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."]