Life and Letters of Charles Darwin _ Volume 2 Charles Darwin 1500 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Life and Letters of Charles
Darwin — Volume 2
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will
have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using
this eBook.

Title: Life and Letters of Charles Darwin — Volume 2

Author: Charles Darwin

Editor: Sir Francis Darwin

Release date: February 1, 2000 [eBook #2088]
Most recently updated: January 15, 2022

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2088

Credits: Sue Asscher and David Widger

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LIFE AND
LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN — VOLUME 2 ***

THE LIFE AND LETTERS OF

CHARLES DARWIN

Volume II

By Charles Darwin

Including An Autobiographical Chapter

Edited By His Son Francis Darwin

CONTENTS

TRANSCRIPT OF A FACSIMILE OF A PAGE FROM A NOTE-
BOOK OF 1837.

LIFE AND LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN.
VOLUME II.
CHAPTER 2.I. — THE PUBLICATION OF THE 'ORIGIN OF
SPECIES.'
CHAPTER 2.II. — THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES' (continued).
CHAPTER 2.III. — SPREAD OF EVOLUTION.
CHAPTER 2.IV. — THE SPREAD OF EVOLUTION.
CHAPTER 2.V. — THE PUBLICATION OF THE 'VARIATION
OF ANIMALS AND PLANTS UNDER DOMESTICATION.'
CHAPTER 2.VI. — WORK ON 'MAN.'
CHAPTER 2.VII. — PUBLICATION OF THE 'DESCENT OF
MAN.'
CHAPTER 2.VIII. — MISCELLANEA
CHAPTER 2.IX. — MISCELLANEA (continued)
CHAPTER 2.X. — FERTILISATION OF FLOWERS.
CHAPTER 2.XI. — THE 'EFFECTS OF CROSS- AND SELF-
FERTILISATION

CHAPTER 2.XII. — 'DIFFERENT FORMS OF FLOWERS ON
PLANTS OF THE SAME SPECIES.'
CHAPTER 2.XIII. — CLIMBING AND INSECTIVOROUS
PLANTS.
CHAPTER 2.XIV. — THE 'POWER OF MOVEMENT IN
PLANTS.'
CHAPTER 2.XV. — MISCELLANEOUS BOTANICAL
LETTERS.
CHAPTER 2.XVI. — CONCLUSION.
APPENDIX I.
APPENDIX II.
Notes upon the Rhea Americana. Zoology Society Proc., Part v.
1837.
Notes on the Effects produced by the Ancient Glaciers of
Notes on the Fertilization of Orchids. Annals and Magazine of
Natural
APPENDIX III.
APPENDIX IV.

TRANSCRIPT OF A FACSIMILE OF A PAGE
FROM A NOTE-BOOK OF 1837.

—led to comprehend true affinities. My theory would give zest to recent
& Fossil Comparative Anatomy: it would lead to study of instincts,
heredity, & mind heredity, whole metaphysics, it would lead to closest
examination of hybridity & generation, causes of change in order to know
what we have come from & to what we tend, to what circumstances favour
crossing & what prevents it, this & direct examination of direct passages of
structure in species, might lead to laws of change, which would then be
main object of study, to guide our speculations.

LIFE AND LETTERS OF
CHARLES DARWIN.

VOLUME II.

CHAPTER 2.I. — THE PUBLICATION OF THE
'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'
OCTOBER 3, 1859, TO DECEMBER 31, 1859.

1859.
[Under the date of October 1st, 1859, in my father's Diary occurs the
entry: "Finished proofs (thirteen months and ten days) of Abstract on
'Origin of Species'; 1250 copies printed. The first edition was published on
November 24th, and all copies sold first day."
On October 2d he started for a water-cure establishment at Ilkley, near
Leeds, where he remained with his family until December, and on the 9th of
that month he was again at Down. The only other entry in the Diary for this
year is as follows: "During end of November and beginning of December,
employed in correcting for second edition of 3000 copies; multitude of
letters."
The first and a few of the subsequent letters refer to proof sheets, and to
early copies of the 'Origin' which were sent to friends before the book was
published.]
C. LYELL TO CHARLES DARWIN. (Part of this letter is given in the
'Life of Sir Charles Lyell,' volume ii. page 325.) October 3d, 1859.
My dear Darwin,
I have just finished your volume and right glad I am that I did my best
with Hooker to persuade you to publish it without waiting for a time which
probably could never have arrived, though you lived till the age of a
hundred, when you had prepared all your facts on which you ground so
many grand generalizations.
It is a splendid case of close reasoning, and long substantial argument
throughout so many pages; the condensation immense, too great perhaps for
the uninitiated, but an effective and important preliminary statement, which
will admit, even before your detailed proofs appear, of some occasional

useful exemplification, such as your pigeons and cirripedes, of which you
make such excellent use.
I mean that, when, as I fully expect, a new edition is soon called for, you
may here and there insert an actual case to relieve the vast number of
abstract propositions. So far as I am concerned, I am so well prepared to
take your statements of facts for granted, that I do not think the "pieces
justificatives" when published will make much difference, and I have long
seen most clearly that if any concession is made, all that you claim in your
concluding pages will follow. It is this which has made me so long hesitate,
always feeling that the case of Man and his races, and of other animals, and
that of plants is one and the same, and that if a "vera causa" be admitted for
one, instead of a purely unknown and imaginary one, such as the word
"Creation," all the consequences must follow.
I fear I have not time to-day, as I am just leaving this place, to indulge in
a variety of comments, and to say how much I was delighted with Oceanic
Islands—Rudimentary Organs—Embryology—the genealogical key to the
Natural System, Geographical Distribution, and if I went on I should be
copying the heads of all your chapters. But I will say a word of the
Recapitulation, in case some slight alteration, or at least, omission of a word
or two be still possible in that.
In the first place, at page 480, it cannot surely be said that the most
eminent naturalists have rejected the view of the mutability of species? You
do not mean to ignore G. St. Hilaire and Lamarck. As to the latter, you may
say, that in regard to animals you substitute natural selection for volition to
a certain considerable extent, but in his theory of the changes of plants he
could not introduce volition; he may, no doubt, have laid an undue
comparative stress on changes in physical conditions, and too little on those
of contending organisms. He at least was for the universal mutability of
species and for a genealogical link between the first and the present. The
men of his school also appealed to domesticated varieties. (Do you mean
LIVING naturalists?) (In the published copies of the first edition, page 480,
the words are "eminent living naturalists.")
The first page of this most important summary gives the adversary an
advantage, by putting forth so abruptly and crudely such a startling
objection as the formation of "the eye," not by means analogous to man's
reason, or rather by some power immeasurably superior to human reason,

but by superinduced variation like those of which a cattle-breeder avails
himself. Pages would be required thus to state an objection and remove it. It
would be better, as you wish to persuade, to say nothing. Leave out several
sentences, and in a future edition bring it out more fully. Between the
throwing down of such a stumbling-block in the way of the reader, and the
passage to the working ants, in page 460, there are pages required; and
these ants are a bathos to him before he has recovered from the shock of
being called upon to believe the eye to have been brought to perfection,
from a state of blindness or purblindness, by such variations as we witness.
I think a little omission would greatly lessen the objectionableness of these
sentences if you have not time to recast and amplify.
... But these are small matters, mere spots on the sun. Your comparison of
the letters retained in words, when no longer wanted for the sound, to
rudimentary organs is excellent, as both are truly genealogical.
The want of peculiar birds in Madeira is a greater difficulty than seemed
to me allowed for. I could cite passages where you show that variations are
superinduced from the new circumstances of new colonists, which would
require some Madeira birds, like those of the Galapagos, to be peculiar.
There has been ample time in the case of Madeira and Porto Santo...
You enclose your sheets in old MS., so the Post Office very properly
charge them as letters, 2 pence extra. I wish all their fines on MS. were
worth as much. I paid 4 shillings 6 pence for such wash the other day from
Paris, from a man who can prove 300 deluges in the valley of the Seine.
With my hearty congratulations to you on your grand work, believe me,
Ever very affectionately yours, CHAS. LYELL.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Ilkley, Yorkshire, October 11th
[1859].
My dear Lyell,
I thank you cordially for giving me so much of your valuable time in
writing me the long letter of 3d, and still longer of 4th. I wrote a line with
the missing proof-sheet to Scarborough. I have adopted most thankfully all
your minor corrections in the last chapter, and the greater ones as far as I
could with little trouble. I damped the opening passage about the eye (in my

bigger work I show the gradations in structure of the eye) by putting merely
"complex organs." But you are a pretty Lord Chancellor to tell the barrister
on one side how best to win the cause! The omission of "living" before
eminent naturalists was a dreadful blunder.
MADEIRA AND BERMUDA BIRDS NOT PECULIAR.
You are right, there is a screw out here; I thought no one would have
detected it; I blundered in omitting a discussion, which I have written out in
full. But once for all, let me say as an excuse, that it was most difficult to
decide what to omit. Birds, which have struggled in their own homes, when
settled in a body, nearly simultaneously in a new country, would not be
subject to much modification, for their mutual relations would not be much
disturbed. But I quite agree with you, that in time they ought to undergo
some. In Bermuda and Madeira they have, as I believe, been kept constant
by the frequent arrival, and the crossing with unaltered immigrants of the
same species from the mainland. In Bermuda this can be proved, in Madeira
highly probable, as shown me by letters from E.V. Harcourt. Moreover,
there are ample grounds for believing that the crossed offspring of the new
immigrants (fresh blood as breeders would say), and old colonists of the
same species would be extra vigorous, and would be the most likely to
survive; thus the effects of such crossing in keeping the old colonists
unaltered would be much aided.
ON GALAPAGOS PRODUCTIONS HAVING AMERICAN TYPE ON
VIEW OF CREATION.
I cannot agree with you, that species if created to struggle with American
forms, would have to be created on the American type. Facts point
diametrically the other way. Look at the unbroken and untilled ground in La
Plata, COVERED with European products, which have no near affinity to
the indigenous products. They are not American types which conquer the
aborigines. So in every island throughout the world. Alph. De Candolle's
results (though he does not see its full importance), that thoroughly well
naturalised [plants] are in general very different from the aborigines
(belonging in large proportion of cases to non-indigenous genera) is most
important always to bear in mind. Once for all, I am sure, you will
understand that I thus write dogmatically for brevity sake.
ON THE CONTINUED CREATION Of MONADS.

This doctrine is superfluous (and groundless) on the theory of Natural
Selection, which implies no NECESSARY tendency to progression. A
monad, if no deviation in its structure profitable to it under its
EXCESSIVELY SIMPLE conditions of life occurred, might remain
unaltered from long before the Silurian Age to the present day. I grant there
will generally be a tendency to advance in complexity of organisation,
though in beings fitted for very simple conditions it would be slight and
slow. How could a complex organisation profit a monad? if it did not profit
it there would be no advance. The Secondary Infusoria differ but little from
the living. The parent monad form might perfectly well survive unaltered
and fitted for its simple conditions, whilst the offspring of this very monad
might become fitted for more complex conditions. The one primordial
prototype of all living and extinct creatures may, it is possible, be now
alive! Moreover, as you say, higher forms might be occasionally degraded,
the snake Typhlops SEEMS (?!) to have the habits of earth-worms. So that
fresh creatures of simple forms seem to me wholly superfluous.
"MUST YOU NOT ASSUME A PRIMEVAL CREATIVE POWER
WHICH DOES NOT ACT WITH UNIFORMITY, OR HOW COULD
MAN SUPERVENE?"
I am not sure that I understand your remarks which follow the above. We
must under present knowledge assume the creation of one or of a few forms
in the same manner as philosophers assume the existence of a power of
attraction without any explanation. But I entirely reject, as in my judgment
quite unnecessary, any subsequent addition "of new powers and attributes
and forces;" or of any "principle of improvement," except in so far as every
character which is naturally selected or preserved is in some way an
advantage or improvement, otherwise it would not have been selected. If I
were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural
selection, I would reject it as rubbish, but I have firm faith in it, as I cannot
believe, that if false, it would explain so many whole classes of facts,
which, if I am in my senses, it seems to explain. As far as I understand your
remarks and illustrations, you doubt the possibility of gradations of
intellectual powers. Now, it seems to me, looking to existing animals alone,
that we have a very fine gradation in the intellectual powers of the
Vertebrata, with one rather wide gap (not half so wide as in many cases of
corporeal structure), between say a Hottentot and a Ourang, even if civilised
as much mentally as the dog has been from the wolf. I suppose that you do

not doubt that the intellectual powers are as important for the welfare of
each being as corporeal structure; if so, I can see no difficulty in the most
intellectual individuals of a species being continually selected; and the
intellect of the new species thus improved, aided probably by effects of
inherited mental exercise. I look at this process as now going on with the
races of man; the less intellectual races being exterminated. But there is not
space to discuss this point. If I understand you, the turning-point in our
difference must be, that you think it impossible that the intellectual powers
of a species should be much improved by the continued natural selection of
the most intellectual individuals. To show how minds graduate, just reflect
how impossible every one has yet found it, to define the difference in mind
of man and the lower animals; the latter seem to have the very same
attributes in a much lower stage of perfection than the lowest savage. I
would give absolutely nothing for the theory of Natural Selection, if it
requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent. I think
Embryology, Homology, Classification, etc., etc., show us that all vertebrata
have descended from one parent; how that parent appeared we know not. If
you admit in ever so little a degree, the explanation which I have given of
Embryology, Homology and Classification, you will find it difficult to say:
thus far the explanation holds good, but no further; here we must call in
"the addition of new creative forces." I think you will be driven to reject all
or admit all: I fear by your letter it will be the former alternative; and in that
case I shall feel sure it is my fault, and not the theory's fault, and this will
certainly comfort me. With regard to the descent of the great Kingdoms (as
Vertebrata, Articulata, etc.) from one parent, I have said in the conclusion,
that mere analogy makes me think it probable; my arguments and facts are
sound in my judgment only for each separate kingdom.
THE FORMS WHICH ARE BEATEN INHERITING SOME
INFERIORITY IN COMMON.
I dare say I have not been guarded enough, but might not the term
inferiority include less perfect adaptation to physical conditions?
My remarks apply not to single species, but to groups or genera; the
species of most genera are adapted at least to rather hotter, and rather less
hot, to rather damper and dryer climates; and when the several species of a
group are beaten and exterminated by the several species of another group,
it will not, I think, generally be from EACH new species being adapted to

the climate, but from all the new species having some common advantage
in obtaining sustenance, or escaping enemies. As groups are concerned, a
fairer illustration than negro and white in Liberia would be the almost
certain future extinction of the genus ourang by the genus man, not owing
to man being better fitted for the climate, but owing to the inherited
intellectual inferiority of the Ourang-genus to Man-genus, by his intellect,
inventing fire-arms and cutting down forests. I believe from reasons given
in my discussion, that acclimatisation is readily effected under nature. It has
taken me so many years to disabuse my mind of the TOO great importance
of climate—its important influence being so conspicuous, whilst that of a
struggle between creature and creature is so hidden—that I am inclined to
swear at the North Pole, and, as Sydney Smith said, even to speak
disrespectfully of the Equator. I beg you often to reflect (I have found
NOTHING so instructive) on the case of thousands of plants in the middle
point of their respective ranges, and which, as we positively know, can
perfectly well withstand a little more heat and cold, a little more damp and
dry, but which in the metropolis of their range do not exist in vast numbers,
although if many of the other inhabitants were destroyed [they] would cover
the ground. We thus clearly see that their numbers are kept down, in almost
every case, not by climate, but by the struggle with other organisms. All this
you will perhaps think very obvious; but, until I repeated it to myself
thousands of times, I took, as I believe, a wholly wrong view of the whole
economy of nature...
HYBRIDISM.
I am so much pleased that you approve of this chapter; you would be
astonished at the labour this cost me; so often was I, on what I believe was,
the wrong scent.
RUDIMENTARY ORGANS.
On the theory of Natural Selection there is a wide distinction between
Rudimentary Organs and what you call germs of organs, and what I call in
my bigger book "nascent" organs. An organ should not be called
rudimentary unless it be useless—as teeth which never cut through the
gums—the papillae, representing the pistil in male flowers, wing of
Apteryx, or better, the little wings under soldered elytra. These organs are
now plainly useless, and a fortiori, they would be useless in a less
developed state. Natural Selection acts exclusively by preserving successive

slight, USEFUL modifications. Hence Natural Selection cannot possibly
make a useless or rudimentary organ. Such organs are solely due to
inheritance (as explained in my discussion), and plainly bespeak an ancestor
having the organ in a useful condition. They may be, and often have been,
worked in for other purposes, and then they are only rudimentary for the
original function, which is sometimes plainly apparent. A nascent organ,
though little developed, as it has to be developed must be useful in every
stage of development. As we cannot prophesy, we cannot tell what organs
are now nascent; and nascent organs will rarely have been handed down by
certain members of a class from a remote period to the present day, for
beings with any important organ but little developed, will generally have
been supplanted by their descendants with the organ well developed. The
mammary glands in Ornithorhynchus may, perhaps, be considered as
nascent compared with the udders of a cow—Ovigerous frena, in certain
cirripedes, are nascent branchiae—in [illegible] the swim bladder is almost
rudimentary for this purpose, and is nascent as a lung. The small wing of
penguin, used only as a fin, might be nascent as a wing; not that I think so;
for the whole structure of the bird is adapted for flight, and a penguin so
closely resembles other birds, that we may infer that its wings have
probably been modified, and reduced by natural selection, in accordance
with its sub-aquatic habits. Analogy thus often serves as a guide in
distinguishing whether an organ is rudimentary or nascent. I believe the Os
coccyx gives attachment to certain muscles, but I can not doubt that it is a
rudimentary tail. The bastard wing of birds is a rudimentary digit; and I
believe that if fossil birds are found very low down in the series, they will
be seen to have a double or bifurcated wing. Here is a bold prophecy!
To admit prophetic germs, is tantamount to rejecting the theory of
Natural Selection.
I am very glad you think it worth while to run through my book again, as
much, or more, for the subject's sake as for my own sake. But I look at your
keeping the subject for some little time before your mind—raising your
own difficulties and solving them—as far more important than reading my
book. If you think enough, I expect you will be perverted, and if you ever
are, I shall know that the theory of Natural Selection, is, in the main, safe;
that it includes, as now put forth, many errors, is almost certain, though I
cannot see them. Do not, of course, think of answering this; but if you have
other OCCASION to write again, just say whether I have, in ever so slight a

degree, shaken any of your objections. Farewell. With my cordial thanks for
your long letters and valuable remarks,
Believe me, yours most truly, C. DARWIN.
P.S.—You often allude to Lamarck's work; I do not know what you think
about it, but it appeared to me extremely poor; I got not a fact or idea from
it.

CHARLES DARWIN TO L. AGASSIZ. (Jean Louis Rodolphe Agassiz,
born at Mortier, on the lake of Morat in Switzerland, on May 28, 1807. He
emigrated to America in 1846, where he spent the rest of his life, and died
December 14, 1873. His 'Life,' written by his widow, was published in
1885. The following extract from a letter to Agassiz (1850) is worth giving,
as showing how my father regarded him, and it may be added that his
cordial feelings towards the great American naturalist remained strong to
the end of his life:—
"I have seldom been more deeply gratified than by receiving your most
kind present of 'Lake Superior.' I had heard of it, and had much wished to
read it, but I confess that it was the very great honour of having in my
possession a work with your autograph as a presentation copy that has
given me such lively and sincere pleasure. I cordially thank you for it. I
have begun to read it with uncommon interest, which I see will increase as I
go on.") Down, November 11th [1859].
My dear Sir,
I have ventured to send you a copy of my book (as yet only an abstract)
on the 'Origin of Species.' As the conclusions at which I have arrived on
several points differ so widely from yours, I have thought (should you at
any time read my volume) that you might think that I had sent it to you out
of a spirit of defiance or bravado; but I assure you that I act under a wholly
different frame of mind. I hope that you will at least give me credit,
however erroneous you may think my conclusions, for having earnestly
endeavoured to arrive at the truth. With sincere respect, I beg leave to
remain,
Yours, very faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO A. DE CANDOLLE. Down, November 11th
[1859].
Dear Sir,
I have thought that you would permit me to send you (by Messrs.
Williams and Norgate, booksellers) a copy of my work (as yet only an
abstract) on the 'Origin of Species.' I wish to do this, as the only, though
quite inadequate manner, by which I can testify to you the extreme interest
which I have felt, and the great advantage which I have derived, from
studying your grand and noble work on Geographical Distribution. Should
you be induced to read my volume, I venture to remark that it will be
intelligible only by reading the whole straight through, as it is very much
condensed. It would be a high gratification to me if any portion interested
you. But I am perfectly well aware that you will entirely disagree with the
conclusion at which I have arrived.
You will probably have quite forgotten me; but many years ago you did
me the honour of dining at my house in London to meet M. and Madame
Sismondi (Jessie Allen, sister of Mrs. Josiah Wedgwood of Maer.), the
uncle and aunt of my wife. With sincere respect, I beg to remain,
Yours, very faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO HUGH FALCONER. Down, November 11th
[1859].
My dear Falconer,
I have told Murray to send you a copy of my book on the 'Origin of
Species,' which as yet is only an abstract.
If you read it, you must read it straight through, otherwise from its
extremely condensed state it will be unintelligible.
Lord, how savage you will be, if you read it, and how you will long to
crucify me alive! I fear it will produce no other effect on you; but if it
should stagger you in ever so slight a degree, in this case, I am fully
convinced that you will become, year after year, less fixed in your belief in

the immutability of species. With this audacious and presumptuous
conviction,
I remain, my dear Falconer, Yours most truly, CHARLES DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, November 11th [1859].
My dear Gray,
I have directed a copy of my book (as yet only an abstract) on the 'Origin
of Species' to be sent you. I know how you are pressed for time; but if you
can read it, I shall be infinitely gratified...If ever you do read it, and can
screw out time to send me (as I value your opinion so highly), however
short a note, telling me what you think its weakest and best parts, I should
be extremely grateful. As you are not a geologist, you will excuse my
conceit in telling you that Lyell highly approves of the two Geological
chapters, and thinks that on the Imperfection of the Geological Record not
exaggerated. He is nearly a convert to my views...
Let me add I fully admit that there are very many difficulties not
satisfactorily explained by my theory of descent with modification, but I
cannot possibly believe that a false theory would explain so many classes of
facts as I think it certainly does explain. On these grounds I drop my
anchor, and believe that the difficulties will slowly disappear...

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.S. HENSLOW. Down, November 11th, 1859.
My dear Henslow,
I have told Murray to send a copy of my book on Species to you, my dear
old master in Natural History; I fear, however, that you will not approve of
your pupil in this case. The book in its present state does not show the
amount of labour which I have bestowed on the subject.
If you have time to read it carefully, and would take the trouble to point
out what parts seem weakest to you and what best, it would be a most
material aid to me in writing my bigger book, which I hope to commence in
a few months. You know also how highly I value your judgment. But I am
not so unreasonable as to wish or expect you to write detailed and lengthy

criticisms, but merely a few general remarks, pointing out the weakest
parts.
If you are IN EVEN SO SLIGHT A DEGREE staggered (which I hardly
expect) on the immutability of species, then I am convinced with further
reflection you will become more and more staggered, for this has been the
process through which my mind has gone. My dear Henslow,
Yours affectionately and gratefully, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO JOHN LUBBOCK. (The present Sir John
Lubbock.) Ilkley, Yorkshire, Saturday [November 12th, 1859].
... Thank you much for asking me to Brighton. I hope much that you will
enjoy your holiday. I have told Murray to send a copy for you to Mansion
House Street, and I am surprised that you have not received it. There are so
many valid and weighty arguments against my notions, that you, or any
one, if you wish on the other side, will easily persuade yourself that I am
wholly in error, and no doubt I am in part in error, perhaps wholly so,
though I cannot see the blindness of my ways. I dare say when thunder and
lightning were first proved to be due to secondary causes, some regretted to
give up the idea that each flash was caused by the direct hand of God.
Farewell, I am feeling very unwell to-day, so no more.
Yours very truly, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO JOHN LUBBOCK. Ilkley, Yorkshire, Tuesday
[November 15th, 1859].
My dear Lubbock,
I beg pardon for troubling you again. I do not know how I blundered in
expressing myself in making you believe that we accepted your kind
invitation to Brighton. I meant merely to thank you sincerely for wishing to
see such a worn-out old dog as myself. I hardly know when we leave this
place,—not under a fortnight, and then we shall wish to rest under our own
roof-tree.
I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley's 'Natural
Theology.' I could almost formerly have said it by heart.

I am glad you have got my book, but I fear that you value it far too
highly. I should be grateful for any criticisms. I care not for Reviews; but
for the opinion of men like you and Hooker and Huxley and Lyell, etc.
Farewell, with our joint thanks to Mrs. Lubbock and yourself. Adios.
C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO L. JENYNS. (Now Rev. L. Blomefield.) Ilkley,
Yorkshire, November 13th, 1859.
My dear Jenyns,
I must thank you for your very kind note forwarded to me from Down. I
have been much out of health this summer, and have been hydropathising
here for the last six weeks with very little good as yet. I shall stay here for
another fortnight at least. Please remember that my book is only an abstract,
and very much condensed, and, to be at all intelligible, must be carefully
read. I shall be very grateful for any criticisms. But I know perfectly well
that you will not at all agree with the lengths which I go. It took long years
to convert me. I may, of course, be egregiously wrong; but I cannot
persuade myself that a theory which explains (as I think it certainly does)
several large classes of facts, can be wholly wrong; notwithstanding the
several difficulties which have to be surmounted somehow, and which
stagger me even to this day.
I wish that my health had allowed me to publish in extenso; if ever I get
strong enough I will do so, as the greater part is written out, and of which
MS. the present volume is an abstract.
I fear this note will be almost illegible; but I am poorly, and can hardly sit
up. Farewell; with thanks for your kind note and pleasant remembrance of
good old days.
Yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Ilkley, November 13th, 1859.
My dear Sir,
I have told Murray to send you by post (if possible) a copy of my book,
and I hope that you will receive it at nearly the same time with this note.

(N.B. I have got a bad finger, which makes me write extra badly.) If you are
so inclined, I should very much like to hear your general impression of the
book, as you have thought so profoundly on the subject, and in so nearly the
same channel with myself. I hope there will be some little new to you, but I
fear not much. Remember it is only an abstract, and very much condensed.
God knows what the public will think. No one has read it, except Lyell,
with whom I have had much correspondence. Hooker thinks him a
complete convert, but he does not seem so in his letters to me; but is
evidently deeply interested in the subject. I do not think your share in the
theory will be overlooked by the real judges, as Hooker, Lyell, Asa Gray,
etc. I have heard from Mr. Slater that your paper on the Malay Archipelago
has been read at the Linnean Society, and that he was EXTREMELY much
interested by it.
I have not seen one naturalist for six or nine months, owing to the state of
my health, and therefore I really have no news to tell you. I am writing this
at Ilkley Wells, where I have been with my family for the last six weeks,
and shall stay for some few weeks longer. As yet I have profited very little.
God knows when I shall have strength for my bigger book.
I sincerely hope that you keep your health; I suppose that you will be
thinking of returning (Mr. Wallace was in the Malay Archipelago.) soon
with your magnificent collections, and still grander mental materials. You
will be puzzled how to publish. The Royal Society fund will be worth your
consideration. With every good wish, pray believe me,
Yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN.
P.S. I think that I told you before that Hooker is a complete convert. If I
can convert Huxley I shall be content.

CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Ilkley, Yorkshire, Wednesday
[November 16th, 1859].
... I like the place very much, and the children have enjoyed it much, and
it has done my wife good. It did H. good at first, but she has gone back
again. I have had a series of calamities; first a sprained ankle, and then a
badly swollen whole leg and face, much rash, and a frightful succession of
boils—four or five at once. I have felt quite ill, and have little faith in this
"unique crisis," as the doctor calls it, doing me much good...You will

probably have received, or will very soon receive, my weariful book on
species, I naturally believe it mainly includes the truth, but you will not at
all agree with me. Dr. Hooker, whom I consider one of the best judges in
Europe, is a complete convert, and he thinks Lyell is likewise; certainly,
judging from Lyell's letters to me on the subject, he is deeply staggered.
Farewell. If the spirit moves you, let me have a line...

CHARLES DARWIN TO W.B. CARPENTER. Ilkley, Yorkshire,
November 18th [1859].
My dear Carpenter,
I must thank you for your letter on my own account, and if I know
myself, still more warmly for the subject's sake. As you seem to have
understood my last chapter without reading the previous chapters, you must
have maturely and most profoundly self-thought out the subject; for I have
found the most extraordinary difficulty in making even able men understand
at what I was driving. There will be strong opposition to my views. If I am
in the main right (of course including partial errors unseen by me), the
admission in my views will depend far more on men, like yourself, with
well-established reputations, than on my own writings. Therefore, on the
supposition that when you have read my volume you think the view in the
main true, I thank and honour you for being willing to run the chance of
unpopularity by advocating the view. I know not in the least whether any
one will review me in any of the Reviews. I do not see how an author could
enquire or interfere; but if you are willing to review me anywhere, I am sure
from the admiration which I have long felt and expressed for your
'Comparative Physiology,' that your review will be excellently done, and
will do good service in the cause for which I think I am not selfishly deeply
interested. I am feeling very unwell to-day, and this note is badly, perhaps
hardly intelligibly, expressed; but you must excuse me, for I could not let a
post pass, without thanking you for your note. You will have a tough job
even to shake in the slightest degree Sir H. Holland. I do not think
(privately I say it) that the great man has knowledge enough to enter on the
subject. Pray believe me with sincerity, Yours truly obliged,
C. DARWIN.

P.S.—As you are not a practical geologist, let me add that Lyell thinks
the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record NOT exaggerated.

CHARLES DARWIN TO W.B. CARPENTER. Ilkley, Yorkshire,
November 19th [1859].
My dear Carpenter,
I beg pardon for troubling you again. If, after reading my book, you are
able to come to a conclusion in any degree definite, will you think me very
unreasonable in asking you to let me hear from you. I do not ask for a long
discussion, but merely for a brief idea of your general impression. From
your widely extended knowledge, habit of investigating the truth, and
abilities, I should value your opinion in the very highest rank. Though I, of
course, believe in the truth of my own doctrine, I suspect that no belief is
vivid until shared by others. As yet I know only one believer, but I look at
him as of the greatest authority, viz., Hooker. When I think of the many
cases of men who have studied one subject for years, and have persuaded
themselves of the truth of the foolishest doctrines, I feel sometimes a little
frightened, whether I may not be one of these mon-maniacs.
Again pray excuse this, I fear, unreasonable request. A short note would
suffice, and I could bear a hostile verdict, and shall have to bear many a
one.
Yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Ilkley, Yorkshire, Sunday
[November 1859].
My dear Hooker,
I have just read a review on my book in the "Athenaeum" (November 19,
1859.), and it excites my curiosity much who is the author. If you should
hear who writes in the "Athenaeum" I wish you would tell me. It seems to
me well done, but the reviewer gives no new objections, and, being hostile,
passes over every single argument in favour of the doctrine,... I fear from
the tone of the review, that I have written in a conceited and cocksure style
(The Reviewer speaks of the author's "evident self-satisfaction," and of his

disposing of all difficulties "more or less confidently."), which shames me a
little. There is another review of which I should like to know the author,
viz., of H.C. Watson in the "Gardener's Chronicle". Some of the remarks are
like yours, and he does deserve punishment; but surely the review is too
severe. Don't you think so?
I hope you got the three copies for Foreign Botanists in time for your
parcel, and your own copy. I have heard from Carpenter, who, I think, is
likely to be a convert. Also from Quatrefages, who is inclined to go a long
way with us. He says that he exhibited in his lecture a diagram closely like
mine!
I shall stay here one fortnight more, and then go to Down, staying on the
road at Shrewsbury a week. I have been very unfortunate: out of seven
weeks I have been confined for five to the house. This has been bad for me,
as I have not been able to help thinking to a foolish extent about my book.
If some four or five GOOD men came round nearly to our view, I shall not
fear ultimate success. I long to learn what Huxley thinks. Is your
introduction (Introduction to the 'Flora of Australia.') published? I suppose
that you will sell it separately. Please answer this, for I want an extra copy
to send away to Wallace. I am very bothersome, farewell.
Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.
I was very glad to see the Royal Medal for Mr. Bentham.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 21st, 1859.
My dear Hooker,
Pray give my thanks to Mrs. Hooker for her extremely kind note, which
has pleased me much. We are very sorry she cannot come here, but shall be
delighted to see you and W. (our boys will be at home) here in the 2nd week
of January, or any other time. I shall much enjoy discussing any points in
my book with you...
I hate to hear you abuse your own work. I, on the contrary, so sincerely
value all that you have written. It is an old and firm conviction of mine, that
the Naturalists who accumulate facts and make many partial generalisations
are the REAL benefactors of science. Those who merely accumulate facts I
cannot very much respect.

I had hoped to have come up for the Club to-morrow, but very much
doubt whether I shall be able. Ilkley seems to have done me no essential
good. I attended the Bench on Monday, and was detained in adjudicating
some troublesome cases 1 1/2 hours longer than usual, and came home
utterly knocked up, and cannot rally. I am not worth an old button... Many
thanks for your pleasant note.
Ever yours, C. DARWIN.
P.S.—I feel confident that for the future progress of the subject of the
origin and manner of formation of species, the assent and arguments and
facts of working naturalists, like yourself, are far more important than my
own book; so for God's sake do not abuse your Introduction.
H.C. WATSON TO CHARLES DARWIN. Thames Ditton, November
21st [1859].
My dear Sir,
Once commenced to read the 'Origin,' I could not rest till I had galloped
through the whole. I shall now begin to re-read it more deliberately.
Meantime I am tempted to write you the first impressions, not doubting that
they will, in the main, be the permanent impressions:—
1st. Your leading idea will assuredly become recognised as an established
truth in science, i.e. "Natural Selection." It has the characteristics of all
great natural truths, clarifying what was obscure, simplifying what was
intricate, adding greatly to previous knowledge. You are the greatest
revolutionist in natural history of this century, if not of all centuries.
2nd. You will perhaps need, in some degree, to limit or modify, possibly
in some degree also to extend, your present applications of the principle of
natural selection. Without going to matters of more detail, it strikes me that
there is one considerable primary inconsistency, by one failure in the
analogy between varieties and species; another by a sort of barrier assumed
for nature on insufficient grounds and arising from "divergence." These
may, however, be faults in my own mind, attributable to yet incomplete
perception of your views. And I had better not trouble you about them
before again reading the volume.
3rd. Now these novel views are brought fairly before the scientific
public, it seems truly remarkable how so many of them could have failed to
see their right road sooner. How could Sir C. Lyell, for instance, for thirty

years read, write, and think, on the subject of species AND THEIR
SUCCESSION, and yet constantly look down the wrong road!
A quarter of a century ago, you and I must have been in something like
the same state of mind on the main question, but you were able to see and
work out the quo modo of the succession, the all-important thing, while I
failed to grasp it. I send by this post a little controversial pamphlet of old
date—Combe and Scott. If you will take the trouble to glance at the
passages scored on the margin, you will see that, a quarter of a century ago,
I was also one of the few who then doubted the absolute distinctness of
species, and special creations of them. Yet I, like the rest, failed to detect the
quo modo which was reserved for your penetration to DISCOVER, and
your discernment to APPLY.
You answered my query about the hiatus between Satyrus and Homo as
was expected. The obvious explanation really never occurred to me till
some months after I had read the papers in the 'Linnean Proceedings.' The
first species of Fere-homo ("Almost-man.") would soon make direct and
exterminating war upon his Infra-homo cousins. The gap would thus be
made, and then go on increasing, into the present enormous and still
widening hiatus. But how greatly this, with your chronology of animal life,
will shock the ideas of many men!
Very sincerely, HEWETT C. WATSON.
J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Athenaeum, Monday
[November 21st, 1859].
My dear Darwin,
I am a sinner not to have written you ere this, if only to thank you for
your glorious book—what a mass of close reasoning on curious facts and
fresh phenomena—it is capitally written, and will be very successful. I say
this on the strength of two or three plunges into as many chapters, for I have
not yet attempted to read it. Lyell, with whom we are staying, is perfectly
enchanted, and is absolutely gloating over it. I must accept your
compliment to me, and acknowledgment of supposed assistance from me,
as the warm tribute of affection from an honest (though deluded) man, and
furthermore accept it as very pleasing to my vanity; but, my dear fellow,
neither my name nor my judgment nor my assistance deserved any such
compliments, and if I am dishonest enough to be pleased with what I don't
deserve, it must just pass. How different the BOOK reads from the MS. I

see I shall have much to talk over with you. Those lazy printers have not
finished my luckless Essay; which, beside your book, will look like a
ragged handkerchief beside a Royal Standard...
All well, ever yours affectionately, JOS. D. HOOKER.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Ilkley, Yorkshire [November
1859].
My dear Hooker,
I cannot help it, I must thank you for your affectionate and most kind
note. My head will be turned. By Jove, I must try and get a bit modest. I
was a little chagrined by the review. (This refers to the review in the
"Athenaeum", November 19, 1859, where the reviewer, after touching on
the theological aspects of the book, leaves the author to "the mercies of the
Divinity Hall, the College, the Lecture Room, and the Museum.") I hope it
was NOT —. As advocate, he might think himself justified in giving the
argument only on one side. But the manner in which he drags in
immortality, and sets the priests at me, and leaves me to their mercies, is
base. He would, on no account, burn me, but he will get the wood ready,
and tell the black beasts how to catch me... It would be unspeakably grand
if Huxley were to lecture on the subject, but I can see this is a mere chance;
Faraday might think it too unorthodox.
... I had a letter from [Huxley] with such tremendous praise of my book,
that modesty (as I am trying to cultivate that difficult herb) prevents me
sending it to you, which I should have liked to have done, as he is very
modest about himself.
You have cockered me up to that extent, that I now feel I can face a score
of savage reviewers. I suppose you are still with the Lyells. Give my kindest
remembrance to them. I triumph to hear that he continues to approve.
Believe me, your would-be modest friend, C.D.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Ilkley Wells, Yorkshire, November
23 [1859].
My dear Lyell,

You seemed to have worked admirably on the species question; there
could not have been a better plan than reading up on the opposite side. I
rejoice profoundly that you intend admitting the doctrine of modification in
your new edition (It appears from Sir Charles Lyell's published letters that
he intended to admit the doctrine of evolution in a new edition of the
'Manual,' but this was not published till 1865. He was, however, at work on
the 'Antiquity of Man' in 1860, and had already determined to discuss the
'Origin' at the end of the book.); nothing, I am convinced, could be more
important for its success. I honour you most sincerely. To have maintained
in the position of a master, one side of a question for thirty years, and then
deliberately give it up, is a fact to which I much doubt whether the records
of science offer a parallel. For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for,
thinking of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often and
often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I
may not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally
impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly
wrong, and therefore I rest in peace. Thank you for criticisms, which, if
there be a second edition, I will attend to. I have been thinking that if I am
much execrated as an atheist, etc., whether the admission of the doctrine of
natural selection could injure your works; but I hope and think not, for as
far as I can remember, the virulence of bigotry is expended on the first
offender, and those who adopt his views are only pitied as deluded, by the
wise and cheerful bigots.
I cannot help thinking that you overrate the importance of the multiple
origin of dogs. The only difference is, that in the case of single origins, all
difference of the races has originated since man domesticated the species. In
the case of multiple origins part of the difference was produced under
natural conditions. I should INFINITELY prefer the theory of single origin
in all cases, if facts would permit its reception. But there seems to me some
a priori improbability (seeing how fond savages are of taming animals), that
throughout all times, and throughout all the world, that man should have
domesticated one single species alone, of the widely distributed genus
Canis. Besides this, the close resemblance of at least three kinds of
American domestic dogs to wild species still inhabiting the countries where
they are now domesticated, seem to almost compel admission that more
than one wild Canis has been domesticated by man.

I thank you cordially for all the generous zeal and interest you have
shown about my book, and I remain, my dear Lyell,
Your affectionate friend and disciple, CHARLES DARWIN.
Sir J. Herschel, to whom I sent a copy, is going to read my book. He says
he leans to the side opposed to me. If you should meet him after he has read
me, pray find out what he thinks, for, of course, he will not write; and I
should excessively like to hear whether I produce any effect on such a
mind.
T.H. HUXLEY TO CHARLES DARWIN. Jermyn Street W., November
23rd, 1859.
My dear Darwin,
I finished your book yesterday, a lucky examination having furnished me
with a few hours of continuous leisure.
Since I read Von Baer's (Karl Ernst von Baer, born 1792, died at Dorpat
1876—one of the most distinguished biologists of the century. He
practically founded the modern science of embryology.) essays, nine years
ago, no work on Natural History Science I have met with has made so great
an impression upon me, and I do most heartily thank you for the great store
of new views you have given me. Nothing, I think, can be better than the
tone of the book, it impresses those who know nothing about the subject. As
for your doctrine, I am prepared to go to the stake, if requisite, in support of
Chapter IX., and most parts of Chapters X., XI., XII., and Chapter XIII.
contains much that is most admirable, but on one or two points I enter a
caveat until I can see further into all sides of the question.
As to the first four chapters, I agree thoroughly and fully with all the
principles laid down in them. I think you have demonstrated a true cause for
the production of species, and have thrown the onus probandi that species
did not arise in the way you suppose, on your adversaries.
But I feel that I have not yet by any means fully realized the bearings of
those most remarkable and original Chapters III., IV. and V., and I will write
no more about them just now.
The only objections that have occurred to me are, 1st that you have
loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Natura non facit
saltum so unreservedly... And 2nd, it is not clear to me why, if continual

physical conditions are of so little moment as you suppose, variation should
occur at all.
However, I must read the book two or three times more before I presume
to begin picking holes.
I trust you will not allow yourself to be in any way disgusted or annoyed
by the considerable abuse and misrepresentation which, unless I greatly
mistake, is in store for you. Depend upon it you have earned the lasting
gratitude of all thoughtful men. And as to the curs which will bark and yelp,
you must recollect that some of your friends, at any rate, are endowed with
an amount of combativeness which (though you have often and justly
rebuked it) may stand you in good stead.
I am sharpening up my claws and beak in readiness.
Looking back over my letter, it really expresses so feebly all I think about
you and your noble book that I am half ashamed of it; but you will
understand that, like the parrot in the story, "I think the more."
Ever yours faithfully, T.H. HUXLEY.

CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Ilkley, November 25th [1859].
My dear Huxley,
Your letter has been forwarded to me from Down. Like a good Catholic
who has received extreme unction, I can now sing "nunc dimittis." I should
have been more than contented with one quarter of what you have said.
Exactly fifteen months ago, when I put pen to paper for this volume, I had
awful misgivings; and thought perhaps I had deluded myself, like so many
have done, and I then fixed in my mind three judges, on whose decision I
determined mentally to abide. The judges were Lyell, Hooker, and yourself.
It was this which made me so excessively anxious for your verdict. I am
now contented, and can sing my nunc dimittis. What a joke it would be if I
pat you on the back when you attack some immovable creationist! You have
most cleverly hit on one point, which has greatly troubled me; if, as I must
think, external conditions produce little DIRECT effect, what the devil
determines each particular variation? What makes a tuft of feathers come on
a cock's head, or moss on a moss-rose? I shall much like to talk over this
with you...

My dear Huxley, I thank you cordially for your letter.
Yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN.
P.S.—Hereafter I shall be particularly curious to hear what you think of
my explanation of Embryological similarity. On classification I fear we
shall split. Did you perceive the argumentum ad hominem Huxley about
kangaroo and bear?
ERASMUS DARWIN (His brother.) TO CHARLES DARWIN.
November 23rd [1859].
Dear Charles,
I am so much weaker in the head, that I hardly know if I can write, but at
all events I will jot down a few things that the Dr. (Dr., afterwards Sir
Henry Holland.) has said. He has not read much above half, so as he says he
can give no definite conclusion, and it is my private belief he wishes to
remain in that state... He is evidently in a dreadful state of indecision, and
keeps stating that he is not tied down to either view, and that he has always
left an escape by the way he has spoken of varieties. I happened to speak of
the eye before he had read that part, and it took away his breath—utterly
impossible—structure, function, etc., etc., etc., but when he had read it he
hummed and hawed, and perhaps it was partly conceivable, and then he fell
back on the bones of the ear, which were beyond all probability or
conceivability. He mentioned a slight blot, which I also observed, that in
speaking of the slave-ants carrying one another, you change the species
without giving notice first, and it makes one turn back...
... For myself I really think it is the most interesting book I ever read, and
can only compare it to the first knowledge of chemistry, getting into a new
world or rather behind the scenes. To me the geographical distribution, I
mean the relation of islands to continents, is the most convincing of the
proofs, and the relation of the oldest forms to the existing species. I dare say
I don't feel enough the absence of varieties, but then I don't in the least
know if everything now living were fossilized whether the paleontologists
could distinguish them. In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely
satisfactory to me that if the facts won't fit in, why so much the worse for
the facts is my feeling. My ague has left me in such a state of torpidity that I
wish I had gone through the process of natural selection.
Yours affectionately, E.A.D.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Ilkley, November [24th, 1859].
My dear Lyell,
Again I have to thank you for a most valuable lot of criticisms in a letter
dated 22nd.
This morning I heard also from Murray that he sold the whole edition
(First edition, 1250 copies.) the first day to the trade. He wants a new
edition instantly, and this utterly confounds me. Now, under water-cure,
with all nervous power directed to the skin, I cannot possibly do head-work,
and I must make only actually necessary corrections. But I will, as far as I
can without my manuscript, take advantage of your suggestions: I must not
attempt much. Will you send me one line to say whether I must strike out
about the secondary whale (The passage was omitted in the second
edition.), it goes to my heart. About the rattle-snake, look to my Journal,
under Trigonocephalus, and you will see the probable origin of the rattle,
and generally in transitions it is the premier pas qui coute.
Madame Belloc wants to translate my book into French; I have offered to
look over proofs for SCIENTIFIC errors. Did you ever hear of her? I
believe Murray has agreed at my urgent advice, but I fear I have been rash
and premature. Quatrefages has written to me, saying he agrees largely with
my views. He is an excellent naturalist. I am pressed for time. Will you give
us one line about the whales? Again I thank you for neve-tiring advice and
assistance; I do in truth reverence your unselfish and pure love of truth.
My dear Lyell, ever yours, C. DARWIN.
[With regard to a French translation, he wrote to Mr. Murray in
November 1859: "I am EXTREMELY anxious, for the subject's sake (and
God knows not for mere fame), to have my book translated; and indirectly
its being known abroad will do good to the English sale. If it depended on
me, I should agree without payment, and instantly send a copy, and only
beg that she [Mme. Belloc] would get some scientific man to look over the
translation... You might say that, though I am a very poor French scholar, I
could detect any scientific mistake, and would read over the French proofs."
The proposed translation was not made, and a second plan fell through in
the following year. He wrote to M. de Quatrefages: "The gentleman who
wished to translate my 'Origin of Species' has failed in getting a publisher.

Balliere, Masson, and Hachette all rejected it with contempt. It was foolish
and presumptuous in me, hoping to appear in a French dress; but the idea
would not have entered my head had it not been suggested to me. It is a
great loss. I must console myself with the German edition which Prof.
Bronn is bringing out." (See letters to Bronn, page 70.)
A sentence in another letter to M. de Quatrefages shows how anxious he
was to convert one of the greatest of contemporary Zoologists: "How I
should like to know whether Milne Edwards had read the copy which I sent
him, and whether he thinks I have made a pretty good case on our side of
the question. There is no naturalist in the world for whose opinion I have so
profound a respect. Of course I am not so silly as to expect to change his
opinion."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Ilkley, [November 26th, 1859].
My dear Lyell,
I have received your letter of the 24th. It is no use trying to thank you;
your kindness is beyond thanks. I will certainly leave out the whale and
bear...
The edition was 1250 copies. When I was in spirits, I sometimes fancied
that my book would be successful, but I never even built a castle in the air
of such success as it has met with; I do not mean the sale, but the
impression it has made on you (whom I have always looked at as chief
judge) and Hooker and Huxley. The whole has infinitely exceeded my
wildest hopes.
Farewell, I am tired, for I have been going over the sheets.
My kind friend, farewell, yours, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Ilkley, Yorkshire, December 2nd
[1859].
My dear Lyell,
Every note which you have sent me has interested me much. Pray thank
Lady Lyell for her remark. In the chapters she refers to, I was unable to
modify the passage in accordance with your suggestion; but in the final

chapter I have modified three or four. Kingsley, in a note (The letter is
given below) to me, had a capital paragraph on such notions as mine being
NOT opposed to a high conception of the Deity. I have inserted it as an
extract from a letter to me from a celebrated author and divine. I have put in
about nascent organs. I had the greatest difficulty in partially making out
Sedgwick's letter, and I dare say I did greatly underrate its clearness. Do
what I could, I fear I shall be greatly abused. In answer to Sedgwick's
remark that my book would be "mischievous," I asked him whether truth
can be known except by being victorious over all attacks. But it is no use.
H.C. Watson tells me that one zoologist says he will read my book, "but I
will never believe it." What a spirit to read any book in! Crawford writes to
me that his notice (John Crawford, orientalist, ethnologist, etc., 1783-1868.
The review appeared in the "Examiner", and, though hostile, is free from
bigotry, as the following citation will show: "We cannot help saying that
piety must be fastidious indeed that objects to a theory the tendency of
which is to show that all organic beings, man included, are in a perpetual
progress of amelioration, and that is expounded in the reverential language
which we have quoted.") will be hostile, but that "he will not calumniate the
author." He says he has read my book, "at least such parts as he could
understand." He sent me some notes and suggestions (quite unimportant),
and they show me that I have unavoidably done harm to the subject, by
publishing an abstract. He is a real Pallasian; nearly all our domestic races
descended from a multitude of wild species now commingled. I expected
Murchison to be outrageous. How little he could ever have grappled with
the subject of denudation! How singular so great a geologist should have so
unphilosophical a mind! I have had several notes from —, very civil and
less decided. Says he shall not pronounce against me without much
reflection, PERHAPS WILL SAY NOTHING on the subject. X. says —
will go to that part of hell, which Dante tells us is appointed for those who
are neither on God's side nor on that of the devil.
I fully believe that I owe the comfort of the next few years of my life to
your generous support, and that of a very few others. I do not think I am
brave enough to have stood being odious without support; now I feel as
bold as a lion. But there is one thing I can see I must learn, viz., to think
less of myself and my book. Farewell, with cordial thanks.
Yours most truly, C. DARWIN.

I return home on the 7th, and shall sleep at Erasmus's. I will call on you
about ten o'clock, on Thursday, the 8th, and sit with you, as I have so often
sat, during your breakfast.
I wish there was any chance of Prestwich being shaken; but I fear he is
too much of a catastrophist.
[In December there appeared in 'Macmillan's Magazine' an article, "Time
and Life," by Professor Huxley. It is mainly occupied by an analysis of the
argument of the 'Origin,' but it also gives the substance of a lecture
delivered at the Royal Institution before that book was published. Professor
Huxley spoke strongly in favour of evolution in his Lecture, and explains
that in so doing he was to a great extent resting on a knowledge of "the
general tenor of the researches in which Mr. Darwin had been so long
engaged," and was supported in so doing by his perfect confidence in his
knowledge, perseverance, and "high-minded love of truth." My father was
evidently deeply pleased by Mr. Huxley's words, and wrote:
"I must thank you for your extremely kind notice of my book in
'Macmillan.' No one could receive a more delightful and honourable
compliment. I had not heard of your Lecture, owing to my retired life. You
attribute much too much to me from our mutual friendship. You have
explained my leading idea with admirable clearness. What a gift you have
of writing (or more properly) thinking clearly."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO W.B. CARPENTER. Ilkley, Yorkshire, December
3rd [1859].
My dear Carpenter,
I am perfectly delighted at your letter. It is a great thing to have got a
great physiologist on our side. I say "our" for we are now a good and
compact body of really good men, and mostly not old men. In the long run
we shall conquer. I do not like being abused, but I feel that I can now bear
it; and, as I told Lyell, I am well convinced that it is the first offender who
reaps the rich harvest of abuse. You have done an essential kindness in
checking the odium theologicum in the E.R. (This must refer to Carpenter's
critique which would now have been ready to appear in the January number
of the "Edinburgh Review", 1860, and in which the odium theologicum is
referred to.) It much pains all one's female relations and injures the cause.

I look at it as immaterial whether we go quite the same lengths; and I
suspect, judging from myself, that you will go further, by thinking of a
population of forms like Ornithorhyncus, and by thinking of the common
homological and embryological structure of the several vertebrate orders.
But this is immaterial. I quite agree that the principle is everything. In my
fuller MS. I have discussed a good many instincts; but there will surely be
more unfilled gaps here than with corporeal structure, for we have no fossil
instincts, and know scarcely any except of European animals. When I
reflect how very slowly I came round myself, I am in truth astonished at the
candour shown by Lyell, Hooker, Huxley, and yourself. In my opinion it is
grand. I thank you cordially for taking the trouble of writing a review for
the 'National.' God knows I shall have few enough in any degree
favourable. (See a letter to Dr. Carpenter below.)

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Saturday [December 5th, 1859].
... I have had a letter from Carpenter this morning. He reviews me in the
'National.' He is a convert, but does not go quite so far as I, but quite far
enough, for he admits that all birds are from one progenitor, and probably
all fishes and reptiles from another parent. But the last mouthful chokes
him. He can hardly admit all vertebrates from one parent. He will surely
come to this from Homology and Embryology. I look at it as grand having
brought round a great physiologist, for great I think he certainly is in that
line. How curious I shall be to know what line Owen will take; dead against
us, I fear; but he wrote me a most liberal note on the reception of my book,
and said he was quite prepared to consider fairly and without prejudice my
line of argument.
J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, Monday.
Dear Darwin,
You have, I know, been drenched with letters since the publication of
your book, and I have hence forborne to add my mite. I hope now that you
are well through Edition II., and I have heard that you were flourishing in
London. I have not yet got half-through the book, not from want of will, but
of time—for it is the very hardest book to read, to full profits, that I ever
tried—it is so cram-full of matter and reasoning. I am all the more glad that
you have published in this form, for the three volumes, unprefaced by this,

would have choked any Naturalist of the nineteenth century, and certainly
have softened my brain in the operation of assimilating their contents. I am
perfectly tired of marvelling at the wonderful amount of facts you have
brought to bear, and your skill in marshalling them and throwing them on
the enemy; it is also extremely clear as far as I have gone, but very hard to
fully appreciate. Somehow it reads very different from the MS., and I often
fancy I must have been very stupid not to have more fully followed it in
MS. Lyell told me of his criticisms. I did not appreciate them all, and there
are many little matters I hope one day to talk over with you. I saw a highly
flattering notice in the 'English Churchman,' short and not at all entering
into discussion, but praising you and your book, and talking patronizingly
of the doctrine!... Bentham and Henslow will still shake their heads I
fancy...
Ever yours affectionately, JOS. D. HOOKER.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, Saturday [December 12th,
1859].
... I had very long interviews with —, which perhaps you would like to
hear about... I infer from several expressions that, at bottom, he goes an
immense way with us...
He said to the effect that my explanation was the best ever published of
the manner of formation of species. I said I was very glad to hear it. He
took me up short: "You must not at all suppose that I agree with you in all
respects." I said I thought it no more likely that I should be right in nearly
all points, than that I should toss up a penny and get heads twenty times
running. I asked him what he thought the weakest part. He said he had no
particular objection to any part. He added:—
"If I must criticise, I should say, 'we do not want to know what Darwin
believes and is convinced of, but what he can prove.'" I agreed most fully
and truly that I have probably greatly sinned in this line, and defended my
general line of argument of inventing a theory and seeing how many classes
of facts the theory would explain. I added that I would endeavour to modify
the "believes" and "convinceds." He took me up short: "You will then spoil
your book, the charm of (!) it is that it is Darwin himself." He added
another objection, that the book was too teres atque rotundus—that it

explained everything, and that it was improbable in the highest degree that I
should succeed in this. I quite agree with this rather queer objection, and it
comes to this that my book must be very bad or very good...
I have heard, by roundabout channel, that Herschel says my book "is the
law of higgledy-piggledy." What this exactly means I do not know, but it is
evidently very contemptuous. If true this is a great blow and
discouragement.

CHARLES DARWIN TO JOHN LUBBOCK. December 14th [1859].
... The latter part of my stay at Ilkley did me much good, but I suppose I
never shall be strong, for the work I have had since I came back has
knocked me up a little more than once. I have been busy in getting a reprint
(with a very few corrections) through the press.
My book has been as yet VERY MUCH more successful than I ever
dreamed of: Murray is now printing 3000 copies. Have you finished it? If
so, pray tell me whether you are with me on the GENERAL issue, or
against me. If you are against me, I know well how honourable, fair, and
candid an opponent I shall have, and which is a good deal more than I can
say of all my opponents...
Pray tell me what you have been doing. Have you had time for any
Natural History?...
P.S.—I have got—I wish and hope I might say that WE have got—a fair
number of excellent men on our side of the question on the mutability of
species.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 14th [1859].
My dear Hooker,
Your approval of my book, for many reasons, gives me intense
satisfaction; but I must make some allowance for your kindness and
sympathy. Any one with ordinary faculties, if he had PATIENCE enough
and plenty of time, could have written my book. You do not know how I
admire your and Lyell's generous and unselfish sympathy, I do not believe
either of you would have cared so much about your own work. My book, as

yet, has been far more successful than I ever even formerly ventured in the
wildest day-dreams to anticipate. We shall soon be a good body of working
men, and shall have, I am convinced, all young and rising naturalists on our
side. I shall be intensely interested to hear whether my book produces any
effect on A. Gray; from what I heard at Lyell's, I fancy your correspondence
has brought him some way already. I fear that there is no chance of
Bentham being staggered. Will he read my book? Has he a copy? I would
send him one of the reprints if he has not. Old J.E. Gray (John Edward Gray
(1800-1875), was the son of S.F. Gray, author of the 'Supplement to the
Pharmacopoeia.' In 1821 he published in his father's name 'The Natural
Arrangement of British Plants,' one of the earliest works in English on the
natural method. In 1824 he became connected with the Natural History
Department of the British Museum, and was appointed Keeper of the
Zoological collections in 1840. He was the author of 'Illustrations of Indian
Zoology,' 'The Knowsley Menagerie,' etc., and of innumerable descriptive
Zoological papers.), at the British Museum, attacked me in fine style: "You
have just reproduced Lamarck's doctrine and nothing else, and here Lyell
and others have been attacking him for twenty years, and because YOU
(with a sneer and laugh) say the very same thing, they are all coming round;
it is the most ridiculous inconsistency, etc., etc."
You must be very glad to be settled in your house, and I hope all the
improvements satisfy you. As far as my experience goes, improvements are
never perfection. I am very sorry to hear that you are still so very busy, and
have so much work. And now for the main purport of my note, which is to
ask and beg you and Mrs. Hooker (whom it is really an age since I have
seen), and all your children, if you like, to come and spend a week here. It
would be a great pleasure to me and to my wife... As far as we can see, we
shall be at home all the winter; and all times probably would be equally
convenient; but if you can, do not put it off very late, as it may slip through.
Think of this and persuade Mrs. Hooker, and be a good man and come.
Farewell, my kind and dear friend, Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.
P.S.—I shall be very curious to hear what you think of my discussion on
Classification in Chapter XIII.; I believe Huxley demurs to the whole, and
says he has nailed his colours to the mast, and I would sooner die than give
up; so that we are in as fine a frame of mind to discuss the point as any two
religionists.

Embryology is my pet bit in my book, and, confound my friends, not one
has noticed this to me.

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, December 21st [1859].
My dear Gray,
I have just received your most kind, long, and valuable letter. I will write
again in a few days, for I am at present unwell and much pressed with
business: to-day's note is merely personal. I should, for several reasons, be
very glad of an American Edition. I have made up my mind to be well
abused; but I think it of importance that my notions should be read by
intelligent men, accustomed to scientific argument, though NOT naturalists.
It may seem absurd, but I think such men will drag after them those
naturalists who have too firmly fixed in their heads that a species is an
entity. The first edition of 1250 copies was sold on the first day, and now
my publisher is printing off, as RAPIDLY AS POSSIBLE, 3000 more
copies. I mention this solely because it renders probable a remunerative sale
in America. I should be infinitely obliged if you could aid an American
reprint; and could make, for my sake and the publisher's, any arrangement
for any profit. The new edition is only a reprint, yet I have made a FEW
important corrections. I will have the clean sheets sent over in a few days of
as many sheets as are printed off, and the remainder afterwards, and you
can do anything you like,—if nothing, there is no harm done. I should be
glad for the new edition to be reprinted and not the old.—In great haste, and
with hearty thanks,
Yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN.
I will write soon again.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, 22nd [December, 1859].
My dear Lyell, Thanks about "Bears" (See 'Origin,' edition i., page 184.),
a word of il-omen to me.
I am too unwell to leave home, so shall not see you.
I am very glad of your remarks on Hooker. (Sir C. Lyell wrote to Sir J.D.
Hooker, December 19, 1859 ('Life,' ii. page 327): "I have just finished the

reading of your splendid Essay [the 'Flora of Australia'] on the origin of
species, as illustrated by your wide botanical experience, and think it goes
very far to raise the variety-making hypothesis to the rank of a theory, as
accounting for the manner in which new species enter the world.") I have
not yet got the essay. The parts which I read in sheets seemed to me grand,
especially the generalization about the Australian flora itself. How superior
to Robert Brown's celebrated essay! I have not seen Naudin's paper ('Revue
Horticole,' 1852. See historical Sketch in the later editions of the 'Origin of
Species.'), and shall not be able till I hunt the libraries. I am very anxious to
see it. Decaisne seems to think he gives my whole theory. I do not know
when I shall have time and strength to grapple with Hooker...
P.S.—I have heard from Sir W. Jardine (Jardine, Sir William, Bart., 1800-
1874), was the son of Sir A. Jardine of Applegarth, Dumfriesshire. He was
educated at Edinburgh, and succeeded to the title on his father's decease in
1821. He published, jointly with Mr. Prideaux, J. Selby, Sir Stamford
Raffles, Dr. Horsfield, and other ornithologists, 'Illustrations of
Ornithology,' and edited the 'Naturalist's Library,' in 40 volumes, which
included the four branches: Mammalia, Ornithology, Ichnology, and
Entomology. Of these 40 volumes 14 were written by himself. In 1836 he
became editor of the 'Magazine of Zoology and Botany,' which, two years
later, was transformed into 'Annals of Natural History,' but remained under
his direction. For Bohn's Standard Library he edited White's 'Natural
History of Selborne.' Sir W. Jardine was also joint editor of the 'Edinburgh
Philosophical Journal,' and was author of 'British Salmonidae,' 'Ichthyology
of Annandale,' 'Memoirs of the late Hugh Strickland,' 'Contributions to
Ornithology,' 'Ornithological Synonyms,' etc.—(Taken from Ward, 'Men of
the Reign,' and Cates, 'Dictionary of General Biography.'): his criticisms are
quite unimportant; some of the Galapagos so-called species ought to be
called varieties, which I fully expected; some of the sub-genera, thought to
be wholly endemic, have been found on the Continent (not that he gives his
authority), but I do not make out that the species are the same. His letter is
brief and vague, but he says he will write again.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [23rd December, 1859].
My dear Hooker,

I received last night your 'Introduction,' for which very many thanks; I
am surprised to see how big it is: I shall not be able to read it very soon. It
was very good of you to send Naudin, for I was very curious to see it. I am
surprised that Decaisne should say it was the same as mine. Naudin gives
artificial selection, as well as a score of English writers, and when he says
species were formed in the same manner, I thought the paper would
certainly prove exactly the same as mine. But I cannot find one word like
the struggle for existence and natural selection. On the contrary, he brings
in his principle (page 103) of finality (which I do not understand), which, he
says, with some authors is fatality, with others providence, and which
adapts the forms of every being, and harmonises them all throughout nature.
He assumes like old geologists (who assumed that the forces of nature
were formerly greater), that species were at first more plastic. His simile of
tree and classification is like mine (and others), but he cannot, I think, have
reflected much on the subject, otherwise he would see that genealogy by
itself does not give classification; I declare I cannot see a MUCH closer
approach to Wallace and me in Naudin than in Lamarck—we all agree in
modification and descent. If I do not hear from you I will return the 'Revue'
in a few days (with the cover). I dare say Lyell would be glad to see it. By
the way, I will retain the volume till I hear whether I shall or not send it to
Lyell. I should rather like Lyell to see this note, though it is foolish work
sticking up for independence or priority.
Ever yours, C. DARWIN.

A. SEDGWICK (Rev. Adam Sedgwick, 1785-1873, Woodwardian
Professor of Geology in the University of Cambridge.) TO CHARLES
DARWIN. Cambridge, December 24th, [1859].
My dear Darwin,
I write to thank you for your work on the 'Origin of Species.' It came, I
think, in the latter part of last week; but it MAY have come a few days
sooner, and been overlooked among my book-parcels, which often remain
unopened when I am lazy or busy with any work before me. So soon as I
opened it I began to read it, and I finished it, after many interruptions, on
Tuesday. Yesterday I was employed—1st, in preparing for my lecture;
2ndly, in attending a meeting of my brother Fellows to discuss the final

propositions of the Parliamentary Commissioners; 3rdly, in lecturing; 4thly,
in hearing the conclusion of the discussion and the College reply, whereby,
in conformity with my own wishes, we accepted the scheme of the
Commissioners; 5thly, in dining with an old friend at Clare College; 6thly,
in adjourning to the weekly meeting of the Ray Club, from which I returned
at 10 P.M., dog-tired, and hardly able to climb my staircase. Lastly, in
looking through the "Times" to see what was going on in the busy world.
I do not state this to fill space (though I believe that Nature does abhor a
vacuum), but to prove that my reply and my thanks are sent to you by the
earliest leisure I have, though that is but a very contracted opportunity. If I
did not think you a good-tempered and truth-loving man, I should not tell
you that (spite of the great knowledge, store of facts, capital views of the
correlation of the various parts of organic nature, admirable hints about the
diffusion, through wide regions of many related organic beings, etc., etc.) I
have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired
greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read
with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously
mischievous. You have DESERTED—after a start in that tram-road of all
solid physical truth—the true method of induction, and started us in
machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins's locomotive that was to sail
with us to the moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon
assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express
them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction? As to
your grand principle—NATURAL SELECTION—what is it but a
secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts!
Development is a better word, because more close to the cause of the fact?
For you do not deny causation. I call (in the abstract) causation the will of
God; and I can prove that He acts for the good of His creatures. He also acts
by laws which we can study and comprehend. Acting by law, and under
what is called final causes, comprehends, I think, your whole principle. You
write of "natural selection" as if it were done curiously by the selecting
agent. 'Tis but a consequence of the presupposed development, and the
subsequent battle for life. This view of nature you have stated admirably,
though admitted by all naturalists and denied by no one of common sense.
We all admit development as a fact of history: but how came it about? Here,
in language, and still more in logic, we are point-blank at issue. There is a
moral or metaphysical part of nature as well a physical. A man who denies

this is deep in the mire of folly. 'Tis the crown and glory of organic science
that it DOES through FINAL CAUSE, link material and moral; and yet
DOES NOT allow us to mingle them in our first conception of laws, and
our classification of such laws, whether we consider one side of nature or
the other. You have ignored this link; and, if I do not mistake your meaning,
you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it
possible (which, thank God, it is not) to break it, humanity, in my mind,
would suffer a damage that might brutalize it, and sink the human race into
a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its
written records tell us of its history. Take the case of the bee-cells. If your
development produced the successive modification of the bee and its cells
(which no mortal can prove), final cause would stand good as the directing
cause under which the successive generations acted and gradually
improved. Passages in your book, like that to which I have alluded (and
there are others almost as bad), greatly shocked my moral taste. I think, in
speculating on organic descent, you OVER-state the evidence of geology;
and that you UNDER-state it while you are talking of the broken links of
your natural pedigree: but my paper is nearly done, and I must go to my
lecture-room. Lastly, then, I greatly dislike the concluding chapter—not as a
summary, for in that light it appears good—but I dislike it from the tone of
triumphant confidence in which you appeal to the rising generation (in a
tone I condemned in the author of the 'Vestiges') and prophesy of things not
yet in the womb of time, nor (if we are to trust the accumulated experience
of human sense and the inferences of its logic) ever likely to be found
anywhere but in the fertile womb of man's imagination. And now to say a
word about a son of a monkey and an old friend of yours: I am better, far
better, than I was last year. I have been lecturing three days a week
(formerly I gave six a week) without much fatigue, but I find by the loss of
activity and memory, and of all productive powers, that my bodily frame is
sinking slowly towards the earth. But I have visions of the future. They are
as much a part of myself as my stomach and my heart, and these visions are
to have their antitype in solid fruition of what is best and greatest. But on
one condition only—that I humbly accept God's revelation of Himself both
in his works and in His word, and do my best to act in conformity with that
knowledge which He only can give me, and He only can sustain me in
doing. If you and I do all this we shall meet in heaven.

I have written in a hurry, and in a spirit of brotherly love, therefore
forgive any sentence you happen to dislike; and believe me, spite of any
disagreement in some points of the deepest moral interest, your tru-hearted
old friend,
A. SEDGWICK.

CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 25th [1859].
My dear Huxley,
One part of your note has pleased me so much that I must thank you for
it. Not only Sir H.H. [Holland], but several others, have attacked me about
analogy leading to belief in one primordial CREATED form. ('Origin,'
edition i. page 484.—"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably
all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended
from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.") (By
which I mean only that we know nothing as yet [of] how life originates.) I
thought I was universally condemned on this head. But I answered that
though perhaps it would have been more prudent not to have put it in, I
would not strike it out, as it seemed to me probable, and I give it on no
other grounds. You will see in your mind the kind of arguments which made
me think it probable, and no one fact had so great an effect on me as your
most curious remarks on the apparent homologies of the head of Vertebrata
and Articulata.
You have done a real good turn in the Agency business ("My General
Agent" was a sobriquet applied at this time by my father to Mr. Huxley.) (I
never before heard of a hard-working, unpaid agent besides yourself), in
talking with Sir H.H., for he will have great influence over many. He
floored me from my ignorance about the bones of the ear, and I made a
mental note to ask you what the facts were.
With hearty thanks and real admiration for your generous zeal for the
subject.
Yours most truly, C. DARWIN.
You may smile about the care and precautions I have taken about my
ugly MS. (Manuscript left with Mr. Huxley for his perusal.); it is not so

much the value I set on them, but the remembrance of the intolerable labour
—for instance, in tracing the history of the breeds of pigeons.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, 25th [December, 1859].
... I shall not write to Decaisne (With regard to Naudin's paper in the
'Revue Horticole,' 1852.); I have always had a strong feeling that no one
had better defend his own priority. I cannot say that I am as indifferent to
the subject as I ought to be, but one can avoid doing anything in
consequence.
I do not believe one iota about your having assimilated any of my notions
unconsciously. You have always done me more than justice. But I do think I
did you a bad turn by getting you to read the old MS., as it must have
checked your own original thoughts. There is one thing I am fully
convinced of, that the future progress (which is the really important point)
of the subject will have depended on really good and well-known workers,
like yourself, Lyell, and Huxley, having taken up the subject, than on my
own work. I see plainly it is this that strikes my no-scientific friends.
Last night I said to myself, I would just cut your Introduction, but would
not begin to read, but I broke down, and had a good hour's read.
Farewell, yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. December 28th, 1859.
... Have you seen the splendid essay and notice of my book in the
"Times"? (December 26th.) I cannot avoid a strong suspicion that it is by
Huxley; but I never heard that he wrote in the "Times". It will do grand
service,...
C. DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 28th [1859].
My dear Huxley,
Yesterday evening, when I read the "Times" of a previous day, I was
amazed to find a splendid essay and review of me. Who can the author be? I
am intensely curious. It included an eulogium of me which quite touched
me, though I am not vain enough to think it all deserved. The author is a
literary man, and German scholar. He has read my book very attentively;

but, what is very remarkable, it seems that he is a profound naturalist. He
knows my Barnacle-book, and appreciates it too highly. Lastly, he writes
and thinks with quite uncommon force and clearness; and what is even still
rarer, his writing is seasoned with most pleasant wit. We all laughed heartily
over some of the sentences. I was charmed with those unreasonable mortals,
who know anything, all thinking fit to range themselves on one side. (The
reviewer proposes to pass by the orthodox view, according to which the
phenomena of the organic world are "the immediate product of a creative
fiat, and consequently are out of the domain of science altogether." And he
does so "with less hesitation, as it so happens that those persons who are
practically conversant with the facts of the case (plainly a considerable
advantage) have always thought fit to range themselves" in the category of
those holding "views which profess to rest on a scientific basis only, and
therefore admit of being argued to their consequences.") Who can it be?
Certainly I should have said that there was only one man in England who
could have written this essay, and that YOU were the man. But I suppose I
am wrong, and that there is some hidden genius of great calibre. For how
could you influence Jupiter Olympius and make him give three and a half
columns to pure science? The old fogies will think the world will come to
an end. Well, whoever the man is, he has done great service to the cause, far
more than by a dozen reviews in common periodicals. The grand way he
soars above common religious prejudices, and the admission of such views
into the "Times", I look at as of the highest importance, quite independently
of the mere question of species. If you should happen to be ACQUAINTED
with the author, for Heaven-sake tell me who he is?
My dear Huxley, yours most sincerely, C. DARWIN.
[It is impossible to give in a short space an adequate idea of Mr. Huxley's
article in the "Times" of December 26. It is admirably planned, so as to
claim for the 'Origin' a respectful hearing, and it abstains from anything like
dogmatism in asserting the truth of the doctrines therein upheld. A few
passages may be quoted:—"That this most ingenious hypothesis enables us
to give a reason for many apparent anomalies in the distribution of living
beings in time and space, and that it is not contradicted by the main
phenomena of life and organisation, appear to us to be unquestionable." Mr.
Huxley goes on to recommend to the readers of the 'Origin' a condition of
"thatige Skepsis"—a state of "doubt which so loves truth that it neither
dares rest in doubting, nor extinguish itself by unjustified belief." The final

paragraph is in a strong contrast to Professor Sedgwick and his "ropes of
bubbles" (see below). Mr. Huxley writes: "Mr. Darwin abhors mere
speculation as nature abhors a vacuum. He is as greedy of cases and
precedents as any constitutional lawyer, and all the principles he lays down
are capable of being brought to the test of observation and experiment. The
path he bids us follow professes to be not a mere airy track, fabricated of
ideal cobwebs, but a solid and broad bridge of facts. If it be so, it will carry
us safely over many a chasm in our knowledge, and lead us to a region free
from the snares of those fascinating but barren virgins, the Final Causes,
against whom a high authority has so justly warned us."
There can be no doubt that this powerful essay, appearing as it did in the
leading daily Journal, must have had a strong influence on the reading
public. Mr. Huxley allows me to quote from a letter an account of the happy
chance that threw into his hands the opportunity of writing it.
"The 'Origin' was sent to Mr. Lucas, one of the staff of the "Times"
writers at that day, in what I suppose was the ordinary course of business.
Mr. Lucas, though an excellent journalist, and, at a later period, editor of
'Once a Week,' was as innocent of any knowledge of science as a babe, and
bewailed himself to an acquaintance on having to deal with such a book.
Whereupon he was recommended to ask me to get him out of his difficulty,
and he applied to me accordingly, explaining, however, that it would be
necessary for him formally to adopt anything I might be disposed to write,
by prefacing it with two or three paragraphs of his own.
"I was too anxious to seize upon the opportunity thus offered of giving
the book a fair chance with the multitudinous readers of the "Times" to
make any difficulty about conditions; and being then very full of the
subject, I wrote the article faster, I think, than I ever wrote anything in my
life, and sent it to Mr. Lucas, who duly prefixed his opening sentences.
"When the article appeared, there was much speculation as to its
authorship. The secret leaked out in time, as all secrets will, but not by my
aid; and then I used to derive a good deal of innocent amusement from the
vehement assertions of some of my more acute friends, that they knew it
was mine from the first paragraph!
"As the "Times" some years since, referred to my connection with the
review, I suppose there will be no breach of confidence in the publication of
this little history, if you think it worth the space it will occupy."]

CHAPTER 2.II. — THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES'
(continued).
1860.

[I extract a few entries from my father's Diary:—
"January 7th. The second edition, 3000 copies, of 'Origin' was
published."
"May 22nd. The first edition of 'Origin' in the United States was 2500
copies."
My father has here noted down the sums received for the 'Origin.'
First Edition......180 pounds Second Edition.....636 pounds 13 shillings 4
pence
Total..............816 pounds 13 shillings 4 pence.
After the publication of the second edition he began at once, on January
9th, looking over his materials for the 'Variation of Animals and Plants;' the
only other work of the year was on Drosera.
He was at Down during the whole of this year, except for a visit to Dr.
Lane's Water-cure Establishment at Sudbrooke, and in June, and for visits to
Miss Elizabeth Wedgwood's house at Hartfield, in Sussex (July), and to
Eastbourne, September 22 to November 16.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 3rd [1860].
My dear Hooker,
I have finished your Essay. ('Australian Flora.') As probably you would
like to hear my opinion, though a non-botanist, I will give it without any
exaggeration. To my judgment it is by far the grandest and most interesting
essay, on subjects of the nature discussed, I have ever read. You know how I
admired your former essays, but this seems to me far grander. I like all the
part after page xxvi better than the first part, probably because newer to me.
I dare say you will demur to this, for I think every author likes the most

speculative parts of his own productions. How superior your essay is to the
famous one of Brown (here will be sneer 1st from you). You have made all
your conclusions so admirably clear, that it would be no use at all to be a
botanist (sneer No. 2). By Jove, it would do harm to affix any idea to the
long names of outlandish orders. One can look at your conclusions with the
philosophic abstraction with which a mathematician looks at his a times x +
the square root of z squared, etc. etc. I hardly know which parts have
interested me most; for over and over again I exclaimed, "this beats all."
The general comparison of the Flora of Australia with the rest of the world,
strikes me (as before) as extremely original, good, and suggestive of many
reflections.
... The invading Indian Flora is very interesting, but I think the fact you
mention towards the close of the essay—that the Indian vegetation, in
contradistinction to the Malayan vegetation, is found in low and level parts
of the Malay Islands, GREATLY lessens the difficulty which at first (page
1) seemed so great. There is nothing like one's own hobby-horse. I suspect
it is the same case as of glacial migration, and of naturalised production—of
production of greater area conquering those of lesser; of course the Indian
forms would have a greater difficulty in seizing on the cool parts of
Australia. I demur to your remarks (page 1), as not "conceiving anything in
soil, climate, or vegetation of India," which could stop the introduction of
Australian plants. Towards the close of the essay (page civ), you have
admirable remarks on our profound ignorance of the cause of possible
naturalisation or introduction; I would answer page 1, by a later page, viz.
page civ.
Your contrast of the south-west and south-east corners is one of the most
wonderful cases I ever heard of... You show the case with wonderful force.
Your discussion on mixed invaders of the south-east corner (and of New
Zealand) is as curious and intricate a problem as of the races of men in
Britain. Your remark on mixed invading Flora keeping down or destroying
an original Flora, which was richer in number of species, strikes me as
EMINENTLY NEW AND IMPORTANT. I am not sure whether to me the
discussion on the New Zealand Flora is not even more instructive. I cannot
too much admire both. But it will require a long time to suck in all the facts.
Your case of the largest Australian orders having none, or very few, species
in New Zealand, is truly marvellous. Anyhow, you have now
DEMONSTRATED (together with no mammals in New Zealand) (bitter

sneer No. 3), that New Zealand has never been continuously, or even nearly
continuously, united by land to Australia!! At page lxxxix, is the only
sentence (on this subject) in the whole essay at which I am much inclined to
quarrel, viz. that no theory of trans-oceanic migration can explain, etc. etc.
Now I maintain against all the world, that no man knows anything about the
power of trans-oceanic migration. You do not know whether or not the
absent orders have seeds which are killed by sea-water, like almost all
Leguminosae, and like another order which I forget. Birds do not migrate
from Australia to New Zealand, and therefore floatation SEEMS the only
possible means; but yet I maintain that we do not know enough to argue on
the question, especially as we do not know the main fact whether the seeds
of Australian orders are killed by sea-water.
The discussion on European Genera is profoundly interesting; but here
alone I earnestly beg for more information, viz. to know which of these
genera are absent in the Tropics of the world, i.e. confined to temperate
regions. I excessively wish to know, ON THE NOTION OF GLACIAL
MIGRATION, how much modification has taken place in Australia. I had
better explain when we meet, and get you to go over and mark the list.
... The list of naturalised plants is extremely interesting, but why at the
end, in the name of all that is good and bad, do you not sum up and
comment on your facts? Come, I will have a sneer at you in return for the
many which you will have launched at this letter. Should you have
remarked on the number of plants naturalised in Australia and the United
States UNDER EXTREMELY DIFFERENT CLIMATES, as showing that
climate is so important, and [on] the considerable sprinkling of plants from
India, North America, and South Africa, as showing that the frequent
introduction of seeds is so important? With respect to "abundance of
unoccupied ground in Australia," do you believe that European plants
introduced by man now grow on spots in Australia which were absolutely
bare? But I am an impudent dog, one must defend one's own fancy theories
against such cruel men as you. I dare say this letter will appear very
conceited, but one must form an opinion on what one reads with attention,
and in simple truth, I cannot find words strong enough to express my
admiration of your essay.
My dear old friend, yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.

P.S.—I differ about the "Saturday Review". ("Saturday Review",
December 24, 1859. The hostile arguments of the reviewer are geological,
and he deals especially with the denudation of the Weald. The reviewer
remarks that, "if a million of centuries, more or less, is needed for any part
of his argument, he feels no scruple in taking them to suit his purpose.")
One cannot expect fairness in a reviewer, so I do not complain of all the
other arguments besides the 'Geological Record' being omitted. Some of the
remarks about the lapse of years are very good, and the reviewer gives me
some good and well-deserved raps—confound it. I am sorry to confess the
truth: but it does not at all concern the main argument. That was a nice
notice in the "Gardeners' Chronicle". I hope and imagine that Lindley is
almost a convert. Do not forget to tell me if Bentham gets all the more
staggered.
With respect to tropical plants during the Glacial period, I throw in your
teeth your own facts, at the base of the Himalaya, on the possibility of the
co-existence of at least forms of the tropical and temperate regions. I can
give a parallel case for animals in Mexico. Oh! my dearly beloved puny
child, how cruel men are to you! I am very glad you approve of the
Geographical chapters...

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, [January 4th, 1860].
My dear L.
"Gardeners' Chronicle" returned safe. Thanks for note. I am beyond
measure glad that you get more and more roused on the subject of species,
for, as I have always said, I am well convinced that your opinions and
writings will do far more to convince the world than mine. You will make a
grand discussion on man. You are very bold in this, and I honour you. I
have been, like you, quite surprised at the want of originality in opposed
arguments and in favour too. Gwyn Jeffreys attacks me justly in his letter
about strictly littoral shells not being often embedded at least in Tertiary
deposits. I was in a muddle, for I was thinking of Secondary, yet
Chthamalus applied to Tertiary...
Possibly you might like to see the enclosed note (Dr. Whewell wrote
(January 2, 1860): "... I cannot, yet at least, become a convert. But there is
so much of thought and of fact in what you have written that it is not to be

contradicted without careful selection of the ground and manner of the
dissent." Dr. Whewell dissented in a practical manner for some years, by
refusing to allow a copy of the 'Origin of Species' to be placed in the
Library of Trinity College.) from Whewell, merely as showing that he is not
horrified with us. You can return it whenever you have occasion to write, so
as not to waste your time.
C.D.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, [January 4th? 1860].
... I have had a brief note from Keyserling (Joint author with Murchison
of the 'Geology of Russia,' 1845.), but not worth sending you. He believes
in change of species, grants that natural selection explains well adaptation
of form, but thinks species change too regularly, as if by some chemical
law, for natural selection to be the sole cause of change. I can hardly
understand his brief note, but this is I think the upshot.
... I will send A. Murray's paper whenever published. (The late Andrew
Murray wrote two papers on the 'Origin' in the Proc. R. Soc. Edin. 1860.
The one referred to here is dated January 16, 1860. The following is quoted
from page 6 of the separate copy: "But the second, and, as it appears to me,
by much the most important phase of reversion to type (and which is
practically, if not altogether ignored by Mr. Darwin), is the instinctive
inclination which induces individuals of the same species by preference to
intercross with those possessing the qualities which they themselves want,
so as to preserve the purity or equilibrium of the breed... It is trite to a
proverb, that tall men marry little women... a man of genius marries a fool...
and we are told that this is the result of the charm of contrast, or of qualities
admired in others because we do not possess them. I do not so explain it. I
imagine it is the effort of nature to preserve the typical medium of the
race.") It includes speculations (which he perhaps will modify) so rash, and
without a single fact in support, that had I advanced them he or other
reviewers would have hit me very hard. I am sorry to say that I have no
"consolatory view" on the dignity of man. I am content that man will
probably advance, and care not much whether we are looked at as mere
savages in a remotely distant future. Many thanks for your last note.
Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.

I have received, in a Manchester newspaper, rather a good squib,
showing that I have proved "might is right," and therefore that Napoleon is
right, and every cheating tradesman is also right.

CHARLES DARWIN TO W.B. CARPENTER. Down, January 6th [1860]?
My dear Carpenter,
I have just read your excellent article in the 'National.' It will do great
good; especially if it becomes known as your production. It seems to me to
give an excellently clear account of Mr. Wallace's and my views. How
capitally you turn the flanks of the theological opposers by opposing to
them such men as Bentham and the more philosophical of the systematists!
I thank you sincerely for the EXTREMELY honourable manner in which
you mention me. I should have liked to have seen some criticisms or
remarks on embryology, on which subject you are so well instructed. I do
not think any candid person can read your article without being much
impressed with it. The old doctrine of immutability of specific forms will
surely but slowly die away. It is a shame to give you trouble, but I should be
very much obliged if you could tell me where differently coloured eggs in
individuals of the cuckoo have been described, and their laying in twent-
seven kinds of nests. Also do you know from your own observation that the
limbs of sheep imported into the West Indies change colour? I have had
detailed information about the loss of wool; but my accounts made the
change slower than you describe.
With most cordial thanks and respect, believe me, my dear Carpenter,
yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO L. JENYNS. (Rev. L. Blomefield.) Down,
January 7th, 1860.
My dear Jenyns,
I am very much obliged for your letter. It is of great use and interest to
me to know what impression my book produces on philosophical and
instructed minds. I thank you for the kind things which you say; and you go
with me much further than I expected. You will think it presumptuous, but I
am convinced, IF CIRCUMSTANCES LEAD YOU TO KEEP THE

SUBJECT IN MIND, that you will go further. No one has yet cast doubts
on my explanation of the subordination of group to group, on homologies,
embryology, and rudimentary organs; and if my explanation of these classes
of facts be at all right, whole classes of organic beings must be included in
one line of descent.
The imperfection of the Geological Record is one of the greatest
difficulties... During the earliest period the record would be most imperfect,
and this seems to me sufficient to account for our not finding intermediate
forms between the classes in the same great kingdoms. It was certainly rash
in me putting in my belief of the probability of all beings having descended
from ONE primordial form; but as this seems yet to me probable, I am not
willing to strike it out. Huxley alone supports me in this, and something
could be said in its favour. With respect to man, I am very far from wishing
to obtrude my belief; but I thought it dishonest to quite conceal my opinion.
Of course it is open to every one to believe that man appeared by a separate
miracle, though I do not myself see the necessity or probability.
Pray accept my sincere thanks for your kind note. Your going some way
with me gives me great confidence that I am not very wrong. For a very
long time I halted half way; but I do not believe that any enquiring mind
will rest half-way. People will have to reject all or admit all; by ALL I mean
only the members of each great kingdom.
My dear Jenyns, yours most sincerely, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, January 10th [1860].
... It is perfectly true that I owe nearly all the corrections (The second
edition of 3000 copies of the 'Origin' was published on January 7th.) to you,
and several verbal ones to you and others; I am heartily glad you approve of
them, as yet only two things have annoyed me; those confounded millions
(This refers to the passage in the 'Origin of Species' (2nd edition, page 285),
in which the lapse of time implied by the denudation of the Weald is
discussed. The discussion closes with the sentence: "So that it is not
improbable that a longer period than 300 million years has elapsed since the
latter part of the Secondary period." This passage is omitted in the later
editions of the 'Origin,' against the advice of some of his friends, as appears
from the pencil notes in my father's copy of the second edition.) of years

(not that I think it is probably wrong), and my not having (by inadvertance)
mentioned Wallace towards the close of the book in the summary, not that
any one has noticed this to me. I have now put in Wallace's name at page
484 in a conspicuous place. I cannot refer you to tables of mortality of
children, etc. etc. I have notes somewhere, but I have not the LEAST idea
where to hunt, and my notes would now be old. I shall be truly glad to read
carefully any MS. on man, and give my opinion. You used to caution me to
be cautious about man. I suspect I shall have to return the caution a hundred
fold! Yours will, no doubt, be a grand discussion; but it will horrify the
world at first more than my whole volume; although by the sentence (page
489, new edition (First edition, page 488.)) I show that I believe man is in
the same predicament with other animals. It is, in fact, impossible to doubt
it. I have thought (only vaguely) on man. With respect to the races, one of
my best chances of truth has broken down from the impossibility of getting
facts. I have one good speculative line, but a man must have entire credence
in Natural Selection before he will even listen to it. Psychologically, I have
done scarcely anything. Unless, indeed, expression of countenance can be
included, and on that subject I have collected a good many facts, and
speculated, but I do not suppose I shall ever publish, but it is an
uncommonly curious subject. By the way, I sent off a lot of questions the
day before yesterday to Tierra del Fuego on expression! I suspect (for I
have never read it) that Spencer's 'Psychology' has a bearing on Psychology
as we should look at it. By all means read the Preface, in about 20 pages, of
Hensleigh Wedgwood's new Dictionary on the first origin of Language;
Erasmus would lend it. I agree about Carpenter, a very good article, but
with not much original... Andrew Murray has criticised, in an address to the
Botanical Society of Edinburgh, the notice in the 'Linnean Journal,' and
"has disposed of" the whole theory by an ingenious difficulty, which I was
very stupid not to have thought of; for I express surprise at more and
analogous cases not being known. The difficulty is, that amongst the blind
insects of the caves in distant parts of the world there are some of the same
genus, and yet the genus is not found out of the caves or living in the free
world. I have little doubt that, like the fish Amblyopsis, and like Proteus in
Europe, these insects are "wrecks of ancient life," or "living fossils," saved
from competition and extermination. But that formerly SEEING insects of
the same genus roamed over the whole area in which the cases are included.
Farewell, yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.

P.S.—OUR ancestor was an animal which breathed water, had a swim
bladder, a great swimming tail, an imperfect skull, and undoubtedly was an
hermaphrodite!
Here is a pleasant genealogy for mankind.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, January 14th [1860].
... I shall be much interested in reading your man discussion, and will
give my opinion carefully, whatever that may be worth; but I have so long
looked at you as the type of cautious scientific judgment (to my mind one
of the highest and most useful qualities), that I suspect my opinion will be
superfluous. It makes me laugh to think what a joke it will be if I have to
caution you, after your cautions on the same subject to me!
I will order Owen's book ('Classification of the Mammalia,' 1859.); I am
very glad to hear Huxley's opinion on his classification of man; without
having due knowledge, it seemed to me from the very first absurd; all
classifications founded on single characters I believe have failed.
... What a grand, immense benefit you conferred on me by getting
Murray to publish my book. I never till to-day realised that it was getting
widely distributed; for in a letter from a lady to-day to E., she says she
heard a man enquiring for it at the RAILWAY STATION!!! at Waterloo
Bridge; and the bookseller said that he had none till the new edition was
out. The bookseller said he had not read it, but had heard it was a very
remarkable book!!!...

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, 14th [January, 1860].
... I heard from Lyell this morning, and he tells me a piece of news. You
are a good-for-nothing man; here you are slaving yourself to death with
hardly a minute to spare, and you must write a review of my book! I
thought it ('Gardeners' Chronicle', 1860. Referred to above. Sir J.D. Hooker
took the line of complete impartiality, so as not to commit Lindley.) a very
good one, and was so much struck with it that I sent it to Lyell. But I
assumed, as a matter of course, that it was Lindley's. Now that I know it is
yours, I have re-read it, and, my kind and good friend, it has warmed my
heart with all the honourable and noble things you say of me and it. I was a

good deal surprised at Lindley hitting on some of the remarks, but I never
dreamed of you. I admired it chiefly as so well adapted to tell on the readers
of the 'Gardeners' Chronicle'; but now I admired it in another spirit.
Farewell, with hearty thanks... Lyell is going at man with an audacity that
frightens me. It is a good joke; he used always to caution me to slip over
man.
[In the "Gardeners' Chronicle", January 21, 1860, appeared a short letter
from my father which was called forth by Mr. Westwood's communication
to the previous number of the journal, in which certain phenomena of cros-
breeding are discussed in relation to the 'Origin of Species.' Mr. Westwood
wrote in reply (February 11) and adduced further evidence against the
doctrine of descent, such as the identity of the figures of ostriches on the
ancient "Egyptian records," with the bird as we now know it. The
correspondence is hardly worth mentioning, except as one of the very few
cases in which my father was enticed into anything resembling a
controversy.]
ASA GRAY TO J.D. HOOKER. Cambridge, Mass., January 5th, 1860.
My dear Hooker,
Your last letter, which reached me just before Christmas, has got mislaid
during the upturnings in my study which take place at that season, and has
not yet been discovered. I should be very sorry to lose it, for there were in it
some botanical mems. which I had not secured...
The principal part of your letter was high laudation of Darwin's book.
Well, the book has reached me, and I finished its careful perusal four
days ago; and I freely say that your laudation is not out of place.
It is done in a MASTERLY MANNER. It might well have taken twenty
years to produce it. It is crammed full of most interesting matter—
thoroughly digested—well expressed—close, cogent, and taken as a system
it makes out a better case than I had supposed possible...
Agassiz, when I saw him last, had read but a part of it. He says it is
POOR—VERY POOR!! (entre nous). The fact [is] he is very much
annoyed by it,... and I do not wonder at it. To bring all IDEAL systems
within the domain of science, and give good physical or natural
explanations of all his capital points, is as bad as to have Forbes take the
glacier materials... and give scientific explanation of all the phenomena.

Tell Darwin all this. I will write to him when I get a chance. As I have
promised, he and you shall have fair-play here... I must myself write a
review of Darwin's book for 'Silliman's Journal' (the more so that I suspect
Agassiz means to come out upon it) for the next (March) No., and I am now
setting about it (when I ought to be every moment working the Expl[oring]
Expedition Compositae, which I know far more about). And really it is no
easy job, as you may well imagine.
I doubt if I shall please you altogether. I know I shall not please Agassiz
at all. I hear another reprint is in the Press, and the book will excite much
attention here, and some controversy...

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, January 28th [1860].
My dear Gray,
Hooker has forwarded to me your letter to him; and I cannot express how
deeply it has gratified me. To receive the approval of a man whom one has
long sincerely respected. And whose judgment and knowledge are most
universally admitted, is the highest reward an author can possibly wish for;
and I thank you heartily for your most kind expressions.
I have been absent from home for a few days, and so could not earlier
answer your letter to me of the 10th of January. You have been extremely
kind to take so much trouble and interest about the edition. It has been a
mistake of my publisher not thinking of sending over the sheets. I had
entirely and utterly forgotten your offer of receiving the sheets as printed
off. But I must not blame my publisher, for had I remembered your most
kind offer I feel pretty sure I should not have taken advantage of it; for I
never dreamed of my book being so successful with general readers; I
believe I should have laughed at the idea of sending the sheets to America.
(In a letter to Mr. Murray, 1860, my father wrote:—"I am amused by Asa
Gray's account of the excitement my book has made amongst naturalists in
the United States. Agassiz has denounced it in a newspaper, but yet in such
terms that it is in fact a fine advertisement!" This seems to refer to a lecture
given before the Mercantile Library Association.)
After much consideration, and on the strong advice of Lyell and others, I
have resolved to leave the present book as it is (excepting correcting errors,
or here and there inserting short sentences) and to use all my strength,

WHICH IS BUT LITTLE, to bring out the first part (forming a separate
volume with index, etc.) of the three volumes which will make my bigger
work; so that I am very unwilling to take up time in making corrections for
an American edition. I enclose a list of a few corrections in the second
reprint, which you will have received by this time complete, and I could
send four or five corrections or additions of equally small importance, or
rather of equal brevity. I also intend to write a SHORT preface with a brief
history of the subject. These I will set about, as they must some day be
done, and I will send them to you in a short time—the few corrections first,
and the preface afterwards, unless I hear that you have given up all idea of a
separate edition. You will then be able to judge whether it is worth having
the new edition with YOUR REVIEW PREFIXED. Whatever be the nature
of your review, I assure you I should feel it a GREAT honour to have my
book thus preceded...
ASA GRAY TO CHARLES DARWIN. Cambridge, January 23rd, 1860.
My dear Darwin,
You have my hurried letter telling you of the arrival of the remainder of
the sheets of the reprint, and of the stir I had made for a reprint in Boston.
Well, all looked pretty well, when, lo, we found that a second New York
publishing house had announced a reprint also! I wrote then to both New
York publishers, asking them to give way to the AUTHOR and his reprint
of a revised edition. I got an answer from the Harpers that they withdraw —
from the Appletons that they had got the book OUT (and the next day I saw
a copy); but that, "if the work should have any considerable sale, we
certainly shall be disposed to pay the author reasonably and liberally."
The Appletons being thus out with their reprint, the Boston house
declined to go on. So I wrote to the Appletons taking them at their word,
offering to aid their reprint, to give them the use of the alterations in the
London reprint, as soon as I find out what they are, etc. etc. And I sent them
the first leaf, and asked them to insert in their future issue the additional
matter from Butler (A quotation from Butler's 'Analogy,' on the use of the
word natural, which in the second edition is placed with the passages from
Whewell and Bacon on page ii, opposite the title-page.), which tells just
right. So there the matter stands. If you furnish any matter in advance of the
London third edition, I will make them pay for it.

I may get something for you. All got is clear gain; but it will not be very
much, I suppose.
Such little notices in the papers here as have yet appeared are quite
handsome and considerate.
I hope next week to get printed sheets of my review from New Haven,
and send [them] to you, and will ask you to pass them on to Dr. Hooker.
To fulfil your request, I ought to tell you what I think the weakest, and
what the best, part of your book. But this is not easy, nor to be done in a
word or two. The BEST PART, I think, is the WHOLE, i.e., its PLAN and
TREATMENT, the vast amount of facts and acute inferences handled as if
you had a perfect mastery of them. I do not think twenty years too much
time to produce such a book in.
Style clear and good, but now and then wants revision for little matters
(page 97, self-fertilises ITSELF, etc.).
Then your candour is worth everything to your cause. It is refreshing to
find a person with a new theory who frankly confesses that he finds
difficulties, insurmountable, at least for the present. I know some people
who never have any difficulties to speak of.
The moment I understood your premisses, I felt sure you had a real
foundation to hold on. Well, if one admits your premisses, I do not see how
he is to stop short of your conclusions, as a probable hypothesis at least.
It naturally happens that my review of your book does not exhibit
anything like the full force of the impression the book has made upon me.
Under the circumstances I suppose I do your theory more good here, by
bespeaking for it a fair and favourable consideration, and by standing non-
committed as to its full conclusions, than I should if I announced myself a
convert; nor could I say the latter, with truth.
Well, what seems to me the weakest point in the book is the attempt to
account for the formation of organs, the making of eyes, etc., by natural
selection. Some of this reads quite Lamarckian.
The chapter on HYBRIDISM is not a WEAK, but a STRONG chapter.
You have done wonders there. But still you have not accounted, as you may
be held to account, for divergence up to a certain extent producing
increased fertility of the crosses, but carried one short almost imperceptible

step more, giving rise to sterility, or reversing the tendency. Very likely you
are on the right track; but you have something to do yet in that department.
Enough for the present.
... I am not insensible to your compliments, the very high compliment
which you pay me in valuing my opinion. You evidently think more of it
than I do, though from the way I write [to] you, and especially [to] Hooker,
this might not be inferred from the reading of my letters.
I am free to say that I never learnt so much from one book as I have from
yours, there remain a thousand things I long to say about it.
Ever yours, ASA GRAY.

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. [February? 1860].
... Now I will just run through some points in your letter. What you say
about my book gratifies me most deeply, and I wish I could feel all was
deserved by me. I quite think a review from a man, who is not an entire
convert, if fair and moderately favourable, is in all respects the best kind of
review. About the weak points I agree. The eye to this day gives me a cold
shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations, my reason tells me
I ought to conquer the cold shudder.
Pray kindly remember and tell Prof. Wyman how very grateful I should
be for any hints, information, or criticisms. I have the highest respect for his
opinion. I am so sorry about Dana's health. I have already asked him to pay
me a visit.
Farewell, you have laid me under a load of obligation—not that I feel it a
load. It is the highest possible gratification to me to think that you have
found my book worth reading and reflection; for you and three others I put
down in my own mind as the judges whose opinions I should value most of
all.
My dear Gray, yours most sincerely, C. DARWIN.
P.S.—I feel pretty sure, from my own experience, that if you are led by
your studies to keep the subject of the origin of species before your mind,
you will go further and further in your belief. It took me long years, and I
assure you I am astonished at the impression my book has made on many

minds. I fear twenty years ago, I should not have been half as candid and
open to conviction.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [January 31st, 1860].
My dear Hooker,
I have resolved to publish a little sketch of the progress of opinion on the
change of species. Will you or Mrs. Hooker do me the favour to copy ONE
sentence out of Naudin's paper in the 'Revue Horticole,' 1852, page 103,
namely, that on his principle of Finalite. Can you let me have it soon, with
those confounded dashes over the vowels put in carefully? Asa Gray, I
believe, is going to get a second edition of my book, and I want to send this
little preface over to him soon. I did not think of the necessity of having
Naudin's sentence on finality, otherwise I would have copied it.
Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.
P.S.—I shall end by just alluding to your Australian Flora Introduction.
What was the date of publication: December 1859, or January 1860? Please
answer this.
My preface will also do for the French edition, which I BELIEVE, is
agreed on.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. February [1860].
... As the 'Origin' now stands, Harvey's (William Henry Harvey was
descended from a Quaker family of Youghal, and was born in February,
1811, at Summerville, a country house on the banks of the Shannon. He
died at Torquay in 1866. In 1835, Harvey went to Africa (Table Bay) to
pursue his botanical studies, the results of which were given in his 'Genera
of South African Plants.' In 1838, ill-health compelled him to obtain leave
of absence, and return to England for a time; in 1840 he returned to Cape
Town, to be again compelled by illness to leave. In 1843 he obtained the
appointment of Botanical Professor at Trinity College, Dublin. In 1854,
1855, and 1856 he visited Australia, New Zealand, the Friendly and Fiji
Islands. In 1857 Dr. Harvey reached home, and was appointed the successor
of Professor Allman to the Chair of Botany in Dublin University. He was

author of several botanical works, principally on Algae.—(From a Memoir
published in 1869.)) is a good hit against my talking so much of the
insensibly fine gradations; and certainly it has astonished me that I should
be pelted with the fact, that I had not allowed abrupt and great enough
variations under nature. It would take a good deal more evidence to make
me admit that forms have often changed by saltum.
Have you seen Wollaston's attack in the 'Annals'? ('Annals and Magazine
of Natural History,' 1860.) The stones are beginning to fly. But Theology
has more to do with these two attacks than Science...
[In the above letter a paper by Harvey in the "Gardeners' Chronicle",
February 18, 1860, is alluded to. He describes a case of monstrosity in
Begonia frigida, in which the "sport" differed so much from a normal
Begonia that it might have served as the type of a distinct natural order.
Harvey goes on to argue that such a case is hostile to the theory of natural
selection, according to which changes are not supposed to take place per
saltum, and adds that "a few such cases would overthrow it [Mr. Darwin's
hypothesis] altogether." In the following number of the "Gardeners'
Chronicle" Sir J.D. Hooker showed that Dr. Harvey had misconceived the
bearing of the Begonia case, which he further showed to be by no means
calculated to shake the validity of the doctrine of modification by means of
natural selection. My father mentions the Begonia case in a letter to Lyell
(February 18, 1860):—
"I send by this post an attack in the "Gardeners' Chronicle", by Harvey (a
first-rate Botanist, as you probably know). It seems to me rather strange; he
assumes the permanence of monsters, whereas, monsters are generally
sterile, and not often inheritable. But grant his case, it comes that I have
been too cautious in not admitting great and sudden variations. Here again
comes in the mischief of my ABSTRACT. In the fuller MS. I have
discussed a parallel case of a normal fish like the monstrous gold-fish."
With reference to Sir J.D. Hooker's reply, my father wrote:]
Down, [February 26th, 1860].
My dear Hooker,
Your answer to Harvey seems to me ADMIRABLY good. You would
have made a gigantic fortune as a barrister. What an omission of Harvey's
about the graduated state of the flowers! But what strikes me most is that
surely I ought to know my own book best, yet, by Jove, you have brought

forward ever so many arguments which I did not think of! Your reference to
classification (viz. I presume to such cases as Aspicarpa) is EXCELLENT,
for the monstrous Begonia no doubt in all details would be Begonia. I did
not think of this, nor of the RETROGRADE step from separated sexes to an
hermaphrodite state; nor of the lessened fertility of the monster. Proh pudor
to me.
The world would say what a lawyer has been lost in a MERE botanist!
Farewell, my dear master in my own subject,
Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.
I am so heartily pleased to see that you approve of the chapter on
Classification.
I wonder what Harvey will say. But no one hardly, I think, is able at first
to see when he is beaten in an argument.
[The following letters refer to the first translation (1860) of the 'Origin of
Species' into German, which was superintended by H.G. Bronn, a good
zoologist and palaeontologist, who was at the time at Freiburg, but
afterwards Professor at Heidelberg. I have been told that the translation was
not a success, it remained an obvious translation, and was correspondingly
unpleasant to read. Bronn added to the translation an appendix of the
difficulties that occurred to him. For instance, how can natural selection
account for differences between species, when these differences appear to
be of no service to their possessors; e.g., the length of the ears and tail, or
the folds in the enamel of the teeth of various species of rodents? Krause, in
his book, 'Charles Darwin,' page 91, criticises Bronn's conduct in this
manner, but it will be seen that my father actually suggested the addition of
Bronn's remarks. A more serious charge against Bronn made by Krause (op.
cit. page 87) is that he left out passages of which he did not approve, as, for
instance, the passage ('Origin,' first edition, page 488) "Light will be thrown
on the origin of man and his history." I have no evidence as to whether my
father did or did not know of these alterations.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO H.G. BRONN. Down, February 4 [1860].
Dear and much honoured Sir,

I thank you sincerely for your most kind letter; I feared that you would
much disapprove of the 'Origin,' and I sent it to you merely as a mark of my
sincere respect. I shall read with much interest your work on the
productions of Islands whenever I receive it. I thank you cordially for the
notice in the 'Neues Jahrbuch fur Mineralogie,' and still more for speaking
to Schweitzerbart about a translation; for I am most anxious that the great
and intellectual German people should know something about my book.
I have told my publisher to send immediately a copy of the NEW
(Second edition.) edition to Schweitzerbart, and I have written to
Schweitzerbart that I gave up all right to profit for myself, so that I hope a
translation will appear. I fear that the book will be difficult to translate, and
if you could advise Schweitzerbart about a GOOD translator, it would be of
very great service. Still more, if you would run your eye over the more
difficult parts of the translation; but this is too great a favour to expect. I
feel sure that it will be difficult to translate, from being so much condensed.
Again I thank you for your noble and generous sympathy, and I remain,
with entire respect,
Yours, truly obliged, C. DARWIN.
P.S.—The new edition has some few corrections, and I will send in MS.
some additional corrections, and a short historical preface, to
Schweitzerbart.
How interesting you could make the work by EDITING (I do not mean
translating) the work, and appending notes of REFUTATION or
confirmation. The book has sold so very largely in England, that an editor
would, I think, make profit by the translation.

CHARLES DARWIN TO H.G. BRONN. Down, February 14 [1860].
My dear and much honoured Sir,
I thank you cordially for your extreme kindness in superintending the
translation. I have mentioned this to some eminent scientific men, and they
all agree that you have done a noble and generous service. If I am proved
quite wrong, yet I comfort myself in thinking that my book may do some
good, as truth can only be known by rising victorious from every attack. I
thank you also much for the review, and for the kind manner in which you

speak of me. I send with this letter some corrections and additions to M.
Schweitzerbart, and a short historical preface. I am not much acquainted
with German authors, as I read German very slowly; therefore I do not
know whether any Germans have advocated similar views with mine; if
they have, would you do me the favour to insert a foot-note to the preface?
M. Schweitzerbart has now the reprint ready for a translator to begin.
Several scientific men have thought the term "Natural Selection" good,
because its meaning is NOT obvious, and each man could not put on it his
own interpretation, and because it at once connects variation under
domestication and nature. Is there any analogous term used by German
breeders of animals? "Adelung," ennobling, would, perhaps, be too
metaphysical. It is folly in me, but I cannot help doubting whether "Wahl
der Lebensweise" expresses my notion. It leaves the impression on my
mind of the Lamarckian doctrine (which I reject) of habits of life being al-
important. Man has altered, and thus improved the English race-horse by
SELECTING successive fleeter individuals; and I believe, owing to the
struggle for existence, that similar SLIGHT variations in a wild horse, IF
ADVANTAGEOUS TO IT, would be SELECTED or PRESERVED by
nature; hence Natural Selection. But I apologise for troubling you with
these remarks on the importance of choosing good German terms for
"Natural Selection." With my heartfelt thanks, and with sincere respect,
I remain, dear Sir, yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO H.G. BRONN. Down, July 14 [1860].
Dear and honoured Sir,
On my return home, after an absence of some time, I found the
translation of the third part (The German translation was published in three
pamphle-like numbers.) of the 'Origin,' and I have been delighted to see a
final chapter of criticisms by yourself. I have read the first few paragraphs
and final paragraph, and am perfectly contented, indeed more than
contented, with the generous and candid spirit with which you have
considered my views. You speak with too much praise of my work. I shall,
of course, carefully read the whole chapter; but though I can read
descriptive books like Gaertner's pretty easily, when any reasoning comes
in, I find German excessively difficult to understand. At some FUTURE

time I should very much like to hear how my book has been received in
Germany, and I most sincerely hope M. Schweitzerbart will not lose money
by the publication. Most of the reviews have been bitterly opposed to me in
England, yet I have made some converts, and SEVERAL naturalists who
would not believe in a word of it, are now coming slightly round, and admit
that natural selection may have done something. This gives me hope that
more will ultimately come round to a certain extent to my views.
I shall ever consider myself deeply indebted to you for the immense
service and honour which you have conferred on me in making the
excellent translation of my book. Pray believe me, with most sincere
respect,
Dear Sir, yours gratefully, CHARLES DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, [February 12th, 1860].
... I think it was a great pity that Huxley wasted so much time in the
lecture on the preliminary remarks;... but his lecture seemed to me very fine
and very bold. I have remonstrated (and he agrees) against the impression
that he would leave, that sterility was a universal and infallible criterion of
species.
You will, I am sure, make a grand discussion on man. I am so glad to
hear that you and Lady Lyell will come here. Pray fix your own time; and if
it did not suit us we would say so. We could then discuss man well...
How much I owe to you and Hooker! I do not suppose I should hardly
ever have published had it not been for you.
[The lecture referred to in the last letter was given at the Royal
Institution, February 10, 1860. The following letter was written in reply to
Mr. Huxley's request for information about breeding, hybridisation, etc. It is
of interest as giving a vivid retrospect of the writer's experience on the
subject.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Ilkley, Yorks, November 27
[1859].
My dear Huxley,

Gartner grand, Kolreuter grand, but papers scattered through many
volumes and very lengthy. I had to make an abstract of the whole. Herbert's
volume on Amaryllidaceae very good, and two excellent papers in the
'Horticultural Journal.' For animals, no resume to be trusted at all; facts are
to be collected from all original sources. (This caution is exemplified in the
following extract from an earlier letter to Professor Huxley:—"The
inaccuracy of the blessed gang (of which I am one) of compilers passes all
bounds. MONSTERS have frequently been described as hybrids without a
tittle of evidence. I must give one other case to show how we jolly fellows
work. A Belgian Baron (I forget his name at this moment) crossed two
distinct geese and got SEVEN hybrids, which he proved subsequently to be
quite sterile; well, compiler the first, Chevreul, says that the hybrids were
propagated for SEVEN generations inter se. Compiler second (Morton)
mistakes the French name, and gives Latin names for two more distinct
geese, and says CHEVREUL himself propagated them inter se for seven
generations; and the latter statement is copied from book to book.") I fear
my MS. for the bigger book (twice or thrice as long as in present book),
with all references, would be illegible, but it would save you infinite labour;
of course I would gladly lend it, but I have no copy, so care would have to
be taken of it. But my accursed handwriting would be fatal, I fear.
About breeding, I know of no one book. I did not think well of Lowe, but
I can name none better. Youatt I look at as a far better and MORE
PRACTICAL authority; but then his views and facts are scattered through
three or four thick volumes. I have picked up most by reading really
numberless special treatises and ALL agricultural and horticultural journals;
but it is a work of long years. THE DIFFICULTY IS TO KNOW WHAT TO
TRUST. No one or two statements are worth a farthing; the facts are so
complicated. I hope and think I have been really cautious in what I state on
this subject, although all that I have given, as yet, is FAR too briefly. I have
found it very important associating with fanciers and breeders. For instance,
I sat one evening in a gin palace in the Borough amongst a set of pigeon
fanciers, when it was hinted that Mr. Bull had crossed his Pouters with
Runts to gain size; and if you had seen the solemn, the mysterious, and
awful shakes of the head which all the fanciers gave at this scandalous
proceeding, you would have recognised how little crossing has had to do
with improving breeds, and how dangerous for endless generations the
process was. All this was brought home far more vividly than by pages of

mere statements, etc. But I am scribbling foolishly. I really do not know
how to advise about getting up facts on breeding and improving breeds. Go
to Shows is one way. Read ALL treatises on any ONE domestic animal, and
believe nothing without largely confirmed. For your lectures I can give you
a few amusing anecdotes and sentences, if you want to make the audience
laugh.
I thank you particularly for telling me what naturalists think. If we can
once make a compact set of believers we shall in time conquer. I am
EMINENTLY glad Ramsey is on our side, for he is, in my opinion, a firs-
rate geologist. I sent him a copy. I hope he got it. I shall be very curious to
hear whether any effect has been produced on Prestwich; I sent him a copy,
not as a friend, but owing to a sentence or two in some paper, which made
me suspect he was doubting.
Rev. C. Kingsley has a mind to come round. Quatrefages writes that he
goes some long way with me; says he exhibited diagrams like mine. With
most hearty thanks,
Yours very tired, C. DARWIN.
[I give the conclusion of Professor Huxley's lecture, as being one of the
earliest, as well as one of the most eloquent of his utterances in support of
the 'Origin of Species']:
"I have said that the man of science is the sworn interpreter of nature in
the high court of reason. But of what avail is his honest speech, if ignorance
is the assessor of the judge, and prejudice the foreman of the jury? I hardly
know of a great physical truth, whose universal reception has not been
preceded by an epoch in which most estimable persons have maintained
that the phenomena investigated were directly dependent on the Divine
Will, and that the attempt to investigate them was not only futile, but
blasphemous. And there is a wonderful tenacity of life about this sort of
opposition to physical science. Crushed and maimed in every battle, it yet
seems never to be slain; and after a hundred defeats it is at this day as
rampant, though happily not so mischievous, as in the time of Galileo.
"But to those whose life is spent, to use Newton's noble words, in picking
up here a pebble and there a pebble on the shores of the great ocean of truth
—who watch, day by day, the slow but sure advance of that mighty tide,
bearing on its bosom the thousand treasures wherewith man ennobles and
beautifies his life—it would be laughable, if it were not so sad, to see the

little Canutes of the hour enthroned in solemn state, bidding that great wave
to stay, and threatening to check its beneficent progress. The wave rises and
they fly; but, unlike the brave old Dane, they learn no lesson of humility:
the throne is pitched at what seems a safe distance, and the folly is repeated.
"Surely it is the duty of the public to discourage anything of this kind, to
discredit these foolish meddlers who think they do the Almighty a service
by preventing a thorough study of His works.
"The Origin of Species is not the first, and it will not be the last, of the
great questions born of science, which will demand settlement from this
generation. The general mind is seething strangely, and to those who watch
the signs of the times, it seems plain that this nineteenth century will see
revolutions of thought and practice as great as those which the sixteenth
witnessed. Through what trials and sore contests the civilised world will
have to pass in the course of this new reformation, who can tell?
"But I verily believe that come what will, the part which England may
play in the battle is a grand and a noble one. She may prove to the world
that, for one people, at any rate, despotism and demagogy are not the
necessary alternatives of government; that freedom and order are not
incompatible; that reverence is the handmaid of knowledge; that free
discussion is the life of truth, and of true unity in a nation.
"Will England play this part? That depends upon how you, the public,
deal with science. Cherish her, venerate her, follow her methods faithfully
and implicitly in their application to all branches of human thought, and the
future of this people will be greater than the past.
"Listen to those who would silence and crush her, and I fear our children
will see the glory of England vanishing like Arthur in the mist; they will cry
too late the woful cry of Guinever:—

'It was my duty to have loved the highest;
It surely was my profit had I known;
It would have been my pleasure had I seen.'"]

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down [February 15th, 1860].
... I am perfectly convinced (having read this morning) that the review in
the 'Annals' (Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist. third series, vol. 5, page 132.

My father has obviously taken the expression "pestilent" from the following
passage (page 138): "But who is this Nature, we have a right to ask, who
has such tremendous power, and to whose efficiency such marvellous
performances are ascribed? What are her image and attributes, when
dragged from her wordy lurking-place? Is she aught but a pestilent
abstraction, like dust cast in our eyes to obscure the workings of an
Intelligent First Cause of all?" The reviewer pays a tribute to my father's
candour, "so manly and outspoken as almost to 'cover a multitude of sins.'"
The parentheses (to which allusion is made above) are so frequent as to give
a characteristic appearance to Mr. Wollaston's pages.) is by Wollaston; no
one else in the world would have used so many parentheses. I have written
to him, and told him that the "pestilent" fellow thanks him for his kind
manner of speaking about him. I have also told him that he would be
pleased to hear that the Bishop of Oxford says it is the most unphilosophical
(Another version of the words is given by Lyell, to whom they were spoken,
viz. "the most illogical book ever written."—'Life,' volume ii. page 358.)
work he ever read. The review seems to me clever, and only misinterprets
me in a few places. Like all hostile men, he passes over the explanation
given of Classification, Morphology, Embryology, and Rudimentary
Organs, etc. I read Wallace's paper in MS. ("On the Zoological Geography
of the Malay Archipelago."—Linn. Soc. Journ. 1860.), and thought it
admirably good; he does not know that he has been anticipated about the
depth of intervening sea determining distribution... The most curious point
in the paper seems to me that about the African character of the Celebes
productions, but I should require further confirmation...
Henslow is staying here; I have had some talk with him; he is in much
the same state as Bunbury (The late Sir Charles Bunbury, well-known as a
Palaeo-botanist.), and will go a very little way with us, but brings up no real
argument against going further. He also shudders at the eye! It is really
curious (and perhaps is an argument in our favour) how differently different
opposers view the subject. Henslow used to rest his opposition on the
imperfection of the Geological Record, but he now thinks nothing of this,
and says I have got well out of it; I wish I could quite agree with him.
Baden Powell says he never read anything so conclusive as my statement
about the eye!! A stranger writes to me about sexual selection, and regrets
that I boggle about such a trifle as the brush of hair on the male turkey, and
so on. As L. Jenyns has a really philosophical mind, and as you say you like

to see everything, I send an old letter of his. In a later letter to Henslow,
which I have seen, he is more candid than any opposer I have heard of, for
he says, though he CANNOT go so far as I do, yet he can give no good
reason why he should not. It is funny how each man draws his own
imaginary line at which to halt. It reminds me so vividly what I was told
(By Professor Henslow.) about you when I first commenced geology—to
believe a LITTLE, but on no account to believe all.
Ever yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, February 18th [1860].
My dear Gray,
I received about a week ago two sheets of your Review (The 'American
Journal of Science and Arts,' March, 1860. Reprinted in 'Darwiniana,'
1876.); read them, and sent them to Hooker; they are now returned and r-
read with care, and to-morrow I send them to Lyell. Your Review seems to
me ADMIRABLE; by far the best which I have read. I thank you from my
heart both for myself, but far more for the subject's sake. Your contrast
between the views of Agassiz and such as mine is very curious and
instructive. (The contrast is briefly summed up thus: "The theory of Agassiz
regards the origin of species and their present general distribution over the
world as equally primordial, equally supernatural; that of Darwin as equally
derivative, equally natural."—'Darwiniana,' page 14.) By the way, if
Agassiz writes anything on the subject, I hope you will tell me. I am
charmed with your metaphor of the streamlet never running against the
force of gravitation. Your distinction between an hypothesis and theory
seems to me very ingenious; but I do not think it is ever followed. Every
one now speaks of the undulatory THEORY of light; yet the ether is itself
hypothetical, and the undulations are inferred only from explaining the
phenomena of light. Even in the THEORY of gravitation is the attractive
power in any way known, except by explaining the fall of the apple, and the
movements of the Planets? It seems to me that an hypothesis is
DEVELOPED into a theory solely by explaining an ample lot of facts.
Again and again I thank you for your generous aid in discussing a view,
about which you very properly hold yourself unbiassed.
My dear Gray, yours most sincerely, C. DARWIN.

P.S.—Several clergymen go far with me. Rev. L. Jenyns, a very good
naturalist. Henslow will go a very little way with me, and is not shocked
with me. He has just been visiting me.
[With regard to the attitude of the more liberal representatives of the
Church, the following letter (already referred to) from Charles Kingsley is
of interest:]
C. KINGSLEY TO CHARLES DARWIN. Eversley Rectory, Winchfield,
November 18th, 1859.
Dear Sir,
I have to thank you for the unexpected honour of your book. That the
Naturalist whom, of all naturalists living, I most wish to know and to learn
from, should have sent a scientist like me his book, encourages me at least
to observe more carefully, and perhaps more slowly.
I am so poorly (in brain), that I fear I cannot read your book just now as I
ought. All I have seen of it AWES me; both with the heap of facts and the
prestige of your name, and also with the clear intuition, that if you be right,
I must give up much that I have believed and written.
In that I care little. Let God be true, and every man a liar! Let us know
what IS, and, as old Socrates has it, epesthai to logo—follow up the
villainous shifty fox of an argument, into whatsoever unexpected bogs and
brakes he may lead us, if we do but run into him at last.
From two common superstitions, at least, I shall be free while judging of
your books:—
1. I have long since, from watching the crossing of domesticated animals
and plants, learnt to disbelieve the dogma of the permanence of species.
2. I have gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of
Deity, to believe that he created primal forms capable of self development
into all forms needful pro tempore and pro loco, as to believe that He
required a fresh act of intervention to supply the lacunas which He Himself
had made. I question whether the former be not the loftier thought.
Be it as it may, I shall prize your book, both for itself, and as a proof that
you are aware of the existence of such a person as
Your faithful servant, C. KINGSLEY.

[My father's old friend, the Rev. J. Brodie Innes, of Milton Brodie, who
was for many years Vicar of Down, writes in the same spirit:
"We never attacked each other. Before I knew Mr. Darwin I had adopted,
and publicly expressed, the principle that the study of natural history,
geology, and science in general, should be pursued without reference to the
Bible. That the Book of Nature and Scripture came from the same Divine
source, ran in parallel lines, and when properly understood would never
cross...
"His views on this subject were very much to the same effect from his
side. Of course any conversations we may have had on purely religious
subjects are as sacredly private now as in his life; but the quaint conclusion
of one may be given. We had been speaking of the apparent contradiction of
some supposed discoveries with the Book of Genesis; he said, 'you are (it
would have been more correct to say you ought to be) a theologian, I am a
naturalist, the lines are separate. I endeavour to discover facts without
considering what is said in the Book of Genesis. I do not attack Moses, and
I think Moses can take care of himself.' To the same effect he wrote more
recently, 'I cannot remember that I ever published a word directly against
religion or the clergy; but if you were to read a little pamphlet which I
received a couple of days ago by a clergyman, you would laugh, and admit
that I had some excuse for bitterness. After abusing me for two or three
pages, in language sufficiently plain and emphatic to have satisfied any
reasonable man, he sums up by saying that he has vainly searched the
English language to find terms to express his contempt for me and all
Darwinians.' In another letter, after I had left Down, he writes, 'We often
differed, but you are one of those rare mortals from whom one can differ
and yet feel no shade of animosity, and that is a thing [of] which I should
feel very proud, if any one could say [it] of me.'
"On my last visit to Down, Mr. Darwin said, at his dinner-table, 'Brodie
Innes and I have been fast friends for thirty years, and we never thoroughly
agreed on any subject but once, and then we stared hard at each other, and
thought one of us must be very ill.'"]

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, February 23rd [1860].
My dear Lyell,

That is a splendid answer of the father of Judge Crompton. How curious
that the Judge should have hit on exactly the same points as yourself. It
shows me what a capital lawyer you would have made, how many unjust
acts you would have made appear just! But how much grander a field has
science been than the law, though the latter might have made you Lord
Kinnordy. I will, if there be another edition, enlarge on gradation in the eye,
and on all forms coming from one prototype, so as to try and make both less
glaringly improbable...
With respect to Bronn's objection that it cannot be shown how life arises,
and likewise to a certain extent Asa Gray's remark that natural selection is
not a vera causa, I was much interested by finding accidentally in
Brewster's 'Life of Newton,' that Leibnitz objected to the law of gravity
because Newton could not show what gravity itself is. As it has chanced, I
have used in letters this very same argument, little knowing that any one
had really thus objected to the law of gravity. Newton answers by saying
that it is philosophy to make out the movements of a clock, though you do
not know why the weight descends to the ground. Leibnitz further objected
that the law of gravity was opposed to Natural Religion! Is this not curious?
I really think I shall use the facts for some introductory remarks for my
bigger book.
... You ask (I see) why we do not have monstrosities in higher animals;
but when they live they are almost always sterile (even giants and dwarfs
are GENERALLY sterile), and we do not know that Harvey's monster
would have bred. There is I believe only one case on record of a peloric
flower being fertile, and I cannot remember whether this reproduced itself.
To recur to the eye. I really think it would have been dishonest, not to
have faced the difficulty; and worse (as Talleyrand would have said), it
would have been impolitic I think, for it would have been thrown in my
teeth, as H. Holland threw the bones of the ear, till Huxley shut him up by
showing what a fine gradation occurred amongst living creatures.
I thank you much for your most pleasant letter.
Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.
P.S.—I send a letter by Herbert Spencer, which you can read or not as
you think fit. He puts, to my mind, the philosophy of the argument better
than almost any one, at the close of the letter. I could make nothing of

Dana's idealistic notions about species; but then, as Wollaston says, I have
not a metaphysical head.
By the way, I have thrown at Wollaston's head, a paper by Alexander
Jordan, who demonstrates metaphysically that all our cultivated races are
Go-created species.
Wollaston misrepresents accidentally, to a wonderful extent, some
passages in my book. He reviewed, without relooking at certain passages.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, February 25th [1860].
... I cannot help wondering at your zeal about my book. I declare to
heaven you seem to care as much about my book as I do myself. You have
no right to be so eminently unselfish! I have taken off my spit [i.e. file] a
letter of Ramsay's, as every geologist convert I think very important. By the
way, I saw some time ago a letter from H.D. Rogers (Professor of Geology
in the University of Glasgow. Born in the United States 1809, died 1866.) to
Huxley, in which he goes very far with us...

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Saturday, March 3rd,
[1860].
My dear Hooker,
What a day's work you had on that Thursday! I was not able to go to
London till Monday, and then I was a fool for going, for, on Tuesday night,
I had an attack of fever (with a touch of pleurisy), which came on like a
lion, but went off as a lamb, but has shattered me a good bit.
I was much interested by your last note... I think you expect too much in
regard to change of opinion on the subject of Species. One large class of
men, more especially I suspect of naturalists, never will care about ANY
general question, of which old Gray, of the British Museum, may be taken
as a type; and secondly, nearly all men past a moderate age, either in actual
years or in mind, are, I am fully convinced, incapable of looking at facts
under a new point of view. Seriously, I am astonished and rejoiced at the
progress which the subject has made; look at the enclosed memorandum.
(See table of names below.) — says my book will be forgotten in ten years,

perhaps so; but, with such a list, I feel convinced the subject will not. The
outsiders, as you say, are strong.
You say that you think that Bentham is touched, "but, like a wise man,
holds his tongue." Perhaps you only mean that he cannot decide, otherwise I
should think such silence the reverse of magnanimity; for if others behaved
the same way, how would opinion ever progress? It is a dereliction of actual
duty. (In a subsequent letter to Sir J.D. Hooker (March 12th, 1860), my
father wrote, "I now quite understand Bentham's silence.")
I am so glad to hear about Thwaites. (Dr. G.J.K. Thwaites, who was born
in 1811, established a reputation in this country as an expert microscopist,
and an acute observer, working especially at cryptogamic botany. On his
appointment as Director of the Botanic Gardens at Peradenyia, Ceylon, Dr.
Thwaites devoted himself to the flora of Ceylon. As a result of this he has
left numerous and valuable collections, a description of which he embodied
in his 'Enumeratio Plantarum Zeylaniae' (1864). Dr. Thwaites was a fellow
of the Linnean Society, but beyond the above facts little seems to have been
recorded of his life. His death occurred in Ceylon on September 11th, 1882,
in his seventy-second year. "Athenaeum", October 14th, 1882, page 500.)...
I have had an astounding letter from Dr. Boott (The letter is enthusiastically
laudatory, and obviously full of genuine feeling.); it might be turned into
ridicule against him and me, so I will not send it to any one. He writes in a
noble spirit of love of truth.
I wonder what Lindley thinks; probably too busy to read or think on the
question.
I am vexed about Bentham's reticence, for it would have been of real
value to know what parts appeared weakest to a man of his powers of
observation.
Farewell, my dear Hooker, yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.
P.S.—Is not Harvey in the class of men who do not at all care for
generalities? I remember your saying you could not get him to write on
Distribution. I have found his works very unfruitful in every respect.

[Here follows the memorandum referred to:]

Geologists. Zoologists and Physiologists. Botanists.
Palaeontologists.

Lyell. Huxley. Carpenter. Hooker.

Ramsay.* J. Lubbock. Sir H. Holland H.C. Watson.
(to large extent).

Jukes.* L. Jenyns Asa Gray
(to large extent). (to some extent).

H.D. Rogers. Searles Wood.* Dr. Boott
(to large extent).

Thwaites.

(*Andrew Ramsay, late Director-General of the Geological Survey.

Joseph Beete Jukes, M.A., F.R.S., 1811-1869. He was educated at
Cambridge, and from 1842 to 1846 he acted as naturalist to H.M.S. "Fly",
on an exploring expedition in Australia and New Guinea. He was
afterwards appointed Director of the Geological Survey of Ireland. He was
the author of many papers, and of more than one good hand-book of
geology.
Searles Valentine Wood, February 14, 1798-1880. Chiefly known for his
work on the Mollusca of the 'Crag.')
[The following letter is of interest in connection with the mention of Mr.
Bentham in the last letter:]
G. BENTHAM TO FRANCIS DARWIN. 25 Wilton Place, S.W., May
30th, 1882.
My dear Sir,
In compliance with your note which I received last night, I send herewith
the letters I have from your father. I should have done so on seeing the
general request published in the papers, but that I did not think there were
any among them which could be of any use to you. Highly flattered as I was
by the kind and friendly notice with which Mr. Darwin occasionally
honoured me, I was never admitted into his intimacy, and he therefore never
made any communications to me in relation to his views and labours. I have
been throughout one of his most sincere admirers, and fully adopted his
theories and conclusions, notwithstanding the severe pain and
disappointment they at first occasioned me. On the day that his celebrated
paper was read at the Linnean Society, July 1st, 1858, a long paper of mine
had been set down for reading, in which, in commenting on the British
Flora, I had collected a number of observations and facts illustrating what I
then believed to be a fixity in species, however difficult it might be to
assign their limits, and showing a tendency of abnormal forms produced by

cultivation or otherwise, to withdraw within those original limits when left
to themselves. Most fortunately my paper had to give way to Mr. Darwin's
and when once that was read, I felt bound to defer mine for reconsideration;
I began to entertain doubts on the subject, and on the appearance of the
'Origin of Species,' I was forced, however reluctantly, to give up my long-
cherished convictions, the results of much labour and study, and I cancelled
all that part of my paper which urged original fixity, and published only
portions of the remainder in another form, chiefly in the 'Natural History
Review.' I have since acknowledged on various occasions my full adoption
of Mr. Darwin's views, and chiefly in my Presidential Address of 1863, and
in my thirteenth and last address, issued in the form of a report to the
British Association at its meeting at Belfast in 1874.
I prize so highly the letters that I have of Mr. Darwin's, that I should feel
obliged by your returning them to me when you have done with them.
Unfortunately I have not kept the envelopes, and Mr. Darwin usually only
dated them by the month not by the year, so that they are not in any
chronological order.
Yours very sincerely, GEORGE BENTHAM.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down [March] 12th [1860].
My dear Lyell,
Thinking over what we talked about, the high state of intellectual
development of the old Grecians with the little or no subsequent
improvement, being an apparent difficulty, it has just occurred to me that in
fact the case harmonises perfectly with our views. The case would be a
decided difficulty on the Lamarckian or Vestigian doctrine of necessary
progression, but on the view which I hold of progression depending on the
conditions, it is no objection at all, and harmonises with the other facts of
progression in the corporeal structure of other animals. For in a state of
anarchy, or despotism, or bad government, or after irruption of barbarians,
force, strength, or ferocity, and not intellect, would be apt to gain the day.
We have so enjoyed your and Lady Lyell's visit.
Good-night. C. DARWIN.

P.S.—By an odd chance (for I had not alluded even to the subject) the
ladies attacked me this evening, and threw the high state of old Grecians
into my teeth, as an unanswerable difficulty, but by good chance I had my
answer all pat, and silenced them. Hence I have thought it worth scribbling
to you...

CHARLES DARWIN TO J. PRESTWICH. (Now Professor of Geology in
the University of Oxford.) Down, March 12th [1860].
... At some future time, when you have a little leisure, and when you have
read my 'Origin of Species,' I should esteem it a SINGULAR favour if you
would send me any general criticisms. I do not mean of unreasonable
length, but such as you could include in a letter. I have always admired your
various memoirs so much that I should be eminently glad to receive your
opinion, which might be of real service to me.
Pray do not suppose that I expect to CONVERT or PERVERT you; if I
could stagger you in ever so slight a degree I should be satisfied; nor fear to
annoy me by severe criticisms, for I have had some hearty kicks from some
of my best friends. If it would not be disagreeable to you to send me your
opinion, I certainly should be truly obliged...

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, April 3rd [1860].
... I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold
all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now small
trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The
sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!...
You may like to hear about reviews on my book. Sedgwick (as I and
Lyell feel CERTAIN from internal evidence) has reviewed me savagely and
unfairly in the "Spectator". (See the quotations which follow the present
letter.) The notice includes much abuse, and is hardly fair in several
respects. He would actually lead any one, who was ignorant of geology, to
suppose that I had invented the great gaps between successive geological
formations, instead of its being an almost universally admitted dogma. But
my dear old friend Sedgwick, with his noble heart, is old, and is rabid with
indignation. It is hard to please every one; you may remember that in my

last letter I asked you to leave out about the Weald denudation: I told Jukes
this (who is head man of the Irish geological survey), and he blamed me
much, for he believed every word of it, and thought it not at all
exaggerated! In fact, geologists have no means of gauging the infinitude of
past time. There has been one prodigy of a review, namely, an OPPOSED
one (by Pictet (Francois Jules Pictet, in the 'Archives des Sciences de la
Bibliotheque Universelle,' Mars 1860. The article is written in a courteous
and considerate tone, and concludes by saying that the 'Origin' will be of
real value to naturalists, especially if they are not led away by its seductive
arguments to believe in the dangerous doctrine of modification. A passage
which seems to have struck my father as being valuable, and opposite
which he has made double pencil marks and written the word "good," is
worth quoting: "La theorie de M. Darwin s'accorde mal avec l'histoire des
types a formes bien tranchees et definies qui paraissent n'avoir vecu que
pendant un temps limite. On en pourrait citer des centaines d'exemples, tel
que les reptiles volants, les ichthyosaures, les belemnites, les ammonites,
etc." Pictet was born in 1809, died 1872; he was Professor of Anatomy and
Zoology at Geneva.), the palaeontologist, in the Bib. Universelle of
Geneva) which is PERFECTLY fair and just, and I agree to every word he
says; our only difference being that he attaches less weight to arguments in
favour, and more to arguments opposed, than I do. Of all the opposed
reviews, I think this the only quite fair one, and I never expected to see one.
Please observe that I do not class your review by any means as opposed,
though you think so yourself! It has done me MUCH too good service ever
to appear in that rank in my eyes. But I fear I shall weary you with so much
about my book. I should rather think there was a good chance of my
becoming the most egotistical man in all Europe! What a proud pre-
eminence! Well, you have helped to make me so and therefore you must
forgive me if you can.
My dear Gray, ever yours most gratefully, C. DARWIN.
[In a letter to Sir Charles Lyell reference is made to Sedgwick's review in
the "Spectator", March 24:
"I now feel certain that Sedgwick is the author of the article in the
"Spectator". No one else could use such abusive terms. And what a
misrepresentation of my notions! Any ignoramus would suppose that I had
FIRST broached the doctrine, that the breaks between successive

formations marked long intervals of time. It is very unfair. But poor dear
old Sedgwick seems rabid on the question. "Demoralised understanding!" If
ever I talk with him I will tell him that I never could believe that an
inquisitor could be a good man: but now I know that a man may roast
another, and yet have as kind and noble a heart as Sedgwick's."
The following passages are taken from the review:
"I need hardly go on any further with these objections. But I cannot
conclude without expressing my detestation of the theory, because of its
unflinching materialism;—because it has deserted the inductive track, the
only track that leads to physical truth;—because it utterly repudiates final
causes, and thereby indicates a demoralised understanding on the part of its
advocates."
"Not that I believe that Darwin is an atheist; though I cannot but regard
his materialism as atheistical. I think it untrue, because opposed to the
obvious course of nature, and the very opposite of inductive truth. And I
think it intensely mischievous."
"Each series of facts is laced together by a series of assumptions, and
repetitions of the one false principle. You cannot make a good rope out of a
string of air bubbles."
"But any startling and (supposed) novel paradox, maintained very boldly
and with something of imposing plausibility, produces in some minds a
kind of pleasing excitement which predisposes them in its favour; and if
they are unused to careful reflection, and averse to the labour of accurate
investigation, they will be likely to conclude that what is (apparently)
ORIGINAL, must be a production of original GENIUS, and that anything
very much opposed to prevailing notions must be a grand DISCOVERY,—
in short, that whatever comes from the 'bottom of a well' must be the 'truth'
supposed to be hidden there."
In a review in the December number of 'Macmillan's Magazine,' 1860,
Fawcett vigorously defended my father from the charge of employing a
false method of reasoning; a charge which occurs in Sedgwick's review, and
was made at the time ad nauseam, in such phrases as: "This is not the true
Baconian method." Fawcett repeated his defence at the meeting of the
British Association in 1861. (See an interesting letter from my father in Mr.
Stephen's 'Life of Henry Fawcett,' 1886, page 101.)]

CHARLES DARWIN TO W.B CARPENTER. Down, April 6th [1860].
My dear Carpenter,
I have this minute finished your review in the 'Med. Chirurg. Review.'
(April 1860.) You must let me express my admiration at this most able
essay, and I hope to God it will be largely read, for it must produce a great
effect. I ought not, however, to express such warm admiration, for you give
my book, I fear, far too much praise. But you have gratified me extremely;
and though I hope I do not care very much for the approbation of the non-
scientific readers, I cannot say that this is at all so with respect to such few
men as yourself. I have not a criticism to make, for I object to not a word;
and I admire all, so that I cannot pick out one part as better than the rest. It
is all so well balanced. But it is impossible not to be struck with your extent
of knowledge in geology, botany, and zoology. The extracts which you give
from Hooker seem to me EXCELLENTLY chosen, and most forcible. I am
so much pleased in what you say also about Lyell. In fact I am in a fit of
enthusiasm, and had better write no more. With cordial thanks,
Yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, April 10th [1860].
My dear Lyell,
Thank you much for your note of the 4th; I am very glad to hear that you
are at Torquay. I should have amused myself earlier by writing to you, but I
have had Hooker and Huxley staying here, and they have fully occupied my
time, as a little of anything is a full dose for me... There has been a plethora
of reviews, and I am really quite sick of myself. There is a very long review
by Carpenter in the 'Medical and Chirurg. Review,' very good and well
balanced, but not brilliant. He discusses Hooker's books at as great length as
mine, and makes excellent extracts; but I could not get Hooker to feel the
least interest in being praised.
Carpenter speaks of you in thoroughly proper terms. There is a
BRILLIANT review by Huxley ('Westminster Review,' April 1860.), with
capital hits, but I do not know that he much advances the subject. I THINK

I have convinced him that he has hardly allowed weight enough to the case
of varieties of plants being in some degrees sterile.
To diverge from reviews: Asa Gray sends me from Wyman (who will
write), a good case of all the pigs being black in the Everglades of Virginia.
On asking about the cause, it seems (I have got capital analogous cases) that
when the BLACK pigs eat a certain nut their bones become red, and they
suffer to a certain extent, but that the WHITE pigs lose their hoofs and
perish, "and we aid by SELECTION, for we kill most of the young white
pigs." This was said by men who could hardly read. By the way, it is a great
blow to me that you cannot admit the potency of natural selection. The
more I think of it, the less I doubt its power for great and small changes. I
have just read the 'Edinburgh' ('Edinburgh Review,' April 1860.), which
without doubt is by —. It is extremely malignant, clever, and I fear will be
very damaging. He is atrociously severe on Huxley's lecture, and very bitter
against Hooker. So we three ENJOYED it together. Not that I really
enjoyed it, for it made me uncomfortable for one night; but I have got quite
over it to-day. It requires much study to appreciate all the bitter spite of
many of the remarks against me; indeed I did not discover all myself. It
scandalously misrepresents many parts. He misquotes some passages,
altering words within inverted commas...
It is painful to be hated in the intense degree with which — hates me.
Now for a curious thing about my book, and then I have done. In last
Saturday's "Gardeners' Chronicle" (April 7th, 1860.), a Mr. Patrick Matthew
publishes a long extract from his work on 'Naval Timber and Arboriculture,'
published in 1831, in which he briefly but completely anticipates the theory
of Natural Selection. I have ordered the book, as some few passages are
rather obscure, but it is certainly, I think, a complete but not developed
anticipation! Erasmus always said that surely this would be shown to be the
case some day. Anyhow, one may be excused in not having discovered the
fact in a work on Naval Timber.
I heartily hope that your Torquay work may be successful. Give my
kindest remembrances to Falconer, and I hope he is pretty well. Hooker and
Huxley (with Mrs. Huxley) were extremely pleasant. But poor dear Hooker
is tired to death of my book, and it is a marvel and a prodigy if you are not
worse tired—if that be possible. Farewell, my dear Lyell,
Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [April 13th, 1860].
My dear Hooker,
Questions of priority so often lead to odious quarrels, that I should
esteem it a great favour if you would read the enclosed. ((My father wrote
("Gardeners' Chronicle", 1860, page 362, April 21st): "I have been much
interested by Mr. Patrick Matthew's communication in the number of your
paper dated April 7th. I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew has
anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the
origin of species, under the name of natural selection. I think that no one
will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had
heard of Mr. Matthew's views, considering how briefly they are given, and
that they appeared in the appendix to a work on Naval Timber and
Arboriculture. I can do no more than offer my apologies to Mr. Matthew for
my entire ignorance of this publication. If any other edition of my work is
called for, I will insert to the foregoing effect." In spite of my father's
recognition of his claims, Mr. Matthew remained unsatisfied, and
complained that an article in the 'Saturday Analyst and Leader' was
"scarcely fair in alluding to Mr. Darwin as the parent of the origin of
species, seeing that I published the whole that Mr. Darwin attempts to
prove, more than twenty-nine years ago."—"Saturday Analyst and Leader",
November 24, 1860.) If you think it proper that I should send it (and of this
there can hardly be any question), and if you think it full and ample enough,
please alter the date to the day on which you post it, and let that be soon.
The case in the "Gardeners' Chronicle" seems a LITTLE stronger than in
Mr. Matthew's book, for the passages are therein scattered in three places;
but it would be mere hair-splitting to notice that. If you object to my letter,
please return it; but I do not expect that you will, but I thought that you
would not object to run your eye over it. My dear Hooker, it is a great thing
for me to have so good, true, and old a friend as you. I owe much for
science to my friends.
Many thanks for Huxley's lecture. The latter part seemed to be grandly
eloquent.
... I have gone over [the 'Edinburgh'] review again, and compared
passages, and I am astonished at the misrepresentations. But I am glad I

resolved not to answer. Perhaps it is selfish, but to answer and think more
on the subject is too unpleasant. I am so sorry that Huxley by my means has
been thus atrociously attacked. I do not suppose you much care about the
gratuitous attack on you.
Lyell in his letter remarked that you seemed to him as if you were
overworked. Do, pray, be cautious, and remember how many and many a
man has done this—who thought it absurd till too late. I have often thought
the same. You know that you were bad enough before your Indian journey.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, April [1860].
My dear Lyell,
I was very glad to get your nice long letter from Torquay. A press of
letters prevented me writing to Wells. I was particularly glad to hear what
you thought about not noticing [the 'Edinburgh'] review. Hooker and
Huxley thought it a sort of duty to point out the alteration of quoted
citations, and there is truth in this remark; but I so hated the thought that I
resolved not to do so. I shall come up to London on Saturday the 14th, for
Sir B. Brodie's party, as I have an accumulation of things to do in London,
and will (if I do not hear to the contrary) call about a quarter before ten on
Sunday morning, and sit with you at breakfast, but will not sit long, and so
take up much of your time. I must say one more word about our quasi-
theological controversy about natural selection, and let me have your
opinion when we meet in London. Do you consider that the successive
variations in the size of the crop of the Pouter Pigeon, which man has
accumulated to please his caprice, have been due to "the creative and
sustaining powers of Brahma?" In the sense that an omnipotent and
omniscient Deity must order and know everything, this must be admitted;
yet, in honest truth, I can hardly admit it. It seems preposterous that a maker
of a universe should care about the crop of a pigeon solely to please man's
silly fancies. But if you agree with me in thinking such an interposition of
the Deity uncalled for, I can see no reason whatever for believing in such
interpositions in the case of natural beings, in which strange and admirable
peculiarities have been naturally selected for the creature's own benefit.
Imagine a Pouter in a state of nature wading into the water and then, being
buoyed up by its inflated crop, sailing about in search of food. What

admiration this would have excited—adaptation to the laws of hydrostatic
pressure, etc. etc. For the life of me I cannot see any difficulty in natural
selection producing the most exquisite structure, IF SUCH STRUCTURE
CAN BE ARRIVED AT BY GRADATION, and I know from experience
how hard it is to name any structure towards which at least some gradations
are not known.
Ever yours, C. DARWIN.
P.S.—The conclusion at which I have come, as I have told Asa Gray, is
that such a question, as is touched on in this note, is beyond the human
intellect, like "predestination and free will," or the "origin of evil."

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [April 18th, 1860].
My dear Hooker,
I return —'s letter... Some of my relations say it cannot POSSIBLY be
—'s article (The 'Edinburgh Review.'), because the reviewer speaks so very
highly of —. Poor dear simple folk! My clever neighbour, Mr. Norman,
says the article is so badly written, with no definite object, that no one will
read it. Asa Gray has sent me an article ('North American Review,' April,
1860. "By Professor Bowen," is written on my father's copy. The passage
referred to occurs at page 488, where the author says that we ought to find
"an infinite number of other varieties—gross, rude, and purposeless—the
unmeaning creations of an unconscious cause.") from the United States,
clever, and dead against me. But one argument is funny. The reviewer says,
that if the doctrine were true, geological strata would be full of monsters
which have failed! A very clear view this writer had of the struggle for
existence!
... I am glad you like Adam Bede so much. I was charmed with it...
We think you must by mistake have taken with your own numbers of the
'National Review' my precious number. (This no doubt refers to the January
number, containing Dr. Carpenter's review of the 'Origin.') I wish you
would look.

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, April 25th [1860].

My dear Gray,
I have no doubt I have to thank you for the copy of a review on the
'Origin' in the 'North American Review.' It seems to me clever, and I do not
doubt will damage my book. I had meant to have made some remarks on it;
but Lyell wished much to keep it, and my head is quite confused between
the many reviews which I have lately read. I am sure the reviewer is wrong
about bees' cells, i.e. about the distance; any lesser distance would do, or
even greater distance, but then some of the places would lie outside the
generative spheres; but this would not add much difficulty to the work. The
reviewer takes a strange view of instinct: he seems to regard intelligence as
a developed instinct; which I believe to be wholly false. I suspect he has
never much attended to instinct and the minds of animals, except perhaps
by reading.
My chief object is to ask you if you could procure for me a copy of the
"New York Times" for Wednesday, March 28th. It contains A VERY
STRIKING review of my book, which I should much like to keep. How
curious that the two most striking reviews (i.e. yours and this) should have
appeared in America. This review is not really useful, but somehow is
impressive. There was a good review in the 'Revue des Deux Mondes,'
April 1st, by M. Laugel, said to be a very clever man.
Hooker, about a fortnight ago, stayed here a few days, and was very
pleasant; but I think he overworks himself. What a gigantic undertaking, I
imagine, his and Bentham's 'Genera Plantarum' will be! I hope he will not
get too much immersed in it, so as not to spare some time for Geographical
Distribution and other such questions.
I have begun to work steadily, but very slowly as usual, at details on
variation under domestication.
My dear Gray, Yours always truly and gratefully, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, [May 8th, 1860].
... I have sent for the 'Canadian Naturalist.' If I cannot procure a copy I
will borrow yours. I had a letter from Henslow this morning, who says that
Sedgwick was, on last Monday night, to open a battery on me at the
Cambridge Philosophical Society. Anyhow, I am much honoured by being
attacked there, and at the Royal Society of Edinburgh.

I do not think it worth while to contradict single cases nor is it worth
while arguing against those who do not attend to what I state. A moment's
reflection will show you that there must be (on our doctrine) large genera
not varying (see page 56 on the subject, in the second edition of the
'Origin'). Though I do not there discuss the case in detail.
It may be sheer bigotry for my own notions, but I prefer to the Atlantis,
my notion of plants and animals having migrated from the Old to the New
World, or conversely, when the climate was much hotter, by approximately
the line of Behring's Straits. It is most important, as you say, to see living
forms of plants going back so far in time. I wonder whether we shall ever
discover the flora of the dry land of the coal period, and find it not so
anomalous as the swamp or coal-making flora. I am working away over the
blessed Pigeon Manuscript; but, from one cause or another, I get on very
slowly...
This morning I got a letter from the Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia, announcing that I am elected a correspondent... It shows that
some Naturalists there do not think me such a scientific profligate as many
think me here.
My dear Lyell, yours gratefully, C. DARWIN.
P.S.—What a grand fact about the extinct stag's horn worked by man!

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [May 13th, 1860].
My dear Hooker,
I return Henslow, which I was very glad to see. How good of him to
defend me. (Against Sedgwick's attack before the Cambridge Philosophical
Society.) I will write and thank him.
As you said you were curious to hear Thomson's (Dr. Thomas Thomson
the Indian Botanist. He was a collaborateur in Hooker and Thomson's Flora
Indica. 1855.) opinion, I send his kind letter. He is evidently a strong
opposer to us...

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [May 15th, 1860].

... How paltry it is in such men as X, Y and Co. not reading your essay. It
is incredibly paltry. (These remarks do not apply to Dr. Harvey, who was,
however, in a somewhat similar position. See below.) They may all attack
me to their hearts' content. I am got case-hardened. As for the old fogies in
Cambridge, it really signifies nothing. I look at their attacks as a proof that
our work is worth the doing. It makes me resolve to buckle on my armour. I
see plainly that it will be a long uphill fight. But think of Lyell's progress
with Geology. One thing I see most plainly, that without Lyell's, yours,
Huxley's and Carpenter's aid, my book would have been a mere flash in the
pan. But if we all stick to it, we shall surely gain the day. And I now see that
the battle is worth fighting. I deeply hope that you think so. Does Bentham
progress at all? I do not know what to say about Oxford. (His health
prevented him from going to Oxford for the meeting of the British
Association.) I should like it much with you, but it must depend on health...
Yours must affectionately, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, May 18th [1860].
My dear Lyell,
I send a letter from Asa Gray to show how hotly the battle rages there.
Also one from Wallace, very just in his remarks, though too laudatory and
too modest, and how admirably free from envy or jealousy. He must be a
good fellow. Perhaps I will enclose a letter from Thomson of Calcutta; not
that it is much, but Hooker thinks so highly of him...
Henslow informs me that Sedgwick (Sedgwick's address is given
somewhat abbreviated in "The Cambridge Chronicle", May 19th, 1860.)
and then Professor Clarke [sic] (The late William Clark, Professor of
Anatomy, my father seems to have misunderstood his informant. I am
assured by Mr. J.W. Clark that his father (Prof. Clark) did not support
Sedgwick in the attack.) made a regular and savage onslaught on my book
lately at the Cambridge Philosophical Society, but Henslow seems to have
defended me well, and maintained that the subject was a legitimate one for
investigation. Since then Phillips (John Phillips, M.A., F.R.S., born 1800,
died 1874, from the effects of a fall. Professor of Geology at King's
College, London, and afterwards at Oxford. He gave the 'Rede' lecture at
Cambridge on May 15th, 1860, on 'The Succession of Life on the earth.'

The Rede Lecturer is appointed annually by the Vice-Chancellor, and is
paid by an endowment left in 1524 by Sir Robert Rede, Lord Chief Justice,
in the reign of Henry VIII.) has given lectures at Cambridge on the same
subject, but treated it very fairly. How splendidly Asa Gray is fighting the
battle. The effect on me of these multiplied attacks is simply to show me
that the subject is worth fighting for, and assuredly I will do my best... I
hope all the attacks make you keep up your courage, and courage you
assuredly will require...

CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, May 18th, 1860.
My dear Mr. Wallace,
I received this morning your letter from Amboyna, dated February 16th,
containing some remarks and your too high approval of my book. Your
letter has pleased me very much, and I most completely agree with you on
the parts which are strongest and which are weakest. The imperfection of
the Geological Record is, as you say, the weakest of all; but yet I am
pleased to find that there are almost more geological converts than of
pursuers of other branches of natural science... I think geologists are more
easily converted than simple naturalists, because more accustomed to
reasoning. Before telling you about the progress of opinion on the subject,
you must let me say how I admire the generous manner in which you speak
of my book. Most persons would in your position have felt some envy or
jealousy. How nobly free you seem to be of this common failing of
mankind. But you speak far too modestly of yourself. You would, if you had
my leisure, have done the work just as well, perhaps better, than I have done
it...

... Agassiz sends me a personal civil message, but incessantly attacks me;
but Asa Gray fights like a hero in defence. Lyell keeps as firm as a tower,
and this Autumn will publish on the 'Geological History of Man,' and will
then declare his conversion, which now is universally known. I hope that
you have received Hooker's splendid essay... Yesterday I heard from Lyell
that a German, Dr. Schaaffhausen (Hermann Schaaffhausen 'Ueber
Bestandigkeit und Umwandlung der Arten.' Verhandl. d. Naturhist. Vereins,
Bonn, 1853. See 'Origin,' Historical Sketch.), has sent him a pamphlet
published some years ago, in which the same view is nearly anticipated; but
I have not yet seen this pamphlet. My brother, who is a very sagacious man,
always said, "you will find that some one will have been before you." I am
at work at my larger work, which I shall publish in a separate volume. But
from ill-health and swarms of letters, I get on very very slowly. I hope that I
shall not have wearied you with these details. With sincere thanks for your
letter, and with most deeply felt wishes for your success in science, and in
every way, believe me,
Your sincere well-wisher, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, May 22nd 1860.
My dear Gray,
Again I have to thank you for one of your very pleasant letters of May
7th, enclosing a very pleasant remittance of 22 pounds. I am in simple truth
astonished at all the kind trouble you have taken for me. I return Appleton's
account. For the chance of your wishing for a formal acknowledgment I
send one. If you have any further communication to the Appletons, pray
express my acknowledgment for [their] generosity; for it is generosity in
my opinion. I am not at all surprised at the sale diminishing; my extreme
surprise is at the greatness of the sale. No doubt the public has been
SHAMEFULLY imposed on! for they bought the book thinking that it
would be nice easy reading. I expect the sale to stop soon in England, yet
Lyell wrote to me the other day that calling at Murray's he heard that fifty
copies had gone in the previous forty-eight hours. I am extremely glad that
you will notice in 'Silliman' the additions in the 'Origin.' Judging from
letters (and I have just seen one from Thwaites to Hooker), and from
remarks, the most serious omission in my book was not explaining how it

is, as I believe, that all forms do not necessarily advance, how there can
now be SIMPLE organisms still existing... I hear there is a VERY severe
review on me in the 'North British,' by a Rev. Mr. Dunns (This statement as
to authorship was made on the authority of Robert Chambers.), a Free Kirk
minister, and dabbler in Natural History. I should be very glad to see any
good American reviews, as they are all more or less useful. You say that you
shall touch on other reviews. Huxley told me some time ago that after a
time he would write a review on all the reviews, whether he will I know
not. If you allude to the 'Edinburgh,' pray notice SOME of the points which
I will point out on a separate slip. In the "Saturday Review" (one of our
cleverest periodicals) of May 5th, page 573, there is a nice article on [the
'Edinburgh'] review, defending Huxley, but not Hooker; and the latter, I
think, [the 'Edinburgh' reviewer] treats most ungenerously. (In a letter to
Mr. Huxley my father wrote: "Have you seen the last "Saturday Review"? I
am very glad of the defence of you and of myself. I wish the reviewer had
noticed Hooker. The reviewer, whoever he is, is a jolly good fellow, as this
review and the last on me showed. He writes capitally, and understands well
his subject. I wish he had slapped [the 'Edinburgh' reviewer] a little bit
harder.") But surely you will get sick unto death of me and my reviewers.
With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always
painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But
I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do,
evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me
too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent
and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae
with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of
Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no
necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other
hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and
especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of
brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed
laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what
we may call chance. Not that this notion AT ALL satisfies me. I feel most
deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog
might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and
believe what he can. Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all
necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad

one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws. A child (who
may turn out an idiot) is born by the action of even more complex laws, and
I can see no reason why a man, or other animal, may not have been
aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been
expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future
event and consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become;
as indeed I probably have shown by this letter.
Most deeply do I feel your generous kindness and interest.
Yours sincerely and cordially, CHARLES DARWIN.
{Here follow my father's criticisms on the 'Edinburgh Review'}:
"What a quibble to pretend he did not understand what I meant by
INHABITANTS of South America; and any one would suppose that I had
not throughout my volume touched on Geographical Distribution. He
ignores also everything which I have said on Classification, Geological
Succession, Homologies, Embryology, and Rudimentary Organs—page
496.
He falsely applies what I said (too rudely) about "blindness of
preconceived opinions" to those who believe in creation, whereas I
exclusively apply the remark to those who give up multitudes of species as
true species, but believe in the remainder—page 500.
He slightly alters what I say,—I ASK whether creationists really believe
that elemental atoms have flashed into life. He says that I describe them as
so believing, and this, surely, is a difference—page 501.
He speaks of my "clamouring against" all who believe in creation, and
this seems to me an unjust accusation—page 501.
He makes me say that the dorsal vertebrae vary; this is simply false: I
nowhere say a word about dorsal vertebrae—page 522.
What an illiberal sentence that is about my pretension to candour, and
about my rushing through barriers which stopped Cuvier: such an argument
would stop any progress in science—page 525.
How disingenuous to quote from my remark to you about my BRIEF
letter [published in the 'Linn. Soc. Journal'], as if it applied to the whole
subject—page 530.
How disingenuous to say that we are called on to accept the theory, from
the imperfection of the geological record, when I over and over again [say]

how grave a difficulty the imperfection offers—page 530."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 30th [1860].
My dear Hooker,
I return Harvey's letter, I have been very glad to see the reason why he
has not read your Essay. I feared it was bigotry, and I am glad to see that he
goes a little way (VERY MUCH further than I supposed) with us...
I was not sorry for a natural opportunity of writing to Harvey, just to
show that I was not piqued at his turning me and my book into ridicule (A
"serio-comic squib," read before the 'Dublin University Zoological and
Botanical Association,' February 17, 1860, and privately printed. My
father's presentation copy is inscribed "With the writer's REPENTANCE,
October 1860."), not that I think it was a proceeding which I deserved, or
worthy of him. It delights me that you are interested in watching the
progress of opinion on the change of Species; I feared that you were weary
of the subject; and therefore did not send A. Gray's letters. The battle rages
furiously in the United States. Gray says he was preparing a speech, which
would take 1 1/2 hours to deliver, and which he "fondly hoped would be a
stunner." He is fighting splendidly, and there seems to have been many
discussions with Agassiz and others at the meetings. Agassiz pities me
much at being so deluded. As for the progress of opinion, I clearly see that
it will be excessively slow, almost as slow as the change of species... I am
getting wearied at the storm of hostile reviews and hardly any useful...

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, Friday night [June 1st, 1860].
... Have you seen Hopkins (William Hopkins died in 1866, "in his sevent-
third year." He began life with a farm in Suffolk, but ultimately entered,
comparatively late in life, at Peterhouse, Cambridge; he took his degree in
1827, and afterward became an Esquire Bedell of the University. He was
chiefly known as a mathematical "coach," and was eminently successful in
the manufacture of Senior Wranglers. Nevertheless Mr. Stephen says ('Life
of Fawcett,' page 26) that he "was conspicuous for inculcating" a "liberal
view of the studies of the place. He endeavoured to stimulate a
philosophical interest in the mathematical sciences, instead of simply

rousing an ardour for competition." He contributed many papers on
geological and mathematical subjects to the scientific journals. He had a
strong influence for good over the younger men with whom he came in
contact. The letter which he wrote to Henry Fawcett on the occasion of his
blindness illustrates this. Mr. Stephen says ('Life of Fawcett,' page 48) that
by "this timely word of good cheer," Fawcett was roused from "his
temporary prostration," and enabled to take a "more cheerful and resolute
tone.") in the new 'Fraser'? the public will, I should think, find it heavy. He
will be dead against me, as you prophesied; but he is generally civil to me
personally. ('Fraser's Magazine,' June 1860. My father, no doubt, refers to
the following passage, page 752, where the Reviewer Expresses his "full
participation in the high respect in which the author is universally held, both
as a man and a naturalist; and the more so, because in the remarks which
will follow in the second part of this Essay we shall be found to differ
widely from him as regards many of his conclusions and the reasonings on
which he has founded them, and shall claim the full right to express such
differences of opinion with all that freedom which the interests of scientific
truth demands, and which we are sure Mr. Darwin would be one of the last
to refuse to any one prepared to exercise it with candour and courtesy."
Speaking of this review, my father wrote to Dr. Asa Gray: "I have
remonstrated with him [Hopkins] for so coolly saying that I base my views
on what I reckon as great difficulties. Any one, by taking these difficulties
alone, can make a most strong case against me. I could myself write a more
damning review than has as yet appeared!" A second notice by Hopkins
appeared in the July number of 'Fraser's Magazine.') On his standard of
proof, NATURAL science would never progress, for without the making of
theories I am convinced there would be no observation.
... I have begun reading the 'North British' (May 1860.), which so far
strikes me as clever.
Phillips's Lecture at Cambridge is to be published.
All these reiterated attacks will tell heavily; there will be no more
converts, and probably some will go back. I hope you do not grow
disheartened, I am determined to fight to the last. I hear, however, that the
great Buckle highly approves of my book.
I have had a note from poor Blyth (Edward Blyth, 1810-1873. His
indomitable love of natural history made him neglect the druggist's business

with which he started in life, and he soon got into serious difficulties. After
supporting himself for a few years as a writer on Field Natural History, he
ultimately went out to India as Curator of the Museum of the R. Asiatic
Soc. of Bengal, where the greater part of his working life was spent. His
chief publications were the monthly reports made as part of his duty to the
Society. He had stored in his remarkable memory a wonderful wealth of
knowledge, especially with regard to the mammalia and birds of India—
knowledge of which he freely gave to those who asked. His letters to my
father give evidence of having been carefully studied, and the long list of
entries after his name in the index to 'Animals and Plants,' show how much
help was received from him. His life was an unprosperous and unhappy
one, full of money difficulties and darkened by the death of his wife after a
few years of marriage.), of Calcutta, who is much disappointed at hearing
that Lord Canning will not grant any money; so I much fear that all your
great pains will be thrown away. Blyth says (and he is in many respects a
very good judge) that his ideas on species are quite revolutionised...

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, June 5th [1860].
My dear Hooker,
It is a pleasure to me to write to you, as I have no one to talk about such
matters as we write on. But I seriously beg you not to write to me unless so
inclined; for busy as you are, and seeing many people, the case is very
different between us...
Have you seen —'s abusive article on me?... It out does even the 'North
British' and 'Edinburgh' in misapprehension and misrepresentation. I never
knew anything so unfair as in discussing cells of bees, his ignoring the case
of Melipona, which builds combs almost exactly intermediate between hive
and humble bees. What has — done that he feels so immeasurably superior
to all us wretched naturalists, and to all political economists, including that
great philosopher Malthus? This review, however, and Harvey's letter have
convinced me that I must be a very bad explainer. Neither really understand
what I mean by Natural Selection. I am inclined to give up the attempt as
hopeless. Those who do not understand, it seems, cannot be made to
understand.

By the way, I think, we entirely agree, except perhaps that I use too
forcible language about selection. I entirely agree, indeed would almost go
further than you when you say that climate (i.e. variability from all
unknown causes) is "an active handmaid, influencing its mistress most
materially." Indeed, I have never hinted that Natural Selection is "the
efficient cause to the exclusion of the other," i.e. variability from Climate,
etc. The very term SELECTION implies something, i.e. variation or
difference, to be selected...
How does your book progress (I mean your general sort of book on
plants), I hope to God you will be more successful than I have been in
making people understand your meaning. I should begin to think myself
wholly in the wrong, and that I was an utter fool, but then I cannot yet
persuade myself, that Lyell, and you and Huxley, Carpenter, Asa Gray, and
Watson, etc., are all fools together. Well, time will show, and nothing but
time. Farewell...

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, June 6th [1860].
... It consoles me that — sneers at Malthus, for that clearly shows,
mathematician though he may be, he cannot understand common reasoning.
By the way what a discouraging example Malthus is, to show during what
long years the plainest case may be misrepresented and misunderstood. I
have read the 'Future'; how curious it is that several of my reviewers should
advance such wild arguments, as that varieties of dogs and cats do not
mingle; and should bring up the old exploded doctrine of definite
analogies... I am beginning to despair of ever making the majority
understand my notions. Even Hopkins does not thoroughly. By the way, I
have been so much pleased by the way he personally alludes to me. I must
be a very bad explainer. I hope to Heaven that you will succeed better.
Several reviews and several letters have shown me too clearly how little I
am understood. I suppose "natural selection" was a bad term; but to change
it now, I think, would make confusion worse confounded, nor can I think of
a better; "Natural Preservation" would not imply a preservation of particular
varieties, and would seem a truism, and would not bring man's and nature's
selection under one point of view. I can only hope by reiterated
explanations finally to make the matter clearer. If my MS. spreads out, I

think I shall publish one volume exclusively on variation of animals and
plants under domestication. I want to show that I have not been quite so
rash as many suppose.
Though weary of reviews, I should like to see Lowell's (The late J.A.
Lowell in the 'Christian Examiner' (Boston, U.S., May, 1860.) some time... I
suppose Lowell's difficulty about instinct is the same as Bowen's; but it
seems to me wholly to rest on the assumption that instincts cannot graduate
as finely as structures. I have stated in my volume that it is hardly possible
to know which, i.e. whether instinct or structure, change first by insensible
steps. Probably sometimes instinct, sometimes structure. When a British
insect feeds on an exotic plant, instinct has changed by very small steps,
and their structures might change so as to fully profit by the new food. Or
structure might change first, as the direction of tusks in one variety of
Indian elephants, which leads it to attack the tiger in a different manner
from other kinds of elephants. Thanks for your letter of the 2nd, chiefly
about Murray. (N.B. Harvey of Dublin gives me, in a letter, the argument of
tall men marrying short women, as one of great weight!)
I do not quite understand what you mean by saying, "that the more they
prove that you underrate physical conditions, the better for you, as Geology
comes in to your aid."
... I see in Murray and many others one incessant fallacy, when alluding
to slight differences of physical conditions as being very important; namely,
oblivion of the fact that all species, except very local ones, range over a
considerable area, and though exposed to what the world calls considerable
DIVERSITIES, yet keep constant. I have just alluded to this in the 'Origin'
in comparing the productions of the Old and the New Worlds. Farewell,
shall you be at Oxford? If H. gets quite well, perhaps I shall go there.
Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down [June 14th, 1860].
... Lowell's review (J.A. Lowell in the 'Christian Examiner,' May 1860.)
is pleasantly written, but it is clear that he is not a naturalist. He quite
overlooks the importance of the accumulation of mere individual
differences, and which, I think I can show, is the great agency of change
under domestication. I have not finished Schaaffhausen, as I read German

so badly. I have ordered a copy for myself, and should like to keep yours till
my own arrives, but will return it to you instantly if wanted. He admits
statements rather rashly, as I dare say I do. I see only one sentence as yet at
all approaching natural selection.
There is a notice of me in the penultimate number of 'All the Year
Round,' but not worth consulting; chiefly a well-done hash of my own
words. Your last note was very interesting and consolatory to me.
I have expressly stated that I believe physical conditions have a more
direct effect on plants than on animals. But the more I study, the more I am
led to think that natural selection regulates, in a state of nature, most trifling
differences. As squared stone, or bricks, or timber, are the indispensable
materials for a building, and influence its character, so is variability not
only indispensable, but influential. Yet in the same manner as the architect
is the ALL important person in a building, so is selection with organic
bodies...
[The meeting of the British Association at Oxford in 1860 is famous for
two pitched battles over the 'Origin of Species.' Both of them originated in
unimportant papers. On Thursday, June 28, Dr. Daubeny of Oxford made a
communication to Section D: "On the final causes of the sexuality of plants,
with particular reference to Mr. Darwin's work on the 'Origin of Species.'"
Mr. Huxley was called on by the President, but tried (according to the
"Athenaeum" report) to avoid a discussion, on the ground "that a general
audience, in which sentiment would unduly interfere with intellect, was not
the public before which such a discussion should be carried on." However,
the subject was not allowed to drop. Sir R. Owen (I quote from the
"Athenaeum", July 7, 1860), who "wished to approach this subject in the
spirit of the philosopher," expressed his "conviction that there were facts by
which the public could come to some conclusion with regard to the
probabilities of the truth of Mr. Darwin's theory." He went on to say that the
brain of the gorilla "presented more differences, as compared with the brain
of man, than it did when compared with the brains of the very lowest and
most problematical of the Quadrumana." Mr. Huxley replied, and gave
these assertions a "direct and unqualified contradiction," pledging himself
to "justify that unusual procedure elsewhere" ('Man's Place in Nature,' by
T.H. Huxley, 1863, page 114.), a pledge which he amply fulfilled. (See the
'Nat. Hist. Review,' 1861.) On Friday there was peace, but on Saturday

30th, the battle arose with redoubled fury over a paper by Dr. Draper of
New York, on the 'Intellectual development of Europe considered with
reference to the views of Mr. Darwin.'
The following account is from an eye-witness of the scene.
"The excitement was tremendous. The Lecture-room, in which it had
been arranged that the discussion should be held, proved far too small for
the audience, and the meeting adjourned to the Library of the Museum,
which was crammed to suffocation long before the champions entered the
lists. The numbers were estimated at from 700 to 1000. Had it been term-
time, or had the general public been admitted, it would have been
impossible to have accommodated the rush to hear the oratory of the bold
Bishop. Professor Henslow, the President of Section D, occupied the chair
and wisely announced in limine that none who had not valid arguments to
bring forward on one side or the other, would be allowed to address the
meeting: a caution that proved necessary, for no fewer than four combatants
had their utterances burked by him, because of their indulgence in vague
declamation.
"The Bishop was up to time, and spoke for full half-an-hour with
inimitable spirit, emptiness and unfairness. It was evident from his handling
of the subject that he had been 'crammed' up to the throat, and that he knew
nothing at first hand; in fact, he used no argument not to be found in his
'Quarterly' article. He ridiculed Darwin badly, and Huxley savagely, but all
in such dulcet tones, so persuasive a manner, and in such well-turned
periods, that I who had been inclined to blame the President for allowing a
discussion that could serve no scientific purpose now forgave him from the
bottom of my heart. Unfortunately the Bishop, hurried along on the current
of his own eloquence, so far forgot himself as to push his attempted
advantage to the verge of personality in a telling passage in which he turned
round and addressed Huxley: I forgot the precise words, and quote from
Lyell. 'The Bishop asked whether Huxley was related by his grandfather's or
grandmother's side to an ape.' (Lyell's 'Letters,' vol. ii. page 335.) Huxley
replied to the scientific argument of his opponent with force and eloquence,
and to the personal allusion with a sel-restraint, that gave dignity to his
crushing rejoinder."
Many versions of Mr. Huxley's speech were current: the following report
of his conclusion is from a letter addressed by the late John Richard Green,

then an undergraduate, to a fellow-student, now Professor Boyd Dawkins.
"I asserted, and I repeat, that a man has no reason to be ashamed of having
an ape for his grandfather. If there were an ancestor whom I should feel
shame in recalling, it would be a MAN, a man of restless and versatile
intellect, who, not content with an equivocal (Prof. V. Carus, who has a
distinct recollection of the scene, does not remember the word equivocal.
He believes too that Lyell's version of the "ape" sentence is slightly
incorrect.) success in his own sphere of activity, plunges into scientific
questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them by
an aimless rhetoric, and distract the attention of his hearers from the real
point at issue by eloquent digressions, and skilled appeals to religious
prejudice."
The letter above quoted continues:
"The excitement was now at its height; a lady fainted and had to be
carried out, and it was some time before the discussion was resumed. Some
voices called for Hooker, and his name having been handed up, the
President invited him to give his view of the theory from the Botanical side.
This he did, demonstrating that the Bishop, by his own showing, had never
grasped the principles of the 'Origin' (With regard to the Bishop's 'Quarterly
Review,' my father wrote: "These very clever men think they can write a
review with a very slight knowledge of the book reviewed or subject in
question."), and that he was absolutely ignorant of the elements of botanical
science. The Bishop made no reply, and the meeting broke up.
"There was a crowded conversazione in the evening at the rooms of the
hospitable and genial Professor of Botany, Dr. Daubeny, where the almost
sole topic was the battle of the 'Origin,' and I was much struck with the fair
and unprejudiced way in which the black coats and white cravats of Oxford
discussed the question, and the frankness with which they offered their
congratulations to the winners in the combat.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Sudbrook Park, Monday night
[July 2nd, 1860].
My dear Hooker,
I have just received your letter. I have been very poorly, with almost
continuous bad headache for forty-eight hours, and I was low enough, and

thinking what a useless burthen I was to myself and all others, when your
letter came, and it has so cheered me; your kindness and affection brought
tears into my eyes. Talk of fame, honour, pleasure, wealth, all are dirt
compared with affection; and this is a doctrine with which, I know, from
your letter, that you will agree with from the bottom of your heart... How I
should have liked to have wandered about Oxford with you, if I had been
well enough; and how still more I should have liked to have heard you
triumphing over the Bishop. I am astonished at your success and audacity. It
is something unintelligible to me how any one can argue in public like
orators do. I had no idea you had this power. I have read lately so many
hostile views, that I was beginning to think that perhaps I was wholly in the
wrong, and that — was right when he said the whole subject would be
forgotten in ten years; but now that I hear that you and Huxley will fight
publicly (which I am sure I never could do), I fully believe that our cause
will, in the long-run, prevail. I am glad I was not in Oxford, for I should
have been overwhelmed, with my [health] in its present state.

CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Sudbrook Park, Richmond, July
3rd [1860].
... I had a letter from Oxford, written by Hooker late on Sunday night,
giving me some account of the awful battles which have raged about
species at Oxford. He tells me you fought nobly with Owen (but I have
heard no particulars), and that you answered the B. of O. capitally. I often
think that my friends (and you far beyond others) have good cause to hate
me, for having stirred up so much mud, and led them into so much odious
trouble. If I had been a friend of myself, I should have hated me. (How to
make that sentence good English, I know not.) But remember, if I had not
stirred up the mud, some one else certainly soon would. I honour your
pluck; I would as soon have died as tried to answer the Bishop in such an
assembly...
[On July 20th, my father wrote to Mr. Huxley:
"From all that I hear from several quarters, it seems that Oxford did the
subject great good. It is of enormous importance, the showing the world
that a few first-rate men are not afraid of expressing their opinion."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. [July 1860].
... I have just read the 'Quarterly.' ('Quarterly Review,' July 1860. The
article in question was by Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford, and was
afterwards published in his "Essays Contributed to the 'Quarterly Review,'
1874." The passage from the 'Anti-Jacobin' gives the history of the
evolution of space from the "primaeval point or punctum saliens of the
universe," which is conceived to have moved "forward in a right line ad
infinitum, till it grew tired; after which the right line, which it had
generated, would begin to put itself in motion in a lateral direction,
describing an area of infinite extent. This area, as soon as it became
conscious of its own existence, would begin to ascend or descend according
as its specific gravity would determine it, forming an immense solid space
filled with vacuum, and capable of containing the present universe."
The following (page 263) may serve as an example of the passages in
which the reviewer refers to Sir Charles Lyell:—"That Mr. Darwin should
have wandered from this broad highway of nature's works into the jungle of
fanciful assumption is no small evil. We trust that he is mistaken in
believing that he may count Sir C. Lyell as one of his converts. We know,
indeed, that the strength of the temptations which he can bring to bear upon
his geological brother... Yet no man has been more distinct and more logical
in the denial of the transmutation of species than Sir C. Lyell, and that not
in the infancy of his scientific life, but in its full vigour and maturity." The
Bishop goes on to appeal to Lyell, in order that with his help "this flimsy
speculation may be as completely put down as was what in spite of all
denials we must venture to call its twin though less instructed brother, the
'Vestiges of Creation.'"
With reference to this article, Mr. Brodie Innes, my father's old friend and
neighbour, writes:—"Most men would have been annoyed by an article
written with the Bishop's accustomed vigour, a mixture of argument and
ridicule. Mr. Darwin was writing on some parish matter, and put a
postscript—'If you have not seen the last 'Quarterly,' do get it; the Bishop of
Oxford has made such capital fun of me and my grandfather.' By a curious
coincidence, when I received the letter, I was staying in the same house
with the Bishop, and showed it to him. He said, 'I am very glad he takes it

in that way, he is such a capital fellow.'") It is uncommonly clever; it picks
out with skill all the most conjectural parts, and brings forward well all the
difficulties. It quizzes me quite splendidly by quoting the 'Anti-Jacobin'
versus my Grandfather. You are not alluded to, nor, strange to say, Huxley;
and I can plainly see, here and there, —'s hand. The concluding pages will
make Lyell shake in his shoes. By Jove, if he sticks to us, he will be a real
hero. Good-night. Your wel-quizzed, but not sorrowful, and affectionate
friend.
C.D.
I can see there has been some queer tampering with the Review, for a
page has been cut out and reprinted.
[Writing on July 22 to Dr. Asa Gray my father thus refers to Lyell's
position:—
"Considering his age, his former views and position in society, I think his
conduct has been heroic on this subject."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. [Hartfield, Sussex] July 22nd
[1860].
My dear Gray,
Owing to absence from home at water-cure and then having to move my
sick girl to whence I am now writing, I have only lately read the discussion
in Proc. American Acad. (April 10, 1860. Dr. Gray criticised in detail
"several of the positions taken at the preceding meeting by Mr. [J.A.]
Lowell, Prof. Bowen and Prof. Agassiz." It was reprinted in the
"Athenaeum", August 4, 1860.), and now I cannot resist expressing my
sincere admiration of your most clear powers of reasoning. As Hooker
lately said in a note to me, you are more than ANY ONE else the thorough
master of the subject. I declare that you know my book as well as I do
myself; and bring to the question new lines of illustration and argument in a
manner which excites my astonishment and almost my envy! I admire these
discussions, I think, almost more than your article in Silliman's Journal.
Every single word seems weighed carefully, and tells like a 32-pound shot.
It makes me much wish (but I know that you have not time) that you could
write more in detail, and give, for instance, the facts on the variability of the
American wild fruits. The "Athenaeum" has the largest circulation, and I

have sent my copy to the editor with a request that he would republish the
first discussion; I much fear he will not, as he reviewed the subject in so
hostile a spirit... I shall be curious [to see] and will order the August
number, as soon as I know that it contains your review of Reviews. My
conclusion is that you have made a mistake in being a botanist, you ought to
have been a lawyer.
... Henslow (Professor Henslow was mentioned in the December number
of 'Macmillan's Magazine' as being an adherent of Evolution. In
consequence of this he published, in the February number of the following
year, a letter defining his position. This he did by means of an extract from
a letter addressed to him by the Rev. L. Jenyns (Blomefield) which "very
nearly," as he says, expressed his views. Mr. Blomefield wrote, "I was not
aware that you had become a convert to his (Darwin's) theory, and can
hardly suppose you have accepted it as a whole, though, like myself, you
may go to the length of imagining that many of the smaller groups, both of
animals and plants, may at some remote period have had a common
parentage. I do not with some say that the whole of his theory cannot be
true—but that it is very far from proved; and I doubt its ever being possible
to prove it.") and Daubeny are shaken. I hear from Hooker that he hears
from Hochstetter that my views are making very considerable progress in
Germany, and the good workers are discussing the question. Bronn at the
end of his translation has a chapter of criticism, but it is such difficult
German that I have not yet read it. Hopkins's review in 'Fraser' is thought
the best which has appeared against us. I believe that Hopkins is so much
opposed because his course of study has never led him to reflect much on
such subjects as geographical distribution, classification, homologies, etc.,
so that he does not feel it a relief to have some kind of explanation.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Hartfield [Sussex], July 30th [1860].
... I had lots of pleasant letters about the British Association, and our side
seems to have got on very well. There has been as much discussion on the
other side of the Atlantic as on this. No one I think understands the whole
case better than Asa Gray, and he has been fighting nobly. He is a capital
reasoner. I have sent one of his printed discussions to our "Athenaeum", and
the editor says he will print it. The 'Quarterly' has been out some time. It

contains no malice, which is wonderful... It makes me say many things
which I do not say. At the end it quotes all your conclusions against
Lamarck, and makes a solemn appeal to you to keep firm in the true faith. I
fancy it will make you quake a little. — has ingeniously primed the Bishop
(with Murchison) against you as head of the uniformitarians. The only other
review worth mentioning, which I can think of, is in the third No. of the
'London Review,' by some geologist, and favorable for a wonder. It is very
ably done, and I should like much to know who is the author. I shall be very
curious to hear on your return whether Bronn's German translation of the
'Origin' has drawn any attention to the subject. Huxley is eager about a
'Natural History Review,' which he and others are going to edit, and he has
got so many first-rate assistants, that I really believe he will make it a first-
rate production. I have been doing nothing, except a little botanical work as
amusement. I shall hereafter be very anxious to hear how your tour has
answered. I expect your book on the geological history of Man will, with a
vengeance, be a bomb-shell. I hope it will not be very long delayed. Our
kindest remembrances to Lady Lyell. This is not worth sending, but I have
nothing better to say.
Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO F. WATKINS. (See Volume I.) Down, July 30th,
[1860?].
My dear Watkins,
Your note gave me real pleasure. Leading the retired life which I do, with
bad health, I oftener think of old times than most men probably do; and
your face now rises before me, with the pleasant old expression, as vividly
as if I saw you.
My book has been well abused, praised, and splendidly quizzed by the
Bishop of Oxford; but from what I see of its influence on really good
workers in science, I feel confident that, IN THE MAIN, I am on the right
road. With respect to your question, I think the arguments are valid,
showing that all animals have descended from four or five primordial
forms; and that analogy and weak reasons go to show that all have
descended from some single prototype.

Farewell, my old friend. I look back to old Cambridge days with
unalloyed pleasure.
Believe me, yours most sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN.
T.H. HUXLEY TO CHARLES DARWIN. August 6th, 1860.
My dear Darwin,
I have to announce a new and great ally for you...
Von Baer writes to me thus:—Et outre cela, je trouve que vous ecrivez
encore des redactions. Vous avez ecrit sur l'ouvrage de M. Darwin une
critique dont je n'ai trouve que des debris dans un journal allemand. J'ai
oublie le nom terrible du journal anglais dans lequel se trouve votre
recension. En tout cas aussi je ne peux pas trouver le journal ici. Comme je
m'interesse beaucoup pour les idees de M. Darwin, sur lesquelles j'ai parle
publiquement et sur lesquelles je ferai peut-etre imprimer quelque chose—
vous m'obligeriez infiniment si vous pourriez me faire parvenir ce que vous
avez ecrit sur ces idees.
"J'ai enonce les memes idees sur la transformation des types ou origine
d'especes que M. Darwin. (See Vol. I.) Mais c'est seulement sur la
geographie zoologique que je m'appuie. Vous trouverez, dans le dernier
chapitre du traite 'Ueber Papuas und Alfuren,' que j'en parle tres decidement
sans savoir que M. Darwin s'occupait de cet objet."
The treatise to which Von Baer refers he gave me when over here, but I
have not been able to lay hands on it since this letter reached me two days
ago. When I find it I will let you know what there is in it.
Ever yours faithfully, T.H. HUXLEY.

CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, August 8 [1860].
My dear Huxley,
Your note contained magnificent news, and thank you heartily for
sending it me. Von Baer weighs down with a vengeance all the virulence of
[the 'Edinburgh' reviewer] and weak arguments of Agassiz. If you write to
Von Baer, for heaven's sake tell him that we should think one nod of
approbation on our side, of the greatest value; and if he does write anything,
beg him to send us a copy, for I would try and get it translated and
published in the "Athenaeum" and in 'Silliman' to touch up Agassiz... Have

you seen Agassiz's weak metaphysical and theological attack on the 'Origin'
in the last 'Silliman'? (The 'American Journal of Science and Arts'
(commonly called 'Silliman's Journal'), July 1860. Printed from advanced
sheets of vol. iii. of 'Contributions to the Nat. Hist. of the U.S.' My father's
copy has a pencilled "Truly" opposite the following passage:—"Unless
Darwin and his followers succeed in showing that the struggle for life tends
to something beyond favouring the existence of certain individuals over that
of other individuals, they will soon find that they are following a shadow.")
I would send it you, but apprehend it would be less trouble for you to look
at it in London than return it to me. R. Wagner has sent me a German
pamphlet ('Louis Agassiz's Prinzipien der Classification, etc., mit Rucksicht
auf Darwins Ansichten. Separat-Abdruck aus den Gottingischen gelehrten
Anzeigen,' 1860.), giving an abstract of Agassiz's 'Essay on Classification,'
"mit Rucksicht auf Darwins Ansichten," etc. etc. He won't go very
"dangerous lengths," but thinks the truth lies half-way between Agassiz and
the 'Origin.' As he goes thus far he will, nolens volens, have to go further.
He says he is going to review me in [his] yearly Report. My good and kind
agent for the propagation of the Gospel—i.e. the devil's gospel.
Ever yours, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, August 11th [1860].
... I have laughed at Woodward thinking that you were a man who could
be influenced in your judgment by the voice of the public; and yet after
mortally sneering at him, I was obliged to confess to myself, that I had had
fears, what the effect might be of so many heavy guns fired by great men.
As I have (sent by Murray) a spare 'Quarterly Review,' I send it by this post,
as it may amuse you. The Anti-Jacobin part amused me. It is full of errors,
and Hooker is thinking of answering it. There has been a cancelled page; I
should like to know what gigantic blunder it contained. Hooker says that —
has played on the Bishop, and made him strike whatever note he liked; he
has wished to make the article as disagreeable to you as possible. I will send
the "Athenaeum" in a day or two.
As you wish to hear what reviews have appeared, I may mention that
Agassiz has fired off a shot in the last 'Silliman,' not good at all, denies
variations and rests on the perfection of Geological evidence. Asa Gray tells

me that a very clever friend has been almost converted to our side by this
review of Agassiz's... Professor Parsons (Theophilus Parsons, Professor of
Law in Harvard University.) has published in the same 'Silliman' a
speculative paper correcting my notions, worth nothing. In the 'Highland
Agricultural Journal' there is a review by some Entomologist, not worth
much. This is all that I can remember... As Huxley says, the platoon firing
must soon cease. Hooker and Huxley, and Asa Gray, I see, are determined
to stick to the battle and not give in; I am fully convinced that whenever
you publish, it will produce a great effect on all TRIMMERS, and on many
others. By the way I forgot to mention Daubeny's pamphlet ('Remarks on
the final causes of the sexuality of plants with particular reference to Mr.
Darwin's work on the "Origin of Species."'—British Association Report,
1860.), very liberal and candid, but scientifically weak. I believe Hooker is
going nowhere this summer; he is excessively busy... He has written me
many, most nice letters. I shall be very curious to hear on your return some
account of your Geological doings. Talking of Geology, you used to be
interested about the "pipes" in the chalk. About three years ago a perfectly
circular hole suddenly appeared in a flat grass field to everyone's
astonishment, and was filled up with many waggon loads of earth; and now
two or three days ago, again it has circularly subsided about two feet more.
How clearly this shows what is still slowly going on. This morning I
recommenced work, and am at dogs; when I have written my short
discussion on them, I will have it copied, and if you like, you can then see
how the argument stands, about their multiple origin. As you seemed to
think this important, it might be worth your reading; though I do not feel
sure that you will come to the same probable conclusion that I have done.
By the way, the Bishop makes a very telling case against me, by
accumulating several instances where I speak very doubtfully; but this is
very unfair, as in such cases as this of the dog, the evidence is and must be
very doubtful...

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, August 11 [1860].
My dear Gray,
On my return home from Sussex about a week ago, I found several
articles sent by you. The first article, from the 'Atlantic Monthly,' I am very

glad to possess. By the way, the editor of the "Athenaeum" (August 4,
1860.) has inserted your answer to Agassiz, Bowen, and Co., and when I
therein read them, I admired them even more than at first. They really
seemed to be admirable in their condensation, force, clearness and novelty.
I am surprised that Agassiz did not succeed in writing something better.
How absurd that logical quibble—"if species do not exist, how can they
vary?" As if any one doubted their temporary existence. How coolly he
assumes that there is some clearly defined distinction between individual
differences and varieties. It is no wonder that a man who calls identical
forms, when found in two countries, distinct species, cannot find variation
in nature. Again, how unreasonable to suppose that domestic varieties
selected by man for his own fancy should resemble natural varieties or
species. The whole article seems to me poor; it seems to me hardly worth a
detailed answer (even if I could do it, and I much doubt whether I possess
your skill in picking out salient points and driving a nail into them), and
indeed you have already answered several points. Agassiz's name, no doubt,
is a heavy weight against us...
If you see Professor Parsons, will you thank him for the extremely liberal
and fair spirit in which his Essay ('Silliman's Journal,' July, 1860.) is
written. Please tell him that I reflected much on the chance of favourable
monstrosities (i.e. great and sudden variation) arising. I have, of course, no
objection to this, indeed it would be a great aid, but I do not allude to the
subject, for, after much labour, I could find nothing which satisfied me of
the probability of such occurrences. There seems to me in almost every case
too much, too complex, and too beautiful adaptation, in every structure, to
believe in its sudden production. I have alluded under the head of
beautifully hooked seeds to such possibility. Monsters are apt to be sterile,
or NOT to transmit monstrous peculiarities. Look at the fineness of
gradation in the shells of successive SUB-STAGES of the same great
formation; I could give many other considerations which made me doubt
such view. It holds, to a certain extent, with domestic productions no doubt,
where man preserves some abrupt change in structure. It amused me to see
Sir R. Murchison quoted as a judge of affinities of animals, and it gave me a
cold shudder to hear of any one speculating about a true crustacean giving
birth to a true fish! (Parson's, loc. cit. page 5, speaking of Pterichthys and
Cephalaspis, says:—"Now is it too much to infer from these facts that either
of these animals, if a crustacean, was so nearly a fish that some of its ova

may have become fish; or, if itself a fish, was so nearly a crustacean that it
may have been born from the ovum of a crustacean?")
Yours most truly, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, September 1st [1860].
My dear Lyell,
I have been much interested by your letter of the 28th, received this
morning. It has DELIGHTED me, because it demonstrates that you have
thought a good deal lately on Natural Selection. Few things have surprised
me more than the entire paucity of objections and difficulties new to me in
the published reviews. Your remarks are of a different stamp and new to me.
I will run through them, and make a few pleadings such as occur to me.
I put in the possibility of the Galapagos having been CONTINUOUSLY
joined to America, out of mere subservience to the many who believe in
Forbes's doctrine, and did not see the danger of admission, about small
mammals surviving there in such case. The case of the Galapagos, from
certain facts on littoral sea-shells (viz. Pacific Ocean and South American
littoral species), in fact convinced me more than in any other case of other
islands, that the Galapagos had never been continuously united with the
mainland; it was mere base subservience, and terror of Hooker and Co.
With respect to atolls, I think mammals would hardly survive VERY
LONG, even if the main islands (for as I have said in the Coral Book, the
outline of groups of atolls do not look like a former CONTINENT) had
been tenanted by mammals, from the extremely small area, the very
peculiar conditions, and the probability that during subsidence all or nearly
all atolls have been breached and flooded by the sea many times during
their existence as atolls.
I cannot conceive any existing reptile being converted into a mammal.
From homologies I should look at it as certain that all mammals had
descended from some single progenitor. What its nature was, it is
impossible to speculate. More like, probably, the Ornithorhynchus or
Echidna than any known form; as these animals combine reptilian
characters (and in a less degree bird character) with mammalian. We must
imagine some form as intermediate, as is Lepidosiren now, between reptiles
and fish, between mammals and birds on the one hand (for they retain

longer the same embryological character) and reptiles on the other hand.
With respect to a mammal not being developed on any island, besides want
of time for so prodigious a development, there must have arrived on the
island the necessary and peculiar progenitor, having a character like the
embryo of a mammal; and not an ALREADY DEVELOPED reptile, bird or
fish.
We might give to a bird the habits of a mammal, but inheritance would
retain almost for eternity some of the bird-like structure, and prevent a new
creature ranking as a true mammal.
I have often speculated on antiquity of islands, but not with your
precision, or at all under the point of view of Natural Selection NOT having
done what might have been anticipated. The argument of littoral Miocene
shells at the Canary Islands is new to me. I was deeply impressed (from the
amount of the denudation) [with the] antiquity of St. Helena, and its age
agrees with the peculiarity of the flora. With respect to bats at New Zealand
(N.B. There are two or three European bats in Madeira, and I think in the
Canary Islands) not having given rise to a group of non-volant bats, it is,
now you put the case, surprising; more especially as the genus of bats in
New Zealand is very peculiar, and therefore has probably been long
introduced, and they now speak of Cretacean fossils there. But the first
necessary step has to be shown, namely, of a bat taking to feed on the
ground, or anyhow, and anywhere, except in the air. I am bound to confess I
do know one single such fact, viz. of an Indian species killing frogs.
Observe, that in my wretched Polar Bear case, I do show the first step by
which conversion into a whale "would be easy," "would offer no
difficulty"!! So with seals, I know of no fact showing any the least incipient
variation of seals feeding on the shore. Moreover, seals wander much; I
searched in vain, and could not find ONE case of any species of seal
confined to any islands. And hence wanderers would be apt to cross with
individuals undergoing any change on an island, as in the case of land birds
of Madeira and Bermuda. The same remark applies even to bats, as they
frequently come to Bermuda from the mainland, though about 600 miles
distant. With respect to the Amblyrhynchus of the Galapagos, one may infer
as probable, from marine habits being so rare with Saurians, and from the
terrestrial species being confined to a few central islets, that its progenitor
first arrived at the Galapagos; from what country it is impossible to say, as
its affinity I believe is not very clear to any known species. The offspring of

the terrestrial species was probably rendered marine. Now in this case I do
not pretend I can show variation in habits; but we have in the terrestrial
species a vegetable feeder (in itself a rather unusual circumstance), largely
on LICHENS, and it would not be a great change for its offspring to feed
first on littoral algae and then on submarine algae. I have said what I can in
defence, but yours is a good line of attack. We should, however, always
remember that no change will ever be effected till a variation in the habits
or structure or of both CHANCE to occur in the right direction, so as to
give the organism in question an advantage over other already established
occupants of land or water, and this may be in any particular case
indefinitely long. I am very glad you will read my dogs MS., for it will be
important to me to see what you think of the balance of evidence. After long
pondering on a subject it is often hard to judge. With hearty thanks for your
most interesting letter. Farewell.
My dear old master, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, September 2nd [1860].
My dear Hooker,
I am astounded at your news received this morning. I am become such an
old fogy that I am amazed at your spirit. For God's sake do not go and get
your throat cut. Bless my soul, I think you must be a little insane. I must
confess it will be a most interesting tour; and, if you get to the top of
Lebanon, I suppose extremely interesting—you ought to collect any beetles
under stones there; but the Entomologists are such slow coaches. I dare say
no result could be made out of them. [They] have never worked the Alpines
of Britain.
If you come across any Brine lakes, do attend to their minute flora and
fauna; I have often been surprised how little this has been attended to.
I have had a long letter from Lyell, who starts ingenious difficulties
opposed to Natural Selection, because it has not done more than it has. This
is very good, as it shows that he has thoroughly mastered the subject; and
shows he is in earnest. Very striking letter altogether and it rejoices the
cockles of my heart.
... How I shall miss you, my best and kindest of friends. God bless you.

Yours ever affectionately, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, September 10 [1860].
... You will be weary of my praise, but it (Dr. Gray in the 'Atlantic
Monthly' for July, 1860.) does strike me as quite admirably argued, and so
well and pleasantly written. Your many metaphors are inimitably good. I
said in a former letter that you were a lawyer, but I made a gross mistake, I
am sure that you are a poet. No, by Jove, I will tell you what you are, a
hybrid, a complex cross of lawyer, poet, naturalist and theologian! Was
there ever such a monster seen before?
I have just looked through the passages which I have marked as
appearing to me extra good, but I see that they are too numerous to specify,
and this is no exaggeration. My eye just alights on the happy comparison of
the colours of the prism and our artificial groups. I see one little error of
fossil CATTLE in South America.
It is curious how each one, I suppose, weighs arguments in a different
balance: embryology is to me by far the strongest single class of facts in
favour of change of forms, and not one, I think, of my reviewers has alluded
to this. Variation not coming on at a very early age, and being inherited at
not a very early corresponding period, explains, as it seems to me, the
grandest of all facts in natural history, or rather in zoology, viz. the
resemblance of embryos.
[Dr. Gray wrote three articles in the 'Atlantic Monthly' for July, August,
and October, which were reprinted as a pamphlet in 1861, and now form
chapter iii. in 'Darwiniana' (1876), with the heading 'Natural Selection not
inconsistent with Natural Theology.']

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL Down, September 12th [1860].
My dear Lyell,
I never thought of showing your letter to any one. I mentioned in a letter
to Hooker that I had been much interested by a letter of yours with original
objections, founded chiefly on Natural Selection not having done so much
as might have been expected... In your letter just received, you have

improved your case versus Natural Selection; and it would tell with the
public (do not be tempted by its novelty to make it too strong); yet is seems
to me, not REALLY very killing, though I cannot answer your case,
especially, why Rodents have not become highly developed in Australia.
You must assume that they have inhabited Australia for a very long period,
and this may or may not be the case. But I feel that our ignorance is so
profound, why one form is preserved with nearly the same structure, or
advances in organisation or even retrogrades, or becomes extinct, that I
cannot put very great weight on the difficulty. Then, as you say often in
your letter, we know not how many geological ages it may have taken to
make any great advance in organisation. Remember monkeys in the Eocene
formations: but I admit that you have made out an excellent objection and
difficulty, and I can give only unsatisfactory and quite vague answers, such
as you have yourself put; however, you hardly put weight enough on the
absolute necessity of variations first arising in the right direction, videlicet,
of seals beginning to feed on the shore.
I entirely agree with what you say about only one species of many
becoming modified. I remember this struck me much when tabulating the
varieties of plants, and I have a discussion somewhere on this point. It is
absolutely implied in my ideas of classification and divergence that only
one or two species, of even large genera, give birth to new species; and
many whole genera become WHOLLY extinct... Please see page 341 of the
'Origin.' But I cannot remember that I have stated in the 'Origin' the fact of
only very few species in each genus varying. You have put the view much
better in your letter. Instead of saying, as I often have, that very few species
vary at the same time, I ought to have said, that very few species of a genus
EVER vary so as to become modified; for this is the fundamental
explanation of classification, and is shown in my engraved diagram...
I quite agree with you on the strange and inexplicable fact of
Ornithorhynchus having been preserved, and Australian Trigonia, or the
Silurian Lingula. I always repeat to myself that we hardly know why any
one single species is rare or common in the best-known countries. I have
got a set of notes somewhere on the inhabitants of fresh water; and it is
singular how many of these are ancient, or intermediate forms; which I
think is explained by the competition having been less severe, and the rate
of change of organic forms having been slower in small confined areas,
such as all the fresh waters make compared with sea or land.

I see that you do allude in the last page, as a difficulty, to Marsupials not
having become Placentals in Australia; but this I think you have no right at
all to expect; for we ought to look at Marsupials and Placentals as having
descended from some intermediate and lower form. The argument of
Rodents not having become highly developed in Australia (supposing that
they have long existed there) is much stronger. I grieve to see you hint at
the creation "of distinct successive types, as well as of a certain number of
distinct aboriginal types." Remember, if you admit this, you give up the
embryological argument (THE WEIGHTIEST OF ALL TO ME), and the
morphological or homological argument. You cut my throat, and your own
throat; and I believe will live to be sorry for it. So much for species.
The striking extract which E. copied was your own writing!! in a note to
me, many long years ago—which she copied and sent to Mme. Sismondi;
and lately my aunt, in sorting her letters, found E.'s and returned them to
her... I have been of late shamefully idle, i.e. observing (Drosera) instead of
writing, and how much better fun observing is than writing.
Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. 15 Marine Parade, Eastbourne,
Sunday [September 23rd, 1860].
My dear Lyell,
I got your letter of the 18th just before starting here. You speak of saving
me trouble in answering. Never think of this, for I look at every letter of
yours as an honour and pleasure, which is a pretty deal more than I can say
of some of the letters which I receive. I have now one of 13 CLOSELY
WRITTEN FOLIO PAGES to answer on species!...
I have a very decided opinion that all mammals must have descended
from a SINGLE parent. Reflect on the multitude of details, very many of
them of extremely little importance to their habits (as the number of bones
of the head, etc., covering of hair, identical embryological development, etc.
etc.). Now this large amount of similarity I must look at as certainly due to
inheritance from a common stock. I am aware that some cases occur in
which a similar or nearly similar organ has been acquired by independent
acts of natural selection. But in most of such cases of these apparently so
closely similar organs, some important homological difference may be

detected. Please read page 193, beginning, "The electric organs," and trust
me that the sentence, "In all these cases of two very distinct species," etc.
etc., was not put in rashly, for I went carefully into every case. Apply this
argument to the whole frame, internal and external, of mammifers, and you
will see why I think so strongly that all have descended from one
progenitor. I have just re-read your letter, and I am not perfectly sure that I
understand your point.
I enclose two diagrams showing the sort of manner I CONJECTURE that
mammals have been developed. I thought a little on this when writing page
429, beginning, "Mr. Waterhouse." (Please read the paragraph.) I have not
knowledge enough to choose between these two diagrams. If the brain of
Marsupials in embryo closely resembles that of Placentals, I should strongly
prefer No.2, and this agrees with the antiquity of Microlestes. As a general
rule I should prefer No.1 diagram; whether or not Marsupials have gone on
being developed, or rising in rank, from a very early period would depend
on circumstances too complex for even a conjecture. Lingula has not risen
since the Silurian epoch, whereas other molluscs may have risen.
Here appear two diagrams.
Diagram I.
A - Mammals, not true Marsupials nor true Placentals. - 2 branches -
Branch I, True Placental, from which branch off Rodents, Insectivora, a
branch terminating in Ruminants and Pachyderms, Canidae and terminates
in Quadrumana. - Branch II, True Marsupial, from which branches off
Kangaroo family an unnamed branch terminating in 2 unnamed branches
and terminates in Didelphys Family.
Diagram II.
A - True Marsupials, lowly developed. - True Marsupials, highly
developed. - 2 branches - Branch I, Placentals, from which branch off
Rodents, Insectivora, a branch terminating in Ruminants and Pachyderms,
Canidae and terminates in Quadrumana. - Branch II, Present Marsupials,
splitting into two branches terminating in Kangaroo family (with 2
unnamed branches) and Didelphys family.
A, in the two diagrams, represents an unknown form, probably
intermediate between Mammals, Reptiles, and Birds, as intermediate as
Lepidosiren now is between Fish and Batrachians. This unknown form is

probably more closely related to Ornithorhynchus than to any other known
form.
I do not think that the multiple origin of dogs goes against the single
origin of man... All the races of man are so infinitely closer together than to
any ape, that (as in the case of descent of all mammals from one
progenitor), I should look at all races of men as having certainly descended
from one parent. I should look at it as probable that the races of men were
less numerous and less divergent formerly than now, unless, indeed, some
lower and more aberrant race even than the Hottentot has become extinct.
Supposing, as I do for one believe, that our dogs have descended from two
or three wolves, jackals, etc., yet these have, on OUR VIEW, descended
from a single remote unknown progenitor. With domestic dogs the question
is simply whether the whole amount of difference has been produced since
man domesticated a single species; or whether part of the difference arises
in the state of nature. Agassiz and Co. think the negro and Caucasian are
now distinct species, and it is a mere vain discussion whether, when they
were rather less distinct, they would, on this standard of specific value,
deserve to be called species.
I agree with your answer which you give to yourself on this point; and
the simile of man now keeping down any new man which might be
developed, strikes me as good and new. The white man is "improving off
the face of the earth" even races nearly his equals. With respect to islands, I
think I would trust to want of time alone, and not to bats and Rodents.
N.B.—I know of no rodents on oceanic islands (except my Galapagos
mouse, which MAY have been introduced by man) keeping down the
development of other classes. Still MUCH more weight I should attribute to
there being now, neither in islands nor elsewhere, [any] known animals of a
grade of organisation intermediate between mammals, fish, reptiles, etc.,
whence a new mammal could be developed. If every vertebrate were
destroyed throughout the world, except our NOW WELL-ESTABLISHED
reptiles, millions of ages might elapse before reptiles could become highly
developed on a scale equal to mammals; and, on the principle of
inheritance, they would make some quite NEW CLASS, and not mammals;
though POSSIBLY more intellectual! I have not an idea that you will care
for this letter, so speculative.
Most truly yours, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, September 26 [1860].
... I have had a letter of fourteen folio pages from Harvey against my
book, with some ingenious and new remarks; but it is an extraordinary fact
that he does not understand at all what I mean by Natural Selection. I have
begged him to read the Dialogue in next 'Silliman,' as you never touch the
subject without making it clearer. I look at it as even more extraordinary
that you never say a word or use an epithet which does not express fully my
meaning. Now Lyell, Hooker, and others, who perfectly understand my
book, yet sometimes use expressions to which I demur. Well, your
extraordinary labour is over; if there is any fair amount of truth in my view,
I am well assured that your great labour has not been thrown away...
I yet hope and almost believe, that the time will come when you will go
further, in believing a very large amount of modification of species, than
you did at first or do now. Can you tell me whether you believe further or
more firmly than you did at first? I should really like to know this. I can
perceive in my immense correspondence with Lyell, who objected to much
at first, that he has, perhaps unconsciousnessly to himself, converted
himself very much during the last six months, and I think this is the case
even with Hooker. This fact gives me far more confidence than any other
fact.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. 15 Marine Parade, Eastbourne,
Friday evening [September 28th, 1860].
... I am very glad to hear about the Germans reading my book. No one
will be converted who has not independently begun to doubt about species.
Is not Krohn (There are two papers by Aug. Krohn, one on the Cement
Glands, and the other on the development of Cirripedes, 'Wiegmann's
Archiv,' xxv. and xxvi. My father has remarked that he "blundered
dreadfully about the cement glands," 'Autobiography.') a good fellow? I
have long meant to write to him. He has been working at Cirripedes, and
has detected two or three gigantic blunders,... about which, I thank Heaven,
I spoke rather doubtfully. Such difficult dissection that even Huxley failed.
It is chiefly the interpretation which I put on parts that is so wrong, and not

the parts which I describe. But they were gigantic blunders, and why I say
all this is because Krohn, instead of crowing at all, pointed out my errors
with the utmost gentleness and pleasantness. I have always meant to write
to him and thank him. I suppose Dr. Krohn, Bonn, would reach him.
I cannot see yet how the multiple origin of dog can be properly brought
as argument for the multiple origin of man. Is not your feeling a remnant of
the deeply impressed one on all our minds, that a species is an entity,
something quite distinct from a variety? Is it not that the dog case injures
the argument from fertility, so that one main argument that the races of man
are varieties and not species—i.e., because they are fertile inter se, is much
weakened?
I quite agree with what Hooker says, that whatever variation is possible
under culture, is POSSIBLE under nature; not that the same form would
ever be accumulated and arrived at by selection for man's pleasure, and by
natural selection for the organism's own good.
Talking of "natural selection;" if I had to commence de novo, I would
have used "natural preservation." For I find men like Harvey of Dublin
cannot understand me, though he has read the book twice. Dr. Gray of the
British Museum remarked to me that, "SELECTION was obviously
impossible with plants! No one could tell him how it could be possible!"
And he may now add that the author did not attempt it to him!
Yours ever affectionately, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. 15 Marine Parade, Eastbourne,
October 8th [1860].
My dear Lyell,
I send the [English] translation of Bronn (A MS. translation of Bronn's
chapter of objections at the end of his German translation of the 'Origin of
Species.'), the first part of the chapter with generalities and praise is not
translated. There are some good hits. He makes an apparently, and in part
truly, telling case against me, says that I cannot explain why one rat has a
longer tail and another longer ears, etc. But he seems to muddle in assuming
that these parts did not all vary together, or one part so insensibly before the
other, as to be in fact contemporaneous. I might ask the creationist whether
he thinks these differences in the two rats of any use, or as standing in some

relation from laws of growth; and if he admits this, selection might come
into play. He who thinks that God created animals unlike for mere sport or
variety, as man fashions his clothes, will not admit any force in my
argumentum ad hominem.
Bronn blunders about my supposing several Glacial periods, whether or
no such ever did occur.
He blunders about my supposing that development goes on at the same
rate in all parts of the world. I presume that he has misunderstood this from
the supposed migration into all regions of the more dominant forms.
I have ordered Dr. Bree ('Species not Transmutable,' by C.R. Bree,
1860.), and will lend it to you, if you like, and if it turns out good.
... I am very glad that I misunderstood you about species not having the
capacity to vary, though in fact few do give birth to new species. It seems
that I am very apt to misunderstand you; I suppose I am always fancying
objections. Your case of the Red Indian shows me that we agree entirely...
I had a letter yesterday from Thwaites of Ceylon, who was much opposed
to me. He now says, "I find that the more familiar I become with your
views in connection with the various phenomena of nature, the more they
commend themselves to my mind."

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.M. RODWELL. (Rev. J.M. Rodwell, who was
at Cambridge with my father, remembers him saying:—"It strikes me that
all our knowledge about the structure of our earth is very much like what an
old hen would know of a hundred acre field, in a corner of which she is
scratching.") 15 Marine Parade, Eastbourne. November 5th [1860].
My dear Sir,
I am extremely much obliged for your letter, which I can compare only to
a plum-pudding, so full it is of good things. I have been rash about the cats
("Cats with blue eyes are invariably deaf," 'Origin of Species,' edition i.
page 12.): yet I spoke on what seemed to me, good authority. The Rev. W.D.
Fox gave me a list of cases of various foreign breeds in which he had
observed the correlation, and for years he had vainly sought an exception. A
French paper also gives numerous cases, and one very curious case of a
kitten which GRADUALLY lost the blue colour in its eyes and as gradually

acquired its power of hearing. I had not heard of your uncle, Mr. Kirby's
case (William Kirby, joint author with Spence, of the well-known
'Introduction to Entomology,' 1818.) (whom I, for as long as I can
remember, have venerated) of care in breeding cats. I do not know whether
Mr. Kirby was your uncle by marriage, but your letters show me that you
ought to have Kirby blood in your veins, and that if you had not taken to
languages you would have been a first-rate naturalist.
I sincerely hope that you will be able to carry out your intention of
writing on the "Birth, Life, and Death of Words." Anyhow, you have a
capital title, and some think this the most difficult part of a book. I
remember years ago at the Cape of Good Hope, Sir J. Herschel saying to
me, I wish some one would treat language as Lyell has treated geology.
What a linguist you must be to translate the Koran! Having a vilely bad
head for languages, I feel an awful respect for linguists.
I do not know whether my brother-in-law, Hensleigh Wedgwood's
'Etymological Dictionary' would be at all in your line; but he treats briefly
on the genesis of words; and, as it seems to me, very ingeniously. You
kindly say that you would communicate any facts which might occur to
you, and I am sure that I should be most grateful. Of the multitude of letters
which I receive, not one in a thousand is like yours in value.
With my cordial thanks, and apologies for this untidy letter written in
haste, pray believe me, my dear Sir,
Yours sincerely obliged, CH. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. November 20th [1860].
... I have not had heart to read Phillips ('Life on the Earth.') yet, or a
tremendous long hostile review by Professor Bowen in the 4to Mem. of the
American Academy of Sciences. ("Remarks on the latest form of the
Development Theory." By Francis Bowen, Professor of Natural Religion
and Moral Philosophy, at Harvard University. 'American Academy of Arts
and Sciences,' vol. viii.) (By the way, I hear Agassiz is going to thunder
against me in the next part of the 'Contributions.') Thank you for telling me
of the sale of the 'Origin,' of which I had not heard. There will be some
time, I presume, a new edition, and I especially want your advice on one
point, and you know I think you the wisest of men, and I shall be

ABSOLUTELY GUIDED BY YOUR ADVICE. It has occurred to me, that
it would PERHAPS be a good plan to put a set of notes (some twenty to
forty or fifty) to the 'Origin,' which now has none, exclusively devoted to
errors of my reviewers. It has occurred to me that where a reviewer has
erred, a common reader might err. Secondly, it will show the reader that he
must not trust implicitly to reviewers. Thirdly, when any special fact has
been attacked, I should like to defend it. I would show no sort of anger. I
enclose a mere rough specimen, done without any care or accuracy—done
from memory alone—to be torn up, just to show the sort of thing that has
occurred to me. WILL YOU DO ME THE GREAT KINDNESS TO
CONSIDER THIS WELL?
It seems to me it would have a good effect, and give some confidence to
the reader. It would [be] a horrid bore going through all the reviews.
Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.
[Here follow samples of foot-notes, the references to volume and page
being left blank. It will be seen that in some cases he seems to have
forgotten that he was writing foot-notes, and to have continued as if writing
to Lyell:—
*Dr. Bree asserts that I explain the structure of the cells of the Hive Bee
by "the exploded doctrine of pressure." But I do not say one word which
directly or indirectly can be interpreted into any reference to pressure.
*The 'Edinburgh' Reviewer quotes my work as saying that the "dorsal
vertebrae of pigeons vary in number, and disputes the fact." I nowhere even
allude to the dorsal vertebrae, only to the sacral and caudal vertebrae.
*The 'Edinburgh' Reviewer throws a doubt on these organs being the
Branchiae of Cirripedes. But Professor Owen in 1854 admits, without
hesitation, that they are Branchiae, as did John Hunter long ago.
*The confounded Wealden Calculation to be struck out, and a note to be
inserted to the effect that I am convinced of its inaccuracy from a review in
the "Saturday Review", and from Phillips, as I see in his Table of Contents
that he alludes to it.
*Mr. Hopkins ('Fraser') states—I am quoting only from vague memory—
that, "I argue in favour of my views from the extreme imperfection of the
Geological Record," and says this is the first time in the history of Science
he has ever heard of ignorance being adduced as an argument. But I

repeatedly admit, in the most emphatic language which I can use, that the
imperfect evidence which Geology offers in regard to transitorial forms is
most strongly opposed to my views. Surely there is a wide difference in
fully admitting an objection, and then in endeavouring to show that it is not
so strong as it at first appears, and in Mr. Hopkins's assertion that I found
my argument on the Objection.
*I would also put a note to "Natural Selection," and show how variously
it has been misunderstood.
*A writer in the 'Edinburgh Philosophical Journal' denies my statement
that the Woodpecker of La Plata never frequents trees. I observed its habits
during two years, but, what is more to the purpose, Azara, whose accuracy
all admit, is more emphatic than I am in regard to its never frequenting
trees. Mr. A. Murray denies that it ought to be called a woodpecker; it has
two toes in front and two behind, pointed tail feathers, a long pointed
tongue, and the same general form of body, the same manner of flight,
colouring and voice. It was classed, until recently, in the same genus—
Picus—with all other woodpeckers, but now has been ranked as a distinct
genus amongst the Picidae. It differs from the typical Picus only in the
beak, not being quite so strong, and in the upper mandible being slightly
arched. I think these facts fully justify my statement that it is "in all
essential parts of its organisation" a Woodpecker.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, November 22 [1860].
My dear Huxley,
For heaven's sake don't write an anti-Darwinian article; you would do it
so confoundedly well. I have sometimes amused myself with thinking how
I could best pitch into myself, and I believe I could give two or three good
digs; but I will see you — first before I will try. I shall be very impatient to
see the Review. (The first number of the new series of the 'Nat. Hist.
Review' appeared in 1861.) If it succeeds it may really do much, very much
good...
I heard to-day from Murray that I must set to work at once on a new
edition (The 3rd edition.) of the 'Origin.' [Murray] says the Reviews have
not improved the sale. I shall always think those early reviews, almost
entirely yours, did the subject an ENORMOUS service. If you have any

important suggestions or criticisms to make on any part of the 'Origin,' I
should, of course, be very grateful for [them]. For I mean to correct as far as
I can, but not enlarge. How you must be wearied with and hate the subject,
and it is God's blessing if you do not get to hate me. Adios.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, November 24th [1860].
My dear Lyell,
I thank you much for your letter. I had got to take pleasure in thinking
how I could best snub my reviewers; but I was determined, in any case, to
follow your advice, and, before I had got to the end of your letter, I was
convinced of the wisdom of your advice. ("I get on slowly with my new
edition. I find that your advice was EXCELLENT. I can answer all reviews,
without any direct notice of them, by a little enlargement here and there,
with here and there a new paragraph. Bronn alone I shall treat with the
respect of giving his objections with his name. I think I shall improve my
book a good deal, and add only some twenty pages."—From a letter to
Lyell, December 4th, 1860.) What an advantage it is to me to have such
friends as you. I shall follow every hint in your letter exactly.
I have just heard from Murray; he says he sold 700 copies at his sale, and
that he has not half the number to supply; so that I must begin at once (On
the third edition of the 'Origin of Species,' published in April 1861.)...
P.S.—I must tell you one little fact which has pleased me. You may
remember that I adduce electrical organs of fish as one of the greatest
difficulties which have occurred to me, and — notices the passage in a
singularly disingenuous spirit. Well, McDonnell, of Dublin (a first-rate
man), writes to me that he felt the difficulty of the whole case as
overwhelming against me. Not only are the fishes which have electric
organs very remote in scale, but the organ is near the head in some, and
near the tail in others, and supplied by wholly different nerves. It seems
impossible that there could be any transition. Some friend, who is much
opposed to me, seems to have crowed over McDonnell, who reports that he
said to himself, that if Darwin is right, there must be homologous organs
both near the head and tail in other non-electric fish. He set to work, and, by
Jove, he has found them! ('On an organ in the Skate, which appears to be
the homologue of the electrical organ of the Torpedo,' by R. McDonnell,

'Nat. Hist. Review,' 1861, page 57.) so that some of the difficulty is
removed; and is it not satisfactory that my hypothetical notions should have
led to pretty discoveries? McDonnell seems very cautious; he says, years
must pass before he will venture to call himself a believer in my doctrine,
but that on the subjects which he knows well, viz., Morphology and
Embryology, my views accord well, and throw light on the whole subject.

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, November 26th, 1860.
My dear Gray,
I have to thank you for two letters. The latter with corrections, written
before you received my letter asking for an American reprint, and saying
that it was hopeless to print your reviews as a pamphlet, owing to the
impossibility of getting pamphlets known. I am very glad to say that the
August or second 'Atlantic' article has been reprinted in the 'Annals and
Magazine of Natural History'; but I have not seen it there. Yesterday I read
over with care the third article; and it seems to me, as before,
ADMIRABLE. But I grieve to say that I cannot honestly go as far as you do
about Design. I am conscious that I am in an utterly hopeless muddle. I
cannot think that the world, as we see it, is the result of chance; and yet I
cannot look at each separate thing as the result of Design. To take a crucial
example, you lead me to infer (page 414) that you believe "that variation
has been led along certain beneficial lines." I cannot believe this; and I
think you would have to believe, that the tail of the Fantail was led to vary
in the number and direction of its feathers in order to gratify the caprice of a
few men. Yet if the Fantail had been a wild bird, and had used its abnormal
tail for some special end, as to sail before the wind, unlike other birds,
every one would have said, "What a beautiful and designed adaptation."
Again, I say I am, and shall ever remain, in a hopeless muddle.
Thank you much for Bowen's 4to. review. ('Memoirs of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences,' vol. viii.) The coolness with which he
makes all animals to be destitute of reason is simply absurd. It is monstrous
at page 103, that he should argue against the possibility of accumulative
variation, and actually leave out, entirely, selection! The chance that an
improved Short-horn, or improved Pouter-pigeon, should be produced by
accumulative variation without man's selection is as almost infinity to

nothing; so with natural species without natural selection. How capitally in
the 'Atlantic' you show that Geology and Astronomy are, according to
Bowen, Metaphysics; but he leaves out this in the 4to. Memoir.
I have not much to tell you about my Book. I have just heard that Du
Boi-Reymond agrees with me. The sale of my book goes on well, and the
multitude of reviews has not stopped the sale...; so I must begin at once on a
new corrected edition. I will send you a copy for the chance of your ever re-
reading; but, good Heavens, how sick you must be of it!

CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 2nd [1860].
... I have got fairly sick of hostile reviews. Nevertheless, they have been
of use in showing me when to expatiate a little and to introduce a few new
discussions. OF COURSE I will send you a copy of the new edition.
I entirely agree with you, that the difficulties on my notions are terrific,
yet having seen what all the Reviews have said against me, I have far more
confidence in the GENERAL truth of the doctrine than I formerly had.
Another thing gives me confidence, viz. that some who went half an inch
with me now go further, and some who were bitterly opposed are now less
bitterly opposed. And this makes me feel a little disappointed that you are
not inclined to think the general view in some slight degree more probable
than you did at first. This I consider rather ominous. Otherwise I should be
more contented with your degree of belief. I can pretty plainly see that, if
my view is ever to be generally adopted, it will be by young men growing
up and replacing the old workers, and then young ones finding that they can
group facts and search out new lines of investigation better on the notion of
descent, than on that of creation. But forgive me for running on so
egotistically. Living so solitary as I do, one gets to think in a silly manner of
one's own work.
Ever yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 11th [1860].
... I heard from A. Gray this morning; at my suggestion he is going to
reprint the three 'Atlantic' articles as a pamphlet, and send 250 copies to
England, for which I intend to pay half the cost of the whole edition, and

shall give away, and try to sell by getting a few advertisements put in, and if
possible notices in Periodicals.
... David Forbes has been carefully working the Geology of Chile, and as
I value praise for accurate observation far higher than for any other quality,
forgive (if you can) the INSUFFERABLE vanity of my copying the last
sentence in his note: "I regard your Monograph on Chile as, without
exception, one of the finest specimens of Geological enquiry." I feel
inclined to strut like a Turkey-cock!

CHAPTER 2.III. — SPREAD OF EVOLUTION.
1861-1862.

[The beginning of the year 1861 saw my father with the third chapter of
'The Variation of Animals and Plants' still on his hands. It had been begun in
the previous August, and was not finished until March 1861. He was,
however, for part of this time (I believe during December 1860 and January
1861) engaged in a new edition (2000 copies) of the 'Origin,' which was
largely corrected and added to, and was published in April 1861.
With regard to this, the third edition, he wrote to Mr. Murray in
December 1860:—
"I shall be glad to hear when you have decided how many copies you will
print off—the more the better for me in all ways, as far as compatible with
safety; for I hope never again to make so many corrections, or rather
additions, which I have made in hopes of making my many rather stupid
reviewers at least understand what is meant. I hope and think I shall
improve the book considerably."
An interesting feature in the new edition was the "Historical Sketch of
the Recent Progress of Opinion on the Origin of Species" (The Historical
Sketch had already appeared in the first German edition (1860) and the
American edition. Bronn states in the German edition (footnote, page 1)
that it was his critique in the 'N. Jahrbuch fur Mineralogie' that suggested
the idea of such a sketch to my father.) which now appeared for the first
time, and was continued in the later editions of the work. It bears a strong
impress of the author's personal character in the obvious wish to do full
justice to all his predecessors,—though even in this respect it has not
escaped some adverse criticism.
Towards the end of the present year (1861), the final arrangements for the
first French edition of the 'Origin' were completed, and in September a copy
of the third English edition was despatched to Mdlle. Clemence Royer, who
undertook the work of translation. The book was now spreading on the
Continent, a Dutch edition had appeared, and, as we have seen, a German

translation had been published in 1860. In a letter to Mr. Murray
(September 10, 1861), he wrote, "My book seems exciting much attention
in Germany, judging from the number of discussions sent me." The silence
had been broken, and in a few years the voice of German science was to
become one of the strongest of the advocates of evolution.
During all the early part of the year (1861) he was working at the mass of
details which are marshalled in order in the early chapter of 'Animals and
Plants.' Thus in his Diary occur the laconic entries, "May 16, Finished
Fowls (eight weeks); May 31, Ducks."
On July 1, he started, with his family, for Torquay, where he remained
until August 27—a holiday which he characteristically enters in his diary as
"eight weeks and a day." The house he occupied was in Hesketh Crescent, a
pleasantly placed row of houses close above the sea, somewhat removed
from what was then the main body of the town, and not far from the
beautiful cliffed coast-line in the neighbourhood of Anstey's Cove.
During the Torquay holiday, and for the remainder of the year, he worked
at the fertilisation of orchids. This part of the year 1861 is not dealt with in
the present chapter, because (as explained in the preface) the record of his
life, as told in his letters, seems to become clearer when the whole of his
botanical work is placed together and treated separately. The present series
of chapters will, therefore, include only the progress of his works in the
direction of a general amplification of the 'Origin of Species'—e.g., the
publication of 'Animals and Plants,' 'Descent of Man,' etc.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 15 [1861].
My dear Hooker,
The sight of your handwriting always rejoices the very cockles of my
heart...
I most fully agree to what you say about Huxley's Article ('Natural
History Review,' 1861, page 67, "On the Zoological Relations of Man with
the Lower Animals." This memoir had its origin in a discussion at the
previous meeting of the British Association, when Professor Huxley felt
himself "compelled to give a diametrical contradiction to certain assertions
respecting the differences which obtain between the brains of the higher
apes and of man, which fell from Professor Owen." But in order that his

criticisms might refer to deliberately recorded words, he bases them on
Professor Owen's paper, "On the Characters, etc., of the Class Mammalia,"
read before the Linnean Society in February and April, 1857, in which he
proposed to place man not only in a distinct order, but in "a distinct su-class
of the Mammalia"—the Archencephala.), and the power of writing... The
whole review seems to me excellent. How capitally Oliver has done the
resume of botanical books. Good Heavens, how he must have read!...
I quite agree that Phillips ('Life on the Earth' (1860), by Prof. Phillips,
containing the substance of the Rede Lecture (May 1860).) is unreadably
dull. You need not attempt Bree. (The following sentence (page 16) from
'Species not Transmutable,' by Dr. Bree, illustrates the degree in which he
understood the 'Origin of Species': "The only real difference between Mr.
Darwin and his two predecessors" [Lamarck and the 'Vestiges'] "is this:—
that while the latter have each given a mode by which they conceive the
great changes they believe in have been brought about, Mr. Darwin does no
such thing." After this we need not be surprised at a passage in the preface:
"No one has derived greater pleasure than I have in past days from the study
of Mr. Darwin's other works, and no one has felt a greater degree of regret
that he should have imperilled his fame by the publication of his treatise
upon the 'Origin of Species.'")...
If you come across Dr. Freke on 'Origin of Species by means of Organic
Affinity,' read a page here and there... He tells the reader to observe [that his
result] has been arrived at by "induction," whereas all my results are arrived
at only by "analogy." I see a Mr. Neale has read a paper before the
Zoological Society on 'Typical Selection;' what it means I know not. I have
not read H. Spencer, for I find that I must more and more husband the very
little strength which I have. I sometimes suspect I shall soon entirely fail...
As soon as this dreadful weather gets a little milder, I must try a little water
cure. Have you read the 'Woman in White'? the plot is wonderfully
interesting. I can recommend a book which has interested me greatly, viz.
Olmsted's 'Journey in the Back Country.' It is an admirably lively picture of
man and slavery in the Southern States...

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. February 2, 1861.
My dear Lyell,

I have thought you would like to read the enclosed passage in a letter
from A. Gray (who is printing his reviews as a pamphlet ("Natural Selection
not inconsistent with Natural Theology," from the 'Atlantic Monthly' for
July, August, and October, 1860; published by Trubner.), and will send
copies to England), as I think his account is really favourable in high degree
to us:—
"I wish I had time to write you an account of the lengths to which Bowen
and Agassiz, each in their own way, are going. The first denying all heredity
(all transmission except specific) whatever. The second coming near to
deny that we are genetically descended from our great-grea-grandfathers;
and insisting that evidently affiliated languages, e.g. Latin, Greek, Sanscrit,
owe none of their similarities to a community of origin, are all
autochthonal; Agassiz admits that the derivation of languages, and that of
species or forms, stand on the same foundation, and that he must allow the
latter if he allows the former, which I tell him is perfectly logical."
Is not this marvellous?
Ever yours, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 4 [1861].
My dear Hooker,
I was delighted to get your long chatty letter, and to hear that you are
thawing towards science. I almost wish you had remained frozen rather
longer; but do not thaw too quickly and strongly. No one can work long as
you used to do. Be idle; but I am a pretty man to preach, for I cannot be
idle, much as I wish it, and am never comfortable except when at work. The
word holiday is written in a dead language for me, and much I grieve at it.
We thank you sincerely for your kind sympathy about poor H. [his
daughter]... She has now come up to her old point, and can sometimes get
up for an hour or two twice a day... Never to look to the future or as little as
possible is becoming our rule of life. What a different thing life was in
youth with no dread in the future; all golden, if baseless, hopes.
... With respect to the 'Natural History Review' I can hardly think that
ladies would be so very sensitive about "lizards' guts;" but the publication is
at present certainly a sort of hybrid, and original illustrated papers ought
hardly to appear in a review. I doubt its ever paying; but I shall much regret

if it dies. All that you say seems very sensible, but could a review in the
strict sense of the word be filled with readable matter?
I have been doing little, except finishing the new edition of the 'Origin,'
and crawling on most slowly with my volume of 'Variation under
Domestication'...
[The following letter refers to Mr. Bates's paper, "Contributions to an
Insect Fauna of the Amazon Valley," in the 'Transactions of the
Entomological Society,' vol.5, N.S. (The paper was read November 24,
1860.) Mr. Bates points out that with the return, after the glacial period, of a
warmer climate in the equatorial regions, the "species then living near the
equator would retreat north and south to their former homes, leaving some
of their congeners, slowly modified subsequently... to re-people the zone
they had forsaken." In this case the species now living at the equator ought
to show clear relationship to the species inhabiting the regions about the
25th parallel, whose distant relatives they would of course be. But this is
not the case, and this is the difficulty my father refers to. Mr. Belt has
offered an explanation in his 'Naturalist in Nicaragua' (1874), page 266. "I
believe the answer is that there was much extermination during the glacial
period, that many species (and some genera, etc., as, for instance, the
American horse), did not survive it... but that a refuge was found for many
species on lands now below the ocean, that were uncovered by the lowering
of the sea, caused by the immense quantity of water that was locked up in
frozen masses on the land."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, 27th [March 1861].
My dear Hooker,
I had intended to have sent you Bates's article this very day. I am so glad
you like it. I have been extremely much struck with it. How well he argues,
and with what crushing force against the glacial doctrine. I cannot wriggle
out of it: I am dumbfounded; yet I do believe that some explanation some
day will appear, and I cannot give up equatorial cooling. It explains so
much and harmonises with so much. When you write (and much interested I
shall be in your letter) please say how far floras are generally uniform in
generic character from 0 to 25 degrees N. and S.

Before reading Bates, I had become thoroughly dissatisfied with what I
wrote to you. I hope you may get Bates to write in the 'Linnean.'
Here is a good joke: H.C. Watson (who, I fancy and hope, is going to
review the new edition (third edition of 2000 copies, published in April,
1861.) of the 'Origin') says that in the first four paragraphs of the
introduction, the words "I," "me," "my," occur forty-three times! I was
dimly conscious of the accursed fact. He says it can be explained
phrenologically, which I suppose civilly means, that I am the most
egotistically self-sufficient man alive; perhaps so. I wonder whether he will
print this pleasing fact; it beats hollow the parentheses in Wollaston's
writing.
I am, MY dear Hooker, ever yours, C. DARWIN.
P.S.—Do not spread this pleasing joke; it is rather too biting.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [April] 23? [1861].
... I quite agree with what you say on Lieutenant Hutton's Review (In the
'Geologist,' 1861, page 132, by Lieutenant Frederick Wollaston Hutton, now
Professor of Biology and Geology at Canterbury College, New Zealand.)
(who he is I know not); it struck me as very original. He is one of the very
few who see that the change of species cannot be directly proved, and that
the doctrine must sink or swim according as it groups and explains
phenomena. It is really curious how few judge it in this way, which is
clearly the right way. I have been much interested by Bentham's paper ("On
the Species and Genera of Plants, etc.," 'Natural History Review,' 1861,
page 133.) in the N.H.R., but it would not, of course, from familiarity strike
you as it did me. I liked the whole; all the facts on the nature of close and
varying species. Good Heavens! to think of the British botanists turning up
their noses, and saying that he knows nothing of British plants! I was also
pleased at his remarks on classification, because it showed me that I wrote
truly on this subject in the 'Origin.' I saw Bentham at the Linnean Society,
and had some talk with him and Lubbock, and Edgeworth, Wallich, and
several others. I asked Bentham to give us his ideas of species; whether
partially with us or dead against us, he would write EXCELLENT matter.
He made no answer, but his manner made me think he might do so if urged;
so do you attack him. Every one was speaking with affection and anxiety of

Henslow. (Prof. Henslow was in his last illness.) I dined with Bell at the
Linnean Club, and liked my dinner... Dining out is such a novelty to me that
I enjoyed it. Bell has a real good heart. I liked Rolleston's paper, but I never
read anything so obscure and not sel-evident as his 'Canons.' (George
Rolleston, M.D., F.R.S., 1829-1881. Linacre Professor of Anatomy and
Physiology at Oxford. A man of much learning, who left but few published
works, among which may be mentioned his handbook 'Forms of Animal
Life.' For the 'Canons,' see 'Nat. Hist. Review,' 1861, page 206.)... I called
on R. Chambers, at his very nice house in St. John's Wood, and had a very
pleasant half-hour's talk; he is really a capital fellow. He made one good
remark and chuckled over it, that the laymen universally had treated the
controversy on the 'Essays and Reviews' as a merely professional subject,
and had not joined in it, but had left it to the clergy. I shall be anxious for
your next letter about Henslow. (Sir Joseph Hooker was Prof. Henslow's
son-in-law.) Farewell, with sincere sympathy, my old friend,
C. DARWIN.
P.S.—We are very much obliged for the 'London Review.' We like
reading much of it, and the science is incomparably better than in the
"Athenaeum". You shall not go on very long sending it, as you will be
ruined by pennies and trouble, but I am under a horrid spell to the
"Athenaeum" and the "Gardener's Chronicle", but I have taken them in for
so many years, that I CANNOT give them up.
[The next letter refers to Lyell's visit to the Biddenham gravel-pits near
Bedford in April 1861. The visit was made at the invitation of Mr. James
Wyatt, who had recently discovered two stone implements "at the depth of
thirteen feet from the surface of the soil," resting "immediately on solid
beds of oolitic-limestone." ('Antiquity of Man,' fourth edition, page 214.)
Here, says Sir C. Lyell, "I... for the first time, saw evidence which satisfied
me of the chronological relations of those three phenomena—the antique
tools, the extinct mammalia, and the glacial formation."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, April 12 [1861].
My dear Lyell,
I have been most deeply interested by your letter. You seem to have done
the grandest work, and made the greatest step, of any one with respect to

man.
It is an especial relief to hear that you think the French superficial
deposits are deltoid and semi-marine; but two days ago I was saying to a
friend, that the unknown manner of the accumulation of these deposits,
seemed the great blot in all the work done. I could not stomach debacles or
lacustrine beds. It is grand. I remember Falconer told me that he thought
some of the remains in the Devonshire caverns were pre-glacial, and this, I
presume, is now your conclusion for the older celts with hyena and
hippopotamus. It is grand. What a fine long pedigree you have given the
human race!
I am sure I never thought of parallel roads having been accumulated
during subsidence. I think I see some difficulties on this view, though, at
first reading your note, I jumped at the idea. But I will think over all I saw
there. I am (stomacho volente) coming up to London on Tuesday to work
on cocks and hens, and on Wednesday morning, about a quarter before ten,
I will call on you (unless I hear to the contrary), for I long to see you. I
congratulate you on your grand work.
Ever yours, C. DARWIN.
P.S.—Tell Lady Lyell that I was unable to digest the funereal ceremonies
of the ants, notwithstanding that Erasmus has often told me that I should
find some day that they have their bishops. After a battle I have always seen
the ants carry away the dead for food. Ants display the utmost economy,
and always carry away a dead fellow-creature as food. But I have just
forwarded two most extraordinary letters to Busk, from a backwoodsman in
Texas, who has evidently watched ants carefully, and declares most
positively that they plant and cultivate a kind of grass for store food, and
plant other bushes for shelter! I do not know what to think, except that the
old gentleman is not fibbing intentionally. I have left the responsibility with
Busk whether or no to read the letters. (I.e. to read them before the Linnean
Society.)

CHARLES DARWIN TO THOMAS DAVIDSON. (Thomas Davidson,
F.R.S., born in Edinburgh, May 17, 1817; died 1885. His researches were
chiefly connected with the sciences of geology and palaeontology, and were
directed especially to the elucidation of the characters, classification,

history, geological and geographical distribution of recent and fossil
Brachiopoda. On this subject he brought out an important work, 'British
Fossil Brachiopoda,' 5 vols. 4to. (Cooper, 'Men of the Time,' 1884.)) Down,
April 26, 1861.
My dear Sir,
I hope that you will excuse me for venturing to make a suggestion to you
which I am perfectly well aware it is a very remote chance that you would
adopt. I do not know whether you have read my 'Origin of Species'; in that
book I have made the remark, which I apprehend will be universally
admitted, that AS A WHOLE, the fauna of any formation is intermediate in
character between that of the formations above and below. But several
really good judges have remarked to me how desirable it would be that this
should be exemplified and worked out in some detail and with some single
group of beings. Now every one will admit that no one in the world could
do this better than you with Brachiopods. The result might turn out very
unfavourable to the views which I hold; if so, so much the better for those
who are opposed to me. ("Mr. Davidson is not at all a full believer in great
changes of species, which will make his work all the more valuable.—C.
Darwin to R. Chambers (April 30, 1861).) But I am inclined to suspect that
on the whole it would be favourable to the notion of descent with
modification; for about a year ago, Mr. Salter (John William Salter; 1820-
1869. He entered the service of the Geological Survey in 1846, and
ultimately became its Palaeontologist, on the retirement of Edward Forbes,
and gave up the office in 1863. He was associated with several well-known
naturalists in their work—with Sedgwick, Murchison, Lyell, Ramsay, and
Huxley. There are sixty entries under his name in the Royal Society
Catalogue. The above facts are taken from an obituary notice of Mr. Salter
in the 'Geological Magazine,' 1869.) in the Museum in Jermyn Street, glued
on a board some Spirifers, etc., from three palaeozoic stages, and arranged
them in single and branching lines, with horizontal lines marking the
formations (like the diagram in my book, if you know it), and the result
seemed to me very striking, though I was too ignorant fully to appreciate
the lines of affinities. I longed to have had these shells engraved, as
arranged by Mr. Salter, and connected by dotted lines, and would have
gladly paid the expense: but I could not persuade Mr. Salter to publish a
little paper on the subject. I can hardly doubt that many curious points
would occur to any one thoroughly instructed in the subject, who would

consider a group of beings under this point of view of descent with
modification. All those forms which have come down from an ancient
period very slightly modified ought, I think, to be omitted, and those forms
alone considered which have undergone considerable change at each
successive epoch. My fear is whether brachiopods have changed enough.
The absolute amount of difference of the forms in such groups at the
opposite extremes of time ought to be considered, and how far the early
forms are intermediate in character between those which appeared much
later in time. The antiquity of a group is not really diminished, as some
seem vaguely to think, because it has transmitted to the present day closely
allied forms. Another point is how far the succession of each genus is
unbroken, from the first time it appeared to its extinction, with due
allowance made for formations poor in fossils. I cannot but think that an
important essay (far more important than a hundred literary reviews) might
be written by one like yourself, and without very great labour. I know it is
highly probable that you may not have leisure, or not care for, or dislike the
subject, but I trust to your kindness to forgive me for making this
suggestion. If by any extraordinary good fortune you were inclined to take
up this notion, I would ask you to read my Chapter X. on Geological
Succession. And I should like in this case to be permitted to send you a
copy of the new edition, just published, in which I have added and corrected
somewhat in Chapters IX. and X.
Pray excuse this long letter, and believe me, My dear Sir, yours very
faithfully, C. DARWIN.
P.S.—I write so bad a hand that I have had this note copied.

CHARLES DARWIN TO THOMAS DAVIDSON. Down, April 30, 1861.
My dear Sir,
I thank you warmly for your letter; I did not in the least know that you
had attended to my work. I assure you that the attention which you have
paid to it, considering your knowledge and the philosophical tone of your
mind (for I well remember one remarkable letter you wrote to me, and have
looked through your various publications), I consider one of the highest,
perhaps the very highest, compliments which I have received. I live so
solitary a life that I do not often hear what goes on, and I should much like

to know in what work you have published some remarks on my book. I take
a deep interest in the subject, and I hope not simply an egotistical interest;
therefore you may believe how much your letter has gratified me; I am
perfectly contented if any one will fairly consider the subject, whether or
not he fully or only very slightly agrees with me. Pray do not think that I
feel the least surprise at your demurring to a ready acceptance; in fact, I
should not much respect anyone's judgment who did so: that is, if I may
judge others from the long time which it has taken me to go round. Each
stage of belief cost me years. The difficulties are, as you say, many and very
great; but the more I reflect, the more they seem to me to be due to our
underestimating our ignorance. I belong so much to old times that I find
that I weigh the difficulties from the imperfection of the geological record,
heavier than some of the younger men. I find, to my astonishment and joy,
that such good men as Ramsay, Jukes, Geikie, and one old worker, Lyell, do
not think that I have in the least exaggerated the imperfection of the record.
(Professor Sedgwick treated this part of the 'Origin of Species' very
differently, as might have been expected from his vehement objection to
Evolution in general. In the article in the "Spectator" of March 24, 1860,
already noticed, Sedgwick wrote: "We know the complicated organic
phenomena of the Mesozoic (or Oolitic) period. It defies the
transmutationist at every step. Oh! but the document, says Darwin, is a
fragment; I will interpolate long periods to account for all the changes. I
say, in reply, if you deny my conclusion, grounded on positive evidence, I
toss back your conclusion, derived from negative evidence,—the inflated
cushion on which you try to bolster up the defects of your hypothesis." [The
punctuation of the imaginary dialogue is slightly altered from the original,
which is obscure in one place.]) If my views ever are proved true, our
current geological views will have to be considerably modified. My greatest
trouble is, not being able to weigh the direct effects of the long-continued
action of changed conditions of life without any selection, with the action of
selection on mere accidental (so to speak) variability. I oscillate much on
this head, but generally return to my belief that the direct action of the
conditions of life has not been great. At least this direct action can have
played an extremely small part in producing all the numberless and
beautiful adaptations in every living creature. With respect to a person's
belief, what does rather surprise me is that any one (like Carpenter) should
be willing TO GO SO VERY FAR as to believe that all birds may have

descended from one parent, and not go a little farther and include all the
members of the same great division; for on such a scale of belief, all the
facts in Morphology and in Embryology (the most important in my opinion
of all subjects) become mere Divine mockeries... I cannot express how
profoundly glad I am that some day you will publish your theoretical view
on the modification and endurance of Brachiopodous species; I am sure it
will be a most valuable contribution to knowledge.
Pray forgive this very egotistical letter, but you yourself are partly to
blame for having pleased me so much. I have told Murray to send a copy of
my new edition to you, and have written your name.
With cordial thanks, pray believe me, my dear Sir,
Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN.
[In Mr. Davidson's Monograph on British Brachiopoda, published shortly
afterwards by the Palaeontographical Society, results such as my father
anticipated were to some extent obtained. "No less than fifteen commonly
received species are demonstrated by Mr. Davidson by the aid of a long
series of transitional forms to appertain to... one type." "Lyell, 'Antiquity of
Man,' first edition, page 428.)
In the autumn of 1860, and the early part of 1861, my father had a good
deal of correspondence with Professor Asa Gray on a subject to which
reference has already been made—the publication in the form of a
pamphlet, of Professor Gray's three articles in the July, August, and October
numbers of the 'Atlantic Monthly,' 1860. The pamphlet was published by
Messrs. Trubner, with reference to whom my father wrote, "Messrs. Trubner
have been most liberal and kind, and say they shall make no charge for all
their trouble. I have settled about a few advertisements, and they will
gratuitously insert one in their own periodicals."
The reader will find these articles republished in Dr. Gray's 'Darwiniana,'
page 87, under the title "Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural
Theology." The pamphlet found many admirers among those most capable
of judging of its merits, and my father believed that it was of much value in
lessening opposition, and making converts to Evolution. His high opinion
of it is shown not only in his letters, but by the fact that he inserted a special
notice of it in a most prominent place in the third edition of the 'Origin.'
Lyell, among others, recognised its value as an antidote to the kind of
criticism from which the cause of Evolution suffered. Thus my father wrote

to Dr. Gray:—"Just to exemplify the use of your pamphlet, the Bishop of
London was asking Lyell what he thought of the review in the 'Quarterly,'
and Lyell answered, 'Read Asa Gray in the 'Atlantic.'". It comes out very
clearly that in the case of such publications as Dr. Gray's, my father did not
rejoice over the success of his special view of Evolution, viz. that
modification is mainly due to Natural Selection; on the contrary, he felt
strongly that the really important point was that the doctrine of Descent
should be accepted. Thus he wrote to Professor Gray (May 11, 1863), with
reference to Lyell's 'Antiquity of Man':—
"You speak of Lyell as a judge; now what I complain of is that he
declines to be a judge... I have sometimes almost wished that Lyell had
pronounced against me. When I say 'me,' I only mean CHANGE OF
SPECIES BY DESCENT. That seems to me the turning-point. Personally,
of course, I care much about Natural Selection; but that seems to me utterly
unimportant, compared to the question of Creation OR Modification."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, April 11 [1861].
My dear Gray,
I was very glad to get your photograph: I am expecting mine, which I
will send off as soon as it comes. It is an ugly affair, and I fear the fault does
not lie with the photographer... Since writing last, I have had several letters
full of the highest commendation of your Essay; all agree that it is by far the
best thing written, and I do not doubt it has done the 'Origin' much good. I
have not yet heard how it has sold. You will have seen a review in the
"Gardeners' Chronicle". Poor dear Henslow, to whom I owe much, is dying,
and Hooker is with him. Many thanks for two sets of sheets of your
Proceedings. I cannot understand what Agassiz is driving at. You once
spoke, I think, of Professor Bowen as a very clever man. I should have
thought him a singularly unobservant man from his writings. He never can
have seen much of animals, or he would have seen the difference of old and
wise dogs and young ones. His paper about hereditariness beats everything.
Tell a breeder that he might pick out his worst INDIVIDUAL animals and
breed from them, and hope to win a prize, and he would think you... insane.
[Professor Henslow died on May 16, 1861, from a complication of
bronchitis, congestion of the lungs, and enlargement of the heart. His strong

constitution was slow in giving way, and he lingered for weeks in a painful
condition of weakness, knowing that his end was near, and looking at death
with fearless eyes. In Mr. Blomefield's (Jenyns) 'Memoir of Henslow'
(1862) is a dignified and touching description of Prof. Sedgwick's farewell
visit to his old friend. Sedgwick said afterwards that he had never seen "a
human being whose soul was nearer heaven."
My father wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker on hearing of Henslow's death, "I
fully believe a better man never walked this earth."
He gave his impressions of Henslow's character in Mr. Blomefield's
'Memoir.' In reference to these recollections he wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker
(May 30, 1861):—
"This morning I wrote my recollections and impressions of character of
poor dear Henslow about the year 1830. I liked the job, and so have written
four or five pages, now being copied. I do not suppose you will use all, of
course you can chop and change as much as you like. If more than a
sentence is used, I should like to see a proof-page, as I never can write
decently till I see it in print. Very likely some of my remarks may appear
too trifling, but I thought it best to give my thoughts as they arose, for you
or Jenyns to use as you think fit.
"You will see that I have exceeded your request, but, as I said when I
began, I took pleasure in writing my impression of his admirable
character."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, June 5 [1861].
My dear Gray,
I have been rather extra busy, so have been slack in answering your note
of May 6th. I hope you have received long ago the third edition of the
'Origin.'... I have heard nothing from Trubner of the sale of your Essay,
hence fear it has not been great; I wrote to say you could supply more. I
send a copy to Sir J. Herschel, and in his new edition of his 'Physical
Geography' he has a note on the 'Origin of Species,' and agrees, to a certain
limited extent, but puts in a caution on design—much like yours... I have
been led to think more on this subject of late, and grieve to say that I come
to differ more from you. It is not that designed variation makes, as it seems
to me, my deity "Natural Selection" superfluous, but rather from studying,

lately, domestic variation, and seeing what an enormous field of undesigned
variability there is ready for natural selection to appropriate for any purpose
useful to each creature.
I thank you much for sending me your review of Phillips. ('Life on the
Earth,' 1860.) I remember once telling you a lot of trades which you ought
to have followed, but now I am convinced that you are a born reviewer. By
Jove, how well and often you hit the nail on the head! You rank Phillips's
book higher than I do, or than Lyell does, who thinks it fearfully retrograde.
I amused myself by parodying Phillips's argument as applied to domestic
variation; and you might thus prove that the duck or pigeon has not varied
because the goose has not, though more anciently domesticated, and no
good reason can be assigned why it has not produced many varieties ...
I never knew the newspapers so profoundly interesting. North America
does not do England justice; I have not seen or heard of a soul who is not
with the North. Some few, and I am one of them, even wish to God, though
at the loss of millions of lives, that the North would proclaim a crusade
against slavery. In the long-run, a million horrid deaths would be amply
repaid in the cause of humanity. What wonderful times we live in!
Massachusetts seems to show noble enthusiasm. Great God! How I should
like to see the greatest curse on earth—slavery—abolished!
Farewell. Hooker has been absorbed with poor dear revered Henslow's
affairs. Farewell.
Ever yours, C. DARWIN.
HUGH FALCONER TO CHARLES DARWIN. 31 Sackville St., W.,
June 23, 1861.
My dear Darwin,
I have been to Adelsberg cave and brought back with me a live Proteus
anguinus, designed for you from the moment I got it; i.e. if you have got an
aquarium and would care to have it. I only returned last night from the
continent, and hearing from your brother that you are about to go to
Torquay, I lose no time in making you the offer. The poor dear animal is
still alive—although it has had no appreciable means of sustenance for a
month—and I am most anxious to get rid of the responsibility of starving it
longer. In your hands it will thrive and have a fair chance of being
developed without delay into some type of the Columbidae—say a Pouter
or a Tumbler.

My dear Darwin, I have been rambling through the north of Italy, and
Germany lately. Everywhere have I heard your views and your admirable
essay canvassed—the views of course often dissented from, according to
the special bias of the speaker—but the work, its honesty of purpose,
grandeur of conception, felicity of illustration, and courageous exposition,
always referred to in terms of the highest admiration. And among your
warmest friends no one rejoiced more heartily in the just appreciation of
Charles Darwin than did
Yours very truly, H. FALCONER.

CHARLES DARWIN TO HUGH FALCONER. Down [June 24, 1861].
My dear Falconer,
I have just received your note, and by good luck a day earlier than
properly, and I lose not a moment in answering you, and thanking you
heartily for your offer of the valuable specimen; but I have no aquarium and
shall soon start for Torquay, so that it would be a thousand pities that I
should have it. Yet I should certainly much like to see it, but I fear it is
impossible. Would not the Zoological Society be the best place? and then
the interest which many would take in this extraordinary animal would
repay you for your trouble.
Kind as you have been in taking this trouble and offering me this
specimen, to tell the truth I value your note more than the specimen. I shall
keep your note amongst a very few precious letters. Your kindness has quite
touched me.
Yours affectionately and gratefully, CH. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. 2 Hesketh Crescent, Torquay,
July 13 [1861].
... I hope Harvey is better; I got his review (The 'Dublin Hospital
Gazette,' May 15, 1861. The passage referred to is at page 150.) of me a day
or two ago, from which I infer he must be convalescent; it's very good and
fair; but it is funny to see a man argue on the succession of animals from
Noah's Deluge; as God did not then wholly destroy man, probably he did

not wholly destroy the races of other animals at each geological period! I
never expected to have a helping hand from the Old Testament...

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. 2, Hesketh Crescent, Torquay, July
20 [1861].
My dear Lyell,
I sent you two or three days ago a duplicate of a good review of the
'Origin' by a Mr. Maw (Mr. George Maw, of Benthall Hall. The review was
published in the 'Zoologist,' July, 1861. On the back of my father's copy is
written, "Must be consulted before new edit. of 'Origin'"—words which are
wanting on many more pretentious notices, on which frequently occur my
father's brief o/-, or "nothing new."), evidently a thoughtful man, as I
thought you might like to have it, as you have so many...
This is quite a charming place, and I have actually walked, I believe,
good two miles out and back, which is a grand feat.
I saw Mr. Pengelly (William Pengelly, the geologist, and well-known
explorer of the Devonshire caves.) the other day, and was pleased at his
enthusiasm. I do not in the least know whether you are in London. Your
illness must have lost you much time, but I hope you have nearly got your
great job of the new edition finished. You must be very busy, if in London,
so I will be generous, and on honour bright do not expect any answer to this
dull little note...

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, September 17 [1861?].
My dear Gray,
I thank you sincerely for your very long and interesting letter, political
and scientific, of August 27th and 29th, and September 2nd received this
morning. I agree with much of what you say, and I hope to God we English
are utterly wrong in doubting (1) whether the N. can conquer the S.; (2)
whether the N. has many friends in the South, and (3) whether you noble
men of Massachusetts are right in transferring your own good feelings to
the men of Washington. Again I say I hope to God we are wrong in
doubting on these points. It is number (3) which alone causes England not

to be enthusiastic with you. What it may be in Lancashire I know not, but in
S. England cotton has nothing whatever to do with our doubts. If abolition
does follow with your victory, the whole world will look brighter in my
eyes, and in many eyes. It would be a great gain even to stop the spread of
slavery into the Territories; if that be possible without abolition, which I
should have doubted. You ought not to wonder so much at England's
coldness, when you recollect at the commencement of the war how many
propositions were made to get things back to the old state with the old line
of latitude, but enough of this, all I can say is that Massachusetts and the
adjoining States have the full sympathy of every good man whom I see; and
this sympathy would be extended to the whole Federal States, if we could
be persuaded that your feelings were at all common to them. But enough of
this. It is out of my line, though I read every word of news, and formerly
well studied Olmsted...
Your question what would convince me of Design is a poser. If I saw an
angel come down to teach us good, and I was convinced from others seeing
him that I was not mad, I should believe in design. If I could be convinced
thoroughly that life and mind was in an unknown way a function of other
imponderable force, I should be convinced. If man was made of brass or
iron and no way connected with any other organism which had ever lived, I
should perhaps be convinced. But this is childish writing.
I have lately been corresponding with Lyell, who, I think, adopts your
idea of the stream of variation having been led or designed. I have asked
him (and he says he will hereafter reflect and answer me) whether he
believes that the shape of my nose was designed. If he does I have nothing
more to say. If not, seeing what Fanciers have done by selecting individual
differences in the nasal bones of pigeons, I must think that it is illogical to
suppose that the variations, which natural selection preserves for the good
of any being have been designed. But I know that I am in the same sort of
muddle (as I have said before) as all the world seems to be in with respect
to free will, yet with everything supposed to have been foreseen or pre-
ordained.
Farewell, my dear Gray, with many thanks for your interesting letter.
Your unmerciful correspondent. C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO H.W. BATES. Down, December 3 [1861].
My dear Sir,
I thank you for your extremely interesting letter, and valuable references,
though God knows when I shall come again to this part of my subject. One
cannot of course judge of style when one merely hears a paper (On Mimetic
Butterflies, read before the Linnean Soc., November 21, 1861. For my
father's opinion of it when published, see below.), but yours seemed to me
very clear and good. Believe me that I estimate its value most highly. Under
a general point of view, I am quite convinced (Hooker and Huxley took the
same view some months ago) that a philosophic view of nature can solely
be driven into naturalists by treating special subjects as you have done.
Under a special point of view, I think you have solved one of the most
perplexing problems which could be given to solve. I am glad to hear from
Hooker that the Linnean Society will give plates if you can get drawings...
Do not complain of want of advice during your travels; I dare say part of
your great originality of views may be due to the necessity of sel-exertion
of thought. I can understand that your reception at the British Museum
would damp you; they are a very good set of men, but not the sort to
appreciate your work. In fact I have long thought that TOO MUCH
systematic work [and] description somehow blunts the faculties. The
general public appreciates a good dose of reasoning, or generalisation, with
new and curious remarks on habits, final causes, etc. etc., far more than do
the regular naturalists.
I am extremely glad to hear that you have begun your travels... I am very
busy, but I shall be TRULY glad to render any aid which I can by reading
your first chapter or two. I do not think I shall be able to correct style, for
this reason, that after repeated trials I find I cannot correct my own style till
I see the MS. in type. Some are born with a power of good writing, like
Wallace; others like myself and Lyell have to labour very hard and slowly at
every sentence. I find it a very good plan, when I cannot get a difficult
discussion to please me, to fancy that some one comes into the room and
asks me what I am doing; and then try at once and explain to the imaginary
person what it is all about. I have done this for one paragraph to myself
several times, and sometimes to Mrs. Darwin, till I see how the subject
ought to go. It is, I think, good to read one's MS. aloud. But style to me is a

great difficulty; yet some good judges think I have succeeded, and I say this
to encourage you.
What I THINK I can do will be to tell you whether parts had better be
shortened. It is good, I think, to dash "in media res," and work in later any
descriptions of country or any historical details which may be necessary.
Murray likes lots of wood-cuts—give some by all means of ants. The public
appreciate monkeys—our poor cousins. What sexual differences are there in
monkeys? Have you kept them tame? if so, about their expression. I fear
that you will hardly read my vile hand-writing, but I cannot without killing
trouble write better.
You shall have my candid opinion on your MS., but remember it is hard
to judge from MS., one reads slowly, and heavy parts seem much heavier. A
first-rate judge thought my Journal very poor; now that it is in print, I
happen to know, he likes it. I am sure you will understand why I am so
egotistical.
I was a LITTLE disappointed in Wallace's book ('Travels on the Amazon
and Rio Negro,' 1853.) on the Amazon; hardly facts enough. On the other
hand, in Gosse's book (Probably the 'Naturalist's Sojourn in Jamaica,' 1851.)
there is not reasoning enough to my taste. Heaven knows whether you will
care to read all this scribbling...
I am glad you had a pleasant day with Hooker (In a letter to Sir J.D.
Hooker (December 1861), my father wrote: "I am very glad to hear that you
like Bates. I have seldom in my life been more struck with a man's power of
mind."), he is an admirably good man in every sense.
[The following extract from a letter to Mr. Bates on the same subject is
interesting as giving an idea of the plan followed by my father in writing his
'Naturalist's Voyage:'
"As an old hackneyed author, let me give you a bit of advice, viz. to
strike out every word which is not quite necessary to the current subject,
and which could not interest a stranger. I constantly asked myself, would a
stranger care for this? and struck out or left in accordingly. I think too much
pains cannot be taken in making the style transparently clear and throwing
eloquence to the dogs."
Mr. Bates's book, 'The Naturalist on the Amazons,' was published in
1865, but the following letter may be given here rather than in its due
chronological position:]

CHARLES DARWIN TO H.W. BATES. Down, April 18, 1863.
Dear Bates,
I have finished volume i. My criticisms may be condensed into a single
sentence, namely, that it is the best work of Natural History Travels ever
published in England. Your style seems to me admirable. Nothing can be
better than the discussion on the struggle for existence, and nothing better
than the description of the Forest scenery. (In a letter to Lyell my father
wrote: "He [i.e. Mr. Bates] is second only to Humboldt in describing a
tropical forest.") It is a grand book, and whether or not it sells quickly, it
will last. You have spoken out boldly on Species; and boldness on the
subject seems to get rarer and rarer. How beautifully illustrated it is. The cut
on the back is most tasteful. I heartily congratulate you on its publication.
The "Athenaeum" ("I have read the first volume of Bates's Book; it is
capital, and I think the best Natural History Travels ever published in
England. He is bold about Species, etc., and the "Athenaeum" coolly says
'he bends his facts' for this purpose."—(From a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker.))
was rather cold, as it always is, and insolent in the highest degree about
your leading facts. Have you seen the "Reader"? I can send it to you if you
have not seen it...

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, December 11 [1861].
My dear Gray,
Many and cordial thanks for your two last most valuable notes. What a
thing it is that when you receive this we may be at war, and we two be
bound, as good patriots, to hate each other, though I shall find this hating
you very hard work. How curious it is to see two countries, just like two
angry and silly men, taking so opposite a view of the same transaction! I
fear there is no shadow of doubt we shall fight if the two Southern rogues
are not given up. (The Confederate Commissioners Slidell and Mason were
forcibly removed from the "Trent", a West India mail steamer on November
8, 1861. The news that the U.S. agreed to release them reached England on
January 8, 1862.) And what a wretched thing it will be if we fight on the
side of slavery. No doubt it will be said that we fight to get cotton; but I

fully believe that this has not entered into the motive in the least. Well,
thank Heaven, we private individuals have nothing to do with so awful a
responsibility. Again, how curious it is that you seem to think that you can
conquer the South; and I never meet a soul, even those who would most
wish it, who thinks it possible—that is, to conquer and retain it. I do not
suppose the mass of people in your country will believe it, but I feel sure if
we do go to war it will be with the utmost reluctance by all classes,
Ministers of Government and all. Time will show, and it is no use writing or
thinking about it. I called the other day on Dr. Boott, and was pleased to
find him pretty well and cheerful. I see, by the way, he takes quite an
English opinion of American affairs, though an American in heart. (Dr.
Boott was born in the U.S.) Buckle might write a chapter on opinion being
entirely dependent on longitude!
... With respect to Design, I feel more inclined to show a white flag than
to fire my usual long-range shot. I like to try and ask you a puzzling
question, but when you return the compliment I have great doubts whether
it is a fair way of arguing. If anything is designed, certainly man must be:
one's "inner consciousness" (though a false guide) tells one so; yet I cannot
admit that man's rudimentary mammae... were designed. If I was to say I
believed this, I should believe it in the same incredible manner as the
orthodox believe the Trinity in Unity. You say that you are in a haze; I am in
thick mud; the orthodox would say in fetid, abominable mud; yet I cannot
keep out of the question. My dear Gray, I have written a deal of nonsense.
Yours most cordially, C. DARWIN.
1862.
[Owing to the illness from scarlet fever of one of his boys, he took a
house at Bournemouth in the autumn. He wrote to Dr. Gray from
Southampton (August 21, 1862):—
"We are a wretched family, and ought to be exterminated. We slept here
to rest our poor boy on his journey to Bournemouth, and my poor dear wife
sickened with scarlet fever, and has had it pretty sharply, but is recovering
well. There is no end of trouble in this weary world. I shall not feel safe till
we are all at home together, and when that will be I know not. But it is
foolish complaining."
Dr. Gray used to send postage stamps to the scarlet fever patient; with
regard to this good-natured deed my father wrote—

"I must just recur to stamps; my little man has calculated that he will now
have 6 stamps which no other boy in the school has. Here is a triumph. Your
last letter was plaistered with many coloured stamps, and he long surveyed
the envelope in bed with much quiet satisfaction."
The greater number of the letters of 1862 deal with the Orchid work, but
the wave of conversion to Evolution was still spreading, and reviews and
letters bearing on the subject still came in numbers. As an example of the
odd letters he received may be mentioned one which arrived in January of
this year "from a German homoeopathic doctor, an ardent admirer of the
'Origin.' Had himself published nearly the same sort of book, but goes much
deeper. Explains the origin of plants and animals on the principles of
homoeopathy or by the law of spirality. Book fell dead in Germany.
Therefore would I translate it and publish it in England."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, [January?] 14 [1862].
My dear Huxley,
I am heartily glad of your success in the North (This refers to two of Mr.
Huxley's lectures, given before the Philosophical Institution of Edinburgh in
1862. The substance of them is given in 'Man's Place in Nature.'), and thank
you for your note and slip. By Jove you have attacked Bigotry in its
stronghold. I thought you would have been mobbed. I am so glad that you
will publish your Lectures. You seem to have kept a due medium between
extreme boldness and caution. I am heartily glad that all went off so well. I
hope Mrs. Huxley is pretty well... I must say one word on the Hybrid
question. No doubt you are right that here is a great hiatus in the argument;
yet I think you overrate it—you never allude to the excellent evidence of
VARIETIES of Verbascum and Nicotiana being partially sterile together. It
is curious to me to read (as I have to-day) the greatest crossing
GARDENER utterly pooh-poohing the distinction which BOTANISTS
make on this head, and insisting how frequently crossed VARIETIES
produce sterile offspring. Do oblige me by reading the latter half of my
Primula paper in the 'Linn. Journal,' for it leads me to suspect that sterility
will hereafter have to be largely viewed as an acquired or SELECTED
character—a view which I wish I had had facts to maintain in the 'Origin.'

(The view here given will be discussed in the chapter on hetero-styled
plants.)

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 25 [1862].
My dear Hooker,
Many thanks for your last Sunday's letter, which was one of the
pleasantest I ever received in my life. We are all pretty well redivivus, and I
am at work again. I thought it best to make a clean breast to Asa Gray; and
told him that the Boston dinner, etc. etc., had quite turned my stomach, and
that I almost thought it would be good for the peace of the world if the
United States were split up; on the other hand, I said that I groaned to think
of the slave-holders being triumphant, and that the difficulties of making a
line of separation were fearful. I wonder what he will say... Your notion of
the Aristocrat being kenspeckle, and the best men of a good lot being thus
easily selected is new to me, and striking. The 'Origin' having made you in
fact a jolly old Tory, made us all laugh heartily. I have sometimes
speculated on this subject; primogeniture (My father had a strong feeling as
to the injustice of primogeniture, and in a similar spirit was often indignant
over the unfair wills that appear from time to time. He would declare
energetically that if he were law-giver no will should be valid that was not
published in the testator's lifetime; and this he maintained would prevent
much of the monstrous injustice and meanness apparent in so many wills.)
is dreadfully opposed to selection; suppose the first-born bull was
necessarily made by each farmer the begetter of his stock! On the other
hand, as you say, ablest men are continually raised to the peerage, and get
crossed with the older Lord-breeds, and the Lords continually select the
most beautiful and charming women out of the lower ranks; so that a good
deal of indirect selection improves the Lords. Certainly I agree with you the
present American row has a very Torifying influence on us all. I am very
glad to hear you are beginning to print the 'Genera;' it is a wonderful
satisfaction to be thus brought to bed, indeed it is one's chief satisfaction, I
think, though one knows that another bantling will soon be developing...

CHARLES DARWIN TO MAXWELL MASTERS. (Dr. Masters is a well-

known vegetable teratologist, and has been for many years the editor of the
"Gardeners' Chronicle".) Down, February 26 [1862].
My dear Sir,
I am much obliged to you for sending me your article (Refers to a paper
on "Vegetable Morphology," by Dr. Masters, in the 'British and Foreign
Medic-Chirurgical Review' for 1862), which I have just read with much
interest. The history, and a good deal besides, was quite new to me. It seems
to me capitally done, and so clearly written. You really ought to write your
larger work. You speak too generously of my book; but I must confess that
you have pleased me not a little; for no one, as far as I know, has ever
remarked on what I say on classification—a part, which when I wrote it,
pleased me. With many thanks to you for sending me your article, pray
believe me,
My dear Sir, yours sincerely, C. DARWIN.
[In the spring of this year (1862) my father read the second volume of
Buckle's 'History of Civilisation." The following strongly expressed opinion
about it may be worth quoting:—
"Have you read Buckle's second volume? It has interested me greatly; I
do not care whether his views are right or wrong, but I should think they
contained much truth. There is a noble love of advancement and truth
throughout; and to my taste he is the very best writer of the English
language that ever lived, let the other be who he may."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, March 15 [1862].
My dear Gray,
Thanks for the newspapers (though they did contain digs at England),
and for your note of February 18th. It is really almost a pleasure to receive
stabs from so smooth, polished, and sharp a dagger as your pen. I heartily
wish I could sympathise more fully with you, instead of merely hating the
South. We cannot enter into your feelings; if Scotland were to rebel, I
presume we should be very wrath, but I do not think we should care a
penny what other nations thought. The millennium must come before
nations love each other; but try and do not hate me. Think of me, if you will

as a poor blinded fool. I fear the dreadful state of affairs must dull your
interest in Science...
I believe that your pamphlet has done my book GREAT good; and I
thank you from my heart for myself; and believing that the views are in
large part true, I must think that you have done natural science a good turn.
Natural Selection seems to be making a little progress in England and on
the Continent; a new German edition is called for, and a French (In June,
1862, my father wrote to Dr. Gray: "I received, 2 or 3 days ago, a French
translation of the 'Origin,' by a Madlle. Royer, who must be one of the
cleverest and oddest women in Europe: is an ardent Deist, and hates
Christianity, and declares that natural selection and the struggle for life will
explain all morality, nature of man, politics, etc. etc.! She makes some very
curious and good hits, and says she shall publish a book on these subjects."
Madlle. Royer added foot-notes to her translation, and in many places
where the author expresses great doubt, she explains the difficulty, or points
out that no real difficulty exists.) one has just appeared. One of the best
men, though at present unknown, who has taken up these views, is Mr.
Bates; pray read his 'Travels in Amazonia,' when they appear; they will be
very good, judging from MS. of the first two chapters.
... Again I say, do not hate me.
Ever yours most truly, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. 1 Carlton Terrace, Southampton (The
house of his son William.), August 22, [1862].
... I heartily hope that you (I.e. 'The Antiquity of Man.') will be out in
October... you say that the Bishop and Owen will be down on you; the latter
hardly can, for I was assured that Owen in his Lectures this spring advanced
as a new idea that wingless birds had lost their wings by disuse, also that
magpies stole spoons, etc., from a REMNANT of some instinct like that of
the Bower-Bird, which ornaments its playing-passage with pretty feathers.
Indeed, I am told that he hinted plainly that all birds are descended from
one...
Your P.S. touches on, as it seems to me, very difficult points. I am glad to
see [that] in the 'Origin,' I only say that the naturalists generally consider
that low organisms vary more than high; and this I think certainly is the

general opinion. I put the statement this way to show that I considered it
only an opinion probably true. I must own that I do not at all trust even
Hooker's contrary opinion, as I feel pretty sure that he has not tabulated any
result. I have some materials at home, I think I attempted to make this point
out, but cannot remember the result.
Mere variability, though the necessary foundation of all modifications, I
believe to be almost always present, enough to allow of any amount of
selected change; so that it does not seem to me at all incompatible that a
group which at any one period (or during all successive periods) varies less,
should in the long course of time have undergone more modification than a
group which is generally more variable.
Placental animals, e.g. might be at each period less variable than
Marsupials, and nevertheless have undergone more DIFFERENTIATION
and development than marsupials, owing to some advantage, probably brain
development.
I am surprised, but do not pretend to form an opinion at Hooker's
statement that higher species, genera, etc., are best limited. It seems to me a
bold statement.
Looking to the 'Origin,' I see that I state that the productions of the land
seem to change quicker than those of the sea (Chapter X., page 339, 3d
edition), and I add there is some reason to believe that organisms
considered high in the scale change quicker than those that are low. I
remember writing these sentences after much deliberation... I remember
well feeling much hesitation about putting in even the guarded sentences
which I did. My doubts, I remember, related to the rate of change of the
Radiata in the Secondary formation, and of the Foraminifera in the oldest
Tertiary beds...
Good night, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, October 1 [1862].
... I found here (On his return from Bournemouth.) a short and very kind
note of Falconer, with some pages of his 'Elephant Memoir,' which will be
published, in which he treats admirably on long persistence of type. I
thought he was going to make a good and crushing attack on me, but to my
great satisfaction, he ends by pointing out a loophole, and adds (Falconer,

"On the American Fossil Elephant," in the 'Nat. Hist. Review,' 1863, page
81. The words preceding those cited by my father make the meaning of his
quotation clearer. The passage begins as follows: "The inferences which I
draw from these facts are not opposed to one of the leading propositions of
Darwin's theory. With him," etc. etc.) "with him I have no faith that the
mammoth and other extinct elephants made their appearance suddenly...
The most rational view seems to be that they are the modified descendants
of earlier progenitors, etc." This is capital. There will not be soon one good
palaeontologist who believes in immutability. Falconer does not allow for
the Proboscidean group being a failing one, and therefore not likely to be
giving off new races.
He adds that he does not think Natural Selection suffices. I do not quite
see the force of his argument, and he apparently overlooks that I say over
and over again that Natural Selection can do nothing without variability,
and that variability is subject to the most complex fixed laws...
[In his letters to Sir J.D. Hooker, about the end of this year, are
occasional notes on the progress of the 'Variation of Animals and Plants.'
Thus on November 24th he wrote: "I hardly know why I am a little sorry,
but my present work is leading me to believe rather more in the direct
action of physical conditions. I presume I regret it, because it lessens the
glory of natural selection, and is so confoundedly doubtful. Perhaps I shall
change again when I get all my facts under one point of view, and a pretty
hard job this will be."
Again, on December 22nd, "To-day I have begun to think of arranging
my concluding chapters on Inheritance, Reversion, Selection, and such
things, and am fairly paralyzed how to begin and how to end, and what to
do, with my huge piles of materials."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, November 6 [1862].
My dear Gray,
When your note of October 4th and 13th (chiefly about Max Muller)
arrived, I was nearly at the end of the same book ('Lectures on the Science
of Language,' 1st edition 1861.), and had intended recommending you to
read it. I quite agree that it is extremely interesting, but the latter part about
the FIRST origin of language much the least satisfactory. It is a marvellous

problem...[There are] covert sneers at me, which he seems to get the better
of towards the close of the book. I cannot quite see how it will forward "my
cause," as you call it; but I can see how any one with literary talent (I do not
feel up to it) could make great use of the subject in illustration. (Language
was treated in the manner here indicated by Sir C. Lyell in the 'Antiquity of
Man.' Also by Prof. Schleicher, whose pamphlet was fully noticed in the
"Reader", February 27, 1864 (as I learn from one of Prof. Huxley's 'Lay
Sermons').) What pretty metaphors you would make from it! I wish some
one would keep a lot of the most noisy monkeys, half free, and study their
means of communication!
A book has just appeared here which will, I suppose, make a noise, by
Bishop Colenso ('The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua critically examined,'
six parts, 1862-71.), who, judging from extracts, smashes most of the Old
testament. Talking of books, I am in the middle of one which pleases me,
though it is very innocent food, viz., Miss Coopers 'Journal of a Naturalist.'
Who is she? She seems a very clever woman, and gives a capital account of
the battle between OUR and YOUR weeds. Does it not hurt your Yankee
pride that we thrash you so confoundedly? I am sure Mrs. Gray will stick up
for your own weeds. Ask her whether they are not more honest, downright
good sort of weeds. The book gives an extremely pretty picture of one of
your villages; but I see your autumn, though so much more gorgeous than
ours, comes on sooner, and that is one comfort...

CHARLES DARWIN TO H.W. BATES. Down, November 20 [1862].
Dear Bates,
I have just finished, after several reads, your paper. (This refers to Mr.
Bates's paper, "Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the Amazons Valley"
('Linn. Soc. Trans.' xxiii., 1862), in which the now familiar subject of
mimicry was founded. My father wrote a short review of it in the 'Natural
History Review,' 1863, page 219, parts of which occur in this review almost
verbatim in the later editions of the 'Origin of Species.' A striking passage
occurs showing the difficulties of the case from a creationist's point of
view:—
"By what means, it may be asked, have so many butterflies of the
Amazonian region acquired their deceptive dress? Most naturalists will

answer that they were thus clothed from the hour of their creation—an
answer which will generally be so far triumphant that it can be met only by
long-drawn arguments; but it is made at the expense of putting an effectual
bar to all further enquiry. In this particular case, moreover, the creationist
will meet with special difficulties; for many of the mimicking forms of
Leptalis can be shown by a graduated series to be merely varieties of one
species; other mimickers are undoubtedly distinct species, or even distinct
genera. So again, some of the mimicked forms can be shown to be merely
varieties; but the greater number must be ranked as distinct species. Hence
the creationist will have to admit that some of these forms have become
imitators, by means of the laws of variation, whilst others he must look at as
separately created under their present guise; he will further have to admit
that some have been created in imitation of forms not themselves created as
we now see them, but due to the laws of variation? Prof. Agassiz, indeed,
would think nothing of this difficulty; for he believes that not only each
species and each variety, but that groups of individuals, though identically
the same, when inhabiting distinct countries, have been all separately
created in due proportional numbers to the wants of each land. Not many
naturalists will be content thus to believe that varieties and individuals have
been turned out all ready made, almost as a manufacturer turns out toys
according to the temporary demand of the market.") In my opinion it is one
of the most remarkable and admirable papers I ever read in my life. The
mimetic cases are truly marvellous, and you connect excellently a host of
analogous facts. The illustrations are beautiful, and seem very well chosen;
but it would have saved the reader not a little trouble, if the name of each
had been engraved below each separate figure. No doubt this would have
put the engraver into fits, as it would have destroyed the beauty of the plate.
I am not at all surprised at such a paper having consumed much time. I am
rejoiced that I passed over the whole subject in the 'Origin,' for I should
have made a precious mess of it. You have most clearly stated and solved a
wonderful problem. No doubt with most people this will be the cream of the
paper; but I am not sure that all your facts and reasonings on variation, and
on the segregation of complete and semi-complete species, is not really
more, or at least as valuable, a part. I never conceived the process nearly so
clearly before; one feels present at the creation of new forms. I wish,
however, you had enlarged a little more on the pairing of similar varieties; a
rather more numerous body of facts seems here wanted. Then, again, what a

host of curious miscellaneous observations there are—as on related sexual
and individual variability: these will some day, if I live, be a treasure to me.
With respect to mimetic resemblance being so common with insects, do
you not think it may be connected with their small size; they cannot defend
themselves; they cannot escape by flight, at least, from birds, therefore they
escape by trickery and deception?
I have one serious criticism to make, and that is about the title of the
paper; I cannot but think that you ought to have called prominent attention
in it to the mimetic resemblances. Your paper is too good to be largely
appreciated by the mob of naturalists without souls; but, rely on it, that it
will have LASTING value, and I cordially congratulate you on your first
great work. You will find, I should think, that Wallace will fully appreciate
it. How gets on your book? Keep your spirits up. A book is no light labour. I
have been better lately, and working hard, but my health is very indifferent.
How is your health? Believe me, dear Bates,
Yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN.

CHAPTER 2.IV. — THE SPREAD OF
EVOLUTION.
'VARIATION OF ANIMALS AND PLANTS'

1863-1866.
[His book on animals and plants under domestication was my father's
chief employment in the year 1863. His diary records the length of time
spent over the composition of its chapters, and shows the rate at which he
arranged and wrote out for printing the observations and deductions of
several years.
The three chapters in volume ii. on inheritance, which occupy 84 pages
of print, were begun in January and finished on April 1st; the five on
crossing, making 106 pages, were written in eight weeks, while the two
chapters on selection, covering 57 pages, were begun on June 16th and
finished on July 20th.
The work was more than once interrupted by ill health, and in September,
what proved to be the beginning of a six month's illness, forced him to leave
home for the water-cure at Malvern. He returned in October and remained
ill and depressed, in spite of the hopeful opinion of one of the most cheery
and skilful physicians of the day. Thus he wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker in
November:—
"Dr. Brinton has been here (recommended by Busk); he does not believe
my brain or heart are primarily affected, but I have been so steadily going
down hill, I cannot help doubting whether I can ever crawl a little uphill
again. Unless I can, enough to work a little, I hope my life may be very
short, for to lie on a sofa all day and do nothing but give trouble to the best
and kindest of wives and good dear children is dreadful."
The minor works in this year were a short paper in the 'Natural History
Review' (N.S. vol. iii. page 115), entitled "On the so-called 'Auditor-Sac' of
Cirripedes," and one in the 'Geological Society's Journal' (vol. xix), on the
"Thickness of the Pampaean Formation near Buenos Ayres." The paper on
Cirripedes was called forth by the criticisms of a German naturalist Krohn

(Krohn stated that the structures described by my father as ovaries were in
reality salivary glands, also that the oviduct runs down to the orifice
described in the 'Monograph of the Cirripedia' as the auditory meatus.), and
is of some interest in illustration of my father's readiness to admit an error.
With regard to the spread of a belief in Evolution, it could not yet be said
that the battle was won, but the growth of belief was undoubtedly rapid. So
that, for instance, Charles Kingsley could write to F.D. Maurice (Kingsley's
'Life,' ii, page 171.):
"The state of the scientific mind is most curious; Darwin is conquering
everywhere, and rushing in like a flood, by the mere force of truth and
fact."
Mr. Huxley was as usual active in guiding and stimulating the growing
tendency to tolerate or accept the views set forth in the 'Origin of Species.'
He gave a series of lectures to working men at the School of Mines in
November, 1862. These were printed in 1863 from the shorthand notes of
Mr. May, as six little blue books, price 4 pence each, under the title, 'Our
Knowledge of the Causes of Organic Nature.' When published they were
read with interest by my father, who thus refers to them in a letter to Sir
J.D. Hooker:—
"I am very glad you like Huxley's lectures. I have been very much struck
with them, especially with the 'Philosophy of Induction.' I have quarrelled
with him for overdoing sterility and ignoring cases from Gartner and
Kolreuter about sterile varieties. His Geology is obscure; and I rather doubt
about man's mind and language. But it seems to me ADMIRABLY done,
and, as you say, "Oh my," about the praise of the 'Origin.' I can't help liking
it, which makes me rather ashamed of myself."
My father admired the clearness of exposition shown in the lectures, and
in the following letter urges their author to make use of his powers for the
advantage of students:]

CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. November 5 [1864].
I want to make a suggestion to you, but which may probably have
occurred to you. — was reading your Lectures and ended by saying, "I wish
he would write a book." I answered, "he has just written a great book on the
skull." "I don't call that a book," she replied, and added, "I want something

that people can read; he does write so well." Now, with your ease in writing,
and with knowledge at your fingers' ends, do you not think you could write
a popular Treatise on Zoology? Of course it would be some waste of time,
but I have been asked more than a dozen times to recommend something for
a beginner and could only think of Carpenter's Zoology. I am sure that a
striking Treatise would do real service to science by educating naturalists. If
you were to keep a portfolio open for a couple of years, and throw in slips
of paper as subjects crossed your mind, you would soon have a skeleton
(and that seems to me the difficulty) on which to put the flesh and colours
in your inimitable manner. I believe such a book might have a brilliant
success, but I did not intend to scribble so much about it.
Give my kindest remembrance to Mrs. Huxley, and tell her I was looking
at 'Enoch Arden,' and as I know how she admires Tennyson, I must call her
attention to two sweetly pretty lines (page 105)...
... and he meant, he said he meant, Perhaps he meant, or partly meant,
you well.
Such a gem as this is enough to make me young again, and like poetry
with pristine fervour.
My dear Huxley, Yours affectionately, CH. DARWIN.
[In another letter (January 1865) he returns to the above suggestion,
though he was in general strongly opposed to men of science giving up to
the writing of text-books, or to teaching, the time that might otherwise have
been given to original research.
"I knew there was very little chance of your having time to write a
popular Treatise on Zoology, but you are about the one man who could do
it. At the time I felt it would be almost a sin for you to do it, as it would of
course destroy some original work. On the other hand I sometimes think
that general and popular treatises are almost as important for the progress of
science as original work."
The series of letters will continue the history of the year 1863.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 3 [1863].
My dear Hooker,

I am burning with indignation and must exhale... I could not get to sleep
till past 3 last night for indignation (It would serve no useful purpose if I
were to go into the matter which so strongly roused my father's anger. It
was a question of literary dishonesty, in which a friend was the sufferer, but
which in no way affected himself.)...
Now for pleasanter subjects; we were all amused at your defence of
stamp collecting and collecting generally... But, by Jove, I can hardly
stomach a grown man collecting stamps. Who would ever have thought of
your collecting Wedgwoodware! but that is wholly different, like
engravings or pictures. We are degenerate descendants of old Josiah W., for
we have not a bit of pretty ware in the house.
... Notwithstanding the very pleasant reason you give for our not
enjoying a holiday, namely, that we have no vices, it is a horrid bore. I have
been trying for health's sake to be idle, with no success. What I shall now
have to do, will be to erect a tablet in Down Church, "Sacred to the
Memory, etc.," and officially die, and then publish books, "by the late
Charles Darwin," for I cannot think what has come over me of late; I
always suffered from the excitement of talking, but now it has become
ludicrous. I talked lately 1 1/2 hours (broken by tea by myself) with my
nephew, and I was [ill] half the night. It is a fearful evil for self and family.
Good-night. Ever yours. C. DARWIN.
[The following letter to Sir Julius von Haast (Sir Julius von Haast was a
German by birth, but had long been resident in New Zealand. He was, in
1862, Government Geologist to the Province of Canterbury.), is an example
of the sympathy which he felt with the spread and growth of science in the
colonies. It was a feeling not expressed once only, but was frequently
present in his mind, and often found utterance. When we, at Cambridge, had
the satisfaction of receiving Sir J. von Haast into our body as a Doctor of
Science (July 1886), I had the opportunity of hearing from him of the vivid
pleasure which this, and other letters from my father, gave him. It was
pleasant to see how strong had been the impression made by my father's
warm-hearted sympathy—an impression which seemed, after more than
twenty years, to be as fresh as when it was first received:]

CHARLES DARWIN TO JULIUS VON HAAST. Down, January 22
[1863].
Dear Sir,
I thank you most sincerely for sending me your Address and the
Geological Report. (Address to the 'Philosophical Institute of Canterbury
(N.Z.).' The "Report" is given in "The New Zealand Government Gazette,
Province of Canterbury", October 1862.) I have seldom in my life read
anything more spirited and interesting than your address. The progress of
your colony makes one proud, and it is really admirable to see a scientific
institution founded in so young a nation. I thank you for the very
honourable notice of my 'Origin of Species.' You will easily believe how
much I have been interested by your striking facts on the old glacial period,
and I suppose the world might be searched in vain for so grand a display of
terraces. You have, indeed, a noble field for scientific research and
discovery. I have been extremely much interested by what you say about the
tracks of supposed [living] mammalia. Might I ask, if you succeed in
discovering what the creatures are, you would have the great kindness to
inform me? Perhaps they may turn out something like the Solenhofen bird
creature, with its long tail and fingers, with claws to its wings! I may
mention that in South America, in completely uninhabited regions, I found
spring rat-traps, baited with CHEESE, were very successful in catching the
smaller mammals. I would venture to suggest to you to urge on some of the
capable members of your institution to observe annually the rate and
manner of spreading of European weeds and insects, and especially to
observe WHAT NATIVE PLANTS MOST FAIL; this latter point has never
been attended to. Do the introduced hive-bees replace any other insect? etc.
All such points are, in my opinion, great desiderata in science. What an
interesting discovery that of the remains of prehistoric man!
Believe me, dear Sir, With the most cordial respect and thanks, Yours
very faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO CAMILLE DARESTE. (Professor Dareste is a
well-known worker in Animal Teratology. He was in 1863 living at Lille,
but has since then been called to Paris. My father took a special interest in

Dareste's work on the production of monsters, as bearing on the causes of
variation.) Down, February 16 [1863].
Dear and respected Sir,
I thank you sincerely for your letter and your pamphlet. I had heard (I
think in one of M. Quatrefages' books) of your work, and was most anxious
to read it, but did not know where to find it. You could not have made me a
more valuable present. I have only just returned home, and have not yet
read your work; when I do if I wish to ask any questions I will venture to
trouble you. Your approbation of my book on Species has gratified me
extremely. Several naturalists in England, North America, and Germany,
have declared that their opinions on the subject have in some degree been
modified, but as far as I know, my book has produced no effect whatever in
France, and this makes me the more gratified by your very kind expression
of approbation. Pray believe me, dear Sir, with much respect,
Yours faithfully and obliged, CH. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 24 [1863].
My dear Hooker,
I am astonished at your note, I have not seen the "Athenaeum" (In the
'Antiquity of Man,' first edition, page 480, Lyell criticised somewhat
severely Owen's account of the difference between the Human and Simian
brains. The number of the "Athenaeum" here referred to (1863, page 262)
contains a reply by Professor Owen to Lyell's strictures. The surprise
expressed by my father was at the revival of a controversy which every one
believed to be closed. Prof. Huxley ("Medical Times", October 25, 1862,
quoted in 'Man's Place in Nature,' page 117) spoke of the "two years during
which this preposterous controversy has dragged its weary length." And this
no doubt expressed a very general feeling.) but I have sent for it, and may
get it to-morrow; and will then say what I think.
I have read Lyell's book. ['The Antiquity of Man.'] the whole certainty
struck me as a compilation, but of the highest class, for when possible the
facts have been verified on the spot, making it almost an original work. The
Glacial chapters seem to me best, and in parts magnificent. I could hardly
judge about Man, as all the gloss of novelty was completely worn off. But
certainly the aggregation of the evidence produced a very striking effect on

my mind. The chapter comparing language and changes of species, seems
most ingenious and interesting. He has shown great skill in picking out
salient points in the argument for change of species; but I am deeply
disappointed (I do not mean personally) to find that his timidity prevents
him giving any judgment... From all my communications with him I must
ever think that he has really entirely lost faith in the immutability of
species; and yet one of his strongest sentences is nearly as follows: "If it
should EVER (The italics are not Lyell's.) be rendered highly probable that
species change by variation and natural selection," etc., etc. I had hoped he
would have guided the public as far as his own belief went... One thing does
please me on this subject, that he seems to appreciate your work. No doubt
the public or a part may be induced to think that as he gives to us a larger
space than to Lamarck, he must think there is something in our views.
When reading the brain chapter, it struck me forcibly that if he had said
openly that he believed in change of species, and as a consequence that man
was derived from some Quadrumanous animal, it would have been very
proper to have discussed by compilation the differences in the most
important organ, viz. the brain. As it is, the chapter seems to me to come in
rather by the head and shoulders. I do not think (but then I am as prejudiced
as Falconer and Huxley, or more so) that it is too severe; it struck me as
given with judicial force. It might perhaps be said with truth that he had no
business to judge on a subject on which he knows nothing; but compilers
must do this to a certain extent. (You know I value and rank high compilers,
being one myself!) I have taken you at your word, and scribbled at great
length. If I get the "Athenaeum" to-morrow, I will add my impression of
Owen's letter.
... The Lyells are coming here on Sunday evening to stay till Wednesday.
I dread it, but I must say how much disappointed I am that he has not
spoken out on species, still less on man. And the best of the joke is that he
thinks he has acted with the courage of a martyr of old. I hope I may have
taken an exaggerated view of his timidity, and shall PARTICULARLY be
glad of your opinion on this head. (On this subject my father wrote to Sir
Joseph Hooker: "Cordial thanks for your deeply interesting letters about
Lyell, Owen, and Co. I cannot say how glad I am to hear that I have not
been unjust about the species-question towards Lyell. I feared I had been
unreasonable.") When I got his book I turned over the pages, and saw he
had discussed the subject of species, and said that I thought he would do

more to convert the public than all of us, and now (which makes the case
worse for me) I must, in common honesty, retract. I wish to Heaven he had
said not a word on the subject.
WEDNESDAY MORNING:
I have read the "Athenaeum". I do not think Lyell will be nearly so much
annoyed as you expect. The concluding sentence is no doubt very stinging.
No one but a good anatomist could unravel Owen's letter; at least it is quite
beyond me.
... Lyell's memory plays him false when he says all anatomists were
astonished at Owen's paper ("On the Characters, etc., of the Class
Mammalia." 'Linn. Soc. Journal,' ii, 1858.); it was often quoted with
approbation. I WELL remember Lyell's admiration at this new
classification! (Do not repeat this.) I remember it, because, though I knew
nothing whatever about the brain, I felt a conviction that a classification
thus founded on a single character would break down, and it seemed to me
a great error not to separate more completely the Marsupialia...
What an accursed evil it is that there should be all this quarrelling within,
what ought to be, the peaceful realms of science. I will go to my own
present subject of inheritance and forget it all for a time. Farewell, my dear
old friend,
C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, February 23 [1863].
... If you have time to read you will be interested by parts of Lyell's book
on man; but I fear that the best part, about the Glacial period, may be too
geological for any one except a regular geologist. He quotes you at the end
with gusto. By the way, he told me the other day how pleased some had
been by hearing that they could purchase your pamphlet. The "Parthenon"
also speaks of it as the ablest contribution to the literature of the subject. It
delights me when I see your work appreciated.
The Lyells come here this day week, and I shall grumble at his excessive
caution... The public may well say, if such a man dare not or will not speak
out his mind, how can we who are ignorant form even a guess on the
subject? Lyell was pleased when I told him lately that you thought that

language might be used as an excellent illustration of derivation of species;
you will see that he has an ADMIRABLE chapter on this...
I read Cairns's excellent Lecture (Prof. J.E. Cairns, 'The Slave Power,
etc.: an attempt to explain the real issues involved in the American contest.'
1862.), which shows so well how your quarrel arose from Slavery. It made
me for a time wish honestly for the North; but I could never help, though I
tried, all the time thinking how we should be bullied and forced into a war
by you, when you were triumphant. But I do most truly think it dreadful
that the South, with its accursed slavery, should triumph, and spread the
evil. I think if I had power, which thank God, I have not, I would let you
conquer the border States, and all west of the Mississippi, and then force
you to acknowledge the cotton States. For do you not now begin to doubt
whether you can conquer and hold them? I have inflicted a long tirade on
you.
"The Times" is getting more detestable (but that is too weak a word) than
ever. My good wife wishes to give it up, but I tell her that is a pitch of
heroism to which only a woman is equal. To give up the "Bloody Old
'Times'," as Cobbett used to call it, would be to give up meat, drink and air.
Farewell, my dear Gray,
Yours most truly, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, March 6, [1863].
... I have been of course deeply interested by your book. ('Antiquity of
Man.') I have hardly any remarks worth sending, but will scribble a little on
what most interested me. But I will first get out what I hate saying, viz., that
I have been greatly disappointed that you have not given judgment and
spoken fairly out what you think about the derivation of species. I should
have been contented if you had boldly said that species have not been
separately created, and had thrown as much doubt as you like on how far
variation and natural selection suffices. I hope to Heaven I am wrong (and
from what you say about Whewell it seems so), but I cannot see how your
chapters can do more good than an extraordinary able review. I think the
"Parthenon" is right, that you will leave the public in a fog. No doubt they
may infer that as you give more space to myself, Wallace, and Hooker, than
to Lamarck, you think more of us. But I had always thought that your

judgment would have been an epoch in the subject. All that is over with me,
and I will only think on the admirable skill with which you have selected
the striking points, and explained them. No praise can be too strong, in my
opinion, for the inimitable chapter on language in comparison with species.
(After speculating on the sudden appearance of individuals far above the
average of the human race, Lyell asks if such leaps upwards in the scale of
intellect may not "have cleared at one bound the space which separated the
higher stage of the unprogressive intelligence of the inferior animals from
the first and lowest form of improvable reason manifested by man.") page
505—A sentence at the top of the page makes me groan...
I know you will forgive me for writing with perfect freedom, for you
must know how deeply I respect you as my old honoured guide and master.
I heartily hope and expect that your book will have gigantic circulation and
may do in many ways as much good as it ought to do. I am tired, so no
more. I have written so briefly that you will have to guess my meaning. I
fear my remarks are hardly worth sending. Farewell, with kindest
remembrance to Lady Lyell.
Ever yours, C. DARWIN.
[Mr. Huxley has quoted (vol. i. page 546) some passages from Lyell's
letters which show his state of mind at this time. The following passage,
from a letter of March 11th to my father, is also of much interest:—
"My feelings, however, more than any thought about policy or
expediency, prevent me from dogmatising as to the descent of man from the
brutes, which, though I am prepared to accept it, takes away much of the
charm from my speculations on the past relating to such matters... But you
ought to be satisfied, as I shall bring hundreds towards you who, if I treated
the matter more dogmatically, would have rebelled."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, 12 [March, 1863].
My dear Lyell,
I thank you for your very interesting and kind, I may say, charming letter.
I feared you might be huffed for a little time with me. I know some men
would have been so. I have hardly any more criticisms, anyhow, worth
writing. But I may mention that I felt a little surprise that old B. de Perthes

(1788-1868. See footnote below.) was not rather more honourably
mentioned. I would suggest whether you could not leave out some
references to the 'Principles;' one for the real student is as good as a
hundred, and it is rather irritating, and gives a feeling of incompleteness to
the general reader to be often referred to other books. As you say that you
have gone as far as you believe on the species question, I have not a word to
say; but I must feel convinced that at times, judging from conversation,
expressions, letters, etc., you have as completely given up belief in
immutability of specific forms as I have done. I must still think a clear
expression from you, IF YOU COULD HAVE GIVEN IT, would have been
potent with the public, and all the more so, as you formerly held opposite
opinions. The more I work the more satisfied I become with variation and
natural selection, but that part of the case I look at as less important, though
more interesting to me personally. As you ask for criticisms on this head
(and believe me that I should not have made them unasked), I may specify
(pages 412, 413) that such words as "Mr. D. labours to show," "is believed
by the author to throw light," would lead a common reader to think that you
yourself do NOT at all agree, but merely think it fair to give my opinion.
Lastly, you refer repeatedly to my view as a modification of Lamarck's
doctrine of development and progression. If this is your deliberate opinion
there is nothing to be said, but it does not seem so to me. Plato, Buffon, my
grandfather before Lamarck, and others, propounded the OBVIOUS views
that if species were not created separately they must have descended from
other species, and I can see nothing else in common between the 'Origin'
and Lamarck. I believe this way of putting the case is very injurious to its
acceptance, as it implies necessary progression, and closely connects
Wallace's and my views with what I consider, after two deliberate readings,
as a wretched book, and one from which (I well remember my surprise) I
gained nothing. But I know you rank it higher, which is curious, as it did
not in the least shake your belief. But enough, and more than enough.
Please remember you have brought it all down on yourself!!!
I am very sorry to hear about Falconer's "reclamation." ("Falconer, whom
I referred to oftener than to any other author, says I have not done justice to
the part he took in resuscitating the cave question, and says he shall come
out with a separate paper to prove it. I offered to alter anything in the new
edition, but this he declined.—C. Lyell to C. Darwin, March 11, 1863;

Lyell's 'Life,' vol. ii. page 364.) I hate the very word, and have a sincere
affection for him.
Did you ever read anything so wretched as the "Athenaeum" reviews of
you, and of Huxley ('Man's Place in Nature,' 1863.) especially. Your
OBJECT to make man old, and Huxley's OBJECT to degrade him. The
wretched writer has not a glimpse what the discovery of scientific truth
means. How splendid some pages are in Huxley, but I fear the book will not
be popular...

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [March 13, 1863].
I should have thanked you sooner for the "Athenaeum" and very pleasant
previous note, but I have been busy, and not a little uncomfortable from
frequent uneasy feeling of fullness, slight pain and tickling about the heart.
But as I have no other symptoms of heart complaint I do not suppose it is
affected... I have had a most kind and delightfully candid letter from Lyell,
who says he spoke out as far as he believes. I have no doubt his belief failed
him as he wrote, for I feel sure that at times he no more believed in Creation
than you or I. I have grumbled a bit in my answer to him at his ALWAYS
classing my work as a modification of Lamarck's, which it is no more than
any author who did not believe in immutability of species, and did believe
in descent. I am very sorry to hear from Lyell that Falconer is going to
publish a formal reclamation of his own claims...
It is cruel to think of it, but we must go to Malvern in the middle of April;
it is ruin to me. (He went to Hartfield in Sussex, on April 27, and to
Malvern in the autumn.)...

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, March 17 [1863].
My dear Lyell,
I have been much interested by your letters and enclosure, and thank you
sincerely for giving me so much time when you must be so busy. What a
curious letter from B. de P. [Boucher de Perthes]. He seems perfectly
satisfied, and must be a very amiable man. I know something about his
errors, and looked at his book many years ago, and am ashamed to think
that I concluded the whole was rubbish! Yet he has done for man something

like what Agassiz did for glaciers. (In his 'Antiquites Celtiques' (1847),
Boucher de Perthes described the flint tools found at Abbeville with bones
of rhinoceros, hyaena, etc. "But the scientific world had no faith in the
statement that works of art, however rude, had been met with in undisturbed
beds of such antiquity." ('Antiquity of Man,' first edition, page 95).)
I cannot say that I agree with Hooker about the public not liking to be
told what to conclude, IF COMING FROM ONE IN YOUR POSITION.
But I am heartily sorry that I was led to make complaints, or something
very like complaints, on the manner in which you have treated the subject,
and still more so anything about myself. I steadily ENDEAVOUR never to
forget my firm belief that no one can at all judge about his own work. As
for Lamarck, as you have such a man as Grove with you, you are
triumphant; not that I can alter my opinion that to me it was an absolutely
useless book. Perhaps this was owing to my always searching books for
facts, perhaps from knowing my grandfather's earlier and identically the
same speculation. I will only further say that if I can analyse my own
feelings (a very doubtful process), it is nearly as much for your sake as for
my own, that I so much wish that your state of belief could have permitted
you to say boldly and distinctly out that species were not separately created.
I have generally told you the progress of opinion, as I have heard it, on the
species question. A first-rate German naturalist (No doubt Haeckel, whose
monograph on the Radiolaria was published in 1862. In the same year
Professor W. Preyer of Jena published a dissertation on Alca impennis,
which was one of the earliest pieces of special work on the basis of the
'Origin of Species.') (I now forget the name!), who has lately published a
grand folio, has spoken out to the utmost extent on the 'Origin.' De
Candolle, in a very good paper on "Oaks," goes, in Asa Gray's opinion, as
far as he himself does; but De Candolle, in writing to me, says WE, "we
think this and that;" so that I infer he really goes to the full extent with me,
and tells me of a French good botanical palaeontologist (name forgotten)
(The Marquis de Saporta.), who writes to De Candolle that he is sure that
my views will ultimately prevail. But I did not intend to have written all
this. It satisfies me with the final results, but this result, I begin to see, will
take two or three lifetimes. The entomologists are enough to keep the
subject back for half a century. I really pity your having to balance the
claims of so many eager aspirants for notice; it is clearly impossible to
satisfy all... Certainly I was struck with the full and due honour you

conferred on Falconer. I have just had a note from Hooker... I am heartily
glad that you have made him so conspicuous; he is so honest, so candid,
and so modest...
I have read —. I could find nothing to lay hold of, which in one sense I
am very glad of, as I should hate a controversy; but in another sense I am
very sorry for, as I long to be in the same boat with all my friends... I am
heartily glad the book is going off so well.
Ever yours, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [March 29, 1863].
... Many thanks for "Athenaeum", received this morning, and to be
returned to-morrow morning. Who would have ever thought of the old
stupid "Athenaeum" taking to Oken-like transcendental philosophy written
in Owenian style! (This refers to a review of Dr. Carpenter's 'Introduction to
the study of Foraminifera,' that appeared in the "Athenaeum" of March 28,
1863 (page 417). The reviewer attacks Dr. Carpenter's views in as much as
they support the doctrine of Descent; and he upholds spontaneous
generation (Heterogeny) in place of what Dr. Carpenter, naturally enough,
believed in, viz. the genetic connection of living and extinct Foraminifera.
In the next number is a letter by Dr. Carpenter, which chiefly consists of a
protest against the reviewer's somewhat contemptuous classification of Dr.
Carpenter and my father as disciple and master. In the course of the letter
Dr. Carpenter says—page 461:—
"Under the influence of his foregone conclusion that I have accepted Mr.
Darwin as my master, and his hypothesis as my guide, your reviewer
represents me as blind to the significance of the general fact stated by me,
that 'there has been no advance in the foraminiferous type from the
palaeozoic period to the present time.' But for such a foregone conclusion
he would have recognised in this statement the expression of my conviction
that the present state of scientific evidence, instead of sanctioning the idea
that the descendants of the primitive type or types of Foraminifera can ever
rise to any higher grade, justifies the ANTI-DARWINIAN influence, that
however widely they diverge from each other and from their originals,
THEY STILL REMAIN FORAMINIFERA.")... It will be some time before
we see "slime, protoplasm, etc.," generating a new animal. (On the same

subject my father wrote in 1871: "It is often said that all the conditions for
the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever
have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in
some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts,
light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a proteine compound was
chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the
present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which
would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.") But I
have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the
Pentateuchal term of creation (This refers to a passage in which the
reviewer of Dr. Carpenter's books speaks of "an operation of force," or "a
concurrence of forces which have now no place in nature," as being, "a
creative force, in fact, which Darwin could only express in Pentateuchal
terms as the primordial form 'into which life was first breathed.'" The
conception of expressing a creative force as a primordial form is the
Reviewer's.), by which I really meant "appeared" by some wholly unknown
process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one
might as well think of the origin of matter.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Friday night [April 17,
1863].
My dear Hooker,
I have heard from Oliver that you will be now at Kew, and so I am going
to amuse myself by scribbling a bit. I hope you have thoroughly enjoyed
your tour. I never in my life saw anything like the spring flowers this year.
What a lot of interesting things have been lately published. I liked
extremely your review of De Candolle. What an awfully severe article that
by Falconer on Lyell ("Athenaeum", April 4, 1863, page 459. The writer
asserts that justice has not been done either to himself or Mr. Prestwich—
that Lyell has not made it clear that it was their original work which
supplied certain material for the 'Antiquity of Man.' Falconer attempts to
draw an unjust distinction between a "philosopher" (here used as a polite
word for compiler) like Sir Charles Lyell, and original observers,
presumably such as himself, and Mr. Prestwich. Lyell's reply was published
in the "Athenaeum", April 18, 1863. It ought to be mentioned that a letter

from Mr. Prestwich ("Athenaeum", page 555), which formed part of the
controversy, though of the nature of a reclamation, was written in a very
different spirit and tone from Dr. Falconer's.); I am very sorry for it; I think
Falconer on his side does not do justice to old Perthes and Schmerling... I
shall be very curious to see how he [Lyell] answers it t-morrow. (I have
been compelled to take in the "Athenaeum" for a while.) I am very sorry
that Falconer should have written so spitefully, even if there is some truth in
his accusations; I was rather disappointed in Carpenter's letter, no one could
have given a better answer, but the chief object of his letter seems to me to
be to show that though he has touched pitch he is not defiled. No one would
suppose he went so far as to believe all birds came from one progenitor. I
have written a letter to the "Athenaeum" ("Athenaeum", 1863, page 554:
"The view given by me on the origin or derivation of species, whatever its
weaknesses may be, connects (as has been candidly admitted by some of its
opponents, such as Pictet, Bronn, etc.), by an intelligible thread of
reasoning, a multitude of facts: such as the formation of domestic races by
man's selection,—the classification and affinities of all organic beings,—the
innumerable gradations in structure and instincts,—the similarity of pattern
in the hand, wing, or paddle of animals of the same great class,—the
existence of organs become rudimentary by disuse,—the similarity of an
embryonic reptile, bird, and mammal, with the retention of traces of an
apparatus fitted for aquatic respiration; the retention in the young calf of
incisor teeth in the upper jaw, etc.—the distribution of animals and plants,
and their mutual affinities within the same region,—their general geological
succession, and the close relationship of the fossils in closely consecutive
formations and within the same country; extinct marsupials having
preceded living marsupials in Australia, and armadillo-like animals having
preceded and generated armadilloes in South America,—and many other
phenomena, such as the gradual extinction of old forms and their gradual
replacement by new forms better fitted for their new conditions in the
struggle for life. When the advocate of Heterogeny can thus connect large
classes of facts, and not until then, he will have respectful and patient
listeners.") (the first and last time I shall take such a step) to say, under the
cloak of attacking Heterogeny, a word in my own defence. My letter is to
appear next week, so the Editor says; and I mean to quote Lyell's sentence
(See the next letter.) in his second edition, on the principle if one puffs
oneself, one had better puff handsomely...

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, April 18 [1863].
My dear Lyell,
I was really quite sorry that you had sent me a second copy (The second
edition of the 'Antiquity of Man' was published a few months after the first
had appeared.) of your valuable book. But after a few hours my sorrow
vanished for this reason: I have written a letter to the "Athenaeum", in
order, under the cloak of attacking the monstrous article on Heterogeny, to
say a word for myself in answer to Carpenter, and now I have inserted a few
sentences in allusion to your analogous objection (Lyell objected that the
mammalia (e.g. bats and seals) which alone have been able to reach oceanic
islands ought to have become modified into various terrestrial forms fitted
to fill various places in their new home. My father pointed out in the
"Athenaeum" that Sir Charles has in some measure answered his own
objection, and went on to quote the "amended sentence" ('Antiquity of
Man,' 2nd Edition page 469) as showing how far Lyell agreed with the
general doctrines of the "Origin of Species': "Yet we ought by no means to
undervalue the importance of the step which will have been made, should it
hereafter become the generally received opinion of men of science (as I
fully expect it will) that the past changes of the organic world have been
brought about by the subordinate agency of such causes as Variation and
Natural Selection." In the first edition the words (as I fully expect it will,"
do not occur.) about bats on islands, and then with infinite slyness have
quoted your amended sentence, with your parenthesis ("as I fully believe")
(My father here quotes Lyell incorrectly; see the previous foot-note.); I do
not think you can be annoyed at my doing this, and you see, that I am
determined as far as I can, that the public shall see how far you go. This is
the first time I have ever said a word for myself in any journal, and it shall,
I think, be the last. My letter is short, and no great things. I was extremely
concerned to see Falconer's disrespectful and virulent letter. I like extremely
your answer just read; you take a lofty and dignified position, to which you
are so well entitled. (In a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker he wrote: "I much like
Lyell's letter. But all this squabbling will greatly sink scientific men. I have
seen sneers already in the 'Times'.")

I suspect that if you had inserted a few more superlatives in speaking of
the several authors there would have been none of this horrid noise. No one,
I am sure, who knows you could doubt about your hearty sympathy with
every one who makes any little advance in science. I still well remember
my surprise at the manner in which you listened to me in Hart Street on my
return from the "Beagle's" voyage. You did me a world of good. It is
horridly vexatious that so frank and apparently amiable a man as Falconer
should have behaved so. (It is to this affair that the extract from a letter to
Falconer, given in volume i., refers.) Well it will all soon be forgotten...
[In reply to the above-mentioned letter of my father's to the
"Athenaeum", an article appeared in that Journal (May 2nd, 1863, page
586), accusing my father of claiming for his views the exclusive merit of
"connecting by an intelligible thread of reasoning" a number of facts in
morphology, etc. The writer remarks that, "The different generalizations
cited by Mr. Darwin as being connected by an intelligible thread of
reasoning exclusively through his attempt to explain specific transmutation
are in fact related to it in this wise, that they have prepared the minds of
naturalists for a better reception of such attempts to explain the way of the
origin of species from species."
To this my father replied in the "Athenaeum" of May 9th, 1863:]
Down, May 5 [1863].
I hope that you will grant me space to own that your reviewer is quite
correct when he states that any theory of descent will connect, "by an
intelligible thread of reasoning," the several generalizations before
specified. I ought to have made this admission expressly; with the
reservation, however, that, as far as I can judge, no theory so well explains
or connects these several generalizations (more especially the formation of
domestic races in comparison with natural species, the principles of
classification, embryonic resemblance, etc.) as the theory, or hypothesis, or
guess, if the reviewer so likes to call it, of Natural Selection. Nor has any
other satisfactory explanation been ever offered of the almost perfect
adaptation of all organic beings to each other, and to their physical
conditions of life. Whether the naturalist believes in the views given by
Lamarck, by Geoffrey St. Hilaire, by the author of the 'Vestiges,' by Mr.
Wallace and myself, or in any other such view, signifies extremely little in
comparison with the admission that species have descended from other

species, and have not been created immutable; for he who admits this as a
great truth has a wide field opened to him for further inquiry. I believe,
however, from what I see of the progress of opinion on the Continent, and
in this country, that the theory of Natural Selection will ultimately be
adopted, with, no doubt, many subordinate modifications and
improvements.
CHARLES DARWIN.
[In the following, he refers to the above letter to the "Athenaeum:]

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Leith Hill Place, Saturday [May
11, 1863].
My dear Hooker,
You give good advice about not writing in newspapers; I have been
gnashing my teeth at my own folly; and this not caused by —'s sneers,
which were so good that I almost enjoyed them. I have written once again
to own to a certain extent of truth in what he says, and then if I am ever
such a fool again, have no mercy on me. I have read the squib in "Public
Opinion" ("Public Opinion", April 23, 1863. A lively account of a police
case, in which the quarrels of scientific men are satirised. Mr. John Bull
gives evidence that—
"The whole neighbourhood was unsettled by their disputes; Huxley
quarrelled with Owen, Owen with Darwin, Lyell with Owen, Falconer and
Prestwich with Lyell, and Gray the menagerie man with everybody. He had
pleasure, however, in stating that Darwin was the quietest of the set. They
were always picking bones with each other and fighting over their gains. If
either of the gravel sifters or stone breakers found anything, he was obliged
to conceal it immediately, or one of the old bone collectors would be sure to
appropriate it first and deny the theft afterwards, and the consequent
wrangling and disputes were as endless as they were wearisome.
"Lord Mayor.—Probably the clergyman of the parish might exert some
influence over them?
"The gentleman smiled, shook his head, and stated that he regretted to
say that no class of men paid so little attention to the opinions of the clergy
as that to which these unhappy men belonged."); it is capital; if there is

more, and you have a copy, do lend it. It shows well that a scientific man
had better be trampled in dirt than squabble. I have been drawing diagrams,
dissecting shoots, and muddling my brains to a hopeless degree about the
divergence of leaves, and have of course utterly failed. But I can see that the
subject is most curious, and indeed astonishing...
[The next letter refers to Mr. Bentham's presidential address to the
Linnean Society (May 25, 1863). Mr. Bentham does not yield to the new
theory of Evolution, "cannot surrender at discretion as long as many
important outworks remain contestable." But he shows that the great body
of scientific opinion is flowing in the direction of belief.
The mention of Pasteur by Mr. Bentham is in reference to the
promulgation "as it were ex cathedra," of a theory of spontaneous
generation by the reviewer of Dr. Carpenter in the "Athenaeum" (March 28,
1863). Mr. Bentham points out that in ignoring Pasteur's refutation of the
supposed facts of spontaneous generation, the writer fails to act with "that
impartiality which every reviewer is supposed to possess."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO G. BENTHAM. Down, May 22 [1863].
My dear Bentham,
I am much obliged for your kind and interesting letter. I have no fear of
anything that a man like you will say annoying me in the very least degree.
On the other hand, any approval from one whose judgment and knowledge I
have for many years so sincerely respected, will gratify me much. The
objection which you well put, of certain forms remaining unaltered through
long time and space, is no doubt formidable in appearance, and to a certain
extent in reality according to my judgment. But does not the difficulty rest
much on our silently assuming that we know more than we do? I have
literally found nothing so difficult as to try and always remember our
ignorance. I am never weary, when walking in any new adjoining district or
country, of reflecting how absolutely ignorant we are why certain old plants
are not there present, and other new ones are, and others in different
proportions. If we once fully feel this, then in judging the theory of Natural
Selection, which implies that a form will remain unaltered unless some
alteration be to its benefit, is it so very wonderful that some forms should
change much slower and much less, and some few should have changed not

at all under conditions which to us (who really know nothing what are the
important conditions) seem very different. Certainly a priori we might have
anticipated that all the plants anciently introduced into Australia would have
undergone some modification; but the fact that they have not been modified
does not seem to me a difficulty of weight enough to shake a belief
grounded on other arguments. I have expressed myself miserably, but I am
far from well to-day.
I am very glad that you are going to allude to Pasteur; I was struck with
infinite admiration at his work. With cordial thanks, believe me, dear
Bentham,
Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN.
P.S.—In fact, the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded
entirely on general considerations. (1) On its being a vera causa, from the
struggle for existence; and the certain geological fact that species do
somehow change. (2) From the analogy of change under domestication by
man's selection. (3) And chiefly from this view connecting under an
intelligible point of view a host of facts. When we descend to details, we
can prove that no one species has changed [i.e. we cannot prove that a
single species has changed]; nor can we prove that the supposed changes
are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain
why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems
to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the
former case of supposed change. Bronn may ask in vain, the old creationist
school and the new school, why one mouse has longer ears than another
mouse, and one plant more pointed leaves than another plant.

CHARLES DARWIN TO G. BENTHAM. Down, June 19 [1863].
My dear Bentham,
I have been extremely much pleased and interested by your address,
which you kindly sent me. It seems to be excellently done, with as much
judicial calmness and impartiality as the Lord Chancellor could have
shown. But whether the "immutable" gentlemen would agree with the
impartiality may be doubted, there is too much kindness shown towards me,
Hooker, and others, they might say. Moreover I verily believe that your
address, written as it is, will do more to shake the unshaken and bring on

those leaning to our side, than anything written directly in favour of
transmutation. I can hardly tell why it is, but your address has pleased me as
much as Lyell's book disappointed me, that is, the part on species, though so
cleverly written. I agree with all your remarks on the reviewers. By the way,
Lecoq (Author of 'Geographie Botanique.' 9 vols. 1854-58.) is a believer in
the change of species. I, for one, can conscientiously declare that I never
feel surprised at any one sticking to the belief of immutability; though I am
often not a little surprised at the arguments advanced on this side. I
remember too well my endless oscillations of doubt and difficulty. It is to
me really laughable when I think of the years which elapsed before I saw
what I believe to be the explanation of some parts of the case; I believe it
was fifteen years after I began before I saw the meaning and cause of the
divergence of the descendants of any one pair. You pay me some most
elegant and pleasing compliments. There is much in your address which has
pleased me much, especially your remarks on various naturalists. I am so
glad that you have alluded so honourably to Pasteur. I have just read over
this note; it does not express strongly enough the interest which I have felt
in reading your address. You have done, I believe, a real good turn to the
RIGHT SIDE. Believe me, dear Bentham,
Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN.
1864.
[In my father's diary for 1864 is the entry, "Ill all January, February,
March." About the middle of April (seven months after the beginning of the
illness in the previous autumn) his health took a turn for the better. As soon
as he was able to do any work, he began to write his papers on Lythrum,
and on Climbing Plants, so that the work which now concerns us did not
begin until September, when he again set to work on 'Animals and Plants.'
A letter to Sir J.D. Hooker gives some account of the r-commencement of
the work: "I have begun looking over my old MS., and it is as fresh as if I
had never written it; parts are astonishingly dull, but yet worth printing, I
think; and other parts strike me as very good. I am a complete millionaire in
odd and curious little facts, and I have been really astounded at my own
industry whilst reading my chapters on Inheritance and Selection. God
knows when the book will ever be completed, for I find that I am very weak
and on my best days cannot do more than one or one and a half hours' work.
It is a good deal harder than writing about my dear climbing plants."

In this year he received the greatest honour which a scientific man can
receive in this country—the Copley Medal of the Royal Society. It is
presented at the Anniversary Meeting on St. Andrew's Day (November 30),
the medalist being usually present to receive it, but this the state of my
father's health prevented. He wrote to Mr. Fox on this subject:—
"I was glad to see your hand-writing. The Copley, being open to all
sciences and all the world, is reckoned a great honour; but excepting from
several kind letters, such things make little difference to me. It shows,
however, that Natural Selection is making some progress in this country,
and that pleases me. The subject, however, is safe in foreign lands."
To Sir J.D. Hooker, also, he wrote:—
"How kind you have been about this medal; indeed, I am blessed with
many good friends, and I have received four or five notes which have
warmed my heart. I often wonder that so old a worn-out dog as I am is not
quite forgotten. Talking of medals, has Falconer had the Royal? he surely
ought to have it, as ought John Lubbock. By the way, the latter tells me that
some old members of the Royal are quite shocked at my having the Copley.
Do you know who?"
He wrote to Mr. Huxley:—
"I must and will answer you, for it is a real pleasure for me to thank you
cordially for your note. Such notes as this of yours, and a few others, are the
real medal to me, and not the round bit of gold. These have given me a
pleasure which will long endure; so believe in my cordial thanks for your
note."
Sir Charles Lyell, writing to my father in November 1864 ('Life,' vol. ii.
page 384), speaks of the supposed malcontents as being afraid to crown
anything so unorthodox as the 'Origin.' But he adds that if such were their
feelings "they had the good sense to draw in their horns." It appears,
however, from the same letter, that the proposal to give the Copley Medal to
my father in the previous year failed owing to a similar want of courage—to
Lyell's great indignation.
In the "Reader", December 3, 1864, General Sabine's presidential address
at the Anniversary Meeting is reported at some length. Special weight was
laid on my father's work in Geology, Zoology, and Botany, but the 'Origin
of Species' is praised chiefly as containing "a mass of observations," etc. It
is curious that as in the case of his election to the French Institution, so in

this case, he was honoured not for the great work of his life, but for his less
important work in special lines. The paragraph in General Sabine's address
which refers to the 'Origin of Species,' is as follows:—
"In his most recent work 'On the Origin of Species,' although opinions
may be divided or undecided with respect to its merits in some respects, all
will allow that it contains a mass of observations bearing upon the habits,
structure, affinities, and distribution of animals, perhaps unrivalled for
interest, minuteness, and patience of observation. Some amongst us may
perhaps incline to accept the theory indicated by the title of this work, while
others may perhaps incline to refuse, or at least to remit it to a future time,
when increased knowledge shall afford stronger grounds for its ultimate
acceptance or rejection. Speaking generally and collectively, we have
expressly omitted it from the grounds of our award."
I believe I am right in saying that no little dissatisfaction at the
President's manner of allusion to the 'Origin' was felt by some Fellows of
the Society.
The presentation of the Copley Medal is of interest in another way,
inasmuch as it led to Sir C. Lyell making, in his after-dinner speech, a
"confession of faith as to the 'Origin.'" He wrote to my father ('Life,' vol. ii.
page 384), "I said I had been forced to give up my old faith without
thoroughly seeing my way to a new one. But I think you would have been
satisfied with the length I went."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, October 3 [1864].
My dear Huxley,
If I do not pour out my admiration of your article ("Criticisms on the
Origin of Species," 'Nat. Hist. Review,' 1864. Republished in 'Lay
Sermons,' 1870, page 328. The work of Professor Kolliker referred to is
'Ueber die Darwin'sche Schopfungstheorie' (Leipzig, 1864). Toward
Professor Kolliker my father felt not only the respect due to so
distinguished a naturalist (a sentiment well expressed in Professor Huxley's
review), but he had also a personal regard for him, and often alluded with
satisfaction to the visit which Professor Kolliker paid at Down.) on
Kolliker, I shall explode. I never read anything better done. I had much
wished his article answered, and indeed thought of doing so myself, so that

I considered several points. You have hit on all, and on some in addition,
and oh! by Jove, how well you have done it. As I read on and came to point
after point on which I had thought, I could not help jeering and scoffing at
myself, to see how infinitely better you had done it than I could have done.
Well, if any one, who does not understand Natural Selection, will read this,
he will be a blockhead if it is not as clear as daylight. Old Flourens
('Examen du livre de M. Darwin sur l'origine des especes.' Par P. Flourens.
8vo. Paris, 1864.) was hardly worth the powder and shot; but how capitally
you bring in about the Academician, and your metaphor of the sea-sand is
INIMITABLE.
It is a marvel to me how you can resist becoming a regular reviewer.
Well, I have exploded now, and it has done me a deal of good...
[In the same article in the 'Natural History Review,' Mr. Huxley speaks of
the book above alluded to by Flourens, the Secretaire Perpetuel of the
Academie des Sciences, as one of the two "most elaborate criticisms" of the
'Origin of Species' of the year. He quotes the following passage:—
"M. Darwin continue: 'Aucune distinction absolue n'a ete et ne peut etre
entre les especes et les varietes!' Je vous ai deja dit que vous vous trompiez;
une distinction absolue separe les varietes d'avec les especes." Mr. Huxley
remarks on this, "Being devoid of the blessings of an Academy in England,
we are unaccustomed to see our ablest men treated in this way even by a
Perpetual Secretary." After demonstrating M. Flourens' misapprehension of
Natural Selection, Mr. Huxley says, "How one knows it all by heart, and
with what relief one reads at page 65 'Je laisse M. Darwin.'"
On the same subject my father wrote to Mr. Wallace:—
"A great gun, Flourens, has written a little dull book against me which
pleases me much, for it is plain that our good work is spreading in France.
He speaks of the "engouement" about this book [the 'Origin'] "so full of
empty and presumptuous thoughts." The passage here alluded to is as
follows:—
"Enfin l'ouvrage de M. Darwin a paru. On ne peut qu'etre frappe du talent
de l'auteur. Mais que d'idees obscures, que d'idees fausses! Quel jargon
metaphysique jete mal a propos dans l'histoire naturelle, qui tombe dans le
galimatias des qu'elle sort des idees claires, des idees justes. Quel langage
pretentieux et vide! Quelles personifications pueriles et surannees! O
lucidite! O solidite de l'esprit francais, que devene-vous?"]

1865.
[This was again a time of much ill-health, but towards the close of the
year he began to recover under the care of the late Dr. Bence-Jones, who
dieted him severely, and as he expressed it, "half-starved him to death." He
was able to work at 'Animals and Plants' until nearly the end of April, and
from that time until December he did practically no work, with the
exception of looking over the 'Origin of Species' for a second French
edition. He wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker:—"I am, as it were, reading the
'Origin' for the first time, for I am correcting for a second French edition:
and upon my life, my dear fellow, it is a very good book, but oh! my
gracious, it is tough reading, and I wish it were done." (Towards the end of
the year my father received the news of a new convert to his views, in the
person of the distinguished American naturalist Lesquereux. He wrote to Sir
J.D. Hooker: "I have had an enormous letter from Leo Lesquereux (after
doubts, I did not think it worth sending you) on Coal Flora. He wrote some
excellent articles in 'Silliman' against 'Origin' views; but he says now, after
repeated reading of the book, he is a convert!")
The following letter refers to the Duke of Argyll's address to the Royal
Society of Edinburgh, December 5th, 1864, in which he criticises the
'Origin of Species.' My father seems to have read the Duke's address as
reported in the "Scotsman" of December 6th, 1865. In a letter to my father
(January 16, 1865, 'Life,' vol. ii. page 385), Lyell wrote, "The address is a
great step towards your views—far greater, I believe, than it seems when
read merely with reference to criticisms and objections."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, January 22, [1865].
My dear Lyell,
I thank you for your very interesting letter. I have the true English
instinctive reverence for rank, and therefore liked to hear about the Princess
Royal. ("I had... an animated conversation on Darwinism with the Princess
Royal, who is a worthy daughter of her father, in the reading of good books,
and thinking of what she reads. She was very much au fait at the 'Origin,'
and Huxley's book, the 'Antiquity,' etc."—(Lyell's 'Life,' vol. ii. page 385.)
You ask what I think of the Duke's address, and I shall be glad to tell you. It
seems to me EXTREMELY clever, like everything I have read of his; but I

am not shaken—perhaps you will say that neither gods nor men could shake
me. I demur to the Duke reiterating his objection that the brilliant plumage
of the male humming-bird could not have been acquired through selection,
at the same time entirely ignoring my discussion (page 93, 3rd edition) on
beautiful plumage being acquired through SEXUAL selection. The duke
may think this insufficient, but that is another question. All analogy makes
me quite disagree with the Duke that the difference in the beak, wing and
tail, are not of importance to the several species. In the only two species
which I have watched, the difference in flight and in the use of the tail was
conspicuously great.
The Duke, who knows my Orchid book so well, might have learnt a
lesson of caution from it, with respect to his doctrine of differences for mere
variety or beauty. It may be confidently said that no tribe of plants presents
such grotesque and beautiful differences, which no one until lately,
conjectured were of any use; but now in almost every case I have been able
to show their important service. It should be remembered that with
humming birds or orchids, a modification in one part will cause correlated
changes in other parts. I agree with what you say about beauty. I formerly
thought a good deal on the subject, and was led quite to repudiate the
doctrine of beauty being created for beauty's sake. I demur also to the
Duke's expression of "new births." That may be a very good theory, but it is
not mine, unless indeed he calls a bird born with a beak 1/100th of an inch
longer than usual "a new birth;" but this is not the sense in which the term
would usually be understood. The more I work the more I feel convinced
that it is by the accumulation of such extremely slight variations that new
species arise. I do not plead guilty to the Duke's charge that I forget that
natural selection means only the preservation of variations which
independently arise. ("Strictly speaking, therefore, Mr. Darwin's theory is
not a theory on the Origin of Species at all, but only a theory on the causes
which lead to the relative success and failure of such new forms as may be
born into the world."—"Scotsman", December 6, 1864.) I have expressed
this in as strong language as I could use, but it would have been infinitely
tedious had I on every occasion thus guarded myself. I will cry "peccavi"
when I hear of the Duke or you attacking breeders for saying that man has
made his improved shorthorns, or pouter pigeons, or bantams. And I could
quote still stronger expressions used by agriculturists. Man does make his
artificial breeds, for his selective power is of such importance relatively to

that of the slight spontaneous variations. But no one will attack breeders for
using such expressions, and the rising generation will not blame me.
Many thanks for your offer of sending me the 'Elements.' (Sixth edition
in one volume.) I hope to read it all, but unfortunately reading makes my
head whiz more than anything else. I am able most days to work for two or
three hours, and this makes all the difference in my happiness. I have
resolved not to be tempted astray, and to publish nothing till my volume on
Variation is completed. You gave me excellent advice about the footnotes in
my Dog chapter, but their alteration gave me infinite trouble, and I often
wished all the dogs, and I fear sometimes you yourself, in the nether
regions.
We (dictator and writer) send our best love to Lady Lyell.
Yours affectionately, CHARLES DARWIN.
P.S.—If ever you should speak with the Duke on the subject, please say
how much interested I was with his address.
[In his autobiographical sketch my father has remarked that owing to
certain early memories he felt the honour of being elected to the Royal and
Royal Medical Societies of Edinburgh "more than any similar honour." The
following extract from a letter to Sir Joseph Hooker refers to his election to
the former of these societies. The latter part of the extract refers to the
Berlin Academy, to which he was elected in 1878:—
"Here is a really curious thing, considering that Brewster is President and
Balfour Secretary. I have been elected Honorary Member of the Royal
Society of Edinburgh. And this leads me to a third question. Does the Berlin
Academy of Sciences send their Proceedings to Honorary Members? I want
to know, to ascertain whether I am a member; I suppose not, for I think it
would have made some impression on me; yet I distinctly remember
receiving some diploma signed by Ehrenberg. I have been so careless; I
have lost several diplomas, and now I want to know what Societies I belong
to, as I observe every [one] tacks their titles to their names in the catalogue
of the Royal Soc."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, February 21 [1865].
My dear Lyell,

I have taken a long time to thank you very much for your present of the
'Elements.'
I am going through it all, reading what is new, and what I have forgotten,
and this is a good deal.
I am simply astonished at the amount of labour, knowledge, and clear
thought condensed in this work. The whole strikes me as something quite
grand. I have been particularly interested by your account of Heer's work
and your discussion on the Atlantic Continent. I am particularly delighted at
the view which you take on this subject; for I have long thought Forbes did
an ill service in so freely making continents.
I have also been very glad to read your argument on the denudation of the
Weald, and your excellent resume on the Purbeck Beds; and this is the point
at which I have at present arrived in your book. I cannot say that I am quite
convinced that there is no connection beyond that pointed out by you,
between glacial action and the formation of lake basins; but you will not
much value my opinion on this head, as I have already changed my mind
some half-dozen times.
I want to make a suggestion to you. I found the weight of your volume
intolerable, especially when lying down, so with great boldness cut it into
two pieces, and took it out of its cover; now could not Murray without any
other change add to his advertisement a line saying, "if bound in two
volumes, one shilling or one shilling and sixpence extra." You thus might
originate a change which would be a blessing to all weak-handed readers.
Believe me, my dear Lyell, Yours most sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN.
Originate a second REAL BLESSING and have the edges of the sheets
cut like a bound book. (This was a favourite reform of my father's. He
wrote to the "Athenaeum" on the subject, February 5, 1867, pointing out
how that a book cut, even carefully, with a paper knife collects dust on its
edges far more than a machine-cut book. He goes on to quote the case of a
lady of his acquaintance who was in the habit of cutting books with her
thumb, and finally appeals to the "Athenaeum" to earn the gratitude of
children "who have to cut through dry and pictureless books for the benefit
of their elders." He tried to introduce the reform in the case of his own
books, but found the conservatism of booksellers too strong for him. The
presentation copies, however, of all his later books were sent out with the
edges cut.)

CHARLES DARWIN TO JOHN LUBBOCK. Down, June 11 [1865].
My dear Lubbock,
The latter half of your book ('Prehistoric Times,' 1865.) has been read
aloud to me, and the style is so clear and easy (we both think it perfection)
that I am now beginning at the beginning. I cannot resist telling you how
excellently well, in my opinion, you have done the very interesting chapter
on savage life. Though you have necessarily only compiled the materials
the general result is most original. But I ought to keep the term original for
your last chapter, which has struck me as an admirable and profound
discussion. It has quite delighted me, for now the public will see what kind
of man you are, which I am proud to think I discovered a dozen years ago.
I do sincerely wish you all success in your election and in politics; but
after reading this last chapter, you must let me say: oh, dear! oh, dear! oh
dear!
Yours affectionately, CH. DARWIN.
P.S.—You pay me a superb compliment ('Prehistoric Times,' page 487,
where the words, "the discoveries of a Newton or a Darwin," occur.), but I
fear you will be quizzed for it by some of your friends as too exaggerated.
[The following letter refers to Fritz Muller's book, 'Fur Darwin,' which
was afterwards translated, at my father's suggestion, by Mr. Dallas. It is of
interest as being the first of the long series of letters which my father wrote
to this distinguished naturalist. They never met, but the correspondence
with Muller, which continued to the close of my father's life, was a source
of very great pleasure to him. My impression is that of all his unseen friends
Fritz Muller was the one for whom he had the strongest regard. Fritz Muller
is the brother of another distinguished man, the late Hermann Muller, the
author of 'Die Befruchtung der Blumen,' and of much other valuable work:]

CHARLES DARWIN TO F. MULLER. Down, August 10 [1865].
My dear Sir,
I have been for a long time so ill that I have only just finished hearing
read aloud your work on species. And now you must permit me to thank

you cordially for the great interest with which I have read it. You have done
admirable service in the cause in which we both believe. Many of your
arguments seem to me excellent, and many of your facts wonderful. Of the
latter, nothing has surprised me so much as the two forms of males. I have
lately investigated the cases of dimorphic plants, and I should much like to
send you one or two of my papers if I knew how. I did send lately by post a
paper on climbing plants, as an experiment to see whether it would reach
you. One of the points which has struck me most in your paper is that on the
differences in the air-breathing apparatus of the several forms. This subject
appeared to me very important when I formerly considered the electric
apparatus of fishes. Your observations on Classification and Embryology
seem to me very good and original. They show what a wonderful field there
is for enquiry on the development of crustacea, and nothing has convinced
me so plainly what admirable results we shall arrive at in Natural History in
the course of a few years. What a marvellous range of structure the
crustacea present, and how well adapted they are for your enquiry! Until
reading your book I knew nothing of the Rhizocephala; pray look at my
account and figures of Anelasma, for it seems to me that this latter cirripede
is a beautiful connecting link with the Rhizocephala.
If ever you have any opportunity, as you are so skilful a dissector, I much
wish that you would look to the orifice at the base of the first pair of cirrhi
in cirripedes, and at the curious organ in it, and discover what its nature is; I
suppose I was quite in error, yet I cannot feel fully satisfied at Krohn's (See
vol. ii., pages 138, 187.) observations. Also if you ever find any species of
Scalpellum, pray look for complemental males; a German author has
recently doubted my observations for no reason except that the facts
appeared to him so strange.
Permit me again to thank you cordially for the pleasure which I have
derived from your work and to express my sincere admiration for your
valuable researches.
Believe me, dear Sir, with sincere respect, Yours very faithfully, CH.
DARWIN.
P.S.—I do not know whether you care at all about plants, but if so, I
should much like to send you my little work on the 'Fertilization of
Orchids,' and I think I have a German copy.

Could you spare me a photograph of yourself? I should much like to
possess one.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Thursday, 27th
[September, 1865].
My dear Hooker,
I had intended writing this morning to thank Mrs. Hooker most sincerely
for her last and several notes about you, and now your own note in your
hand has rejoiced me. To walk between five and six miles is splendid, with
a little patience you must soon be well. I knew you had been very ill, but I
hardly knew how ill, until yesterday, when Bentham (from the Cranworths
(Robert Rolfe, Lord Cranworth, and Lord Chancellor of England, lived at
Holwood, near Down.)) called here, and I was able to see him for ten
minutes. He told me also a little about the last days of your father (Sir
William Hooker; 1785-1865. He took charge of the Royal Gardens at Kew,
in 1840, when they ceased to be the private gardens of the Royal Family. In
doing so, he gave up his professorship at Glasgow—and with it half of his
income. He founded the herbarium and library, and within ten years he
succeeded in making the gardens the first in the world. It is, thus, not too
much to say that the creation of the establishment at Kew is due to the
abilities and self-devotion of Sir William Hooker. While, for the subsequent
development of the gardens up to their present magnificent condition, the
nation must thank Sir Joseph Hooker, in whom the same qualities are so
conspicuous.); I wish I had known your father better, my impression is
confined to his remarkably cordial, courteous, and frank bearing. I fully
concur and understand what you say about the difference of feeling in the
loss of a father and child. I do not think any one could love a father much
more than I did mine, and I do not believe three or four days ever pass
without my still thinking of him, but his death at eight-four caused me
nothing of that insufferable grief (I may quote here a passage from a letter
of November, 1863. It was written to a friend who had lost his child: "How
well I remember your feeling, when we lost Annie. It was my greatest
comfort that I had never spoken a harsh word to her. Your grief has made
me shed a few tears over our poor darling; but believe me that these tears
have lost that unutterable bitterness of former days.") which the loss of our

poor dear Annie caused. And this seems to me perfectly natural, for one
knows for years previously that one's father's death is drawing slowly
nearer and nearer, while the death of one's child is a sudden and dreadful
wrench. What a wonderful deal you read; it is a horrid evil for me that I can
read hardly anything, for it makes my head almost immediately begin to
sing violently. My good womenkind read to me a great deal, but I dare not
ask for much science, and am not sure that I could stand it. I enjoyed Tylor
('Researches into the Early History of Mankind,' by E.B. Tylor. 1865.)
EXTREMELY, and the first part of Lecky 'The Rise of Rationalism in
Europe,' by W.E.H. Lecky. 1865.); but I think the latter is often vague, and
gives a false appearance of throwing light on his subject by such phrases as
"spirit of the age," "spread of civilization," etc. I confine my reading to a
quarter or half hour per day in skimming through the back volumes of the
Annals and Magazine of Natural History, and find much that interests me. I
miss my climbing plants very much, as I could observe them when very
poorly.
I did not enjoy the 'Mill on the Floss' so much as you, but from what you
say we will read it again. Do you know 'Silas Marner'? it is a charming little
story; if you run short, and like to have it, we could send it by post... We
have almost finished the first volume of Palgrave (William Gifford
Palgrave's 'Travels in Arabia,' published in 1865.), and I like it much; but
did you ever see a book so badly arranged? The frequency of the allusions
to what will be told in the future are quite laughable... By the way, I was
very much pleased with the foot-note (The passage which seems to be
referred to occurs in the text (page 479) of 'Prehistoric Times.' It expresses
admiration of Mr. Wallace's paper in the 'Anthropological Review' (May,
1864), and speaks of the author's "characteristic unselfishness" in ascribing
the theory of Natural Selection "unreservedly to Mr. Darwin." about
Wallace in Lubbock's last chapter. I had not heard that Huxley had backed
up Lubbock about Parliament... Did you see a sneer some time ago in the
"Times" about how incomparably more interesting politics were compared
with science even to scientific men? Remember what Trollope says, in 'Can
you Forgive her,' about getting into Parliament, as the highest earthly
ambition. Jeffrey, in one of his letters, I remember, says that making an
effective speech in Parliament is a far grander thing than writing the
grandest history. All this seems to me a poor short-sighted view. I cannot

tell you how it has rejoiced me once again seeing your handwriting— my
best of old friends.
Yours affectionately, CH. DARWIN.
[In October he wrote Sir J.D. Hooker:—
"Talking of the 'Origin,' a Yankee has called my attention to a paper
attached to Dr. Wells's famous 'Essay on Dew,' which was read in 1813 to
the Royal Society, but not [then] printed, in which he applies most distinctly
the principle of Natural Selection to the Races of Man. So poor old Patrick
Matthew is not the first, and he cannot, or ought not, any longer to put on
his title-pages, 'Discoverer of the principle of Natural Selection'!"]

CHARLES DARWIN TO F.W. FARRAR. (Canon of Westminster.) Down,
November 2 [1865?].
Dear Sir,
As I have never studied the science of language, it may perhaps seem
presumptuous, but I cannot resist the pleasure of telling you what interest
and pleasure I have derived from hearing read aloud your volume ('Chapters
on Language,' 1865.)
I formerly read Max Muller, and thought his theory (if it deserves to be
called so) both obscure and weak; and now, after hearing what you say, I
feel sure that this is the case, and that your cause will ultimately triumph.
My indirect interest in your book has been increased from Mr. Hensleigh
Wedgwood, whom you often quote, being my brother-in-law.
No one could dissent from my views on the modification of species with
more courtesy than you do. But from the tenor of your mind I feel an entire
and comfortable conviction (and which cannot possibly be disturbed) that if
your studies led you to attend much to general questions in natural history
you would come to the same conclusion that I have done.
Have you ever read Huxley's little book of Lectures? I would gladly send
a copy if you think you would read it.
Considering what Geology teaches us, the argument from the supposed
immutability of specific types seems to me much the same as if, in a nation
which had no old writings, some wise old savage was to say that his
language had never changed; but my metaphor is too long to fill up.

Pray believe me, dear Sir, yours very sincerely obliged, C. DARWIN.
1866.
[The year 1866 is given in my father's Diary in the following words:—
"Continued correcting chapters of 'Domestic Animals.'
March 1st.—Began on 4th edition of 'Origin' of 1250 copies (received for
it 238 pounds), making 7500 copies altogether.
May 10th.—Finished 'Origin,' except revises, and began going over
Chapter XIII. of 'Domestic Animals.'
November 21st.—Finished 'Pangenesis.'
December 21st.—Finished re-going over all chapters, and sent them to
printers.
December 22nd.—Began concluding chapter of book."
He was in London on two occasions for a week at a time, staying with his
brother, and for a few days (May 29th-June 2nd) in Surrey; for the rest of
the year he was at Down.
There seems to have been a gradual mending in his health; thus he wrote
to Mr. Wallace (January 1866):—"My health is so far improved that I am
able to work one or two hours a day."
With respect to the 4th edition he wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker:—
"The new edition of the 'Origin' has caused me two great vexations. I
forgot Bates's paper on variation (This appears to refer to "Notes on South
American Butterflies," Trans. Entomolog. Soc., vol. v. (N.S.).), but I
remembered in time his mimetic work, and now, strange to say, I find I have
forgotten your Arctic paper! I know how it arose; I indexed for my bigger
work, and never expected that a new edition of the 'Origin' would be
wanted.
"I cannot say how all this has vexed me. Everything which I have read
during the last four years I find is quite washy in my mind." As far as I
know, Mr. Bates's paper was not mentioned in the later editions of the
'Origin,' for what reason I cannot say.
In connection with his work on 'The Variation of Animals and Plants,' I
give here extracts from three letters addressed to Mr. Huxley, which are of
interest as giving some idea of the development of the theory of
'Pangenesis,' ultimately published in 1868 in the book in question:]

CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, May 27, [1865?].
... I write now to ask a favour of you, a very great favour from one so
hard worked as you are. It is to read thirty pages of MS., excellently copied
out and give me, not lengthened criticism, but your opinion whether I may
venture to publish it. You may keep the MS. for a month or two. I would not
ask this favour, but I REALLY know no one else whose judgment on the
subject would be final with me.
The case stands thus: in my next book I shall publish long chapters on
bud- and seminal-variation, on inheritance, reversion, effects of use and
disuse, etc. I have also for many years speculated on the different forms of
reproduction. Hence it has come to be a passion with me to try to connect
all such facts by some sort of hypothesis. The MS. which I wish to send you
gives such a hypothesis; it is a very rash and crude hypothesis, yet it has
been a considerable relief to my mind, and I can hang on it a good many
groups of facts. I well know that a mere hypothesis, and this is nothing
more, is of little value; but it is very useful to me as serving as a kind of
summary for certain chapters. Now I earnestly wish for your verdict given
briefly as, "Burn it"—or, which is the most favourable verdict I can hope
for, "It does rudely connect together certain facts, and I do not think it will
immediately pass out of my mind." If you can say this much, and you do
not think it absolutely ridiculous, I shall publish it in my concluding
chapter. Now will you grant me this favour? You must refuse if you are too
much overworked.
I must say for myself that I am a hero to expose my hypothesis to the
fiery ordeal of your criticism.
July 12, [1865?].
My dear Huxley,
I thank you most sincerely for having so carefully considered my MS. It
has been a real act of kindness. It would have annoyed me extremely to
have re-published Buffon's views, which I did not know of, but I will get
the book; and if I have strength I will also read Bonnet. I do not doubt your
judgment is perfectly just, and I will try to persuade myself not to publish.
The whole affair is much too speculative; yet I think some such view will

have to be adopted, when I call to mind such facts as the inherited effects of
use and disuse, etc. But I will try to be cautious...
[1865?].
My dear Huxley,
Forgive my writing in pencil, as I can do so lying down. I have read
Buffon: whole pages are laughably like mine. It is surprising how candid it
makes one to see one's views in another man's words. I am rather ashamed
of the whole affair, but not converted to a no-belief. What a kindness you
have done me with your "vulpine sharpness." Nevertheless, there is a
fundamental distinction between Buffon's views and mine. He does not
suppose that each cell or atom of tissue throws off a little bud; but he
supposes that the sap or blood includes his "organic molecules," WHICH
ARE READY FORMED, fit to nourish each organ, and when this is fully
formed, they collect to form buds and the sexual elements. It is all rubbish
to speculate as I have done; yet, if I ever have strength to publish my next
book, I fear I shall not resist "Pangenesis," but I assure you I will put it
humbly enough. The ordinary course of development of beings, such as the
Echinodermata, in which new organs are formed at quite remote spots from
the analogous previous parts, seem to me extremely difficult to reconcile on
any view except the free diffusion in the parent of the germs or gemmules
of each separate new organ; and so in cases of alternate generation. But I
will not scribble any more. Hearty thanks to you, you best of critics and
most learned man...
[The letters now take up the history of the year 1866.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, July 5 [1866].
My dear Wallace,
I have been much interested by your letter, which is as clear as daylight. I
fully agree with all that you say on the advantages of H. Spencer's excellent
expression of "the survival of the fittest." (Extract from a letter of Mr.
Wallace's, July 2, 1866: "The term 'survival of the fittest' is the plain
expression of the fact; 'natural selection' is a metaphorical expression of it,
and to a certain degree indirect and incorrect, since... Nature... does not so
much select special varieties as exterminate the most unfavourable ones.")
This, however, had not occurred to me till reading your letter. It is, however,

a great objection to this term that it cannot be used as a substantive
governing a verb; and that this is a real objection I infer from H. Spencer
continually using the words, natural selection. I formerly thought, probably
in an exaggerated degree, that it was a great advantage to bring into
connection natural and artificial selection; this indeed led me to use a term
in common, and I still think it some advantage. I wish I had received your
letter two months ago, for I would have worked in "the survival, etc.," often
in the new edition of the 'Origin,' which is now almost printed off, and of
which I will of course send you a copy. I will use the term in my next book
on Domestic Animals, etc., from which, by the way, I plainly see that you
expect MUCH, too much. The term Natural Selection has now been so
largely used abroad and at home, that I doubt whether it could be given up,
and with all its faults I should be sorry to see the attempt made. Whether it
will be rejected must now depend "on the survival of the fittest." As in time
the term must grow intelligible the objections to its use will grow weaker
and weaker. I doubt whether the use of any term would have made the
subject intelligible to some minds, clear as it is to others; for do we not see
even to the present day Malthus on Population absurdly misunderstood?
This reflection about Malthus has often comforted me when I have been
vexed at the misstatement of my views. As for M. Janet (This no doubt
refers to Janet's 'Materialisme Contemporain.'), he is a metaphysician, and
such gentlemen are so acute that I think they often misunderstand common
folk. Your criticism on the double sense ("I find you use 'Natural Selection'
in two senses. 1st, for the simple preservation of favourable and rejection of
unfavourable variations, in which case it is equivalent to the 'survival of the
fittest,'—and 2ndly, for the effect or CHANGE produced by this
preservation." Extract from Mr. Wallace's letter above quoted.) in which I
have used Natural Selection is new to me and unanswerable; but my
blunder has done no harm, for I do not believe that any one, excepting you,
has ever observed it. Again, I agree that I have said too much about
"favourable variations;" but I am inclined to think that you put the opposite
side too strongly; if every part of every being varied, I do not think we
should see the same end, or object, gained by such wonderfully diversified
means.
I hope you are enjoying the country, and are in good health, and are
working hard at your Malay Archipelago book, for I will always put this
wish in every note I write to you, like some good people always put in a

text. My health keeps much the same, or rather improves, and I am able to
work some hours daily. With many thanks for your interesting letter.
Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours sincerely, CH. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 30 [1866].
My dear Hooker,
I was very glad to get your note and the Notts. Newspaper. I have seldom
been more pleased in my life than at hearing how successfully your lecture
(At the Nottingham meeting of the British Association, August 27, 1866.
The subject of the lecture was 'Insular Floras.' See "Gardeners' Chronicle",
1866.) went off. Mrs. H. Wedgwood sent us an account, saying that you
read capitally, and were listened to with profound attention and great
applause. She says, when your final allegory (Sir Joseph Hooker allegorized
the Oxford meeting of the British Association as the gathering of a tribe of
savages who believed that the new moon was created afresh each month.
The anger of the priests and medicine man at a certain heresy, according to
which the new moon is but the offspring of the old one, is excellently
given.) began, "for a minute or two we were all mystified, and then came
such bursts of applause from the audience. It was thoroughly enjoyed amid
roars of laughter and noise, making a most brilliant conclusion."
I am rejoiced that you will publish your lecture, and felt sure that sooner
or later it would come to this, indeed it would have been a sin if you had not
done so. I am especially rejoiced as you give the arguments for occasional
transport, with such perfect fairness; these will now receive a fair share of
attention, as coming from you a professed botanist. Thanks also for Grove's
address; as a whole it strikes me as very good and original, but I was
disappointed in the part about Species; it dealt in such generalities that it
would apply to any view or no view in particular...
And now farewell. I do most heartily rejoice at your success, and for
Grove's sake at the brilliant success of the whole meeting.
Yours affectionately, CHARLES DARWIN.
[The next letter is of interest, as giving the beginning of the connection
which arose between my father and Professor Victor Carus. The translation
referred to is the third German edition made from the fourth English one.

From this time forward Professor Carus continued to translate my father's
books into German. The conscientious care with which this work was done
was of material service, and I well remember the admiration (mingled with
a tinge of vexation at his own short-comings) with which my father used to
receive the lists of oversights, etc., which Professor Carus discovered in the
course of translation. The connection was not a mere business one, but was
cemented by warm feelings of regard on both sides.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO VICTOR CARUS. Down, November 10, 1866.
My dear Sir,
I thank you for your extremely kind letter. I cannot express too strongly
my satisfaction that you have undertaken the revision of the new edition,
and I feel the honour which you have conferred on me. I fear that you will
find the labour considerable, not only on account of the additions, but I
suspect that Bronn's translation is very defective, at least I have heard
complaints on this head from quite a large number of persons. It would be a
great gratification to me to know that the translation was a really good one,
such as I have no doubt you will produce. According to our English
practice, you will be fully justified in entirely omitting Bronn's Appendix,
and I shall be very glad of its omission. A new edition may be looked at as a
new work... You could add anything of your own that you liked, and I
should be much pleased. Should you make any additions or append notes, it
appears to me that Nageli "Entstehung und Begriff," etc. ('Entstehung und
Begriff der Naturhistorischen Art.' An address given at a public meeting of
the 'R. Academy of Sciences' at Munich, March 28, 1865.), would be worth
noticing, as one of the most able pamphlets on the subject. I am, however,
far from agreeing with him that the acquisition of certain characters which
appear to be of no service to plants, offers any great difficulty, or affords a
proof of some innate tendency in plants towards perfection. If you intend to
notice this pamphlet, I should like to write hereafter a little more in detail
on the subject.
... I wish I had known when writing my Historical Sketch that you had in
1853 published your views on the genealogical connection of past and
present forms.

I suppose you have the sheets of the last English edition on which I
marked with pencil all the chief additions, but many little corrections of
style were not marked.
Pray believe that I feel sincerely grateful for the great service and honour
which you do me by the present translation.
I remain, my dear Sir, yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN.
P.S.—I should be VERY MUCH pleased to possess your photograph, and
I send mine in case you should like to have a copy.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. NAGELI. (Professor of Botany at Munich.)
Down, June 12 [1866].
Dear Sir,
I hope you will excuse the liberty which I take in writing to you. I have
just read, though imperfectly, your 'Entstehung und Begriff,' and have been
so greatly interested by it, that I have sent it to be translated, as I am a poor
German scholar. I have just finished a new [4th] edition of my 'Origin,'
which will be translated into German, and my object in writing to you is to
say that if you should see this edition you would think that I had borrowed
from you, without acknowledgment, two discussions on the beauty of
flowers and fruit; but I assure you every word was printed off before I had
opened your pamphlet. Should you like to possess a copy of either the
German or English new edition, I should be proud to send one. I may add,
with respect to the beauty of flowers, that I have already hinted the same
views as you hold in my paper on Lythrum.
Many of your criticisms on my views are the best which I have met with,
but I could answer some, at least to my own satisfaction; and I regret
extremely that I had not read your pamphlet before printing my new edition.
On one or two points, I think, you have a little misunderstood me, though I
dare say I have not been cautious in expressing myself. The remark which
has struck me most, is that on the position of the leaves not having been
acquired through natural selection, from not being of any special
importance to the plant. I well remember being formerly troubled by an
analogous difficulty, namely, the position of the ovules, their anatropous
condition, etc. It was owing to forgetfulness that I did not notice this
difficulty in the 'Origin.' (Nageli's Essay is noticed in the 5th edition.)

Although I can offer no explanation of such facts, and only hope to see that
they may be explained, yet I hardly see how they support the doctrine of
some law of necessary development, for it is not clear to me that a plant,
with its leaves placed at some particular angle, or with its ovules in some
particular position, thus stands higher than another plant. But I must
apologise for troubling you with these remarks.
As I much wish to possess your photograph, I take the liberty of
enclosing my own, and with sincere respect I remain, dear Sir,
Yours faithfully, CH. DARWIN.
[I give a few extracts from letters of various dates showing my father's
interest, alluded to in the last letter, in the problem of the arrangement of the
leaves on the stems of plants. It may be added that Professor Schwendener
of Berlin has successfully attacked the question in his 'Mechanische Theorie
der Blattstellungen,' 1878.
TO DR. FALCONER. August 26 [1863].
"Do you remember telling me that I ought to study Phyllotaxy? Well I
have often wished you at the bottom of the sea; for I could not resist, and I
muddled my brains with diagrams, etc., and specimens, and made out, as
might have been expected, nothing. Those angles are a most wonderful
problem and I wish I could see some one give a rational explanation of
them."
TO DR. ASA GRAY. May 11 [1861].
"If you wish to save me from a miserable death, do tell me why the
angles 1/2, 1/3, 2/5, 3/8, etc, series occur, and no other angles. It is enough
to drive the quietest man mad. Did you and some mathematician (Probably
my father was thinking of Chauncey Wright's work on Phyllotaxy, in
Gould's 'Astronomical Journal,' No.99, 1856, and in the 'Mathematical
Monthly,' 1859. These papers are mentioned in the "Letters of Chauncey
Wright.' Mr. Wright corresponded with my father on the subject.) publish
some paper on the subject? Hooker says you did; where is it?
TO DR. ASA GRAY. [May 31, 1863?].
"I have been looking at Nageli's work on this subject, and am astonished
to see that the angle is not always the same in young shoots when the lea-
buds are first distinguishable, as in full-grown branches. This shows, I
think, that there must be some potent cause for those angles which do

occur: I dare say there is some explanation as simple as that for the angles
of the Bees-cells."
My father also corresponded with Dr. Hubert Airy and was interested in
his views on the subject, published in the Royal Soc. Proceedings, 1873,
page 176.
We now return to the year 1866.
In November, when the prosecution of Governor Eyre was dividing
England into two bitterly opposed parties, he wrote to Sir J. Hooker:—
"You will shriek at me when you hear that I have just subscribed to the
Jamaica Committee." (He subscribed 10 pounds.)
On this subject I quote from a letter of my brother's:—
"With respect to Governor Eyre's conduct in Jamaica, he felt strongly that
J.S. Mill was right in prosecuting him. I remember one evening, at my
Uncle's, we were talking on the subject, and as I happened to think it was
too strong a measure to prosecute Governor Eyre for murder, I made some
foolish remark about the prosecutors spending the surplus of the fund in a
dinner. My father turned on me almost with fury, and told me, if those were
my feelings, I had better go back to Southampton; the inhabitants having
given a dinner to Governor Eyre on his landing, but with which I had had
nothing to do." The end of the incident, as told by my brother, is so
characteristic of my father that I cannot resist giving it, though it has no
bearing on the point at issue. "Next morning at 7 o'clock, or so, he came
into my bedroom and sat on my bed, and said that he had not been able to
sleep from the thought that he had been so angry with me, and after a few
more kind words he left me."
The same restless desire to correct a disagreeable or incorrect impression
is well illustrated in an extract which I quote from some notes by Rev. J.
Brodie Innes:—
"Allied to the extreme carefulness of observation was his most
remarkable truthfulness in all matters. On one occasion, when a parish
meeting had been held on some disputed point of no great importance, I
was surprised by a visit from Mr. Darwin at night. He came to say that,
thinking over the debate, though what he had said was quite accurate, he
thought I might have drawn an erroneous conclusion, and he would not
sleep till he had explained it. I believe that if on any day some certain fact

had come to his knowledge which contradicted his most cherished theories,
he would have placed the fact on record for publication before he slept."
This tallies with my father's habits, as described by himself. When a
difficulty or an objection occurred to him, he thought it of paramount
importance to make a note of it instantly because he found hostile facts to
be especially evanescent.
The same point is illustrated by the following incident, for which I am
indebted to Mr. Romanes:—
"I have always remembered the following little incident as a good
example of Mr. Darwin's extreme solicitude on the score of accuracy. One
evening at Down there was a general conversation upon the difficulty of
explaining the evolution of some of the distinctively human emotions,
especially those appertaining to the recognition of beauty in natural scenery.
I suggested a view of my own upon the subject, which, depending upon the
principle of association, required the supposition that a long line of
ancestors should have inhabited regions, the scenery of which is now
regarded as beautiful. Just as I was about to observe that the chief difficulty
attaching to my hypothesis arose from feelings of the sublime (seeing that
these are associated with awe, and might therefore be expected not to be
agreeable), Mr. Darwin anticipated the remark, by asking how the
hypothesis was to meet the case of these feelings. In the conversation which
followed, he said the occasion in his own life, when he was most affected
by the emotions of the sublime was when he stood upon one of the summits
of the Cordillera, and surveyed the magnificent prospect all around. It
seemed, as he quaintly observed, as if his nerves had become fiddle strings,
and had all taken to rapidly vibrating. This remark was only made
incidentally, and the conversation passed into some other branch. About an
hour afterwards Mr. Darwin retired to rest, while I sat up in the smoking-
room with one of his sons. We continued smoking and talking for several
hours, when at about one o'clock in the morning the door gently opened and
Mr. Darwin appeared, in his slippers and dressing-gown. As nearly as I can
remember, the following are the words he used:—
"'Since I went to bed I have been thinking over our conversation in the
drawing-room, and it has just occurred to me that I was wrong in telling you
I felt most of the sublime when on the top of the Cordillera; I am quite sure
that I felt it even more when in the forests of Brazil. I thought it best to

come and tell you this at once in case I should be putting you wrong. I am
sure now that I felt most sublime in the forests.'
"This was all he had come to say, and it was evident that he had come to
do so, because he thought that the fact of his feeling 'most sublime in
forests' was more in accordance with the hypothesis which we had been
discussing, than the fact which he had previously stated. Now, as no one
knew better than Mr. Darwin the difference between a speculation and a
fact, I thought this little exhibition of scientific conscientiousness very
noteworthy, where the only question concerned was of so highly speculative
a character. I should not have been so much impressed if he had thought
that by his temporary failure of memory he had put me on a wrong scent in
any matter of fact, although even in such a case he is the only man I ever
knew who would care to get out of bed at such a time at night in order to
make the correction immediately, instead of waiting till next morning. But
as the correction only had reference to a flimsy hypothesis, I certainly was
very much impressed by this display of character."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 10 [1866].
... I have now read the last No. of H. Spencer. ('Principles of Biology.') I
do not know whether to think it better than the previous number, but it is
wonderfully clever, and I dare say mostly true. I feel rather mean when I
read him: I could bear, and rather enjoy feeling that he was twice as
ingenious and clever as myself, but when I feel that he is about a dozen
times my superior, even in the master art of wriggling, I feel aggrieved. If
he had trained himself to observe more, even if at the expense, by the law of
balancement, of some loss of thinking power, he would have been a
wonderful man.
... I am HEARTILY glad you are taking up the Distribution of Plants in
New Zealand, and suppose it will make part of your new book. Your view,
as I understand it, that New Zealand subsided and formed two or more
small islands, and then rose again, seems to me extremely probable... When
I puzzled my brains about New Zealand, I remember I came to the
conclusion, as indeed I state in the 'Origin,' that its flora, as well as that of
other southern lands, had been tinctured by an Antarctic flora, which must
have existed before the Glacial period. I concluded that New Zealand never

could have been closely connected with Australia, though I supposed it had
received some few Australian forms by occasional means of transport. Is
there any reason to suppose that New Zealand could have been more
closely connected with South Australia during the glacial period, when the
Eucalypti, etc., might have been driven further North? Apparently there
remains only the line, which I think you suggested, of sunken islands from
New Caledonia. Please remember that the Edwardsia was certainly drifted
there by the sea.
I remember in old days speculating on the amount of life, i.e. of organic
chemical change, at different periods. There seems to me one very difficult
element in the problem, namely, the state of development of the organic
beings at each period, for I presume that a Flora and Fauna of cellular
cryptogamic plants, of Protozoa and Radiata would lead to much less
chemical change than is now going on. But I have scribbled enough.
Yours affectionately, CH. DARWIN.
[The following letter is in acknowledgment of Mr. Rivers' reply to an
earlier letter in which my father had asked for information on bu-variation:
It may find a place here in illustration of the manner of my father's
intercourse with those "whose avocations in life had to do with the rearing
or use of living things" ("Mr. Dyer in 'Charles Darwin,'" "Nature Series",
1882, page 39.)—an intercourse which bore such good fruit in the 'Variation
of Animals and Plants.' Mr. Dyer has some excellent remarks on the
unexpected value thus placed on apparently trivial facts disinterred from
weekly journals, or amassed by correspondence. He adds: "Horticulturists
who had... moulded plants almost at their will at the impulse of taste or
profit were at once amazed and charmed to find that they had been doing
scientific work and helping to establish a great theory."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO T. RIVERS. (The late Mr. Rivers was an eminent
horticulturist and writer on horticulture.) Down, December 28 [1866?].
My dear Sir,
Permit me to thank you cordially for your most kind letter. For years I
have read with interest every scrap which you have written in periodicals,
and abstracted in MS. your book on Roses, and several times I thought I
would write to you, but did not know whether you would think me too

intrusive. I shall, indeed, be truly obliged for any information you can
supply me on bud-variation or sports. When any extra difficult points occur
to me in my present subject (which is a mass of difficulties), I will apply to
you, but I will not be unreasonable. It is most true what you say that any
one to study well the physiology of the life of plants, ought to have under
his eye a multitude of plants. I have endeavoured to do what I can by
comparing statements by many writers and observing what I could myself.
Unfortunately few have observed like you have done. As you are so kind, I
will mention one other point on which I am collecting facts; namely, the
effect produced on the stock by the graft; thus, it is SAID, that the purple-
leaved filbert affects the leaves of the common hazel on which it is grafted
(I have just procured a plant to try), so variegated jessamine is SAID to
affect its stock. I want these facts partly to throw light on the marvellous
laburnum Adami, trifacial oranges, etc. That laburnum case seems one of
the strangest in physiology. I have now growing splendid, FERTILE, yellow
laburnums (with a long raceme like the so-called Waterer's laburnum) from
seed of yellow flowers on the C. Adami. To a man like myself, who is
compelled to live a solitary life, and sees few persons, it is no slight
satisfaction to hear that I have been able at all [to] interest by my books
observers like yourself.
As I shall publish on my present subject, I presume, within a year, it will
be of no use your sending me the shoots of peaches and nectarines which
you so kindly offer; I have recorded your facts.
Permit me again to thank you cordially; I have not often in my life
received a kinder letter.
My dear Sir, yours sincerely, CH. DARWIN.

CHAPTER 2.V. — THE PUBLICATION OF THE
'VARIATION OF ANIMALS AND PLANTS
UNDER DOMESTICATION.'
JANUARY 1867, TO JUNE 1868.

[At the beginning of the year 1867 he was at work on the final chapter
—"Concluding Remarks" of the 'Variation of Animals and Plants under
Domestication,' which was begun after the rest of the MS. had been sent to
the printers in the preceding December. With regard to the publication of
the book he wrote to Mr. Murray, on January 3:—
"I cannot tell you how sorry I am to hear of the enormous size of my
book. (On January 9 he wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker: "I have been these last
few days vexed and annoyed to a foolish degree by hearing that my MS. on
Dom. An. and Cult. Plants will make 2 volumes, both bigger than the
'Origin.' The volumes will have to be full-sized octavo, so I have written to
Murray to suggest details to be printed in small type. But I feel that the size
is quite ludicrous in relation to the subject. I am ready to swear at myself
and at every fool who writes a book.") I fear it can never pay. But I cannot
shorten it now; nor, indeed, if I had foreseen its length, do I see which parts
ought to have been omitted.
"If you are afraid to publish it, say so at once, I beg you, and I will
consider your note as cancelled. If you think fit, get any one whose
judgment you rely on, to look over some of the more legible chapters,
namely, the Introduction, and on dogs and plants, the latter chapters being
in my opinion, the dullest in the book... The list of chapters, and the
inspection of a few here and there, would give a good judge a fair idea of
the whole book. Pray do not publish blindly, as it would vex me all my life
if I led you to heavy loss."
Mr. Murray referred the MS. to a literary friend, and, in spite of a
somewhat adverse opinion, willingly agreed to publish the book. My father
wrote:—

"Your note has been a great relief to me. I am rather alarmed about the
verdict of your friend, as he is not a man of science. I think if you had sent
the 'Origin' to an unscientific man, he would have utterly condemned it. I
am, however, VERY GLAD that you have consulted any one on whom you
can rely.
"I must add, that my 'Journal of Researches' was seen in MS. by an
eminent semi-scientific man, and was pronounced unfit for publication."
The proofs were begun in March, and the last revise was finished on
November 15th, and during this period the only intervals of rest were two
visits of a week each at his brother Erasmus's house in Queen Anne Street.
He notes in his Diary:—
"I began this book [in the] beginning of 1860 (and then had some MS.),
but owing to interruptions from my illness, and illness of children; from
various editions of the 'Origin,' and Papers, especially Orchis book and
Tendrils, I have spent four years and two months over it."
The edition of 'Animals and Plants' was of 1500 copies, and of these
1260 were sold at Mr. Murray's autumnal sale, but it was not published until
January 30, 1868. A new edition of 1250 copies was printed in February of
the same year.
In 1867 he received the distinction of being made a knight of the Prussian
Order "Pour le Merite." (The Order "Pour le Merite" was founded in 1740
by Frederick II. by the re-christening of an "Order of Generosity," founded
in 1665. It was at one time strictly military, having been previously both
civil and military, and in 1840 the Order was again opened to civilians. The
order consists of thirty members of German extraction, but distinguished
foreigners are admitted to a kind of extraordinary membership. Faraday,
Herschel, and Thomas Moore, have belonged to it in this way. From the
thirty members a chancellor is elected by the king (the first officer of this
kind was Alexander v. Humboldt); and it is the duty of the chancellor to
notify a vacancy in the Order to the remainder of the thirty, who then elect
by vote the new member—but the king has technically the appointment in
his own hands.) He seems not to have known how great the distinction was,
for in June 1868 he wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker:—
"What a man you are for sympathy. I was made "Eques" some months
ago, but did not think much about it. Now, by Jove, we all do; but you, in
fact, have knighted me."

The letters may now take up the story.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 8 [1867].
My dear Hooker,
I am heartily glad that you have been offered the Presidentship of the
British Association, for it is a great honour, and as you have so much work
to do, I am equally glad that you have declined it. I feel, however,
convinced that you would have succeeded very well; but if I fancy myself
in such a position, it actually makes my blood run cold. I look back with
amazement at the skill and taste with which the Duke of Argyll made a
multitude of little speeches at Glasgow. By the way, I have not seen the
Duke's book ('The Reign of Law,' 1867.), but I formerly thought that some
of the articles which appeared in periodicals were very clever, but not very
profound. One of these was reviewed in the "Saturday Review" ("Saturday
Review", November 15, 1862, 'The "Edinburgh Review" on the
Supernatural.' Written by my cousin, Mr. Henry Parker.) some years ago,
and the fallacy of some main argument was admirably exposed, and I sent
the article to you, and you agreed strongly with it... There was the other day
a rather good review of the Duke's book in the "Spectator", and with a new
explanation, either by the Duke or the reviewer (I could not make out
which), of rudimentary organs, namely, that economy of labour and
material was a great guiding principle with God (ignoring waste of seed and
of young monsters, etc.), and that making a new plan for the structure of
animals was thought, and thought was labour, and therefore God kept to a
uniform plan, and left rudiments. This is no exaggeration. In short, God is a
man, rather cleverer than us... I am very much obliged for the "Nation"
(returned by this post); it is ADMIRABLY good. You say I always guess
wrong, but I do not believe any one, except Asa Gray, could have done the
thing so well. I would bet even, or three to two, that it is Asa Gray, though
one or two passages staggered me.
I finish my book on 'Domestic Animals,' etc., by a single paragraph,
answering, or rather throwing doubt, in so far as so little space permits, on
Asa Gray's doctrine that each variation has been specially ordered or led
along a beneficial line. It is foolish to touch such subjects, but there have
been so many allusions to what I think about the part which God has played

in the formation of organic beings (Prof. Judd allows me to quote from
some notes which he has kindly given me:—"Lyell once told me that he had
frequently been asked if Darwin was not one of the most unhappy of men, it
being suggested that his outrage upon public opinion should have filled him
with remorse." Sir Charles Lyell must have been able, I think, to give a
satisfactory answer on this point. Professor Judd continues:—
"I made a note of this and other conversations of Lyell's at the time. At
the present time such statements must appear strange to any one who does
not recollect the revolution in opinion which has taken place during the last
23 years [1882]."), that I thought it shabby to evade the question... I have
even received several letters on the subject... I overlooked your sentence
about Providence, and suppose I treated it as Buckland did his own
theology, when his Bridgewater Treatise was read aloud to him for
correction...
[The following letter, from Mrs. Boole, is one of those referred to in the
last letter to Sir J.D. Hooker:]
Dear Sir,
Will you excuse my venturing to ask you a question, to which no one's
answer but your own would be quite satisfactory?
Do you consider the holding of your theory of Natural Selection, in its
fullest and most unreserved sense, to be inconsistent—I do not say with any
particular scheme of theological doctrine—but with the following belief,
namely:—
That knowledge is given to man by the direct inspiration of the Spirit of
God.
That God is a personal and Infinitely good Being.
That the effect of the action of the Spirit of God on the brain of man is
especially a moral effect.
And that each individual man has within certain limits a power of choice
as to how far he will yield to his hereditary animal impulses, and how far he
will rather follow the guidance of the Spirit, who is educating him into a
power of resisting those impulses in obedience to moral motives?
The reason why I ask you is this: my own impression has always been,
not only that your theory was perfectly COMPATIBLE with the faith to
which I have just tried to give expression, but that your books afforded me a

clue which would guide me in applying that faith to the solution of certain
complicated psychological problems which it was of practical importance to
me as a mother to solve. I felt that you had supplied one of the missing links
—not to say THE missing link—between the facts of science and the
promises of religion. Every year's experience tends to deepen in me that
impression.
But I have lately read remarks on the probable bearing of your theory on
religious and moral questions which have perplexed and pained me sorely. I
know that the persons who make such remarks must be cleverer and wiser
than myself. I cannot feel sure that they are mistaken, unless you will tell
me so. And I think—I cannot know for certain—but I THINK—that if I
were an author, I would rather that the humblest student of my works
should apply to me directly in a difficulty, than that she should puzzle too
long over adverse and probably mistaken or thoughtless criticisms.
At the same time I feel that you have a perfect right to refuse to answer
such questions as I have asked you. Science must take her path, and
Theology hers, and they will meet when and where and how God pleases,
and you are in no sense responsible for it if the meeting-point should still be
very far off. If I receive no answer to this letter I shall infer nothing from
your silence, except that you felt I had no right to make such enquiries of a
stranger.
[My father replied as follows:]
Down, December 14, [1866].
Dear Madam,
It would have gratified me much if I could have sent satisfactory answers
to your questions, or, indeed, answers of any kind. But I cannot see how the
belief that all organic beings, including man, have been genetically derived
from some simple being, instead of having been separately created, bears on
your difficulties. These, as it seems to me, can be answered only by widely
different evidence from science, or by the so-called "inner consciousness."
My opinion is not worth more than that of any other man who has thought
on such subjects, and it would be folly in me to give it. I may, however,
remark that it has always appeared to me more satisfactory to look at the
immense amount of pain and suffering in this world as the inevitable result
of the natural sequence of events, i.e. general laws, rather than from the
direct intervention of God, though I am aware this is not logical with

reference to an omniscient Deity. Your last question seems to resolve itself
into the problem of free will and necessity, which has been found by most
persons insoluble. I sincerely wish that this note had not been as utterly
valueless as it is. I would have sent full answers, though I have little time or
strength to spare, had it been in my power. I have the honour to remain,
dear Madam,
Yours very faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN.
P.S.—I am grieved that my views should incidentally have caused trouble
to your mind, but I thank you for your judgment, and honour you for it, that
theology and science should each run its own course, and that in the present
case I am not responsible if their meeting-point should still be far off.
[The next letter discusses the 'Reign of Law,' referred to a few pages
back:]

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, June 1 [1867].
... I am at present reading the Duke, and am VERY MUCH interested by
him; yet I cannot but think, clever as the whole is, that parts are weak, as
when he doubts whether each curvature of the beak of humming-birds is of
service to each species. He admits, perhaps too fully, that I have shown the
use of each little ridge and shape of each petal in orchids, and how strange
he does not extend the view to humming-birds. Still odder, it seems to me,
all that he says on beauty, which I should have thought a nonentity, except
in the mind of some sentient being. He might have as well said that love
existed during the secondary or Palaeozoic periods. I hope you are getting
on with your book better than I am with mine, which kills me with the
labour of correcting, and is intolerably dull, though I did not think so when
I was writing it. A naturalist's life would be a happy one if he had only to
observe, and never to write.
We shall be in London for a week in about a fortnight's time, and I shall
enjoy having a breakfast talk with you.
Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.
[The following letter refers to the new and improved translation of the
'Origin,' undertaken by Professor Carus:]

CHARLES DARWIN TO J. VICTOR CARUS. Down, February 17 [1867].
My dear Sir,
I have read your preface with care. It seems to me that you have treated
Bronn with complete respect and great delicacy, and that you have alluded
to your own labour with much modesty. I do not think that any of Bronn's
friends can complain of what you say and what you have done. For my own
sake, I grieve that you have not added notes, as I am sure that I should have
profited much by them; but as you have omitted Bronn's objections, I
believe that you have acted with excellent judgment and fairness in leaving
the text without comment to the independent verdict of the reader. I heartily
congratulate you that the main part of your labour is over; it would have
been to most men a very troublesome task, but you seem to have
indomitable powers of work, judging from those two wonderful and most
useful volumes on zoological literature ('Bibliotheca Zoologica,' 1861.)
edited by you, and which I never open without surprise at their accuracy,
and gratitude for their usefulness. I cannot sufficiently tell you how much I
rejoice that you were persuaded to superintend the translation of the present
edition of my book, for I have now the great satisfaction of knowing that
the German public can judge fairly of its merits and demerits...
With my cordial and sincere thanks, believe me,
My dear Sir, yours very faithfully, CH. DARWIN.
[The earliest letter which I have seen from my father to Professor
Haeckel, was written in 1865, and from that time forward they
corresponded (though not, I think, with any regularity) up to the end of my
father's life. His friendship with Haeckel was not nearly growth of
correspondence, as was the case with some others, for instance, Fritz
Muller. Haeckel paid more than one visit to Down, and these were
thoroughly enjoyed by my father. The following letter will serve to show
the strong feeling of regard which he entertained for his correspondent—a
feeling which I have often heard him emphatically express, and which was
warmly returned. The book referred to is Haeckel's 'Generelle
Morphologie,' published in 1866, a copy of which my father received from
the author in January 1867.

Dr. E. Krause ('Charles Darwin und sein Verhaltniss zu Deutschland,'
1885.) has given a good account of Professor Haeckel's services to the
cause of Evolution. After speaking of the lukewarm reception which the
'Origin' met with in Germany on its first publication, he goes on to describe
the first adherents of the new faith as more or less popular writers, not
especially likely to advance its acceptance with the professorial or purely
scientific world. And he claims for Haeckel that it was his advocacy of
Evolution in his 'Radiolaria' (1862), and at the "Versammlung" of
Naturalists at Stettin in 1863, that placed the Darwinian question for the
first time publicly before the forum of German science, and his enthusiastic
propagandism that chiefly contributed to its success.
Mr. Huxley, writing in 1869, paid a high tribute to Professor Haeckel as
the Coryphaeus of the Darwinian movement in Germany. Of his 'Generelle
Morphologie,' "an attempt to work out the practical application" of the
doctrine of Evolution to their final results, he says that it has the "force and
suggestiveness, and... systematising power of Oken without his
extravagance." Professor Huxley also testifies to the value of Haeckel's
'Schopfungs-Geschichte' as an exposition of the 'Generelle Morphologie'
"for an educated public."
Again, in his 'Evolution in Biology' (An article in the 'Encyclopaedia
Britannica,' 9th edition, reprinted in 'Science and Culture,' 1881, page 298.),
Mr. Huxley wrote: "Whatever hesitation may, not unfrequently, be felt by
less daring minds, in following Haeckel in many of his speculations, his
attempt to systematise the doctrine of Evolution, and to exhibit its influence
as the central thought of modern biology, cannot fail to have a far-reaching
influence on the progress of science."
In the following letter my father alludes to the somewhat fierce manner
in which Professor Haeckel fought the battle of 'Darwinismus,' and on this
subject Dr. Krause has some good remarks (page 162). He asks whether
much that happened in the heat of the conflict might not well have been
otherwise, and adds that Haeckel himself is the last man to deny this.
Nevertheless he thinks that even these things may have worked well for the
cause of Evolution, inasmuch as Haeckel "concentrated on himself by his
'Ursprung des Menschen-Geschlechts,' his 'Generelle Morphologie,' and
'Schopfungs-Geschichte,' all the hatred and bitterness which Evolution
excited in certain quarters," so that, "in a surprisingly short time it became

the fashion in Germany that Haeckel alone should be abused, while Darwin
was held up as the ideal of forethought and moderation."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO E. HAECKEL. Down, May 21, 1867.
Dear Haeckel,
Your letter of the 18th has given me great pleasure, for you have received
what I said in the most kind and cordial manner. You have in part taken
what I said much stronger than I had intended. It never occurred to me for a
moment to doubt that your work, with the whole subject so admirably and
clearly arranged, as well as fortified by so many new facts and arguments,
would not advance our common object in the highest degree. All that I think
is that you will excite anger, and that anger so completely blinds every one,
that your arguments would have no chance of influencing those who are
already opposed to our views. Moreover, I do not at all like that you,
towards whom I feel so much friendship, should unnecessarily make
enemies, and there is pain and vexation enough in the world without more
being caused. But I repeat that I can feel no doubt that your work will
greatly advance our subject, and I heartily wish it could be translated into
English, for my own sake and that of others. With respect to what you say
about my advancing too strongly objections against my own views, some of
my English friends think that I have erred on this side; but truth compelled
me to write what I did, and I am inclined to think it was good policy. The
belief in the descent theory is slowly spreading in England (In October
1867 he wrote to Mr. Wallace:—"Mr. Warrington has lately read an
excellent and spirited abstract of the 'Origin' before the Victoria Institute,
and as this is a most orthodox body, he has gained the name of the Devil's
Advocate. The discussion which followed during three consecutive
meetings is very rich from the nonsense talked. If you would care to see the
number I could send it you."), even amongst those who can give no reason
for their belief. No body of men were at first so much opposed to my views
as the members of the London Entomological Society, but now I am assured
that, with the exception of two or three old men, all the members concur
with me to a certain extent. It has been a great disappointment to me that I
have never received your long letter written to me from the Canary Islands.
I am rejoiced to hear that your tour, which seems to have been a most

interesting one, has done your health much good. I am working away at my
new book, but make very slow progress, and the work tries my health,
which is much the same as when you were here.
Victor Carus is going to translate it, but whether it is worth translation, I
am rather doubtful. I am very glad to hear that there is some chance of your
visiting England this autumn, and all in this house will be delighted to see
you here.
Believe me, my dear Haeckel, Yours very sincerely, CHARLES
DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO F. MULLER. Down, July 31 [1867].
My dear Sir,
I received a week ago your letter of June 2, full as usual of valuable
matter and specimens. It arrived at exactly the right time, for I was enabled
to give a pretty full abstract of your observations on the plant's own pollen
being poisonous. I have inserted this abstract in the proo-sheets in my
chapter on sterility, and it forms the most striking part of my whole chapter.
(In 'The Variation of Animals and Plants.') I thank you very sincerely for the
most interesting observations, which, however, I regret that you did not
publish independently. I have been forced to abbreviate one or two parts
more than I wished... Your letters always surprise me, from the number of
points to which you attend. I wish I could make my letters of any interest to
you, for I hardly ever see a naturalist, and live as retired a life as you in
Brazil. With respect to mimetic plants, I remember Hooker many years ago
saying he believed that there were many, but I agree with you that it would
be most difficult to distinguish between mimetic resemblance and the
effects of peculiar conditions. Who can say to which of these causes to
attribute the several plants with heath-like foliage at the Cape of Good
Hope? Is it not also a difficulty that quadrupeds appear to recognise plants
more by their [scent] than their appearance? What I have just said reminds
me to ask you a question. Sir J. Lubbock brought me the other day what
appears to be a terrestrial Planaria (the first ever found in the northern
hemisphere) and which was coloured exactly like our dark-coloured slugs.
Now slugs are not devoured by birds, like the shell-bearing species, and this
made me remember that I found the Brazilian Planariae actually together

with striped Vaginuli which I believe were similarly coloured. Can you
throw any light on this? I wish to know, because I was puzzled some
months ago how it would be possible to account for the bright colours of
the Planariae in reference to sexual selection. By the way, I suppose they
are hermaphrodites.
Do not forget to aid me, if in your power, with answers to ANY of my
questions on expression, for the subject interests me greatly. With cordial
thanks for your never-failing kindness, believe me,
Yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, July 18 [1867].
My dear Lyell,
Many thanks for your long letter. I am sorry to hear that you are in
despair about your book (The 2nd volume of the 10th Edition of the
'Principles.'); I well know that feeling, but am now getting out of the lower
depths. I shall be very much pleased, if you can make the least use of my
present book, and do not care at all whether it is published before yours.
Mine will appear towards the end of November of this year; you speak of
yours as not coming out till November, 1868, which I hope may be an error.
There is nothing about Man in my book which can interfere with you, so I
will order all the completed clean sheets to be sent (and others as soon as
ready) to you, but please observe you will not care for the first volume,
which is a mere record of the amount of variation; but I hope the second
will be somewhat more interesting. Though I fear the whole must be dull.
I rejoice from my heart that you are going to speak out plainly about
species. My book about Man, if published, will be short, and a large portion
will be devoted to sexual selection, to which subject I alluded in the 'Origin'
as bearing on Man...

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, August 22 [1867].
My dear Lyell,
I thank you cordially for your last two letters. The former one did me
REAL good, for I had got so wearied with the subject that I could hardly

bear to correct the proofs (The proofs of 'Animals and Plants,' which Lyell
was then reading.), and you gave me fresh heart. I remember thinking that
when you came to the Pigeon chapter you would pass it over as quite
unreadable. Your last letter has interested me in very many ways, and I have
been glad to hear about those horrid unbelieving Frenchmen. I have been
particularly pleased that you have noticed Pangenesis. I do not know
whether you ever had the feeling of having thought so much over a subject
that you had lost all power of judging it. This is my case with Pangenesis
(which is 26 or 27 years old), but I am inclined to think that if it be admitted
as a probable hypothesis it will be a somewhat important step in Biology.
I cannot help still regretting that you have ever looked at the slips, for I
hope to improve the whole a good deal. It is surprising to me, and
delightful, that you should care in the least about the plants. Altogether you
have given me one of the best cordials I ever had in my life, and I heartily
thank you. I despatched this morning the French edition. (Of the 'Origin.' It
appears that my father was sending a copy of the French edition to Sir
Charles. The introduction was by Mdlle. Royer, who translated the book.)
The introduction was a complete surprise to me, and I dare say has injured
the book in France; nevertheless... it shows, I think, that the woman is
uncommonly clever. Once again many thanks for the renewed courage with
which I shall attack the horrid proof-sheets.
Yours affectionately, CHARLES DARWIN.
P.S.—A Russian who is translating my new book into Russian has been
here, and says you are immensely read in Russia, and many editions—how
many I forget. Six editions of Buckle and four editions of the 'Origin.'

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, October 16 [1867].
My dear Gray,
I send by this post clean sheets of Volume I. up to page 336, and there are
only 411 pages in this volume. I am VERY glad to hear that you are going
to review my book; but if the "Nation" (The book was reviewed by Dr.
Gray in the "Nation", March 19, 1868.) is a newspaper I wish it were at the
bottom of the sea, for I fear that you will thus be stopped reviewing me in a
scientific journal. The first volume is all details, and you will not be able to
read it; and you must remember that the chapters on plants are written for

naturalists who are not botanists. The last chapter in Volume I. is, however,
I think, a curious compilation of facts; it is on bu-variation. In Volume II.
some of the chapters are more interesting; and I shall be very curious to
hear your verdict on the chapter on close inte-breeding. The chapter on
what I call Pangenesis will be called a mad dream, and I shall be pretty well
satisfied if you think it a dream worth publishing; but at the bottom of my
own mind I think it contains a great truth. I finish my book with a semi-
theological paragraph, in which I quote and differ from you; what you will
think of it, I know not...

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 17 [1867].
My dear Hooker,
Congratulate me, for I have finished the last revise of the last sheet of my
book. It has been an awful job: seven and a half months correcting the
press: the book, from much small type, does not look big, but is really very
big. I have had hard work to keep up to the mark, but during the last week
only few revises came, so that I have rested and feel more myself. Hence,
after our long mutual silence, I enjoy myself by writing a note to you, for
the sake of exhaling, and hearing from you. On account of the index (The
index was made by Mr. W.S. Dallas; I have often heard my father express
his admiration of this excellent piece of work.), I do not suppose that you
will receive your copy till the middle of next month. I shall be intensely
anxious to hear what you think about Pangenesis; though I can see how
fearfully imperfect, even in mere conjectural conclusions, it is; yet it has
been an infinite satisfaction to me somehow to connect the various large
groups of facts, which I have long considered, by an intelligible thread. I
shall not be at all surprised if you attack it and me with unparalleled
ferocity. It will be my endeavour to do as little as possible for some time,
but [I] shall soon prepare a paper or two for the Linnean Society. In a short
time we shall go to London for ten days, but the time is not yet fixed. Now I
have told you a deal about myself, and do let me hear a good deal about
your own past and future doings. Can you pay us a visit, early in
December?... I have seen no one for an age, and heard no news.
... About my book I will give you a bit of advice. Skip the WHOLE of
Volume I., except the last chapter (and that need only be skimmed) and skip

largely in the 2nd volume; and then you will say it is a very good book.
1868.
['The Variation of Animals and Plants' was, as already mentioned,
published on January 30, 1868, and on that day he sent a copy to Fritz
Muller, and wrote to him:—
"I send by this post, by French packet, my new book, the publication of
which has been much delayed. The greater part, as you will see, is not
meant to be read; but I should very much like to hear what you think of
'Pangenesis,' though I fear it will appear to EVERY ONE far too
speculative."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. February 3 [1868].
... I am very much pleased at what you say about my Introduction; after it
was in type I was as near as possible cancelling the whole. I have been for
some time in despair about my book, and if I try to read a few pages I feel
fairly nauseated, but do not let this make you praise it; for I have made up
my mind that it is not worth a fifth part of the enormous labour it has cost
me. I assure you that all that is worth your doing (if you have time for so
much) is glancing at Chapter VI., and reading parts of the later chapters.
The facts on self-impotent plants seem to me curious, and I have worked
out to my own satisfaction the good from crossing and evil from
interbreeding. I did read Pangenesis the other evening, but even this, my
beloved child, as I had fancied, quite disgusted me. The devil take the
whole book; and yet now I am at work again as hard as I am able. It is
really a great evil that from habit I have pleasure in hardly anything except
Natural History, for nothing else makes me forget my eve-recurrent
uncomfortable sensations. But I must not howl any more, and the critics
may say what they like; I did my best, and man can do no more. What a
splendid pursuit Natural History would be if it was all observing and no
writing!...

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 10 [1868].
My dear Hooker,

What is the good of having a friend, if one may not boast to him? I heard
yesterday that Murray has sold in a week the whole edition of 1500 copies
of my book, and the sale so pressing that he has agreed with Clowes to get
another edition in fourteen days! This has done me a world of good, for I
had got into a sort of dogged hatred of my book. And now there has
appeared a review in the "Pall Mall" which has pleased me excessively,
more perhaps than is reasonable. I am quite content, and do not care how
much I may be pitched into. If by any chance you should hear who wrote
the article in the "Pall Mall", do please tell me; it is some one who writes
capitally, and who knows the subject. I went to luncheon on Sunday, to
Lubbock's, partly in hopes of seeing you, and, be hanged to you, you were
not there.
Your cock-a-hoop friend, C.D.
[Independently of the favourable tone of the able series of notices in the
"Pall Mall Gazette" (February 10, 15, 17, 1868), my father may well have
been gratified by the following passages:—
"We must call attention to the rare and noble calmness with which he
expounds his own views, undisturbed by the heats of polemical agitation
which those views have excited, and persistently refusing to retort on his
antagonists by ridicule, by indignation, or by contempt. Considering the
amount of vituperation and insinuation which has come from the other side,
this forbearance is supremely dignified."
And again in the third notice, February 17:—
"Nowhere has the author a word that could wound the most sensitive sel-
love of an antagonist; nowhere does he, in text or note, expose the fallacies
and mistakes of brother investigators... but while abstaining from
impertinent censure, he is lavish in acknowledging the smallest debts he
may owe; and his book will make many men happy."
I am indebted to Messrs. Smith & Elder for the information that these
articles were written by Mr. G.H. Lewes.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 23 [1868].
My dear Hooker,

I have had almost as many letters to write of late as you can have, viz.
from 8 to 10 per diem, chiefly getting up facts on sexual selection, therefore
I have felt no inclination to write to you, and now I mean to write solely
about my book for my own satisfaction, and not at all for yours. The first
edition was 1500 copies, and now the second is printed off; sharp work. Did
you look at the review in the "Athenaeum" ("Athenaeum", February 15,
1868. My father quoted Pouchet's assertion that "variation under
domestication throws no light on the natural modification of species." The
reviewer quotes the end of a passage in which my father declares that he
can see no force in Pouchet's arguments, or rather assertions, and then goes
on: "We are sadly mistaken if there are not clear proofs in the pages of the
book before us that, on the contrary, Mr. Darwin has perceived, felt, and
yielded to the force of the arguments or assertions of his French antagonist."
The following may serve as samples of the rest of the review:—
"Henceforth the rhetoricians will have a better illustration of anti-climax
than the mountain which brought forth a mouse,... in the discoverer of the
origin of species, who tried to explain the variation of pigeons!
"A few summary words. On the 'Origin of Species' Mr. Darwin has
nothing, and is never likely to have anything, to say; but on the vastly
important subject of inheritance, the transmission of peculiarities once
acquired through successive generations, this work is a valuable store-house
of facts for curious students and practical breeders."), showing profound
contempt of me?... It is a shame that he should have said that I have taken
much from Pouchet, without acknowledgment; for I took literally nothing,
there being nothing to take. There is a capital review in the "Gardeners'
Chronicle" which will sell the book if anything will. I don't quite see
whether I or the writer is in a muddle about man CAUSING variability. If a
man drops a bit of iron into sulphuric acid he does not cause the affinities to
come into play, yet he may be said to make sulphate of iron. I do not know
how to avoid ambiguity.
After what the "Pall Mall Gazette" and the "Chronicle" have said I do not
care a d—.
I fear Pangenesis is stillborn; Bates says he has read it twice, and is not
sure that he understands it. H. Spencer says the view is quite different from
his (and this is a great relief to me, as I feared to be accused of plagiarism,
but utterly failed to be sure what he meant, so thought it safest to give my