CHAPTER VI.

LETTERS TO DARWIN AND OTHERS.

1860-1868.

As before stated, Dr. Gray’s letters to Dr. Darwin previous to 1862 have

been destroyed, save the one dated January 23, 1860, which was published

in Darwin’s “Life and Letters,” and is here reproduced for the

convenience of the reader, as well as Dr. Gray’s letter of January 5,

1860, to Dr. Joseph D. Hooker, also published in Darwin’s “Life and

Letters.” The original letters to Darwin later than 1862 have been more

or less injured, apparently by the ravages of mice, so that in copying

them it has sometimes been necessary to supply missing words. Where

these are not obvious, the supposed words are enclosed in brackets.

The letters in this chapter also include the period of the civil war;

into which, as they show, Dr. Gray threw himself with all his

earnestness. He helped as far as he was able in every way. A company of

the men who were too old or otherwise incapacitated from going to the

front was enlisted in Cambridge to guard the State Arsenal there, and

also to be ready to be summoned in any emergency; and he joined the

ranks and was faithful in the drilling and every duty to which they were

called. It is hard to realize, in these days, how all the community

worked together in all possible ways; it was the business of life.

TO J. D. HOOKER.

CAMBRIDGE, January 5, 1860.

MY DEAR HOOKER,--Your last letter, which reached me just before

Christmas, has got mislaid during the upturnings in my study which take

place at that season, and has not yet been discovered. I should be very

sorry to lose it, for there were in it some botanical mems. which I had

not secured....

The principal part of your letter was high laudation of Darwin’s book.

Well, the book has reached me, and I finished its careful perusal four

days ago; and I freely say that your laudation is not out of place.

It is done in a masterly manner. It might well have taken twenty years

to produce it. It is crammed full of most interesting matter, thoroughly

digested, well expressed, close, cogent; and taken as a system it makes

out a better case than I had supposed possible....

I will write to Darwin when I get a chance. As I have promised, he and

you shall have fair play here.... I must myself write a review of

Darwin’s book for “Silliman’s Journal” (the more so that I suspect

Agassiz means to come out upon it) for the next (March) number, and I am

now setting about it when I ought to be every moment working the

Exploring Expedition Compositæ, which I know far more about. And really

it is no easy job, as you may well imagine.

I doubt if I shall please you altogether. I know I shall not please

Agassiz at all. I hear another reprint is in the press, and the book

will excite much attention here, and some controversy....

TO CHARLES DARWIN.

CAMBRIDGE, January 23, 1860.

MY DEAR DARWIN,--You have my hurried letter telling you of the arrival

of the remainder of the sheets of the reprint, and of the stir I had

made for a reprint in Boston. Well, all looked pretty well, when lo, we

found that a second New York publishing house had announced a reprint

also! I wrote then to both New York publishers, asking them to give way

to the author and his reprint of a revised edition. I got an answer from

Harpers that they withdraw; from the Appletons, that they had got the

book out (and the next day I saw a copy); but that, “if the work should

have any considerable sale, we certainly shall be disposed to pay the

author reasonably and liberally.”

The Appletons being thus out with their reprint, the Boston house

declined to go on. So I wrote to the Appletons, taking them at their

word, offering to aid their reprint, to give them the use of the

alterations in the London reprint, as soon as I find out what they are,

etc., etc. And I sent them the first leaf, and asked them to insert in

their future issue the additional matter from Butler,[45] which tells

just right. So there the matter stands. If you furnish any matter in

advance of the London third edition, I will make them pay for it.

I may get something for you. All got is clear gain; but it will not be

very much, I suppose.

Such little notices in the papers as have yet appeared are quite

handsome and considerable.

I hope next week to get printed sheets of my review from New Haven, and

send them to you, and will ask you to pass them on to Dr. Hooker.

To fulfill your request, I ought to tell you what I think the weakest,

and what the best, part of your book. But this is not easy, nor to be

done in a word or two. The best part, I think, is _the whole_, that is,

its plan and treatment, the vast amount of facts and acute inferences

handled as if you had a perfect mastery of them. I do not think twenty

years too much time to produce such a book in.

Style clear and good, but now and then wants revision for little matters

(p. 97, self-fertilizes itself, etc.).

Then your candor is worth everything to your cause. It is refreshing to

find a person with a new theory who frankly confesses that he finds

difficulties, insurmountable at least for the present. I know some

people who never have any difficulties to speak of.

The moment I understood your premises, I felt sure you had a real

foundation to hold on. Well, if one admits your premises, I do not see

how he is to stop short of your conclusions, as a probable hypothesis at

least.

It naturally happens that my review of your book does not exhibit

anything like the full force of the impression the book has made upon

me. Under the circumstances I suppose I do your theory more good here,

by bespeaking for it a fair and favorable consideration, and by standing

noncommitted as to its full conclusion, than I should if I announced

myself a convert; nor could I say the latter, with truth.

Well, what seems to me the weakest point in the book is the attempt to

account for the formation of organs, the making of eyes, etc., by

natural selection. Some of this reads quite Lamarckian.

The chapter on Hybridism is not a _weak_, but a _strong_ chapter. You

have done wonders there. But still you have not accounted, as you may be

held to account, for divergence up to a certain extent producing

increased fertility of the crosses, but carried one short, almost

imperceptible, step more, giving rise to sterility, or reversing the

tendency. Very likely you are on the right track; but you have something

to do yet in that department.

Enough for the present.

I am not insensible to your compliments, the very high compliment which

you pay me in valuing my opinion. You evidently think more of it than I

do, though from the way I write to you, and especially to Hooker, this

might not be inferred from the reading of my letters.

I am free to say that I never learnt so much from one book as I have

from yours. There remain a thousand things I long to say about it.

Ever yours,

ASA GRAY.

TO CHARLES L. BRACE.

1861 (?)

DEAR BRACE,--I should criticise various things in your last “Times”

article, if you were here to talk it over with me.

If you expected Huxley to do what you criticise him for not doing, you

would naturally be disappointed. His merit, and his way as a lecturer,

is to select some good topic or point of view and make a clear

exposition of it, the clearness of which very much depends upon his not

scattering himself over too much ground. He naturally kept himself to

matters he could handle well, and let alone those upon which, as we very

well know, he had nothing in particular to say.

1. “Merest fancies,” “baseless fabric of a dream,” etc.

Why, what made Owen an evolutionist as early as Darwin? And what has

made so many naturalists, Mivart, and lately Dana, for instance,

evolutionists, who yet think nothing of Natural Selection?

But to illustrate. You allow that the evolutionary pedigree of the horse

is made out. But what had “Natural Selection” to do with the making this

out?

It would have been all the very same, both the evidence and the ground

of the inference, if Natural Selection had never been propounded. There

is no evidence how the forms were selected, there is simply the _fact_

of the series of forms, which, with other like evidence, brings

conviction to most naturalists that one has somehow come from the other.

And this conviction is about as strong to those who do not believe

“Natural Selection” will explain it, as those who do.

2. Professor Guyot, you mean. Dana avowedly adopts from Guyot.

3. To those who talk or think of necessary evolution, or, like Spencer,

deduce it ex necessitate rei, this matter of immense time is very

pertinent. I don’t think Darwin is bothered by it much. On my way of

thinking, it is no bother at all, considering what a deal of time there

has been anyway.

4. Do you mean “hybrid forms”? I fail to see what hybrids, that is,

mules from the crossing of related species, has to do with it, one way

or the other. Nobody (of clear conceptions) supposes new species come

from the mixture of other species. That is a way to confuse or blend

species, not to originate them. But there is no “want of hybrids;”

there are plenty of them, and they have mixed some few species (dogs,

for instance); but they play no important part in the matters you are

considering.

“Want of connecting forms in living species,” that is to the purpose.

Well, as a systematic botanist, I wish there was a _want_. The

connecting forms are my _great trouble_ every day. You would save me an

awful deal of trouble, time, and constant uncertainty, if you would

cause them to be wanting!

5. So you will not accept the motto “ex uno disce omnes.”

If you admit the horse’s evolution as proved, does not that carry an

implication of evolution in other lines, of which similar, but fewer

steps are known? Or are all evolutions those of cavalry?

CAMBRIDGE, June 17, 1862.

DEAR BRACE,--Thanks for the “World.” Who wield its destinies?

It is, I suppose, your article on Darwin, a very good one, for its

purpose and space.

Before you too confidently reject the evidence for the existence of man

in the diluvial period, just turn over a very impartial and good article

by Pictet,--a good judge of such matters,--in the March number of the

“Bibliothèque Universelle de Genève,” “De la Question sur l’Homme

Fossile.”

I presume it is in the Astor Library. If it is not, you may tell Mr.

Cogswell there might as well not be any Astor Library.

Ever thine,

A. GRAY.

CAMBRIDGE, April 22, 1862 (?)

DEAR BRACE,--You are very welcome to such casual criticism as I can

offer on your two pages of manuscript.

The general fact of a segregated people (or individuals of an animal

species) becoming best adapted to the particular climate, etc., through

Natural Selection is clear enough, the best adapted alone surviving in

the long run, and the peculiarities transmitted by the close breeding.

But what your statements tend to make out is, not the tendency of a

human race to return to its original type, but only the tendency of the

causes which produced a certain effect once, to produce it again, the

circumstances continuing,--to produce it in the Fellahs as it produced

it in the remote ancestors of the Pharaohs.

That is all safe enough. But your case does not prove that unless you

make out that the Egyptian race was nearly destroyed by crossings.

I do not know, but I doubt if you can show that the crossings were ever

enough to modify the Egyptian people, at least the common people, who

make up the bulk. Slight infusions, you see, would be worked out. The

foreign though conquering race would be less prolific and less enduring

than the native, etc., etc. So is it not likely that in the Fellahs you

have the representatives of the old Egyptians continued, not reproduced,

as your remarks would partly lead one to suppose your meaning?

Besides, once having got a race you must not make too much of climate,

to the overlooking of the wonderful persistence of any variety when

close bred. See the Jews: the nose remains hooked, etc., under all

climates.

Again, in your last sentence. When you _unscientific people_ take up a

scientific principle you are apt to make too much of it, to push it to

conclusions beyond what is warranted by the facts. But, because a

particular race has persisted in Egypt, how do you know that it is the

only race capable of perpetuating itself?

If there had been a large infusion of different people in Egypt, and if

they had exterminated the old race, do you not suppose this would have

established itself, perpetuated itself, and that its particular

adaptations to the climate would have been different from that of the

present race?

If you cut off all future immigration into North America, would the

Indians resume possession of the country? or else our descendants become

a copper-colored race?

Enough for the present. When you have cracked these nuts, send me, if

you please, another sheet.

Ever yours cordially,

ASA GRAY.

CAMBRIDGE, July 6, 1863.

DEAR BRACE,--Yours of 20th ult. came just as J. was off for New Haven

and I getting ready to go to her aid.

We came back only on Thursday, or rather Friday morning. My hands so

full that I could not write to Darwin, to whom I owe a long letter, till

to-night. I will now inclose your note.

It would be very like a chemist to think that external influences will

explain everything. But I presume he believes that peculiarities are

heritable. If he does, then he thinks he can explain, or will be able to

explain, the origination of variations. I cannot, that is, to any

extent, and do not expect to. When he will show us how external

influences actually worked to change a peach into a nectarine, I will

consider his proposition.

If he means by “external influences” whatever has brought about the

change, very well. I, of course, allow that every variation has a cause,

a physical cause. But it seems to me you may as well say that conception

and the production of a normal offspring is the result of “external

influences” as the production of an abnormal (variant) offspring.

But there is no use writing at random.

You ask me whether I adhere to my notions before expressed, without at

all showing me how they have been impugned.

I should rather expect Guyot to indorse Beaumont; a theological bias

would act strongly.

But I rely most on Lartet, Coulon, and Pictet, for the age of deposit.

Yet it may still be an open question....

Darwin, on account of his health, has to live away from London, and is a

recluse. I give no letters to him, least of all to a lively inquisitive

Yankee like Beecher, who would give him a fit of dyspepsia at once, from

mere excitement.

I have the Imperial Academy of Sciences of St. Petersburg honorary

membership; quite a feather, as they are choice and few. Diploma just

come.

Ever yours,

A. GRAY.

TO R. W. CHURCH.

May 7, 1861.

It was very good of you to write to me (by your letter of 28th of March)

when I believe that a former letter of yours was still unacknowledged by

me. Your letters always give me much pleasure.

What you say of “Essays and Reviews” seems to me most sensible and well

considered; the best thing I have read about the book, viz., that, “with

many good and true things in it, it is a reckless book,” and that some

of the writers had not taken the trouble to clear up their own thoughts

and to form orderly and consistent notions before publishing upon such

delicate topics.

I have not yet read the book; have only looked it over, and read some of

the criticisms. When I have a few days’ leisure in the country, in July,

I mean to read it carefully. After the flurry is over, I hope the book

will receive the proper kind of handling in England, by the proper men.

I wish you would think it in your way to write an essay upon some of the

points at issue, upon which inconsiderate views are likely to be taken

upon either side.

I confess to a strong dislike of Baden Powell’s writings. He seems to

have had a coarse, materialistic, non-religious mind; at least, he is

not the sort of man I should select to illustrate the delicate relations

between religion and science.

I am gratified, also, by your apprehending the spirit and object of my

essay[46] on Darwin so much better than many who write to me about it.

All it pretends to is to warn the reckless and inconsiderate to state

the case as it is; to protest against the folly of those who would, it

would seem, go on to fire away the very ramparts of the citadel, in the

defense of needless outposts; and, as you justly remark, to clear the

way for a fair discussion of the new theory on its merits and evidence.

We must use the theory a while in botany and in zoölogy, and see how it

will work; in this way a few years will test it thoroughly. I incline

to think that its principles will be to a certain extent admitted in

science, but that, as Darwin conceives it, it will prove quite

insufficient.

As to our country, we have been, as a people, undergoing a steady

demoralization for the last fifteen or twenty years, the natural end of

which lately seemed to be that we should crumble into decay almost

without an effort at recovery. If it had been sought under legal forms

and in a less outrageous spirit, I think the North would have consented

to the peaceful separation of the cotton States, and we should have

prospered by the separation. But it has become clear that there would be

no living with such a people as our neighbors would be, so long as they

allow themselves (against the better judgment of the best) to be ruled

by the political demagogues who now hold sway over them. It is clear we

must fight, and we had better do it now, and fight for the integrity of

the country and the enforcement of the laws. So we are fairly and justly

in it, and we are going to conquer the South. They have appealed to

force. They must abide the consequences of the appeal, and, we trust,

God will help the right. So you may expect to hear of stirring times

here. Ever, with great regard,

Yours most cordially,

ASA GRAY.

TO GEORGE ENGELMANN.

January 25, 1861.

The Union is overthrown by a conspiracy which would have been kept

within bounds, and soon shut itself up, if the border slave States cared

enough for the Union to take hold, or even allow it to be arrested or

checked. But no, they must become insane, like the rest, and help it

along. Virginia will not take hold and second Kentucky and Tennessee,

fighting nobly by Johnson, Crittenden, etc., declare against treason

first, and then arrange terms, which are all ready, all they want, for

composing the difficulties.

But Cottondom will not have peace and union, and Virginia, etc., are

foolish enough to help their game. That the border Southern States will

be the principal sufferers will be only a righteous retribution for

their guilt.

If, in fact, we only belong to a partnership which any of the partners

can dissolve at will, then the Union is not worth having. We must do the

best we can without it, and if Missouri would prosper, she should stay

with us.

If peace is wanted, the reasonable proposition, “no more territory to be

acquired without a majority of two thirds of the States,” would give it.

With that you may do what you like, or rather what you can, in the

present Territories. No more of the continent is worth having, either

for North or South.

Posterity will judge rightly, and Toombs, Cobb, Floyd, etc., will go

down to their graves as base, dishonored traitors.

My fighting days are over, anyway. I have had the misfortune to lose the

end of my left thumb, by an accident, just at the base of the nail.

May 25, 1861.

I am very glad to hear from you. I believe I have a former letter from

you unanswered. Lately I mailed to you some botanical pamphlets, one

containing the Xantus California plants.[47] But in these times I had

not the heart to write you. You have seen your dream of peace policy

fall in pieces, and Douglas coming out for the war. You have also seen

enough to perceive that under the let-alone policy Missouri also would

have seceded, under the same discipline which has been applied

elsewhere. In which event, let alone, St. Louis would dwindle to a

country village.

No, the first and paramount duty of a country is to protect and preserve

itself against destruction. The Constitution and government must be

maintained, and treason put down if we are able to do it.

If it can’t be done, then, and then only, may we submit to

disintegration.

Stick firm to the Union, and Missouri will come out well. I am sorry for

the bloodshed at St. Louis. Your population is hard to manage. But

Harney, as you say, is doing well, and I expect to see your State soon a

loyal one. Even those with secession affinities must soon see their own

interests. It is impossible there should be peace,--peace is not worth

having till the rebellion, based on a plot formed years ago, is put

down.

If you think me belligerent, I am nothing to Agassiz. Of course we shall

all suffer severely. But better to suffer in devotion to the Union than

prosper in petty fragments.

Enough of this. May God preserve and keep you, and let us hear from you

when you can; for we take great interest in you, and know your position

is a trying one.

CAMBRIDGE, August 6, 1861.

MY DEAR ENGELMANN,--As soon as I got clear of college work, my wife and

I started off (on the 12th of July) to visit my mother and friends in

Oneida County, New York, where we rode and drove about in the fine air,

over a most beautiful country, and enjoyed ourselves to the full, to her

great advantage; also mine. Then we cut across the State to

Pennsylvania, visited the coal region of north Pennsylvania; traveled

very leisurely; passed through New York, seeing the Torreys three hours,

and so to Litchfield, Connecticut, where Mrs. G. is left, and I am at

home, to set to work again, having done nothing in botany except to

teach since last April.

Now I am going to set to work as soon as correspondence is cleared off.

I found here also a letter from Dr. Parry,[48] and have named the

specimens in both, sending the answer to you for forwarding, also Dr.

Parry’s letter to me.

He can’t miss it if he keeps at work between Denver and Salt Lake,

climbing to truly alpine regions as often as he can.

Dr. Hooker sent me last spring a fine cast of a bust of Robert Brown.

To-day I have also from him a splendid one of his father, Sir William.

Tell Fendler that Mr. Shaw should procure both if possible for the

Library of Hort. Bot., Missouri.

What next? A young gardener has found a locality of Calluna vulgaris,

covering almost an acre, within twenty-five miles of Boston; a case to

add to Scolopendrium, Marsilea, etc., but most of all, striking and

unexpected. It grows in low ground, and has every appearance of being

indigenous.

August 27.

I hope and trust that Frémont will be strong enough to keep the war out

of your neighborhood. The citizens of Missouri ought to volunteer in

such numbers as to keep the rebels out of the State and keep the State

true and firm in the Union. It is the cheapest and most honorable way,

and will save property, avoid distress, etc.

This rebellion is certainly going to be put down, no matter at what

cost, and property at St. Louis will be worth more than ever yet before

you and I reach three score and ten.

November 11.

I think very little of Unionists who have been “made Secessionists” by

anything. What matter whether you have one fifth, one tenth, or

four fifths Unionists, if they will not fight to put down

Secessionists,--they might as well be Secessionists out and out.

Maryland and Missouri will not and must not be allowed to secede or to

do seceders’ work, cost what it will. And it is a great blessing to them

that we restrain them. The Union must be preserved; suffering is a very

small matter in comparison--all must take their part, and the rebels

must suffer hard till they give up. We are only beginning to fight. If

Missouri wanted security she should have put down her secessionists

herself with the strong hand, at the beginning. So of Kentucky. But she

has been forced to find out and feel her duty and her honor, and to act.

God save the Union, and confusion to all traitors.

TO DANIEL CADY EATON.

CAMBRIDGE, October 4, 1861.

Your three parcels and letter of October first have duly come. I believe

I never answered your note of August 28.

I can’t abide writing letters nowadays. But I think often of you. You

are happy in being able to do something direct. I wish I could. Find me

a useful place in the army, and I will go at once.

My wife and I have scraped up $550, all we can scrape, and lent it to

the United States. I am amazed that people do not come forward with

their money--those that can’t go to fight. I wish I could do both....

I have to-day a letter from Wright, September 4. He is of late

botanizing with more spirit than formerly.

A sailing-vessel is up here for Santiago. I shall write by it, the

United States mail by steamer being so interrupted, and perhaps send

some publications, newspapers, etc. But I shall leave for you to send

the “Flora of the British West Indies,” as you suggest. I could not

spare my copy....

I hope this taking up of large transport vessels means something, and

something prompt and thorough.

Thus far one is sick and sad, so little is done.

I had some hopes that your good father would be put at the head of the

Commissary Department. I trust he will get promotion somewhat according

to his deserts anyhow. Oh for faithful and honest officers and

officials!...

TO GEORGE ENGELMANN.

CAMBRIDGE, January 15, 1862.

I do not like to write to you much about the war, and that is much

reason why I have not sooner replied to yours of December 9.

My brother-in-law and his cousin are both officers in Burnside’s

expedition, which we expect will do something.

Mrs. Gray and I send warmest New Year greetings to you and Mrs. E., and

hope you may feel all right and country safe in 1863.

February 20.

Bravo for Illinois, to which victory at Fort Donelson is due, and bravo

for Tennessee and Alabama full of Union men! Does not your old

Union blood rise? Pray, now drop all your let-treason-alone,

do-nothing-disorganizing notions, and go in for the country, the whole

country, reinstate it first, and then we will all go in and make it what

it should be. The ungenerous conduct of England shows what a condition

we should be in as a fraction, and she playing off one portion against

the other, and bullying both.

I pray Congress to put on taxes, five per cent direct on property and

income, and heavy indirect besides. What is property! I would fight till

every cent is gone, and would offer my own life freely; so I do not

value the lives or property of rebels above my own. God bless you.

May 22.

A most lovely spring here. We all flourish and prosper, and rejoice in

the strengthening of our national power, and advancing restoration of

the Union, with hopes of hanging leaders of the rebellion, exiling a

good many, and pardoning all the rank and file who will come back with a

good grace to their allegiance. If they will not, let them beware! Væ

victis to such.

The country is to be kept in the Union. If the people choose to stay,

let them, and peace be with them. If they wish to emigrate, very well.

The North, aided by immigrating Teutons, has great colonizing power, and

we can rapidly settle Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi, etc.

There, this is enough for the present to rile you.

As to Euphorbias, the published names here must take precedence to

unpublished names of Shuttleworth, etc.

Ever your most peaceful friend,

ASA GRAY.

TO CHARLES DARWIN.

CAMBRIDGE, October 10, 1860.

Thanks for very interesting letter of September 10. I am much pressed

now, or would write a long gossiping letter. The bound copy of “Origin”

is just received from Murray. Many thanks....

I believe I have seen a pod or two of Horseradish; but they are rare.

Your germinations show curious resemblance of dimorphic-crosses with

hybrid-crosses, as shown by Naudin; very interesting and capital points

for you.

January (?), 1862.

I imagine it is now universally felt here that if we do not do it [i.

e., carry on the fighting] we shall have to eat much dirt; that the

establishment of a rival power on our long southern line of the free

States, to be played off against us, is not to be submitted to if it

can be prevented at any sacrifice. God help us, indeed, if our honorable

existence is to have no better safeguard than the generosity or sense of

justice of more powerful nations! As to slavery, the course of things is

getting to meet your views, as it is clear must be, if the South

continues obstinate. If they give up war they may save their institution

in their own States, to have the chance of abolishing it themselves in

the only safe and easy way, with time and the gradual competition of

white labor. But obstinate resistance will surely bring on wide-sweeping

manumission.

You see that we are not going to have war [with England] at present. And

it appears that the decision of our government will be as unitedly and

thoroughly sustained by the whole people as if it had been the other

way; contrary to Mr. Russell’s prediction, and to our dear friend Dr.

Boott’s, who writes about our “mob” in a way he would not if he were

here to see. Look at an English mob urging up their government so that

they felt obliged to back up their demands, with a menacing force on our

borders; and making such a peremptory demand as you justly say,

“entirely on Wilkes’ acting as judge;” a matter which our government

would as promptly concede as yours could ask.

Seemann[49] wrote me that the general belief at the clubs and in the

City was that our government wanted to get into war with England for an

excuse to give up the South. A pretty idea they must have of our wisdom

and discretion! Dear Boott is firmly convinced that we have all along

been trying to quarrel with England. The belief here is nearly

universal the other way, and those who like England best, and perhaps

the coolest and best-informed men, have been more and more dissatisfied

as time went on.

What has caused this lamentable state of things, this complete

misunderstanding? Plainly this: the secessionists in England have

adroitly managed the matter and led public opinion in various lines, but

all in one direction, inimical to us; and they did not think it too

great a stretch to make John Bull believe that we were insane enough to

want an English quarrel. In this they have been ably seconded by a few

papers here, mainly by those whose loyalty is deeply suspected, and

whose influence is as nothing; which are nearly as scurrilous as the

“Saturday Review,” with no redeeming ability, and you have the result.

Will the evidence that this mail carries satisfy the English that we

want to live in peace with them?

But as to good feeling, I am afraid it is too late to expect that.

We were hurt at first by your putting our rebels on the same footing as

a government with which yours was in most amicable relations,--and by

the general assumption at once that we were gone past redemption, by the

failure to see that the power had gone from the hands of those who were

always making trouble with your government in some petty way or other,

etc., till I think it is generally believed that the governing influence

in England desires to have us a weak and divided people, and would do a

good deal to secure it.

I am sorry to say that this is the general feeling; and this is now very

much intensified.

The feelings of many are very hostile, and they would like to be strong

that they might show it. Those of others, who have been exceedingly fond

of England, always defending her when possible, and these are mine, are,

that we must be strong to be secure and respected,--natural selection

quickly crushes out weak nations; that we have tried long enough to have

intimate relations between the governments, or the peoples in general.

Naturalists, etc., being enlightened people, can be as intimate as they

like; but nationally let each say, “God bless you, and let us see as

little of each other as possible,” each going our own way.

Well, enough of this.

Some of the representations of us in the English papers would be amusing

if they did not now do so great harm. One would think it was generally

thought that there was no law and order here, nor gentlemanly conduct,

nor propriety of deportment among the poorer and laboring people. I wish

you could come and see. As to such things, and as to intelligence,

education, etc., I have sometimes thought of the picture one could draw

from individual cases. Take one--very confidentially--for I would not

hurt a really good fellow by exposing his ignorance of what he might be

expected to know. Here we lately had a Cambridge graduate (F. L. S., and

godson of an English baronet) who in one conversation let us know most

frankly that he had no idea where Quito was, or that there were two

houses of Congress in the United States, and was puzzled to know whether

Boston, United States, time was faster or slower than that of

Greenwich!...

February 18, 1862.

Accept a hasty line at the present, when I am busy above measure.

Thanks for the Primula paper, which I have barely looked over.

I do hope that you and the other fourteen of your household are out of

bed and done with influenza.

As I have not given you up notwithstanding your very shocking principles

and prejudices against design in nature, so we shall try to abide your

longitudinarian defection. I suppose it is longitude, and I am sorry to

see that there is a wide and general desire in that meridian that we

(United States) should fall to pieces. But the more you want us to, the

more we won’t, and the more important it appears to us that we should be

a strong and unbroken power. God help us, if we do not keep strong

enough, at whatever cost now it may be, to resist the influence of a

country which looks upon the continuation of our steady policy to

protect and diversify our domestic industry as a wrong and sin against

it. No, no, we must have our own way. But the triumph of the Republicans

was the political destruction of the very people who were always making

trouble with England, and, if you would only let us and have some faith

in the North, we should have been permanently on the best of terms.

What you complain of in the Boston dinner[50] was indeed lamentable;

such men should not have talked bosh, even at a little private ovation,

and we have reason to know some of them were heartily ashamed of it as

soon as they saw it in print. It was immediately spoken of here, by

influential people, some of whom refused to attend the dinner, and in

at least one paper, in a tone like your own. It was really as bad as the

speeches of some members of Parliament, and worse because it was

foolish.

The fact is, a set of cunning fellows on both sides of the water (but

here utterly characterless) have contrived to make both English and

Yankees believe that each was bent upon quarreling with the other.

Your thinking of me “as an Englishman” would once have been a

compliment, and is what from my well-known feelings and expressions I

have passed for among my friends here. Had the North gone on giving in

to the South as for years past, I should have been one, at least in

residence, just as soon as I could have got out of the country. I thank

God, it has been otherwise, and that I have a country to be proud of,

and which I will gladly suffer for, if need be. With all its weakness

and follies (and I know them well) I go for my country, and to be

friendly with those we ought to be on good terms with. I am cured of

some illusions. We shall do very well, and the two countries will be on

the best of terms when we are strong; till then we must not expect it.

If it is the old question of struggle for life, good feeling has not

much to do with it: the weak must go to the wall, because it can’t help

it. “Blessed are the _strong_, for they shall inherit the earth.”

My wife, who is loath to strike you from her books, begs you to make

allowances for the people here, who were so very cocky at having caught

two such ineffable scamps as Mason and Slidell, whom we have reason to

hate with perfect hatred; that they thought of nothing else, and did not

mean to be saucy to England. But you have made us sore, there is no

denying it. We did not allow enough for longitude.

Her former message did not refer to Boott (though he is unfortunately

influenced by longitude; but is a Yankee born), nor to Hooker, who,

Gallio fashion, cares for none of these things; thinks us unwise for

fighting, I presume; but we perfectly agree to say nothing about such

matters. It is odd that you all fail to appreciate that it is simply a

struggle for existence on our part, and that men will persist in

thinking their existence of some consequence to themselves, though you

prove the contrary ever so plain; and will strike or grasp or kick,

right and left, in an undignified way sometimes; which the safe and

sound bystander, coolly looking on, may not appreciate, not sharing his

feelings, telling him the world will get on quite as well without him;

yet he somehow does not quite like it.

March 6.

I have your note of February 16, about Melastomaceæ. The test of a good

theory is said to be its power of predicting. If your speculations lead

you to predict the style curved to one side in Melastomaceæ, and the

prediction is verified, that will be a great matter in your favor. Why,

you are coming out so strong in final causes that they should make a D.

D. of you at Cambridge!

I shall be pleased if I can help you about Rhexia. R. Virginica grows

not far from here, and I will set to watching it next summer. But I fear

it may not help you, as it is stated in our “Flora of North America” to

have “anthers uniform.” I see, however, the phrase, “style somewhat

declined,” in the character; which must be looked to. The character was

drawn wholly from dried specimens. I have good details from fresh ones

drawn by Mr. Sprague, but cannot just now lay hands on them.

Freely point out anything else you want looked at. I have now a very

zealous pupil, who will be glad to be intrusted with looking up plants

and observing.

Ever yours, cordially,

ASA GRAY.

There is some jolly science in the “Saturday Review,” now and then; as

in December 28, p. 665, where we are informed that icebergs “are formed

by the splashing of the waves on the coast of Labrador.”

Mill being “the greatest logician in England,” I send you an American

reprint of a specimen of his logic, which I know you will like.

We are very sad here at the death of the president of our

university,[51] who had also many warm friends in England.

March 31.

Yours of the 15th came this evening. To-morrow I am busy all day in

college (where I began my course this year with lectures on

Fertilization, developing your views on orchid-insect fertilization,

dimorphism, etc., etc., to an interested class!), so I must drop a line

for you into a letter for Boott, for Wednesday’s post.

A friend has just handed me Morell’s new book, which, looking at

psychology from the physiological side, I see brings up several notions

which have been turning over in my mind for some years. He is coming out

a good Darwinian, I see, and is quite of my way of thinking about

design. You see I am determined to baptize [“The Origin of Species”],

nolens volens, which will be its salvation. But if you won’t have it

done, it will be damned, I fear....

Things move on here, on the whole, very well.

Yes, I will promise not to hate you; quite the contrary!

Our sensitiveness as to England was the natural result of the strong

filial feeling on our part. It was very undignified, I dare say. But I

think we are getting bravely over it, and getting really not to care

what the Old Country may think or say, so it lets us alone.

As to Rebeldom, there is now hardly any State that we have not got some

foothold in.

I do not do so much scientific work as before the war, but still I keep

pottering away. From now till July, I can expect to do little besides my

college duties. Ever, dear Darwin, your cordial friend and true Yankee,

A. GRAY.

May 18.

Yesterday came by post the sheets B-I of your Orchid book.

This evening (Sunday) I have opened the parcel and read introduction and

chapter i. What a charming book it is! You are right in issuing it in

this form. It would be a sin not to do so.

I fear, though, that no publisher would reprint it here; though I may,

on reading farther, conclude to offer it to the Appletons, who should

have the refusal. But it will surely be popular in England, where

orchids are popular and the species known to most intelligent and

educated people. I hope soon to get the other sheets. I am perfectly

delighted with O. pyramidalis, and must extract the whole account of

its fertilization for “Silliman’s Journal.”

Our only orchis, that is, O. spectabilis, I brought last summer from

western New York, and planted. I shall in a week have three or four

spikes coming into flower, and I will cover one and leave the others

exposed. They are in a wooded part of the garden, like their natural

habitat. The rest of our Ophrydeæ are Habenarias (Platanthera).

I must recur to your letter about Cypripedium and see what you wanted of

it, that is, what observation.

If there be any adaptation, be it ever so pretty, I shall never see it

without your direction. What a skill and genius you have for these

researches! Even for the structure of the flower of the Ophrydeæ I have

to-night learned more than I ever knew before.

TO A. DE CANDOLLE.

CAMBRIDGE, April 26, 1861.

MY DEAR FRIEND,--My duties in the university at this season are very

pressing. Besides, we are now opening a war, upon the determination of

which our very existence depends, and upon which we are to concentrate

all our strength and soul, so I have no time nor heart to write of

botany just now....

Ever, dear De Candolle, yours most cordially,

ASA GRAY.

December 16.

We do not often exchange letters now, and in these for us trying times

in the United States, though far removed from the actual scenes of war,

and not much interrupted in my botanical studies, except by distracting

thoughts, I write as few letters as I can. The unfriendly attitude of

England gives us much concern. Were it not for that, it is thought we

should soon put an end to our rebellion. But I will not write of such

matters now.

July 2, 1862.

No fear about our army, now so great. It is largely composed of

materials such as nothing but a high sense of duty could keep for a year

in military life. It will dissolve like last winter’s snow when no more

needed.

While I write, a great battle is in progress, decisive if we gain it and

take the rebel capital, simply prolonging the strife if we do not. We

can raise at once another army if need be; and yet another. Indeed

300,000 more men are now to be accepted, to recruit our ranks and make a

sure thing of the result.

Confident of our cause, we expect confidently the favor of

Providence....

What a charming book is that of Darwin on orchid fertilization!

TO CHARLES WRIGHT.

CAMBRIDGE, April 17, 1862.

I am at work in college now, you know, and it is very hard work. This

last vacation I had to make a new edition and new additions to my

“Manual,” etc., and to do it in a hurry, and I have at length, for the

first time, found out that I am growing old. In fact I broke down under

it, and have injured my health a little.... I doubt if I ever recover

the spring and vim of former times. But we shall see....

My hard work has got correspondence all horridly behindhand, and

determined me to draw in my horns, and drop a good deal of it. My desk

has long been so covered deep with unanswered letters, etc., that I have

abandoned it, and now sit over on the other side of the table.

If I sit down and answer a letter right off the day it comes, as I am

now doing with yours, and as I do with purely business letters, etc.,

then it is safe. If I add it to the heap, it is a gone case, and I fear

will never be really answered.

Eaton, too, as you know, has been very hard worked, in his father’s

office.

Well, there is no State now in some part of which the star-spangled

banner does not float. Lincoln is a trump, a second Washington, steady,

conservative, no fanatical abolitionist. Foote, of your State of

Connecticut, is putting down his foot on the Mississippi. McClellan is

to fight a great battle at Yorktown. Another bloody battle may be fought

near Corinth, Mississippi. New Orleans will soon be ours, please God,

and then this wicked rebellion will be done for. I pray God I may live

to see the end of it, and the States brought back, quietly if they will,

forcibly if they must.

I know it will rejoice your heart to see the thing done. And it will be

worth all it costs.

Come now, here is a good long letter for a man as tired as I to write,

who has been five or six hours in lecture-room, working hard.

August 1.

Here is a bit of reading for you,--substitute for letters, which in

truth I have not surfeited you with lately. Who can write letters in

these trying times?...

Last spring my health felt pretty seriously impaired. But by end of

June I was able to diminish my college work a little, and take the rest

easier, and so now I feel very much better, more like my old self, and I

am beginning to clear off my table that I may get at work again on that

everlasting South Pacific Exploring Expedition.

There is a charming book out, by Darwin, on the fertilization of orchids

by insects. It will open your eyes to most curious things. I have

verified much myself here, and made observations which Darwin regards as

very interesting. I send you a copy of the book through Eaton, as a

present.

Any observations or notes you make I will send to Darwin.

TO CHARLES DARWIN.

July 2, 1862.

I am glad if my off-hand orchid notes interest you, or prove of the

least use. I am daily expecting a copy to send you of my notice of the

early chapters of your book. I will continue in the ensuing number. And

whatever of the notes I send you seem to you worth touching upon, you

have only to indicate them, and send back my memoranda, and I will take

them up. But as to Cypripediums, I should like to have an opportunity of

examining them (except C. acaule) more at large, and growing.

A week from to-morrow, I expect to be able to leave Cambridge, to go

down, with my examination papers to read, to my beau-père’s place on the

shore, for a few days. Then I will try to look up and bring home living

Rhexia Virginica; and also I expect to have a look at Calopogon

pulchellus, with its strong bearded labellum. And I hope it will not be

too late to get plenty of Mitchella repens, which my pupils do not

bring me in as they ought. I want to see if long-styled stigma and short

differ, and also the pollen of the two, as they do in Houstonia, of

which I hope I sent you Rothrock’s[52] observations. At least I will

send when he has completed them.

Precocious fertilization in the bud was much noticed here very long ago

by Torrey, in Viola, Specularia, etc., etc., also in Impatiens, about

which see my “Genera Illustrata,” volume ii. I once mentioned it to you

as good evidence of close fertilization. As to pollen-tubes of such, I

have no observations of my own, but a memory or fancy that they were

shown to me by Torrey. I will ask him, and have him look at Specularia.

As to the French lady’s translation and commentary on the “Origin,” I am

not so much surprised. As I view it, there are only two sides to the

main question. Very likely she takes one side in a thorough-going and

consistent manner; and either she is right, or I am right, i. e., there

is design in nature, or there is not. The no-design view, if one can

bring himself to entertain it, may well enough lead to all she says, and

we may very much admire how collision and destruction of least-favored

brings about apparently orderly results,--apparent contrivances or

adaptation of means to ends. On the other hand, the implication of a

designing mind must bring with it a strong implication of design in

matters where we could not directly prove it.

If you grant an intelligent designer anywhere in Nature, you may be

confident that he has had something to do with the “contrivances” in

your orchids.

I have just received and glanced at Bentham’s address, and am amused to

see how your beautiful flank movement with the Orchid book has nearly

overcome his opposition to the “Origin.”

The military simile above leads me to speak of your wonder that I can

think of science at all in the midst of war. Well, first, we get used to

it. Second, we need something to turn to, and happy are they who,

forbidden to engage personally in the war (as I am ever itching to do),

have something to turn to. Third, I do not do much, do nothing, in fact,

except my college duties now for months, and that is the reason I have

time to write to you, and be interested in all your doings.

If you suppose everything is paralyzed and desolate here, and the

country greatly put back, read a very sensible letter of an Englishman

in the “Spectator” of June 7. It is very just and true. We shall

recuperate fast enough, and be better off than ever, as much prosperity

as is good for us, and more solid, more independent, more

self-contained, which is our great desideratum. Free trade be blowed; we

must needs have high duties on imports, and it is better that we should.

By these and by direct taxes--the tax-bill just passed--we shall have to

pay over largely. Very well.

Just at present our prospects (viz., evening of July 3) are looking

badly enough. McClellan has clearly been overmatched and driven to the

wall, after very obstinate fighting, with very heavy loss on both sides.

Whether it is retrievable with reinforcements, or whether the whole

campaign has to be begun again against Richmond, is not yet clear.

Anyway we have got to put shoulder to the wheel anew, and it may be

done, we suppose, more easily and far more promptly than last year. All

we ask is that Europe shall let us alone.

Enough for to-day.

PROVIDENCE, R. I., July 29, 1862.

No more news in the orchids line. I am making two or three days of

holiday, and yesterday I found a few specimens of Gymnadenia tridentata.

But the flowers are too small to examine well with a hand lens. If they

keep, I will take them back to Cambridge in a day or two and see what to

make of them....

As to the country, you will see by this time that we have not the least

idea of abandoning the struggle. We have learned only that there is no

use trying any longer to pick up our eggs gently, very careful not to

break any. The South forces us at length to do what it would have been

more humane to have done from the first, i. e., to act with vigor, not

to say rigor.

We shall be complained of for our savageness, no doubt, whereas we feel

that our error has been all the other way. But the independence, the

total indifference to English feeling which you recommended last year,

has come at length; now we care nothing what Mrs. Grundy says.

CAMBRIDGE, September 22, 1862.

Your pleasant epistles of August 21 and September 4 are to be

acknowledged, with thanks. But I have nothing in particular to

communicate, except our hearty congratulations that your boy and Mrs.

Darwin are recovering so well.

Tell Leonard that I was pleased both with his attention in writing and

with the ocular proof of his convalescence in his being able so soon to

use a pen. His requests shall be kept in view; the five-cent stamp I

send now; dare say I shall sometime pick up the thirty and ninety,

though I never saw the latter, nor the twelve, twenty, and twenty-four

on envelopes (the twenty-four cent he must have already, as it is often

used on my envelopes to you).

Bravo for Horace, whose illustration of Natural Selection as to the

adders is capital. A chip of the old block, he evidently is.

I told you that Rothrock had gone to the war, and perhaps has already

been under fire; probably not. I had intended that next spring he should

do up Houstonia more perfectly, and work up this and some related

matters for his thesis when he comes up for examination. But all this is

broken up by his enlistment....

I have been lazy about all my writing, working all day at dry and dull

systematic botany, which you anathematize. But if I get time to turn it

over, I will say a few words on the last chapter of your Orchid book.

But it opens up a knotty sort of question about accident or design,

which one does not care to meddle with much until one can feel his way

further than I can.

October 4, 1862.

I have just been reading Max Müller’s lecture on the Science of Language

with much interest. But perhaps what has interested me most is, after

all, his perfect appreciation and happy use of Natural Selection, and

the very complete analogy between diversification of species and

diversification of language. I can hardly think of any publication which

in England could be more useful to your cause than this volume is, or

should be. I see also with what great effect you may use it in our

occasional discussion about design; indeed I hardly see how to avoid

conclusion adverse to special design, though I think I see indications

of a way out.

Depend on it, Max Müller will be of real service to you.

October 13.

I have been so much occupied that I deferred to the last moment to write

out my second notice of your Orchid book for “Silliman’s Journal.” I

wrote out Saturday evening what I could, and to-day have finished and

sent off my manuscript to New Haven. The greater part consists of a

record of some of my observations last summer, very hurriedly penned,

and sent off. I trust you will be pleased, and will think that my little

contributions cannot be better hatched than under your wings.

I hope that my young correspondent is fast recovering strength. Tell him

that I have no more stamps for him yet, but shall pick up his desiderata

one of these days.

I have some nice live roots of Cypripedium, two or three species to send

you, and mean to send Mitchella.

How Hooker does praise up your book, in the “Gardener’s Chronicle!”

CAMBRIDGE, November 10, 1862.

It is refreshing to me that you find the special correspondent of the

“Times” detestable.

Your comments upon our affairs always show such a good spirit that you

need not fear even my wife’s “indignation.”

We are sorry that you suffer in England; but you must blame the rebels

for it, not us, and your Manchester people should have looked earlier to

India for cotton.

You don’t see, as you would if here, the total impossibility of coming

to any terms of peace with the South, based on their independence.

Before that can be they or we must be thoroughly beaten. You can’t be

expected to see too, what seems plain to me, that you English would give

us no end of trouble if we attempt a piecemeal existence. We must be

strong enough to keep any Old-World power at bay. Then we shall behave

pretty well, on the whole; surely so when the North is dominant and is

fairly treated. “Seizing on Canada.” What do we want of Canada? When the

South was aggressive and making slave States we often looked to the

peaceful acquisition of Canada as desirable, as a counterpoise. But when

we had “changed all that,”--and it is changed, and slavery limited, past

all doubt, however the combat ends,--we no longer have use or need of

Canada. If we get set up again, we have work enough at home, and our

hands full for years; we shall be strong for defense, but weak for

aggression. The ill-feeling to England will die out when we are well

able to defend ourselves and our home interests.

It does seem that all England wishes us to be weak and divided; perhaps

that is good national policy. But the more that is so, the more

necessary it is for us to vindicate our integrity, at whatever cost. Let

us have it out now, even at the cost of ten times what it has cost so

far.

I never thought anything of American institutions for England.

Aristocracy is a natural and needful appendage to monarchy. You work out

your own type, and you will liberalize fast enough, and leave us to do

ours. We’ll make it do, with some jangling.

I wish we could be shut up, like the Japanese of old, for ten or twenty

years, only with a weekly mail from you and Dr. Hooker. Well, well!

Ever yours cordially,

ASA GRAY.

November 24.

About Max Müller; surely you can’t wonder that the attempt to account

for the “first origin of language,” or of anything else, should be the

“least satisfactory.”

The use that I fancied could be made of Max Müller’s book, or rather of

the history of language, is something more than illustration, but only a

little more; that is, you may point to analogies of development and

diversification of language, of no value at all in evidence in support

of your theory, but good and pertinent as rebutting objections urged

against it.

Bishop Colenso’s book will make a noise in England; indeed, I have only

read the notice in the “Athenæum.”

You detest the spirit of the “Times” quoad U. S. The “Athenæum” is just

as bad in its little penny-trumpet way, every chance it can get, from

the first. Can you be much surprised that we return dislike with

interest? But we are pleased to find there are sensible and fair

writers, such as Cairnes and Mill.

No, dear Darwin, we don’t scorn your joining in the prayer that we daily

offer that “God would help our poor country,” and I know and appreciate

your honest and right feeling.

I see also, from the English papers I read, how you must picture us as

in the extreme of turmoil and confusion and chaos. But if you were here,

you would open your eyes to see everything going on quietly, hopefully,

and comfortably as possible. I suppose we do not appreciate our

miseries. We accept our misfortunes and adversities, but mean to

retrieve them, and would sink all that we have before giving up. We work

hard, and persevere, and expect to come out all right, to lay the

foundations of a better future, no matter if they be laid in suffering.

That will not hurt us now, and may bring great good hereafter.

I never saw, and have scarcely heard of, Miss Cooper’s book you ask

after. She is the daughter of the late J. Fenimore Cooper, the novelist.

The village she describes must be Cooperstown, New York, in the county

adjacent to that in which I was brought up,--a region which, every time

I visit it, I say it is the fairest of lands, and the people the

happiest.

Oh, as to the weeds; Mrs. Gray says she allows that our weeds give up to

yours. Ours are modest, woodland, retiring things, and no match for the

intrusive, pretentious, self-asserting foreigners. But I send you seeds

of one native weed which, corrupted by bad company, is as nasty and

troublesome as any I know, namely, Sicyos angulatus; also of a more

genteel Cucurbitacea, Echinocystis lobata (the larger seeds). Upon

these, especially upon the first, I made my observation of tendrils

coiling to the touch. Put the seeds directly into the ground; they will

come up in spring, in moist garden soil.

My observations were made on a warm, sunny day. I doubt if you have

warmth and sunshine enough in England to get up a sensible movement.

My note about them is in “Proceedings of the American Academy,” iv., p.

98, reprinted in “Silliman’s Journal,” March, 1859, p. 277. I must own

that upon casually taking them up since, I never have obtained such very

good results as upon two days of August, 1858.

Upon gourds affecting each other’s fruits, I have made no observations

at all. I have only referred to that, as a well-known thing, at least,

of common repute here, and then referred to maize, where the soft

sweet-corn, when fertilized by hard yellow-corn, the grain so fertilized

takes the character of the fertilizer. My note about it is in Academy

“Proceedings,” vol. iv., I think. You have the volumes (which I have not

in reach now), and can find it by the index. It does not amount to much.

Nothing on maize I know of except Bonafous’ folio volume. I am going to

get and send you grains of four or five sorts of maize. About the

involucrate form, I wrote in my last.

TO GEORGE ENGELMANN.

CAMBRIDGE, 14th October, 1862.

DEAR ENGELMANN,--Never mind turmoil. It will come out right. I go

against the abolition wing, but support the President in his

Proclamation.

If the rebels continue obstinate, that is only a question of time. Of

that, as a military measure, and of the expediency, the President of the

United States is the sole judge, and in time of war he is to be

supported heartily. I myself do not see clearly that the time had come.

But I have a notion that the President knows better than I.

As you like Judge Parker, I will send you an article written before the

Proclamation came out. You will like it, all but the last part, the

bitter end. I would continue the war, if necessary, to the sweeping of

all rebeldom bare. And that appears to be the sober sentiment of the

country.

If Judge Parker, etc., had let their convention alone, we would have

ousted Sumner for a wiser man. But now I fear that Sumner will be

returned to the Senate.

You had better in Missouri abolish slavery and take United States bonds

in indemnity. You will never do better.

TO CHARLES WRIGHT.

October 13, 1862.

Both Torrey and Eaton speak of having your photograph. You cut me, I

suppose, because I am such a poor correspondent! I am afraid I deserve

it, but what can a poor fellow do in such times as these?...

A fruit, one of a dozen ripened here this season in the Garden, has such

a tropical look and taste that it reminded me of you. It is Asimina

triloba! Tastes like a rich custard into which a piece of scented soap

has fallen....

General Stuart with his cavalry has been cutting all round McClellan’s

army again. Next time, I expect they will make a circuit as far round as

Boston, or at least Connecticut, and carry off the horses. They are more

in earnest than we are; but we shall use them up at length.

November 14.

Here I was this afternoon, moiling over your plants, copying out

Grisebach’s manuscripts for the printer (for the printer won’t touch the

Dutchy-looking thing; and besides, I have additions to make, etc.), when

I just happened to remember that to-morrow is Havana mail, and that I

was by all means to write to you to-day. There is still time, so here

goes.

First, can’t you make some arrangement, while you are at this end of

Cuba, to receive a Yankee newspaper by mail; say to the address of Don

José Blain, or some Havana address. If you can arrange it that it is not

stopped, I will send you papers regularly; say the little “Boston

Herald,” small, soon read, democratic, patriotic, or others, from time

to time....

As to collecting still, I should say, Yes, go on, in a gradual and cheap

way, i. e., do not make very heavy outlays, as long as you are in the

country; at least till next summer. For we cannot get the war done until

late next spring (except in Texas).

If you can do as much for western as for eastern Cuba, it will be a good

thing....

Meanwhile I have money enough for you, if you can only get it....

But how can you get it at present rates? Or how can I get it to you? If

greenbacks would pass there as here, it would be easy enough.

Is there not some Yankee product that I could ship to you that Blain or

Lescaille wants, sewing-machines, agricultural implements, chairs? So we

might save the loss on exchange. I will send you anything, from a

mouse-trap to a wheelbarrow!

You have a letter from me which must have reached you soon after yours

of October 25, saying that my last was eighty-five days old! Indeed,

you ought to have had it then....

TO CHARLES DARWIN.

January 27, 1863.

I have been far too busy to write letters; have been interrupted, too,

by visitors, etc....

You “wish to heaven the North did not hate us so.” We equally wish the

English did not hate us so. Perhaps we exaggerate the ill will in

England against us. You certainly over-estimate that of the United

States against England, which an influential part of your press

exaggerates and incites for the worst purposes. But, after all, after

the first flurry, we think and say very little about you, and shall live

in peace with you, if you will let us. There should have been, and might

have been, the most thorough good will between us. I do not think it is

all our fault that it is not so.

In reply to your question:--

If oak and beech had large, colored corolla, etc., I know of no reason

why it would be reckoned a low form, but the contrary, quite. But we

have no basis for high or low in any class, say, dicotyledons, except

perfection of development or the contrary in the floral organs, and even

the envelopes; and as we know these may be reduced to any degree in any

order or group, we have really, that I know of, no philosophical basis

for high and low. Moreover, the vegetable kingdom does not culminate, as

the animal kingdom does. It is not a kingdom, but a commonwealth; a

democracy, and therefore puzzling and unaccountable from the former

point of view.

I have just read De Candolle’s paper on oaks and species, and origin.

Well, he has got on about as far towards you as I have. It is clear

enough that, as I thought at first, derivation of species is to be the

word, and natural selection admitted. The only question is, whether this

is enough.

Ever your attached friend,

A. GRAY.

TO A. DE CANDOLLE.

CAMBRIDGE, February 16, 1863.

I am disposed to join issue with you on the question of Linnæus’

definition of species. I have long pondered your discussion of the

subject in “Géographie Botanique,” and still think, on the supposition

of the fixity of species (which Linnæus of course had in view), that

between “community of descent” and “likeness,” the former and not the

latter is the fundamental conception in the idea of species. We may test

this by inquiring whether of the two can be derived from the other. The

likeness, I suppose, is the consequence of the community of descent.

But, then, as the likeness is a thing of degrees, and, according to

present probabilities, species may have only a relative and temporary

fixity, your view will after all have the advantage; and the question of

species will come to be metaphysical or logical, rather than

natural-historical. The worst of all is that there will remain no

objective basis or standard; and species will be what each naturalist

thinks best so to consider!

I am pleased to know that the view of my article on the “Memoirs”[53] is

well received by you. Readable articles are very needful, when they can

be had, for a journal which, like Silliman’s, cannot exist without

popular support. I promised an article of sixteen pages of this

character; but I intended to enlarge more at the close upon the genius

and influence of your father, and cite your parallel with Linnæus as

portrayed by Fabricius. But I found that my pages were filled before I

was aware of it, and I had to cut short, much too curtly. It left me

with a somehow dissatisfied feeling. All your remarks about the

difference between the profound and the prolific botanists, I agree to;

and I think that both Linnæus and De Candolle had as much genius as

Robert Brown....

Well, as to origin of species, you have now gone just about as far as I

have, in Darwinian direction, and both of us have been led step by step

by the facts and probabilities, and have not jumped at conclusions.

I shall be curious to see Mme. Royer’s book; Darwin has spoken of her.

Under my hearty congratulations of Darwin for his striking contributions

to teleology, there is a vein of petite malice, from my knowing well

that he rejects the idea of design, while all the while he is bringing

out the neatest illustrations of it!

Did time allow, I should like to write at large upon these enticing

topics....

TO W. J. HOOKER.

CAMBRIDGE, March 16, 1863.

I received this morning a letter from William Short, announcing to me

the death of his lamented father, our excellent friend, Dr. C. W. Short,

of Louisville, Kentucky, one of our oldest botanists, and one of the

best of men and kindest of friends. He died on the 7th inst., of a

typhoid fever, supervening on a severe cold.

I feel the loss very much. Although we never met, he was one of my most

valued friends....

He always remembered his former correspondence with you with great

interest, and was particularly pleased when, in my letter, I could give

him news of you.

His herbarium, upon which he bestowed great pains and considerable

expense, is conditionally bequeathed to the Smithsonian Institution.

Our botanical Nestor is Dr. Darlington. A few months since I had a

letter from him written in as firm a hand as ever; but now he is

prostrated by paralysis, which, however, leaves his mind clear. But he

cannot remain much longer with us. Short and Darlington were both hearty

and true Christian gentlemen.

April 28, 1863.

Your kind letter of the 6th inst. and the photograph were received with

more gratification than I can well express. Both your handwriting and

your _carte de visite_ show you to be well and strong, and, please God,

long may you so continue.

Your face looks fuller than a dozen years ago, and a bit older, it may

be, but it recalls your friendly and kindly expression, and is the best

substitute I can have for not seeing you again.

What I wrote of our Nestor, Dr. Darlington, as about to be removed from

us, has come to pass. The good old man died, after much suffering from a

paralysis, on Wednesday last, the 22d, as a newspaper slip has apprised

me. He had reached the age of eighty-one. Unless we continue to rank

Dr. Bigelow among the botanists, Dr. Torrey, and even myself, now count

among the most advanced in age.

I am most happy to tell you that Dr. Torrey, whom I lately saw in New

York, and who last week looked in upon us here for a day, is quite well.

Mrs. Greene is cheerful and busy in carrying out her husband’s bequest

and desires, in favor of the Boston Natural History Society, to whom he

left his herbarium and botanical library.

By Professor George Bond, a colleague and neighbor of mine, our

distinguished astronomer, and a most worthy, amiable, and modest person,

whom I hope you may see, I sent out to you a photograph of F. A. Michaux

and of Adrien de Jussieu, which I thought you might like, and which I

have just had made from daguerreotypes which I induced them to sit for

in Paris in 1851. Bond will be delighted to see Kew again with its vast

improvements.

Ever, dear Sir William, yours affectionately,

ASA GRAY.

TO MRS. THOMAS P. JAMES.

CAMBRIDGE, April 30, 1863.

I had sent some while ago word to Miss Morris that I had a single

seedling Darlingtonia, and should like to know if Dr. Darlington was in

condition to be interested in it. But she thought the time had passed

for that.

His memory will long be venerated. We, at least, shall not forget him.

Twenty years ago he had sent to me his selected epitaph, and had

discussed it. It is natural and characteristic. I should take an

interest in seeing such an inscription on his tombstone. But, entre

nous, I should not fancy such an one on my own. I should select rather

some simple line of Holy Writ, expressive of the Christian trust and

faith, such as our friend died in.

I had lately been writing brief notices of several of our botanists,

deceased, for the May number of “Silliman’s Journal” (as you see, I mail

a copy just received); and at the time I felt that they probably would

not be published before there would be another and more distinguished

name to add.

I shall not wait for the year to come round, but I hope to draw up a

brief tribute to his memory for the July number of “Silliman’s Journal.”

So I should be much obliged to you for the dates and other particulars

you kindly offer to furnish. I hope that autobiography which you are so

fortunate as to possess is of such a character that it may be printed,

and that you will give it along with a little memoir from your own pen.

It will be quite in your way, and I would rather you should do it than

any one else....

By the way, I may as well mention that Dr. Darlington told me that

certain letters, etc., of Baldwin’s, which he could not print, as they

were severe on Nuttall, should come into my possession after his own

death. You will probably know if any bundle of papers is left, directed

to my charge.

TO CHARLES DARWIN.

CAMBRIDGE, March 22, 1863.

MY DEAR DARWIN,--Argyle’s article on the Supernatural, to which you

called my attention a long while ago, I never happened to see till

to-day, when I have read it through. It is quite clever, not deep, but

clear, and I think useful. I see no occasion for finding fault with him,

except in his attempts now and then to direct a little odium against

you, which is unhandsome, for his main points are those I hammered out

in the “Atlantic,” etc.; indeed I see signs of his having read the same.

But it is hardly fair of him, after expressing his complete conviction

that where the operation of natural causes can be clearly traced, the

implication of design, upon its appropriate evidence, is not thereby

rendered less certain or less convincing, to go on to speak of

derivation-doctrine in a way that implies the contrary.

Of course we believers in real design make the most of your “frank” and

natural terms, “contrivance, purpose,” etc., and pooh-pooh your

endeavors to resolve such contrivances into necessary results of certain

physical processes, and make fun of the race between long noses and long

nectaries!

March 23.

Dr. Wyman,[54] who is a sharp fellow, tells me that, on the authority of

the historian Prescott, the Incas of Peru, for no one knows how long,

married their sisters, to keep the perfect purity of the blood. Query:

How did this strong case of close-breeding operate? Did they run out

thereby? Wyman thinks there is no evidence of it.

If it is true, and the Incas stood it for a long course of generations,

you must look to it, for it will bear hard against your theory of the

necessity of crossing. If they run out, you will have a good case.

April 11.

You see that, at length, the thing is nearly done, and, to use the

expression here, rebeldom is “gone up.”

You have long seen, I suppose, that I was right in saying there was but

one possible end to the war; also that the continuance for a time or

abolition of slavery depended simply on the rebels,--that if they

obstinately and persistently resisted, slavery was thereby doomed.

It has been a long, weary, and trying work. But the country has had the

needed patience and nerve, and the thing is done, once for all, at great

cost, but to immense and enduring advantage.

You are the only Britisher I ever write to on this subject, and, in

fact, for whose opinions about our country I care at all.

So I hasten to rejoice with you over the beginning of the end.

April 20.

You asked me to tell you, when I had read it, what I thought of Sir

Charles Lyell’s book.[55] I have only to-day finished the perusal of the

copy he kindly sent me, that is, all but half of the matter on glacial

period, which I reserve till I can read it more attentively. Throughout

it is a very interesting and to me a very satisfactory book. It is three

books: 1. A capital résumé and examination of what we knew about the

evidence of antiquity of man; no evidence we had not read of before, but

very clearly presented, of course.

2. A treatise on the glacial period. Out of this I have much to learn,

and must read it all again carefully; of a part I have not yet cut the

leaves.

3. On transmutation matters. That part of the book I can judge somewhat

of, and I declare it first-rate. It is just about what I expected, and

is characteristic of the man. I think that you, and Hooker, are

unreasonable in complaining of Lyell that he does not come out

“flat-footed,” as we say, as an advocate of natural-selection

transmutation. For, 1st, it is evident that though inclined strongly

towards it he is by no means satisfied that natural selection will do

all the work you put upon it. 2d, he very plainly implies nearly all you

would have him say. And, 3d, he serves your cause (supposing it to be

well-founded) quite as effectually, perhaps, by his guarded position, by

his keeping the position of a judge rather than of an advocate, and by

considering still the case as not yet ripe for a decision.

Very skillfully, too, has he presented the case of transmutation so as

to commend it, as much as possible, to us orthodox people. (Huxley, I

suppose, whose two books I have not seen, would put it in a way to

frighten us off.) Indeed, I think he has shown remarkable judgment and

taste, and will have much success in disarming prejudice. And this is

all you could ask.

The chapter on language makes the points I supposed would be made, or

some of them, but only dips in, leaving more to be said. But this is

rather ticklish ground, for, if we are not careful here, you would get

the better of us in this field quoad design.

If I had got the book three or four weeks earlier I should have worked

in some notice of the last chapter into my review of De Candolle, etc.,

on Species, in the May number of “Silliman’s Journal.”

Now please do not think of being ill this spring, and passing all your

valuable time, wasting it, at a water-cure.

I have really, as you see, nothing special to write of this week, and no

time to read what I have hurriedly penned.

May 26.

Your letter on heterogeny is keen and good; Owen’s rejoinder ingenious.

But his dissent from your well-put claims of natural selection to

attention and regard is good for nothing except on the admission of the

view that species are somehow derived genealogically; and this I judge,

from various of Owen’s statements, that he really in his heart believes

to be the case, and was (as I long ago intimated my suspicions) hunting

about for some system of derivation, when your book came down upon him

like a thunderclap.

Wyman, here, is greatly pleased with Huxley’s book on man’s place in

nature. I have not even seen it.

Did you ever notice how prettily Iris is arranged for cross-fertilizing

by bees, etc.?

Your Linum paper has long been here. But I have actually not had time to

read it. I might have glanced at it. But I find it best to read only

when I can do so with some attention.

Phyllotaxis: I have no notion in the world why the angular divergences

should be of that series of numbers and not of others. Opposite leaves

give (decussating) the angles. My puzzle has been to account for this

system in cycles in leaves running into the system of decussating whorls

in flowers (usually, almost universally). You will see the question by

comparing in my “Botanical Text-Book” (not “Lessons”), pp. 236, 237,

with chapter v., section 1; and you see I have drawn an illustration

from it apropos to Falconer’s remark. But explaining the obscure by the

obscure does not amount to much.

As to national affairs, how quarrelsome you English are. Here are we,

cool and quietly occupied with our little affairs, never dreaming of

harm from you, and your people are trying their prettiest to pick a

quarrel with us, because we do what Historicus says the English have

always done and will do again when the time comes, having Lord Stowell

to back them! Tell me, who is Historicus in the “Times”? An able and

most influential person evidently.

The government of England is now showing sense. Do not wonder that some

wild talk is given to the air in this rough country, after what you have

heard in the House of Commons, and read in the “Times,” etc. Am afraid

we shall not like each other for a good while--the nations. But all

shows I was right. We must carry out our little job, and hold the United

States complete and develop material strength at any cost, or we could

not live without eating more dirt than we like.

Boasting nonsense is pretty well knocked out of us by severe discipline

and sad reverses, but the determination is stronger than ever.

Time up and paper full. Forgive my maundering, and believe me to be,

Ever your affectionate,

A. GRAY.

June, [1863].

I am kept distractingly busy, so look for nothing of any use from me yet

awhile.

Your Ohio case of law against marrying of cousins, I put to my

neighbor, Professor Parsons, who had it looked up. He tells me there is

no such law at all on the Ohio statute books, nor is there a trace of

any law on the subject to be found in the laws of any State in the

United States. He doubts if there can really be any statistics which

tell on the point, because, first, the marriage of first cousins is a

rare thing in this country; second, the United States decennial censuses

do not afford any information on the matter; third, nor any of the

[state] censuses that he knows of.

Pray, don’t run mad over Phyllotaxis! I can’t save you, I am sure.

George’s “Converging Sines” is the same, perhaps, as what Bravais was

after. His memoir may help you (see “Botanical Text-Book,” p. 141, par.

248); or, if you want something thoroughly mathematical, consult

Neumann, of Berlin, in some paper, which I have no reference to....

I am sorry you do not give a better account of yourself. Be careful and

do not work too hard.

July 7.

My last from you is May 31.

I had arranged to reprint most of Bates on Mimetic Analogy in

“Silliman’s Journal,” but my long review of A. de Candolle crowded it

out. I then thought of a brief abstract, but have had no time to prepare

it. I wrote remarks and arranged long extracts of your Linum paper, and

insisted on it for the July number of “Silliman’s Journal.” But it, too,

was laid over, not for anything I had, for I have little in the July

number.

I like and agree to your remark that, in Bates’s Geographical Varieties,

etc., we get about as near to seeing a species made as we are ever

likely to get; and so believing, I think your gradual way more likely

than Heer’s jumps.

Apropos to Heer, you ask me if it is not impossible to imagine so many

and nice coadaptations as we see in orchids being formed all by a chance

blow.

I reply, Yes, perfectly impossible to imagine (and much the same by any

number of chance blows).

So I turn the question back upon you. Is not the fact that the

coadaptations are so nice next to a demonstration against their having

been formed by chance blows at all, one or many?

Here lies, I suppose, the difference between us. When you bring me up to

this point, I feel the cold chill.

I have been doing nothing but attend to my daily work, and had got so

fagged that I really thought I was about to have softening of the brain,

or some other breakdown. But a week of respite, caused by the death of

an aged relative of my wife’s,--a dear old soul,--taking us away from

here perforce, has set me up very nearly, and now after a week more

comes my vacation, and we are off into the quiet country for three

weeks.

A little legacy of about £2,000 to my wife comes in opportunely to

relieve us of anxiety for the future. We have no children (which I

regret only that I have no son to send to the war), and this with a

little income, rather precarious, of about £200 a year would support us

in our very simple way, if I were to throw up my place here. But I

cannot do that yet....

Look at Impatiens flowers; see if the most fertile “precociously

fertilized” ones ever get crossed!

I have asked in three directions for seeds of the Specularia perfoliata.

Inclosed are depauperate specimens.

It is pretty to see honey-bees cross-fertilize Locust (Robinia), much as

you say of broom. One of my students has been noticing the way bees act

on Kalmia.