, in beingadmittedintosuchan assembly"(see TheTimes[May 2,
1881],
p. 13).

This content downloaded from 141.225.112.053 on November 06, 2016 19:16:10 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 Notes and Documents 319

then continued: "In response to Literature,I, a lover of form,gladly call on a

writerto whom formis peculiarlydear, and who has forthisresponsea twofold
qualification.He is a most happy poet, and withal a criticnot to be surpassed,
if he be equalled, in the subtlefelicitiesof his insight[cheers];a writerin whom a
keen and Attic spirit finds utterancein speech more than usually chastened,
bright and supple-a seeker after light, the foe of all Philistines--Matthew
Arnold. [Cheers.]" Sir William Grove spoke first,afterwhich Arnold gave the
followingspeech:

Sir FrederickLeighton,yourRoyal Highnesses,myLords,and Gentlemen,-Ihave to

thankyou fordoing honourto the toast of "Literature,"and I have to thankyou,
Mr. President,forthe kind way in whichyou have joined withthe toast my name.
I supposeeverybodymustbe in some degreeconsciousthatthe generalestimateof
literature, of itspowersand value,is notat presentquitewhatit once was. The French
dividethe matterstaughtin theirprimaryschools into obligatoryand facultative. I
cannotbut be conscious,whenthistoastof "Scienceand Literature"is given,thatin
whattendsto becomethe popularviewit is Sir WilliamGrove and Sciencewho are
obligatory; itis I and Literaturewhoarefacultative. Scienceisnecessary,and of literature,
thenewspapers;therest-all thatyou and I, Mr. President, understand byliterature-
is a facultative extra,moreor lessinteresting and ornamental. I am notnow,of course,
goingto combatthisestimate;I onlysaythatitprevails,and thatit makes,perhaps,the
task of speakingforLiterature a littledepressing. But thereis one consolingthought
whichin thisRoyalAcademyof Artscan hardlyfailto visitthemanofletters;it is that
we and you are, if I may to say so, in thesame boat. Whateverpolitethings
Sir WilliamGrovemaysayvwnture !o you,you and we are in thesameboat. Beforetheirsister,
Science,nowso fullof promiseand pride,was born,therewereArtand Literature, like
twinstogether, innocently believing in theirown necessity,as eagerin thepursuitofthe
eternaland unseizableshadow,beauty,as if theywerepursuingsomething positive.If
we are notnecessary, you are notnecessary. Fromyou,at least,whenScienceis bidding
us to standon one side, we may hope forsympathy. And the same thoughtof your
sympathy comesto myaid, too, whenI turnto yourotherguests,evenmoresplendid
thanthemenof science;whenI surveythisbrilliantcompanyof Princes,Ministersof
State, noble and wealthypatronsof art, whomyou have collectedround you, and
wonderwhatcan have inducedyou to importamongthemsuchan inutility as a poor
manofletters. Afterall, withus you havesympathies whichyoucannothavewiththese
granderguests.Theirfunctions are highand honorable,theirsympathy withart and
literature is refining and precious;yethow remoteis theirexperience and careerfrom
ours. Take one part only.Our struggle-yoursand ours-what do theyknow of it?
Whatdo theyknowofit,thesefavorites offortune, forwhomexistence, at anyrate,has
beenalwayssecureand easy,and who,so faras thegreatfirst needsofourpoormortality
areconcerned-lodging, food,and raiment-never passedan anxioushour,whatdo they
know of the strugglethroughwhicheven the mostgiftedand successfulartistsand
authorshaveoftento pass at theoutset,and fromwhichmanyand manya one among
us neveremerges ? Whatdo theyknow,bythesharpexperience ofthemselves or ofthose
dearto them,of all thattragicalhistoryof
"thefearthatkills,
"And hopethatis unwilling to be fed;
"Cold. pain,and labour,and all fleshly ills,
"And mighty poetsin theirmiserydead?"
Theyknownothingof it,theycan knownothingofit. But as longas artand literature
exist,so longwilltheartistand themanofletters havean indestructiblebondofsympathy
in thecommonexperience ofthatsternapprenticeship whichbothmustso oftentraverse.
And withthissympathy betweenus, howeveraugustthe companywhichyou collect
aroundyou,eventhehumblest manofletters mayfeel,as I do tonight,thatat yourtable

This content downloaded from 141.225.112.053 on November 06, 2016 19:16:10 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
320 Modern Philology(February 1977)

and thatyourwelcometo himis not less cordialthanit is

he is at thetableof friends,
courteous.[Cheers.]15
This is surelythecourageous speech of whichthe Worldwroteon September
13, 1882: "There is, perhaps,no otherman of lettersnow alive who would have
had the intrepidityto make such a speech as you did a couple of years ago in
returningthanks for the toast of literatureat the Academy dinner."16The
distinctionbetween"facuiltative"and "obligatory" mattersin educationwas one
which Arnold incorporatedinto his annual reportas School Inspectorfor 1880,
a reportupon whichhe was workingin the earlymonthsof 1881.17The seldom-
used phrase, "we are in the same boat," is echoed directlyfrom"A Speech at
Eton," whereit was similarlyused to expressthebasic solidarityof thehumanities
againstthecriticismsof theadvocates ofscientific education.18The quotationfrom
Wordsworth's"Resolution and Independence" and the almost pathetictone of
the speech are not only indications of how deeply Arnold felt the threat of
modern science against the humanities,but also, I think,additional clues about
the strainwhichrecentfamilyand financialdifficulties had imposed upon him.19
The beliefthatart and literatureare a "necessity"was to be reassertedin "Litera-
ture and Science," as was the distinctionthat art and literaturepursue some
eternalthingwhich is not "positive," that is, scientific.
Arnold's 1882 Rede Lecturewas the nextmajor escalation of the battlewith
Huxley. "Literatureand Science" was a purposefulrecollectionand reconsidera-
tion of Arnold's thoughtson education, science, religion,and literature,and
articulatedin its most complete formhis peculiar Christian,humanisticvision.
Despite any previous concessions which Arnold mighthave made to modern
science, as David J. DeLaura correctlystates, "Arnold felt that, as against a
Huxley,he stood besideNewmanin thiscrucialdebateof thenineteenth century."20
Except forthe factthatArnold revised"Literatureand Science" forhis 1883
American tour, the generally accepted understandingof the Arnold-Huxley
controversyends here. In fact,however,althoughHuxley neveragain mentioned
Arnold by name in connectionwiththe argument,his discussion of the relation-
ships of art, science, literature,education, and conduct was far fromfinished.
Before Arnold leftEngland on his American tour, Huxley had returnedto the
topic threemore times. Each response varied in emphasis and significance.The
firstof theseoccasions was thespeech,"On Science and Artin Relation to Educa-
tion," deliveredat the Liverpool Instituteon February16, 1883.21 In thislecture,

15/Ibid.
16/SeeSuper, 8:478, wherethis allusion is taken to referto Arnold's 1875 Royal Academy
speech.
17/See William Bell Guthrie, Matthew Arnold's Diaries, the UnpublishedItems: A Transcription
and Commentary (Ann Arbor,Mich., 1957), 1:407; 4:1355. Arnold'sdiaries,notebooks,and
letters,by the way,make no mentionof this1881 Royal Academyspeech.
18/SeeSuper,9:21.
19/See David J. DeLaura, "Four Arnold Letters," Texas Studies in Literature and Language 4
(1962): 277.
20/DeLaura, Hebrew and Hellene, p. 147.
21/SeeNature27 (1883): 396. This articleonlygivesan incompletetextof Huxley'sspeech,butit
establishesthe date of deliverywhichis incorrectly statedas 1882 in the CollectedEssays,
3:160, and in Irvine,pp. 283-86.

This content downloaded from 141.225.112.053 on November 06, 2016 19:16:10 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 Notes and Documents 321

Huxley, like Arnold in "Literatureand Science," reaches into his own past to
explain more fully his views on education and to relate them to the current
controversy.By thistime,as Huxley makes clear, the generalproblemwas being
discussed by a large group of influentialwriters,most recentlyin the "past half-
dozen numbersof the Journalof Education." But it would be wrong to assume
that Arnold had slipped completelyout of Huxley's mind in lightof the many
verbatim repetitionsof his argumentin "Science and Culture."22 The major
significanceof thisspeech is, perhaps,exactlythat Huxley chose to suppressany
directreferenceto Arnold and thathe adopted forhis argumenta more concilia-
toryand moderatetone.
The second occasion upon which Huxley chose to replyto Arnold was on
the evening of Saturday, May 5, 1883, at the Royal Academy of Arts annual
banquet, when Huxley responded to the same toast which Arnold had answered
two yearsearlier.AfteraskingJohnMorley to speak forliterature,Sir Frederick
Leighton introducedHuxley with the followingwords: "With science, I couple
the name underwhichwe know one of the mostfearless,keen,and lucid intellects
which have ever grappled with the problems of natural science and set them
solved beforeus, the name of ProfessorHuxley [cheers],a name known far and
wide whereverthe pregnantscienceof biologyis studied,and throughthe vehicle
of othertonguesbesides thatstrongand trenchantEnglishwithwhichhe is wont
to strike his thoughtsso vigorouslyhome. [Cheers.]" Huxley's speech was a
curious rhetoricalmixtureof humor,sarcasm, mythsabout art and science,and
dark portentsabout the future.The Timesgives the followingtranscript:
Sir FrederickLeighton,yourRoyal Highnesses, mylords,and gentlemen,-Ibeg leave
to thankyoufortheextremely kindand appreciative mannerin whichyouhavereceived
the toast of science.It is the moregratefulto me to hear thattoast proposedin an
assemblyof thiskind,becauseI havenoticedoflateyearsa greatand growing tendency
amongthosewho wereoncejestinglysaid to have been bornin a pre-scientific age to
look uponscienceas an invadingand aggressive forcewhich,ifithad itsownway,would
oustfromtheuniverseall otherpursuits.I thinkthereare manypersonswholook upon
thisnewbirthof our timesas a sortof monster risingout of thesea of modernthought
withthe purposeof devouringthe Andromedaof Art.And now and thena Perseus,
equippedwiththeshoesofswiftness ofthereadywriter, withthecap ofinvisibility ofthe
editorialarticle,and it maybe withthe Medusa head of vituperation, showshimself
readyto tryconclusionswiththescientific dragon.Sir, I hope thatPerseuswillthink
betterofit [laughter];first,forhisownsake,becausethecreatureis hardofhead,strong
ofjaw, and forsome timepast has showna greatcapacityforgoingoverand through
whatever comesin hisway; and,secondly, forthesake ofjustice,forI assureyou,ofmy
own personalknowledge, that,ifleftalone,thecreatureis a veryddbonnaire and gentle
monster.[Laughter.]And as fortheAndromedaofArt,he has thetenderest respectfor
thatlady,and desiresnothingmorethanto see herhappilysettled,and annuallyproduc-
ing a flockof such charmingchildrenas thesewe see about us. [Cheers.]But putting
parablesaside,I am unableto understand howanyone witha knowledge ofmankindcan
imaginethatthe growthof sciencecan threatenthe development of art in any of its
forms.If I understand the mnatterat all, scienceand artare theobverseand reverseof

22/Seeespecially,CollectedEssays,3:185: "I have said before,and I repeatit here,thatifa man

cannotgetliterarycultureof thehighestkindout of hisBibleetc.,"whichrepeats"Scienceand
Culture"(3:154).

This content downloaded from 141.225.112.053 on November 06, 2016 19:16:10 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
322 Modern Philology(February 1977)

Nature'smedal,theone expressing theeternalorderof thingsin termsof feeling,the

otherin termsof thought.Whenmenno longerlove or hate; whensuffering causes no
pity,and thetale of greatdeedsceases to thrill;whenthelilyof thefieldshallseemno
longermorebeautifully arrayedthanSolomonin all hisglory,and theawe has vanished
fromthesnow-cappedpeak and deep ravine,then,indeed,sciencemayhave theworld
to itself.Butitwillnotbe becausethemonster has devouredart,butbecauseone sideof
humannatureis dead, and because men have lost half of theirancientand present
attributes.[Cheers.]23

Huxley was approachinganotherperiod of physicaland psychiccollapse at

thistime,and he seemsto have been emotionallydrainedbythetensionsurround-
ing thisspeech. He wroteto his eldestdaughterthe nextday: "I had to speak last
nightat theAcademydinner,and eitherthator thequantityofcigarsI smoked ...
has left me rather shaky to-day," but he gave no indication that the speech
included anythingcontroversial.24Nonetheless (though I am convinced that
Arnold was notjesting),I take it thatthe allusion to one who "jestinglysaid" that
literatureand art were "born in a pre-scientific age" refersto Arnold. This was
certainlyclear to the author of an article in Nature which reviewed Huxley's
Royal Academy speech on May 17, 1883: "No one will be surprisedthat Mr.
Huxley took advantage of the opportunityaffordedhim at the Academy dinner
to replyto some remarksmade by Mr. MatthewArnold on a like occasion two
years ago."25 Huxley's speech cannot be said to clarifyor to extend eitherthe
practicalor the philosophicgroundsof the controversy.Basically,the speech is a
veiled threatto anyone who mightwant to challengethe expansion of science in
themodernworldand an unsupportedassertionthat,ifleftalone, sciencewillharm
no one. Nonetheless,even an understandingof thatadds to our appreciationof
what Arnold perceivedwas at stake in the controversy.
The last occasion in 1883 upon which Huxley had a chance to respond to
Arnold in public was apparentlymore significantfor the expectationsit created

23/SeeThe Times(May 7, 1883),p. 6.

24/Leonard Huxley, The Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley (New York, 1900), 2: 68.
25/"Scienceand Art," Nature,28 [1883]: 50. A numberof problemsare createdby thisreview
whichcannot,perhaps,be answeredadequately:theauthordistortsand exaggeratesArnold's
1881Academyspeechand attributes to himtheuse ofthesameclassicalallusionthatwas used
byWardHuntin a speechat theAcademyin 1875,theonlyotheroccasionupon whichArnold
spokethere(see The Times[May 3, 1875],p. 9). Was thisa slip of thereviewer'smemory,or a
coincidentalrhetoricalelaborationof Arnold'sargument?Whichever,the factremainsthat
theauthorclearlyunderstoodHuxley's1883speechto be a directresponseto Arnold's1881
speech. The most likelycandidateforthe authorof the reviewis J. Norman Lockyer,the
editorof Nature,who attendedthe Royal Academybanquetsregularly;he is listedas having
attendedin 1881,but notin 1883.Lockyerwas a close friendof Huxley,and Huxleyhad been
in helpingto foundNaturein 1869.Althoughotherfamousscientists,
veryinfluential including
Tyndall,Owen, Spottiswoode,and Hooker, made similarspeechesat the Royal Academy,
onlyHuxley's1883and 1887speecheswereeverreviewedin Nature(see Nature36 [1887]: 14).
Four weeksafterthe 1887 review,Lockyerwrotean editorialwhichcloselyechoed Huxley's
1887speech,and which,significantly, garbleda speechmade by Sir GeorgeTrevelyanon the
same occasion(see Nature36 [1887]: 145,and TheTimes[May2, 1887],p. 7). Finally,Lockyer's
authorshipof thiseditorialis supportedby the factthathe was so movedby Arnold's 1881
Royal Academyspeech thaithe could quote it verbatimin his own Royal Academyspeech
almosttwentyyearslater(see The Times[May 7, 1900],p. 9). It seemsdifficultto believethat
Lockyerwould have takenthechanceof reopeningan argumentbetweenArnoldand Huxley
unlessHuxleyhad beeninformedof his intention.

This content downloaded from 141.225.112.053 on November 06, 2016 19:16:10 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 Notes and Documents 323

than for the event itself.DeLaura has given an account of "Arnold's personal
triumph" at Cambridge when he returnedto receive an honorary degree a
year afterhaving deliveredthe Rede Lecture. In that account, DeLaura quotes
The Timesas saying,"The conductof theundergraduateswas mostsatisfactory";
he then states,"The fullforce,however,of thatlast provocativesentenceremains
unexplained.""26What was this "most satisfactory"conduct of the under-
graduates? Besides the fact that studentsin the Victorian era tended at times
to be as disruptiveas those of our more modern era, the nature of the answer
should become self-evidentwhen I call to mind the fact that Huxley gave the
annual Rede Lecture on the same day that Arnold receivedhis honorarydegree,
June13, 1883. The Timesprovidessome interesting informationabout the antici-
pation whichsurroundedHuxley's Rede Lecture. "One of the chiefeventsin the
Cambridge Easter Term is the Rede Lecture. This year, however, additional
interestwas excitedwhen it became knownthatthe Chancellor of the University
would preside and that the lecturerwas Professor Huxley. The demands for
admission were so numerous that the Senate-house Syndicate, to whom are
intrustedthe carryingout of the details of public ceremoniesin the Senate-house,
wiselydeterminedto issue a limitednumberof ticketsof admission,and conse-
quentlytherewas no overcrowding."27The chancellorof Cambridgein 1883 was
William Cavendish,the Duke of Devonshire,who was the chairmanof the Royal
Commission on ScientificInstructionand the Advancement of Science (the
DevonshireCommission,as it was commonlyknown) and was deeplyinvolvedin
the effortto expand scientificinstructionin Englishschools. This fact,joined with
the naturalexpectationthatHuxley's Rede Lecturewould be a significant response
to Arnold's "Literatureand Science" of the previousyear, and compounded by
the coincidencethatArnold would be presentat the speech,no doubt caused the
"additional interest"which surroundedthe event.
Those greatexpectations,however,musthave been sorelydisappointedwhen
Huxley's Rede Lecture was over. The only allusion in Huxley's lecture which
mightbe understoodto referto Arnold is his concluding plea: the studentsof
Cambridge should prepare themselves to answer scientificquestions "by as
diligentstudyas theywould forthe purpose of approachingquestions of literary
or theological criticism."28 This was certainlyrhetoricof a different sort from
that whichhad claimed that "the freeemploymentof reason, in accordance with
scientificmethod,is the sole methodof reachingtruth,"and it is perhaps under-
standable that the "conduct of the undergraduateswas most satisfactory"in
responseto such a noncontroversialspeech.
Still,J. R. AinsworthDavis's account of the eventsof that day deservesto
be rememberedtoo: "An amusing incident took place at Cambridge when

26/DeLaura,"Four ArnoldLetters,"p. 282.

27/TheTimes(June14, 1883),p. 3. The Timesonly givesan incompletetextof Huxley'sRede
Lecture.A completetextis givenin both Nature28 (1883): 187-89,and Huxley'sScientific
Memoirs,ed. M. Fosterand E. R. Lankester(London, 1903),5, suppl.: 69-79. The Memoirs
textincorrectly
statesthedate of thespeechas May 12, 1883.
28/ScientificMemoirs, 5: 78-79.

This content downloaded from 141.225.112.053 on November 06, 2016 19:16:10 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
324 Modern Philology(February 1977)

Huxleywas up fortheRede Lecture,in connectionwiththeconferring ofhonorary

degrees upon a large number of celebrities,including Matthew Arnold, Sir
Richard Temple, and Lubbock. Huxley,enveloped in his red gown, sat near the
frontwiththe otherdoctors. There had recentlybeen a skirmishof pens between
him and Arnold,and whenthe latteradvanced to stand out the usual oration,an
irreverentundergraduateshouted fromthe gallery--'Go and shake hands with
Huxley!' The joke was small, but Huxley's semi-amused,semi-sarcasticexpres-
sion was great."29Whetheror not Huxley chose to shake hands withArnold that
day, he at least chose not to raise his voice in contentionagainsthim. Huxleythus
promulgatedfor himselfand Arnold a separate peace.
Huxley is reported once to have said of the demise of the Metaphysical
Society,"The societydied of too muchlove." He is thoughtto have meantby that
statementthat,once it became clear that irreconcilabledifferences existedin the
firstprinciplesof the disputants,all debate charitablyceased-an interpretation
which seems to fitwell with the argumentwhich he had with Arnold.30Only
perhaps by a more complete study of Arnold's religious writingsbefore the
controversy,and of Huxley's religious writingsafterthe controversy,will any
more substantiallightbe shed upon their"amicable conflict."

of Chicago
University

29/J.R. AinsworthDavis, ThomasH. Huxley(London, 1907),pp. 172-73.

30/SeeWilfredWard,Problemsand Persons(London, 1903),p. 236.

This content downloaded from 141.225.112.053 on November 06, 2016 19:16:10 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).