volume must be regarded as having contributed towards the final solution - Life and Letters of Charles Darwin — Volume 1

of the difficulty." Professor Geikie continues (page 21): "He is one

of the earliest writers to recognize the magnitude of the denudation to

which even recent geological accumulations have been subjected. One of

the most impressive lessons to be learnt from his account of 'Volcanic

Islands' is the prodigious extent to which they have been denuded...He

was disposed to attribute more of this work to the sea than most

geologists would now admit; but he lived himself to modify his original

views, and on this subject his latest utterances are quite abreast of

the time."

An extract from a letter of my father's to Lyell shows his estimate

of his own work. "You have pleased me much by saying that you intend

looking through my 'Volcanic Islands': it cost me eighteen months!!! and

I have heard of very few who have read it. Now I shall feel, whatever

little (and little it is) there is confirmatory of old work, or new,

will work its effect and not be lost."

The third of his geological books, 'Geological Observations on South

America,' may be mentioned here, although it was not published until

1846. "In this work the author embodied all the materials collected by

him for the illustration of South American Geology, save some which have

been published elsewhere. One of the most important features of the book

was the evidence which it brought forward to prove the slow interrupted

elevation of the South American Continent during a recent geological

period." (Geikie, loc. cit.)

Of this book my father wrote to Lyell:--"My volume will be about 240

pages, dreadfully dull, yet much condensed. I think whenever you have

time to look through it, you will think the collection of facts on the

elevation of the land and on the formation of terraces pretty good."

Of his special geological work as a whole, Professor Geikie, while

pointing out that it was not "of the same epoch-making kind as his

biological researches," remarks that he "gave a powerful impulse to" the

general reception of Lyell's teaching "by the way in which he gathered

from all parts of the world facts in its support."

WORK OF THE PERIOD 1842 TO 1854.

The work of these years may be roughly divided into a period of geology

from 1842 to 1846, and one of zoology from 1846 onwards.

I extract from his diary notices of the time spent on his geological

books and on his 'Journal.'

'Volcanic Islands.' Summer of 1842 to January, 1844.

'Geology of South America.' July, 1844, to April, 1845.

Second Edition of 'The Journal,' October, 1845, to October, 1846.

The time between October, 1846, and October, 1854, was practically given

up to working at the Cirripedia (Barnacles); the results were published

in two volumes by the Ray Society in 1851 and 1854. His volumes on the

Fossil Cirripedes were published by the Palaeontographical Society in

1851 and 1854.

Some account of these volumes will be given later.

The minor works may be placed together, independently of subject matter.

"Observations on the Structure, etc., of the genus Sagitta," Ann. Nat.

Hist. xiii., 1844, pages 1-6.

"Brief descriptions of several Terrestrial Planariae, etc.," Ann. Nat.

Hist. xiv., 1844, pages 241-251.

"An Account of the Fine Dust (A sentence occurs in this paper of

interest, as showing that the author was alive to the importance of all

means of distribution:--

"The fact that particles of this size have been brought at least 330

miles from the land is interesting as bearing on the distribution of

Cryptogamic plants.") which often Falls on Vessels in the Atlantic

Ocean," Geol. Soc. Journ. ii., 1846, pages 26-30.

"On the Geology of the Falkland Islands," Geol. Soc. Journ. ii., 1846,

pages 267-274.

"On the Transportal of Erratic Boulders, etc.," Geol. Soc. Journ. iv.,

1848, pages 315-323. (An extract from a letter to Lyell, 1847, is of

interest in connection with this essay:--"Would you be so good (if you

know it) as to put Maclaren's address on the enclosed letter and post

it. It is chiefly to enquire in what paper he has described the Boulders

on Arthur's Seat. Mr. D. Milne in the last Edinburgh 'New Phil. Journal'

[1847], has a long paper on it. He says: 'Some glacialists have ventured

to explain the transportation of boulders even in the situation of those

now referred to, by imagining that they were transported on ice floes,'

etc. He treats this view, and the scratching of rocks by icebergs, as

almost absurd...he has finally stirred me up so, that (without you

would answer him) I think I will send a paper in opposition to the same

Journal. I can thus introduce some old remarks of mine, and some new,

and will insist on your capital observations in N. America. It is a bore

to stop one's work, but he has made me quite wroth.")

The article "Geology," in the Admiralty Manual of Scientific Enquiry

(1849), pages 156-195. This was written in the spring of 1848.

"On British Fossil Lepadidae," 'Geol. Soc. Journ.' vi., 1850, pages

439-440.

"Analogy of the structure of some Volcanic Rocks with that of Glaciers,"

'Edin. Roy. Soc. Proc.' ii., 1851, pages 17-18.

Professor Geikie has been so good as to give me (in a letter dated

November 1885) his impressions of my father's article in the 'Admiralty

Manual.' He mentions the following points as characteristic of the

work:--

"1. Great breadth of view. No one who had not practically studied and

profoundly reflected on the questions discussed could have written it.

"2. The insight so remarkable in all that Mr. Darwin ever did. The way

in which he points out lines of enquiry that would elucidate geological

problems is eminently typical of him. Some of these lines have never yet

been adequately followed; so with regard to them he was in advance of

his time.

"3. Interesting and sympathetic treatment. The author at once puts his

readers into harmony with him. He gives them enough of information to

show how delightful the field is to which he invites them, and how much

they might accomplish in it. There is a broad sketch of the subject

which everybody can follow, and there is enough of detail to instruct

and guide a beginner and start him on the right track.

"Of course, geology has made great strides since 1849, and the article,

if written now, would need to take notice of other branches of inquiry,

and to modify statements which are not now quite accurate; but most of

the advice Mr. Darwin gives is as needful and valuable now as when it

was given. It is curious to see with what unerring instinct he seems to

have fastened on the principles that would stand the test of time."

In a letter to Lyell (1853) my father wrote, "I went up for a paper by

the Arctic Dr. Sutherland, on ice action, read only in abstract, but I

should think with much good matter. It was very pleasant to hear that it

was written owing to the Admiralty Manual."

To give some idea of the retired life which now began for my father at

Down, I have noted from his diary the short periods during which he was

away from home between the autumn of 1842, when he came to Down, and the

end of 1854.

1843 July.--Week at Maer and Shrewsbury.

October.--Twelve days at Shrewsbury.

1844 April.--Week at Maer and Shrewsbury.

July.--Twelve days at Shrewsbury.

1845 September 15.--Six weeks, "Shrewsbury, Lincolnshire, York,

the Dean of Manchester, Waterton, Chatsworth."

1846 February.--Eleven days at Shrewsbury.

July.--Ten days at Shrewsbury.

September.--Ten days at Southampton, etc., for the British

Association.

1847 February.--Twelve days at Shrewsbury.

June.--Ten days at Oxford, etc., for the British Association.

October.--Fortnight at Shrewsbury.

1848 May.--Fortnight at Shrewsbury.

July.--Week at Swanage.

October.--Fortnight at Shrewsbury.

November.--Eleven days at Shrewsbury.

1849 March to June.--Sixteen weeks at Malvern.

September.--Eleven days at Birmingham for the

British Association.

1850 June.--Week at Malvern.

August.--Week at Leith Hill, the house of a relative.

October.--Week at the house of another relative.

1851 March.--Week at Malvern.

April.--Nine days at Malvern.

July.--Twelve days in London.

1852 March.--Week at Rugby and Shrewsbury.

September.--Six days at the house of a relative.

1853 July.--Three weeks at Eastbourne.

August.--Five days at the military Camp at Chobham.

1854 March.--Five days at the house of a relative.

July.--Three days at the house of a relative.

October.--Six days at the house of a relative.

It will be seen that he was absent from home sixty weeks in twelve

years. But it must be remembered that much of the remaining time spent

at Down was lost through ill-health.]

LETTERS.

CHARLES DARWIN TO R. FITZ-ROY. Down [March 31st, 1843].

Dear Fitz-Roy,

I read yesterday with surprise and the greatest interest, your

appointment as Governor of New Zealand. I do not know whether to

congratulate you on it, but I am sure I may the Colony, on possessing

your zeal and energy. I am most anxious to know whether the report is

true, for I cannot bear the thoughts of your leaving the country without

seeing you once again; the past is often in my memory, and I feel that

I owe to you much bygone enjoyment, and the whole destiny of my

life, which (had my health been stronger) would have been one full of

satisfaction to me. During the last three months I have never once

gone up to London without intending to call in the hopes of seeing Mrs.

Fitz-Roy and yourself; but I find, most unfortunately for myself,

that the little excitement of breaking out of my most quiet routine so

generally knocks me up, that I am able to do scarcely anything when in

London, and I have not even been able to attend one evening meeting of

the Geological Society. Otherwise, I am very well, as are, thank God, my

wife and two children. The extreme retirement of this place suits us all

very well, and we enjoy our country life much. But I am writing trifles

about myself, when your mind and time must be fully occupied. My object

in writing is to beg of you or Mrs. Fitz-Roy to have the kindness to

send me one line to say whether it is true, and whether you sail soon.

I shall come up next week for one or two days; could you see me for even

five minutes, if I called early on Thursday morning, viz. at nine or ten

o'clock, or at whatever hour (if you keep early ship hours) you finish

your breakfast. Pray remember me very kindly to Mrs. Fitz-Roy, who I

trust is able to look at her long voyage with boldness.

Believe me, dear Fitz-Roy, Your ever truly obliged, CHARLES DARWIN.

[A quotation from another letter (1846) to Fitz-Roy may be worth giving,

as showing my father's affectionate remembrance of his old Captain.

"Farewell, dear Fitz-Roy, I often think of your many acts of kindness

to me, and not seldomest on the time, no doubt quite forgotten by you,

when, before making Madeira, you came and arranged my hammock with

your own hands, and which, as I afterwards heard, brought tears into my

father's eyes."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. [Down, September 5, 1843.] Monday morning.

My dear Fox,

When I sent off the glacier paper, I was just going out and so had no

time to write. I hope your friend will enjoy (and I wish you were going

there with him) his tour as much as I did. It was a kind of geological

novel. But your friend must have patience, for he will not get a good

GLACIAL EYE for a few days. Murchison and Count Keyserling RUSHED

through North Wales the same autumn and could see nothing except the

effects of rain trickling over the rocks! I cross-examined Murchison

a little, and evidently saw he had looked carefully at nothing. I feel

CERTAIN about the glacier-effects in North Wales. Get up your steam,

if this weather lasts, and have a ramble in Wales; its glorious scenery

must do every one's heart and body good. I wish I had energy to come to

Delamere and go with you; but as you observe, you might as well ask

St. Paul's. Whenever I give myself a trip, it shall be, I think, to

Scotland, to hunt for more parallel roads. My marine theory for these

roads was for a time knocked on the head by Agassiz ice-work, but it is

now reviving again...

Farewell,--we are getting nearly finished--almost all the workmen gone,

and the gravel laying down on the walks. Ave Maria! how the money does

go. There are twice as many temptations to extravagance in the country

compared with London. Adios.

Yours, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [1844?].

...I have also read the 'Vestiges,' ('The Vestiges of the Natural

History of Creation' was published anonymously in 1844, and is

confidently believed to have been written by the late Robert Chambers.

My father's copy gives signs of having been carefully read, a long list

of marked passages being pinned in at the end. One useful lesson he

seems to have learned from it. He writes: "The idea of a fish passing

into a reptile, monstrous. I will not specify any genealogies--much too

little known at present." He refers again to the book in a letter to

Fox, February, 1845: "Have you read that strange, unphilosophical but

capitally-written book, the 'Vestiges': it has made more talk than any

work of late, and has been by some attributed to me--at which I ought to

be much flattered and unflattered."), but have been somewhat less amused

at it than you appear to have been: the writing and arrangement are

certainly admirable, but his geology strikes me as bad, and his zoology

far worse. I should be very much obliged, if at any future or leisure

time you could tell me on what you ground your doubtful belief in

imagination of a mother affecting her offspring. (This refers to the

case of a relative of Sir J. Hooker's, who insisted that a mole, which

appeared on one of her children, was the effect of fright upon herself

on having, before the birth of the child, blotted with sepia a copy

of Turner's 'Liber Studiorum' that had been lent to her with special

injunctions to be careful.) I have attended to the several statements

scattered about, but do not believe in more than accidental

coincidences. W. Hunter told my father, then in a lying-in hospital,

that in many thousand cases, he had asked the mother, BEFORE HER

CONFINEMENT, whether anything had affected her imagination, and recorded

the answers; and absolutely not one case came right, though, when the

child was anything remarkable, they afterwards made the cap to fit.

Reproduction seems governed by such similar laws in the whole animal

kingdom, that I am most loth [to believe]...

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.M. HERBERT. Down [1844 or 1845].

My dear Herbert,

I was very glad to see your handwriting and hear a bit of news about

you. Though you cannot come here this autumn, I do hope you and Mrs.

Herbert will come in the winter, and we will have lots of talk of old

times, and lots of Beethoven.

I have little or rather nothing to say about myself; we live like

clock-work, and in what most people would consider the dullest

possible manner. I have of late been slaving extra hard, to the great

discomfiture of wretched digestive organs, at South America, and thank

all the fates, I have done three-fourths of it. Writing plain English

grows with me more and more difficult, and never attainable. As for your

pretending that you will read anything so dull as my pure geological

descriptions, lay not such a flattering unction on my soul (On the same

subject he wrote to Fitz-Roy: "I have sent my 'South American Geology'

to Dover Street, and you will get it, no doubt, in the course of time.

You do not know what you threaten when you propose to read it--it is

purely geological. I said to my brother, 'You will of course read it,'

and his answer was, 'Upon my life, I would sooner even buy it.'") for

it is incredible. I have long discovered that geologists never read each

other's works, and that the only object in writing a book is a proof of

earnestness, and that you do not form your opinions without undergoing

labour of some kind. Geology is at present very oral, and what I here

say is to a great extent quite true. But I am giving you a discussion as

long as a chapter in the odious book itself.

I have lately been to Shrewsbury, and found my father surprisingly well

and cheerful.

Believe me, my dear old friend, ever yours, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Monday [February 10th, 1845].

My dear Hooker,

I am much obliged for your very agreeable letter; it was very

good-natured, in the midst of your scientific and theatrical

dissipation, to think of writing so long a letter to me. I am astonished

at your news, and I must condole with you in your PRESENT view of the

Professorship (Sir J.D. Hooker was a candidate for the Professorship of

Botany at Edinburgh University.), and most heartily deplore it on my

own account. There is something so chilling in a separation of so many

hundred miles, though we did not see much of each other when nearer.

You will hardly believe how deeply I regret for MYSELF your present

prospects. I had looked forward to [our] seeing much of each other

during our lives. It is a heavy disappointment; and in a mere selfish

point of view, as aiding me in my work, your loss is indeed irreparable.

But, on the other hand, I cannot doubt that you take at present a

desponding, instead of bright, view of your prospects: surely there

are great advantages, as well as disadvantages. The place is one of

eminence; and really it appears to me there are so many indifferent

workers, and so few readers, that it is a high advantage, in a purely

scientific point of view, for a good worker to hold a position which

leads others to attend to his work. I forget whether you attended

Edinburgh, as a student, but in my time there was a knot of men who were

far from being the indifferent and dull listeners which you expect for

your audience. Reflect what a satisfaction and honour it would be to

MAKE a good botanist--with your disposition you will be to many what

Henslow was at Cambridge to me and others, a most kind friend and guide.

Then what a fine garden, and how good a Public Library! why, Forbes

always regrets the advantages of Edinburgh for work: think of the

inestimable advantage of getting within a short walk of those noble

rocks and hills and sandy shores near Edinburgh! Indeed, I cannot

pity you much, though I pity myself exceedingly in your loss. Surely

lecturing will, in a year or two, with your GREAT capacity for work

(whatever you may be pleased to say to the contrary) become easy, and

you will have a fair time for your Antarctic Flora and general views of

distribution. If I thought your Professorship would stop your work, I

should wish it and all the good worldly consequences at el Diavolo. I

know I shall live to see you the first authority in Europe on that grand

subject, that almost keystone of the laws of creation, Geographical

Distribution. Well, there is one comfort, you will be at Kew, no doubt,

every year, so I shall finish by forcing down your throat my sincere

congratulations. Thanks for all your news. I grieve to hear Humboldt is

failing; one cannot help feeling, though unrightly, that such an end is

humiliating: even when I saw him he talked beyond all reason. If you see

him again, pray give him my most respectful and kind compliments, and

say that I never forget that my whole course of life is due to having

read and re-read as a youth his 'Personal Narrative.' How true

and pleasing are all your remarks on his kindness; think how many

opportunities you will have, in your new place, of being a Humboldt

to others. Ask him about the river in N.E. Europe, with the Flora very

different on its opposite banks. I have got and read your Wilkes; what a

feeble book in matter and style, and how splendidly got up! Do write me

a line from Berlin. Also thanks for the proof-sheets. I do not,

however, mean proof plates; I value them, as saving me copying extracts.

Farewell, my dear Hooker, with a heavy heart I wish you joy of your

prospects.

Your sincere friend,

C. DARWIN.

[The second edition of the 'Journal,' to which the following letter

refers, was completed between April 25th and August 25th. It was

published by Mr. Murray in the 'Colonial and Home Library,' and in this

more accessible form soon had a large sale.

Up to the time of his first negotiations with Mr. Murray for its

publication in this form, he had received payment only in the form of a

large number of presentation copies, and he seems to have been glad to

sell the copyright of the second edition to Mr. Murray for 150 pounds.

The points of difference between it and the first edition are of

interest chiefly in connection with the growth of the author's views on

evolution, and will be considered later.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down [July, 1845].

My dear Lyell,

I send you the first part (No doubt proof-sheets.) of the new edition

[of the 'Journal of Researches'], which I so entirely owe to you. You

will see that I have ventured to dedicate it to you (The dedication of

the second edition of the 'Journal of Researches,' is as follows:--"To

Charles Lyell, Esq., F.R.S., this second edition is dedicated with

grateful pleasure--as an acknowledgment that the chief part of whatever

scientific merit this Journal and the other works of the Author may

possess, has been derived from studying the well-known and admirable

'Principles of Geology.'"), and I trust that this cannot be

disagreeable. I have long wished, not so much for your sake, as for

my own feelings of honesty, to acknowledge more plainly than by mere

reference, how much I geologically owe you. Those authors, however, who

like you, educate people's minds as well as teach them special facts,

can never, I should think, have full justice done them except by

posterity, for the mind thus insensibly improved can hardly perceive its

own upward ascent. I had intended putting in the present acknowledgment

in the third part of my Geology, but its sale is so exceedingly small

that I should not have had the satisfaction of thinking that as far as

lay in my power I had owned, though imperfectly, my debt. Pray do not

think that I am so silly, as to suppose that my dedication can any ways

gratify you, except so far as I trust you will receive it, as a most

sincere mark of my gratitude and friendship. I think I have improved

this edition, especially the second part, which I have just finished.

I have added a good deal about the Fuegians, and cut down into half

the mercilessly long discussion on climate and glaciers, etc. I do not

recollect anything added to the first part, long enough to call your

attention to; there is a page of description of a very curious breed of

oxen in Banda Oriental. I should like you to read the few last pages;

there is a little discussion on extinction, which will not perhaps

strike you as new, though it has so struck me, and has placed in my mind

all the difficulties with respect to the causes of extinction, in the

same class with other difficulties which are generally quite overlooked

and undervalued by naturalists; I ought, however, to have made my

discussion longer and shewn by facts, as I easily could, how steadily

every species must be checked in its numbers.

I received your Travels ('Travels in North America,' 2 volumes, 1845.)

yesterday; and I like exceedingly its external and internal appearance;

I read only about a dozen pages last night (for I was tired with

hay-making), but I saw quite enough to perceive how VERY much it will

interest me, and how many passages will be scored. I am pleased to find

a good sprinkling of Natural History; I shall be astonished if it does

not sell very largely...

How sorry I am to think that we shall not see you here again for so

long; I wish you may knock yourself a little bit up before you start and

require a day's fresh air, before the ocean breezes blow on you...

Ever yours, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, Saturday [August 1st, 1845].

My dear Lyell,

I have been wishing to write to you for a week past, but every five

minutes' worth of strength has been expended in getting out my second

part. (Of the second edition of the 'Journal of Researches.') Your note

pleased me a good deal more I dare say than my dedication did you, and I

thank you much for it. Your work has interested me much, and I will give

you my impressions, though, as I never thought you would care to hear

what I thought of the non-scientific parts, I made no notes, nor took

pains to remember any particular impression of two-thirds of the first

volume. The first impression I should say would be with most (though I

have literally seen not one soul since reading it) regret at there not

being more of the non-scientific [parts]. I am not a good judge, for

I have read nothing, i.e. non-scientific about North America, but the

whole struck me as very new, fresh, and interesting. Your discussions

bore to my mind the evident stamp of matured thought, and of conclusions

drawn from facts observed by yourself, and not from the opinions of the

people whom you met; and this I suspect is comparatively rare.

Your slave discussion disturbed me much; but as you would care no more

for my opinion on this head than for the ashes of this letter, I will

say nothing except that it gave me some sleepless, most uncomfortable

hours. Your account of the religious state of the States particularly

interested me; I am surprised throughout at your very proper boldness

against the Clergy. In your University chapter the Clergy, and not the

State of Education, are most severely and justly handled, and this I

think is very bold, for I conceive you might crush a leaden-headed old

Don, as a Don, with more safety, than touch the finger of that Corporate

Animal, the Clergy. What a contrast in Education does England show

itself! Your apology (using the term, like the old religionists who

meant anything but an apology) for lectures, struck me as very clever;

but all the arguments in the world on your side, are not equal to one

course of Jamieson's Lectures on the other side, which I formerly for

my sins experienced. Although I had read about the 'Coalfields in North

America,' I never in the smallest degree really comprehended their area,

their thickness and favourable position; nothing hardly astounded me

more on this odious deadly subject.

There is a favourable, but not strong enough review on you, in the

"Gardeners' Chronicle". I am sorry to see that Lindley abides by the

carbonic acid gas theory. By the way, I was much pleased by Lindley

picking out my extinction paragraphs and giving them uncurtailed. To

my mind, putting the comparative rarity of existing species in the same

category with extinction has removed a great weight; though of course

it does not explain anything, it shows that until we can explain

comparative rarity, we ought not to feel any surprise at not explaining

extinction...

I am much pleased to hear of the call for a new edition of the

'Principles': what glorious good that work has done. I fear this time

you will not be amongst the old rocks; how I shall rejoice to live to

see you publish and discover another stage below the Silurian--it would

be the grandest step possible, I think. I am very glad to hear what

progress Bunbury is making in fossil Botany; there is a fine hiatus

for him to fill up in this country. I will certainly call on him this

winter...From what little I saw of him, I can quite believe everything

which you say of his talents...

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Shrewsbury [1845?].

My dear Hooker,

I have just received your note, which has astonished me, and has most

truly grieved me. I never for one minute doubted of your success, for I

most erroneously imagined, that merit was sure to gain the day. I feel

most sure that the day will come soon, when those who have voted against

you, if they have any shame or conscience in them, will be ashamed at

having allowed politics to blind their eyes to your qualifications,

and those qualifications vouched for by Humboldt and Brown! Well, those

testimonials must be a consolation to you. Proh pudor! I am vexed and

indignant by turns. I cannot even take comfort in thinking that I shall

see more of you, and extract more knowledge from your well-arranged

stock. I am pleased to think, that after having read a few of your

letters, I never once doubted the position you will ultimately hold

amongst European Botanists. I can think about nothing else, otherwise

I should like [to] discuss 'Cosmos' (A translation of Humboldt's

'Kosmos.') with you. I trust you will pay me and my wife a visit this

autumn at Down. I shall be at Down on the 24th, and till then moving

about.

My dear Hooker, allow me to call myself Your very true friend, C.

DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. October 8th [1845], Shrewsbury.

...I have lately been taking a little tour to see a farm I have

purchased in Lincolnshire (He speaks of his Lincolnshire farm in a

letter to Henslow (July 4th):--"I have bought a farm in Lincolnshire,

and when I go there this autumn, I mean to see what I can do in

providing any cottage on my small estate with gardens. It is a hopeless

thing to look to, but I believe few things would do this country more

good in future ages than the destruction of primogeniture, so as to

lessen the difference in land-wealth, and make more small freeholders.

How atrociously unjust are the stamp laws, which render it so expensive

for the poor man to buy his quarter of an acre; it makes one's blood

burn with indignation.") and then to York, where I visited the Dean of

Manchester (Hon. and Rev. W. Herbert. The visit is mentioned in a letter

to Dr. Hooker:--"I have been taking a little tour, partly on business,

and visited the Dean of Manchester, and had very much interesting talk

with him on hybrids, sterility, and variation, etc., etc. He is full of

self-gained knowledge, but knows surprisingly little what others have

done on the same subjects. He is very heterodox on 'species': not much

better as most naturalists would esteem it, than poor Mr. Vestiges.")

the great maker of Hybrids, who gave me much curious information. I also

visited Waterton at Walton Hall, and was extremely amused with my visit

there. He is an amusing strange fellow; at our early dinner, our party

consisted of two Catholic priests and two Mulattresses! He is past

sixty years old, and the day before ran down and caught a leveret in

a turnip-field. It is a fine old house, and the lake swarms with

water-fowl. I then saw Chatsworth, and was in transport with the great

hothouse; it is a perfect fragment of a tropical forest, and the sight

made me think with delight of old recollections. My little ten-day tour

made me feel wonderfully strong at the time, but the good effects did

not last. My wife, I am sorry to say, does not get very strong, and the

children are the hope of the family, for they are all happy, life, and

spirits. I have been much interested with Sedgwick's review (Sedgwick's

review of the 'Vestiges of Creation' in the 'Edinburgh Review,' July,

1845.) though I find it far from popular with our scientific readers.

I think some few passages savour of the dogmatism of the pulpit, rather

than of the philosophy of the Professor's Chair; and some of the wit

strikes me as only worthy of -- in the 'Quarterly.' Nevertheless, it is

a grand piece of argument against mutability of species, and I read it

with fear and trembling, but was well pleased to find that I had not

overlooked any of the arguments, though I had put them to myself as

feebly as milk and water. Have you read 'Cosmos' yet? The English

translation is wretched, and the semi-metaphysico-politico descriptions

in the first part are barely intelligible; but I think the volcanic

discussion well worth your attention, it has astonished me by its vigour

and information. I grieve to find Humboldt an adorer of Von Buch, with

his classification of volcanos, craters of elevation, etc., etc., and

carbonic acid gas atmosphere. He is indeed a wonderful man.

I hope to get home in a fortnight and stick to my wearyful South America

till I finish it. I shall be very anxious to hear how you get on from

the Horners, but you must not think of wasting your time by writing to

me. We shall miss, indeed, your visits to Down, and I shall feel a lost

man in London without my morning "house of call" at Hart Street...

Believe me, my dear Lyell, ever yours, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Farnborough, Kent. Thursday,

September, 1846.

My dear Hooker,

I hope this letter will catch you at Clifton, but I have been prevented

writing by being unwell, and having had the Horners here as visitors,

which, with my abominable press-work, has fully occupied my time. It is,

indeed, a long time since we wrote to each other; though, I beg to tell

you, that I wrote last, but what about I cannot remember, except,

I know, it was after reading your last numbers (Sir J.D. Hooker's

Antarctic Botany.), and I send you a uniquely laudatory epistle,

considering it was from a man who hardly knows a Daisy from a Dandelion

to a professed Botanist...

I cannot remember what papers have given me the impression, but I have

that, which you state to be the case, firmly fixed on my mind, namely,

the little chemical importance of the soil to its vegetation. What a

strong fact it is, as R. Brown once remarked to me, of certain plants

being calcareous ones here, which are not so under a more favourable

climate on the Continent, or the reverse, for I forget which; but you,

no doubt, will know to what I refer. By-the-way, there are some such

cases in Herbert's paper in the 'Horticultural Journal.' ('Journal of

the Horticultural Society,' 1846.) Have you read it: it struck me as

extremely original, and bears DIRECTLY on your present researches. (Sir

J.D. Hooker was at this time attending to polymorphism, variability,

etc.) To a NON-BOTANIST the chalk has the most peculiar aspect of any

flora in England; why will you not come here to make your observations?

WE go to Southampton, if my courage and stomach do not fail, for the

Brit. Assoc. (Do you not consider it your duty to be there?) And why

cannot you come here afterward and WORK?...

THE MONOGRAPH OF THE CIRRIPEDIA,

October 1846 to October 1854.

[Writing to Sir J.D. Hooker in 1845, my father says: "I hope this next

summer to finish my South American Geology, then to get out a little

Zoology, and hurrah for my species work..." This passage serves to show

that he had at this time no intention of making an exhaustive study of

the Cirripedes. Indeed it would seem that his original intention was,

as I learn from Sir J.D. Hooker, merely to work out one special

problem. This is quite in keeping with the following passage in the

Autobiography: "When on the coast of Chile, I found a most curious form,

which burrowed into the shells of Concholepas, and which differed so

much from all other Cirripedes that I had to form a new sub-order for

its sole reception...To understand the structure of my new Cirripede I

had to examine and dissect many of the common forms; and this gradually

led me on to take up the whole group." In later years he seems to have

felt some doubt as to the value of these eight years of work,--for

instance when he wrote in his Autobiography--"My work was of

considerable use to me, when I had to discuss in the 'Origin of

Species,' the principles of a natural classification. Nevertheless I

doubt whether the work was worth the consumption of so much time." Yet I

learn from Sir J.D. Hooker that he certainly recognised at the time its

value to himself as systematic training. Sir Joseph writes to me: "Your

father recognised three stages in his career as a biologist: the mere

collector at Cambridge; the collector and observer in the "Beagle", and

for some years afterwards; and the trained naturalist after, and only

after the Cirripede work. That he was a thinker all along is true

enough, and there is a vast deal in his writings previous to the

Cirripedes that a trained naturalist could but emulate...He often

alluded to it as a valued discipline, and added that even the 'hateful'

work of digging out synonyms, and of describing, not only improved his

methods but opened his eyes to the difficulties and merits of the works

of the dullest of cataloguers. One result was that he would never allow

a depreciatory remark to pass unchallenged on the poorest class of

scientific workers, provided that their work was honest, and good of

its kind. I have always regarded it as one of the finest traits of his

character,--this generous appreciation of the hod-men of science, and

of their labours...and it was monographing the Barnacles that brought it

about."]

Professor Huxley allows me to quote his opinion as to the value of the

eight years given to the Cirripedes:--

"In my opinion your sagacious father never did a wiser thing than when

he devoted himself to the years of patient toil which the Cirripede-book

cost him.

"Like the rest of us, he had no proper training in biological science,

and it has always struck me as a remarkable instance of his scientific

insight, that he saw the necessity of giving himself such training, and

of his courage, that he did not shirk the labour of obtaining it.

"The great danger which besets all men of large speculative faculty, is

the temptation to deal with the accepted statements of facts in natural

science, as if they were not only correct, but exhaustive; as if they

might be dealt with deductively, in the same way as propositions in

Euclid may be dealt with. In reality, every such statement, however true

it may be, is true only relatively to the means of observation and the

point of view of those who have enunciated it. So far it may be depended

upon. But whether it will bear every speculative conclusion that may be

logically deduced from it, is quite another question.

"Your father was building a vast superstructure upon the foundations

furnished by the recognised facts of geological and biological science.

In Physical Geography, in Geology proper, in Geographical Distribution,

and in Palaeontology, he had acquired an extensive practical training

during the voyage of the "Beagle". He knew of his own knowledge the way

in which the raw materials of these branches of science are acquired,

and was therefore a most competent judge of the speculative strain they

would bear. That which he needed, after his return to England, was

a corresponding acquaintance with Anatomy and Development, and their

relation to Taxonomy--and he acquired this by his Cirripede work.

"Thus, in my apprehension, the value of the Cirripede monograph lies

not merely in the fact that it is a very admirable piece of work, and

constituted a great addition to positive knowledge, but still more in

the circumstance that it was a piece of critical self-discipline,

the effect of which manifested itself in everything your father wrote

afterwards, and saved him from endless errors of detail.

"So far from such work being a loss of time, I believe it would have

been well worth his while, had it been practicable, to have supplemented

it by a special study of embryology and physiology. His hands would

have been greatly strengthened thereby when he came to write out sundry

chapters of the 'Origin of Species.' But of course in those days it was

almost impossible for him to find facilities for such work."

No one can look a the two volumes on the recent Cirripedes, of 399

and 684 pages respectively (not to speak of the volumes on the fossil

species), without being struck by the immense amount of detailed work

which they contain. The forty plates, some of them with thirty figures,

and the fourteen pages of index in the two volumes together, give some

rough idea of the labour spent on the work. (The reader unacquainted

with Zoology will find some account of the more interesting results in

Mr. Romanes' article on "Charles Darwin" ('Nature' Series, 1882).) The

state of knowledge, as regards the Cirripedes, was most unsatisfactory

at the time that my father began to work at them. As an illustration

of this fact, it may be mentioned that he had even to re-organise the

nomenclature of the group, or, as he expressed it, he "unwillingly found

it indispensable to give names to several valves, and to some few of

the softer parts of Cirripedes." (Vol. i. page 3.) It is interesting

to learn from his diary the amount of time which he gave to different

genera. Thus the genus Chthamalus, the description of which occupies

twenty-two pages, occupied him for thirty-six days; Coronula took

nineteen days, and is described in twenty-seven pages. Writing to

Fitz-Roy, he speaks of being "for the last half-month daily hard at work

in dissecting a little animal about the size of a pin's head, from the

Chonos archipelago, and I could spend another month, and daily see more

beautiful structure."

Though he became excessively weary of the work before the end of the

eight years, he had much keen enjoyment in the course of it. Thus

he wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker (1847?):--"As you say, there is an

extraordinary pleasure in pure observation; not but what I suspect the

pleasure in this case is rather derived from comparisons forming in

one's mind with allied structures. After having been so long employed

in writing my old geological observations, it is delightful to use one's

eyes and fingers again." It was, in fact, a return to the work which

occupied so much of his time when at sea during his voyage. His

zoological notes of that period give an impression of vigorous work,

hampered by ignorance and want of appliances. And his untiring industry

in the dissection of marine animals, especially of Crustacea, must have

been of value to him as training for his Cirripede work. Most of his

work was done with the simple dissecting microscope--but it was the need

which he found for higher powers that induced him, in 1846, to buy a

compound microscope. He wrote to Hooker:--"When I was drawing with L.,

I was so delighted with the appearance of the objects, especially with

their perspective, as seen through the weak powers of a good compound

microscope, that I am going to order one; indeed, I often have

structures in which the 1/30 is not power enough."

During part of the time covered by the present chapter, my father

suffered perhaps more from ill-health than at any other time of his

life. He felt severely the depressing influence of these long years of

illness; thus as early as 1840 he wrote to Fox: "I am grown a dull,

old, spiritless dog to what I used to be. One gets stupider as one grows

older I think." It is not wonderful that he should so have written,

it is rather to be wondered at that his spirit withstood so great and

constant a strain. He wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker in 1845: "You are very

kind in your enquiries about my health; I have nothing to say about it,

being always much the same, some days better and some worse. I believe

I have not had one whole day, or rather night, without my stomach having

been greatly disordered, during the last three years, and most days

great prostration of strength: thank you for your kindness; many of my

friends, I believe, think me a hypochondriac."

Again, in 1849, he notes in his diary:--"January 1st to March

10th.--Health very bad, with much sickness and failure of power. Worked

on all well days." This was written just before his first visit to Dr.

Gully's Water-Cure Establishment at Malvern. In April of the same year

he wrote:--"I believe I am going on very well, but I am rather weary of

my present inactive life, and the water-cure has the most extraordinary

effect in producing indolence and stagnation of mind: till experiencing

it, I could not have believed it possible. I now increase in weight,

have escaped sickness for thirty days." He returned in June, after

sixteen weeks' absence, much improved in health, and, as already

described, continued the water-cure at home for some time.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [October, 1846].

My dear Hooker,

I have not heard from Sulivan (Admiral Sir B.J. Sulivan, formerly an

officer of the "Beagle".) lately; when he last wrote he named from 8th

to 10th as the most likely time. Immediately that I hear, I will fly you

a line, for the chance of your being able to come. I forget whether you

know him, but I suppose so; he is a real good fellow. Anyhow, if you do

not come then, I am very glad that you propose coming soon after...

I am going to begin some papers on the lower marine animals, which will

last me some months, perhaps a year, and then I shall begin looking over

my ten-year-long accumulation of notes on species and varieties,

which, with writing, I dare say will take me five years, and then, when

published, I dare say I shall stand infinitely low in the opinion of all

sound Naturalists--so this is my prospect for the future.

Are you a good hand at inventing names. I have a quite new and curious

genus of Barnacle, which I want to name, and how to invent a name

completely puzzles me.

By the way, I have told you nothing about Southampton. We enjoyed (wife

and myself) our week beyond measure: the papers were all dull, but I met

so many friends and made so many new acquaintances (especially some of

the Irish Naturalists), and took so many pleasant excursions. I wish you

had been there. On Sunday we had so pleasant an excursion to

Winchester with Falconer (Hugh Falconer, 1809-1865. Chiefly known as a

palaeontologist, although employed as a botanist during his whole career

in India, where he was also a medical officer in the H.E.I.C. Service;

he was superintendent of the Company's garden, first at Saharunpore,

and then at Calcutta. He was one of the first botanical explorers of

Kashmir. Falconer's discoveries of Miocene mammalian remains in the

Sewalik Hills, were, at the time, perhaps the greatest "finds" which had

been made. His book on the subject, 'Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis,' remained

unfinished at the time of his death.), Colonel Sabine (The late Sir

Edward Sabine, formerly President of the Royal Society, and author of a

long series of memoirs on Terrestrial Magnetism.), and Dr. Robinson

(The late Dr. Thomas Romney Robinson, of the Armagh Observatory.), and

others. I never enjoyed a day more in my life. I missed having a look

at H. Watson. (The late Hewett Cottrell Watson, author of the 'Cybele

Britannica,' one of a most valuable series of works on the topography

and geographical distribution of the plants of the British Islands.)

I suppose you heard that he met Forbes and told him he had a severe

article in the Press. I understood that Forbes explained to him that he

had no cause to complain, but as the article was printed, he would not

withdraw it, but offered it to Forbes for him to append notes to it,

which Forbes naturally declined...

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 7th [1847?].

My dear Hooker,

I should have written before now, had I not been almost continually

unwell, and at present I am suffering from four boils and swellings, one

of which hardly allows me the use of my right arm, and has stopped all

my work, and damped all my spirits. I was much disappointed at missing

my trip to Kew, and the more so, as I had forgotten you would be away

all this month; but I had no choice, and was in bed nearly all Friday

and Saturday. I congratulate you over your improved prospects about

India (Sir J. Hooker left England on November 11, 1847, for his

Himalayan and Tibetan journey. The expedition was supported by a small

grant from the Treasury, and thus assumed the character of a Government

mission.), but at the same time must sincerely groan over it. I shall

feel quite lost without you to discuss many points with, and to

point out (ill-luck to you) difficulties and objections to my species

hypotheses. It will be a horrid shame if money stops your expedition;

but Government will surely help you to some extent...Your present trip,

with your new views, amongst the coal-plants, will be very interesting.

If you have spare time, BUT NOT WITHOUT, I should enjoy having some news

of your progress. Your present trip will work well in, if you go to

any of the coal districts in India. Would this not be a good object to

parade before Government; the utilitarian souls would comprehend this.

By the way, I will get some work out of you, about the domestic races of

animals in India...

CHARLES DARWIN TO L. JENYNS (BLOMEFIELD). Down [1847].

Dear Jenyns,

("This letter relates to a small Almanack first published in 1843, under

the name of 'The Naturalists' Pocket Almanack,' by Mr. Van Voorst,

and which I edited for him. It was intended especially for those who

interest themselves in the periodic phenomena of animals and plants, of

which a select list was given under each month of the year.

"The Pocket Almanack contained, moreover, miscellaneous information

relating to Zoology and Botany; to Natural History and other scientific

societies; to public Museums and Gardens, in addition to the ordinary

celestial phenomena found in most other Almanacks. It continued to be

issued till 1847, after which year the publication was abandoned."--From

a letter from Rev. L. Blomefield to F. Darwin.)

I am very much obliged for the capital little Almanack; it so happened

that I was wishing for one to keep in my portfolio. I had never seen

this kind before, and shall certainly get one for the future. I think

it is very amusing to have a list before one's eyes of the order of

appearance of the plants and animals around one; it gives a fresh

interest to each fine day. There is one point I should like to see

a little improved, viz., the correction for the clock at shorter

intervals. Most people, I suspect, who like myself have dials, will wish

to be more precise than with a margin of three minutes. I always buy

a shilling almanack for this SOLE end. By the way, YOURS, i.e., Van

Voorst's Almanack, is very dear; it ought, at least, to be advertised

post-free for the shilling. Do you not think a table (not rules) of

conversion of French into English measures, and perhaps weights, would

be exceedingly useful; also centigrade into Fahrenheit,--magnifying

powers according to focal distances?--in fact you might make it the more

useful publication of the age. I know what I should like best of all,

namely, current meteorological remarks for each month, with statement

of average course of winds and prediction of weather, in accordance with

movements of barometer. People, I think, are always amused at knowing

the extremes and means of temperature for corresponding times in other

years.

I hope you will go on with it another year. With many thanks, my dear

Jenyns,

Yours very truly, CHARLES DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Sunday [April 18th, 1847].

My dear Hooker,

I return with many thanks Watson's letter, which I have had copied. It

is a capital one, and I am extremely obliged to you for obtaining me

such valuable information. Surely he is rather in a hurry when he says

intermediate varieties must almost be necessarily rare, otherwise they

would be taken as the types of the species; for he overlooks numerical

frequency as an element. Surely if A, B, C were three varieties, and

if A were a good deal the commonest (therefore, also, first known),

it would be taken as the type, without regarding whether B was quite

intermediate or not, or whether it was rare or not. What capital

essays W would write; but I suppose he has written a good deal in the

'Phytologist.' You ought to encourage him to publish on variation; it

is a shame that such facts as those in his letter should remain

unpublished. I must get you to introduce me to him; would he be a good

and sociable man for Dropmore? (A much enjoyed expedition made from

Oxford--when the British Association met there in 1847.) though if he

comes, Forbes must not (and I think you talked of inviting Forbes), or

we shall have a glorious battle. I should like to see sometime the war

correspondence. Have you the 'Phytologist,' and could you sometime spare

it? I would go through it quickly...I have read your last five numbers

(Of the Botany of Hooker's 'Antarctic Voyage.'), and as usual have been

much interested in several points, especially with your discussions

on the beech and potato. I see you have introduced several sentences

against us Transmutationists. I have also been looking through the

latter volumes of the 'Annals of Natural History,' and have read two

such soulless, pompous papers of --, quite worthy of the author...The

contrast of the papers in the "Annals" with those in the "Annales"

is rather humiliating; so many papers in the former, with short

descriptions of species, without one word on their affinities, internal

structure, range or habits. I am now reading --, and I have picked

out some things which have interested me; but he strikes me as rather

dullish, and with all his Materia Medica smells of the doctor's shop. I

shall ever hate the name of the Materia Medica, since hearing Duncan's

lectures at eight o'clock on a winter's morning--a whole, cold

breakfastless hour on the properties of rhubarb!

I hope your journey will be very prosperous. Believe me, my dear Hooker,

Ever yours, C. DARWIN.

P.S.--I think I have only made one new acquaintance of late, that is

R. Chambers; and I have just received a presentation copy of the sixth

edition of the 'Vestiges.' Somehow I now feel perfectly convinced he is

the author. He is in France, and has written to me thence.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [1847?].

...I am delighted to hear that Brongniart thought Sigillaria aquatic,

and that Binney considers coal a sort of submarine peat. I would bet

5 to 1 that in twenty years this will be generally admitted (An

unfulfilled prophecy.); and I do not care for whatever the botanical

difficulties or impossibilities may be. If I could but persuade myself

that Sigillaria and Co. had a good range of depth, i.e., could live from

5 to 100 fathoms under water, all difficulties of nearly all kinds would

be removed (for the simple fact of muddy ordinary shallow sea implies

proximity of land). [N.B.--I am chuckling to think how you are sneering

all this time.] It is not much of a difficulty, there not being shells

with the coal, considering how unfavourable deep mud is for most

Mollusca, and that shells would probably decay from the humic acid, as

seems to take place in peat and in the BLACK moulds (as Lyell tells me)

of the Mississippi. So coal question settled--Q.E.D. Sneer away!

Many thanks for your welcome note from Cambridge, and I am glad you like

my alma mater, which I despise heartily as a place of education, but

love from many most pleasant recollections...

Thanks for your offer of the 'Phytologist;' I shall be very much obliged

for it, for I do not suppose I should be able to borrow it from any

other quarter. I will not be set up too much by your praise, but I do

not believe I ever lost a book or forgot to return it during a long

lapse of time. Your 'Webb' is well wrapped up, and with your name in

large letters OUTSIDE.

My new microscope is come home (a "splendid plaything," as old R.

Brown called it), and I am delighted with it; it really is a splendid

plaything. I have been in London for three days, and saw many of our

friends. I was extremely sorry to hear a not very good account of

Sir William. Farewell, my dear Hooker, and be a good boy, and make

Sigillaria a submarine sea-weed.

Ever yours, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [May 6th, 1847].

My dear Hooker,

You have made a savage onslaught, and I must try to defend myself.

But, first, let me say that I never write to you except for my own

good pleasure; now I fear that you answer me when busy and without

inclination (and I am sure I should have none if I was as busy as you).

Pray do not do so, and if I thought my writing entailed an answer from

you nolens volens, it would destroy all my pleasure in writing. Firstly,

I did not consider my letter as REASONING, or even as SPECULATION, but

simply as mental rioting; and as I was sending Binney's paper, I poured

out to you the result of reading it. Secondly, you are right, indeed, in

thinking me mad, if you suppose that I would class any ferns as marine

plants; but surely there is a wide distinction between the plants found

upright in the coal-beds and those not upright, and which might have

been drifted. Is it not possible that the same circumstances which have

preserved the vegetation in situ, should have preserved drifted plants?

I know Calamites is found upright; but I fancied its affinities were

very obscure, like Sigillaria. As for Lepidodendron, I forgot its

existence, as happens when one goes riot, and now know neither what

it is, or whether upright. If these plants, i.e. Calamites and

Lepidodendron, have VERY CLEAR RELATIONS to terrestrial vegetables, like

the ferns have, and are found upright in situ, of course I must give up

the ghost. But surely Sigillaria is the main upright plant, and on its

obscure affinities I have heard you enlarge.

Thirdly, it never entered my head to undervalue botanical relatively to

zoological evidence; except in so far as I thought it was admitted that

the vegetative structure seldom yielded any evidence of affinity nearer

than that of families, and not always so much. And is it not in plants,

as certainly it is in animals, dangerous to judge of habits without

very near affinity. Could a Botanist tell from structure alone that the

Mangrove family, almost or quite alone in Dicotyledons, could live in

the sea, and the Zostera family almost alone among the Monocotyledons?

Is it a safe argument, that because algae are almost the only, or the

only submerged sea-plants, that formerly other groups had not members

with such habits? With animals such an argument would not be conclusive,

as I could illustrate by many examples; but I am forgetting myself; I

want only to some degree to defend myself, and not burn my fingers by

attacking you. The foundation of my letter, and what is my deliberate

opinion, though I dare say you will think it absurd, is that I would

rather trust, caeteris paribus, pure geological evidence than either

zoological or botanical evidence. I do not say that I would sooner trust

POOR geological evidence than GOOD organic. I think the basis of pure

geological reasoning is simpler (consisting chiefly of the action of

water on the crust of the earth, and its up and down movements) than a

basis drawn from the difficult subject of affinities and of structure in

relation to habits. I can hardly analyze the facts on which I have come

to this conclusion; but I can illustrate it. Pallas's account would lead

any one to suppose that the Siberian strata, with the frozen carcasses,

had been quickly deposited, and hence that the embedded animals had

lived in the neighbourhood; but our zoological knowledge of thirty years

ago led every one falsely to reject this conclusion.

Tell me that an upright fern in situ occurs with Sigillaria and

Stigmaria, or that the affinities of Calamites and Lepidodendron

(supposing that they are found in situ with Sigillaria) are so CLEAR,

that they could not have been marine, like, but in a greater degree,

than the mangrove and sea-wrack, and I will humbly apologise to you

and all Botanists for having let my mind run riot on a subject on which

assuredly I know nothing. But till I hear this, I shall keep privately

to my own opinion with the same pertinacity and, as you will think,

with the same philosophical spirit with which Koenig maintains that

Cheirotherium-footsteps are fuci.

Whether this letter will sink me lower in your opinion, or put me a

little right, I know not, but hope the latter. Anyhow, I have revenged

myself with boring you with a very long epistle. Farewell, and be

forgiving. Ever yours,

C. DARWIN.

P.S.--When will you return to Kew? I have forgotten one main object of

my letter, to thank you MUCH for your offer of the 'Hort. Journal,' but

I have ordered the two numbers.

[The two following extracts [1847] give the continuation and conclusion

of the coal battle.

"By the way, as submarine coal made you so wrath, I thought I would

experimentise on Falconer and Bunbury (The late Sir C. Bunbury,

well-known as a palaeobotanist.) together, and it made [them] even more

savage; 'such infernal nonsense ought to be thrashed out of me.' Bunbury

was more polite and contemptuous. So I now know how to stir up and show

off any Botanist. I wonder whether Zoologists and Geologists have got

their tender points; I wish I could find out."

"I cannot resist thanking you for your most kind note. Pray do not

think that I was annoyed by your letter: I perceived that you had been

thinking with animation, and accordingly expressed yourself strongly,

and so I understood it. Forfend me from a man who weighs every

expression with Scotch prudence. I heartily wish you all success in your

noble problem, and I shall be very curious to have some talk with you

and hear your ultimatum."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. (Parts of two letters.) Down [October,

1847].

I congratulate you heartily on your arrangements being completed, with

some prospect for the future. It will be a noble voyage and journey,

but I wish it was over, I shall miss you selfishly and all ways to a

dreadful extent ...I am in great perplexity how we are to meet...I can

well understand how dreadfully busy you must be. If you CANNOT come

here, you MUST let me come to you for a night; for I must have one more

chat and one more quarrel with you over the coal.

By the way, I endeavoured to stir up Lyell (who has been staying

here some days with me) to theorise on the coal: his oolitic UPRIGHT

Equisetums are dreadful for my submarine flora. I should die much easier

if some one would solve me the coal question. I sometimes think it could

not have been formed at all. Old Sir Anthony Carlisle once said to me

gravely, that he supposed Megatherium and such cattle were just sent

down from heaven to see whether the earth would support them; and I

suppose the coal was rained down to puzzle mortals. You must work the

coal well in India.

Ever yours, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. [November 6th, 1847.]

My dear Hooker,

I have just received your note with sincere grief: there is no help for

it. I shall always look at your intention of coming here, under such

circumstances, as the greatest proof of friendship I ever received from

mortal man. My conscience would have upbraided me in not having come

to you on Thursday, but, as it turned out, I could not, for I was quite

unable to leave Shrewsbury before that day, and I reached home only

last night, much knocked up. Without I hear to-morrow (which is hardly

possible), and if I am feeling pretty well, I will drive over to Kew on

Monday morning, just to say farewell. I will stay only an hour...

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. [November, 1847.]

My dear Hooker,

I am very unwell, and incapable of doing anything. I do hope I have not

inconvenienced you. I was so unwell all yesterday, that I was rejoicing

you were not here; for it would have been a bitter mortification to me

to have had you here and not enjoyed your last day. I shall not now see

you. Farewell, and God bless you.

Your affectionate friend, C. DARWIN.

I will write to you in India.

[In 1847 appeared a paper by Mr. D. Milne (Now Mr. Milne Home. The

essay was published in Transactions of the Edinburgh Royal Society, vol.

xvi.), in which my father's Glen Roy work is criticised, and which is

referred to in the following characteristic extract from a letter to Sir

J. Hooker:] "I have been bad enough for these few last days, having had

to think and write too much about Glen Roy...Mr. Milne having attacked

my theory, which made me horribly sick." I have not been able to find

any published reply to Mr. Milne, so that I imagine the "writing"

mentioned was confined to letters. Mr. Milne's paper was not destructive

to the Glen Roy paper, and this my father recognises in the following

extract from a letter to Lyell (March, 1847). The reference to Chambers

is explained by the fact that he accompanied Mr. Milne in his visit to

Glen Roy. "I got R. Chambers to give me a sketch of Milne's Glen Roy

views, and I have re-read my paper, and am, now that I have heard what

is to be said, not even staggered. It is provoking and humiliating to

find that Chambers not only had not read with any care my paper on

this subject, or even looked at the coloured map, so that the new shelf

described by me had not been searched for, and my arguments and facts of

detail not in the least attended to. I entirely gave up the ghost, and

was quite chicken-hearted at the Geological Society, till you reassured

and reminded me of the main facts in the whole case."

The two following letters to Lyell, though of later date (June, 1848),

bear on the same subject:--

"I was at the evening meeting [of the Geological Society], but did not

get within hail of you. What a fool (though I must say a very amusing

one) -- did make of himself. Your speech was refreshing after it,

and was well characterized by Fox (my cousin) in three words--'What a

contrast!' That struck me as a capital speculation about the Wealden

Continent going down. I did not hear what you settled at the Council; I

was quite wearied out and bewildered. I find Smith, of Jordan Hill, has

a much worse opinion of R. Chambers's book than even I have. Chambers

has piqued me a little ('Ancient Sea Margins, 1848.' The words quoted by

my father should be "the mobility of the land was an ascendant idea.");

he says I 'propound' and 'profess my belief' that Glen Roy is marine,

and that the idea was accepted because the 'mobility of the land was the

ascendant idea of the day.' He adds some very faint UPPER lines in Glen

Spean (seen, by the way, by Agassiz), and has shown that Milne and Kemp

are right in there being horizontal aqueous markings (NOT at coincident

levels with those of Glen Roy) in other parts of Scotland at great

heights, and he adds several other cases. This is the whole of his

addition to the data. He not only takes my line of argument from the

buttresses and terraces below the lower shelf and some other arguments

(without acknowledgment), but he sneers at all his predecessors

not having perceived the importance of the short portions of lines

intermediate between the chief ones in Glen Roy; whereas I commence the

description of them with saying, that 'perceiving their importance,

I examined them with scrupulous care,' and expatiate at considerable

length on them. I have indirectly told him I do not think he has quite

claims to consider that he alone (which he pretty directly asserts) has

solved the problem of Glen Roy. With respect to the terraces at lower

levels coincident in height all round Scotland and England, I am

inclined to believe he shows some little probability of there being some

leading ones coincident, but much more exact evidence is required. Would

you believe it credible? he advances as a probable solution to account

for the rise of Great Britain that in some great ocean one-twentieth

of the bottom of the whole aqueous surface of the globe has sunk in (he

does not say where he puts it) for a thickness of half a mile, and this

he has calculated would make an apparent rise of 130 feet."

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down [June, 1848].

My dear Lyell,

Out of justice to Chambers I must trouble you with one line to say, as

far as I am personally concerned in Glen Roy, he has made the amende

honorable, and pleads guilty through inadvertency of taking my two lines

of arguments and facts without acknowledgment. He concluded by saying he

"came to the same point by an independent course of inquiry, which in a

small degree excuses this inadvertency." His letter altogether shows a

very good disposition, and says he is "much gratified with the MEASURED

approbation which you bestow, etc." I am heartily glad I was able to

say in truth that I thought he had done good service in calling more

attention to the subject of the terraces. He protests it is unfair to

call the sinking of the sea his theory, for that he with care always

speaks of mere change of level, and this is quite true; but the one

section in which he shows how he conceives the sea might sink is so

astonishing, that I believe it will with others, as with me, more than

counterbalance his previous caution. I hope that you may think better of

the book than I do.

Yours most truly, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. October 6th, 1848.

...I have lately been trying to get up an agitation (but I shall not

succeed, and indeed doubt whether I have time and strength to go on with

it), against the practice of Naturalists appending for perpetuity the

name of the FIRST describer to species. I look at this as a direct

premium to hasty work, to NAMING instead of DESCRIBING. A species ought

to have a name so well known that the addition of the author's name

would be superfluous, and a [piece] of empty vanity. (His contempt for

the self-regarding spirit in a naturalist is illustrated by an anecdote,

for which I am indebted to Rev. L. Blomefield. After speaking of my

father's love of Entomology at Cambridge, Mr. Blomefield continues:--"He

occasionally came over from Cambridge to my Vicarage at Swaffham

Bulbeck, and we went out together to collect insects in the woods at

Bottisham Hall, close at hand, or made longer excursions in the Fens.

On one occasion he captured in a large bag net, with which he used

vigorously to sweep the weeds and long grass, a rare coleopterous

insect, one of the Lepturidae, which I myself had never taken in

Cambridgeshire. He was pleased with his capture, and of course carried

it home in triumph. Some years afterwards, the voyage of the 'Beagle'

having been made in the interim, talking over old times with him, I

reverted to this circumstance, and asked if he remembered it. 'Oh, yes,'

(he said,) 'I remember it well; and I was selfish enough to keep

the specimen, when you were collecting materials for a Fauna of

Cambridgeshire, and for a local museum in the Philosophical Society.' He

followed this up with some remarks on the pettiness of collectors, who

aimed at nothing beyond filling their cabinets with rare things.")

At present, it would not do to give mere specific names; but I think

Zoologists might open the road to the omission, by referring to good

systematic writers instead of to first describers. Botany, I fancy,

has not suffered so much as Zoology from mere NAMING; the characters,

fortunately, are more obscure. Have you ever thought on this point?

Why should Naturalists append their own names to new species, when

Mineralogists and Chemists do not do so to new substances? When you

write to Falconer pray remember me affectionately to him. I grieve most

sincerely to hear that he has been ill, my dear Hooker, God bless you,

and fare you well.

Your sincere friend, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO HUGH STRICKLAND. (Hugh Edwin Strickland, M.A., F.R.S.,

was born 2nd of March, 1811, and educated at Rugby, under Arnold, and at

Oriel College, Oxford. In 1835 and 1836 he travelled through Europe to

the Levant with W.J. Hamilton, the geologist, wintering in Asia Minor.

In 1841 he brought the subject of Natural History Nomenclature before

the British Association, and prepared the Code of Rules for Zoological

Nomenclature, now known by his name--the principles of which are very

generally adopted. In 1843 he was one of the founders (if not the

original projector) of the Ray Society. In 1845 he married the second

daughter of Sir William Jardine, Bart. In 1850 he was appointed, in

consequence of Buckland's illness, Deputy Reader in Geology at Oxford.

His promising career was suddenly cut short on September 14, 1853, when,

while geologizing in a railway cutting between Retford and Gainsborough,

he was run over by a train and instantly killed. A memoir of him and a

reprint of his principal contributions to journals was published by Sir

William Jardine in 1858; but he was also the author of 'The Dodo and its

Kindred' (1848); 'Bibliographia Zoologiae' (the latter in conjunction

with Louis Agassiz, and issued by the Ray Society); 'Ornithological

Synonyms' (one volume only published, and that posthumously). A

catalogue of his ornithological collection, given by his widow to the

University of Cambridge, was compiled by Mr. Salvin, and published in

1882. (I am indebted to Prof. Newton for the above note.)) Down, January

29th [1849].

...What a labour you have undertaken; I do HONOUR your devoted zeal in

the good cause of Natural Science. Do you happen to have a SPARE copy

of the Nomenclature rules published in the 'British Association

Transactions?' if you have, and would give it to me, I should be truly

obliged, for I grudge buying the volume for it. I have found the rules

very useful, it is quite a comfort to have something to rest on in the

turbulent ocean of nomenclature (and am accordingly grateful to you),

though I find it very difficult to obey always. Here is a case (and I

think it should have been noticed in the rules), Coronula, Cineras and

Otion, are names adopted by Cuvier, Lamarck, Owen, and almost EVERY

well-known writer, but I find that all three names were anticipated by

a German: now I believe if I were to follow the strict rule of priority,

more harm would be done than good, and more especially as I feel sure

that the newly fished-up names would not be adopted. I have almost made

up my mind to reject the rule of priority in this case; would you grudge

the trouble to send me your opinion? I have been led of late to reflect

much on the subject of naming, and I have come to a fixed opinion that

the plan of the first describer's name, being appended for perpetuity to

a species, had been the greatest curse to Natural History. Some months

since, I wrote out the enclosed badly drawn-up paper, thinking that

perhaps I would agitate the subject; but the fit has passed, and I do

not suppose I ever shall; I send it you for the CHANCE of your caring

to see my notions. I have been surprised to find in conversation that

several naturalists were of nearly my way of thinking. I feel sure as

long as species-mongers have their vanity tickled by seeing their own

names appended to a species, because they miserably described it in two

or three lines, we shall have the same VAST amount of bad work as at

present, and which is enough to dishearten any man who is willing to

work out any branch with care and time. I find every genus of Cirripedia

has half-a-dozen names, and not one careful description of any one

species in any one genus. I do not believe that this would have been the

case if each man knew that the memory of his own name depended on his

doing his work well, and not upon merely appending a name with a few

wretched lines indicating only a few prominent external characters. But

I will not weary you with any longer tirade. Read my paper or NOT, just

as you like, and return it whenever you please.

Yours most sincerely, C. DARWIN.

HUGH STRICKLAND TO CHARLES DARWIN. The Lodge, Tewkesbury, January 31st,

1849.

...I have next to notice your second objection--that retaining the name

of the FIRST describer in perpetuum along with that of the species, is

a premium on hasty and careless work. This is quite a different question

from that of the law of priority itself, and it never occurred to me

before, though it seems highly probable that the general recognition of

that law may produce such a result. We must try to counteract this evil

in some other way.

The object of appending the name of a man to the name of a species is

not to gratify the vanity of the man, but to indicate more precisely

the species. Sometimes two men will, by accident, give the same name

(independently) to two species of the same genus. More frequently a

later author will misapply the specific name of an older one. Thus the

Helix putris of Montagu is not H. putris of Linnaeus, though Montague

supposed it to be so. In such a case we cannot define the species by

Helix putris alone, but must append the name of the author whom we

quote. But when a species has never borne but one name (as Corvus

frugilegus), and no other species of Corvus has borne the same name,

it is, of course, unnecessary to add the author's name. Yet even here

I like the form Corvus frugilegus, Linn., as it reminds us that this

is one of the old species, long known, and to be found in the 'Systema

Naturae,' etc. I fear, therefore, that (at least until our nomenclature

is more definitely settled) it will be impossible to indicate species

with scientific accuracy, without adding the name of their first author.

You may, indeed, do it as you propose, by saying in Lam. An. Invert.,

etc., but then this would be incompatible with the law of priority, for

where Lamarck has violated that low, one cannot adopt his name. It is,

nevertheless, highly conducive to accurate indication to append to the

(oldest) specific name ONE good reference to a standard work, especially

to a FIGURE, with an accompanying synonym if necessary. This method may

be cumbrous, but cumbrousness is a far less evil than uncertainty.

It, moreover, seems hardly possible to carry out the PRIORITY principle,

without the historical aid afforded by appending the author's name

to the specific one. If I, a PRIORITY MAN, called a species C.D., it

implies that C.D. is the oldest name that I know of; but in order

that you and others may judge of the propriety of that name, you must

ascertain when, and by whom, the name was first coined. Now, if to the

specific name C.D., I append the name A.B., of its first describer, I at

once furnish you with the clue to the dates when, and the book in which,

this description was given, and I thus assist you in determining whether

C.D. be really the oldest, and therefore the correct, designation.

I do, however, admit that the priority principle (excellent as it is)

has a tendency, when the author's name is added, to encourage vanity and

slovenly work. I think, however, that much might be done to discourage

those obscure and unsatisfactory definitions of which you so justly

complain, by WRITING DOWN the practice. Let the better disposed

naturalists combine to make a formal protest against all vague, loose,

and inadequate definitions of (supposed) new species. Let a committee

(say of the British Association) be appointed to prepare a sort of CLASS

LIST of the various modern works in which new species are described,

arranged in order of merit. The lowest class would contain the worst

examples of the kind, and their authors would thus be exposed to

the obloquy which they deserve, and be gibbeted in terrorem for the

edification of those who may come after.

I have thus candidly stated my views (I hope intelligibly) of what

seems best to be done in the present transitional and dangerous state

of systematic zoology. Innumerable labourers, many of them crotchety and

half-educated, are rushing into the field, and it depends, I think, on

the present generation whether the science is to descend to posterity a

chaotic mass, or possessed of some traces of law and organisation. If we

could only get a congress of deputies from the chief scientific bodies

of Europe and America, something might be done, but, as the case stands,

I confess I do not clearly see my way, beyond humbly endeavouring to

reform NUMBER ONE.

Yours ever, H.E. STRICKLAND.

CHARLES DARWIN TO HUGH STRICKLAND. Down, Sunday [February 4th, 1849].

My dear Strickland,

I am, in truth, GREATLY obliged to you for your long, most interesting,

and clear letter, and the Report. I will consider your arguments, which

are of the greatest weight, but I confess I cannot yet bring myself to

reject very WELL-KNOWN names, not in ONE country, but over the world,

for obscure ones,--simply on the ground that I do not believe I should

be followed. Pray believe that I should break the law of priority only

in rare cases; will you read the enclosed (and return it), and tell me

whether it does not stagger you? (N.B. I PROMISE that I will not give

you any more trouble.) I want simple answers, and not for you to waste

your time in reasons; I am curious for your answer in regard to Balanus.

I put the case of Otion, etc., to W. Thompson, who is fierce for the

law of priority, and he gave it up in such well-known names. I am in

a perfect maze of doubt on nomenclature. In not one large genus of

Cirripedia has ANY ONE species been correctly defined; it is pure

guesswork (being guided by range and commonness and habits) to recognise

any species: thus I can make out, from plates or descriptions, hardly

any of the British sessile cirripedes. I cannot bear to give new names

to all the species, and yet I shall perhaps do wrong to attach old names

by little better than guess; I cannot at present tell the least which

of two species all writers have meant by the common Anatifera laevis;

I have, therefore, given that name to the one which is rather the

commonest. Literally, not one species is properly defined; not one

naturalist has ever taken the trouble to open the shell of any species

to describe it scientifically, and yet all the genera have half-a-dozen

synonyms. For ARGUMENT'S sake, suppose I do my work thoroughly well,

any one who happens to have the original specimens named, I will say by

Chenu, who has figured and named hundreds of species, will be able to

upset all my names according to the law of priority (for he may maintain

his descriptions are sufficient), do you think it advantageous to

science that this should be done: I think not, and that convenience and

high merit (here put as mere argument) had better come into some play.

The subject is heart-breaking.

I hope you will occasionally turn in your mind my argument of the evil

done by the "mihi" attached to specific names; I can most clearly see

the EXCESSIVE evil it has caused; in mineralogy I have myself found

there is no rage to merely name; a person does not take up the subject

without he intends to work it out, as he knows that his ONLY claim to

merit rests on his work being ably done, and has no relation whatever

to NAMING. I give up one point, and grant that reference to first

describer's name should be given in all systematic works, but I think

something would be gained if a reference was given without the author's

name being actually appended as part of the binomial name, and I think,

except in systematic works, a reference, such as I propose, would

damp vanity much. I think a very wrong spirit runs through all Natural

History, as if some merit was due to a man for merely naming and

defining a species; I think scarcely any, or none, is due; if he works

out MINUTELY and anatomically any one species, or systematically a whole

group, credit is due, but I must think the mere defining a species is

nothing, and that no INJUSTICE is done him if it be overlooked, though

a great inconvenience to Natural History is thus caused. I do not think

more credit is due to a man for defining a species, than to a carpenter

for making a box. But I am foolish and rabid against species-mongers, or

rather against their vanity; it is useful and necessary work which must

be done; but they act as if they had actually made the species, and it

was their own property.

I use Agassiz's nomenclator; at least two-thirds of the dates in the

Cirripedia are grossly wrong.

I shall do what I can in fossil Cirripedia, and should be very grateful

for specimens; but I do not believe that species (and hardly genera)

can be defined by single valves; as in every recent species yet examined

their forms vary greatly: to describe a species by valves alone, is the

same as to describe a crab from SMALL portions of its carapace alone,

these portions being highly variable, and not, as in Crustacea, modelled

over viscera. I sincerely apologise for the trouble which I have given

you, but indeed I will give no more.

Yours most sincerely, C. DARWIN.

P.S.--In conversation I found Owen and Andrew Smith much inclined to

throw over the practice of attaching authors' names; I believe if I

agitated I could get a large party to join. W. Thompson agreed some way

with me, but was not prepared to go nearly as far as I am.

CHARLES DARWIN TO HUGH STRICKLAND. Down, February 10th [1849].

My dear Strickland,

I have again to thank you cordially for your letter. Your remarks shall

fructify to some extent, and I will try to be more faithful to rigid

virtue and priority; but as for calling Balanus "Lepas" (which I did not

think of), I cannot do it, my pen won't write it--it is IMPOSSIBLE. I

have great hopes some of my difficulties will disappear, owing to wrong

dates in Agassiz, and to my having to run several genera into one, for I

have as yet gone, in but few cases, to original sources. With respect to

adopting my own notions in my Cirripedia book, I should not like to

do so without I found others approved, and in some public way,--nor,

indeed, is it well adapted, as I can never recognise a species without I

have the original specimen, which, fortunately, I have in many cases in

the British Museum. Thus far I mean to adopt my notion, as never putting

mihi or "Darwin" after my own species, and in the anatomical text giving

no authors' names at all, as the systematic Part will serve for those

who want to know the History of a species as far as I can imperfectly

work it out...

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. [The Lodge, Malvern, March 28th, 1849.]

My dear Hooker,

Your letter of the 13th of October has remained unanswered till this

day! What an ungrateful return for a letter which interested me so much,

and which contained so much and curious information. But I have had a

bad winter.

On the 13th of November, my poor dear father died, and no one who did

not know him would believe that a man above eighty-three years old could

have retained so tender and affectionate a disposition, with all his

sagacity unclouded to the last. I was at the time so unwell, that I was

unable to travel, which added to my misery. Indeed, all this winter I

have been bad enough...and my nervous system began to be affected, so

that my hands trembled, and head was often swimming. I was not able to

do anything one day out of three, and was altogether too dispirited to

write to you, or to do anything but what I was compelled. I thought I

was rapidly going the way of all flesh. Having heard, accidentally, of

two persons who had received much benefit from the water-cure, I got Dr.

Gully's book, and made further enquiries, and at last started here,

with wife, children, and all our servants. We have taken a house for

two months, and have been here a fortnight. I am already a little

stronger...Dr. Gully feels pretty sure he can do me good, which most

certainly the regular doctors could not...I feel certain that the

water-cure is no quackery.

How I shall enjoy getting back to Down with renovated health, if such

is to be my good fortune, and resuming the beloved Barnacles. Now I hope

that you will forgive me for my negligence in not having sooner answered

your letter. I was uncommonly interested by the sketch you give of

your intended grand expedition, from which I suppose you will soon

be returning. How earnestly I hope that it may prove in every way

successful...

[When my father was at the Water-cure Establishment at Malvern he

was brought into contact with clairvoyance, of which he writes in the

following extract from a letter to Fox, September, 1850.

"You speak about Homoeopathy, which is a subject which makes me more

wrath, even than does Clairvoyance. Clairvoyance so transcends belief,

that one's ordinary faculties are put out of the question, but in

homoeopathy common sense and common observation come into play, and both

these must go to the dogs, if the infinitesimal doses have any effect

whatever. How true is a remark I saw the other day by Quetelet, in

respect to evidence of curative processes, viz., that no one knows in

disease what is the simple result of nothing being done, as a standard

with which to compare homoeopathy, and all other such things. It is a

sad flaw, I cannot but think, in my beloved Dr. Gully, that he believes

in everything. When Miss -- was very ill, he had a clairvoyant girl

to report on internal changes, a mesmerist to put her to sleep--an

homoeopathist, viz. Dr. --, and himself as hydropathist! and the girl

recovered."

A passage out of an earlier letter to Fox (December, 1884) shows that

he was equally sceptical on the subject of mesmerism: "With respect to

mesmerism, the whole country resounds with wonderful facts or tales..I

have just heard of a child, three or four years old (whose parents and

self I well knew) mesmerised by his father, which is the first fact

which has staggered me. I shall not believe fully till I see or hear

from good evidence of animals (as has been stated is possible) not

drugged, being put to stupor; of course the impossibility would not

prove mesmerism false; but it is the only clear experimentum crucis, and

I am astonished it has not been systematically tried. If mesmerism was

investigated, like a science, this could not have been left till the

present day to be DONE SATISFACTORILY, as it has been I believe left.

Keep some cats yourself, and do get some mesmeriser to attempt it. One

man told me he had succeeded, but his experiments were most vague, and

as was likely from a man who said cats were more easily done than other

animals, because they were so electrical!"]

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, December 4th [1849].

My dear Lyell,

This letter requires no answer, and I write from exuberance of vanity.

Dana has sent me the Geology of the United States Expedition, and I have

just read the Coral part. To begin with a modest speech, I AM ASTONISHED

AT MY OWN ACCURACY!! If I were to rewrite now my Coral book there is

hardly a sentence I should have to alter, except that I ought to have

attributed more effect to recent volcanic action in checking growth of

coral. When I say all this I ought to add that the CONSEQUENCES of the

theory on areas of subsidence are treated in a separate chapter to which

I have not come, and in this, I suspect, we shall differ more. Dana

talks of agreeing with my theory IN MOST POINTS; I can find out not one

in which he differs. Considering how infinitely more he saw of Coral

Reefs than I did, this is wonderfully satisfactory to me. He treats me

most courteously. There now, my vanity is pretty well satisfied...

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Malvern, April 9th, 1849.

My dear Hooker,

The very next morning after posting my last letter (I think on 23rd

of March), I received your two interesting gossipaceous and geological

letters; and the latter I have since exchanged with Lyell for his. I

will write higglety-pigglety just as subjects occur. I saw the Review in

the 'Athenaeum,' it was written in an ill-natured spirit; but the whole

virus consisted in saying that there was not novelty enough in your

remarks for publication. No one, nowadays, cares for reviews. I may

just mention that my Journal got some REAL GOOD abuse, "presumption,"

etc.,--ended with saying that the volume appeared "made up of the scraps

and rubbish of the author's portfolio." I most truly enter into what

you say, and quite believe you that you care only for the review with

respect to your father; and that this ALONE would make you like to

see extracts from your letters more properly noticed in this same

periodical. I have considered to the very best of my judgment whether

any portion of your present letters are adapted for the 'Athenaeum' (in

which I have no interest; the beasts not having even NOTICED my three

geological volumes which I had sent to them), and I have come to the

conclusion it is better not to send them. I feel sure, considering all

the circumstances, that without you took pains and wrote WITH CARE, a

condensed and finished sketch of some striking feature in your travels,

it is better not to send anything. These two letters are, moreover,

rather too geological for the 'Athenaeum,' and almost require woodcuts.

On the other hand, there are hardly enough details for a communication

to the Geological Society. I have not the SMALLEST DOUBT that your

facts are of the highest interest with regard to glacial action in the

Himalaya; but it struck both Lyell and myself that your evidence ought

to have been given more distinctly...

I have written so lately that I have nothing to say about myself; my

health prevented me going on with a crusade against "mihi" and "nobis,"

of which you warn me of the dangers. I showed my paper to three or

four Naturalists, and they all agreed with me to a certain extent: with

health and vigour, I would not have shown a white feather, [and] with

aid of half-a-dozen really good Naturalists, I believe something might

have been done against the miserable and degrading passion of mere

species naming. In your letter you wonder what "Ornamental Poultry" has

to do with Barnacles; but do not flatter yourself that I shall not yet

live to finish the Barnacles, and then make a fool of myself on the

subject of species, under which head ornamental Poultry are very

interesting...

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. The Lodge, Malvern [June, 1849].

...I have got your book ('A Second Visit to the United States.'), and

have read all the first and a small part of the second volume (reading

is the hardest work allowed here), and greatly I have been interested by

it. It makes me long to be a Yankee. E. desires me to say that she

quite "gloated" over the truth of your remarks on religious progress...I

delight to think how you will disgust some of the bigots and educational

dons. As yet there has not been MUCH Geology or Natural History, for

which I hope you feel a little ashamed. Your remarks on all social

subjects strike me as worthy of the author of the 'Principles.' And yet

(I know it is prejudice and pride) if I had written the Principles, I

never would have written any travels; but I believe I am more jealous

about the honour and glory of the Principles than you are yourself...

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. September 14th, 1849.

...I go on with my aqueous processes, and very steadily but slowly gain

health and strength. Against all rules, I dined at Chevening with Lord

Mahon, who did me the great honour of calling on me, and how he heard of

me I can't guess. I was charmed with Lady Mahon, and any one might have

been proud at the pieces of agreeableness which came from her beautiful

lips with respect to you. I like old Lord Stanhope very much; though he

abused Geology and Zoology heartily. "To suppose that the Omnipotent

God made a world, found it a failure, and broke it up, and then made

it again, and again broke it up, as the Geologists say, is all fiddle

faddle. Describing Species of birds and shells, etc., is all fiddle

faddle..."

I am heartily glad we shall meet at Birmingham, as I trust we shall, if

my health will but keep up. I work now every day at the Cirripedia for

2 1/2 hours, and so get on a little, but very slowly. I sometimes,

after being a whole week employed and having described perhaps only

two species, agree mentally with Lord Stanhope, that it is all fiddle

faddle; however, the other day I got a curious case of a unisexual,

instead of hermaphrodite cirripede, in which the female had the common

cirripedial character, and in two valves of her shell had two little

pockets, in EACH of which she kept a little husband; I do not know of

any other case where a female invariably has two husbands. I have one

still odder fact, common to several species, namely, that though they

are hermaphrodite, they have small additional, or as I shall call them,

complemental males, one specimen itself hermaphrodite had no less than

SEVEN, of these complemental males attached to it. Truly the schemes and

wonders of Nature are illimitable. But I am running on as badly about my

cirripedia as about Geology; it makes me groan to think that probably

I shall never again have the exquisite pleasure of making out some new

district, of evolving geological light out of some troubled dark region.

So I must make the best of my Cirripedia...

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, October 12th, 1849.

...By the way, one of the pleasantest parts of the British Association

was my journey down to Birmingham with Mrs. Sabine, Mrs. Reeve, and

the Colonel; also Col. Sykes and Porter. Mrs. Sabine and myself agreed

wonderfully on many points, and in none more sincerely than about you.

We spoke about your letters from the Erebus; and she quite agreed

with me, that you and the AUTHOR (Sir J. Hooker wrote the spirited

description of cattle hunting in Sir J. Ross's 'Voyage of Discovery in

the Southern Regions,' 1847, vol. ii., page 245.), of the description

of the cattle hunting in the Falklands, would have made a capital book

together! A very nice woman she is, and so is her sharp and sagacious

mother...Birmingham was very flat compared to Oxford, though I had my

wife with me. We saw a good deal of the Lyells and Horners and Robinsons

(the President); but the place was dismal, and I was prevented, by being

unwell, from going to Warwick, though that, i.e., the party, by all

accounts, was wonderfully inferior to Blenheim, not to say anything of

that heavenly day at Dropmore. One gets weary of all the spouting...

You ask about my cold-water cure; I am going on very well, and am

certainly a little better every month, my nights mend much slower than

my days. I have built a douche, and am to go on through all the winter,

frost or no frost. My treatment now is lamp five times per week, and

shallow bath for five minutes afterwards; douche daily for five minutes,

and dripping sheet daily. The treatment is wonderfully tonic, and I

have had more better consecutive days this month than on any previous

ones...I am allowed to work now two and a half hours daily, and I find

it as much as I can do, for the cold-water cure, together with three

short walks, is curiously exhausting; and I am actually FORCED to go to

bed at eight o'clock completely tired. I steadily gain in weight, and

eat immensely, and am never oppressed with my food. I have lost the

involuntary twitching of the muscle, and all the fainting feelings,

etc--black spots before eyes, etc. Dr. Gully thinks he shall quite cure

me in six or nine months more.

The greatest bore, which I find in the water-cure, is the having been

compelled to give up all reading, except the newspapers; for my daily

two and a half hours at the Barnacles is fully as much as I can do of

anything which occupies the mind; I am consequently terribly behind

in all scientific books. I have of late been at work at mere species

describing, which is much more difficult than I expected, and has much

the same sort of interest as a puzzle has; but I confess I often feel

wearied with the work, and cannot help sometimes asking myself what is

the good of spending a week or fortnight in ascertaining that certain

just perceptible differences blend together and constitute varieties

and not species. As long as I am on anatomy I never feel myself in that

disgusting, horrid, cui bono, inquiring, humour. What miserable work,

again, it is searching for priority of names. I have just finished two

species, which possess seven generic, and twenty-four specific names! My

chief comfort is, that the work must be sometime done, and I may as well

do it, as any one else.

I have given up my agitation against mihi and nobis; my paper is too

long to send to you, so you must see it, if you care to do so, on your

return. By-the-way, you say in your letter that you care more for my

species work than for the Barnacles; now this is too bad of you, for I

declare your decided approval of my plain Barnacle work over theoretic

species work, had very great influence in deciding me to go on with the

former, and defer my species paper...

[The following letter refers to the death of his little daughter, which

took place at Malvern on April 24, 1851:]

CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Down, April 29th [1851].

My dear Fox,

I do not suppose you will have heard of our bitter and cruel loss. Poor

dear little Annie, when going on very well at Malvern, was taken with a

vomiting attack, which was at first thought of the smallest importance;

but it rapidly assumed the form of a low and dreadful fever, which

carried her off in ten days. Thank God, she suffered hardly at all, and

expired as tranquilly as a little angel. Our only consolation is that

she passed a short, though joyous life. She was my favourite child; her

cordiality, openness, buoyant joyousness and strong affections made her

most lovable. Poor dear little soul. Well it is all over...

CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Down, March 7th [1852].

My dear Fox,

It is indeed an age since we have had any communication, and very glad

I was to receive your note. Our long silence occurred to me a few weeks

since, and I had then thought of writing, but was idle. I congratulate

and condole with you on your TENTH child; but please to observe when I

have a tenth, send only condolences to me. We have now seven children,

all well, thank God, as well as their mother; of these seven, five are

boys; and my father used to say that it was certain that a boy gave

as much trouble as three girls; so that bona fide we have seventeen

children. It makes me sick whenever I think of professions; all seem

hopelessly bad, and as yet I cannot see a ray of light. I should

very much like to talk over this (by the way, my three bugbears are

Californian and Australian gold, beggaring me by making my money on

mortgage worth nothing; the French coming by the Westerham and Sevenoaks

roads, and therefore enclosing Down; and thirdly, professions for my

boys), and I should like to talk about education, on which you ask me

what we are doing. No one can more truly despise the old stereotyped

stupid classical education than I do; but yet I have not had courage

to break through the trammels. After many doubts we have just sent our

eldest boy to Rugby, where for his age he has been very well placed...I

honour, admire, and envy you for educating your boys at home. What on

earth shall you do with your boys? Towards the end of this month we

go to see W. at Rugby, and thence for five or six days to Susan (His

sister.) at Shrewsbury; I then return home to look after the babies,

and E. goes to F. Wedgwood's of Etruria for a week. Very many thanks

for your most kind and large invitation to Delamere, but I fear we can

hardly compass it. I dread going anywhere, on account of my stomach so

easily failing under any excitement. I rarely even now go to London;

not that I am at all worse, perhaps rather better, and lead a very

comfortable life with my three hours of daily work, but it is the

life of a hermit. My nights are ALWAYS bad, and that stops my becoming

vigorous. You ask about water-cure. I take at intervals of two or three

months, five or six weeks of MODERATELY severe treatment, and always

with good effect. Do you come here, I pray and beg whenever you can find

time; you cannot tell how much pleasure it would give me and E. I have

finished the 1st volume for the Ray Society of Pedunculated Cirripedes,

which, as I think you are a member, you will soon get. Read what I

describe on the sexes of Ibla and Scalpellum. I am now at work on the

Sessile Cirripedes, and am wonderfully tired of my job: a man to be a

systematic naturalist ought to work at least eight hours per day. You

saw through me, when you said that I must have wished to have seen the

effects of the [word illegible] Debacle, for I was saying a week ago to

E., that had I been as I was in old days, I would have been certainly

off that hour. You ask after Erasmus; he is much as usual, and

constantly more or less unwell. Susan (His sister.) is much better, and

very flourishing and happy. Catherine (Another sister.) is at Rome,

and has enjoyed it in a degree that is quite astonishing to my dry old

bones. And now I think I have told you enough, and more than enough

about the house of Darwin; so my dear old friend, farewell. What

pleasant times we had in drinking coffee in your rooms at Christ's

College, and think of the glories of Crux major. (The beetle Panagaeus

crux-major.) Ah, in those days there were no professions for sons, no

ill-health to fear for them, no Californian gold, no French invasions.

How paramount the future is to the present when one is surrounded by

children. My dread is hereditary ill-health. Even death is better for

them.

My dear Fox, your sincere friend, C. DARWIN.

P.S.--Susan has lately been working in a way which I think truly heroic

about the scandalous violation of the Act against children climbing

chimneys. We have set up a little Society in Shrewsbury to prosecute

those who break the law. It is all Susan's doing. She has had very nice

letters from Lord Shaftesbury and the Duke of Sutherland, but the brutal

Shropshire squires are as hard as stones to move. The Act out of London

seems most commonly violated. It makes one shudder to fancy one of

one's own children at seven years old being forced up a chimney--to say

nothing of the consequent loathsome disease and ulcerated limbs, and

utter moral degradation. If you think strongly on this subject, do make

some inquiries; add to your many good works, this other one, and try

to stir up the magistrates. There are several people making a stir in

different parts of England on this subject. It is not very likely

that you would wish for such, but I could send you some essays and

information if you so liked, either for yourself or to give away.

CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Down [October 24th, 1852].

My dear Fox,

I received your long and most welcome letter this morning, and will

answer it this evening, as I shall be very busy with an artist, drawing

Cirripedia, and much overworked for the next fortnight. But first you

deserve to be well abused--and pray consider yourself well abused--for

thinking or writing that I could for one minute be bored by any amount

of detail about yourself and belongings. It is just what I like hearing;

believe me that I often think of old days spent with you, and sometimes

can hardly believe what a jolly careless individual one was in those

old days. A bright autumn evening often brings to mind some shooting

excursion from Osmaston. I do indeed regret that we live so far off each

other, and that I am so little locomotive. I have been unusually well

of late (no water-cure), but I do not find that I can stand any change

better than formerly...The other day I went to London and back, and

the fatigue, though so trifling, brought on my bad form of vomiting. I

grieve to hear that your chest has been ailing, and most sincerely do

I hope that it is only the muscles; how frequently the voice fails with

the clergy. I can well understand your reluctance to break up your large

and happy party and go abroad; but your life is very valuable, so you

ought to be very cautious in good time. You ask about all of us, now

five boys (oh! the professions; oh! the gold; and oh! the French--these

three oh's all rank as dreadful bugbears) and two girls...but another

and the worst of my bugbears is hereditary weakness. All my sisters are

well except Mrs. Parker, who is much out of health; and so is Erasmus

at his poor average: he has lately moved into Queen Anne Street. I had

heard of the intended marriage (To the Rev. J. Hughes.) of your sister

Frances. I believe I have seen her since, but my memory takes me back

some twenty-five years, when she was lying down. I remember well the

delightful expression of her countenance. I most sincerely wish her all

happiness.

I see I have not answered half your queries. We like very well all that

we have seen and heard of Rugby, and have never repented of sending [W.]

there. I feel sure schools have greatly improved since our days; but I

hate schools and the whole system of breaking through the affections of

the family by separating the boys so early in life; but I see no help,

and dare not run the risk of a youth being exposed to the temptations of

the world without having undergone the milder ordeal of a great school.

I see you even ask after our pears. We have lots of Beurrees d'Aremberg,

Winter Nelis, Marie Louise, and "Ne plus Ultra," but all off the wall;

the standard dwarfs have borne a few, but I have no room for more trees,

so their names would be useless to me. You really must make a holiday

and pay us a visit sometime; nowhere could you be more heartily welcome.

I am at work at the second volume of the Cirripedia, of which creatures

I am wonderfully tired. I hate a Barnacle as no man ever did before, not

even a sailor in a slow-sailing ship. My first volume is out; the only

part worth looking at is on the sexes of Ibla and Scalpellum. I hope

by next summer to have done with my tedious work. Farewell,--do come

whenever you can possibly manage it.

I cannot but hope that the carbuncle may possibly do you good: I have

heard of all sorts of weaknesses disappearing after a carbuncle. I

suppose the pain is dreadful. I agree most entirely, what a blessed

discovery is chloroform. When one thinks of one's children, it makes

quite a little difference in one's happiness. The other day I had five

grinders (two by the elevator) out at a sitting under this wonderful

substance, and felt hardly anything.

My dear old friend, yours very affectionately, CHARLES DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Down, January 29th [1853].

My dear Fox,

Your last account some months ago was so little satisfactory that I have

often been thinking of you, and should be really obliged if you would

give me a few lines, and tell me how your voice and chest are. I most

sincerely hope that your report will be good...Our second lad has a

strong mechanical turn, and we think of making him an engineer. I shall

try and find out for him some less classical school, perhaps Bruce

Castle. I certainly should like to see more diversity in education

than there is in any ordinary school--no exercising of the observing or

reasoning faculties, no general knowledge acquired--I must think it a

wretched system. On the other hand, a boy who has learnt to stick at

Latin and conquer its difficulties, ought to be able to stick at any

labour. I should always be glad to hear anything about schools or

education from you. I am at my old, never-ending subject, but trust

I shall really go to press in a few months with my second volume on

Cirripedes. I have been much pleased by finding some odd facts in my

first volume believed by Owen and a few others, whose good opinion I

regard as final...Do write pretty soon, and tell me all you can about

yourself and family; and I trust your report of yourself may be much

better than your last.

...I have been very little in London of late, and have not seen Lyell

since his return from America; how lucky he was to exhume with his

own hand parts of three skeletons of reptiles out of the CARBONIFEROUS

strata, and out of the inside of a fossil tree, which had been hollow

within.

Farewell, my dear Fox, yours affectionately, CHARLES DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. 13 Sea Houses, Eastbourne, [July 15th?

1853].

My dear Fox,

Here we are in a state of profound idleness, which to me is a luxury;

and we should all, I believe, have been in a state of high enjoyment,

had it not been for the detestable cold gales and much rain, which

always gives much ennui to children away from their homes. I received

your letter of 13th June, when working like a slave with Mr. Sowerby at

drawing for my second volume, and so put off answering it till when I

knew I should be at leisure. I was extremely glad to get your letter. I

had intended a couple of months ago sending you a savage or supplicating

jobation to know how you were, when I met Sir P. Egerton, who told me

you were well, and, as usual, expressed his admiration of your doings,

especially your farming, and the number of animals, including children,

which you kept on your land. Eleven children, ave Maria! it is a serious

look-out for you. Indeed, I look at my five boys as something awful, and

hate the very thoughts of professions, etc. If one could insure moderate

health for them it would not signify so much, for I cannot but hope,

with the enormous emigration, professions will somewhat improve. But my

bugbear is hereditary weakness. I particularly like to hear all that you

can say about education, and you deserve to be scolded for saying "you

did not mean to TORMENT me with a long yarn." You ask about Rugby.

I like it very well, on the same principle as my neighbour, Sir J.

Lubbock, likes Eton, viz., that it is not worse than any other school;

the expense, WITH ALL ETC., ETC., including some clothes, travelling

expenses, etc., is from 110 pounds to 120 pounds per annum. I do not

think schools are so wicked as they were, and far more industrious. The

boys, I think, live too secluded in their separate studies; and I doubt

whether they will get so much knowledge of character as boys used to do;

and this, in my opinion, is the ONE good of public schools over small

schools. I should think the only superiority of a small school over home

was forced regularity in their work, which your boys perhaps get at

your home, but which I do not believe my boys would get at my home.

Otherwise, it is quite lamentable sending boys so early in life from

their home.

...To return to schools. My main objection to them, as places of

education, is the enormous proportion of time spent over classics. I

fancy (though perhaps it is only fancy) that I can perceive the ill

and contracting effect on my eldest boy's mind, in checking interest in

anything in which reasoning and observation come into play. Mere memory

seems to be worked. I shall certainly look out for some school with more

diversified studies for my younger boys. I was talking lately to the

Dean of Hereford, who takes most strongly this view; and he tells me

that there is a school at Hereford commencing on this plan; and that

Dr. Kennedy at Shrewsbury is going to begin vigorously to modify that

school...

I am EXTREMELY glad to hear that you approved of my cirripedial volume.

I have spent an almost ridiculous amount of labour on the subject, and

certainly would never have undertaken it had I foreseen what a job it

was. I hope to have finished by the end of the year. Do write again

before a very long time; it is a real pleasure to me to hear from you.

Farewell, with my wife's kindest remembrances to yourself and Mrs. Fox.

My dear old friend, yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Down, August 10th [1853].

My dear Fox,

I thank you sincerely for writing to me so soon after your most

heavy misfortune. Your letter affected me so much. We both most truly

sympathise with you and Mrs. Fox. We too lost, as you may remember, not

so very long ago, a most dear child, of whom I can hardly yet bear

to think tranquilly; yet, as you must know from your own most painful

experience, time softens and deadens, in a manner truly wonderful, one's

feelings and regrets. At first it is indeed bitter. I can only hope that

your health and that of poor Mrs. Fox may be preserved, and that time

may do its work softly, and bring you all together, once again, as the

happy family, which, as I can well believe, you so lately formed.

My dear Fox, your affectionate friend, CHARLES DARWIN.

[The following letter refers to the Royal Society's Medal, which was

awarded to him in November, 1853:]

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 5th [1853].

My dear Hooker,

Amongst my letters received this morning, I opened first one from

Colonel Sabine; the contents certainly surprised me very much, but,

though the letter was a VERY KIND ONE, somehow, I cared very little

indeed for the announcement it contained. I then opened yours, and

such is the effect of warmth, friendship, and kindness from one that is

loved, that the very same fact, told as you told it, made me glow with

pleasure till my very heart throbbed. Believe me, I shall not soon

forget the pleasure of your letter. Such hearty, affectionate sympathy

is worth more than all the medals that ever were or will be coined.

Again, my dear Hooker, I thank you. I hope Lindley (John Lindley,

1799-1865, was the son of a nurseryman near Norwich, through whose

failure in business he was thrown at the age of twenty on his own

resources. He was befriended by Sir W. Hooker, and employed as assistant

librarian by Sir J. Banks. He seems to have had enormous capacity of

work, and is said to have translated Richard's 'Analyse du Fruit' at one

sitting of two days and three nights. He became Assistant-Secretary to

the Horticultural Society, and in 1829 was appointed Professor of Botany

at University College, a post which he held for upwards of thirty years.

His writings are numerous: the best known being perhaps his 'Vegetable

Kingdom,' published in 1846. His influence in helping to introduce the

natural system of classification was considerable, and he brought "all

the weight of his teaching and all the force of his controversial powers

to support it," as against the Linnean system universally taught in the

earlier part of his career. Sachs points out (Geschichte der Botanik,

1875, page 161), that though Lindley adopted in the main a sound

classification of plants, he only did so by abandoning his own

theoretical principle that the physiological importance of an organ is

a measure of its classificatory value.) will never hear that he was a

competitor against me; for really it is almost RIDICULOUS (of course you

would never repeat that I said this, for it would be thought by others,

though not, I believe, by you, to be affectation) his not having the

medal long before me; I must feel SURE that you did quite right to

propose him; and what a good, dear, kind fellow you are, nevertheless,

to rejoice in this honour being bestowed on me.

What PLEASURE I have felt on the occasion, I owe almost entirely to you.

Farewell, my dear Hooker, yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.

P.S.--You may believe what a surprise it was, for I had never heard that

the medals could be given except for papers in the 'Transactions.' All

this will make me work with better heart at finishing the second volume.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, February 18th [1854].

My dear Lyell,

I should have written before, had it not seemed doubtful whether you

would go on to Teneriffe, but now I am extremely glad to hear your

further progress is certain; not that I have much of any sort to say, as

you may well believe when you hear that I have only once been in London

since you started. I was particularly glad to see, two days since, your

letter to Mr. Horner, with its geological news; how fortunate for you

that your knees are recovered. I am astonished at what you say of the

beauty, though I had fancied it great. It really makes me quite envious

to think of your clambering up and down those steep valleys. And what

a pleasant party on your return from your expeditions. I often think

of the delight which I felt when examining volcanic islands, and I can

remember even particular rocks which I struck, and the smell of the hot,

black, scoriaceous cliffs; but of those HOT smells you do not seem to

have had much. I do quite envy you. How I should like to be with you,

and speculate on the deep and narrow valleys.

How very singular the fact is which you mention about the inclination of

the strata being greater round the circumference than in the middle

of the island; do you suppose the elevation has had the form of a flat

dome? I remember in the Cordillera being OFTEN struck with the greater

abruptness of the strata in the LOW EXTREME outermost ranges, compared

with the great mass of inner mountains. I dare say you will have thought

of measuring exactly the width of any dikes at the top and bottom of any

great cliff (which was done by Mr. Searle [?] at St. Helena), for it

has often struck me as VERY ODD that the cracks did not die out OFTENER

upwards. I can think of hardly any news to tell you, as I have seen no

one since being in London, when I was delighted to see Forbes looking so

well, quite big and burly. I saw at the Museum some of the surprisingly

rich gold ore from North Wales. Ramsay also told me that he has lately

turned a good deal of New Red Sandstone into Permian, together with the

Labyrinthodon. No doubt you see newspapers, and know that E. de Beaumont

is perpetual Secretary, and will, I suppose, be more powerful than ever;

and Le Verrier has Arago's place in the Observatory. There was a meeting

lately at the Geological Society, at which Prestwich (judging from what

R. Jones told me) brought forward your exact theory, viz. that the whole

red clay and flints over the chalk plateau hereabouts is the residuum

from the slow dissolution of the chalk!

As regards ourselves, we have no news, and are all well. The Hookers,

sometime ago, stayed a fortnight with us, and, to our extreme delight,

Henslow came down, and was most quiet and comfortable here. It does one

good to see so composed, benevolent, and intellectual a countenance.

There have been great fears that his heart is affected; but, I hope

to God, without foundation. Hooker's book (Sir J. Hooker's 'Himalayan

Journal.') is out, and MOST BEAUTIFULLY got up. He has honoured me

beyond measure by dedicating it to me! As for myself, I am got to the

page 112 of the Barnacles, and that is the sum total of my history.

By-the-way, as you care so much about North America, I may mention that

I had a long letter from a shipmate in Australia, who says the Colony is

getting decidedly republican from the influx of Americans, and that

all the great and novel schemes for working the gold are planned and

executed by these men. What a go-a-head nation it is! Give my kindest

remembrances to Lady Lyell, and to Mrs. Bunbury, and to Bunbury. I

most heartily wish that the Canaries may be ten times as interesting as

Madeira, and that everything may go on most prosperously with your whole

party.

My dear Lyell, Yours most truly and affectionately, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 1st [1854].

My dear Hooker,

I finished yesterday evening the first volume, and I very sincerely

congratulate you on having produced a FIRST-CLASS book ('Himalayan

Journal.')--a book which certainly will last. I cannot doubt that it

will take its place as a standard, not so much because it contains real

solid matter, but that it gives a picture of the whole country. One can

feel that one has seen it (and desperately uncomfortable I felt in going

over some of the bridges and steep slopes), and one REALISES all the

great Physical features. You have in truth reason to be proud; consider

how few travellers there have been with a profound knowledge of one

subject, and who could in addition make a map (which, by-the-way, is one

of the most distinct ones I ever looked at, wherefore blessings alight

on your head), and study geology and meteorology! I thought I knew you

very well, but I had not the least idea that your Travels were your

hobby; but I am heartily glad of it, for I feel sure that the time will

never come when you and Mrs. Hooker will not be proud to look back at

the labour bestowed on these beautiful volumes.

Your letter, received this morning, has interested me EXTREMELY, and I

thank you sincerely for telling me your old thoughts and aspirations.

All that you say makes me even more deeply gratified by the Dedication;

but you, bad man, do you remember asking me how I thought Lyell

would like the work to be dedicated to him? I remember how strongly I

answered, and I presume you wanted to know what I should feel; whoever

would have dreamed of your being so crafty? I am glad you have shown a

little bit of ambition about your Journal, for you must know that I have

often abused you for not caring more about fame, though, at the same

time, I must confess, I have envied and honoured you for being so free

(too free, as I have always thought) of this "last infirmity of, etc."

Do not say, "there never was a past hitherto to me--the phantom was

always in view," for you will soon find other phantoms in view. How well

I know this feeling, and did formerly still more vividly; but I think

my stomach has much deadened my former pure enthusiasm for science and

knowledge.

I am writing an unconscionably long letter, but I must return to the

Journals, about which I have hardly said anything in detail. Imprimis,

the illustrations and maps appear to me the best I have ever seen; the

style seems to me everywhere perfectly clear (how rare a virtue), and

some passages really eloquent. How excellently you have described the

upper valleys, and how detestable their climate; I felt quite anxious on

the slopes of Kinchin that dreadful snowy night. Nothing has astonished

me more than your physical strength; and all those devilish bridges!

Well, thank goodness! It is not VERY likely that I shall ever go to

the Himalaya. Much in a scientific point of view has interested me,

especially all about those wonderful moraines. I certainly think I quite

realise the valleys, more vividly perhaps from having seen the valleys

of Tahiti. I cannot doubt that the Himalaya owe almost all their contour

to running water, and that they have been subjected to such action

longer than any mountains (as yet described) in the world. What a

contrast with the Andes!

Perhaps you would like to hear the very little that I can say per

contra, and this only applied to the beginning, in which (as it struck

me) there was not FLOW enough till you get to Mirzapore on the Ganges

(but the Thugs were MOST interesting), where the stream seemed to

carry you on more equably with longer sentences and longer facts and

discussions, etc. In another edition (and I am delighted to hear that

Murray has sold all off), I would consider whether this part could not

be condensed. Even if the meteorology was put in foot-notes, I think it

would be an improvement. All the world is against me, but it makes me

very unhappy to see the Latin names all in Italics, and all mingled with

English names in Roman type; but I must bear this burden, for all men of

Science seem to think it would corrupt the Latin to dress it up in the

same type as poor old English. Well, I am very proud of MY book; but

there is one bore, that I do not much like asking people whether they

have seen it, and how they like it, for I feel so much identified with

it, that such questions become rather personal. Hence, I cannot tell you

the opinion of others. You will have seen a fairly good review in the

'Athenaeum.'

What capital news from Tasmania: it really is a very remarkable and

creditable fact to the Colony. (This refers to an unsolicited grant by

the Colonial Government towards the expenses of Sir J. Hooker's 'Flora

of Tasmania.') I am always building veritable castles in the air about

emigrating, and Tasmania has been my head-quarters of late; so that I

feel very proud of my adopted country: is really a very singular and

delightful fact, contrasted with the slight appreciation of science in

the old country. I thank you heartily for your letter this morning, and

for all the gratification your Dedication has given me; I could not help

thinking how much -- would despise you for not having dedicated it to

some great man, who would have done you and it some good in the eyes

of the world. Ah, my dear Hooker, you were very soft on this head, and

justify what I say about not caring enough for your own fame. I wish

I was in every way more worthy of your good opinion. Farewell.

How pleasantly Mrs. Hooker and you must rest from one of your many

labours...

Again farewell: I have written a wonderfully long letter. Adios, and God

bless you.

My dear Hooker, ever yours, C. DARWIN.

P.S.--I have just looked over my rambling letter; I see that I have not

at all expressed my strong admiration at the amount of scientific work,

in so many branches, which you have effected. It is really grand. You

have a right to rest on your oars; or even to say, if it so pleases you,

that "your meridian is past;" but well assured do I feel that the day of

your reputation and general recognition has only just begun to dawn.

[In September, 1854, his Cirripede work was practically finished, and he

wrote to Dr. Hooker:

"I have been frittering away my time for the last several weeks in a

wearisome manner, partly idleness, and odds and ends, and sending ten

thousand Barnacles out of the house all over the world. But I shall now

in a day or two begin to look over my old notes on species. What a deal

I shall have to discuss with you; I shall have to look sharp that I do

not 'progress' into one of the greatest bores in life, to the few like

you with lots of knowledge."]