received will heal as
quickly as my own flesh wounds have done.

A contribution to the last number of this Review (_The Nineteenth
Century_) of a different order would be left unnoticed, were it not that
my silence would convert me into an accessory to misrepresentations of
a very grave character. However, I shall restrict myself to the barest
possible statement of facts, leaving my readers to draw their own
conclusions.

In an article entitled "A Great Lesson," published in this Review for
September, 1887:

(1) The Duke of Argyll says the "overthrow of Darwin's speculations" (p.
301) concerning the origin of coral reefs, which he fancied had taken
place, had been received by men of science "with a grudging silence as
far as public discussion is concerned" (p. 301).

The truth is that, as every one acquainted with the literature of
the subject was well aware, the views supposed to have effected this
overthrow had been fully and publicly discussed by Dana in the United
States; by Geikie, Green, and Prestwich in this country; by Lapparent in
France; and by Credner in Germany.

(2) The Duke of Argyll says "that no serious reply has ever been
attempted" (p. 305).

The truth is that the highest living authority on the subject, Professor
Dana, published a most weighty reply, two years before the Duke of
Argyll committed himself to this statement.

(3) The Duke of Argyll uses the preceding products of defective
knowledge, multiplied by excessive imagination, to illustrate the manner
in which "certain accepted opinions" established "a sort of Reign of
Terror in their own behalf" (p. 307).

The truth is that no plea, except that of total ignorance of the
literature of the subject, can excuse the errors cited, and that the
"Reign of Terror" is a purely subjective phenomenon.

(4) The letter in "Nature" for the 17th of November, 1887, to which I
am referred, contains neither substantiation, nor retractation, of
statements 1 and 2. Nevertheless, it repeats number 3. The Duke of
Argyll says of his article that it "has done what I intended it to
do. It has called wide attention to the influence of mere authority
in establishing erroneous theories and in retarding the progress of
scientific truth."

(5) The Duke of Argyll illustrates the influence of his fictitious
"Reign of Terror" by the statement that Mr. John Murray "was strongly
advised against the publication of his views in derogation of Darwin's
long-accepted t